Arrow Slits and Melee

[TheGogmagog]

1) Melee attacks through arrow slits, at what penalty, possible?
I believe the module noted that you had to be a tiny creature to fit through the opening.

a) My in game ruling was (and gut feeling is) you can't fight effectively through a 1' wide hole.
b) After a complaint and re-reading the rules, it looks like the core ruling would be that it would be the improved cover and would be +8 AC.
c) The players were thinking something along the lines that there would be no penalty to piercing weapons, some penalty to slashing, and bludgening attacks would be impossible.

I'm trying to stick to core rules even when I don't agree with them to keep the game consistant and I don't feel like making whole systems to fill in loop holes.

For what it's worth on ranged attacks, there are rules using a 3' high wall as an example and the attacker could ignore the cover of that wall if he is closer to the obstruction than the target. This made sense to me regardless of what the source of cover (except maybe if the cover was from an obstruction coming down from the cieling). So I apply that cover rule to all ranged attacks. Since the archer behind an arrow slit is closer to the source of cover than his target (except for that one square), then the archer fires out of the arrow slit without penalty. 2) Any clarifications? Am I applying the rule too broadly? are there rules that contradict how I handle it?

3) In the event you had an archer and a swordman on opposite sides of this arrow slit, the archer would no longer be closer than the swordman and would suffer +8 to attack the swordman. Would the Swordman get an attack of opportunity?

 

[Infiniti2000]

1) Melee attacks through arrow slits, at what penalty, possible?

Arrow slits are not created equally, so the first thing you need to decide is how much cover is granted. Obviously, it cannot be total cover, else you could not shoot out of the arrow slit (technically). Thus, if it's better than normal cover, I'd have to go with improved cover.

I believe the module noted that you had to be a tiny creature to fit through the opening.

A Medium or Small creature cannot fit through a Space less than 2 1/2 ft. wide without using Escape Artist. For a Tiny creature, this is 1 1/4 ft.

Now, IMO those are very good rules in a generic sense because I know a cat can easily squeeze through an arrow slit no wider than my hand.

c) The players were thinking something along the lines that there would be no penalty to piercing weapons, some penalty to slashing, and bludgening attacks would be impossible.

That might be reasonable in some cases, but the rules don't support it. Put it this way, if I can fit my hand through the slit, why I can't I punch the guy on the other side?

I'm trying to stick to core rules even when I don't agree with them to keep the game consistant and I don't feel like making whole systems to fill in loop holes.

Reasonable decision, but which core rules, yours or mine? Eventually, you'll have to rule on an ambiguous situation and your interpretation will be considered non-core by at least one person out there.

3) In the event you had an archer and a swordman on opposite sides of this arrow slit, the archer would no longer be closer than the swordman and would suffer +8 to attack the swordman. Would the Swordman get an attack of opportunity?

No. The cover prevents the AoO.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

The rules for Improved cover feel right to me,

As to your players thoughts of differing penalties based on weapon type, I would be more likely to say slashing would have the highest penatly...

Sometimes its better to take the generic ruling instead of trying to get a circumstance specific rule.. basically thats the difference between 2.x and 3.x

 

[frankthedm]

1) Melee attacks through arrow slits, at what penalty, possible?
I believe the module noted that you had to be a tiny creature to fit through the opening.

a) My in game ruling was (and gut feeling is) you can't fight effectively through a 1' wide hole.
b) After a complaint and re-reading the rules, it looks like the core ruling would be that it would be the improved cover and would be +8 AC.
c) The players were thinking something along the lines that there would be no penalty to piercing weapons, some penalty to slashing, and bludgening attacks would be impossible.

3.0 they gave 9/10s cover, thats a +10 AC bonus.

Improved cover [-8] with a 2 point circumstance penalty on non peircing weapons feels good.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

1) Melee attacks through arrow slits, at what penalty, possible?
I believe the module noted that you had to be a tiny creature to fit through the opening.

a) My in game ruling was (and gut feeling is) you can't fight effectively through a 1' wide hole.
b) After a complaint and re-reading the rules, it looks like the core ruling would be that it would be the improved cover and would be +8 AC.
c) The players were thinking something along the lines that there would be no penalty to piercing weapons, some penalty to slashing, and bludgening attacks would be impossible.

Note: I'm a player in Goggy's group.
Heh...Goggy.

But uhm...anyway.
My problem with the ruling was that there was no chance to fight back through the arrow slit and it was being described as about 18" wide and 3' tall.
To me, someone with a piercing weapon should be able to at least fight with a penalty while other weapons would be nearly innefective.
It seemed wrong that the guy on the inside was immune to any weapon attack.

At the time of this particular combat, we just covered up the slit with shields when we could, so it wasn't a big deal, but it was possible for the situation to happen again and didn't want either side to be immune to combat damage thanks to a hole in a wall.

 

[moritheil]

Either side can just step away and thus be out of LoS for ranged weapons, or out of reach for melee weapons, so I don't see what the big deal is.

I assume that your campaign is fairly low-level, as no one has mentioned simply blasting the enemy with spells or breaching the wall with adamantine weapons and having at the soft, delicate enemy within.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

We were level 2 with about as much stuff as you'd think a level 2 group would have.
A low enough level to drop half the party with 2 arrow hits or 1 arrow crit.

When Goggy made his ruling, we (I) put up some minor resistance and brought it up again before the next game started.
He figured the rules forum here would have a decent and balanced responce, so here we are.

 

[moritheil]

I see; that makes it a serious matter. However, I still don't understand the layout of the fight - was it impossible for the PCs to take cover where they could not be shot at? Standing to either side of an arrow slit, where the wall is, should make it impossible for someone to shoot you.

Overall, if it gave you such a tough time, I don't see why the party didn't just move on (I assume there are compelling reasons, but they aren't given here.)

 

[TheGogmagog]

Reasonable decision, but which core rules, yours or mine? Eventually, you'll have to rule on an ambiguous situation and your interpretation will be considered non-core by at least one person out there.

For core rules, if something's spelled out explicitly I'll follow that (99% of the time). If something is ambigious (like extra spell and learning spells not on class list), I'll usually rule on the conservative side (no). If it's not clear or not covered (my opinion on my closest to cover ignores it rule) Well, that's the advantage of playing pen and paper over computer games. You don't get responses like 'the hell you say?', or 'that object isn't selectable'.

If I make a wrong ruling to keep the game flowing, players are welcome to look it up when it's not thier turn and correct me. With a table of six players there's plenty of time and brain power. Depending on the correction needed (and time elapsed) we'll either go back and redo the action or make a note of it and do it right next time.

No. The cover prevents the AoO.

Doh! I reread and quoted huge sections of the cover rules the other day and missed that. I was thinking it only applicable to full cover.

You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.

I see; that makes it a serious matter. However, I still don't understand the layout of the fight - was it impossible for the PCs to take cover where they could not be shot at? Standing to either side of an arrow slit, where the wall is, should make it impossible for someone to shoot you.

Overall, if it gave you such a tough time, I don't see why the party didn't just move on (I assume there are compelling reasons, but they aren't given here.)

The group did take cover, then blocked and or moved past the arrow slits quickly. It didn't affect the outcome much, in fact instead of stopping to attack the archers, it moved them forward and they were able to get to the 'portcullis' before it shut.

I'm pretty sure I've got the answers now, it's +8 AC, and no attacks of opportunity. I just thought I would check if anyone had other rules/faq to reference or something else I missed.