if you can draw LOS to the square using normal LOS rules, then yes.
|
Melee cover and Ranged cover are determined differently:No. It's easy to miss, since it isn't mentioned in the Attack of Opportunity section. You have to look at Cover.
Cover
You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.
PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 195 To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).Source
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
...
Cover and Attacks of Opportunity: You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.
Either of the 'bottom' corners of square 'A' has unobstructed lines to all four corners of square 'T' so 'T' does not have cover against ranged attacks from 'A', but 'A' does have cover against any melee attacks from 'T' (since the right-most corners do not have unobstructed lines to all corners of square 'A').
Does the Snap Shot feat allow an attack of opportunity when the target that is provoking is around a hard corner?
O W W
A W W
O TO = Open space; W = Wall; A = Attacker; T = Target
Thanks!
With ranged attacks, from where "A" is on the map, "T" is a legal target and does not have cover from "A". If "T" were further down the hallway they would still not have cover from "A" unless something else was in the way.
As Taja said, when it comes to being up against corners, cover from ranged attacks compared to cover from melee attacks are different from each other.
in this case I would give the target cover from ranged attacks of the attacker.
You can't see it in the op example, since it's using the text base picture, but if you use a grid map you can see that to get to the right top corner of the target (the one in the corner of the two 'W' spaces) the attacker must go through the wall's coroners and border.
Using the text to make a picture leave a gap but the target should be seen as touching the walls and that corner is thus covered by them from the attacker's corners (since the attacker's space and the wall's space stop at the same line, his corner will go through the wall's corner).
|
Either of the 'bottom' corners of square 'A' has unobstructed lines to all four corners of square 'T' so 'T' does not have cover against ranged attacks from 'A', but 'A' does have cover against any melee attacks from 'T' (since the right-most corners do not have unobstructed lines to all corners of square 'A').Melee cover and Ranged cover are determined differently:No. It's easy to miss, since it isn't mentioned in the Attack of Opportunity section. You have to look at Cover.
Cover
You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 195 To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).Source
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
...
Cover and Attacks of Opportunity: You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.
As zza ni pointed out, the line to the bottom left corner of the target square is blocked as it " passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover".
top-right, the lower left is targetable from the attacker lower left corner.
(or did you mean the attacker lower left goes through the wall to get to the target's top right?) we're dealing with ranged cover so the best corner the attacker can pick to attack from is his lower left.
anyway, in this case they BOTH have ranged AND melee cover from each other. both have a top right corner which has cover from all the other's coroners, neither can reach said corner of the other without going through the wall's border and corner.
it seem like that for melee with reach they took PART of the words from the ranged cover. they let him decide which corner to check from like the ranged cover rules, but they kept his melee rule of only needing to reach the targets square, and not all of it's corners. ("to the target’s square" in melee as opposed to "to any corner of the target’s square" in ranged)
the ogere's top left corner can reach the two facing corners of the rouge to his left and as such she doesn't get cover from his melee+reach attack.
Cover in melee has the penalty of having to use all your corners, but the benefit of only aiming at the part of space closer to him without need to reach all the far away corners. melee with reach can pick his attacking corner AND only need to reach the facing corners. Cover in ranged can pick his attacking corner but must be able to target all the enemy's corners (or all the corners of 5 ft of him if larger)
|
|
top-right, the lower left is targetable from the attacker lower left corner.
(or did you mean the attacker lower left goes through the wall to get to the target's top right?) we're dealing with ranged cover so the best corner the attacker can pick to attack from is his lower left.anyway, in this case they BOTH have ranged AND melee cover from each other. both have a top right corner which has cover from all the other's coroners, neither can reach said corner of the other without going through the wall's border and corner.
The LOS e LOE runs along a blocked border. It there is a wall on the border, the border is blocked.
|
|
The LOS e LOE runs along a blocked border. It there is a wall on the border, the border is blocked.top-right, the lower left is targetable from the attacker lower left corner.
(or did you mean the attacker lower left goes through the wall to get to the target's top right?) we're dealing with ranged cover so the best corner the attacker can pick to attack from is his lower left.anyway, in this case they BOTH have ranged AND melee cover from each other. both have a top right corner which has cover from all the other's coroners, neither can reach said corner of the other without going through the wall's border and corner.
So fighting in a 5' wide corridor gives cover to everyone???
I have to read this as 'through' a border not being the same as 'along' a border.
The LOS e LOE runs along a blocked border. It there is a wall on the border, the border is blocked.top-right, the lower left is targetable from the attacker lower left corner.
(or did you mean the attacker lower left goes through the wall to get to the target's top right?) we're dealing with ranged cover so the best corner the attacker can pick to attack from is his lower left.anyway, in this case they BOTH have ranged AND melee cover from each other. both have a top right corner which has cover from all the other's coroners, neither can reach said corner of the other without going through the wall's border and corner.
So fighting in a 5' wide corridor gives cover to everyone???
I have to read this as 'through' a border not being the same as 'along' a border.
no. not unless you are in the same space as the wall. I mentioned above that :
"since the attacker's space and the wall's space stop at the same line, his corner will go through the wall's corner"you are not in the same lane as the walls in a 5 ft corridor, they do not block you. but in the case above your space end in the same lane as the wall, you attack FROM inside your space (the corner of it) and as such you must o through the inside part of the all to reach the far corner of the target. (I made the picture so it would be easy to tell, did you bother looking?)
|
|
The LOS e LOE runs along a blocked border. It there is a wall on the border, the border is blocked.top-right, the lower left is targetable from the attacker lower left corner.
(or did you mean the attacker lower left goes through the wall to get to the target's top right?) we're dealing with ranged cover so the best corner the attacker can pick to attack from is his lower left.anyway, in this case they BOTH have ranged AND melee cover from each other. both have a top right corner which has cover from all the other's coroners, neither can reach said corner of the other without going through the wall's border and corner.
So fighting in a 5' wide corridor gives cover to everyone???
I have to read this as 'through' a border not being the same as 'along' a border.
Technically, for ranged attacks, yes.
Not for melee.Most GM would rule that there is no cover if the attacker and the target are in the same, straight corridor.
But that isn't the situation in the OP post. The attacker and the target are in 2 different corridors at 90° of each other. In RL people moving along two narrow corridors like those will see each other at the last moment.
|
|
The LOS e LOE runs along a blocked border. It there is a wall on the border, the border is blocked.top-right, the lower left is targetable from the attacker lower left corner.
(or did you mean the attacker lower left goes through the wall to get to the target's top right?) we're dealing with ranged cover so the best corner the attacker can pick to attack from is his lower left.anyway, in this case they BOTH have ranged AND melee cover from each other. both have a top right corner which has cover from all the other's coroners, neither can reach said corner of the other without going through the wall's border and corner.
So fighting in a 5' wide corridor gives cover to everyone???
I have to read this as 'through' a border not being the same as 'along' a border.Technically, for ranged attacks, yes.
Not for melee.Most GM would rule that there is no cover if the attacker and the target are in the same, straight corridor.
But that isn't the situation in the OP post. The attacker and the target are in 2 different corridors at 90° of each other. In RL people moving along two narrow corridors like those will see each other at the last moment.
The issue is that even if you move the attacker one square down, he still is likely to use the exact same corner to determine cover (bottom right corner from his current position, or top right corner in his new position) so the answer to 'does the target have cover?' should be the same.
I'm reading the 'through a border' rule to cover situations were something blocks the border but not the actual neighboring square (like a thin interior partition wall, maybe a curtain, an open door, or any one of the solid 'wall' family of spells) which otherwise would not technically grant cover. This just makes more sense to me than a reading that needs to be ignored periodically for the game to make sense...
It looks like this particular item has been long debated on these forums:
https://paizo.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Store.woa/wa/search?page=1&what=&a mp;forum=v5748dmtyzkl3&thread=&person=&includeUnrated=false& ;includeUnavailable=false&sort=1&q=%22through+a+border%22%2B%22cove r%22&forum=v5748dmtyzkl3&sort=0
no, if you lower him one space down he can use any of his corners from which a straight line to any of the target's corners will not pass through any wall but hit the target corner BEFORE it reach the wall. (he attack from and to a space before ether wall start so his line doesn't cross it)
same for melee. all his corners only need to reach the corners of the target that are facing him (not the ones behind. remember melee goes by "to the target’s square" in melee as opposed to "to any corner of the target’s square" in ranged) still no wall in the way.
-
it's easier to think of if you look at each space border as thicker inwards, with attacks lined from his border's corner. since every one attack from inside his space's reach, not outside it. and if there is a wall in the same lane that wall exist to the full range of it's spaces, but the wall does not extend to the space beyond it.
like this image:
pink and yellow can't reach each other's top right corner without going through a wall border.
But green and yellow can to each other.
-with pink actually functioning the same as the wall here, as people -other then one self, can give cover to each other. but as pink's (and the wall's) space end before the next space down starts, he doesn't provide cover in the case of green to yellow.