Cover - need a clarification

[Blizzardb]

From the 4th edition rules primer:

"Cover - If an enemy has cover, you get a -2 penalty to attack rolls against it. Your allies don't provide cover, but enemies do."

Does the second sentence mean "your allies don't provide cover to you" or "your allies don't provide cover to your enemy"? Can anyone that has been to D&D experience confirm this?

 

[fafhrd]

I take it to mean that your buddies don't foul your shots.

 

[Dog Moon]

So if you're shooting at Enemy A and no one stands between you and him, you can hit him just fine. If ALLY A is standing between Enemy A and you, it's as if no one was there. However if Enemy B is standing between Enemy A and you, Enemy A has cover.

Does that makes sense?

 

[hong]

So if you're shooting at Enemy A and no one stands between you and him, you can hit him just fine. If ALLY A is standing between Enemy A and you, it's as if no one was there. However if Enemy B is standing between Enemy A and you, Enemy A has cover.

Does that makes sense?

Sure. It's kinda like how you can bodyblock enemies but not party members in Guild Wars.

 

[Blizzardb]

Yes it does. However I can also see a kind of logic in the opposite - if my ally stands between me and a monster I am trying not to hit him, if another monster stands between us, I just don't care... And the wording is kinda ambiguous, at least to me.

 

[fafhrd]

Yes it does. However I can also see a kind of logic in the opposite - if my ally stands between me and a monster I am trying not to hit him, if another monster stands between us, I just don't care... And the wording is kinda ambiguous, at least to me.

I think we've got it right. It removes the need for precise shot which takes on larger significance now that every ranged attacker is an archer while leaving the defender free to defend his allies from enemy fire.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

It also means then, that Defenders can be right infront of an archer, using his defensive exploits to defend the archer while he picks off targets from afar.

Sorta like in armies where when it gets up-close pikeman are infront, archers behind.

 

[Blizzardb]

Thank you very much for the clarification.

 

[Stalker0]

I will say, I understand why they went with the "allies don't provide cover" option...definitely a streamlining effect. But why not just go all the way and say "bodies don't provide cover". As has been mentioned, I'm much more likely to be cautious shooting around my buddy then I would around another monster.

 

[Demigonis]

I will say, I understand why they went with the "allies don't provide cover" option...definitely a streamlining effect. But why not just go all the way and say "bodies don't provide cover". As has been mentioned, I'm much more likely to be cautious shooting around my buddy then I would around another monster.

Because they want to add tactical situations such as:

Having a Fighter stand in front of a Caster to provide them cover.