Precise Shot-Cover Question

[Dr. Zoom]

Actually, it is.



If we give the archer a -4 penalty instead of giving the orc a +4 cover bonus to his AC, the archer's attack roll is modified to a 13. He misses the orc. But his attack roll without the cover is a 17, missing because of the cover, but beating the fighter's AC. He hits the fighter.

Functionally the same, it just depends on how you arrange to operands.

I guess you could do it that way, too. However, by the rules, you should give the cover bonus to the covered target's AC. This is the rules forum, after all.

 

[kreynolds]

This is the rules forum, after all.

Ohhh...So that's what the forum title means. hehe

 

[Storm Raven]

I guess you could do it that way, too. However, by the rules, you should give the cover bonus to the covered target's AC. This is the rules forum, after all.

Well, since the math works out identically either way, it doesn't really make a difference.

 

[coyote6]

The two are functionally the same thing, so pointing out the distinction seems to me to be not that important. Is there some reason why this would be critical?

Well, the shield spell gives a cover bonus to AC, and thus doesn't stack with an AC bonus from actual cover. Possibly a bit easier to remember not to stack the two if they're both changing the target's AC, rather than one affecting AC & the other affecting an attack roll.