Rules

[shai-hulud]

Question: Do you use PvP rolls? In my games, rather than having PCs roll against each other, I prefer to have them decide for themselves how they feel they would react to something. Do you prefer that PCs actually rolls opposed skill checks for things like bluff and sense motive?

[patransom]

I think I'll handle that on a case-by-case basis. I hope that player versus player will become a relatively rare occurrence once you've gotten to know each other, anyway.

In this case, Zariena's done a sense motive, which seems a reasonable thing to do in a cell full of prisoners she hasn't met before. If anyone wants to bluff about their circumstances, go ahead and do a bluff roll. If you want to keep the fact that you're bluffing a secret, PM me the roll and I'll determine what to tell Zariena.

I wouldn't use player versus player rolling if someone were attempting to use Diplomacy vs your character, however. In that case, it's really up to you to decide how you react...

[Duniagdra]

OUT-OF-CHARACTER:    Does Se have cover with relation to Dwanthor if he uses his reach weapon or ray? The answer could mean Dwanthor will Delay or perhaps Ready.

OUT-OF-CHARACTER:    Yes, he has cover because of Rend.

OUT-OF-CHARACTER:    Rend only gives soft cover though, -2, not cover, -4.

[patransom]

OUT-OF-CHARACTER:    Rend only gives soft cover though, -2, not cover, -4.

OUT-OF-CHARACTER:    That distinction does not exist in 3.5. See here Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Hide check.

[Duniagdra]

OUT-OF-CHARACTER:    Rend only gives soft cover though, -2, not cover, -4.

OUT-OF-CHARACTER:    That distinction does not exist in 3.5. See here Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Hide check.

OUT-OF-CHARACTER:    Ah. Well, I just looked in Pathfinder to see if that's where I mixed up, but it's the same there. Seems I've been doling out the wrong value for soft cover. My bad.

[Ludyee]

[As eldritch blast is a spell-like ability, I am not allowing iterative attacks with it, except in the case of Eldritch Glaive, which explicitly provides for this. We can discuss in the rules thread, if you like]

I was simply going with what the TOS+ sheet indicated in the ranged attack area for Eldritch Blast for the Dwanthor character I downloaded. I once again am finding that the sheet just causes me more confusion then assistence with a Warlock character. I am starting to track Dwanthor on trusty paper if I can't get the confusing elements to disappear in the sheet.

[patransom]

On the front page, just change the attack type for eldritch blast to SINGLE ATTACK. Then it won't be as confusing.

singleattack.jpg

[patransom]

[ooc]

Bolt of the North Marches (Bo) follows the bandit up the corridor, firing an arrow that manages to find a chink in Gerag's armor [9 hp damage].

Reminder: Bolt is firing through his ally... Even if he has Precise Shot to avoid the -4 penalty to attacks for firing into melle, he would still suffer a penalty for the soft cover provided by B3!! Actually, he's firing through TWO allies... giving Gerag a +8 AC bonus vs his attacks, no? (Since we can't see your rolls, we can't determine if you forgot or not this situation )

Soft Cover
Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Hide check.

In the specific case that you're discussing I did give Gerag a +4 to AC and Bolt still hit. I did not give Gerag +8 and for two reasons:

Reason 1: There actually was only one person in the way when Bolt took the shot. Hastor moved after Bolt in the initiative order. But, going forward, there might be two people in the way, so I need to bring up the second reason...

Reason 2: I do not apply an additional cover bonus determined by the number of people in the way (e.g., +8 for two, +12 for three, etc.). I generally apply greater than +4 for cover only in extreme circumstances (such as targeting someone who's behind an arrow slit). This interpretation is supported by the discussion of Varying Degrees of Cover (see here):

In some cases, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Hide checks.

Certainly, some DM's could interpret "in some cases" to mean "anytime there's more than one person in the way," but I don't. I reserve the "improved cover" scenario for special circumstances where cover is very great, but less than total (e.g., the aforementioned arrow slit).

[Duniagdra]

Well, that might be fine in some cases, but soft cover is a defined rule and is applicable in the scenario where multiple creatures (friend and foe) are in the line of fire from the shooter and the target. You might wish to use the rule you quoted above, but Soft cover should prevail regardless. This is not a variant rule, but a core rule, which is the rule set you choose to enforce.

[patransom]

From your link (which is the same one I cited for Varying Degrees of Cover):

Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Hide check.

I'm not sure we are disagreeing. I am applying soft cover by the rules as written and giving a +4 bonus to AC when "Creatures" provide cover. I interpret "creatures" to mean "one or more creatures." No where in the section on cover (soft or otherwise) does it say "+4 per creature." The only mention of cover greater than +4 (other than "Total Cover" which is a different issue) is under "Varying Degrees of Cover." There it says "in some cases" cover can be +8. It does not define what those cases are. I have explained my particular interpretation of "some cases" above.

Your mileage with other DM's may vary, but I do not believe I am ignoring any core rules or applying a variant rule. I am applying the soft cover rule as written.

EDIT: and note that this interpretation applies equally to PC's and foes, of course. So, when you are shooting past several people, you also are only facing the +4 to AC, not +8.

[Duniagdra]

From your link (which is the same one I cited for Varying Degrees of Cover):

Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Hide check.

I'm not sure we are disagreeing. I am applying soft cover by the rules as written and giving a +4 bonus to AC when "Creatures" provide cover. I interpret "creatures" to mean "one or more creatures." No where in the section on cover (soft or otherwise) does it say "+4 per creature." The only mention of cover greater than +4 (other than "Total Cover" which is a different issue) is under "Varying Degrees of Cover." There it says "in some cases" cover can be +8. It does not define what those cases are. I have explained my particular interpretation of "some cases" above.

Your mileage with other DM's may vary, but I do not believe I am ignoring any core rules or applying a variant rule. I am applying the soft cover rule as written.

EDIT: and note that this interpretation applies equally to PC's and foes, of course. So, when you are shooting past several people, you also are only facing the +4 to AC, not +8.

Well, it seems I find myself stumped. While the rule does show "CreatureS, even your enemieS" it does say only "giving you A +4 bonus to AC". I find this annoying because from somewhere I remember there being a +2 to armor, thinking something relating to hard corners maybe (partial cover?). Anyhow, maybe you're right in the RAW AND IAW. I find that it does go both ways and that annoys me.

[patransom]

d20 Modern has varying degrees of cover that start from +2 and go up to +10. Since Modern is based on 3rd edition, it may have been similar in 3.0 and that could be what you're remembering.

[Duniagdra]

Perhaps