Huge size and AoO

[anest1s]

Yeah, this has always been problematic to me.

One argument is that since cover requires a line that "passes through" a border, a corner does not count because passing through means to enter at one end and exit through another. In a corner, you are not "passing through" the border because you are entering and exiting on the same side of the border.
Yet, cover is provided by anything whose border blocks line of effect. Line of effect is "like line of sight for ranged weapons." In the example of line of sight on p. 139, the corner obviously counts for blocking line of sight (effect). Therefore, corners count.

That said, take this annoying example:
-----XXXXXXXXX
B ------------------->M
-----XXXXXXXXX

Bowman wishes to shoot Mage. However, Bowman cannot select a corner to fire from where at least one line does not pass through the borders of the walls. Therefore, the Mage has cover. I don't know anybody who would do it that way.

Your example is accurate, and like you said (almost) none would give cover to the mage (if he values common sense over rules).

However, this example is the exactly opposite of your first example as I think it. Someone is in frond of the huge monster, and (IF we accept that corners borders don't count) the huge monster tries to attack riiiight through the corner. Which is almost impossible to succeed (like its logically impossible for the Mage to have cover).

 

[anest1s]

CCC
CCC
CCCP1P2<----

view from the side

from overhead, it seems the huge crature has lots of room....

True, if P1 has 5ft height.

 

[radmod]

However, this example is the exactly opposite of your first example as I think it. Someone is in frond of the huge monster, and (IF we accept that corners borders don't count) the huge monster tries to attack riiiight through the corner. Which is almost impossible to succeed (like its logically impossible for the Mage to have cover).

Right, it's all based on 'corners'.
If you accept corners as blocking, no AoO occurs.
If you don't accept corners as blocking, an AoO occurs.

I think a lot of people treat different corners, well, differently. A creature (like you implied earlier) isn't square but more rounded. Thus if it's a creature I imagine many ignore the corner. Yet, if it's a wall they treat it as blocking.
Actually, from what I've seen most people simply do what they think 'sounds' right for a given instance.
Player: "Wait, no, I have cover!"
DM (and other players): "Yeah, you're right."
In a later game:
Player: "I shoot him."
DM: "Hmm, wouldn't he have cover."
Player: "No, I don't think so."
DM (and other players): "Yeah, you're right."

 

[irdeggman]

Yeah, this has always been problematic to me.

One argument is that since cover requires a line that "passes through" a border, a corner does not count because passing through means to enter at one end and exit through another. In a corner, you are not "passing through" the border because you are entering and exiting on the same side of the border.
Yet, cover is provided by anything whose border blocks line of effect. Line of effect is "like line of sight for ranged weapons." In the example of line of sight on p. 139, the corner obviously counts for blocking line of sight (effect). Therefore, corners count.

That said, take this annoying example:
-----XXXXXXXXX
B ------------------->M
-----XXXXXXXXX

Bowman wishes to shoot Mage. However, Bowman cannot select a corner to fire from where at least one line does not pass through the borders of the walls. Therefore, the Mage has cover. I don't know anybody who would do it that way.

Try it again only lay it out on graph paper or a map - you will find that there is no cover in this example. Hint the line never passes through the wall - it is the wall's edge but it never passes through it - hence it is actually parallel to the border since the edges of a square don't really count as a space - which is one reason you pick an intersection when measuring an area effect.

 

[radmod]

Try it again only lay it out on graph paper or a map - you will find that there is no cover in this example. Hint the line never passes through the wall - it is the wall's edge but it never passes through it - hence it is actually parallel to the border since the edges of a square don't really count as a space - which is one reason you pick an intersection when measuring an area effect.

Sorry, ir, but I don't see that "edges of a square don't really count as a space" exists anywhere. If you find it does say that somewhere, please let me know (it would help solve a few problems).
Cover specifically mentions 'border'. Dictionary.com's first entry for border calls it "the part or edge of a surface or area that forms its outer boundary."
Obviously, if on your graph paper two points are connected by a line then you cannot draw a straight line from one to the other without drawing over (and through) the border of adjacent squares.
Now, if you play that borders don't count (which a lot of people do and I have done) then the example of LOS in the PH (p. 139) would be wrong.

Edit: I forgot to add that we tried at one point to define "passing through" as breaking the plane of a line, e.g. entering one side and exiting another. That allowed us to ignore corners (since you enter and exit the same side of the plane) and the above situation (since you don't break the plane). In the end, though, someone pointed out a flaw in that plan and we dropped it.

 

[Andion Isurand]

True, if P1 has 5ft height.

Yeah, that picture includes the rough minimum height for all sizes of 'tall' creatures

 

[irdeggman]

Sorry, ir, but I don't see that "edges of a square don't really count as a space" exists anywhere. If you find it does say that somewhere, please let me know (it would help solve a few problems).
Cover specifically mentions 'border'. Dictionary.com's first entry for border calls it "the part or edge of a surface or area that forms its outer boundary."
Obviously, if on your graph paper two points are connected by a line then you cannot draw a straight line from one to the other without drawing over (and through) the border of adjacent squares.
Now, if you play that borders don't count (which a lot of people do and I have done) then the example of LOS in the PH (p. 139) would be wrong.

PHB pg 139 the caption for the picture

". .. The line is clear if it doesn't cross or even touch squares that block line of sight."

This is a tad more specific than any of the text under cover since they don't mention "or even touch. . ."

pg 150 under cover ". . .passes through a square or border . . ."

Note the difference in terminology.

Cover must pass through

LOS only needs to touch.

IMO these are specific word differences which have different meaning and were deliberately so chosen.

 

[radmod]

Yet it's equally plausible that each section was written without regard to the other section. Likewise, it's plausible that things were added at differing times. For example, why does it say "through a ... border that ... provides cover", yet it doesn't for creatures ("through a square")? If instead of an actual wall, it was a wall of Orcs, IIRC, you would not have cover.

It still doesn't negate the fact that the bowfire would still pass through the border of the wall.

BTW, I edited my previous.

 

[frankthedm]

There is also this if the DM wants to use it.

Low Obstacles and Cover

A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target.

 

[radmod]

@ frank:

Yeah, that's another one that I personally dislike and have been fortunate enough to get away with it without anyone noticing.
Yes, if you're behind the wall you should get cover and the other guy doesn't.
But, consider the two bowmen trading fire across a low wall and both are either too stupid or don't realize they can get better cover. B1, 25' from the wall, gets cover, but B2, 30' away, doesn't? It's hard to wrap my head around that.

I did have a guy seriously try to claim he had cover because he was next to a low wall. His attacker was on the same side of the wall as he. I critted him just for his effrontery.