Cover in combat [Archive] - Wizards Community

Cover in combat [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Steelthorn
11-21-06, 12:45 PM Does anyone know if there is a rule in place covering cover in combat. Example, if my archer is standing behind an ally who is fighting an orc, shoots at the orc, does it get cover. I have precise shot.
Vegepygmy
11-21-06, 12:48 PM Player's Handbook, pages 150-152. (But the answer is yes, the orc gets cover.)

Precise Shot has nothing to do with cover. It just exempts you from the normal -4 penalty for shooting at a target in melee.
Dheran
11-21-06, 02:14 PM You need the next feat in the chain:
Improved Precise Shot [General]

Prerequisites
Dex 19, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, base attack bonus +11.

Benefit
Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment. Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks. In addition, when you shoot or throw ranged weapons at a grappling opponent, you automatically strike at the opponent you have chosen.

Normal
See the normal rules on the effects of cover and concealment. Without this feat, a character who shoots or throws a ranged weapon at a target involved in a grapple must roll randomly to see which grappling combatant the attack strikes.

Special
A fighter may select Improved Precise Shot as one of his fighter bonus feats.

An 11th-level ranger who has chosen the archery combat style is treated as having Improved Precise Shot, even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.
frankthedm
11-21-06, 04:28 PM http://img479.imageshack.us/img479/1540/pricelesscovertl9.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).

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.

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.

If Mr Malignant could deal with that pesky AoO issue, he could shoot a ray at any of the 3 heroes, who would not benefit from cover since He could draw lines to thier corners without passing through the Mummies' spaces.

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/291/coverblastwa7.gif

Much as this glaive wielding gnoll can strike at the long spear Lance without lance recieving a cover bonus. The gnoll does recieve a cover bonus against Lance's attacks.

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/7069/coverdiagreachlossn9.gif

Lance tries to find a rule that may prevent the gnoll from enjoying cover's +4 AC. His hopes are raised when he sees this passage...

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.

Sadly the gnoll is closer to the kobolds than Lance is, so the gnoll keeps his +4 AC from cover.
draconic_swine
11-21-06, 08:04 PM Kind of off topic, but where did you get those pictures? They're a great teaching aid to use for players who can't quite grasp the rules properly.
DarkNick
11-21-06, 09:18 PM So does someone firing into melee with someone between them and the target, and they don't have precise shot would be effectively -8 (-4 for firing into melee + -4 for cover)?
ShinAkuma2
11-21-06, 09:49 PM More or less, yes.
Bowmore
11-21-06, 11:09 PM I see Final Fantasy V sprites, and Hexen sprites in those charts. :D
draconic_swine
11-21-06, 11:38 PM So does someone firing into melee with someone between them and the target, and they don't have precise shot would be effectively -8 (-4 for firing into melee + -4 for cover)?

More or less, yes.

Not more or less, yes; it is definitely yes ;) Just wanting to point that out in case somebody got the wrong idea, or tried to dispute it, or something.
frankthedm
11-22-06, 12:12 AM I see Final Fantasy V sprites, and Hexen sprites in those charts. :D

Green Arrow from an arcade game.
Gnolls and kobolds from D&D Shadow over mystara arcade game.
Plothos
11-22-06, 12:32 AM Not more or less, yes; it is definitely yes ;) Just wanting to point that out in case somebody got the wrong idea, or tried to dispute it, or something.I think more or less is better than definitely in this case. It's an effective difference of 8 in the favor of the guy who doesn't want to get hit, but it's not -8 to the attacker's roll. It's -4 to his roll and +4 to the number he needs to get. It's a distinction without a difference, really, but there it is. Anyway, I think that's why he said "more or less".
draconic_swine
11-22-06, 09:50 AM I think more or less is better than definitely in this case. It's an effective difference of 8 in the favor of the guy who doesn't want to get hit, but it's not -8 to the attacker's roll. It's -4 to his roll and +4 to the number he needs to get. It's a distinction without a difference, really, but there it is. Anyway, I think that's why he said "more or less".

Ah, yes, I forgot about one being -4 to attack, one being +4 to AC. Yeah, you're right, more or less probably fits better. I just wanted to make sure nobody thought/tried to have only one penalty apply in this situation (minus taking Precise Shot, of course).
Cyan Wisp
11-22-06, 03:46 PM Let's not forget that lovely Soft Cover variant rule: DMG pg 24.

If you miss the target because of the cover bonus AND your attack roll is sufficient to hit the AC of the cover, you hit the cover!

A variant, yes, but we use it in our game and it is quite amusing.

:88E: :fight!: :elf:
ShinAkuma2
11-22-06, 05:06 PM It's -4 to his roll and +4 to the number he needs to get.

That's exactly why I said more or less.

Sorry for the confusion.
DarkNick
11-22-06, 05:48 PM That's exactly why I said more or less.

Sorry for the confusion.

so it means +-4 give and take, more or less, that's practically, or effectively, a -8 on the attack, give or take, meaning -4 to hit or a +4 to miss and a +4 to the number needed or -4 to the number not needed ;)

I think I have it, pretty much :D

Thanks
frankthedm
11-22-06, 07:12 PM My bad... Here is the corrected example.

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/8743/takecoverdm3.gif
Steelthorn
11-27-06, 11:00 AM How about if there are 2 occupied squares between the archer and his target. Does the target still just get a +4 AC cover bonus or does the bonus increase.

Thanks for all the replies.
Vegepygmy
11-27-06, 12:39 PM How about if there are 2 occupied squares between the archer and his target. Does the target still just get a +4 AC cover bonus or does the bonus increase.Still just +4.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Steelthorn 11-21-06, 12:45 PM	Does anyone know if there is a rule in place covering cover in combat. Example, if my archer is standing behind an ally who is fighting an orc, shoots at the orc, does it get cover. I have precise shot.
Vegepygmy 11-21-06, 12:48 PM	Player's Handbook, pages 150-152. (But the answer is yes, the orc gets cover.) Precise Shot has nothing to do with cover. It just exempts you from the normal -4 penalty for shooting at a target in melee.
Dheran 11-21-06, 02:14 PM	You need the next feat in the chain: Improved Precise Shot [General] Prerequisites Dex 19, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, base attack bonus +11. Benefit Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment. Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks. In addition, when you shoot or throw ranged weapons at a grappling opponent, you automatically strike at the opponent you have chosen. Normal See the normal rules on the effects of cover and concealment. Without this feat, a character who shoots or throws a ranged weapon at a target involved in a grapple must roll randomly to see which grappling combatant the attack strikes. Special A fighter may select Improved Precise Shot as one of his fighter bonus feats. An 11th-level ranger who has chosen the archery combat style is treated as having Improved Precise Shot, even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.
frankthedm 11-21-06, 04:28 PM	http://img479.imageshack.us/img479/1540/pricelesscovertl9.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). 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. 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. If Mr Malignant could deal with that pesky AoO issue, he could shoot a ray at any of the 3 heroes, who would not benefit from cover since He could draw lines to thier corners without passing through the Mummies' spaces. http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/291/coverblastwa7.gif Much as this glaive wielding gnoll can strike at the long spear Lance without lance recieving a cover bonus. The gnoll does recieve a cover bonus against Lance's attacks. http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/7069/coverdiagreachlossn9.gif Lance tries to find a rule that may prevent the gnoll from enjoying cover's +4 AC. His hopes are raised when he sees this passage... 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. Sadly the gnoll is closer to the kobolds than Lance is, so the gnoll keeps his +4 AC from cover.
draconic_swine 11-21-06, 08:04 PM	Kind of off topic, but where did you get those pictures? They're a great teaching aid to use for players who can't quite grasp the rules properly.
DarkNick 11-21-06, 09:18 PM	So does someone firing into melee with someone between them and the target, and they don't have precise shot would be effectively -8 (-4 for firing into melee + -4 for cover)?
ShinAkuma2 11-21-06, 09:49 PM	More or less, yes.
Bowmore 11-21-06, 11:09 PM	I see Final Fantasy V sprites, and Hexen sprites in those charts. :D
draconic_swine 11-21-06, 11:38 PM	So does someone firing into melee with someone between them and the target, and they don't have precise shot would be effectively -8 (-4 for firing into melee + -4 for cover)? More or less, yes. Not more or less, yes; it is definitely yes ;) Just wanting to point that out in case somebody got the wrong idea, or tried to dispute it, or something.
frankthedm 11-22-06, 12:12 AM	I see Final Fantasy V sprites, and Hexen sprites in those charts. :D Green Arrow from an arcade game. Gnolls and kobolds from D&D Shadow over mystara arcade game.
Plothos 11-22-06, 12:32 AM	Not more or less, yes; it is definitely yes ;) Just wanting to point that out in case somebody got the wrong idea, or tried to dispute it, or something.I think more or less is better than definitely in this case. It's an effective difference of 8 in the favor of the guy who doesn't want to get hit, but it's not -8 to the attacker's roll. It's -4 to his roll and +4 to the number he needs to get. It's a distinction without a difference, really, but there it is. Anyway, I think that's why he said "more or less".
draconic_swine 11-22-06, 09:50 AM	I think more or less is better than definitely in this case. It's an effective difference of 8 in the favor of the guy who doesn't want to get hit, but it's not -8 to the attacker's roll. It's -4 to his roll and +4 to the number he needs to get. It's a distinction without a difference, really, but there it is. Anyway, I think that's why he said "more or less". Ah, yes, I forgot about one being -4 to attack, one being +4 to AC. Yeah, you're right, more or less probably fits better. I just wanted to make sure nobody thought/tried to have only one penalty apply in this situation (minus taking Precise Shot, of course).
Cyan Wisp 11-22-06, 03:46 PM	Let's not forget that lovely Soft Cover variant rule: DMG pg 24. If you miss the target because of the cover bonus AND your attack roll is sufficient to hit the AC of the cover, you hit the cover! A variant, yes, but we use it in our game and it is quite amusing. :88E: :fight!: :elf:
ShinAkuma2 11-22-06, 05:06 PM	It's -4 to his roll and +4 to the number he needs to get. That's exactly why I said more or less. Sorry for the confusion.
DarkNick 11-22-06, 05:48 PM	That's exactly why I said more or less. Sorry for the confusion. so it means +-4 give and take, more or less, that's practically, or effectively, a -8 on the attack, give or take, meaning -4 to hit or a +4 to miss and a +4 to the number needed or -4 to the number not needed ;) I think I have it, pretty much :D Thanks
frankthedm 11-22-06, 07:12 PM	My bad... Here is the corrected example. http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/8743/takecoverdm3.gif
Steelthorn 11-27-06, 11:00 AM	How about if there are 2 occupied squares between the archer and his target. Does the target still just get a +4 AC cover bonus or does the bonus increase. Thanks for all the replies.
Vegepygmy 11-27-06, 12:39 PM	How about if there are 2 occupied squares between the archer and his target. Does the target still just get a +4 AC cover bonus or does the bonus increase.Still just +4.