Combatants as Cover & Ref Saves

[KarinsDad]

Dr.Zoom- "The only cover that blocks line of effect is total cover."


This is wrong. Page 150 of the PH. "A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier."

No, what he said is correct, not wrong. What he said also agrees with the quote you mentioned.

By “solid barrier” in that sentence, they are talking about both a solid object and 100% cover. Check the chart at the top of page 133. Total cover: example: on the other side of a solid wall.

The clarification that a line of effect goes through a solid object if there is a one square foot hole explains what they mean by solid barrier. Total cover would be cover without a one square foot hole or any opening which allows less then total cover.

The cover bonus to reflex saves reflects being able to use that solid barrier to avoid bursts attacks. In that situation Dr. Zoom, I totally agree, a solid table should provide some cover, reflecting the idea that you could duck somewhat under the table and avoid most of the fireball. However, the diagram on page 149 clearly shows that people do not block the line of effect for a burst spell. It contines on past them, while it stops at the solid walls. So people do not provide a cover bonus to reflex in that situaiton.

The diagram on page 149 is a picture whose sole purpose is to illustrate what line of effect means and total cover means with regard to it, not what partial cover means.

In other words, the reason that the effect extends beyond the targets in the diagram is to illustrate that if a character is between you and the point of origin, you are STILL within the line of effect of the spell.

However, the diagram cannot be used as proof of whether cover applies due to characters or not.

The only indication we have of that is page 133 (that I could find):

“Add this bonus to Reflex saves against attacks that affect an area, such as a red dragon’s breath or a fireball.”

It does not say to use a lower amount of cover for those types of attacks. If you have half cover from a missile attack at the origin point, you also have half cover from a fireball attack at the origin point. There is nothing to indicate that the degree of cover is lessened.

If you have cover from a table, it applies equally to a Fireball as it does a Missile Attack. This sentence indicates this since there is not “lowering of cover level” in the sentence that gives cover bonus for area effect spells.

If you have cover from a character, ditto.

Btw, you'll note that I had the exact opposite opinion earlier in this thread due to that diagram. But, text in the book always takes precedence over pictures. IMO.

 

[Stalker0]

By “solid barrier” in that sentence, they are talking about both a solid object and 100% cover. Check the chart at the top of page 133. Total cover: example: on the other side of a solid wall.

Solid barrier and 100% cover are not the same thing. A tower shield is considered a solid barrier, but my cover depends on how much I peek out behind it.


The diagram on page 149 is a picture whose sole purpose is to illustrate what line of effect means and total cover means with regard to it, not what partial cover means.

In other words, the reason that the effect extends beyond the targets in the diagram is to illustrate that if a character is between you and the point of origin, you are STILL within the line of effect of the spell.

However, the diagram cannot be used as proof of whether cover applies due to characters or not.


Why does air not provide cover? Why does armor not provide protection against touch attacks? The simple answer is that air does not significantly impede your sword blows in attacking a person, and a person armor does not significantly impede you from touching them. For cover to be cover, it has to be able to block whatever it is your being hit with.

Pg. 28 of the DMG under phase arrow. "The arrow travels to the target in a straight path, passing through any nonmagical barrier or wall in its way. This ability negates cover...."

A normal arrow would see a wall as cover, yet a phase arrow does not. Why?
Because a phase arrow is not impeded by walls.

A fireball is not impeded by a person. I can hope we can all at least agree on this, that a person does not block a fireball from spreading. If the fireball is not impeded by a person, that person can't provide cover. Tower Shields, walls, even Zoom's upturned table are solid objects capable of blocking the burst of a fireball and as such can be used for cover and your bonus to reflex saves.

[/B]

 

[KarinsDad]

A fireball is not impeded by a person. I can hope we can all at least agree on this, that a person does not block a fireball from spreading. If the fireball is not impeded by a person, that person can't provide cover. Tower Shields, walls, even Zoom's upturned table are solid objects capable of blocking the burst of a fireball and as such can be used for cover and your bonus to reflex saves.

The Line of Effect is not impeded except for any solid object that gives total cover minus less than 1 foot square hole in the object.

So, the overturned table example does not impede unless you are hiding totally behind it (i.e. have total cover). If you are standing behind the overturned table and it covers from the waist down, the Line of Effect still targets you.

Tower Shields impede if you are totally behind them (i.e. total cover), but not if you are looking around them.

And, last I heard, persons are solid objects. Or, at least for all intents and purposes.

So, if I have a few overturned tables between me and the Lightning Bolt point of origin, I have some cover. If I have a crowd of people in armor with backpacks, I do not.

Hmmmm.

Show me in the book where it discusses that people can be cover for missile fire or reach weapons, but cannot be cover for area effect spells.

The only thing you have is that diagram and that is extremely far from conclusive since the entire section there is merely discussing Line of Effect and total cover, not partial cover at all. That entire diagram is illustrating Line of Effect and Total Cover. Nothing else.

The counter position, on the other hand, has the sentence on page 133 which states that cover adds to Reflex save versus these types of spells. And, from what you can tell from that, it means ANY cover.

Not just cover that happens to suit you. Not just Total Cover.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

. . . . .
. . o . .
. . = . .
. . . . .
. . t . .

o is the point of origin for a fireball
t is the target character
= is a 5' wide solid wall with no hole in it
dots are just placeholders, but indicate 5' squares

My question is whether the character gets cover from the fireball.

Clearly, if she were in the square above, and right up against the wall, she would get some cover--total cover, the rules indicate.

But, since a fireball is a spread, it sweeps around the wall, and, in the above diagram, would reach the target, blasting at her from not only the sides, but the front as well.

At this point, is she getting cover from the wall? By being 5' away from the wall, does she forfeit the protection since the fireball spreads around and behind it, or is all that matters the fact that the barrier is between her and the point of origin?

b .
. d
a c
. .
o .

Now, how about this lightning bolt case, where o is the point of origin?

Does d get cover from c? Many here would say yes.

But does b get cover from a?

Does the basis for your answer regarding b getting cover from a differ from your rationale for whether the target in the previous example gets cover from the fireball, since a fireball is a spread?

 

[godfear]

Wow, and here I thought this was going to wind up being another one of my "Get off the boards and read the books, you Peon!" posts... In the end, it appears that some doubts linger.

I'm of the opinion that yea, they should probably get the +2 bonus to saves for the cover, but as a DM, I'm really too lazy to try to remember to implement it. My players and I discussed this before I brought it to the boards to see what you all think, and they were pretty much in the same boat as me.

This all spawned from Wulf's Story Hour, and being denied even a Ref save in a grapple with a huge creature which was between the character and the origin of the spell. Got the wheels turning about creatures, cover, etc... Anyway, thanks for the ideas, folks.

 

[Stalker0]

. . . . .
. . o . .
. . = . .
. . . . .
. . t . .

o is the point of origin for a fireball
t is the target character
= is a 5' wide solid wall with no hole in it
dots are just placeholders, but indicate 5' squares

My question is whether the character gets cover from the fireball.

I know that a lot of people have been disagring with my use of the diagrams for my argument, but I think in this case they are very clear.

Pg. 204 of the PH, shows how a fireball can spread. Unless you are completely blocked off with a large wall, the fireball will get you in this instance. The spell description also specifically states spreads can turn corners. However, for a burst, I would say that piece of wall would completely block the spell past that point, and would count as total cover.

 

[KarinsDad]

I know that a lot of people have been disagring with my use of the diagrams for my argument, but I think in this case they are very clear.

I agree. With regard to Line of Effect and Total Cover, the diagrams tell it all (just not with Line of Effect and Partial Cover where the text and chart on page 133 tell it all ).

Pg. 204 of the PH, shows how a fireball can spread. Unless you are completely blocked off with a large wall, the fireball will get you in this instance. The spell description also specifically states spreads can turn corners. However, for a burst, I would say that piece of wall would completely block the spell past that point, and would count as total cover.

I agree here.

In MC's example, t is protected completely from an area effect spell since he has total cover in front of him UNLESS t is a larger creature and the wall only provides partial cover due to size.

 

[Stalker0]

Hey, me and karinsdad actually agreed!!! Sadly, it just couldn't last


Maybe our problem here is we have a different view of what making a reflex save against a fireball is? For me, its obvious that a reflex save doesn't mean avoiding the attack. If I'm caught in the center of a fireball, I'm not going to be able to get out of the blast radius, it just ain't going to happen (although you could do it wiht a readied action

What I think of, is basically the person is using whatever he's got around him (that can actually do any good) to avoid that attack as much as possible. Most of the time, its basically the person's ability to duck, curl in a ball, or what ever to have as little of his body as possible be hit with the attack.

However, with cover, there's a possibility that you can duck near a solid wall (something that actually blocks the fireball) and have even a better chance to avoid a lot of the fireball (ie. the better reflex save). If your really close to wall at the time the spells cast (9/10 cover), then you can get your body behind the wall and actually take no damage (improved evasion).

However, since a person doesn't impede or block the fireball in any way, its like he's not even there. Sure you could duck behind him, but the fireball will simply make its way, and you fry just like normal.

And as for karinsdad's comment about a wall being no different than a line of bodies with armor, here's the analogy I use.

Say you have a river heading towards a solid wall. If I stand behind that wall, I will get hit by some water, but most of it will go around me. However, if that wall had a hole bunch of holes in it (just like a line of people would be), then the water will shoot through the holes and I get soaked.

I completely agree with everyone who's using pg. 133, I do not dispute that cover provides a bonus to reflex saves. But with the other rules and diagrams I've pointed out, it doesn't seem like the whole story.


BTW, for everyone who does agree with karinsdad's opinion, page 133 of the ph says: "If the covering creature has a dexterity bonus to AC or a dodge bonus, and this bonus keeps the covering creature from behing hit, then original target is hit instead. The covering creature has dodged out of the way and didn't provide cover at all."

So I would say that if you are going to allow people as cover, only do so if they fail their saves.

 

[KarinsDad]

Maybe our problem here is we have a different view of what making a reflex save against a fireball is? For me, its obvious that a reflex save doesn't mean avoiding the attack. If I'm caught in the center of a fireball, I'm not going to be able to get out of the blast radius, it just ain't going to happen (although you could do it wiht a readied action

So, how do you rationalize Improved Evasion when the target is at the center point of the blast? Or, do you just ignore your rationalization in this case?

The point is that you shouldn't over analyze the "how would this occur in real life", rather you should stick to "how does this work with respect to the rules in the game" unless the rules of the game totally do not make sense. Here, they make enough sense that they are not jarringly intrusive on common sense. At least not for me.

BTW, for everyone who does agree with karinsdad's opinion, page 133 of the ph says: "If the covering creature has a dexterity bonus to AC or a dodge bonus, and this bonus keeps the covering creature from behing hit, then original target is hit instead. The covering creature has dodged out of the way and didn't provide cover at all."

So I would say that if you are going to allow people as cover, only do so if they fail their saves.

Since in the case of area effects and Line of Effect, everyone in the area (i.e. not behind total cover) is affected, this quote could not apply as a general rule.

The most you could do is use this quote for our side of the argument when the “covering creature” has Improved Evasion and might actually get out of the way, hence, he might not provide cover in that specific case. But this is so obscure as to be considered a house rule since this is in a section on striking the cover instead of the target which is typically inapplicable for area effects (where it strikes both regardless).

As for when they fail or make their saves, they still take damage, hence, they still provide cover. I would not put in a special rule for that. It just complicates the game forcing people to roll saves in a certain order or whatever.

 

[Stalker0]

So, how do you rationalize Improved Evasion when the target is at the center point of the blast? Or, do you just ignore your rationalization in this case?


Basically, in those split seconds you can only dodge so well. Improved evasion means that a person has such good reflexes that they instively know how to avoid an attack.

Here, they make enough sense that they are not jarringly intrusive on common sense. At least not for me.

a person standing in front of me, suddenly giving me a better chance to avoid an oncoming fireball makes absoultely no sense to me at all, common or otherwise.



Since in the case of area effects and Line of Effect, everyone in the area (i.e. not behind total cover) is affected, this quote could not apply as a general rule.

The most you could do is use this quote for our side of the argument when the “covering creature” has Improved Evasion and might actually get out of the way, hence, he might not provide cover in that specific case. But this is so obscure as to be considered a house rule since this is in a section on striking the cover instead of the target which is typically inapplicable for area effects (where it strikes both regardless).

As for when they fail or make their saves, they still take damage, hence, they still provide cover. I would not put in a special rule for that. It just complicates the game forcing people to roll saves in a certain order or whatever.

Before, you were saying that ALL the rules that apply to cover with normal weapons applies to area spells,now your saying there are exceptions.

Well that's what I've been trying to say all along!!


In all seriousness though, I'm ready to put this issue to bed. Its been fun, but were not really changing anyone's opinions here. I say someone sent it to williams and cooke and see what they say.