lightning bolt cover?

[AGGEMAM]

Let's also not forget that a tower shield provides absolutely no cover (for anyone) from a fireball, if the person with the tower shield is the one being targeted. I think that is a significant factor in the debate, also.

Actually it does, not to the character holding the shield but to the character in front of the shield holding character.

 

[hong]

Let's also not forget that a tower shield provides absolutely no cover (for anyone) from a fireball, if the person with the tower shield is the one being targeted.

Note that fireball is not a targeted spell.

 

[Stalker0]

Hyp, I agree with you that the mention of fireball in the cover example would mean that there should be some ways to get cover against a fireball. And rereading the spread description, I would be inclinded to say that a piece of wall would do so. I originally would have said no, but I noticed that while spreads can turn corners, it doesn't say that it will move around objects to fill in the space behind them.

Orignally, I would have thought the fireball would have hit the wall, and then not only moved around it, but filled in the space behind it, frying anyone there. But again, my new opinion is that it does not, it will turn corners if it hits something solid, but won't necessarily fill up all the space in its area, especially if the detonation point is on teh opposite side of the wall.

However, I still hold to my original point that a person won't provide cover in this case. They just don't fill up enough space to provide cover against a fireball. It would be a wall with a whole bunch of swiss cheese holes.

 

[kreynolds]

Let's also not forget that a tower shield provides absolutely no cover (for anyone) from a fireball, if the person with the tower shield is the one being targeted.

Not exactly. From the FAQ...

&nbsp&nbspWill a tower shield protect against dragon's breath,
magical rays, and the like? Can the user automatically
make a save against a fireball or even take no damage if
taking total cover behind the shield?
&nbsp&nbspIt depends on the type of magical attack. The shield is a
piece of the user's equipment and attacking a creature’s
equipment is the same as attacking the creature.
&nbsp&nbspIf the magical attack has the shield user as a specific target
(that is it does not merely affect the area that contains the shield
user but is aimed right at the shield user), the shield has no
effect. All rays fall into this category, as does any spell that has
a Target entry in its header and any spell that has an Effect
entry and affects creatures (provided, of course, that the
attacker can and does choose the shield user as a target).
&nbsp&nbspMagical attacks that fill areas (bursts, cones, cylinders, lines,
emanations, and spreads) are subject to all the rules for cover
on page 133 of the Player's Handbook. Note that spread effects
might be able to reach around the shield; if so, the shield
provides only one half cover.

 

[kreynolds]

...it doesn't say that it will move around objects to fill in the space behind them.

I believe it can if it can "turn" far enough. Check out the fireball illustration on page 204 of the PH to see what I mean by "turn".

 

[ashockney]

Wow. This is a good one. I almost posted as a "snap" DM decision, then thought about the rule, and agreed. I think cover would apply.

What a paradigm shift!

Someone want to run this by the sage, officially?

I think it would apply unilateraly as well, against all "area" effects, including burst, line, cone, etc.

In the instance of multiple people standing in front of each other, I don't think (by any definition) that this provides any "better" cover. It's still 50% cover. There's nothing MORE than a person between you and the point of origination.

Frankly, from a game-balance perspective, I say that this is a GOOD thing, since I've seen fireball rip apart a low level game. Any save bonus would have been welcomed. In addition, it adds a little more value to those "targeted" spells like Chain Lightning.

Great point. Good discussion.

 

[IceBear]

I agree with (I think) Number47. I would allow someone to provide cover if they forgo their save.

Sure, person #2 is getting cover from person #1, but if person #1 dives left and person #2 jumps right he's not getting the same amount of cover as if person #1 just stood there and let #2 hide behind him.

I do think that, by the rules, he would get cover, but it just seems to make the spell more complicated than I think intended.

IceBear

 

[Stalker0]

I believe it can if it can "turn" far enough. Check out the fireball illustration on page 204 of the PH to see what I mean by "turn".

Arg, well I guess I'm back to my original thoughts then

 

[Hypersmurf]

Wow. This is a good one. I almost posted as a "snap" DM decision, then thought about the rule, and agreed. I think cover would apply.

What a paradigm shift!

That's exactly what happened to me

"Well, of course it wouldn't... I mean... oh. Well huh. Fancy that..."

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not exactly. From the FAQ...

"Magical attacks that fill areas (bursts, cones, cylinders, lines,
emanations, and spreads) are subject to all the rules for cover
on page 133 of the Player's Handbook. Note that spread effects
might be able to reach around the shield; if so, the shield
provides only one half cover."

Oh dear.

Where did he get the "provides only one-half cover" from?

What if the shield were angled to provide 9/10 instead of full cover? When the spread wraps around it, does it still provide one-half cover? One-quarter cover? What's the formula for 'downgrading' cover against as spread?

Aargh!

-Hyp.