Does a prone ally / enemy provide soft cover?


Rules Questions


Why or why not?

Does a man-in-the-middle that is prone provide soft cover to combatants on either side of him?


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This rule would probably be applicable:

PRD wrote:
Low Obstacles and Cover: A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he's closer to the obstacle than his target.


Also don't forget this rule:

SRD, Combat, Cover wrote:

Partial Cover

If a creature has cover, but more than half the creature is visible, its cover bonus is reduced to a +2 to AC and a +1 bonus on Reflex saving throws. This partial cover is subject to the GM's discretion.

So a prone ally might provide cover, if you are closer to it than the enemies attacking you (or the same distance - watch out for enemies taking a 5'Step toward the cover to negate it). But probably only partial cover, not normal cover.

Also consider this food for thought: Perhaps some creatures could provide normal cover or even total cover for an ally, even when prone.

For that matter, imagine you are prone, hiding behind a prone ally - you should get more than just partial cover for that. Possibly even total cover, especially if your attacker is very far away, or if he is also prone or is Tiny or smaller.


I knew about those two particular rules..which pretty much leaves it up to GM fiat (which will involve table variation).

The low obstacle rule doesn't really seem applicable to someone that is prone in between two combatants...say using reach weapons to attack each other. It seems to imply ranged weapon attacks.

The scenario is that you have two combatants trying to hit each other (in melee with reach) and the guy in between them is prone.

So, beyond these two rules, which leaves the question unanswered in a satisfactory way.. there is nothing?


It's fully answered if you remember this rule:

SRD, Combat, Cover wrote:
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.

As you said, the low cover rule seems to imply ranged attacks, and now you know the same rule applies to reach attacks. Problem solved.


DM_Blake wrote:

It's fully answered if you remember this rule:

SRD, Combat, Cover wrote:
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.
As you said, the low cover rule seems to imply ranged attacks, and now you know the same rule applies to reach attacks. Problem solved.

Ok, granted.

Given the above rule, by extension, does this mean that ranged weapon feats also apply to reach melee weapons when cover is involved, such as improved precise shot ignoring soft cover?

I would think not, given the prerequisites of the ranged weapon feat tree.


You're correct, they don't apply. Those feats specify ranged attacks. The cover rule I quoted says you use the rules for determining cover as if the reach attack were a ranged attack - this ONLY applies to determining cover; it does not convert a reach melee attack into a ranged attack.

Scarab Sages

However, Phalanx Formation has much the same effect as IPS and apples to reach weapons.


Imbicatus wrote:
However, Phalanx Formation has much the same effect as IPS and apples to reach weapons.

Correct, but only when the middle-man is an ally. If the middle-man is an enemy, the middle-man still provides partial cover according to what I'm reading so far.


Given the rule:

Quote:


Cover and Attacks of Opportunity: You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.

Does the term "with cover" apply to all forms of cover of all gradients, partial, improved, total, soft and hard cover?

So that even someone prone in between two enemies provides enough cover to prevent attacks of opportunity?

What happens if both enemies are of equal distance? (essentially flanking the prone man in the middle).

It looks like equal distance = random on which one is "closer".


Strictly by RAW, "Cover" is a game term. Therefore the AoO question applies to "Cover", but not to "Partial Cover" or "Soft Cover" which are different terms. It's irrelevant to "Total Cover" because you cannot affect a target with Total Cover at all. So a prone, or even standing, ally providing soft/partial cover won't prevent an AoO.

Equal distance means you get the cover. The rule says so: the attacker ignores cover if he's closer. So if the distance is equal, the attacker is NOT closer. Distance is measured in squares, so in the case of a guy with a reach weapon striking an enemy 2 squares away with any kind of cover between them, the two combatants are both 1 square away from the cover, so the cover applies.


Quote:


Strictly by RAW, "Cover" is a game term. Therefore the AoO question applies to "Cover", but not to "Partial Cover" or "Soft Cover" which are different terms. It's irrelevant to "Total Cover" because you cannot affect a target with Total Cover at all. So a prone, or even standing, ally providing soft/partial cover won't prevent an AoO.

I can see where you get your interpretation of the "cover" != soft cover or partial cover.

Do you have any supporting evidence to this interpretation (FAQ reference would be perfect).

Note: from what it looks to me, the same AC modifier for "cover" (+4) is the same for "soft cover", which would indicate that soft cover does indeed prevent attacks of opportunity, given they are otherwise equivalent.

As an example:

Cover (normal) provides the benefits of A, B, C and D (+4 to AC, No AoO, +2 Relfex, Can use Stealth).

Soft cover is written in a way that excludes specific benefits that are provided by normal cover: no bonus to reflex and no stealth. It specifically includes the +4 to AC (likely to differentiate it from partial cover), but makes no reference to attacks of opportunity.

So, if "cover" is an umbrella term and soft cover is a sub-category therein, then soft cover should inherit the traits of cover unless specific exceptions/modifications are noted. No mention of attacks of opportunity therefore imply that even with soft cover (and as well partial cover) prevent attacks of opportunity.

I think a FAQ is in order, given the ambiguity.


Blake: a quick search on "soft cover" seems to indicate you are in the minority on this particular rule interpretation.


It's interesting that cover grants 4 things:
1. +4 AC
2. +2 REF saves
3. You can use Stealth
4. You don't provoke AoOs

But Soft Cover says, in effect, that you do get #1 and you don't get #2 and #3 with no mention at all of what happens to #4.

My assumption is the following.

Cover works because the attacker can only partially see you. Because he cannot clearly see you, this means: you are harder to hit (#1), you avoid area damage more easily (#2), you can attempt to hide (#3), and you can drop your guard safely (#4).

Soft cover is not the same. You enemy can see you much more clearly because the soft cover is a person, not a wall (for example). This means: you are still harder to hit because there is a living obstacle (#1), you don't avoid AE damage because that obstacle is smaller than a wall and also avoiding damage (#2), you can't hide because you are easy to see (#3), and...

... So what happens to #4?

I suggest that you are still easy to see (ergo the rationale on rules #2 and #3) so, since you are still easy to see, if you drop your guard your enemy will see it right away and take a free shot at you (#4).

That's my take. I'm assuming much RAI there (but so is anyone with a different take because the rule is silent on this), but trying to apply logic to deduce why they make the rule work the way it does for #2 and #3 and then determining whether #4 should work like it does for #1 or like it does for #2 and #3. This is the way it makes the most sense to me.

I get it that many other GMs prefer to say that #4 works like #1, but I just can't support that. If that were true, then there is NO JUSTIFICATION for saying that #2 and #3 don't. Besides, provoking an AoO means you drop your guard, your enemy can SEE you drop your guard so he overextends himself a little to take a free shot because, with your guard down, it's safe for him to do so. This is how they describe AoOs. It seems that this still applies to reach melee attacks with some guy standing in between you and your attacker.


Here's another possible take:

Soft Cover applies to ranged attacks only. Not melee attacks, even reach attacks. The Soft Cover rule says so.

So, while the Cover rules say to determine cover for reach attacks by using the ranged attack method for determining cover, the fact that reach weapons are not ranged attacks means Soft Cover is not a valid type of cover for these attacks.

In short, Soft Cover probably, by RAW, has ZERO effect on reach attacks in the first place.

However, I don't think anyone plays it that way. Hiding behind a friend (or enemy) to make it hard for the attacker to get you is a standard movie and book trope, and I think most, maybe all GMs, allow it.


Right, it's entirely interpretable is my take...which is kind of why I was wanting a FAQ.

Thanks for the assist.

Scarab Sages

Well, if Soft Cover has zero effect on reach attacks, then Phalanx Formation is a feat that does nothing.


Soft cover definitely applies to reach weapons.

Soft cover prevents AoOs. (Soft cover is stated to provide cover against ranged attacks. Reach weapons determine cover as ranged attacks. Cover prevents AoOs.)

You can not use feats like Improved Precise Shot to remove this penalty for reach weapons.

Keep in mind that "When you move through a square occupied by a friendly character, that character doesn't provide you with cover."

It's completely subject to GM fiat whether a prone character qualifies as an "obstacle". The example of a low wall suggests that the obstacle might need to be "hard". It may also be tricky to calculate how "low" various creatures become when prone. Thus, expect table variation, although GMs tend to be lenient if you ask them nicely about it.

In any case, you can only use the Low Obstacle rule if the attacker is closer to the obstacle. If you're both the same distance (eg adjacent), this rule doesn't apply.

Neither normal cover nor soft cover functions based on lack of visibility (that would be concealment). Cover results from objects/creatures being physically in the way of landing the attack. While it's true you may not be able to see them entirely, your character has no uncertainty of their position and thus doesn't suffer a miss chance.


If I am an archer, and I stand behind an ally:
Does my ally provide soft cover to an enemy 20ft away with nothing around it?


Yes.

Unless perhaps if your character is much taller than the ally in front of you AND the GM is feeling generous with the low obstacle rules.

Note that you can often take a 5' step to get to a place where you can shoot around a nearby ally, as you determine cover by using a corner of your choice:

Quote:
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).

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does a prone ally / enemy provide soft cover? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.