Determining Cover

[Abraxas]

This should be a simple question - but we've had a new discussion about it at our game last night.

The text for determining cover for ranged attacks says "To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC)."

Assuming the following situation, where the Xs are the walls, Os are open spaces, A is an archer, and the T is his target

XXXXX
OOOOX
OAOOX
XXOOX
XXTOX

Would the target have cover vs A's ranged attack?
The only two corners A can choose to draw lines from would be the upper or lower right. (well you could choose the upper and lower left, but then the target has total cover). Lines from both the upper and lower right corners go through the border of the wall to the upper & lower left corners of the target. A wall is something that blocks line of effect or provide cover.

Or does "through a border" mean something that I'm missing?

The reason this is in Pathfinder RPG discussion is the Core rulebook includes a diagram that references determining cover that appears (to me at least) to contradict the text of determining cover. I'm hoping one of the Paizo folks stops in to say what is correct.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Abraxas]

Just a couple notes - Pathfinder doesn't have partial cover and cover stops AoOs.

One of the reasons my group is having this discussion is due to the diagram (pg 194) in the core rulebook used for determining cover with large creatures. The descriptive text of that diagram states "The ogre has melee cover from her, but if it attacks her, Merisiel does not have cover from it, as the ogre has reach (so it figures attacks as if attacking with a ranged weapon)." However, if you draw lines from corners of the ogre's squares they go through a border of the wall and a wall normally blocks line of effect or provides cover. This appears to contradict the text for determining cover vs ranged attacks.

Does Pathfinder use the same guideline that text trumps tables/diagrams?

 

[Xendria]

The line in this that makes all the difference is "... as the ogre has reach (so it figures attacks as if attacking with a ranged weapon)." The difference between ranged and melee cover in this scenario is that with melee you check every corner, if any line pass through a solid surface it provides cover. Ranged however you pick ONE corner and check it against your opponents. Therefore, since the ogre attacks as if ranged, he checks his top left or right corner vs. Merisiel and has line of effect to all 4 corners. This then gives him free reign to beat her face in as if she had no cover.

Side note: Pathfinder does indeed have partial cover. Page 196.

Partial Cover: If a creature has cover, but more than half the creature is visible, its cover bonus is reduced to a +2 to AC and a +1 bonus on Ref lex saving throws. This partial cover is subject to the GM’s discretion.

And here's the ranged cover exerpt from the book:

To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).​

And melee cover (note the "any corner"):​

When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall).​

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted
​

 

[Xendria]

Beat ya ;P

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Abraxas]

Thanks for the heads up on partial cover - hadn't seen that.

As for the ogre example - I understand it picks one corner to determine cover from. However, in the diagram on page 194, if you select any of the top corners of the ogre's occupied squares, lines from those corners go through the border of the wall Merisiel is by to get to the lower right corner of her square.

Or do you interpret the phrase "through the border" to mean the line has to intersect the border? If it means the line intersects the border, isn't it unnecessary - because any line that intersects the border would also pass through the square that provides cover.

As an aside - as far as I've been able to determine the text (and relative diagram) for determining cover for ranged attacks originally came from the Miniatures Handbook. In the MHB the full descriptive text is as follows

"To determine whether a creature has cover from a ranged attack, the player who controls the attacking creature chooses a corner of a square in the attacking creature’s space. If any line traced from this point to any part of the target’s space passes through a square or border that provides cover, the target has cover.

The target does not have cover if the line runs along or merely touches the edge of a wall or other square that would otherwise provide cover."

The exception about a line running along the wall wasn't included in the 3.5 update nor was the contradicting diagram.

 

[Xendria]

In my opinion, I think it means cross a border or square. The line running along the border wouldn't affect it at all. This would also corrispond with the diagram.

Atleast this is how I've always played it. It's sound and gives reach that extra little threat

 

[Abraxas]

It also creates a strange case where an opponent in the adjacent diagonal square can shoot around the corner with no penalty and with no risk of an AoO, but you can't make a melee attack back at them without the penalty.

We originally (3E) went center to center, then after the MHB came out, the corner to corner method was used (including the exception of shooting along edges). When 3.5E came out, this was revisited again, but the DM just got tired of arguing about it (or so I believe) and we kept the 3E MHB method. When Pathfinder came out I decided to use those rules and chuck all the previous stuff - and now I have a contradiction.

Is there any situation where you could be drawing a line through a border (but not along it's edge) of a square that provides cover that doesn't also go through the square? If not the "through a border" portion of the text makes no sense.