Stealth and Superior Cover: sniping from behind the doorframe

[Skyscraper]

For a second opinion, check out Rules of Hidden Club on the Wizards Rules Q&A forum.

Yeah, I had read that, thanks. Good stuff. This is actually where I got the move without moving move action to get a stealth check.

 

[Skyscraper]

A door frame would be the same as firing round a corner - cover, not superior cover. Superior cover is for prepared defensive emplacements & such. Firing down from battlements would be superior cover. Firing from a darkened arrow slit would be superior cover + total concealment*, unless the enemy 'lit you up' somehow (faerie fire, light behind you silhouetting you, etc) in which case it'd just be superior cover.

*Thus also giving combat advantage to the sniper behind the arrow slit.

I'm glad someone brings this up, because there's an argument to be made about whether a doorframe is superior cover or not.

This being said, I don't agree that a doorframe is like a corner. The doorframe allows you to be behind a wall; the corner, not.

In 3E, an example of superior cover was using a door to hide behind it. To me, that's like hiding behind a wall next to a doorframe. Why not allow superior cover?

You say that superior cover is for prepared defensive emplacments: a window is not such an emplacement. Please clarify what makes you decide what superior cover is.

By the way, to promote discussion on this topic, there's a rule in the PHB about it:

From PHB pg 280:

"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."

 

[S'mon]

You say that superior cover is for prepared defensive emplacments: a window is not such an emplacement. Please clarify what makes you decide what superior cover is.

A small window would be superior cover, a French window would not be. Firing from behind sand bags would be superior cover. Firing from behind a large fallen log while prone/kneeling might be improvised superior cover; firing from round a standing tree would be cover. There are marginal cases such as a large window (how large?), but certainly firing through a doorway would not give superior cover.

 

[S'mon]

In 3E, an example of superior cover was using a door to hide behind it. To me, that's like hiding behind a wall next to a doorframe. Why not allow superior cover?

If you're hiding *behind* the wall, you have total cover against somebody on the other side of the wall. They can't hurt you unless they destroy the wall. I was thinking about somebody standing in the doorway. They'd have cover against some attackers, as per the RAW on line-tracing.

If you're completely behind a tough but permeable door, I guess either cover or superior cover plus total concealment might be right.

 

[Skyscraper]

If you're hiding *behind* the wall, you have total cover against somebody on the other side of the wall. They can't hurt you unless they destroy the wall. I was thinking about somebody standing in the doorway. They'd have cover against some attackers, as per the RAW on line-tracing.

If you're completely behind a tough but permeable door, I guess either cover or superior cover plus total concealment might be right.

To be clear: someone standing in the middle of the doorframe would not benefit from superior cover, I completely agree with that.

Assuming the doorway is one square wide, I'm talking about someone standing on the square on one side or the other of the doorway.

Do you play videogames? One analogy would be the Gears of War or the Rainbow Six: Vegas series. You can lie with your back against the wall and fire through the doorway. This is what I'm talking about here. This is not the same in my mind as standing in the middle of the doorway or being located on a corner. For me, it's pretty much equivalent as standing on one side or the other of a window frame and this is why I believe that it could provide superior cover, don't you think?

 

[S'mon]

To be clear: someone standing in the middle of the doorframe would not benefit from superior cover, I completely agree with that.

Assuming the doorway is one square wide, I'm talking about someone standing on the square on one side or the other of the doorway.

Do you play videogames? One analogy would be the Gears of War or the Rainbow Six: Vegas series. You can lie with your back against the wall and fire through the doorway. This is what I'm talking about here. This is not the same in my mind as standing in the middle of the doorway or being located on a corner. For me, it's pretty much equivalent as standing on one side or the other of a window frame and this is why I believe that it could provide superior cover, don't you think?

Standing on one side, firing diagonally through the doorway... I guess that could give superior cover, yes. Very restricted field of fire though.

 

[Skyscraper]

Standing on one side, firing diagonally through the doorway... I guess that could give superior cover, yes. Very restricted field of fire though.

Well, depends on how you see things. The rogue is firing from the corner that is in the doorframe, so he has unlimited fielf of fire into the room; but he's standing behind the wall so he has superior cover.

 

[S'mon]

Well, depends on how you see things. The rogue is firing from the corner that is in the doorframe, so he has unlimited fielf of fire into the room; but he's standing behind the wall so he has superior cover.

But any line drawn from the corner touching the doorframe into the room must touch the doorframe, so he doesn't have LOS as I understand it?

Edit: I find this kind of thing is a hell of a lot easier to adjudicate in game than to work out the RAW out of game! In practice I'd likely go with a simulationist approach and allow a Rogue to lean round throw a dagger or fire a hand crossbow with his main hand, if that's the hand adjacent to the frame, and retain superior cover, but not fire a shortbow while keeping superior cover. Or if the player annoyed me I'd enforce the RAW.

 

[Skyscraper]

But any line drawn from the corner touching the doorframe into the room must touch the doorframe, so he doesn't have LOS as I understand it?

Questionable. I think there's an argument to be made about this also. I'm not sure how the RAW should be interpreted here. Is the corner of the rogue's square blocked by the wall located at that precise location?

Even if yes, RAW aside, is it then something you would want to uphold?

Edit: I find this kind of thing is a hell of a lot easier to adjudicate in game than to work out the RAW out of game! In practice I'd likely go with a simulationist approach and allow a Rogue to lean round throw a dagger or fire a hand crossbow with his main hand, if that's the hand adjacent to the frame, and retain superior cover, but not fire a shortbow while keeping superior cover. Or if the player annoyed me I'd enforce the RAW.

Haha.

The rogue in my case is an elf who uses a longbow, but I don't feel like it'll reveal him all that more. He can still lean with his back against the wall when he's not firing.

Also, to be frank, since he has deft strike anyway, the question originated from him initially, but now the question comes up for the ranged ranger and the wizard who are both enquiring whether they could use the same trick to possibly benefit from +2 on their attack rolls due to CA.

I'm pretty open to it presently and I'm leaning on accepting that kind of trick generally, but it seems like stretching the RAW to accept it and consequently I'm still bouncing the idea around, both in our game forum and here.

 

[S'mon]

Maybe the trick is to draw your doorways just over 1 square wide? That then gives the effect you want.