Cover/Concealment

[Gruns]

Hey all.
Are there any very good FAQ's regarding cover/concealment out there? Our group normally gets along just fine, and I usually just go with what seems logical when it comes to rules disputes, and everyone is usually fine with that. However, recently we're having trouble agreeing with cover.
Picture this: A manticore on the corner of a flat roof versus a ranger out in the open about 15 feet down and 5 feet away on the ground below. As the ranger shot at the manticore, I gave it +4 AC as the angle would have given the manticore some cover. I informed the PC of this, no problem. The problem occured when the manticore shot some tail spikes back at the ranger. Two of the spikes hit the ranger's AC exactly. The ranger's PC argued that because the manticore had cover, the ranger should have cover. I told him the ranger was standing in the middle of nothing, and had no cover at all. He then quoted the PHB about "If you can draw a line from your square to an opponent's and pass through cover, then you have cover." (or something; paraphrasing) I told him this made no sense, but couldn't find a way to disprove the theory. So I told him the manticore flew up, out of cover, shot his spikes, then flew back to the roof. This rules workaround seemed unecessary to me.

Unfortunately, it wasn't until after the session that I think I found the key to what I was missing. On pg 151 of the PHB, the last line of the "Low Obstacles and Cover" paragraph mentions that the attacker can ignore cover if he is closer to the obstacle than his target. This makes perfect, logical sense to me and is what I was trying to show him.

Now concealment. Can someone tell me if there's a similar rule regarding concealment? Picture a guy hiding in the weeds along a road. According to the PHB, if he shoots at a person standing wide open in the middle of the road, he has a 20% chance to miss due to the fact that a corner of his square passes through concealment. This makes no logical sense to me, thus I feel I'm missing something. Anyone have any help here? Thanks
Later!
Gruns

 

[TheGogmagog]

The situation described is a textbook example of Low Obstacles and Cover. When I DM I extrapolate that rule to apply to horizontal situations also. A archer behind a 2' diameter tree wouldn't suffer penalties firing at somone 25' away. It's not explicitly written that way, but it's not a contradiction of what's written either.

Now concealment. Can someone tell me if there's a similar rule regarding concealment? Picture a guy hiding in the weeds along a road. According to the PHB, if he shoots at a person standing wide open in the middle of the road, he has a 20% chance to miss due to the fact that a corner of his square passes through concealment. This makes no logical sense to me, thus I feel I'm missing something. Anyone have any help here? Thanks
Later!
Gruns

There is no similar ruling for concealment, explicitly it specifies that it always affects both parties. I agree that it would make sense to be able to ignore the concealment in your own square, and only suffer concealment from the targets square up to you, but it's contrary to RAW. I try not to make house rules, only house rulings so I let this one go as written. I also don't know if it be unbalancing, if a rogue were to use it to sneak attack out of the edge of darkness or fog cloud.

 

[frankthedm]

I'll start by saying this: combat in 3D is somewhat blurry.

Picture this: A manticore on the corner of a flat roof versus a ranger out in the open about 15 feet down and 5 feet away on the ground below.

Pictured

I agree with you with your aplication of the low cover rules in this situation. I find it incredably difficult assume a feline shaped creature a 10' high profile to shoot at. {Maybe if it was flying.]

As the ranger shot at the manticore, I gave it +4 AC as the angle would have given the manticore some cover. I informed the PC of this, no problem. The problem occured when the manticore shot some tail spikes back at the ranger. Two of the spikes hit the ranger's AC exactly. The ranger's PC argued that because the manticore had cover, the ranger should have cover. I told him the ranger was standing in the middle of nothing, and had no cover at all. He then quoted the PHB about "If you can draw a line from your square to an opponent's and pass through cover, then you have cover." (or something; paraphrasing) I told him this made no sense, but couldn't find a way to disprove the theory.

You already did. You told him it made no sence. You should have retorted with either "Keep reading" or "So how do you think arrow slits work?" .

Unfortunately, it wasn't until after the session that I think I found the key to what I was missing. On pg 151 of the PHB, the last line of the "Low Obstacles and Cover" paragraph mentions that the attacker can ignore cover if he is closer to the obstacle than his target. This makes perfect, logical sense to me and is what I was trying to show him.

The rules for "Low Obstacles and Cover" are decent, the Main problem is in a 3d environments the differences between how much a large a large tall{ogre] and a large long{manticore]takes up. I’d disagree with you if an Ogre was in the same spot as the manticore though because its far taller profile would be easier to fire at.

Now concealment. Can someone tell me if there's a similar rule regarding concealment? Picture a guy hiding in the weeds along a road. According to the PHB, if he shoots at a person standing wide open in the middle of the road, he has a 20% chance to miss due to the fact that a corner of his square passes through concealment. This makes no logical sense to me, thus I feel I'm missing something. Anyone have any help here?

I would not think the line checks his own square for concealment, does it? I assume it would count for passing through a border that blocks line of sight{grants total concealment].

 

[Gruns]

Thanks!

Hey all,
Thanks for the replies. Nice pictures. The ranger vs. manticore pic was pretty much dead on, even regarding the way the two were facing. What program was used for those, anyway? As for the Large Tall(Ogre) vs. the Large Long(Manticore) thing, if we were still running 3.0 rules, then the manticore would probably have 3/4 cover vs the ogre's 1/2. However, with the simplification of Cover in 3.5, I prefer to just keep it as it is. +4 if you have cover. +8 if you are well covered. (As in the first replier's example of an archer behind a tree.)

After thinking about the Concealment issue a bit more, it does make a bit more sense that it affect the shooter if the type of Concealment were something like smoke or fog. You could of course easily peer through brush and get a clear shot, but for the sake of simplicity, it's probably best to just treat all concealment more or less as a Boolean state(either Yes or No) and not break it into types of concealment too much.

Anyway, thanks again.
Later!
Gruns

 

[RigaMortus2]

Nice pictures... What program was used for those, anyway?

I think he uses this new program that just came out called MicroSoft Paint

 

[frankthedm]

I think he uses this new program that just came out called MicroSoft Paint

With advanced image-capture technology called Copy & Paste .

Green arrow is the comic character, sprite taken form an arcade game, the manticore is from the D&D arcade games and the ogre is a giant from FF6.

 

[Gruns]

But of course.

Heh. Yeah, it looked like MS Paint, but figured that would be far too much work for such a trivial thread. Figured there might be some kind of Scenario Generator 2.0 software or something out there, complete with D&D iconic monsters. Guess not.
Later!
Gruns

The cracking roof due to ogre weight was a nice touch... AND hand drawn.