Huge size and AoO

[Vegepygmy]

Except let's remember, as Herzog pointed out, that P2 does indeed have cover from P1 according to RAW, so no AoO.

I have no idea what you're talking about. In his first response to this thread, Herzog (correctly) states:

(1) "P2 does not have cover in the square he is leaving."

And he goes on to quote the relevant rules that explain why P2 doesn't have cover. So where does Herzog "point out" that P2 does indeed have cover?

Now, I personally don't count corners as part of a border, but that's not RAW.

The question isn't whether the corners are part of the border; it's whether a one-dimensional line intersecting said corner "passes through" the border. (It doesn't.)

Unfortunately, veg doesn't seem to want to comment about that.

What else do I need to say?

 

[Herzog]

To set the record straight, I said:

1. In the example, in the square P2 is leaving he does not have cover.
Therefore, C gets an attack of oppertunity.

2. If C wasn't large (but still had the reach) the quoted texts come into play, where reach uses the rules for ranged attacks in regard to cover.

In other words, in the example: AoO, but more generic in regard to reach weapons and soft cover: no AoO.

If 'crossing' corners is considered enough for cover in your game, rule 2 would apply.

 

[Vegepygmy]

2. If C wasn't large (but still had the reach) the quoted texts come into play, where reach uses the rules for ranged attacks in regard to cover.

I don't follow you. C's size is irrelevant. What matters is that C is attacking an opponent who isn't adjacent to C. That's why you use the rules for ranged attacks to determine cover.

In other words, in the example: AoO, but more generic in regard to reach weapons and soft cover: no AoO.

I wish you would use complete sentences so I could be sure I understand you. It seems you think there is some "generic" situation in which C would not get an AoO, but I don't know what you think that situation is.

 

[Herzog]

There are four (sets of) rules at work here we have to take into account:

1. The rules regarding attacks of oppertunity, which state you get an attack of oppertunity if someone leaves a square that you threaten.
2. The rules regarding threatening a square, which state you do not threaten a square if a creature in the square has cover.
3. The rules regarding reach weapons and cover, which state you need to use the rules for ranged attacks to see if a creature has cover.
4. The rules regarding ranged attacks and cover, which state you can take any corner of your occupied space and trace to the opponent's square to see if the target has cover.

My 'generic' comment in my earlier post refers to the situation where you have a monster (C) that occupies a single square, but still with the same reach (possibly through use of the Warshaper's Morphic Reach or something similar), with P1 between C and P2.

All the above rules still apply, but this time the lines from a corner of C's occupied space DO cross through the borders of the square occupied by P1, which means C does NOT get an attack of oppertunity.

 

[Vegepygmy]

My 'generic' comment in my earlier post refers to the situation where you have a monster (C) that occupies a single square, but still with the same reach (possibly through use of the Warshaper's Morphic Reach or something similar), with P1 between C and P2.

All the above rules still apply, but this time the lines from a corner of C's occupied space DO cross through the borders of the square occupied by P1, which means C does NOT get an attack of oppertunity.

Thank you. Now I understand. And you are, of course, quite correct.

(Actually, the lines do more than just cross through the borders of P1's space, they cross through the space itself. But the end result is the same: cover, and thus no AoO.)

 

[radmod]

All the above rules still apply, but this time the lines from a corner of C's occupied space DO cross through the borders of the square occupied by P1, which means C does NOT get an attack of oppertunity.

Sorry, I got so busy with work I forgot about this.

Yes, this is exactly what I've been saying all along (and why I got confused about your original answer).

This is why we generally don't count corners as part of the border.
At one point, we house-ruled that "passing through" meant entering one side of the line and exiting the other side (like east-side & west-side). Passing through the corner point in the original example enters and exits the same side of the line.
However, we then began getting into how big the object was. For example, shooting an arrow around a corner of a building where it only goes through the corner point was okay, but hurling a boulder wouldn't be.
*shudder* Too much work in all that!