Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuzzlewump" data-source="post: 5076674" data-attributes="member: 63214">Haha, yeah, I remember when I didn't post at all and now look at how far I've fallen, I'm some kind of long-winded fuzzle-stormer. EDIT: And... there I go again.The oddest thing about cover, to me, is the angles. If you are in a straight horizontal or vertical line set up like YOU ALLY ENEMY, then the YOU have light cover from the ENEMY, and from the compromise YOU can't stealth. Do the same set up, but put them in a diagonal line, as you did in your OP, and suddenly it's superior cover, which is its own can of worms, as well as the opportunity to stealth. In the game world/narrative, however, nothing changed. This is especially true because of 1-1-1 movement, but even if it's 1-2-1 movement, the only difference is how far apart they would be, the amount of cover shouldn't change.The second oddest thing is that it doesn't matter how many things are in the way. It can be YOU ALLY ALLY ALLY ALLY WALL WALL ALLY ENEMY, all in the straight line, and you would still only have cover. In fact, even if there is a 10x10 block of allies between you in the enemy, as long as that enemy can draw imaginary lines along the edges of their spaces, which would require YOU and ENEMY to be in a horizontal or vertical line from eachother, it's still only cover. Although, maybe at some point you rule that he loses line of effect, despite only suffering from cover. Or that some amount of blocked squares in a row means superior cover, and then total cover or whatever.The only issue I see unresolved in all of this, is why they put in that you can't stealth behind allies if they're good enough cover to get superior cover from, which like the examples, would be like an arrow-slit. I guess it's because they're so mobile, that the enemy would catch a wayward arm or foot and notice you, as opposed to a stationary object where you can hide behind easily for awhile. I guess them saying that you can't use an ally as cover for stealth leads me to my personal ruling that an ally, especially just ONE ally, can't give superior cover.Come to think of it, does an obstacle have to fill a square? Enemies certainly don't, to get superior cover as described. Can you get superior cover from being diagonally behind a thin tree that you could normally share a space with, and thus stealth behind it and only it? The tree isn't even a creature, so concealment wouldn't be required. Maybe just if its a 'sufficiently large' tree to save us all the headache?What if turns out the tree is actually a living Ent or something. Then, when your DM tells you can't maintain stealth behind it, you'd know.</blockquote>

Verification