Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
I thought I was quite clear that the rule talks only about whether or not you can claim cover for the purposes of the hide skill: it does not prevent you from claiming cover against an attack.

In any event, how's this?

Rule 31r2 -- Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield:

A character may not attempt a hide check against an observer against whom she lacks effective cover or concealment. When determining whether or not a character may attempt a hide check against a particular observer, do not consider any cover that does not impede the observer's vision or that would be hidden as a result of a successful check.
Honestly, I'd prefer we just tie it to concealment.

Have concealment? Can hide.
No concealment? Cannot hide.

Concealment= stuff blocking vision.
Cover= stuff blocking attacks.

D&D is not always fantastic with differentiating between cover and concealment, and that's the root cause of all this confusion. Realistically, something could easily be only one or the other, or even both. It makes sense to allow you to hide behind anything that grants concealment, and cover need not be considered at all.


Additionally, I see no particular reason why armor bits can't be substituted out with magical items. I suspect that the line about gauntlets, etc indicates that RAI is that they can be.

However...if you literally swap out all the bits, is it still the same set of armor?