Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 3341695" data-attributes="member: 2011">I suspect that total cover (and cover in general) is based on hardness. If the attack blows through the hardness (and hit points of an object), it is supposed to continue on. Cloth might have a hit point or two, but it should have a hardness of zero.Fireball works that way, but I am not aware of a generic rule:So, in the case of Fireball, the familiar within a total cover wooden box is fortunate. The rules state that objects on the PCs body do not take damage unless the PC rolls a one on his saving throw. So, the Fireball cannot get through the cover.However, I do not consider clothing to be cover. It does not match the examples in the PHB for cover. Hence, I consider them concealment. Concealment does not give these advantages.I base concealment on the example objects in PHB. If tree branches and bushes can supply total concealment and not total cover, to me, tree branches and bushes are too "flexible" to provide cover. Same with cloth. I think each DM has to draw the line, but for me, mobile flexible objects could provide concealment, but not cover. Immobile non-flexible objects can provide concealment or cover or both. But, I do not have a rules quote for this. The best I can do is the examples in the PHB.Also remember, there is "soft cover" in the game, but soft cover is creatures, not objects.One does not necessarily get total cover from a wall versus a spread, even though the same wall could give total cover from a burst.In other words, the going underwater example (mostly meant as a joke) would emulate a spread, not a burst.Agreed. I think the idea was that it was more or less always gave protection that made it that pricey.</blockquote>

Verification