Determine Ranged Attack Cover [Archive] - Wizards Community

Determine Ranged Attack Cover [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
taylordc3
11-11-07, 12:43 PM From PHB: "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).
"

So the thing that gets me is the word "border".

1.

Let's give 2 examples. An archer A is 20 feet away and 5 feet to the side of an enemy E who is next to a wall W:

A...W
....E

In this example, the wall starts at the same line the archer is on. From the corner of A's square you can draw a line to all corners of E's square, but 1 line passes through the border of the wall and E. Does E have cover from A?

I think, by the rules, E does have cover and if A took a 5 foot step down, it would negate it. A though has no cover if E wants to range attack A.

2.

Now let's change the W to another enemy, an Orc O.

A...O
....E

In this case, since the wall is now a creature, it changes the rules and the line would have to pass through the creature right? So E has no cover from A eventhough A's attack would still pass through the border of O and E. Right?

Now if A were 5 feet up then O would provide cover to E.

3.

One final question on cover and ranged attacks. I've heard that if there is cover and you miss the target by 1-4 (or by the cover bonus) you've hit the cover. [Where is this rule or is it a house rule?] That doesn't seem balanced in the case of A striking E with O in the way:

A....
....O
....E

Here, O provides cover to E. If A tries to hit E (with +4 cover because of O), and A misses by 1-4 then A hits O. Assuming both O and E are enemies, doesn't this give A a double chance to hit an enemy?

4.

Last question for this thread is on melee combat. Once again, let's use A O and E. A wants to shoot at E, but all 3 (A O and E) are ememies of eachother. O and E are in melee. If A doesn't care which one gets hit does A still have to take a -4 penelty for firing into melee?

From PHB
If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll because you have to aim carefully to avoid hitting your friend. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other.

A...O
....E

If A shoots at E engaged with O is O considered friendly for this 1 shot and A still has to take a -4? If it doesn't mater to A, does A still have to take the -4? If not, then is there a double chance A would hit either O or E?

I appreciate any feedback on this perplexing rule. The cover situation comes-up quite often and I'm surrprised I haven't seen it explained more clearly anywhere.
Marcus Majarra
11-11-07, 02:13 PM In this example, the wall starts at the same line the archer is on. From the corner of A's square you can draw a line to all corners of E's square, but 1 line passes through the border of the wall and E. Does E have cover from A?
No. The line you draw doesn't go through the border in question; it merely goes along it. Going through means that the line has to cross the border in question.

In this case, since the wall is now a creature, it changes the rules and the line would have to pass through the creature right? So E has no cover from A eventhough A's attack would still pass through the border of O and E. Right?
As above, the line between the creatures is never crossed, so this shouldn't even be an issue.

Here, O provides cover to E. If A tries to hit E (with +4 cover because of O), and A misses by 1-4 then A hits O. Assuming both O and E are enemies, doesn't this give A a double chance to hit an enemy?
This rule does not exist. Or, at the least, it doesn't exist in D&D 3.5.

If A shoots at E engaged with O is O considered friendly for this 1 shot and A still has to take a -4? If it doesn't mater to A, does A still have to take the -4? If not, then is there a double chance A would hit either O or E?
No. There's never a chance to hit the wrong target. Whenever your targetting is impaired, you simply take the appropriate penalty.
taylordc3
11-12-07, 10:10 AM Thank you for clearing that up for me. It makes sense now that they mean through a boarder rather then along it.

4.

I still have a question though about the firing into melee with 2 enemies. The rules say shooting "at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character". If both characters are not friendly, do you still have to take the -4?
Marcus Majarra
11-12-07, 11:24 AM No, you don't. Since you're not concentrating on avoiding your ally, you can fully concentrate on targetting your enemy.
steenan
11-14-07, 08:10 AM I cannot support this with a rule quote (writing from work), but I think that you can always ignore the -4 penalty on shooting into melee and it always gives you 50%/50% of who will be targeted (as if you shot into grapple). So, if there are two enemies fighting and you want to hit a specific one, you'll take the penalty, but if you want to hit any of them, you won't.
Marcus Majarra
11-14-07, 11:11 AM I cannot support this with a rule quote (writing from work), but I think that you can always ignore the -4 penalty on shooting into melee and it always gives you 50%/50% of who will be targeted (as if you shot into grapple).
If such a rule exists, it most certainly isn't within core rules.
rimble
11-14-07, 11:27 AM I cannot support this with a rule quote (writing from work), but I think that you can always ignore the -4 penalty on shooting into melee and it always gives you 50%/50% of who will be targeted (as if you shot into grapple). So, if there are two enemies fighting and you want to hit a specific one, you'll take the penalty, but if you want to hit any of them, you won't.

Yeah, along with what Marcus wrote, I'm not even sure I'd like a houserule on that either. Grappling is 50/50 because you're both struggling in the same square. I see no reason why shooting at an enemy should give you any chance of hitting the 3rd party enemy in the square next to him. You're still shooting into melee. You still take -4. There's no chance to hit the adjacent guy.

That doesn't exactly jive with the SRD either since they chose to sprinkle in that 'friendly' qualifier.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
taylordc3 11-11-07, 12:43 PM	From PHB: "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). " So the thing that gets me is the word "border". 1. Let's give 2 examples. An archer A is 20 feet away and 5 feet to the side of an enemy E who is next to a wall W: A...W ....E In this example, the wall starts at the same line the archer is on. From the corner of A's square you can draw a line to all corners of E's square, but 1 line passes through the border of the wall and E. Does E have cover from A? I think, by the rules, E does have cover and if A took a 5 foot step down, it would negate it. A though has no cover if E wants to range attack A. 2. Now let's change the W to another enemy, an Orc O. A...O ....E In this case, since the wall is now a creature, it changes the rules and the line would have to pass through the creature right? So E has no cover from A eventhough A's attack would still pass through the border of O and E. Right? Now if A were 5 feet up then O would provide cover to E. 3. One final question on cover and ranged attacks. I've heard that if there is cover and you miss the target by 1-4 (or by the cover bonus) you've hit the cover. [Where is this rule or is it a house rule?] That doesn't seem balanced in the case of A striking E with O in the way: A.... ....O ....E Here, O provides cover to E. If A tries to hit E (with +4 cover because of O), and A misses by 1-4 then A hits O. Assuming both O and E are enemies, doesn't this give A a double chance to hit an enemy? 4. Last question for this thread is on melee combat. Once again, let's use A O and E. A wants to shoot at E, but all 3 (A O and E) are ememies of eachother. O and E are in melee. If A doesn't care which one gets hit does A still have to take a -4 penelty for firing into melee? From PHB If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll because you have to aim carefully to avoid hitting your friend. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. A...O ....E If A shoots at E engaged with O is O considered friendly for this 1 shot and A still has to take a -4? If it doesn't mater to A, does A still have to take the -4? If not, then is there a double chance A would hit either O or E? I appreciate any feedback on this perplexing rule. The cover situation comes-up quite often and I'm surrprised I haven't seen it explained more clearly anywhere.
Marcus Majarra 11-11-07, 02:13 PM	In this example, the wall starts at the same line the archer is on. From the corner of A's square you can draw a line to all corners of E's square, but 1 line passes through the border of the wall and E. Does E have cover from A? No. The line you draw doesn't go through the border in question; it merely goes along it. Going through means that the line has to cross the border in question. In this case, since the wall is now a creature, it changes the rules and the line would have to pass through the creature right? So E has no cover from A eventhough A's attack would still pass through the border of O and E. Right? As above, the line between the creatures is never crossed, so this shouldn't even be an issue. Here, O provides cover to E. If A tries to hit E (with +4 cover because of O), and A misses by 1-4 then A hits O. Assuming both O and E are enemies, doesn't this give A a double chance to hit an enemy? This rule does not exist. Or, at the least, it doesn't exist in D&D 3.5. If A shoots at E engaged with O is O considered friendly for this 1 shot and A still has to take a -4? If it doesn't mater to A, does A still have to take the -4? If not, then is there a double chance A would hit either O or E? No. There's never a chance to hit the wrong target. Whenever your targetting is impaired, you simply take the appropriate penalty.
taylordc3 11-12-07, 10:10 AM	Thank you for clearing that up for me. It makes sense now that they mean through a boarder rather then along it. 4. I still have a question though about the firing into melee with 2 enemies. The rules say shooting "at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character". If both characters are not friendly, do you still have to take the -4?
Marcus Majarra 11-12-07, 11:24 AM	No, you don't. Since you're not concentrating on avoiding your ally, you can fully concentrate on targetting your enemy.
steenan 11-14-07, 08:10 AM	I cannot support this with a rule quote (writing from work), but I think that you can always ignore the -4 penalty on shooting into melee and it always gives you 50%/50% of who will be targeted (as if you shot into grapple). So, if there are two enemies fighting and you want to hit a specific one, you'll take the penalty, but if you want to hit any of them, you won't.
Marcus Majarra 11-14-07, 11:11 AM	I cannot support this with a rule quote (writing from work), but I think that you can always ignore the -4 penalty on shooting into melee and it always gives you 50%/50% of who will be targeted (as if you shot into grapple). If such a rule exists, it most certainly isn't within core rules.
rimble 11-14-07, 11:27 AM	I cannot support this with a rule quote (writing from work), but I think that you can always ignore the -4 penalty on shooting into melee and it always gives you 50%/50% of who will be targeted (as if you shot into grapple). So, if there are two enemies fighting and you want to hit a specific one, you'll take the penalty, but if you want to hit any of them, you won't. Yeah, along with what Marcus wrote, I'm not even sure I'd like a houserule on that either. Grappling is 50/50 because you're both struggling in the same square. I see no reason why shooting at an enemy should give you any chance of hitting the 3rd party enemy in the square next to him. You're still shooting into melee. You still take -4. There's no chance to hit the adjacent guy. That doesn't exactly jive with the SRD either since they chose to sprinkle in that 'friendly' qualifier.