Creature size and cover

[DNH]

Okay so here's the thing, we have a halfling rogue who wants to use stealth to go hidden and attack with combat advantage/sneak attack. The battlefield is an outdoors location in full daylight, with a few trees and bushes about.

The halfling (Pansy) runs up behind a tree and tries to hide.

Sorry, say I, the tree provides only partial cover.

"But I am Small!" says Pansy. "I am only 3' 8"!"

It is a fair point but it looks to me that the rules do not provide for creature size and cover. I mean, the thing about drawing imaginary lines covers it somewhat when considering Large and larger creatures but since Small and Medium creatures occupy the same space, there is no difference between them for cover. That can't be right, can it?

(In fact, from what I see, the only difference between Small and Medium is that Small creatures cannot wield certain weapons or have to wield them two-handed. So that's one penalty and no bonuses.)

I have cobbled together some rules for this specific instance, which allow the Small halfling to Squeeze behind the partial-cover-providing tree and thus gain superior cover (although the penalties of Squeezing still apply, so I doubt that will be too popular). But then I considered the low wall.

The RC *specifically* states that "crouching behind a low wall" provides partial cover. What, even for a Small halfling?

Any thoughts, anyone?

 

[CroBob]

Why couldn't he hide with the partial cover? Was someone observing him?

 

[Riastlin]

Technically, I think you are right that the RAW do not distinguish between small and medium creatures for purposes of being able to gain cover (and I agree with [MENTION=6683307]CroBob[/MENTION] that partial cover is good enough).

That being said, I think that this is one of those areas where even though the RAW do not cover it, the DM should feel free to implement Rule 0. Just keep in mind that the same rules apply for all the PCs and all the NPCs/Monsters, etc. So a small sized monster could also use the tree or low wall for greater cover. Conversely, the large sized ogre might not get any benefit for trying to crouch behind the two foot high wall.

So personally, I would try to take it as a case by case situation, but it also helps if your players are willing to trust you not to just arbitrarily screw them. Remain consistent and it should work just fine. If your players don't have a lot of trust in the DM (and plenty of players have had really bad experiences with DMs) then feel free to stick with the RAW.

At the end of the day, I think this is just another example of how the RAW can't really cover every conceivable scenario. If they did, the rule books would likely be 1000 pages.

 

[Will Doyle]

Why couldn't he hide with the partial cover? Was someone observing him?

You need superior cover to go hidden during combat.

There are no specific rules for small creatures and cover (as far as I'm aware). In fact, the section on creature size states clearly that small creatures occupy the same amount of space as medium creatures.

So you'd need to houserule it. You could say that as a general rule, light cover counts as superior cover for small creatures. It could be very powerful though.

 

[CroBob]

I think RAW makes no differentiation because it doesn't intend to. If you want to house-rule a "small creatures get +1 to stealth", though, that's your call.

 

[CroBob]

You need superior cover to go hidden during combat.

Ah, of course. I, for some reason, supposed the combat had not yet started, that they were positioning for an ambush. In that case; No full cover, no hiding. It's simple. Run behind a tree while an enemy can see you, he knows you're behind the tree, and can probably see your arm or fat booty sticking out. Even if he can't, he still has a good idea where you are, he simply can't see you.

 

[DNH]

You could say that as a general rule, light cover counts as superior cover for small creatures. It could be very powerful though.

I think this approach would be very powerful indeed and is probably taking things too far. A small creature could become hidden pretty much anywhere and any time, this way, with little penalty.

If you want to house-rule a "small creatures get +1 to stealth", though, that's your call.

I don't think that addresses the issue though. It is not so much that small creatures should be able to hide more easily but that they should be able to take greater advantage of certain terrain features that might not be sufficient for medium and larger creatures.

Rule 0 ... take it as a case by case situation

This is pretty much what I will be doing but I am actually surprised that it's not in the RAW and I wanted to know if other DMs have had this issue and had to deal with it.

 

[Will Doyle]

This is pretty much what I will be doing but I am actually surprised that it's not in the RAW and I wanted to know if other DMs have had this issue and had to deal with it.

I can't say I've run into this issue so much with small creatures, but I've had similar issues with cover in general.

For example: moving behind a pillar usually translates into light or superior cover. But I've had players argue for more in the past: "hold on, I'm leaning with my back against it. I'm not even peeping around."

Makes sense, but its very powerful to play it like that during combat. I guess you could rule they grant combat advantage to enemies that can see them, or even better, rule that they have to spend a move action to "lock onto" cover (heh, a bit like Gears of War).

Anyway, that's a digression. For small creatures, I'd rule it on a case-by-case basis.

They do get a bum deal though. Beyond weapons, the most common one I come across is water.

"You're wading through chest-high water, so it counts as difficult terrain". "Hold on, I'm three and a half feet tall. This means I'm swimming?"
"Er... Yeah!"

 

[Riastlin]

This is pretty much what I will be doing but I am actually surprised that it's not in the RAW and I wanted to know if other DMs have had this issue and had to deal with it.

Well, I think one of the goals of 4ed in its design was to try to simplify a lot of things (diagonal movement counts the same as forward or sideways, etc.). I think they felt it was just easier to make a general rule and then leave it in the hands of the DM if they want to give bonuses for certain circumstances. There are so many different situations that can come up that its pretty much impossible to cover them all in the books, so once you decide you won't cover everything, the question becomes what do you cover? Obviously there will always be a difference of opinion as to what should be covered.

The long and short (no pun intended) of it is that they decided to treat small critters the same as medium.

As for me personally, I haven't had the issue come up in any of the games I've either run or played in (i.e. a small character asking if he should get a bonus or be able to get more cover, etc.) Every group's different though.

 

[Unwise]

This came up in a game of mine. I said that if the player could suspend his sense of disbelief about small barrells not giving superior cover to small people, I would not change the difficulty rating on jumping, climbing, long distance running, buyin armor off the rack etc to account for people being short.

Being short is a real pain, just something as simple as jumping up onto a table during a fight is a big deal if it is shoulder height for you rather than thigh hieght.

I would be open to the idea of playing with height dependant rules if it did not slow down the game. I would certainly not just apply them to one area that is beneficial to the player, I would be consistent with them.