Cover and Spellcasting

[Caliban]

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.

Sure thing:

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.

This was in response to a post of mine where I as talking about leaning around a corner to cast a spell, then on your next action casting another spell spell and leaning back.

Your statement pretty clearly indicates that you don't think leaning around a corner to cast is possible at all. If you say that you were only talking about leaning out and then back, that's fine, but I'm not a mind reader. My post wasn't talking about leaning/casting/leaning in the same round, and since your post was quoting mine, why on earth would I assume that you were talking about that? I can only assume that you are referring to the text you are quoting at the beginning of your post.

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.

That certainly seems to be what you were doing. I tried a couple of times to make it clear what I was saying, and all you said was that you didn't agree with leaning.

It seems especially true since you decided to go off with your "pedestal of godhood" crack instead of attempting to clear up a possible misunderstanding.

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.

Given the nature of most of your posts, that's pretty obvious.

I'm a little too old for that.

I remain unconvinced.

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.

Is that really the only possible meaning? Where do you get this certainty? Why is it that you believe that you know what I "truly believe" and think? Is it possible that you are on your own little pedestal of godhood?

Why is that you feel this need to resort to name calling? I have not done so, except in response to a direct personal attack from you. Up until that point I was trying to make sure that we were on the same page, and you seemed to be saying "yeah we agree on this part, but not that part, if you do that it's a house rule."

Then you got very rude when I pointed out that it wasn't a house rule. Now you seem to be saying that it's a misunderstanding, but you persist in the personal attacks. I might have accepted that earlier, but now I think the misunderstanding was on your part and you just don't want to admit it. But that's OK, I'm sure we all understand now.

 

[Caliban]

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?

What about it? The spell is doing the moving, not the character. The fact that it moves out of the way part of the time is probably why it grants 3/4 cover instead of total cover, if you want to look at it that way.

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?

Cover generally applies it's AC bonus to both parties when it comes to melee attacks. With ranged attacks, it's easy to get more benefit from your cover than your target does. (i.e. they either get a reduced cover bonus or none at all).

See the PHB, page 132, 2nd column, first paragraph just below Table 8-8.

 

[kreynolds]

Is that really the only possible meaning? Where do you get this certainty? Why is it that you believe that you know what I "truly believe" and think? Is it possible that you are on your own little pedestal of godhood?

Why is that you feel this need to resort to name calling? I have not done so, except in response to a direct personal attack from you. Up until that point I was trying to make sure that we were on the same page, and you seemed to be saying "yeah we agree on this part, but not that part, if you do that it's a house rule."

Then you got very rude when I pointed out that it wasn't a house rule. Now you seem to be saying that it's a misunderstanding, but you persist in the personal attacks. I might have accepted that earlier, but now I think the misunderstanding was on your part and you just don't want to admit it. But that's OK, I'm sure we all understand now.

Oh. I see. Very slick. You go on the offensive with me, then I respond in kind, and now you go on the defensive as if you are an innocent little deer named Bambi. Sure thing buddy. Absolutely. You're right. LOL

 

[Caliban]

Oh. I see. Very slick. You go on the offensive with me, then I respond in kind, and now you go on the defensive as if you are an innocent little deer named Bambi. Sure thing buddy. Absolutely. You're right. LOL

Well, I'm glad that's cleared up.

 

[kreynolds]

Well, I'm glad that's cleared up.

Sure thing buddy.

 

[IceBear]

Wow Caliban....KReynolds really does seem to go out of his way to attack you - I guess I'm happy that I'm not a board acknowledged rules guru if that's the kind of crap you get.

From reading the posts, I too, thought that he was saying that he wouldn't allow leaning around corners at all , and thus you posted your rules quote showing that that it was, indeed, allowed.

He stated that he meant that he didn't support leaning, shooting, and leaning back but it just didn't seem that way when I read the post. I can somewhat understand his frustration if that's what he meant, but I just don't see it.

IceBear

 

[kreynolds]

Wow Caliban....KReynolds really does seem to go out of his way to attack you..

Nope. I don't attack him. I just don't lie down and take crap from him because he is supposedly a guru. I don't give away respect for free.

He stated that he meant that he didn't support leaning, shooting, and leaning back but it just didn't seem that way when I read the post. I can somewhat understand his frustration if that's what he meant, but I just don't see it.

That is what I meant. In fact, here is my proof.

Currently, the closest you can come to this is "take a 5-foot step, cast your spell, use your haste partial action to move back behind cover".

If that isn't obvious enough as to what I meant, then I don't know what is. That was also a previous post, and since I didn't change my stance on any later posts, it applies to all of them.

 

[IceBear]

Yes, Kreynolds, I know that you didn't support leaning, shooting, and leaning back from your posts, neither did Caliban. However, this quote that Caliban pointed out :

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.

seemed to imply you wouldn't allow lean and shoot either. All Caliban was doing was stating that the rules do allow a lean and shoot concept.

IceBear

 

[kreynolds]

All Caliban was doing was stating that the rules do allow a lean and shoot concept.

IceBear

I realize that. But if he had read my previous posts, well, we wouldn't be in this mess, because I already agreed. Take a look at this earlier post of mine, IceBear...

Sometimes its better to ask "should I" rather than "can I". This is simple. I would give someone a cover bonus and allow them to cast a spell on a creature beyond the wall if the wall did not fully extend to the edge of the square the caster is standing in. In other words, if the wall was short. But it's rediculous to allow a caster to "lean out, fire, and lean back in". There was a good reason they didn't include that.

Currently, the closest you can come to this is "take a 5-foot step, cast your spell, use your haste partial action to move back behind cover".

That was my post. That was my position. As you can see by the last paragraph, I was in agreement with Caliban. But for some reason, he appeared to take it personally. This was his reply to that post...

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).

That was Caliban's reply. For some reason or another, he became insulting and condescending. Why? I don't know.

So, what I can't figure out, is why would Caliban reply in such a demeaning manner when I blatantly and obviously agreed with him? Answer: Caliban hasn't been too crazy about me ever since the argument about Haste and Speed weapons, an argument in which the local guru was proven "wrong" about the rules of said discussion. I got beaten up, down, left, and right because I was right. You draw your own conclusions.

 

[Caliban]

That was Caliban's reply. For some reason or another, he became insulting and condescending. Why? I don't know.

Because it wasn't showing agreement, as I pointed out. Your post seemed to indicate that I was advocating a "lean out, shoot, lean back" approach, when I did never did. Apparently you were commenting on someone else's post, and not mine. If that's the case, you really need to indicate that better.


You then said you would only allow somoene to shoot around a corner if the wall didn't extend to the end of the square the character was in, if it was "short". Basically saying that the rules wouldn't allow it otherwise.

That is what I disagreed with, and your next post seemed to confirm that position. That is when I did the full rule quote.

So, what I can't figure out, is why would Caliban reply in such a demeaning manner when I blatantly and obviously agreed with him? Answer: Caliban hasn't been too crazy about me ever since the argument about Haste and Speed weapons, an argument in which the local guru was proven "wrong" about the rules of said discussion. I got beaten up, down, left, and right because I was right. You draw your own conclusions.

You did not blatantly and obviously agree with me. In fact, it appeared that you accepted only part of what I was saying and disagreed with another part.

I haven't been "too crazy about you" (as you put it) because of the attitude and general lack of respect you show other people. The thread you are referring to was just the first time I had to deal with it personally. The "beating" you took had nothing to do with you being right or wrong, it had to do with how you treated people you were debating with.