Cover [Archive] - Wizards Community - Pages Merged by Solauren

Cover [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Pulmonate
10-28-07, 11:35 PM I had a scenario this weekend where 8 characters were lined up in a hallway, and the opponent was at the end of the hallway, in a room, and on a raised platform. The door to the room is open, and the first two people in the hallway can clearly see the creature. The Ranger with Improved Precise Shot was 80 feet away from this creature and 7 people in front of him.

Improved Precise Shot is supposed to allow the person to ignore all AC bonuses that are given due to cover, except that provided by total cover.

My question is, at what point does soft cover go out the window, and become total cover? By my calculations, with 7 people in front of an archerr, that would provide a +28 cover bonus, then possibly in this case the raised platform would give another +4 to the enemy for at total of +32.

Is there any specific rule in relation multiple objects that provide cover?

At the very least I would rule that the player would have to be able to spot their target in order to be able to take a shot like that, but I am not even sure how to run the spot check properly.

What are your opinions on how to adjudicate this scenario?
Marcus Majarra
10-28-07, 11:53 PM The mistake you're making here is assuming that soft cover is cumulative. It is not. No matter how many creatures are in front of you, unless they somehow block line of sight towards you, you're always provided soft cover (+4 AC).

Furthermore, it requires no effort to spot the character you're aiming at because the creature you're aiming at is not hiding and because soft cover is not sufficient to allow the creature to hide in the first place.

In this scenario, the correct way to adjudicate this is by allowing the ranger to take his shot at no penalty.
mvincent
10-29-07, 12:47 PM The mistake you're making here is assuming that soft cover is cumulative. It is not.Agreed.

No matter how many creatures are in front of you, unless they somehow block line of sight towards you, you're always provided soft cover (+4 AC).I don't believe that is a truism. While it's not detailed in the rules*, a DM can (and should) adjudicate extra cover when warranted. In the above case, a DM could rule that a mass of people constitutes improved cover or even total cover. I personally would've ruled it improved cover (unless someone in the way was 'squeezing', which I would give total cover for).

* Edit/correction: it appears that the rules actually could be interpreted as covering this. Regular (hard) cover only provides +4, but we know that improved cover, low cover, and total cover can still be applied to it (altering that +4). Therefore, it is not unreasonable to interpret soft cover as sometimes being low, improved or total.

Also, here's some relevant information from the 3.0 FAQ:
"A creature generally doesn’t block line of effect because it
almost always leaves the requisite 1 square foot of open space
per 5-foot-square area it happens to occupy. A lightning bolt
spell or a black dragon’s breath weapon can rip through any
number of such creatures standing one behind the other in a
line, to the limit of the effect’s range. For example, a lightning
bolt spell cast at 10th level can create a line 5 feet wide and 200
feet long. Forty Medium-size creatures could stand single-file
in an area that size, and a bolt with those dimensions would
affect them all. Furthermore, the creatures at the front of such a
line do not provide cover against the effect to the creatures
behind them.
Some creatures, however, can completely block off the
requisite amount of area. For example, a gelatinous cube can
completely fill a corridor that is 10 feet square. If it does so, it
blocks line of effect for all spells. A creature that is
significantly bigger than a spell’s area also can block line of
effect. For example, a spell with a line- or cone-shaped area
could be blocked by a colossal dragon standing near the spell’s
point of origin—sometimes there’s just no way to aim a 5-footwide
stroke of lightning so that it can get past a really big body."
Pulmonate
10-29-07, 06:09 PM Thanks for the replies.
Nom
10-30-07, 09:03 AM Regular (hard) cover only provides +4, but we know that improved cover, low cover, and total cover can still be applied to it (altering that +4). Therefore, it is not unreasonable to interpret soft cover as sometimes being low, improved or total.Low obstacles are the same as normal cover, just evaluated horizonally rather than vertically. The effect is still cover, of a type appropriate to the obstacle. Yes, you can have soft cover granted by a low obstacle (what did you think gnomes were for?).

Similarly, hard and soft cover don't "stack". It's all just cover, except that hard cover also grants a Ref save bonus.

If someone were in a packed crowd or otherwise in a situation where they can take optimal advantage of cover, then Improved Cover could be applied. However, Improved Precise Shot will negate even this ("anything less than total cover"). If any line of effect applies, then you can target the creature with targeted spells and you can use Improved Precise Shot to ignore the cover bonus to AC.

Five or six Medium guys in 5 ft. squares is not Improved Cover, unless the last one is actually standing still and the target pressed up behind him. It's a difficult shot, but not mechanically worse than firing through a copse of tree trunks. It's a sufficiently unusual situation that the game mechanics can't be bothered quantifying how many points of cover each potential obstruction provides.
ShadowChemosh
10-30-07, 01:56 PM From a pure rules point of view Nom and Marcus Majarra have it correct. mvincent does have a point that logically at some point soft cover should get worse than just +4, but its not whats actually in the rules.
mvincent
10-30-07, 02:34 PM mvincent does have a point that logically at some point soft cover should get worse than just +4, but its not whats actually in the rules.The rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover) simply say:
"In some cases, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled."

Similar to low cover, improved cover does not actually stipulate that this cannot be with soft cover (or low cover for that matter), potentially allowing for things like low soft cover, low improved cover, or improved soft cover. It's subject to interpretation (and I reckon the writers didn't originally have this in mind), but I don't see anything preventing the terms from being mixed.
Colmarr
10-30-07, 09:22 PM ...soft cover is not sufficient to allow the creature to hide in the first place.

Weren't there rules in a later release allowing Hide checks when in crowds? If so, the core statement about soft cover and hiding may not be wholly authoritative.

Nevertheless, in the current example, I agree with everything said so far.

On a personal note, though, depending on the height of the platform I would be surprised if the ranger could see the creature at all. It is elevated (on the platform), he has a low "vertical field of vision" (he's 80ft away and looking through a doorway), and he has 7 presumably medium-sized creatures between him and the target.

I think a very valid argument could be made there that (unless the other creatures made some conscious effort to get out of the way) the combination of factors adds up to total cover.
Marcus Majarra
10-31-07, 03:21 AM Weren't there rules in a later release allowing Hide checks when in crowds? If so, the core statement about soft cover and hiding may not be wholly authoritative.
Actually, core statements, if anything, are wholly authoritative as they constitute universal rules for the game. This said, Complete Adventurer did introduce an application for the Hide skill for blending in a crowd (page 101). However, this is of no consequence to the scenario here, which deals to whatever cover the monster would have on account of the obstacles between itself and the ranger. Blending into a crowd is something that the ranger could arguably do, not the monster. As such, the monster would still be free game for the ranger.

I think a very valid argument could be made there that (unless the other creatures made some conscious effort to get out of the way) the combination of factors adds up to total cover.
I disagree. Total cover means that your opponent is somehow entirely blocked by obstacles and that you have no line of effect at all towards the opponent. If cumulative cover must be argued, I would agree with mvincent's proposal for improved cover, not total cover.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Pulmonate 10-28-07, 11:35 PM	I had a scenario this weekend where 8 characters were lined up in a hallway, and the opponent was at the end of the hallway, in a room, and on a raised platform. The door to the room is open, and the first two people in the hallway can clearly see the creature. The Ranger with Improved Precise Shot was 80 feet away from this creature and 7 people in front of him. Improved Precise Shot is supposed to allow the person to ignore all AC bonuses that are given due to cover, except that provided by total cover. My question is, at what point does soft cover go out the window, and become total cover? By my calculations, with 7 people in front of an archerr, that would provide a +28 cover bonus, then possibly in this case the raised platform would give another +4 to the enemy for at total of +32. Is there any specific rule in relation multiple objects that provide cover? At the very least I would rule that the player would have to be able to spot their target in order to be able to take a shot like that, but I am not even sure how to run the spot check properly. What are your opinions on how to adjudicate this scenario?
Marcus Majarra 10-28-07, 11:53 PM	The mistake you're making here is assuming that soft cover is cumulative. It is not. No matter how many creatures are in front of you, unless they somehow block line of sight towards you, you're always provided soft cover (+4 AC). Furthermore, it requires no effort to spot the character you're aiming at because the creature you're aiming at is not hiding and because soft cover is not sufficient to allow the creature to hide in the first place. In this scenario, the correct way to adjudicate this is by allowing the ranger to take his shot at no penalty.
mvincent 10-29-07, 12:47 PM	The mistake you're making here is assuming that soft cover is cumulative. It is not.Agreed. No matter how many creatures are in front of you, unless they somehow block line of sight towards you, you're always provided soft cover (+4 AC).I don't believe that is a truism. While it's not detailed in the rules, a DM can (and should) adjudicate extra cover when warranted. In the above case, a DM could rule that a mass of people constitutes improved cover or even total cover. I personally would've ruled it improved cover (unless someone in the way was 'squeezing', which I would give total cover for). Edit/correction: it appears that the rules actually could be interpreted as covering this. Regular (hard) cover only provides +4, but we know that improved cover, low cover, and total cover can still be applied to it (altering that +4). Therefore, it is not unreasonable to interpret soft cover as sometimes being low, improved or total. Also, here's some relevant information from the 3.0 FAQ: "A creature generally doesn’t block line of effect because it almost always leaves the requisite 1 square foot of open space per 5-foot-square area it happens to occupy. A lightning bolt spell or a black dragon’s breath weapon can rip through any number of such creatures standing one behind the other in a line, to the limit of the effect’s range. For example, a lightning bolt spell cast at 10th level can create a line 5 feet wide and 200 feet long. Forty Medium-size creatures could stand single-file in an area that size, and a bolt with those dimensions would affect them all. Furthermore, the creatures at the front of such a line do not provide cover against the effect to the creatures behind them. Some creatures, however, can completely block off the requisite amount of area. For example, a gelatinous cube can completely fill a corridor that is 10 feet square. If it does so, it blocks line of effect for all spells. A creature that is significantly bigger than a spell’s area also can block line of effect. For example, a spell with a line- or cone-shaped area could be blocked by a colossal dragon standing near the spell’s point of origin—sometimes there’s just no way to aim a 5-footwide stroke of lightning so that it can get past a really big body."
Pulmonate 10-29-07, 06:09 PM	Thanks for the replies.
Nom 10-30-07, 09:03 AM	Regular (hard) cover only provides +4, but we know that improved cover, low cover, and total cover can still be applied to it (altering that +4). Therefore, it is not unreasonable to interpret soft cover as sometimes being low, improved or total.Low obstacles are the same as normal cover, just evaluated horizonally rather than vertically. The effect is still cover, of a type appropriate to the obstacle. Yes, you can have soft cover granted by a low obstacle (what did you think gnomes were for?). Similarly, hard and soft cover don't "stack". It's all just cover, except that hard cover also grants a Ref save bonus. If someone were in a packed crowd or otherwise in a situation where they can take optimal advantage of cover, then Improved Cover could be applied. However, Improved Precise Shot will negate even this ("anything less than total cover"). If any line of effect applies, then you can target the creature with targeted spells and you can use Improved Precise Shot to ignore the cover bonus to AC. Five or six Medium guys in 5 ft. squares is not Improved Cover, unless the last one is actually standing still and the target pressed up behind him. It's a difficult shot, but not mechanically worse than firing through a copse of tree trunks. It's a sufficiently unusual situation that the game mechanics can't be bothered quantifying how many points of cover each potential obstruction provides.
ShadowChemosh 10-30-07, 01:56 PM	From a pure rules point of view Nom and Marcus Majarra have it correct. mvincent does have a point that logically at some point soft cover should get worse than just +4, but its not whats actually in the rules.
mvincent 10-30-07, 02:34 PM	mvincent does have a point that logically at some point soft cover should get worse than just +4, but its not whats actually in the rules.The rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover) simply say: "In some cases, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled." Similar to low cover, improved cover does not actually stipulate that this cannot be with soft cover (or low cover for that matter), potentially allowing for things like low soft cover, low improved cover, or improved soft cover. It's subject to interpretation (and I reckon the writers didn't originally have this in mind), but I don't see anything preventing the terms from being mixed.
Colmarr 10-30-07, 09:22 PM	...soft cover is not sufficient to allow the creature to hide in the first place. Weren't there rules in a later release allowing Hide checks when in crowds? If so, the core statement about soft cover and hiding may not be wholly authoritative. Nevertheless, in the current example, I agree with everything said so far. On a personal note, though, depending on the height of the platform I would be surprised if the ranger could see the creature at all. It is elevated (on the platform), he has a low "vertical field of vision" (he's 80ft away and looking through a doorway), and he has 7 presumably medium-sized creatures between him and the target. I think a very valid argument could be made there that (unless the other creatures made some conscious effort to get out of the way) the combination of factors adds up to total cover.
Marcus Majarra 10-31-07, 03:21 AM	Weren't there rules in a later release allowing Hide checks when in crowds? If so, the core statement about soft cover and hiding may not be wholly authoritative. Actually, core statements, if anything, are wholly authoritative as they constitute universal rules for the game. This said, Complete Adventurer did introduce an application for the Hide skill for blending in a crowd (page 101). However, this is of no consequence to the scenario here, which deals to whatever cover the monster would have on account of the obstacles between itself and the ranger. Blending into a crowd is something that the ranger could arguably do, not the monster. As such, the monster would still be free game for the ranger. I think a very valid argument could be made there that (unless the other creatures made some conscious effort to get out of the way) the combination of factors adds up to total cover. I disagree. Total cover means that your opponent is somehow entirely blocked by obstacles and that you have no line of effect at all towards the opponent. If cumulative cover must be argued, I would agree with mvincent's proposal for improved cover, not total cover.