D&D 4E Ranged Cover rules all hosed up in DDM2 (/4E?)
- Thread starter Imban
- Start date
Its worth noting that gargantuan and colossal creatures aren't covered in the basic DDM rules.
Does the situation look absurd with a tiny, small, medium, large or even huge creature? Because thats all the rules are dealing with...
But really, its just an extreme corner case of the usual cover abstraction in minis games.
Does the situation look absurd with a tiny, small, medium, large or even huge creature? Because thats all the rules are dealing with...
But really, its just an extreme corner case of the usual cover abstraction in minis games.
Last edited:
TerraDave said:
This one is actually pretty independent of character mobility - the character has to be even with the wall or (possibly - the grid's too small for me to check) far north of the dragon to attack it without cover. Even if he was three spaces north and one space west of where he is now, the dragon'd still be getting cover.
On the other hand, I'm now pretty much in agreement with Celebrim - almost any rule for cover is going to be either highly complicated or have annoying edge cases, and as such this rule is as good as any other simple rule, because when it's very wrong, well, there's a DM sitting there to say no, dude doesn't have cover.
Well the rule seems designed for medium creatures, and doesn't take large or larger creatures into account, so I agree that it's inconclusive by itself.Imban said:
What has me convinced, is that later in the cover section, under a heading called "Big Creatures and Cover" it mentions that for melee cover against big creatures, you can break it down into individual squares and if you can attack any single square without cover, you can attack the whole creature as if it didn't have cover. The implication there, is that since it doesn't say so for ranged cover, that you can't do that. But, like I said, it's inconclusive. The 3.5 combat rules don't seem designed for a very legalistic reading.
Blossoms said:
The main problem I see with that rule is, unless I'm mistaken, it makes it hard or impossible for a medium creature to have cover.
Celebrim said:
I agree with the granularity issue, though making the creature colossal and moving it 5ft south does not give it cover. See the first attachment in this post - a line can be drawn to every square of the creature with no cover. You must move it 10ft south, as in the second attachment.
Attachments
Benimoto said:
Impossible, actually, because if any line is open it has no cover and if none are there's no line of effect.
Obviously, this rule would need to only apply against Large and larger creatures, which would make it more complciated. (Of course, it's not by much, so that's a level of complexity a lot of GMs would be willing to put up with.)
UngeheuerLich
Legend
a clear line to the center and all corners of the adjacent squares...
but you could also make the rules a bit more logical: if you are so near to cover, it is easier to dodge, because you know one direction that is safe. (You are not standing around doing nothing. It is assumed you constantly dodge etc.)
but you could also make the rules a bit more logical: if you are so near to cover, it is easier to dodge, because you know one direction that is safe. (You are not standing around doing nothing. It is assumed you constantly dodge etc.)
Similar Threads
