Cover and Spellcasting

[kreynolds]

Hmm... I'm absolutely sure I never said that they can "lean out, fire, and lean back in", in fact I'm pretty sure I said the opposite. I'll try to rephrase it, since you seem to be having trouble understanding me:

I stated that they could only do one or the other on their turn: Position themselves so that they have cover (Lean out and cast) or cast and then move behind cover (cast and lean back in).

They just can't do both on the same turn, unless they are hasted (as you pointed out).

I hear ya' man. I know ya' didn't say that. All I'm saying is that I don't support leaning around corners, mostly 'cause the rules don't really either. I'm not saying you couldn't add in a house rule that would allow it, I'm just sayin' that you would have to add in a house rule.

 

[Caliban]

I hear ya' man. I know ya' didn't say that. All I'm saying is that I don't support leaning around corners, mostly 'cause the rules don't really either. I'm not saying you couldn't add in a house rule that would allow it, I'm just sayin' that you would have to add in a house rule.

Well, that is completely wrong. No house rules is needed, as it is in the core rules. See the PHB, page 132 and 133, Cover.

Check Table 8-9: Cover and the entry's for 1/2 and 3/4 cover. You will notice that "fighting from around a corner" and "peering around a corner or tree" are listed.

The exact amount of cover is adjudicated by the DM, based on the size of the cover, the size of the PC, and how the PC is positioning himself, or anything else the DM thinks would affect it. (See PHB, page 132, Degree of Cover)

 

[Artoomis]

Actually, I think the rules DO support the "peek around the corner" sort of thing. Keeping in mind the abstract nature of D&D combat, the "peek around the corner and fire" tactic amounts to a certain amount of cover - the DM must decide how much.

I think the PHB even speaks to this, but I'd have to look it up to be sure. Anyway, cover can be a percentage of how much of the round you are visible, not just how much of you is behind the cover. This is an area best left to DM Judgement, but I'll throw in my guidlines (made up just now):

For a "Free Action" spell give 9/10 cover for a full round.
For a "1 action" spell dive 3/4 cover for 1 full round.
For a "full-round action" (metamagic spontaneuos spell) give 1/4 cover for 1 full round.
For a "1 full round" casting time give no cover at all for 1 full round.


Then there is casting with Haste and casting quickened spells with other spells.

For those I suggest:

More than one spell if the longest casting tiem is a free action: 3/4 cover for a full round.
More than one spell if the longest casting time is "1 action": 1/2 cover for 1 full round.
Using Haste to cast a "1 full round" spell as a full-round action: 1/4 cover for 1 full round.

By extension, I'd say that firing a bow in a similar manner would be:

Using a single attack: 3/4 cover for 1 full round.
Using full attack action: 1/2 cover for 1 full round.
Using only the extra attack from Haste: 3/4 cover for 1 full round.
Using a single attack plus a Hasted attack: 1/2 cover for 1 full round.
Using a full attack action AND a Hasted attack: 1/4 cover for 1 full round.

What do you think? Is this reasonable? I think I'll post this to my guide, if you guys think this is a good approach (and if the PHB does indead talk about time exposed as a factor in determining cover).

You could still get 100% cover if you could shoot and move, though, since you are able to actually move away. These are compromises one faces in a combat system that has large amouns of abstractness built into it.

 

[Artoomis]

Seems I was wrong and the rules do NOT mention "time exposed" as part of determining cover at all (maybe I was flashing back to 2e?).

In any case, you SHOULD be able to do something that resembles a "shoot around the corner" sort of manuever. I think you can, but it depends on how the squares line up (it shouldn't, but it does).

Let's say you have a 12' wide street with two buildings on either side forming the opening. Well, how to the squares line up? At a minimum, one side must have only a partial square at corner, providing partial cover if you stand in that square - you'd have teh building in front of you, but only in part of the square.

But if the squares line up exactly (as in a 10' or 15' street), you get either no cover or 100% cover. Seems silly, doesn't it?

You may want to use my suggestion in the post above for this situation, though I have to admit it would be a house rule, but a house rule designed to hande a tricky situation that defies normal logic. You should not be able or not able to do some action solely dependent upon how the squares happen to line up - and, in fact, this situation is handled differently if you don't use any squares at all!

Since miniatures and/or squares are NOT required for the game, maybe my solution is a good one? To more accurately represent what is happening when you want to shoot or cast around a corner.

Thoughts?

P.S. Caliban is dead on about what the rules say, if you assume the squares line up exactly with the street and the buildling you are using for cover.

 

[Artoomis]

Of course, perhaps the best answer is to simply say that casting or firing a bow around a corner is the same as "fighting around a corner" and give 1/2 cover as the rules state.

I would say that in either case (spell or firing bow) you are doing more that just "peering around a corner or tree."

Gee, what a nice, simple answer. I bow to Caliban on this one (I really should have looked the rules over better before posting).

*sheepishly leaves this discussion*

 

[kreynolds]

Well, that is completely wrong. No house rules is needed, as it is in the core rules. See the PHB, page 132 and 133, Cover.

Check Table 8-9: Cover and the entry's for 1/2 and 3/4 cover. You will notice that "fighting from around a corner" and "peering around a corner or tree" are listed.

The exact amount of cover is adjudicated by the DM, based on the size of the cover, the size of the PC, and how the PC is positioning himself, or anything else the DM thinks would affect it. (See PHB, page 132, Degree of Cover)

Caliban? Do me a favor. Climb down from your egomanical pedestal of godhood and pay attention for once. I don't support "leaning around a corner, casting, and leaning back" all in one round unless you are hasted. Do you get it now? Do you wanna needlessly continue to be difficult about this? Do I need to restate my stance over, and over, and over, and over, and over in every single teeny tiny post I make on these boards? No. I don't.

Now, if you and I agree that "leaning around a corner, casting, and leaning back" all in one round without being hasted is out of the question, then stop wasting my time with your pointless arguments when we already agree on the matter.

 

[Caliban]

Caliban? Do me a favor. Climb down from your egomanical pedestal of godhood and pay attention for once. I don't support "leaning around a corner, casting, and leaning back" all in one round unless you are hasted. Do you get it now? Do you wanna needlessly continue to be difficult about this? Do I need to restate my stance over, and over, and over, and over, and over in every single teeny tiny post I make on these boards? No. I don't.

Now, if you and I agree that "leaning around a corner, casting, and leaning back" all in one round without being hasted is out of the question, then stop wasting my time with your pointless arguments when we already agree on the matter.

Kreynolds? Do me a favor. Stop being rude and condescending. Then learn to read.

I have stated multiple times that leaning out and casting then leaning back in one round isn't supported.

However, you went even further and stated that the rules won't let you lean out around a corner at all, and that any rule allowing it would be a house rule, and you were rather condescending about it.

I merely pointed out that the rules do in fact explicitly support the ability to use the corner of a building for cover. This is also known as "leaning around the corner to take a shot." None of this "only if the edge of the building is short" nonsense either.

I don't know where you are getting this "egomaniacal pedastal of godhood" crap from, but it's rather tiresome. Trying to pull it whenever you put your foot in your mouth and I happen to correct you doesn't score any points and only makes you look like a hypocrite.

 

[kreynolds]

I have stated multiple times that leaning out and casting then leaning back in one round isn't supported.

However, you went even further and stated that the rules won't let you lean out around a corner at all, and that any rule allowing it would be a house rule, and you were rather condescending about it.

I know what you stated and I'm not challenging that. But in my post about not being able to lean, I was talking about "leaning and casting and leaning". I'm not going to repeat myself in every single post I make just because you can't follow along with the train of thought. For the record, I never said you couldn't lean around a corner at all. So tell me, where did you get that from? I would be really interested in seeing that post, because I don't remember making it. If you are going to quote me, quote me properly.

I don't know where you are getting this "egomaniacal pedastal of godhood" crap from, but it's rather tiresome.

I'll tell you where I'm getting that from. You went against me on a post before even bothering to find out if you knew what I was talking about. You immediately challenged me when I already agreed with you. Some people might think I was baiting you, but I assure you that's not the case.

Trying to pull it whenever you put your foot in your mouth and I happen to correct you doesn't score any points and only makes you look like a hypocrite.

Again this "scoring points" accusation. Let me say this one more time, Caliban. I don't care if you like me. I don't care if anyone likes me. I don't care about scoring points. I'm not trying to establish a friendship over a frickin message board. I'm a little too old for that. But you seem to believe that I am in fact trying to "score points" off of you. When in fact, I could care less how popular you or I are. I show my true colors constantly and it would appear that yours are shining through right about now. So, since I'm not trying to score points off of you, but you truly believe I am, that can only mean one thing, that you have a much higher opinion of yourself than one would believe, since you are so convinced that you even have points to score from, when I could care less about popularity. I'm done with you.

 

[ashockney]

Excuse me for interupting this love fest, but I've got a couple of other cover-related questions I wanted to bounce off of everyone.

1) Shield spell. Hello? This spell says that "it moves out of the way when you attack" (sounds a little like ducking around the corner and coming back). Do you allow this, have you rule-0'd it?

2) My understanding of cover is that any bonus cover provides to your AC, it also provides to your opponent. This is a very nice built-in defense mechanism to avoid potential abuse. Is this your understanding? Furthermore, I'm having a tough time buying this for some instances, particularly in situations where ranged weapons/spells are used. I can very easily picture someone getting 9/10 cover for themselves (behind an arrow slit) but against an opponent who is some distance away, they should not have any penalty to hit.

Thoughts?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I suppose Cast on the Run would be a reasonable feat, with Dodge & Mobility as prereqs of course. I think Flyby Attack would work as well.

Dr. Zoom has a good point. Spellcasting assumes a line of effect. If the caster has more than 50% cover, it raises an issue of whether there should be a arcane failure chance or Spellcraft check or something. Most DMs do not let PCs or NPCs abuse cover, and drop the whole issue.

Casting Fireballs through arrow slits is explicitly discussed in the core rules.