Soft cover and Large Creatures vs Ranged attack

[zlorf]

Hi,

Just need some clarification.

A Ogre (OOOO) stands at the end of a 10ft corridor and is fighting a PC (F) who is adjacent. Meanwhile a PC archer (A) shoot from down the 10ft corridor and has a clean line of sight to the Ogre and targets the five foot square that doesnt have the adjacent PC in front of.

Does the Ogre get any cover bonus?

A diagram (if it turns out)
-----------------------------
OOF ............................
OO..............................A
-----------------------------
dots . are just to move things to the right

Cheers
Z

 

[ValhallaGH]

In that situation, no, the ogre does not get cover.

 

[Thanee]

The rule for big creatures only applies to melee attacks, so technically the ogre would have cover, yes.

I think it makes more sense to use the same rule for ranged attacks also, however.

Bye
Thanee

 

[MarkB]

The rule for big creatures only applies to melee attacks, so technically the ogre would have cover, yes.

I think it makes more sense to use the same rule for ranged attacks also, however.

Bye
Thanee

Agreed.

One compromise might be to reduce or remove a large creature's size penalty to AC if a ranged attacker is obliged to target a particular section of it in order to avoid cover modifiers.

 

[TheGogmagog]

Ut Oh, I might be in trouble. When I DM'ed I made the ruling that the archer selected a target square to determine line of site, In this case he would pick the lower left hand corner. The defending Oger would not be able to draw cover in that corner, or be in melee. The archer could attack without penalty. The current DM finds the ruling dubious but has been using it (I think) untill further information. I was planning on writing up all the details, and posting references, but haven't gotten around to it.

 

[Thanee]

I'm not so sure, that this is actually wrong. In the cover rules it only speaks of the target's square (though those are written for medium-sized creatures, of course). Picking one square does make a lot of sense.

Also interesting to know in this context:

Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)

If your target (or the part of your target you’re aiming at, if it’s a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the –4 penalty, even if the creature you’re aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Infiniti2000]

I think it makes more sense to use the same rule for ranged attacks also, however.

I don't because then no one would ever have cover unless completely blocked. However, if you consider the ogre as consuming 4 squares vertically (two on the same level as F and two above), then the fighter only blocks 25% of the ogre, not half. In that case, I think it would be reasonable to not allow cover. But, it's not per the rules.