Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tonester" data-source="post: 4366952" data-attributes="member: 71788">I don't know if you meant to or not, but that is completely wrong.  Maybe you were referring to cover?If it is low light and my attacker doesn't have low or dark vision, I have concealment which gives him a -2 for attack rolls.  Then, on my turn, if I attack him and happen to have low or dark vision, then I do not suffer a penalty for attack rolls.Another example would be a ranger shooting from an edge of a fog, mist, or darkness spell.  The attacker gets to pick ANY corner of his/her own square for the attack and trace it to all other corners of their target.  Since the attacker's corner isn't IN the concealed area, he/she would NOT be shooting through obscured vision.  But, if someone from outside that concealed area was shooting him/her, they would have to trace to every corner of the player's square.  And, since at least 2 of the corners would be INSIDE the concealed area, they have concealment from their attacker.Because of all this, I'm going to assume you meant cover and not concealment.  In this regard, the PHB and DMG doesn't really talk about it, but from my own personal experiences, many people allow raged attackers to shoot from behind cover without a penalty if it is only 1 square.  An example of this would be a player shooting over a low wall, table, crypt, etc.  It doesn't impeded the attacker's shot, but it does impede the shot of people attacking them behind it.  Again - this isn't covered anywhere in the PHB or DMG.  Technically speaking, RAW, a player behind cover would ALSO suffer a -2 penalty for attacking people since the line traced would always intersect their own cover.</blockquote>

Verification