Cover, line of effect, fireball ??

[Tatsukun]

Hi all, we were happily pounding through bad guys in our game today and our DM laid a big ruling on us. He says that a Fire Ball needs a clear line of effect, so no cover.

In the game, this took the form of the mage not being able to put a fireball on the other side of our fighter, as he provided cover. Here’s the layout…

It’s a 10’ wide hallway, with the fighter and against the south wall. To the east of the fighter are three (also medium size) monsters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
..................................................(Monster 1)...(Monster 2)...[A]
(Mage).............................(Fighter)...............(Monster 3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The big plan was to put the fireball just behind monster 2 (in the location marked as ‘A’) and thus cook all the monsters but not the fighter, but the DM ruled that that area was out of sight (total cover).

Our fighter is tough, so he agreed to ‘take one for the team’ and have the FB placed directly east of him (location ‘B’).

The DM ruled that any cover, including the fighter in this situation meant that the mage couldn’t put the FB there.

This has dire repercussions for putting fireballs in the second, third, or even middle rank of large groups of monsters.

So, to make a long story short, is he right?

-Tatsu

 

[Camarath]

"An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell’s line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell’s line of effect."

Since a solid barrier with a one foot hole does not block line of effect I would assume that a creature (i.e. soft cover) would not block line of effect.

Additionally since one if does not have line of effect to a target he is considered to have total cover against you having creatures block line of effect would mean that creatures would grant Total Cover instead of Soft Cover as is currently stated in the rules.

"Total Cover: If you don’t have line of effect to your target he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover."

"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."

 

[Hardhead]

"An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell’s line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell’s line of effect."

Since a solid barrier with a one foot hole does not block line of effect I would assume that a creature (i.e. soft cover) would not block line of effect.

Additionally since one if does not have line of effect to a target he is considered to have total cover against you having creatures block line of effect would mean that creatures would grant Total Cover instead of Soft Cover as is currently stated in the rules.

"Total Cover: If you don’t have line of effect to your target he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover."

"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."

Total Cover blocks a Fireball, but I don't think either [A] or in your example provide total cover. Soft cover or normal cover less than total does not prevent the targeting of spells. By the book, he was wrong.

 

[Liquidsabre]

The DM ruled that any cover, including the fighter in this situation meant that the mage couldn’t put the FB there.

This has dire repercussions for putting fireballs in the second, third, or even middle rank of large groups of monsters.

By the rules creatures don't provide total cover, that would be a DM special ruling I'd imagine, but the only time a creature would ever give total cover to those on the other side of it would be some kind of massive-sized creature.

There is cover (+4 AC) and then improved cover (+8 AC). As with a targeted arrow slit, firing a fireball bead through an area where there is a chance of premature detonation by impact, the caster has to make a ranged touch attack. In this case, the caster is targeting the square: base AC 10 + 8 ( improved cover, multiple creatures in the way) and quite possibly a -4 to-hit firing into melee (without precise shot that is).

If the AC is not hit by the caster, then intervening cover was struck instead, I'd start with the nearest and see if the ranged touch attack hit their AC or not, if not then try the next creature's AC and so on.

However, from the case presented, there was nothing to prevent the caster of the FB from simply firing the fireball bead over the heads of the creatures by targeting a square 5ft above the floor. The area of effect (AoE) is a 20ft radius burst (spherical) so should have had no problems there.

As for the damage to the ceilings, walls, doors, floor....yikes! Keep in mind that fireball deals full damage to unattended objects and sets these objects on fire if they are flammable.

 

[Camarath]

and quite possibly a -4 to-hit firing into melee (without precise shot that is).

I do not believe that -4 should apply since you are targeting a point (i.e. a grid intersection) rather than an traget that is actually engaged in melee.

 

[UltimaGabe]

It’s a 10’ wide hallway, with the fighter and against the south wall. To the east of the fighter are three (also medium size) monsters.

Now, I could be completely wrong, but I'm going to venture out on a limb and assume that the fighter in your group is NOT a 10x10 square of flesh (or it would be pretty hard for him to wear armor or wield weapons). Therefore, it's quite possible for a Fireball to be launched past him, especially considering that the world IS in fact 3-dimensional. The Wizard could have very easily just shot the fireball above the fighter to the back of the hall.

Unless the wizard happens to be Fine sized, but again, I could be wrong.

In short, your DM's full of crap.

 

[Silveras]

I do not believe that -4 should apply since you are targeting a point (i.e. a grid intersection) rather than an traget that is actually engaged in melee.

Whether or not the -4 penalty applies is a judgment call. Firing through melee is also firing into melee, in some ways. I would probably use the -4 penalty myself, depending on circumstances (the point about being able to put it over the heads remains good, for example, and sidesteps the -4 IMHO, but then we don't know the height of the ceiling).

One small adjustment to Liquidsabre's calculations:

You can instead target a specific grid intersection. Treat this as a ranged attack against AC 5.

 

[Camarath]

Whether or not the -4 penalty applies is a judgment call. Firing through melee is also firing into melee, in some ways. I would probably use the -4 penalty myself, depending on circumstances (the point about being able to put it over the heads remains good, for example, and sidesteps the -4 IMHO, but then we don't know the height of the ceiling).

There is nothing in the Shooting or Throwing into a Melee rule about attacking through melee. The penalty is only stated to apply if your target is engaged in melee with a friendly character. And as for as I can see a point in space can not engage in melee.

From SRD
"Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)
If your target (or the part of your target you’re aiming at, if it’s a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the -4 penalty, even if the creature you’re aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character."

 

[ConspiracyAngel]

(self duplicated response)

 

[ConspiracyAngel]

Fireball
Evocation [Fire]
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area: 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes
A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
Material Component: A tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35