D&D 4E Ranged Cover rules all hosed up in DDM2 (/4E?)

Fifth Element · Feb 13, 2008

Wolfspider said:
(And, to rant a bit, I wish people would stop bring up v3.5 to defend bad rules in 4e. Fourth edition is supposed to fix the sucktitude of the previous edition, remember? )

This is not a 4E rule, so far as we know. It is a DDM rule.

MaelStorm · Feb 13, 2008

Well said Fifth Element.

What is a rulebook for... arbitrary guidelines.

If I would be a DM I wouldn't check the rules, I would treat it as no cover. I would be surprised if my players would argue that it is non-compliant with the cover rules in the DMG.

I think the biggest tool of a DM is its judgment or common sense, then the rulebooks.

Silvergriffon · Feb 14, 2008

Let's not forget that the dragon is not a cube of meat. Most of the space in that 20x20x20 cube is empty and available for dodging and maneuvering around in.

To clarify, let's look at a human warrior first. He is dodging around in his 5x5x5 area. He is, let us suppose, 6 feet tall but his knees are bent as he warily shifts his weight to either foot while dodging and maneuvering, so he fits on the battle grid inside that 5x5x5 cube. He takes up a volume of maybe 20 cubic feet, but that cube of game space he occupies is 125 cubic feet in volume. That's only 16% of his allocated space, leaving 84% or 105 cubic feet of free space.

Now then, let us assume that the dragon's physical shape means that he takes up a much larger percentage of the cubic game space it occupies. Let's say his size is a really bulky 40% of his game area. That leaves 4800 cubic feet of empty space, or more than 38 completely empty 5x5x5 cubes on the battle grid.

So on that diagram in the OP, the dragon could probably dart to one side and momentarily squeeze into just the bottom two rows of red squares. Or indeed many possible configurations consisting of 8 contiguous red squares. And looking at that, I can easily justify a -2 attack penalty.

MerricB · Feb 14, 2008

Fifth Element said:
This is not a 4E rule, so far as we know. It is a DDM rule.

Especially with rules of movement and cover, you are most likely to find that the DDM 2.0 rule will be very close to the D&D 4e rule. The designers want them to be as close as possible... so the "new" cover rules, the reduced bonus for charging (only +1!), and diagonal movement changes are very, very likely to be in D&D 4e.

Cheers!

MerricB · Feb 14, 2008

frankthedm said:
What is FUBAR is that cover ONLY grants +2 AC/Reflex defense. Those with the sense and forethought to claim cover should be rewarded for their efforts. Two measly points is not significant at all. I had high hopes when I saw that cover was granting +5 AC in Star wars Saga Edition, hoping that would be a preview of 4E. Sadly this is not the case.

You have some very fair points. And yes, the 3.5e rules for cover were definitely a step downwards for many groups from the 3e cover rules... and the 4e rules seem to be the heir to the 3.5e rules as far as I can see.

From what I can gather of the design process, the 3.5e rules (and 4e rules) are part of the minification of D&D. The 3e rules are basically a DM judgement call. The 3.5e rules (and 4e rules) provide a fast* and consistent way of determining whether a creature has cover or not when playing with miniatures. I think they succeed in their aim pretty well, although my more casual players have terrible trouble with the ranged cover rules. (They think "from centre", not "from corner of square").

(*well, it's meant to be fast)

I think good DMs should use a variant of the 3e rules in 4e (and in 3.5e). However, for tournament games or times when the DM/player trust isn't there, at least the 3.5e/4e rules give a solid baseline.

+1 attack bonus for charging and +2 AC for cover? The situational modifiers seem to be reduced a bit, although I notice that combat advantage (e.g. flanking) still is +2.

Cheers!

frankthedm · Feb 14, 2008

MaelStorm said:
Well said Fifth Element.

What is a rulebook for... arbitrary guidelines.

If I would be a DM I wouldn't check the rules, I would treat it as no cover.

At my table I'd be saying the same thing, but that is more because I insist on measuring, rather than using a grid...

MaelStorm said:
I would be surprised if my players would argue that it is non-compliant with the cover rules in the DMG.

I find players wait until they are ruled against to voice objections.

MaelStorm said:
I think the biggest tool of a DM is its judgment or common sense, then the rulebooks.

I agree with ya, but there are folks out there with "Common sense is a house rule." for a signature.

MaelStorm · Feb 14, 2008

frankthedm said:
I agree with ya, but there are folks out there with "Common sense is a house rule." for a signature.

Good point. But it is also applicable in the other extreme: there are folks out there with a "by the book" signature.

I think you have to be fair, and reach a common ground if there are objections. Otherwise it would be boring for both players and DM.

Wolfspider · Feb 14, 2008

Fifth Element said:
This is not a 4E rule, so far as we know. It is a DDM rule.

Which is what I said.

frankthedm · Feb 14, 2008

MerricB said:
+1 attack bonus for charging and +2 AC for cover? The situational modifiers seem to be reduced a bit, although I notice that combat advantage (e.g. flanking) still is +2..

Well, If my paranoia is correct, 4E design wants to discourage Player from having AC , 'To Hit' or Damage that diverges from the 'Expected amount per level'. Reducing the value of cover helps this, much like the new crit system. Also by making cover less worthwhile, you do encourage recklessness and imply one should “Get out there!” when the shots are flying, unlike in a Sci-Fi setting where Going For Cover is MUCH more a “Life or Painful Smoldering Death” issue.

MerricB said:
From what I can gather of the design process, the 3.5e rules (and 4e rules) are part of the minification of D&D. The 3e rules are basically a DM judgement call. The 3.5e rules (and 4e rules) provide a fast* and consistent way of determining whether a creature has cover or not when playing with miniatures. I think they succeed in their aim pretty well, although my more casual players have terrible trouble with the ranged cover rules. (They think "from centre", not "from corner of square").

(*well, it's meant to be fast)

”Centre to all of Targets base” is a good common sense standard for cover.

Fifth Element · Feb 14, 2008

Wolfspider said:
Which is what I said.

No, you said: "I wish people would stop bring up v3.5 to defend bad rules in 4e" (emphasis added) in a thread about a DDM rule.

And I realize that the 4E rules will likely be very similar to the new DDM rules. But we don't know if this rule in particular will.

D&D 4E Ranged Cover rules all hosed up in DDM2 (/4E?)

Fifth Element

Legend

MaelStorm

First Post

Silvergriffon

Explorer

MerricB

Eternal Optimist

MerricB

Eternal Optimist

frankthedm

First Post

Attachments

MaelStorm

First Post

Wolfspider

Explorer

frankthedm

First Post

Fifth Element

Legend

Similar Threads