Clarification on Superior Cover

[Samir]

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.

Emphasis mine. OP's suggestion notwithstanding, it seems pretty clear to me that allies can grant you superior cover. I'm not sure I understand how people can interpret cover to exist only when a ranged attack is being made.

 

[kugelkj]

This rule...

Creatures and Cover: When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover. Your allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks.

...specifically governs the general rule RE: Determining Cover

 

[fuzzlewump]

This rule...

Creatures and Cover: When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover. Your allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks.

...specifically governs the general rule RE: Determining Cover

"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." (Emphasis mine)

Notice how it says enemy twice, thus making the "Determining Cover" section just as specific, despite the name. If a line is blocked by an obstacle or an enemy, the target has cover. The section does not mention a ranged attack. I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, but there is an obvious hole in your reasoning that needs to be addressed.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Emphasis mine. OP's suggestion notwithstanding, it seems pretty clear to me that allies can grant you superior cover. I'm not sure I understand how people can interpret cover to exist only when a ranged attack is being made.

This is flawed reasoning. The specific rule on allies and cover states it only exists for ranged attacks and SPECIFICALLY disallows it for melee, area, and close attacks. It also doesn't mention the possibility of superior cover. So, unless you assume that rule is just verbal drivel then you MUST accept that it is more specific than the general cover rule.

Now, I am willing to grant that the specific ally cover rule does NOT state that superior cover is never granted for allies, nor does it give a specific procedure for determining if an ally is 'in the way' of a ranged attack. We will thus have to assume that the 'in the way' determination is the normal line tracing procedure from the general cover rules. As to whether or not superior cover is possible from allies alone the rules are not really clear. I'd be perfectly willing to accept that as a possibility with a reasonable argument from RAW.

However, the point is it is clear that the cover granted for allies is only against ranged attacks. Its use for stealth is not defined in the specific ally cover rule, but since we already know that you can't remain hidden using allies as cover that would be highly suggestive of the idea that allies can't allow you to hide at all. Again its not conclusive and I won't insist on arguing that RAW clearly forbids it, but any arguments in favor of allies allowing you to hide or remain hidden is resting on VERY VERY thin ice from a rules perspective.

And lest one think this issue really is trivial there would be dirt simple ways to exploit the ability to do this. For instance if you had a row of combatants

RXE

where R is a rogue, X is an ally, and E is an enemy by the cover rules R would have superior cover vs E. He can simply stand there, make a hide check and attack with CA. X doesn't block his fire, so basically its just as good as flanking assuming he can make the hide check. Even if E steps around X on its turn, so what? R can step around the other way on his turn and STILL make the hide check. E can't escape from this 'pseudo flanking'. R can even use Nimble Strike and make a melee attack with CA using this. With Chameleon he can get a -5 to any attack E makes against R as well. I would consider this to be ridiculous and if it were determined to be RAW I would consider it a flaw in the rules. As it stands I can't see ANY justification for interpreting the rules to allow this kind of silliness.

 

[KarinsDad]

Creatures and Cover: When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover. Your allies never grant cover to your enemies, and neither allies nor enemies give cover against melee, close, or area attacks.

It is totally unclear here as to whether the word cover here is meant in the generic sense (i.e. cover as in one is currently reading in the section of rules on cover) or cover in the specific sense (i.e. cover as in normal cover +2, not superior cover +5). The second sentence implies that it is the former, but it is not crystal clear.

So since we do not know which it means, we cannot assume one or the other. We have to look to other rules to determine this. The very next paragraph:

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.

Regardless of what was meant in the first paragraph, the second paragraph here is an explicit rule. It is THE explicit rule to determine the difference between cover +2 and superior cover +5. The PC gets superior cover if 3 or 4 lines are blocked and that blockage can be via an ally (i.e. an enemy of the attacker).

We have an unclear rule (which can be interpreted either way) and a totally crystal clear rule (which can only be interpreted in one way).

Sorry, but the crystal clear rule wins in a RAW debate. The unclear rule has to be interpreted as supporting the crystal clear rule (which it can), one cannot say that the crystal clear rule is a generic rule and the unclear rule is a specific rule that overrides it and we must interpret the unclear rule in a specific way. That's not RAW, that's wishful thinking. Both of these rules are generic rules. Neither is a specific override.


Having said that, I believe that RAI is that one only gets +2 cover via an ally.

It's also interesting to note (because of silly grid issues) that:

. . C
. B .
A . .

if B is C's ally, C has superior cover +5 from A for ranged attacks

. . .
A B C
. . .

if B is C's ally, C has cover +2 from A for ranged attacks

So yes, I do think RAI is that allies only supply cover and not superior cover, but I don't think that is RAW.

 

[kugelkj]

It is totally unclear here...

I couldn't disagree more... the order of the rules:

Area Attacks and Close Attacks (specific)
Reach (specific)
Creatures and Cover (specific)
Determining Cover (general)

specifically governs every situation in which creatures provide cover at all (superior cover is just excessive for reasons discussed in previous posts).

Specifically, creatures are excluded from all circumstances RE: Determining cover, except in the case of a ranged attack. Period.

Then we get:

Keep Out of Sight: If you no longer have any cover or concealment against an enemy, you don’t remain hidden from that enemy. You don’t need superior cover, total concealment, or to stay outside line of sight, but you do need some degree of cover or concealment to remain hidden. You can’t use another creature as cover to remain hidden.

Specifically, excludes creatures in this circumstance from allowing cover again.

Two specific rules exclude creatures from interacting with the covers rules , except in the case of a ranged attack. Period.

Why jump through these mental hoops to get to another situation, Hidden, that is completely unsustainable anyway.

Find a better way to get CA: (mix and match for maximum effectiveness):

Use terrain to get cover
Flank (this is sweet and easy to do)
Bluff (Create a Diversion to Hide)
Pact Initiate (Eyebite)
Gnome (Fade Away)
Warlock (Shadow Walk)
Rogue (Utility Powers for a specialist)
Distant Advantage (Feat)...

 

[KarinsDad]

I couldn't disagree more... the order of the rules:

Area Attacks and Close Attacks (specific)
Reach (specific)
Creatures and Cover (specific)
Determining Cover (general)

Let's take an example straight from the rules:

Area Attacks and Close Attacks: When you make an area attack or a close attack, a target has cover if there is an obstruction between the origin square and the target, not between you and the target.

Just like in the Creatures and Cover section, the Area Attacks and Close Attacks section does not say which of the two definitions of cover is being used, cover as in "the rules on cover" or cover as in normal cover "-2 penalty to attack rolls".


When it comes to determining normal cover vs. superior cover, the Area Attacks and Close Attacks determines if cover is possible at all and the Determining Cover section determines whether it is normal cover, or superior cover.

Ditto for all of the other sections. The text that determines if if is normal cover or superior cover is solely the provence of the Determining Cover rules.


For the opposing POV to be valid, Area Attacks and Close Attacks could never have superior cover if Creatures and Cover never have superior cover.


With respect to type of cover (normal or superior), there is no difference between:

When you make an area attack or a close attack, a target has cover
if there is an obstruction between the origin square and the target

and

When you make a ranged attack against an enemy and other enemies are in the way, your target has cover.

Neither of these two rules indicate anything about normal cover vs. superior cover. They indicate if cover exists. Period.


Note: I ignored the rest of your post because I am not talking about hidden, range cover, or anything else. I am merely talking about normal cover vs. superior cover. Bringing in the rest of the discussion says nothing about this point.

 

[fuzzlewump]

@kugelkj

You seem well convinced, but if you want to convince anyone else you're going to have to address points more directly. You are convincing no one by saying a rule "specifically excludes" anything without justification for how. This goes for any of your points.

You ignored how I said determining cover is actually specific, because it mentions enemies i.e. creatures, you haven't explained why the order of presentation is significant, nor did you really respond to KarinsDad beyond quoting a tiny section. Etc. Etc. None of this is necessarily a problem, but if you want to convince anyone it is.

I suppose I'm done here, I already came to my conclusion a page or so back, so good luck.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Actually, cover is not worth the discussion. It is a result of a simplified system and therefore not realistic. In the case of unclear rules, which they obviously are, you should make a consensus at your gametable or look how it is regulated in LFR.

It is a rule which can be used on both sides of the DM screen and therefore doesn´t unbalance the game too much. Actually, if you have a ranged attacker having problems fullfilling gis striker role, or a cloth guy beeing nailed by ranged attacks all the time, you should use the total cover rule for creatures.

In this case I am impressed by Karins Dads good reading of the rule. It is unclear if cover includes or excludes total cover. If you read the next paragraph is "titeled determining cover", and not "determining cover or total cover"

 

[kugelkj]

I suppose I'm done here, I already came to my conclusion a page or so back, so good luck.

Ditto.

Point to KarinsDad.

Cover and Stealth rules suck.