Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Caliban" data-source="post: 359861" data-attributes="member: 284">I tend to use the *Shrug* to indicate that I recognize that we have different opinions, and I am going to use my method.&nbsp; It's not important enought to keep arguing about.&nbsp; (Although I usually end up doing it anyway.)My ruling of cover is pretty simple: does it have a physical presence (i.e. hit points)? Does it completely cover you in respect to the attack? Is it armor? If the answer is yes to the first two and no to the third, then it is cover.&nbsp;&nbsp; I agree that in the real world, simple clothing would provide no real barrier to a sword blow or a fireball.&nbsp; &nbsp; That is also true in the D&amp;D world, in most cirumtances.&nbsp; However, in D&amp;D terms that does not mean that it is not cover.&nbsp; It's just incredibly flimsy cover.&nbsp;&nbsp; Even 1 point of damage is enough to breach it, and the full damage would pass through.&nbsp; It's just that in D&amp;D you cannot damage someones equipment unless you specifically target it, or they roll a natural 1 on their save.&nbsp;&nbsp; Since it doesn't take damage, it is not breached and anything it is covering doesn't take damage either. I don't believe that clothing is &quot;concealement&quot;.&nbsp; Concealment obscures without impeding.&nbsp;&nbsp; Clothe can impede a blow.&nbsp; You can make rope out of clothe, and you can even make armor out of cloth (padded armor anyone?).&nbsp;&nbsp; And most of all, I dislike the illogic of acid and fire passing completely through my backpack and only damaging my familiar, and not any of my clothing or other items.&nbsp; &nbsp; If you are going to use the rule that your equipment is not damaged by these effects, then it logically follows that anything inside is undamaged as well.&nbsp; If that rule was not in place, then your interpretation would be the most accurate one.&nbsp; But, that rule is in place, and I don't think you can just ignore it. Given a choice between the impervious clothe or the phasing acid attack, I'll choose the impervious clothe.&nbsp;&nbsp; It seems slightly less illogical to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Caliban, post: 359861, member: 284"] I tend to use the *Shrug* to indicate that I recognize that we have different opinions, and I am going to use my method. It's not important enought to keep arguing about. (Although I usually end up doing it anyway.) My ruling of cover is pretty simple: does it have a physical presence (i.e. hit points)? Does it completely cover you in respect to the attack? Is it armor? If the answer is yes to the first two and no to the third, then it is cover. I agree that in the real world, simple clothing would provide no real barrier to a sword blow or a fireball. That is also true in the D&D world, in most cirumtances. However, in D&D terms that does not mean that it is not cover. It's just incredibly flimsy cover. Even 1 point of damage is enough to breach it, and the full damage would pass through. It's just that in D&D you cannot damage someones equipment unless you specifically target it, or they roll a natural 1 on their save. Since it doesn't take damage, it is not breached and anything it is covering doesn't take damage either. I don't believe that clothing is "concealement". Concealment obscures without impeding. Clothe can impede a blow. You can make rope out of clothe, and you can even make armor out of cloth (padded armor anyone?). And most of all, I dislike the illogic of acid and fire passing completely through my backpack and only damaging my familiar, and not any of my clothing or other items. If you are going to use the rule that your equipment is not damaged by these effects, then it logically follows that anything inside is undamaged as well. If that rule was not in place, then your interpretation would be the most accurate one. But, that rule is in place, and I don't think you can just ignore it. Given a choice between the impervious clothe or the phasing acid attack, I'll choose the impervious clothe. It seems slightly less illogical to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification