Post/Author/DateTime	Post
B.A.Baracus 12-17-06, 10:37 PM	We had a slight disagreement over cover from a ranged attack. Below is an illistration of the way the combat was at the time. B=Bad guy F=Friend A=Attacker |_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|B|_|_| |_|_|_|F|_| |_|_|_|A|_| |_|_|_|_|_| Does B have cover from A because of F? I feel it doesnt because the line of sight from the northeast corner doesnt go through F's square. But I was overruled by several people saying that because it travels along the same line as F's square it counts for cover. Just looking for some posts to either help me or explain to my why they are right if they are. By DDM standards it would not have cover but I know the RPG is a different horse all together :P. Thanks in advance. :D
Chie 12-17-06, 11:45 PM	People don't provide cover from attacks because in a battle everyone is constantly moving.No one really just stands around and waits for things to happen.In this case the attacker takes the penalty for shooting into a melee,but he doesn't get cover.Cover is usually only given for static objects like tables, pillars,and tower shields if you take the total defense action to hide behind one.
ShinAkuma2 12-18-06, 12:55 AM	People don't provide cover from attacks because in a battle everyone is constantly moving. You need to read the rules for Soft Cover. People most definately do get in the way of ranged attacks. In the example, there is soft cover. Pick any corner from the attacker's square, and trace lines to the defender's four corners. If they cross the cover-providing square/lines, then there's cover. A's top left corner would have been the best bet, but that crosses F's left border to get to B's right corners.
risner 12-18-06, 01:11 AM	People don't provide cover from attacks PHB p150 People provide cover. Northwest A square (the attacker) passes thru the border of F on the way to "any square" (so pick northeast B) to get to B. So F provides B cover from A.
Plothos 12-18-06, 03:59 AM	IMO, there's no cover, though people can provide it. The PHB refers to the "crossing" of borders, and it's unclear whether this qualifies as crossing the border or not. A reason to think not is if two chars are standing in a 5' hallway the target shouldn't get cover. If tracing a border counts for cover, than he would. If the designers meant to have cover in such situations, I haven't seen proof, and I think its silly.
JJeff 12-18-06, 04:07 AM	There is no cover. A chooses his corner as his top-left and tries to draw a line from there to all corners of the Bad Guy. The lines do not cross any borders of any non-empty square (going parallel beside doesn't count), so no cover. I think the PHB lists an example of cover of a guy in the same sitaution except the shooter was at the corner of a wall and there wasn't any cover from shooter to target, but there will be cover from target to shooter.
risner 12-18-06, 12:05 PM	Plothos and Jjeff: You may very well be correct. But if you are, I question the meaning of this phrase: PHB p150 "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" Why use "square OR border" instead of just border? By your definition of border, you can not in fact cross the square without crossing the border of said square. They didn't need both words. By your definition they could have said "square" or "border", but there are no scenarios where they would have needed to say "square or border" as they did. It make more sense to have cover in this case, since to not have cover, you would have to be leaning into an adjacent square to take your shot. To me leaning into an adjacent square sounds "silly" as you say.
Plothos 12-18-06, 12:57 PM	Plothos and Jjeff: You may very well be correct. But if you are, I question the meaning of this phrase: PHB p150 "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" Why use "square OR border" instead of just border? By your definition of border, you can not in fact cross the square without crossing the border of said square. They didn't need both words. By your definition they could have said "square" or "border", but there are no scenarios where they would have needed to say "square or border" as they did.I agree that the wording could be better. I'm offering what I think is the best interpretation of a poorly worded section. I fully expect others to feel other interpretations would be better, but them's the breaks. I think as curious is the ambiguity in the word "cross". If I'm reading you right, you seem to think "cross a square" means to go from one side to the other, whereas "cross a border" means to travel along it. The latter sounds strange to me. I think there's a prima facie understanding we all have as to what it is to cross a border, and thatis to move from one side to the other in a at least partially perpendicular manner (one of your vectors would be perpendicular). All I can think to say is that yes, they could have said cross a border and left it at that. Perhaps they just added the word "square" to try to be even more explicit and failed. But at any rate, as I said, IF the way I do it is a house-rule, THEN the RAW stink in this area. No way a guy in a hall has "cover" from my arrow. That's my opinion. You can certainly have another. :) It make more sense to have cover in this case, since to not have cover, you would have to be leaning into an adjacent square to take your shot. To me leaning into an adjacent square sounds "silly" as you say.This is an affect of the picking any corner you like to shoot from rule more than the cover rule. It doesn't seem all that weird to me. I could put the tip of my arrow to the corner of my square and loose the arrow. To get a good angle on a guy next to the wall might require "leaning" a bit, but movement in a grid of squares has little drawbacks like this. To attack a guy in melee with a dagger when he's five feet away from me (which is to say he's somewhere in the square next to me and could be anywhere from 2.5 to 7.5 feet away from the center of my square) would probably require just as much "leaning". Anyway, on your interpretation of the cover rules, you have nearly as much an issue here, I think. Say you have a 300 foot wall and I'm behind the corner at the end. My target is 300 feet away and rather than being immediately next to the wall he's in the next square over. The angle is not that much different. By your rule he would now no longer have cover. But the amount of "leaning" involved seems little different. So, to my ear, the leaning issue seems separable from the cover issue, and I'd rather say that, since one can lean, there's little reason to insist on cover in such a situation. And therefore, there's no reason to give cover to the guy in the hall. Add to this the fact that the minis rules are quite explicit in their examples (and I believe have similar though better wording) and it seems like a fairly strong case can be made for no cover. The leaning issue might be solved by requiring target lines to be drawn from the center of the shooter's square rather than any corner. This makes sense to me, actually, and I would consider it a very reasonable house-rule.
Omega the Powerfull 12-18-06, 01:06 PM	As according with the rules in the PHB. pg 150, F obviouly provides cover. Imagine if F wasn't a creature but rahter a wall. It would also provide A cover since the line crosses the border of the square that F stands.
AstroCat 12-18-06, 02:08 PM	As according with the rules in the PHB. pg 150, F obviouly provides cover. Imagine if F wasn't a creature but rahter a wall. It would also provide A cover since the line crosses the border of the square that F stands. If F was a wall then B would in no way have cover from A's ranged attack. This is the "shooting around corner" effect that is 100% legal in 3.5 D&D and the latest minis rules. 100% for sure no doubt.
Vegepygmy 12-18-06, 03:11 PM	Does B have cover from A because of F?No. The line from A's top left corner doesn't pass through F's border...it merely travels along it. (Remember: lines have no width.)
B.A.Baracus 12-19-06, 09:47 AM	Thanks for the help so far. If I could get some more people to chime in I can represent the whole thing to the DM, I like weight in numbers :).
mvincent 12-19-06, 01:07 PM	|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|B|_|_| |_|_|_|F|_| |_|_|_|A|_| |_|_|_|_|_| Does B have cover from A because of F? B has cover from A. The rules say: "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)." So A would choose one of his left corners (it doesn't which in this case), but some of the lines from this corner will pass along F's border (and thus be blocked) when traced to B's lower-right corner. Yes, the rules seem to read oddly in regard to cover. This RotG (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050628a) article seems to give more details (and provides diagrams), but it doesn't seem to cover this situation exactly.
GorTeX 12-19-06, 01:12 PM	Plothos and Jjeff: PHB p150 "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" Why use "square OR border" instead of just border? There are two conditions here. 1st we have: 'Passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover' Characters do not block line of sight, nor do they provide cover (they do provide soft cover, but not cover). then we have: 'through a square occupied by a creature' Note, not through a border of a square occupied by a creature, only through a square occupied by a creature. So, since A can trace a line from his NW corner to all corners of B without passing through the border or square of anything the provides cover or blocks line of effect, and without passing through a square containing a creature other than the target, F does not provide cover for A attacking B. However, note that if B attacked A, F would provide cover since you can't avoid tracing a line thru F's square from any corner you pick of B to all the corners of A.
Derren S. 12-19-06, 01:15 PM	As many other already said F gets cover. And don't forget to also add teh "Firing into Melee" penalty ;)
Omega the Powerfull 12-19-06, 01:26 PM	No. The line from A's top left corner doesn't pass through F's border...it merely travels along it. (Remember: lines have no width.) Read again the example from pg. 151, it's exactly the same example. F provides cover to A
ShinAkuma2 12-19-06, 05:24 PM	Characters do not block line of sight, nor do they provide cover (they do provide soft cover, but not cover). They provide soft cover, but not cover... That's like saying a Gnome's +4 dodge to AC works on Giants, but not Frost Giants. Cover is cover is cover. Different types of cover may have different rules, but cover is cover. People provide soft cover, which is a type of cover.
Vegepygmy 12-19-06, 07:30 PM	Read again the example from pg. 151, it's exactly the same example.No, it's not. Here is the OP's diagram: |_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|B|_|_| |_|_|_|F|_| |_|_|_|A|_| |_|_|_|_|_| And here is the page 151 diagram (in ASCII format): |_|C|_|_|_| |C|C|O|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_| |L|_|_|_|_| See the difference? Lidda (L) is trying to shoot an Orc (O) standing next to a square that provides cover (C). If Lidda were positioned one more square to the right, then we would have "exactly the same" situation. Lidda would be able to pick the top right corner of her square and draw four lines from that point to each corner of the Orc's square, none of which would pass through any border of C.
risner 12-20-06, 12:20 AM	Lidda (L) is trying to shoot an Orc (O) standing next to a square that provides cover (C). You are not looking at the diagram correctly: |_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|B|_|_| |_|_|_|F|_| |_|_|_|A|_| |_|_|_|_|_| The diagram (PHB p151): |_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|F|B| |A|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_| In truth, this diagram is virtually identical to the PHB p151 one. B has cover from A via F in the PHB diagram. I consider this issue closed, since the PHB has the exact same diagram as the OP posted and the target has cover in the PHB book, therefore the OP's person has cover.
Nom 12-20-06, 01:30 AM	How is that in any way virtually identical, other than that they are both 5x5 and use the letters A,B and F? In the first diagram, B is in an otherwise unoccupied row that is adjacent to the row that F and A are in. In the second, A is in an otherwise unoccupied row that is adjacent to the row that B and F are in. This is "virtually identical": |_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|F|A| |B|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_| In this case, B has no cover. The D&D rules could be construed as ambiguous (is "passing through" a border the same as "running along" it, or does it actually mean "crosses"?). The minis rules by and large use the same diagrams, but add a couple more than unambiguously rule that B does not have cover. Thus, in the minis game B does not have cover, while in the RPG B might have cover if we assume that comparable diagrams and wording mean opposite things in two closely related products by the same publisher. Note that the example above and the original do differ in an important manner. In the former, A is "firing into melee", because B and F are less than 10 ft. from each other and (presumably) at least on threatens the other. In my example, they do not.
Plothos 12-20-06, 02:34 AM	Nom's right. The examples are only the same if you swap in one of them who's supposed to be firing. The example from p. 151 shows us definitively that the OP's SHOOTER has cover from his TARGET'S ranged attacks, but since ranged cover involves picking one corner of the shooter and all four of the target this is not a reflexive relation. X can have cover from Y without Y having cover from X. The diagram on 151 shows us that the shooter benefits from cover, but this does not establish that the target benefits as well.
Omega the Powerfull 12-20-06, 10:45 AM	In this case, B has no cover. The D&D rules could be construed as ambiguous (is "passing through" a border the same as "running along" it, or does it actually mean "crosses"?). The minis rules by and large use the same diagrams, but add a couple more than unambiguously rule that B does not have cover. Thus, in the minis game B does not have cover, while in the RPG B might have cover if we assume that comparable diagrams and wording mean opposite things in two closely related products by the same publisher. For God's sake, this problem has taken way to many lines to solve. Nom, do you want to convince me that only by the fact that in PhB diagram Lidda is one 5 foot square away from the example Baracus asked the situation is different?! The rules are not ambiguous, actually they are very clear to me - if you choose the right corner of B and a line crosses over F to reach the right corner of A, F provides cover to A - just as the diagram show
B.A.Baracus 12-20-06, 11:08 AM	For God's sake, this problem has taken way to many lines to solve. Nom, do you want to convince me that only by the fact that in PhB diagram Lidda is one 5 foot square away from the example Baracus asked the situation is different?! The rules are not ambiguous, actually they are very clear to me - if you choose the right corner of B and a line crosses over F to reach the right corner of A, F provides cover to A - just as the diagram show We are talking B having cover from A not A having cover from B. That could be causing some confusion. So far my mind is still with B not having cover from A, because the attack travels along the border of F and not "across" it.
Vegepygmy 12-20-06, 11:58 AM	Nom, do you want to convince me that only by the fact that in PhB diagram Lidda is one 5 foot square away from the example Baracus asked the situation is different?!You do realize that when discussing tactical situations like these, "one 5 foot square" can make a tremendous difference, right?
frankthedm 12-20-06, 01:22 PM	They provide soft cover, but not cover... That's like saying a Gnome's +4 dodge to AC works on Giants, but not Frost Giants.Frost giant is only a name. If the frost giant had its creature type changed from giant to another creature type, yes that dodge bonus goes away. If the frost giant somehow loses the cold subtype it stops being extra vulnerable to fire. Cover is cover is cover. Different types of cover may have different rules, but cover is cover. People provide soft cover, which is a type of cover. The cover people provide does operate under different rules, it only affect a ranged attack if it passes through their square, not just if it passes along their border. Badguy has no cover from the archer, Archer has cover from the badguy. http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/2713/coverupzm7.gif Cover 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).
Nom 12-20-06, 05:37 PM	Nom, do you want to convince me that only by the fact that in PhB diagram Lidda is one 5 foot square away from the example Baracus asked the situation is different?!Yes. Heck, even a mere 1 ft. can make a huge difference. I'm standing with my bow pointing out of an arrow slit. Well and good. I now move 1 ft. to the left, completely changing the arc I can cover with my bow. Targets I could previously shoot have total cover; targets I previously could not even see are now fully viable. Admittedly, 1 ft. is below the scale measured in the game, but if 1 ft. can make a huge difference why is it so inconceivable that 5 ft. will not? Admittedly the D&D game gets nitpicky right on the gridlines, where a 5 ft. step one way or the other can be the difference between "cover" and "no cover". But since the rule is binary, there will always be a decision line somwhere; that's the nature of simplified abstractions. Baracus: your thoughts are correct. The PH rules are slightly ambiguous, but once if you apply either the comparable minis rules or a little common sense and reductio ad absurdum (the 5 ft. corridor example) it becomes clear that the sight-line must actually intersect the square and not merely run along its edge.
mvincent 12-20-06, 05:47 PM	Characters do not block line of sight, nor do they provide cover (they do provide soft cover, but not cover).The D&D glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_cover&alpha=) says: "cover Any barrier between an attacker and defender. Such a barrier can be an object, a creature, or a magical force. Cover grants the defender a bonus to Armor Class." The glossary does not appear to have an entry for soft cover.
mvincent 12-20-06, 05:54 PM	The PH rules are slightly ambiguousAgreed but once if you apply either the comparable minis rules or a little common sense and reductio ad absurdum (the 5 ft. corridor example) it becomes clear that the sight-line must actually intersect the square and not merely run along its edge.That seems reasonable. I wish there were yet more official diagrams available. It seems to me that melee attacks are being treated differently than ranged attacks in regard to cover? i.e. melee attacking diagonally around a corner gives your opponent cover, but no cover is granted if you are using a ranged weapon in the exact same circumstances? Is this correct?
Vegepygmy 12-20-06, 06:05 PM	It seems to me that melee attacks are being treated differently than ranged attacks in regard to cover? i.e. melee attacking diagonally around a corner gives your opponent cover, but no cover is granted if you are using a ranged weapon in the exact same circumstances? Is this correct?That is exactly correct.
frankthedm 12-20-06, 07:14 PM	It seems to me that melee attacks are being treated differently than ranged attacks in regard to cover? i.e. melee attacking diagonally around a corner gives your opponent cover, but no cover is granted if you are using a ranged weapon in the exact same circumstances? Is this correct? Yes indeed. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover) Cover 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). When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from 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. Low Obstacles and Cover A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target. Cover and Attacks of Opportunity You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you. Cover and Reflex Saves Cover grants you a +2 bonus on Reflex saves against attacks that originate or burst out from a point on the other side of the cover from you. Note that spread effects can extend around corners and thus negate this cover bonus. Cover and Hide Checks You can use cover to make a Hide check. Without cover, you usually need concealment to make a Hide check. Soft Cover Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Hide check. Big Creatures and Cover Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you. Total CoverIf you don’t have line of effect to your target he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover. Varying Degrees of Cover 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 (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Hide checks.
Angatyr 12-20-06, 07:15 PM	You can freely move through squares occupied by an ally, without either of you porvoking attacks of opportunity, and considering that F is not a wall, in my games it is fair enough for allies that are free to move to not block shots by allies. A can say "get down" as a free action, and F obliges, there is no cover. It is a house rule based on the function of an actual rule.
frankthedm 12-20-06, 07:19 PM	Both Longspear Lance and Archer have to trace lines from one corner of their square to all corners of their targets square under most readings of the soft cover rules. That means the Mummy Mook's positioning adds +4 to the AC of their Malicious Master. Cyan the Samurai ignores soft cover rules since he is normal melee. http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/7757/softcoverdz1.gif Because Cover blocks AoOs, Only Cyan would be able to take an AoO if Mr Mysterious & Malignant cast a spell without taking the Cast Defensively option. Lance is left out in the cold despite his reach.
risner 12-20-06, 07:38 PM	We are talking B having cover from A not A having cover from B. That could be causing some confusion. So far my mind is still with B not having cover from A, because the attack travels along the border of F and not "across" it. In the PHB p151 diagram, Liddy (A) is one 5 foot square but still ran along (not across) the F border on the way to the target (B) and B had cover from A. So why is it if they both following the border (not cross), why do you think there is a difference? Can anyone explain this to me? Look at PHB p151 and tell me that the shooter does anything other than follow along the border of the middle target. Because somehow when I look at it, I see it following the border and not crossing.
Vegepygmy 12-20-06, 07:39 PM	You can freely move through squares occupied by an ally, without either of you porvoking attacks of opportunity...I'm not sure what you mean by that, but... You can move through a square occupied by a friendly character, unless you are charging (page 154). When you move through a square occupied by a friendly character, that character doesn’t provide you with cover (see page 150)....and since you don't have cover, you do provoke an attack of opportunity for leaving that square (as normal).
Vegepygmy 12-20-06, 07:51 PM	In the PHB p151 diagram, Liddy (A) is one 5 foot square but still ran along (not across) the F border on the way to the target (B) and B had cover from A. So why is it if they both following the border (not cross), why do you think there is a difference? Can anyone explain this to me? Look at PHB p151 and tell me that the shooter does anything other than follow along the border of the middle target. Because somehow when I look at it, I see it following the border and not crossing.I'm really not sure what you're looking at. Here's the PHB diagram: |_|X|_|_|_| |X|X|O|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|R|G| |L|_|_|_|_| To determine if Regdar (R) provides cover to the gnoll (G) from Lidda (L), Lidda picks one of her corners (bottom right, in the PHB diagram) and draws four lines from that point: one to each of the four corners of the gnoll's square. If any of those lines passes through Regdar's square, Regdar provides cover to the gnoll. The diagram shows that the line from Lidda's bottom right corner to the gnoll's top left corner does, in fact, pass through Regdar's square, so he provides cover to the gnoll from Lidda. If you switch it around, though, the gnoll can draw four lines from his bottom left corner to each of Lidda's corners, and none of them pass through Regdar's square. So Regdar does not provide cover to Lidda from the gnoll. Does that make things clearer?
Angatyr 12-20-06, 08:01 PM	The point I was making is that I have a house rule based on the fact that allies can make way for you in your turn without provoking AoO, so they should be able to make way for your arrows too. If the creature in the way is not an ally, then it would not apply.
Omega the Powerfull 12-20-06, 09:12 PM	In the PHB p151 diagram, Liddy (A) is one 5 foot square but still ran along (not across) the F border on the way to the target (B) and B had cover from A. So why is it if they both following the border (not cross), why do you think there is a difference? Can anyone explain this to me? Look at PHB p151 and tell me that the shooter does anything other than follow along the border of the middle target. Because somehow when I look at it, I see it following the border and not crossing. Risner got the point. It's the same example as the book. In the same diagram, even that odd situation of the orc next to the wall, the wall provides him cover even being possible to cross a straight line between "any" of Lidda's side to "any of the orc's side. Just as the diagram that franktdm posted
Nom 12-20-06, 09:41 PM	Risner got the point. It's the same example as the book.If the gnoll were attacking Lidda (A attacks B), it would be comparable. Since Lidda is attacking the gnoll (B attacks A), it's not. The cover calculation is one-many, and thus is not reversible. In the same diagram, even that odd situation of the orc next to the wall, the wall provides him cover even being possible to cross a straight line between "any" of Lidda's side to "any of the orc's side. Just as the diagram that franktdm postedAgain, the diagrams are completely different. On PH pg 151, there is no corner of Lidda's square from which she can draw a line to the top-left corner of the orc's square without crossing that wall square. In contrast, the top-left corner of A's square has unobstructed access to all 4 corners of B's square (assuming we use the "along != crossing" interpretation). To repeat: On PH pg 151, Lidda is shooting. In the OP, A is shooting. Not analogous. That seems reasonable. I wish there were yet more official diagrams available. It seems to me that melee attacks are being treated differently than ranged attacks in regard to cover? i.e. melee attacking diagonally around a corner gives your opponent cover, but no cover is granted if you are using a ranged weapon in the exact same circumstances? Is this correct?Yep, the rules for determining cover for (adjacent) melee attacks and for ranged attacks are completely distinct. Adjacent melee attacks: * Compare one of your squares to an adjacent target square (your choice) * If the squares are orthogonally adjacent without a low wall, no cover. * If the squares are diagonally adjacent but one of the other two squares is a solid corner, cover. Other creatures don't count (unless they totally block the square, eg gelantious cube). * If a "low wall" is between the combatants, cover. Ranged (and non-adjacent melee) attacks: * Choose one corner of your space and draw sight lines to all 4 corners of target's space (not just one square, the entire space - like the "across the border" rule, this is ambiguous in the PH rules but explicit in the minis rules). * If any sight line passes through an obstruction (including creatures or low walls), cover. The soft vs hard cover distinction matters only for reflex saves and that soft cover is not applicable to (adjacent) melee cover.