Determining Cover

[Xendria]

Alot of the time the difference between square and border is wall size. For instance, if it's a building giving you cover, then it's the square. Where as if it is just a wall justting out, not the entire 5-foot square, then it would be the border.

About the corner ranged attacks against melee, yes this does allow a non-modified attack without an AoO, but this is also one of the perks of ranged combat. Ranged often deals less damage, suffers from smaller cover than melee (if melee'ing over a fence there's no cover, if shooting there can be), firing into a melee (can be offset by a feat, but still), and last but far from least AoO with every shot if someone is in melee. If your getting into physicality, I think this would make sense. It's much easier to shoot around a corner than swing a sword past one.

And one last tid bit, what are the chances that melee opponent is in melee with a party member (e.g. Valeros in the diagram with the ogre), that is a -4 right there, why give them technically a -8.

 

[Abraxas]

A lot of the time the difference between square and border is wall size. For instance, if it's a building giving you cover, then it's the square. Where as if it is just a wall justting out, not the entire 5-foot square, then it would be the border.

But even with a thin wall jutting out you would be drawing a line through the square behind it - so you aren't just drawing a line through the border.

I already know how I'm going to deal with the situation. I would like the Paizo people to clarify what they mean so I don't have this discussion in the future. To clarify the rule Paizo should either change the diagram text, include the exception about shooting along an object or remove the "through a border" text.

Changing the diagram text seems easiest to me.

 

[Xendria]

See but if you change the diagram then people are gonna come back with the same issue, just from their game.

And yes your drawing the line through the square but the square it self isn't providing the cover, the wall is, so therefore the square is void in this scenario, the wall is what matters.

 

[Abraxas]

See but if you change the diagram then people are gonna come back with the same issue, just from their game.

Not if the diagram text were changed to say the ogre takes a penalty from cover because the lines go through the border of the wall - and notes its the same for ranged attacks.

And yes your drawing the line through the square but the square it self isn't providing the cover, the wall is, so therefore the square is void in this scenario, the wall is what matters.

It doesn't matter if the square is void. I really doubt you would have this type of argument if your map had a stone wall running down a grid line and a player was drawing a line from one of the PC's corners that intersected it. The wall is in a square (or part of a square) and provides cover, so that square provides cover. Simple - and gets rid of this border confusion.