Pathfinder 1E Soft Cover

[brunswick]

Hiya folks,

Possibly a slightly simple question.

In the game I ran the other night, the rogue wanted to fire his crossbow at an NPC guard. The problem was that the guard was standing in a doorway and there were 2 player characters standing directly in line between the rogue and the guard. It wasnt possible for the rogue to move to get a better angle (because of the doorway) but the player was asking if he could fire the bolt "through" the party members into the guard. I said that it wouldnt make any logical sense for the rogue to be able to hit the guard but the player suggested instead that the guard would benefit from soft cover and get a +4 bonus to AC. Reading the rulebook, he may have a valid point but I'm really not sure. Is he correct?

Cheers,


Bruns.

 

[frankthedm]

Need more info, notably what is meant by IN the doorway as to how it relates to a combat grid.

 

[BriarMonkey]

RAW, yes, the guard would benefit from cover from the two PCs, which is a +4 to the guard's AC.

Now, based on your description, you do not indicate if this is during combat or not. If it is and the other two are engaged in melee with the guard, note that the shooter is now also firing into combat - which is a -4 to hit for the shooter.

So, at least in my reading of this, you could give the guard +4 to AC, and the shooter also gets a -4 to hit - for a total shift of 8 points between the two. But only if the doorway has the constrictive elements you attribute.

If there is no combat however, if the PCs are close enough, you could give the shooter who misses a chance to strike an ally...

 

[frankthedm]

Was this door at the end of a 5' hallway?

If there was a space to the side of the door, then the rogue should have been able to move to the side then fire. He'd still suffer -4 to hit for firing into melee, but he'd use the rules for "choose a corner of your square" to not suffer from cover with his crossbow shot. The Rogue WOULD have cover from the guard, blocking the AoO.

A fine example of the nuances of the combt grid. If it seems off, remember the ogre in the official example; the rogue didn't have cover against the ogre. By choosing a square of his not adjacent to the rogue, the ogre got to use his reach attack the way ranged attacks work with cover.

#2: The rogue is adjacent to the ogre, but lines from the corners of her square to the corners of the ogre's square cross through a wall. The ogre has melee cover from her, but if it attacks her, the rogue does not have cover from it, as the ogre has reach (so it figures attacks as if attacking with a ranged weapon).

• When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
• To determine whether your target has cover 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 blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).
  [*]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.

Personally, the grid rules leave me longing for Templates and Tape Measures.

 

[brunswick]

Thanks for the replies everyone. Just to clarify a few things, yes it was in combat and the NPC guard was effectively blocking the 5' doorway, with two PCs lined up in the squares directly in front of him. The rogue was about 35' back down the room, directly in line with all three combatants (only the front PC and guard in melee combat). Due to the narrowness of the room, the rogue couldnt really find a more advantageous position, hence him asking if he could shoot through the PCs. For the record, the player is happy to take the penalty for firing into melee (and also allow the guard +4 AC from soft cover) so, if that's "legal" then I reckon that's the way to go from now on.

 

[S'mon]

Given the range and that it's two PCs, I'd probably give a superior cover penalty (-8), but then I'm mean. B)