Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Syrsuro" data-source="post: 4664966" data-attributes="member: 58162">Death Spiral, not good.&nbsp;Once the characters are falling unconscious the battle is already not going particularily well.&nbsp; To start applying additional penalties at that time is just going to make things worse.&nbsp;&nbsp;The enemy's alllies granting cover is already in the rules - so this doesn't represent a change.&nbsp; (Although the rules don't talk about opponents granting superior cover but if there are enough opponents to block the lines to all corners one could argue that it is superior cover (keeping mind that running along the edge of an enemies square doesn't block the line.&nbsp;In addition, I can see a ruling that, just as multiple squares of lightly obscured squares (which grant concealment) add up to total concealment (or at least did, pre-errata), multiple squares of cover-granting obstacles add up to superior cover.&nbsp;But as for allies also providing cover - I don't see that as necessary.&nbsp;But if I were to suggest/ make a change it would be this:&nbsp;The 4E rules have fewer essential combat abilities tied up in feats.&nbsp; In keeping with this, they have essentially given all characters the ability of Precise Shot.&nbsp; If it is the realism which bothers you (and, as an aside, realism is one of the weakest reasons to ever make a rules change) then simply redefine what proficiency in a ranged weapon entails to also include Precise Shot.&nbsp; In other words, characters who are proficient in a weapon are trained in avoiding hitting their allies while those who are not so proficient are not and thus their allies will grant cover.&nbsp; &nbsp;If it is that you think ranged attacks are overpowered (an assertion I am not sure I agree with) that is a different matter.&nbsp; But in that case, the argument should be made from a mechanics perspective, not through an appeal to realism.&nbsp;Carl</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Syrsuro, post: 4664966, member: 58162"] Death Spiral, not good. Once the characters are falling unconscious the battle is already not going particularily well. To start applying additional penalties at that time is just going to make things worse. The enemy's alllies granting cover is already in the rules - so this doesn't represent a change. (Although the rules don't talk about opponents granting superior cover but if there are enough opponents to block the lines to all corners one could argue that it is superior cover (keeping mind that running along the edge of an enemies square doesn't block the line. In addition, I can see a ruling that, just as multiple squares of lightly obscured squares (which grant concealment) add up to total concealment (or at least did, pre-errata), multiple squares of cover-granting obstacles add up to superior cover. But as for allies also providing cover - I don't see that as necessary. But if I were to suggest/ make a change it would be this: The 4E rules have fewer essential combat abilities tied up in feats. In keeping with this, they have essentially given all characters the ability of Precise Shot. If it is the realism which bothers you (and, as an aside, realism is one of the weakest reasons to ever make a rules change) then simply redefine what proficiency in a ranged weapon entails to also include Precise Shot. In other words, characters who are proficient in a weapon are trained in avoiding hitting their allies while those who are not so proficient are not and thus their allies will grant cover. If it is that you think ranged attacks are overpowered (an assertion I am not sure I agree with) that is a different matter. But in that case, the argument should be made from a mechanics perspective, not through an appeal to realism. Carl [/QUOTE]

Verification