Clarification on attacking around corners

[DracoSuave]

Indeed. lol

 

[ForbidenMaster]

No they don't. They don't say if no line is blocked, the target does not have cover. That's where the rules for cover terrain and corner cases come into play--the PHB is not the 'THIS IS ALL THE RULES OF THE GAME' book, never has been, never will be, and has never pretended to be.

Youre right, I should have said "the PHB effectively says..."

A DM should have read through the DMG. Everything says that. It's not exactly 'You -might like to read this.-' It's considered mandatory for running the game.

Im sure it does pretty mutch say "You -might like to read this.-" I dont have access to my books right now, but unless I am horrably mistaken it does say (in not so many words) "make a quick and simple ruling and if you absolutly care to spend more than 2 seconds on cover then go to the DMG."

And if players argue 'It's in the DMG' has always been good enough. Just cause they print the books with a white background for the logo doesn't change that.

I dont think anyone is arguing that these rules (the melee cover rules) are available and can be enforced.

It leaves it up to the -DM- to decide which take precedence. It's not up to my players whether or not I use the DMG. And if they -expect- that, they're not focused on the right aspects of the game, imho.

Its pretty much six of one, half a dozen of the other, no? A DM isnt going to DM a game where the party wont follow the DMs rules and a party wont play a game that doesnt include the rules that it wants. I would liek to think that people are a bit more civil about such things and come to some sort of concensus.

No, the core rules present one option. In general, unbroken lines between corner and target's corners provide no cover. Specifically, corners provide cover in melee.

You know. Specific beats General.

There's no real problem here. One is correct most of the time, and the other is correct in its specific case.

Agreed, except that (as far as I can recall from memory) the PHB (and I believe the DMG as well for that matter) gives the option of flat out ignoring that specific rule which groups such as Obryns have done. With wording (that I believe is there) such as this, I find it hard to catagorically say "youre doing it wrong" as per RAW for whatever that is worth. Also, with such wording I find it hard not to say that at the very it least it can be ambiguous.

Personally, just looking at two creatures in melee arround a corner and not giving cover screams to me "youre doing it wrong," but as I said above, the PHB and DMG (from what I can recall) seem to make the issue ignorable.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In general the wording in the first PHB has many ambiguous sections.
But in tis case its less ambiguous than you think. Logic and common sense both support the assumption that corners provide cover. And as Draco mentioned: the rules (specific beats general) also support this.

Also the rules in the DMG which are only presented for rules lawyers (it is stated there) tell you explicitely that corners provide cover... after telling you that it is not worth the time in an RPG to draw imaginary lines in general.

 

[Obryn]

Folks, I'm not arguing that a DM would be in the wrong to use Corners as Cover. I'm not arguing that a player would be justified in arguing about it with their DM, either, but that's kind of a general rule for me that goes without saying. I'll also concede the point that most groups play with corners as cover. All I'm saying is that the rules in the PHB allow for my interpretation, and that the rules in the DMG are presented as an option.

But yeah, I'll also concede the point that RAI is most likely that corners present cover. You win!

-O

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The problem is that they don´t allow your interpretation... you are misinterpreting them.

The problem is, that they could have worded better that this misinterpretation isn´t prevented. But if you read them without trying to willfully misinterpret them it is very easy to rule it like it is intendet.

this misinterpretation could have easily been prevented, when the header had said: determining cover for ranged and area attacks...

actually i don´t know if you have cover from the area attack if the point of origin is in melee around a corner...

The whole PHB 1 suffers from tis problem. They flat out forgot to give this book to someone not familiar with the rules for proof reading... I even find all the ranger attack powers with 1-3 attacks ver confusing: is 3 targets, 3 attacks 3 attacks or 9? A major annoyance which made me doupt if i want to have this book with such obvious oversights in it...

 

[Obryn]

The problem is, that they could have worded better that this misinterpretation isn´t prevented. But if you read them without trying to willfully misinterpret them it is very easy to rule it like it is intendet.

Wow, that's a bold statement! I'm willfully misinterpreting it, rather than interpreting it differently!

I had no idea that I'm not engaging in honest debate, but rather gleefully trying to ruin the rules of Dungeons and Dragons! Thanks for setting me straight!

-O

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Ok, taken out of context this sounds a bit harsh... :/ sorry.

Let me rephrase it:

If you are familiar with a ruleset and youse common sense in adition to the presented rules, most rules are easy to interpret right.
A good proof reader however should misinterpret it as much as the written word allows. The discussion does not prove that the rules are wrong here, but that the wording could and should have been better.

So you are right that the paragraph needed a different header.
The only thing I blame you, that you insist(ed) on argueing that the rules presented in the PHB contradict those in the DMG, which the actually don´t.

edit: seems i was not reading your last post properly... you conceided and said we win... so i really have to say that I am sorry and i really didn´t want it to sound as a personal insult.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You win!

Now if only we could apply that statement to the Red Sox in the ALDS.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's not what it says, actually.



You choose one corner of your own square, and measure to all corners of one square the defender occupies. Then you count the number of blocked lines from that corner to all corners of one square of your enemy's space (and note - the attacker chooses which square). So, if we are standing around a corner, I choose the corner adjacent to the defender's square as the origin of my attack, and there is no cover.

It's different from 3e, where corners did create cover in melee situations.


If our corners are adjacent, I can choose that corner as the origin. It is impossible for any lines from that corner to be blocked to any corner of the defender's square I choose.

-O

Actually, the way I put it is perfectly correct. As UngeheuerLich pointed out, corners are specifically grandfathered in as a form of cover by the rules on PHB p280. When you consider that, the results from the DMG and PHB are very close to being identical in their results except corners by the DMG method don't provide cover when you attack around them with ranged attacks. It is really up to the DM to decide in a given situation which is most appropriate. No matter which set of rules you use for these determinations there are certain corner cases which simply don't come out terribly well, like certain configurations of enemies providing superior cover vs other configurations where you have to shoot through much greater numbers of enemies testing out as ordinary cover. Nothing but DM common sense can prevail.

 

[eamon]

Let's call it an area where D&D 4.5 can use some clarification ;-). My group's also run into the segment "Determining Cover". Eventually we realized that it contradicted the opening statement about cover & corners, but not before inconsistently using the cover rules for a few sessions and after wasting a bunch of time discussing the intent. We also finally concluded that the "Determining cover" section probably applies to ranged attacks; in melee a corner or other "significant" obstacle is just defined to be cover and that's that.