# Clarification on attacking around corners



## questing gm (Sep 28, 2009)

This is probably a noob question about combat but it was raised up in our game on several occasions; attacking around corners.

One of my players said that you can't attack around corners so I went to check the rules but can't find anything definitive. My findings so far tells me that corners don't block line of sight (thus allowing to make an attack) but provides cover/concealment to the target being attacked.

Can someone here clarify to me what are the actual rules (benefits/penalty, if any) for fighting around corners?


----------



## Obryn (Sep 28, 2009)

questing gm said:


> Can someone here clarify to me what are the actual rules (benefits/penalty, if any) for fighting around corners?



Hi!

If one of your corners is adjacent to the target, you can attack around the corner without any penalty for cover.  And vice-versa, of course.

If you are in ranged combat, you can choose a corner of your square as the origin for an attack and basically fire around the corner without cover impeding _you_.  However, someone shooting _back_ at you will suffer cover penalties to a greater or lesser degree.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Sep 28, 2009)

It is entirely governed by the rules for cover and concealment. The way LoS works ANY creature that is in a square just around a right angle corner will always be in LoS of anyone in any square past the corner since at least the 2 corners of their square closest to the corner will not be blocked by anything. So hiding around a corner NEVER prevents attackers from attacking you. Note that AoEs do have to count 2 squares around the corner though, so in some cases it may shield you from an effect.

The rules for cover on page 280 actually specifically state that a target "around a corner or protected by terrain" has cover. The last section in the cover ruleblock on page 280 describes the actual test for cover, 1 or 2 lines drawn from any corner of the attacker's square to all corners of the defender's square blocked = cover. 3 lines blocked = total cover. That works out to ANY 90 degree corner will grant cover from any square whatsoever that is "around the corner" (the diagram at bottom left of page 280 illustrates this pretty well).


----------



## questing gm (Sep 29, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Hi!
> 
> If one of your corners is adjacent to the target, you can attack around the corner without any penalty for cover.  And vice-versa, of course.




I'm not sure so about that. It seems that as long as one of your imaginary line from any corner is obstructed by the wall, the target has cover.

This seems to be the case in PHB pg. 280 (as pointed out by AbdulAlhazred) and DMG pg. 43 (determining cover for melee attack sidebar) which one of my players found out.

Is there even a possible scenario when attacking around the corner doesn't grant the target cover in this case?


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Sep 29, 2009)

questing gm said:


> I'm not sure so about that. It seems that as long as one of your imaginary line from any corner is obstructed by the wall, the target has cover.
> 
> This seems to be the case in PHB pg. 280 (as pointed out by AbdulAlhazred) and DMG pg. 43 (determining cover for melee attack sidebar) which one of my players found out.
> 
> Is there even a possible scenario when attacking around the corner doesn't grant the target cover in this case?




It is all supposed to boil down to "common sense."  It is supposed to be something that the DM takes a quick look at and says "cover,' or "no cover."  If two guys are fighting in melee arround a corner then common sense (as well as the introduction to the cover rules) say that they both have cover from eachother.  If you really need to get technical the DMG has precise rules that will pretty much tell you the exact same thing.

As for the scenario you present in the quote above, the answer is yes.  If the creature making the attack is making a ranged attack they can effectively lean arround a corner and ignore it.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 29, 2009)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> The rules for cover on page 280 actually specifically state that a target "around a corner or protected by terrain" has cover. The last section in the cover ruleblock on page 280 describes the actual test for cover, 1 or 2 lines drawn from any corner of the attacker's square to all corners of the defender's square blocked = cover. 3 lines blocked = total cover. That works out to ANY 90 degree corner will grant cover from any square whatsoever that is "around the corner" (the diagram at bottom left of page 280 illustrates this pretty well).



That's not what it says, actually. 



> Determining Cover: To determine if a target has cover, *choose a corner of a square you occupy* (or a corner of your attack’s origin square) and trace imaginary lines *from that corner to every corner of any one square the target occupies.* If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle or an enemy, the target has cover. (A line isn’t blocked if it runs along the edge of an obstacle’s or an enemy’s square.) If three or four of those lines are blocked but you have line of effect, the target has superior cover.




You choose one corner of your own square, and measure to all corners of one square the defender occupies.  Then you count the number of blocked lines from *that *corner to all corners of one square of your enemy's space (and note - the attacker chooses which square).  So, if we are standing around a corner, I choose the corner adjacent to the defender's square as the origin of my attack, and there is no cover.

It's different from 3e, where corners did create cover in melee situations.



questing gm said:


> I'm not sure so about that. It seems that as long as one of your imaginary line from any corner is obstructed by the wall, the target has cover.



If our corners are adjacent, I can choose that corner as the origin.  It is impossible for any lines from that corner to be blocked to any corner of the defender's square I choose.

-O


----------



## Snowbird (Sep 29, 2009)

Yeah but the DMG is clear(er) - the defender (burden of proof) gets to pick the corner to measure from in the melee situation.  I.e. you, the attacked, always get light cover from around a corner.

As I recall, determining cover vs. ranged attacks marries up with your PHB quote.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 29, 2009)

Note also that cover doesn't block opportunity attacks.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 29, 2009)

Snowbird said:


> Yeah but the DMG is clear(er) - the defender (burden of proof) gets to pick the corner to measure from in the melee situation.  I.e. you, the attacked, always get light cover from around a corner.
> 
> As I recall, determining cover vs. ranged attacks marries up with your PHB quote.



The DMG phrases its cover rules as optional and more complex - matching up with DDM.  It's presented as another way of determining cover when you want more detail - I kinda look at that whole section as a big sidebar that's just not greyed-out. 

They directly contradict each other, sadly, and I don't think the DMG rules are more correct than the PHB rules.  They're just two ways of doing it.

-O


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 29, 2009)

*Cover (–2 Penalty to Attack Rolls): *
​​The target is around a corner or protected by terrain. For example, the target might be in the same square as a small tree, obscured by a small pillar or a large piece of furniture, or behind a low wall. 
simpleas that...​

seems they forgot to add that deermining cover is only used for ranged attacks​​​ 
from the DMG:

The rules in the​​​​_Player’s Handbook _for determining cover are straightforward. A creature that’s around a corner from the attacker, or protected by terrain, has cover.​


----------



## Obryn (Sep 29, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> *Cover (–2 Penalty to Attack Rolls): *
> ​​The target is around a corner or protected by terrain. For example, the target might be in the same square as a small tree, obscured by a small pillar or a large piece of furniture, or behind a low wall.
> simpleas that...​
> 
> ...



I noticed that, but it's in an intro section and isn't clear about what kinds of situations it's discussing.  I mean, it's clear than an enemy around a corner has cover against missile or reach attacks.  I'd argue the grey box takes precedence for combat rules, and the grey box is pretty precise about how cover is determined.

Some clarification or errata in the grey section would be pretty welcome, though.  I can see how it mentions corners in a lot of places, and indeed that could be the intention!!

-O


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 29, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I noticed that, but it's in an intro section and isn't clear about what kinds of situations it's discussing.



 IMO, you're stretching a lot in order to not include valid text.  Moreover, it's doesn't contradict any other rule, it clarifies them.  Specific-trumps-general is not exactly a contradiction.


----------



## Tallifer (Sep 29, 2009)

Yes, you can attack around a corner.

Yes, the target gets cover (for -2 to the attack.)

An interesting thing also is that Line of Sight is not required. No line of sight means -5. What is required is Line of Effect. Usually they are the same, but there are many spells and effects which block Line of Sight.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 30, 2009)

IIRC the quote is from the grey box...

and determining cover by drawing lines is not possible when you have furniture or trees which grant cover...

so this is the general rule. and the most important part: nowhere is it stated in the determining cover section, that you will not have cover if 0 lines are blocked. (Which would actually incalidate the complete section about cover)


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 30, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> IIRC the quote is from the grey box...
> 
> and determining cover by drawing lines is not possible when you have furniture or trees which grant cover...




No, you use the rules for Cover Terrain in the DMG.



> so this is the general rule. and the most important part: nowhere is it stated in the determining cover section, that you will not have cover if 0 lines are blocked. (Which would actually incalidate the complete section about cover)




There's no rule guaranteeing you can use your powers if you're not dazed; that doesn't mean you can't use your powers when you -are- dazed.

When there's no intervening cover, there's no cover.  It's a damn tautology.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Sep 30, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I noticed that, but it's in an intro section and isn't clear about what kinds of situations it's discussing.  I mean, it's clear than an enemy around a corner has cover against missile or reach attacks.  I'd argue the grey box takes precedence for combat rules, and the grey box is pretty precise about how cover is determined.
> 
> Some clarification or errata in the grey section would be pretty welcome, though.  I can see how it mentions corners in a lot of places, and indeed that could be the intention!!
> 
> -O




The whole situation is foggy.  The *rules *for cover in the PHB state that fighting in melee arround a corner does not grant cover.  The intro and "common sense" says "thats not right," so the PHB points you to the DMG if you actually want precise rules that take up half a column that in the end just say "fighting around a corner in melee provides cover."  The PHB and the DMG pretty much leave it to the gaming group to decide whether or not the PHB or the DMG rules take precidence.

So again, the core rules present two options surrounding this: corners provide cover for melee, or covers do not provide cover for melee.  Your group must decide which to use.  Neither is wrong, the former is presented as optional.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 30, 2009)

ForbidenMaster said:


> The whole situation is foggy.  The *rules *for cover in the PHB state that fighting in melee arround a corner does not grant cover.




No they don't.  They don't say if no line is blocked, the target does not have cover.  That's where the rules for cover terrain and corner cases come into play--the PHB is not the 'THIS IS ALL THE RULES OF THE GAME' book, never has been, never will be, and has never pretended to be.

A DM should have read through the DMG.  Everything says that.  It's not exactly 'You -might like to read this.-'  It's considered mandatory for running the game.

And if players argue 'It's in the DMG' has always been good enough.  Just cause they print the books with a white background for the logo doesn't change that.



> The intro and "common sense" says "thats not right," so the PHB points you to the DMG if you actually want precise rules that take up half a column that in the end just say "fighting around a corner in melee provides cover."  The PHB and the DMG pretty much leave it to the gaming group to decide whether or not the PHB or the DMG rules take precidence.




It leaves it up to the -DM- to decide which take precedence.  It's not up to my players whether or not I use the DMG.  And if they -expect- that, they're not focused on the right aspects of the game, imho.



> So again, the core rules present two options surrounding this: corners provide cover for melee, or covers do not provide cover for melee.  Your group must decide which to use.  Neither is wrong, the former is presented as optional.




No, the core rules present one option.  In general, unbroken lines between corner and target's corners provide no cover.  Specifically, corners provide cover in melee.

You know.  Specific beats General.

There's no real problem here.  One is correct most of the time, and the other is correct in its specific case.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 30, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> No, you use the rules for Cover Terrain in the DMG.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, Draco.

the question was: does attacking arond a corner suffer from cover in the PHB.

Answer: yes. The first paragraph says: you have cover when you are around a corner or behind a pillar

Question: does the last paragraph in the PHB invalidate this? Answer no: even when no lines are blocked, you are still around a corner.

Lets try it with logic:

Let A be: you are around a corner
Let B be: 1 or more lines are blocked
Let C be: you have cover

The Rules state:

A => C
B => C

so: (A or B) => C

what can you say about the relation between A and B? Nothing. If  you invert you get:

not C => not (A or B)

so: not C => (not A) and (not B)

So the only thing you can say: if you don´t have cover you neither are around a corner and neither line is blocked

What does the DMG say:
It is no minis game: use common sense. But if you lack thereoff, use the advanced rules from DnD Mini which are reprinted here.

@forbidden master: No, the rules don´t say attacking around a corner doesn´t grant cover. It is stated explicitely that a corner does provide cover. Or if more than one line is blocked you have cover.

Nothing in the rules contradict anything. But t could have been made more more clear, that both rules (no introductory text) are of equal importance.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 30, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> No, Draco.
> 
> the question was: does attacking arond a corner suffer from cover in the PHB.
> 
> Answer: yes. The first paragraph says: you have cover when you are around a corner or behind a pillar




I was refering to the case of 'having overturned tables' or whatever in the way.  Obviously corners provide cover, it's explicitly in the rules.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 30, 2009)

Ok, seems we are on the same side here


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 30, 2009)

Indeed. lol


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Sep 30, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> No they don't.  They don't say if no line is blocked, the target does not have cover.  That's where the rules for cover terrain and corner cases come into play--the PHB is not the 'THIS IS ALL THE RULES OF THE GAME' book, never has been, never will be, and has never pretended to be.



Youre right, I should have said "the PHB effectively says..."


> A DM should have read through the DMG.  Everything says that.  It's not exactly 'You -might like to read this.-'  It's considered mandatory for running the game.



Im sure it does pretty mutch say "You -might like to read this.-"  I dont have access to my books right now, but unless I am horrably mistaken it does say (in not so many words) "make a quick and simple ruling and if you absolutly care to spend more than 2 seconds on cover then go to the DMG."


> And if players argue 'It's in the DMG' has always been good enough.  Just cause they print the books with a white background for the logo doesn't change that.



I dont think anyone is arguing that these rules (the melee cover rules) are available and can be enforced.







> It leaves it up to the -DM- to decide which take precedence.  It's not up to my players whether or not I use the DMG.  And if they -expect- that, they're not focused on the right aspects of the game, imho.



Its pretty much six of one, half a dozen of the other, no?  A DM isnt going to DM a game where the party wont follow the DMs rules and a party wont play a game that doesnt include the rules that it wants.  I would liek to think that people are a bit more civil about such things and come to some sort of concensus.



> No, the core rules present one option.  In general, unbroken lines between corner and target's corners provide no cover.  Specifically, corners provide cover in melee.
> 
> You know.  Specific beats General.
> 
> There's no real problem here.  One is correct most of the time, and the other is correct in its specific case.




Agreed, except that (as far as I can recall from memory) the PHB (and I believe the DMG as well for that matter) gives the option of flat out ignoring that specific rule which groups such as Obryns have done.  With wording (that I believe is there) such as this, I find it hard to catagorically say "youre doing it wrong" as per RAW for whatever that is worth.  Also, with such wording I find it hard not to say that at the very it least it can be ambiguous.

Personally, just looking at two creatures in melee arround a corner and not giving cover screams to me "youre doing it wrong," but as I said above, the PHB and DMG (from what I can recall) seem to make the issue ignorable.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 30, 2009)

In general the wording in the first PHB has many ambiguous sections.
But in tis case its less ambiguous than you think. Logic and common sense both support the assumption that corners provide cover. And as Draco mentioned: the rules (specific beats general) also support this.

Also the rules in the DMG which are only presented for rules lawyers (it is stated there) tell you explicitely that corners provide cover... after telling you that it is not worth the time in an RPG to draw imaginary lines in general.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 30, 2009)

Folks, I'm not arguing that a DM would be in the wrong to use Corners as Cover.  I'm not arguing that a player would be justified in arguing about it with their DM, either, but that's kind of a general rule for me that goes without saying.   I'll also concede the point that most groups play with corners as cover.  All I'm saying is that the rules in the PHB allow for my interpretation, and that the rules in the DMG are presented as an option.

But yeah, I'll also concede the point that RAI is most likely that corners present cover.   You win!

-O


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 30, 2009)

The problem is that they don´t allow your interpretation... you are misinterpreting them.

The problem is, that they could have worded better that this misinterpretation isn´t prevented. But if you read them without trying to willfully misinterpret them it is very easy to rule it like it is intendet.

this misinterpretation could have easily been prevented, when the header had said: determining cover for ranged and area attacks...

actually i don´t know if you have cover from the area attack if the point of origin is in melee around a corner...

The whole PHB 1 suffers from tis problem. They flat out forgot to give this book to someone not familiar with the rules for proof reading... I even find all the ranger attack powers with 1-3 attacks ver confusing: is 3 targets, 3 attacks 3 attacks or 9? A major annoyance which made me doupt if i want to have this book with such obvious oversights in it...


----------



## Obryn (Sep 30, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> The problem is, that they could have worded better that this misinterpretation isn´t prevented. But if you read them without trying to willfully misinterpret them it is very easy to rule it like it is intendet.



Wow, that's a bold statement!  I'm _willfully _misinterpreting it, rather than interpreting it differently!

I had no idea that I'm not engaging in honest debate, but rather gleefully trying to ruin the rules of Dungeons and Dragons!  Thanks for setting me straight!

-O


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 1, 2009)

Ok, taken out of context this sounds a bit harsh... :/ sorry.

Let me rephrase it:

If you are familiar with a ruleset and youse common sense in adition to the presented rules, most rules are easy to interpret right.
A good proof reader however should misinterpret it as much as the written word allows. The discussion does not prove that the rules are wrong here, but that the wording could and should have been better.

So you are right that the paragraph needed a different header.
The only thing I blame you, that you insist(ed) on argueing that the rules presented in the PHB contradict those in the DMG, which the actually don´t.

edit: seems i was not reading your last post properly... you conceided and said we win... so i really have to say that I am sorry and i really didn´t want it to sound as a personal insult.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 1, 2009)

Obryn said:


> You win!



 Now if only we could apply that statement to the Red Sox in the ALDS.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Oct 1, 2009)

Obryn said:


> That's not what it says, actually.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Actually, the way I put it is perfectly correct. As UngeheuerLich pointed out, corners are specifically grandfathered in as a form of cover by the rules on PHB p280. When you consider that, the results from the DMG and PHB are very close to being identical in their results except corners by the DMG method don't provide cover when you attack around them with ranged attacks. It is really up to the DM to decide in a given situation which is most appropriate. No matter which set of rules you use for these determinations there are certain corner cases which simply don't come out terribly well, like certain configurations of enemies providing superior cover vs other configurations where you have to shoot through much greater numbers of enemies testing out as ordinary cover. Nothing but DM common sense can prevail.


----------



## eamon (Oct 1, 2009)

Let's call it an area where D&D 4.5 can use some clarification ;-).  My group's also run into the segment "*Determining Cover*".  _Eventually_ we realized that it contradicted the opening statement about cover & corners, but not before inconsistently using the cover rules for a few sessions and after wasting a bunch of time discussing the intent.  We also finally concluded that the "Determining cover" section probably applies to ranged attacks; in melee a corner or other "significant" obstacle is just defined to be cover and that's that.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 1, 2009)

actually attacking around a corner with a ranged attack is generally a very good idea, because you have cover against enemies, but they don´t have cover from you...

and actually, if i put my back to the wall they won´t have line of sight to the attacker at all. But I would rule that it needs a move action to do so, otherwise you can atack without fear of beeing attacked in return... (its like squeeze in the square... you also do grant combat advantage against enemies in melee then)


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 1, 2009)

Look at murder holes in castles.  The whole -point- was an archer had cover from enemy arrows, while the other side did not reciprocate.

It's not the physical size of the hole that matters, it's the arc that the hole represents in your firing view relative to the arc the target represents.

So a 1 sqft hole covers most of the entire body of an archer behind it relative to an archer 20 feet away, but doesn't cover a damn thing on an archer 20 feet away relative to the archer behind it.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 2, 2009)

Yes, but still the archer 5ft away has a chance to shoot back when the archer tries to shoot him. So in an RPG whch is broken down in turns, you need a mechanic other than ready an action to allow shooting back. Which is move action to position shoot move action duck away. Exception are monsters with ability sharpshooter or rangers or rogues who can shift before or after the attack, which is ok for me.


----------

