Cover - need a clarification

[Fallen Seraph]

Probably cause that would be interpreted as, you don't get cover behind say dead bodies, and the bodies of living monsters.

 

[The Little Raven]

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 when I'm shooting an arrow over Krunk's shoulder to kill the Bethuvian Demon Whore, I probably let him know I'm doing it so he can manage to avoid my arrow. When the Bethuvian Demon Whore has a buddy in front of her, I'm not giving the buddy warning that my arrow could be messing up his day.

 

[Blizzardb]

...and so you have a harder time to hit. It seems like he is messing your day and you would be better off if you give him a warning to avoid the -2 penalty.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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?

The entire paragraph is written from the perspective of the attacker.

For the second sentence to mean "Your allies don't provide cover to you", it would require that in the first sentence, you're the attacker, and in the second sentence, you're the defender.

If you read both sentences as having you as the attacker, there's no ambiguity.

-Hyp.

 

[Plane Sailing]

It seems strange to me - I would have thought that it is easier to shoot a member of a group if you don't care who you hit, than if a buddy is in the way.

I wonder what the designers actual rationale is on this? It doesn't make sense to me.

In other news, I'm rather sorry to see the downgrading of cover. Shooting a foe hiding behind an arrowslit seems likely to become trivial rather than a celebrated shot now. Why did they halve all the defensive values of cover? Just because defence scales now? Doesn't seem right (grumbles)

Cheers

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Yeah that felt odd to me, will probably houserule that, unless there are some rules were missing like specific "cover postures" or some such thing.