Of total cover and siege engines

[TuggyNE]

RAW-wise, what happens when one attempts to use a siege engine or other powerful weapon against a target behind a source of total cover that is very fragile (such as a pane of glass, or a paper wall)? Logically, you should be able to shoot/crash/blast straight through the total cover without significantly affecting your ability to hit your actual target; however, your bog-standard NPC warrior is, I believe, unable to pull this off by strict RAW. (A ToB class might be able to, I'm not very familiar with their maneuvers, and dungeon-crasher probably could fudge something together as well, but those are exceptions, and this should be a property of the weapon, not the class.)

So, a few questions before I take this to RACSD (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240218): Is this reading RAW-accurate? Are there relevant cases I'm neglecting? What is the most sensible, least invasive means of fixing this?

[Malachei]

Siege Engines can negate cover with ballistic firing, there's additional information in Heroes of Battle. But if you are aiming for the cover, and the creature does not somehow share the space with the cover, it takes damage only of the ammunition it uses affects more than one square by RAW. I'm AFB, though, but I think this applies both to cover and soft cover. I'd say this is a good addition to the RAICS thread. I wondered why in HoB it is hard to affect more than one square with a siege engine (need special ammunition, usually). I think they left it out for complexity reasons. You may want to differentiate siege weapons, perhaps, or include firing angle. Soft cover should not stop the ballista, IMO, but where the trebutchet boulder goes after strikimg the cover depends on the angle of its impact.

[TuggyNE]

Siege Engines can negate cover with ballistic firing, there's additional information in Heroes of Battle.

By aiming over it, correct? I am thinking of a more constrained space, where it is impossible or impractical to aim over the cover. (And the siege engine bit is the most obvious example I could think of.) Pity I don't have HoB myself.

An alternative example would be a dire flail and a target behind a paper wall.


But if you are aiming for the cover, and the creature does not somehow share the space with the cover, it takes damage only of the ammunition it uses affects more than one square by RAW. I'm AFB, though, but I think this applies both to cover and soft cover. I'd say this is a good addition to the RAICS thread. I wondered why in HoB it is hard to affect more than one square with a siege engine (need special ammunition, usually). I think they left it out for complexity reasons. You may want to differentiate siege weapons, perhaps, or include firing angle. Soft cover should not stop the ballista, IMO, but where the trebutchet boulder goes after strikimg the cover depends on the angle of its impact.

What I'm essentially thinking of is cases where an attack can break through cover trivially, not just large projectile weapons, but any weapon.
For those specific cases, though, you make good points.

[candycorn]

By aiming over it, correct? I am thinking of a more constrained space, where it is impossible or impractical to aim over the cover. (And the siege engine bit is the most obvious example I could think of.) Pity I don't have HoB myself.

An alternative example would be a dire flail and a target behind a paper wall.



What I'm essentially thinking of is cases where an attack can break through cover trivially, not just large projectile weapons, but any weapon.
For those specific cases, though, you make good points.

If the DM rules that the cover isn't effective, then it can be disregarded.

[GnomeGninjas]

An alternative example would be a dire flail and a target behind a paper wall.


That would provide total concealment because you can't see the target though what it is behind doesn't provide any actual ability to stop attacks.

[Eisirt]

That would provide total concealment because you can't see the target though what it is behind doesn't provide any actual ability to stop attacks.

Quoted for sanity.

Precisely how I would rule it.

[TuggyNE]

If the DM rules that the cover isn't effective, then it can be disregarded.


That would provide total concealment because you can't see the target though what it is behind doesn't provide any actual ability to stop attacks.

Hmm, fair enough. While this is a potential issue, I suppose the solutions are simple enough not to need specific attention.

[Invader]

That would provide total concealment because you can't see the target though what it is behind doesn't provide any actual ability to stop attacks.

This^

Cover and concealment are 2 different things. In the case of siege weapons I think it depends on the type of the weapon and the type of cover. Would a 2 foot thick stone wall defend against ballista, yes. Would it protect against a 5lb trebuchet stone, yes. It probably wouldn't protect against a 50lb trebuchet stone though, not without at least some damage.

You also have to think about spall which is the chucks of material that break off the inside of a building/wall/etc. when its hit by a projectile. I think it's safe to assume that if you're hiding behind a stone wall that's taking a beating from siege weapons you could be taking a d3 or d4 damage if you're close enough to the impact zone.