Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuzzlewump" data-source="post: 5076251" data-attributes="member: 63214">(Darn, lost my post. Here's a brief version.)EDIT: That ended up less brief than intended. Man, this must be what Celebrim feels like most of the time.Rules as written, you have a case for your compromise, based on the "Determining Cover" section on page 280. Nothing explicitly says that allies can't provide superior cover if it's not a ranged attack, so you can roll with that. Rules as intended, I think you are wrong. If that's all you wanted go ahead and take your e-trophy, but otherwise, for you or whoever is interested, let's continue.On the OP, I believe you were wrong on both RAW and RAI. It wasn't that I don't believe in RAI, it's that the wording and intentions are clear. In this case, as you know from reading my posts, there is a contradiction. A ranged attack is superior covered based on "Determining Cover" and regular covered based on everything else in the page. This contradictions leads me to the conclusion that a choice must be made. I describe in more detail in previous posts. I'll pose questions to recreate the choices:1. For a ranged attack, can a creature provide superior cover? (You seem to be agreeing with me for a "No.")2. Whatever you decide for question one, why would that be different for stealth versus ranged attack?Imagine a case where a ranger is readying a ranged attack for a hafling; when he steps into a position behind another creature that would grant him superior cover as far as you are concerned, for stealth, the ranger will shoot his arrow at the hafling. The halfling, on his turn, walks behind the creature and uses stealth. By your interpretation and compromise, the halfling is allowed to do this, assuming concealment is also involved. So, when the Ranger fires his shot, with your interpretation, the halfling will be invisible to the ranger's eyes but his arrow will only suffer the penalty for cover and concealment.I don't believe that the RAW even truly supports this, but it doesn't explicitly disallow it, because of the vagueness of the "Determining Cover" section in general, so your interpretation is valid and legal based on it. When taken in the context of the rest of the rules, and when you consider it intuitively that a ranged attack can't suffer superior cover, but your eye sight can, I feel that the RAI swings toward my direction, that allies can't provide superior cover no matter what for.Before you bring up how you were intuitively arguing your OP, and we jumped on you, the thing was, you were wrong. I don't think anyone agreed that it was intuitive for you to be able to hide behind your friends in broad daylight. Your compromise certainly brought up an interesting point, that maybe darkness would make it possible. I don't agree because I never agreed that allies can grant superior cover, but that made the decision more interesting.To be clear on what I'm saying about the contradiction, playing a by-the-book RAW game would mean that a ranged attack would have to have superior cover and cover at the same time if the situation called for it. That is to say, not every case can be simply read and applied, discretion must be taken. In your OP, you applied discretion in the wrong way, based on the general consensus of the board. In this case, I'm applying my discretion in a useful way, that actually is intuitive.</blockquote>

Verification