Superior Cover and Area Attacks

[OnlineDM]

Here's a situation that came up in my home game this evening, and I'm pretty sure we handled it correctly by the rules of the game. However, I'm not entirely comfortable that it makes sense, and I'd like the community's input.

The situation is as follows:

• The party is approaching an orc stronghold
• There's a guard tower made of stone, with arrow slits in it
• Some orcs start firing out of the arrow slits at the party
• Some of the party members retaliate with area attacks (area burst 1 within 10, for instance)

Now, the orcs have superior cover behind the arrow slits, but by rules as written this only gives them cover from attacks whose origin square is on the opposite side of the arrow slit. The PCs, standing on the ground, chose squares inside the tower (within 10 squares of where they are standing) as the origin square for the area burst 1 attacks. The orcs had no cover from these attacks. Poof - toasted orcs!

I had no problem with this in the end, as the archers were dealing serious damage. And I'm pretty sure this is correct by the rules of the game - the PC can see enough through the arrow slit to target a square inside the tower to have the burst emanate from (though it would probably be off the ground by 5 feet or so due to the angle of shooting up at the tower through the arrow slit). But I have to admit that it didn't quite FEEL right.

Maybe the feeling should be, "Sure, your walls can protect you against physical attacks, but against magic you're screwed if you leave a gap for the spellcaster to shoot through." What do you all think? Did I handle the rules correctly? And if so, would you house rule this differently at your table, or is this exactly how things SHOULD work?

 

[Jack99]

If the caster did indeed have LoE inside the building, you played things 100% correctly.

 

[DracoSuave]

Here's a situation that came up in my home game this evening, and I'm pretty sure we handled it correctly by the rules of the game. However, I'm not entirely comfortable that it makes sense, and I'd like the community's input.

The situation is as follows:

• The party is approaching an orc stronghold
• There's a guard tower made of stone, with arrow slits in it
• Some orcs start firing out of the arrow slits at the party
• Some of the party members retaliate with area attacks (area burst 1 within 10, for instance)

Now, the orcs have superior cover behind the arrow slits, but by rules as written this only gives them cover from attacks whose origin square is on the opposite side of the arrow slit. The PCs, standing on the ground, chose squares inside the tower (within 10 squares of where they are standing) as the origin square for the area burst 1 attacks. The orcs had no cover from these attacks. Poof - toasted orcs!

I had no problem with this in the end, as the archers were dealing serious damage. And I'm pretty sure this is correct by the rules of the game - the PC can see enough through the arrow slit to target a square inside the tower to have the burst emanate from (though it would probably be off the ground by 5 feet or so due to the angle of shooting up at the tower through the arrow slit). But I have to admit that it didn't quite FEEL right.

Maybe the feeling should be, "Sure, your walls can protect you against physical attacks, but against magic you're screwed if you leave a gap for the spellcaster to shoot through." What do you all think? Did I handle the rules correctly? And if so, would you house rule this differently at your table, or is this exactly how things SHOULD work?

Take the idea of 'physical' vs 'magical' out of your mind, for it is not truly relevant. Think of it this way, if one of them fired a ray of frost, they'd have just as much trouble as an archer. So, magic is not the determiner.

Instead, think if it as 'grenade' vs 'arrow.' Once you establish that a character can place a magical 'grenade' wherever he likes so long as he can point his fingers, ask yourself... will cover against the outside world protect that guy from a grenade -inside- their little room?

The answer will illuminate you.

 

[Merkuri]

DracoSuave took the metaphor out of my mouth.

Area spells are like grenades you can chuck with pinpoint accuracy. You don't need to see your target to hurt them with a grenade, you just need to get the live grenade close enough to them.

 

[DracoSuave]

Bear in mind: if the point of origin for the area effect is -outside- the cover, then cover (but not concealment) will apply as normal, as judged from that point of origin.

Such a point is moot tho, as the archers have LoE to the party, therefore the party must have LoE to the archers.

 

[OnlineDM]

Once you establish that a character can place a magical 'grenade' wherever he likes so long as he can point his fingers...

This is where I struggle. I do understand the rule, believe me. And I'm fine with it. For flavor purposes, though, I struggle a bit with the idea that a character can place a magical grenade wherever he likes so long as he can point his fingers and have a clear straight line (however narrow) to the spot where he wants the grenade to explode. He couldn't do that if he were throwing a physical grenade - trying to wedge it through the arrow slit from 50 feet away would be quite a feat! But with magic - no problem. He points at a spot in space (which he has line of effect to, via the arrow slit), and the magical grenade explodes right there. Yep, it works just fine in the rules - but it's weird from a flavor perspective.

I think I struggle because not all spells in the game are Magic Missile, where you point and damage is dealt. A regular ranged magical attack, such as Skewering Spikes, still takes cover into account. I know that area attacks take cover FROM THE ORIGIN SQUARE into account, too, but I think I mentally get the impression that pointing your finger (or wand or staff or orb...) and having the magic burst from it has the possibility of inaccurate aim. In fact, it does not. The magic goes exactly where the spellcaster wants it to go, but there's a chance that the target can dodge out of the way (versus Reflex) or withstand the physical or psychic trauma (versus Fortitude or Will). Cover helps in those situations because it gives the target a place to duck behind (versus Reflex) or something to absorb some of the trauma (versus Fort or Will) (though that one is tougher to rationalize from a flavor perspective).

I just have to shift my thinking to realize that magic attacks don't ever miss the spot they're aiming for. They hit that spot, but the target might have moved out of the way or shaken off the impact physically or mentally. It's fundamentally different from a physical attack with an arrow or a thrown grenade, and that's all there is to it.

Anyway, thanks for chiming in, everyone! It seems that I'm the only one who struggles with this, which makes it easier for me to say to myself, "Just get over it!"

 

[Merkuri]

If it makes you feel better, you can say that if the spell misses all targets that it actually hit the wall and never made it inside.

 

[DracoSuave]

This is where I struggle. I do understand the rule, believe me. And I'm fine with it. For flavor purposes, though, I struggle a bit with the idea that a character can place a magical grenade wherever he likes so long as he can point his fingers and have a clear straight line (however narrow) to the spot where he wants the grenade to explode. He couldn't do that if he were throwing a physical grenade - trying to wedge it through the arrow slit from 50 feet away would be quite a feat! But with magic - no problem. He points at a spot in space (which he has line of effect to, via the arrow slit), and the magical grenade explodes right there. Yep, it works just fine in the rules - but it's weird from a flavor perspective.

How is it wierd? The magical grenade pops into existance at the exact spot he's pointing at. He's not firing an arrow at it. There's no 'he could miss his intended square' because he's using the powers of the cosmos to make it come into existance on that specific spot.

I think I struggle because not all spells in the game are Magic Missile, where you point and damage is dealt. A regular ranged magical attack, such as Skewering Spikes, still takes cover into account. I know that area attacks take cover FROM THE ORIGIN SQUARE into account, too, but I think I mentally get the impression that pointing your finger (or wand or staff or orb...) and having the magic burst from it has the possibility of inaccurate aim.

Where does it say the magic appears from the wizard? It does not. 'Square of Origin' means the origin of the magic. Is it difficult to imagine wizards snapping their fingers and having things pop into existance? It shouldn't be. It's their job.

In fact, it does not. The magic goes exactly where the spellcaster wants it to go, but there's a chance that the target can dodge out of the way (versus Reflex) or withstand the physical or psychic trauma (versus Fortitude or Will). Cover helps in those situations because it gives the target a place to duck behind (versus Reflex) or something to absorb some of the trauma (versus Fort or Will) (though that one is tougher to rationalize from a flavor perspective).

Absolutely. But they're not dodging anything coming from the wizard, they're dodging (or withstanding) based on the origin of the magic, which is inside their room.

Stop imagining the wizard pew-pewing a beam that turns into an explosion. They don't do that. They create explosions out of thin air.

I just have to shift my thinking to realize that magic attacks don't ever miss the spot they're aiming for.

That's because magic doesn't aim for that spot. It simply exists where it was not. That's what makes it magic.

They hit that spot, but the target might have moved out of the way or shaken off the impact physically or mentally. It's fundamentally different from a physical attack with an arrow or a thrown grenade, and that's all there is to it.

That's magic. You're calling stuff into existance where it was not before. If you can conjure a fire warrior in thin air, an explosion is nothing.

Anyway, thanks for chiming in, everyone! It seems that I'm the only one who struggles with this, which makes it easier for me to say to myself, "Just get over it!"

 

[malraux]

That said, for the future you could simulate something that would have the same effect. Surely the castle and tower builders of the world would know that Area spells and prayers would have such an easy time and build countermeasures into the building of the arrow slits. A series of runes and guards that disrupt magical effects that pass through them, for example, might force the attack to suffer a -2 to -5 penalty to all the attack rolls.

Wizard PC: Ok, I'm going to target Fireball in the center of that tower, since I have LoE through the slit.

DM: As your mind begins to utter the words of power for the spell, you hear a high pitched whine in your mind; as you finish and hurl the magic forward, you feel a discordant feedback try to cancel out the spell. Your attack is at a -5 penalty.

Arcana (Medium DC): You know that some defensive positions took magic into account. Any attack which has a line of effect through the arrow slit is partially disrupted.

That said, this would be a partial nerfing of casters and their speciality, so it shouldn't be used often.

 

[DracoSuave]

Another way to combat such tactics is with partitioned rooms where the archers are. Sure, you AoE and can hit one guy perfectly, but the partitions keep the AoE from spreading.

It's a mundane solution to a magical problem.