Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hypersmurf" data-source="post: 2903117" data-attributes="member: 1656">No, there's a +4 AC for soft cover if the line from your square to your target passes through a square occupied by a creature.&nbsp; It's entirely separate to the penalty for making a ranged attack against a target engaged in melee.That's right.The normal rules (in 3E) say that if an attack roll misses due to cover, it might strike the cover.&nbsp; The normal rules (in 3.5) say that if an attack roll misses due to cover, it misses - there is no chance of it striking the cover.&nbsp; The rules for fireball state that if you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, and attack roll to hit the opening is required, and if this misses, the obstacle is struck.&nbsp; If you aren't attempting to send the bead through a narrow passage, no attack roll is called for by the spell text, nor by the rules for area spells.Note that you don't make an attack roll to strike your target square, modified by cover from the obstacle; you make an attack roll to strike the opening.If we were using the standard 3E &quot;Striking the cover instead of a missed target&quot; rule (a variant rule in 3.5), we would make an attack roll against the AC of the target grid intersection, modified by the cover bonus of the wall-with-arrow-slit (+10).&nbsp; If we struck that AC, we would hit our target grid intersection.&nbsp; If we missed by 10 or less, we would strike the wall.&nbsp; If we missed by more than 10, we would miss completely.But instead, we make an attack roll against the AC of the arrowslit - 10, -5 for Dex of 0, plus size modifier.&nbsp; The AC of our target is irrelevant, as is any Cover bonus (since the wall provides no cover to the arrowslit).It's a completely different mechanic to striking cover, and it applies when sending the bead through a narrow opening.-Hyp.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hypersmurf, post: 2903117, member: 1656"] No, there's a +4 AC for soft cover if the line from your square to your target passes through a square occupied by a creature. It's entirely separate to the penalty for making a ranged attack against a target engaged in melee. That's right. The normal rules (in 3E) say that if an attack roll misses due to cover, it might strike the cover. The normal rules (in 3.5) say that if an attack roll misses due to cover, it misses - there is no chance of it striking the cover. The rules for fireball state that if you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, and attack roll to hit the opening is required, and if this misses, the obstacle is struck. If you aren't attempting to send the bead through a narrow passage, no attack roll is called for by the spell text, nor by the rules for area spells. Note that you don't make an attack roll to strike your target square, modified by cover from the obstacle; you make an attack roll to strike the opening. If we were using the standard 3E "Striking the cover instead of a missed target" rule (a variant rule in 3.5), we would make an attack roll against the AC of the target grid intersection, modified by the cover bonus of the wall-with-arrow-slit (+10). If we struck that AC, we would hit our target grid intersection. If we missed by 10 or less, we would strike the wall. If we missed by more than 10, we would miss completely. But instead, we make an attack roll against the AC of the arrowslit - 10, -5 for Dex of 0, plus size modifier. The AC of our target is irrelevant, as is any Cover bonus (since the wall provides no cover to the arrowslit). It's a completely different mechanic to striking cover, and it applies when sending the bead through a narrow opening. -Hyp. [/QUOTE]

Verification