magic missles and targeting

[rijeagle]

Our group is trying to establish the correct rules in 3.5 for magic missle and was wondering if you could help.


My DM and I are having a serious disagreement on how line of sight and cover are supposed to work. I'm playing a wizard, and attempting to target a creature behind another creature. I believe because the covering creature is soft cover, the wizard can target the second creature, but my DM feels that because the first creature blocks my line of sight, the wizard cannot see the second one.

Example:

Wizard: W
Creature: C
Target: T


Suppose this is the situation:



W..........C T




W wants to target T. C is soft cover, and thus Magic Missle can hit T. My DM feels because line of sight is blocked by C, so W cannot see T. Both creatures are medium size.

Am I correct in thinking that you must define the type of cover after establishing a line of sight? In other words, Is the cover partial cover, soft cover or total cover for defining if I'm actually able to see T.

Or am I way off track here and DM is correct that if line of sight is blocked, I cannot see.

Thanks

 

[mhd]

Erm, your W can see T just fine, that's no objection. The line of sight isn't blocked, so you can still visually acquire most of your target. Soft cover provides an AC bonus to T, but that's of no issue with magic missile. Or else you would have exactly the same problem when you want to charm or hold the target.

Rules taken aside, you'd be able to hit your target with a normal missile, too, albeit a little bit harder. So there should be enough space for the magic missile to traverse through.

Bear in mind that magic missile is usually regarded as slightly overpowered for a 1st level spell, so DM's often have some house rules limiting its effectiveness. But I can't remember anything official that would prevent you from hitting...

 

[melkoriii]

The only time you would lose LoS is if "C" was 3 size catigories larger than "T".

In that case "T" would have total cover and so is not in LoS.

 

[Tatsukun]

To an extent it's up to the DM, and to an extent it's not.

If "C" is medium size and so is "T" I can't see any DM trying to prove that "C" provided Total Colver (which is what you need to avoid a Magic Misile). Remember, if you can see a toe, you can shoot the guy with M&Ms.

Just remind your DM that these guys are not filling the whole 5X5X5 cube, so they only provide soft cover. Now, if "C" is a Gelatinous cube or something, then "T" has total cover.

If he still tries to block your M&M effectivness, just remind him that it's weaker at first level than a crossbow but it's still good because it ALWAYS hits. That's the whole point of the spell at first level.

Good luck!

-Tatsu

 

[Hypersmurf]

The only time you would lose LoS is if "C" was 3 size catigories larger than "T".

In that case "T" would have total cover and so is not in LoS.

What's the reference for the "3 sizes" rule? I can't find it under Combat Modifiers with the rest of the cover rules in the SRD...

-Hyp.

 

[andargor]

What's the reference for the "3 sizes" rule? I can't find it under Combat Modifiers with the rest of the cover rules in the SRD...

-Hyp.

He's confusing cover with movement:

Square Occupied by Creature Three Sizes Larger or Smaller: Any creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories larger than it is.
A big creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories smaller than it is.

Andargor

 

[melkoriii]

Nope.

Im talking about cover.

It says that a same size creature gives you half cover. So S+1 would be 3/4 cover, S+2 would be 9/10 cover and S+3 would be full cover.

This maybe a legacy from 3.0 but Im quit sure its in the books some place.

At any rate its still a good rule.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Nope.

Im talking about cover.

It says that a same size creature gives you half cover. So S+1 would be 3/4 cover, S+2 would be 9/10 cover and S+3 would be full cover.

This maybe a legacy from 3.0 but Im quit sure its in the books some place.

At any rate its still a good rule.

Please post ref because to me that doesn't always make a whole lotta sense, especially if you have, for example, a small halfling fighting a huge giant. The halfling could technically run through the giant's space (between its legs) but would have total cover from someone on the other side of the giant?

AR

 

[andargor]

This maybe a legacy from 3.0 but Im quit sure its in the books some place.

I believe it is 3.0, as all I can see in the 3.5 SRD is Cover, Total Cover or "Improved Cover" (DM's call).

The only mention of big creatures as soft cover is this:

Big Creatures and Cover: Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.

Cover = +4 AC, flat. No 3 sizes rule.

Andargor

 

[melkoriii]

Yep they did some simplifiing in 3.5

In 3.0 they said that same size creaters gave 1/2 cover and soforth like I posted above.

In 3.5 they made it less detailed and just said you can use creaters for soft cover (+4 AC).

There is the passages

From SRD 3.5

Total Cover: If you don’t have line of effect to your target he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover.

Varying Degrees of Cover: In some cases, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Hide checks.

This would be a DM call though if the creater gave more cover.

In this case your DM could screw you when you should have more cover.