Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Petrosian" data-source="post: 862337" data-attributes="member: 1149">the one beef i have with cover and concealment is that only concealment, any amount of concealment, affects whether you can sneak attack.A fighter standing in brush which comes up to say his waste and gets "light foliage" concealment cannot be sneak attacked. If he steps three feet so that that bush is now a waist high stone wall, it becomes cover and now he gets an Ac bonus and can be sneak attacked.A guy 5' away in fog cannot be sneak attacked... while the guy 30' away behind an arrow slit can.All this barring the Gm deciding that cover DOES provide protection from sneak attacks as a house rule of course.i would prefer that in 3.5 cover and concealment provided similar benefits in structure, with the difference being that cover, as a HARD defense, provided more blocking chance.For example, make cover and concealment the same rule.If the target is concealed (obscured by non-rigid interposing effect such as fog or foliage or darkness or invisible) then his AC goes up by the amount COVER now provides, to represent hitting the smaller exposed area. The Ac bonus also adds to hide checks.If he is concealed by RIGID, blocking material, then he gains the automatic miss chance currently assigned to concealment (attack was deflected by cover) and the reflex save bonus (currently a part of cover.)In either case, 100% interpose/conceal/cover means you do need to find the hex and a way to it and would impose the invisibility effects.In either case, after a certain point, say when 50% cover/conceal is achieved, then sneak attacks become impossible.this seems more accurately to reflect the differences between cover (which can block) and concealment (which merely obscures) to me.</blockquote>

Verification