Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fuzzlewump" data-source="post: 5076580" data-attributes="member: 63214">Good point, but I think reading it literally could have two different conclusions. &quot;Cover,&quot; in this instance, could refer to -2 to attacks or it could refer to the general rule. But, I think you are correct. This would have been easier with different terminology, like, the rule being &quot;Cover&quot; and you can have &quot;Light cover&quot; or &quot;heavy/superior cover&quot; or something like that.It still leaves the diagram as incorrect/vague, unless the bold &quot;Cover&quot; is also referring to the general rule.I think your compromise, considering this, is solid. I think I will continue to roll with creatures only granting cover(as in, not superior), but just because I find it strange that a single creature in some cases can be as covering as an arrow slit or a window, from particular angles. 4E geometry just makes it all messed up, as well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fuzzlewump, post: 5076580, member: 63214"] Good point, but I think reading it [I]literally[/I] could have two different conclusions. "Cover," in this instance, could refer to -2 to attacks or it could refer to the general rule. But, I think you are correct. This would have been easier with different terminology, like, the rule being "Cover" and you can have "Light cover" or "heavy/superior cover" or something like that. It still leaves the diagram as incorrect/vague, unless the bold "Cover" is also referring to the general rule. I think your compromise, considering this, is solid. I think I will continue to roll with creatures only granting cover(as in, not superior), but just because I find it strange that a single creature in some cases can be as covering as an arrow slit or a window, from particular angles. 4E geometry just makes it all messed up, as well. [/QUOTE]

Verification