Let me propose this:
Indiana Jones and his Evil Twin are facing off against each other. They are ten feet apart and armed with whips. Between them is a wall three feet high that extends from Raiders of the Lost Ark to The Last Crusade.
According to the book, they each have partial cover.
According to you, since they can draw an unobstructed line from their chests to each other, neither one of them has cover against the other.
Is this an accurate representation between the rules in the book and the rules how they are being interpreted?
You were closer when you still realized that I (and Osle, apparently) substitute "square" for "cube". Drawing 4 lines for 8. Indy has cover because while he can target the top 4 corners, he cannot target the bottom 4.
Oh, and so you don't feel left out:
A creature at the bottom of the staircase looking up at a creature at the top of the staircase: Neither creature has cover, as there is no basis for cover. This is a somewhat insulting example. However, the creature at the top of the staircase can claim higher ground. If the creature at the base of the staircase were small enough to press themselves against the rise of the staircase, though, they would absolutely gain cover.
This wasn't meant to be insulting, I know full well you are MUCH smarter than the person whom attempted to argue this with me. It was merely the basis for beginning to realize that most of the rules are written in 2D, yet we play mostly in 3D (after Lv5). It was a logical bridge example to be built upon. Again, no insult meant.
Dragon scenario: This scenario does not provide the small creature with cover either, though depending on the situation the dragon may be able to claim at least partial (10%) cover.
A) degrees of cover do not exist in 3.5.
B) the only question was: does he get cover just because you can't see his lower half, when you have full 8-line connection to the square his head is in? This is like your Indiana Jones example, but here Indy is under the effects of the Giant Growth spell.
I'm the dragon: First off, he'd be dead before he ever got to that ledge, second why is there even that ledge in my home. Third, whoever the Crimson Oblivion is, I don't need his approval to strike out against my enemies. As for cover, depending on where my majestic maw is before I unleash the Sun, he may or may not gain cover from the angle of the stone, or if he can scramble to a rock in time.
You were asleep. Little S**T woke you up, and must burn for it. Ledge is there because you keep your hoard in a dry underground lake, you hop down from that ledge yourself. Crimson Oblivion is a maneuver from Osle's Breath of Fire school, +16d6 damage to your breath weapon.
you're 30ft tall, the ledge is 20' tall, you are looking down on the guy, but if your head were where your feet are, you'd only know he was there with blindsense. You're feet have cover, but you, are, looking, down, on, him. No cover.
See, it's things like these we call Role playing. See, it works like this.
See this is where we are agreeing. And when roll-playing, we think in 3D.
And flying creatures don't block their own line of sight down because they know what they look like, so they ignore themselves. That, and you don't count you for the purposes of blocking your own line of sight unless you're taking an action to avoid the gaze of something.
You missed my point. I was emphasizing the difference in "square thought" and "cube thought". LoS isn't the conversation, cover is. Cover can be granted by being behind creatures. You are a creature. If you only measure from the base of the figure, i.e. you can not choose an area you your occupied space other than your feet, not only do you have the dragons dilemma above, but that means you have to aim through yourself to shoot up.
Anomander got everything perfect IMO. Down to the fallacy I ended on being sarcastic by pointing out.