One-way concealment from forest edge?

[Magus Coeruleus]

Is it possible per RAW to have some combatants at the fringe of a wooded area, such that they enjoy concealment against opponents firing into their shadowy/leafy squares but they can see the opponents out of the concealed area clearly and shoot with no penalty? In other words, if a creature is in a square with concealment, does that mean that anyone outside that square also gains concealment against him or can concealment from a square be "one way"? I think this is logically possible but my reading of the PHB and DMG don't make clear to me if this is actually covered in the rules.

Thanks!

 

[Baumi]

Per "RAW" (PHB 281) it just asks if the TARGET is in a concealed square and says nothing about spaces in between or in your own, so you should be able to shoot without penalty.

But that said the PHB Entry doesn't make sense if there are obfuscating Squares BETWEEN you and the enemy, because you would have no penalty since his square would be not concealing. Of course, any good GM would overrule that anyway

 

[JGulick]

I think the best route of thinking here is to look back at the cover rules. For Cover, you draw lines from one corner of the attacker's square to every corner of the target's.

Thus, if the attacker is at the edge of the woods, they can draw from a the non-wooded edge to all corners of the target's square, while when the target shoots back, at least one of the four corners would need to trace through the wooded square, and thus you could be ruled to have concealment.

In other words, you see out of your square via the best option and other see into your square via the worst.

But I'm not 100% on that.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, the section on line of sight on p. 273 implies what you're talking about even though it's not as specific as it should be. It's at least totally consistent with the 3e rules:

To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has concealment if his space is entirely within an effect that grants concealment. When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you use the rules for determining concealment from ranged attacks.

I can't see any reason not to apply this as is to 4e.

Thanks again!

 

[deleteme123456]

As a DM I've been largely spot ruling it. I argue that a Melee attacker adjacent to you has the ability to hit you fully if you're at the edge of the forest. It's a lot harder to dodge a sword by hiding behind the tree (although I suppose it IS possible) than it would be an arrow. Firing a ranged attack out of that space (in any direction whose first square is not forest) does not have a penalty (for your square anyway).

Now what does bother me is that the wizard can simply shoot right over the forest with no penalty if it's an area attack. The wizard can actually be on the far side of the forest, shoot directly through it (even potentially shooting through 5 squares which I believe the DMG says something about granting superior cover) and be at 0 penalty to hit the clump of minions on the other side that are standing in the open (say with Scorching Burst). Because cover from an area attack only check relative to the origin square, and the origin square's cover or concealment doesn't matter, the wizard gets a free shot just because it's area. I ruled on the fly that there was cover but was challenged after the fact by a player who did check the rules and I agreed that RAW he was correct, there was no cover. Is this really right, 'cuz it seems pretty lousy.

 

[toxicspirit]

Wouldn't 'line of effect' come into play in that scenario?

 

[Mistwell]

I posted another thread similar to this. Frankly, it seems like if you have concealment from something due to being actually in the concealed square, then they have concealment from you per RAW. There is no facing, no "I am at this edge of the square", or anything that lets you not be impacted by your own square's concealment.

 

[webrunner]

There are two kinds of cover:
Cover due to standing in a square that grants cover (such as leaves) and cover due to being partially blocked.


Concealment is specifically due to what square the target is in. According to the DMG, lightly obscured spaces between can grant concealment, but only if there's 5 of them, so it really has to be adjucated on a case by case basis. A square with no light wouldn't block being able to see lit squares behind it, but trees between would probably grant concealment.

That said, per RAW, concealment and 'special' cover automatically grant what you're asking for: that you can shoot from the edge. The only time Cover is both ways is when the cover is actually due to physical walls (using the "line drawing" tests) and the only time concealment is both ways is if both characters are being affected by it or there's 5 squares between.

I posted another thread similar to this. Frankly, it seems like if you have concealment from something due to being actually in the concealed square, then they have concealment from you per RAW. There is no facing, no "I am at this edge of the square", or anything that lets you not be impacted by your own square's concealment.

There is nothing per RAW to suggest that anyone is ever impacted by concealment in their own square, unless it's something that doesnt grant concealment but causes the inability to see like cloud of darkness, or the concealment spans more than one square.

 

[deleteme123456]

Wouldn't 'line of effect' come into play in that scenario?

It does, but if the trees are lightly obscured, does the wizard have LOE or not? It's a good question. I would say that in reality (a bad model, I know) she has LOE to some spaces, but clearly the trees will block other spaces... it seems like simply treating it as cover for all targets of the area burst spell works OK to simulate that, but it's not RAW, and I am trying (and failing!) to stick to RAW whenever possible.

I could mess with a Perception check at -5 (see DMG 61), but what is the DC to see a monster in plain sight? I would not think it very high, so that's not really useful.

DMG 43 says "A tree between a creature and the center of a fireball helps protect that creature from the blast, not a tree between the creature and wizard casting the spell." I disagree with this though: if that tree is large enough to prevent the wizard from landing that fireball in the correct spot...

Actually this raises a very important question. A fireball in 3.5E is a tiny ball of fire that explodes when it reaches its destination, so it has to travel from your fingertips to the correct space. In 4E, do you just "think" a fireball "8 squares forward and 2 squares left" and have it magically appear there? In that case, I guess it is a Line of Sight question, and as long as you can see the square at all, you can think up the fireball there?

 

[Ziana]

Trees are solid objects that provide cover. They should be individually depicted on the map. "Foliage" is not solid and provides concealment; but arrows and fireballs can go through it.