Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 2984497" data-attributes="member: 31734">The fact is that there are no specific rules to cover this situation (pun intended).  Based on a strict reading, the wall could be 300ft in the air and provide cover because Height isn't even mentioned.The one stipulation is "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..."  What this says is almost a chicken-and-egg argument.  Note that the definition of whether cover is provided uses itself.  Yes, that's very bad rules language, but it leaves "provides cover" very open to interpretation.Do a wall covering your upper torso "provide cover", when consider that part of the definition (not any other part of the rules)?  That's the real question.  I say yes. You don't target anything.  You 'target' the creature, not his legs, arms, face, or anything else.  But, since half his body is not 'attackable', he gets cover, pure and simple.  There are no called shots. Well, it's all IMO because there are no reasonable rules on improved cover, but I think there is more of the giant to hit (the torso+head+arms has more area than just the legs).  If it were a gelatinous cube, then probably not. No.  One 10ft-square/level is NOT 10 square feet/level. Wall of Force is not shapeable.</blockquote>