Going for Cover: encourage, discourage or keep the bonus the same?

[frankthedm]

The amount a bonus gives usually determines how sought out that bonus is. In DDM and presumably 4E, the bonus to Reflex defense and Armor class is only a two point modifier [-2 to be hit]. This kind surprised me since in Star Wars Saga Edition, a 4E precursor, cover is a five point modifier to AC / Reflex Defense.

Now we still don’t have all the numbers, but it certainly is starting to look like -2, while noticeable, is not that signifigant, being on par with the +2 of “Combat advantage”. I think I like the SWSE mod personally, but I’ll admit my brain is “Cover = Good idea”.

 

[Dausuul]

The amount a bonus gives usually determines how sought out that bonus is. In DDM and presumably 4E, the bonus to Reflex defense and Armor class is only a two point modifier [-2 to be hit]. This kind surprised me since in Star Wars Saga Edition, a 4E precursor, cover is a five point modifier to AC / Reflex Defense.

Now we still don’t have all the numbers, but it certainly is starting to look like -2, while noticeable, is not that signifigant, being on par with the +2 of “Combat advantage”. I think I like the SWSE mod personally, but I’ll admit my brain is “Cover = Good idea”.

I like SWSE cover. It makes people much more aware of the battlefield; more of an environment and less of a white grid with dry-erase marker scribbles on it.

 

[Lanefan]

Shouldn't it be variable, depending on type (solid stone wall, curtain of hides, flimsy bush) and amount (partial, near-total, total) of cover?

+2 seems *far* too small a bonus for near-total cover behind something solid e.g. when you're trying to shoot the archer who is shooting you, only he has an arrow-slit to hide him. But for someone who has ducked behind a shrub that may or may not even stop the arrow, +2 seems fine. Thus, hard to vote for just one.

Lanefan

 

[maggot]

I think cover should be variable. Always giving out +4 or +2 doesn't handle enough situations. The 3.5E system means if you are shooting at a guy in cover, you have no reason to not shoot through your allies. In fact, those allies provide you with cover so go for it. This results in strange behavior because of the static on/off nature of cover. Go back to 3.0's system of variable cover.

 

[frankthedm]

Shouldn't it be variable, depending on type (solid stone wall, curtain of hides, flimsy bush) and amount (partial, near-total, total) of cover?

That would be the typical amount. 3.0 had grades of cover {+4 for 50% cover was the baseline], 3.5 and SWSE also have "improved cover" for when very little is exposed.

 

[coyote6]

I voted 3e, and I mean 3.0e, where it varies. If you want to shoot/stab the guy peering out through a slit in a door, go for it -- but the AC bonus for that ought to be better than that given by standing behind a 3 foot fence.

 

[AZRogue]

Cover should be worthwhile. -2 is too small by far, unless there's more too it and it's variable.

+5 would make me very, very happy.

 

[MaelStorm]

Shouldn't it be variable, depending on type (solid stone wall, curtain of hides, flimsy bush) and amount (partial, near-total, total) of cover?

+2 seems *far* too small a bonus for near-total cover behind something solid e.g. when you're trying to shoot the archer who is shooting you, only he has an arrow-slit to hide him. But for someone who has ducked behind a shrub that may or may not even stop the arrow, +2 seems fine. Thus, hard to vote for just one.

Lanefan

EDIT: I am exactly thinking the same thing. I would vote for variable cover, from 1point for partial, 2points for half covered, 3points for near-total, 4points for total. And I would base this from the center of the attacker point of view/line of sight.

To be fair and honest I voted for encourage.

 

[keterys]

In Star Wars, cover seems to not matter a lot in the games I've played because of being able to aim and using 'Running Attack' to move around cover.

It's a very different type of game, frankly. Given the basic numbers for 4E things shouldn't be a big difference. I mean, being invisible gives +2 attack. Should cover be that much better than invisibility?

 

[Lanefan]

In Star Wars, cover seems to not matter a lot in the games I've played because of being able to aim and using 'Running Attack' to move around cover.

When you've got lightsabers that just cut right *through* the cover to get at the soft squishy bits hiding behind it, the cover isn't so big a deal any more.

It's a very different type of game, frankly. Given the basic numbers for 4E things shouldn't be a big difference. I mean, being invisible gives +2 attack. Should cover be that much better than invisibility?

Being invisible gives +2 *attack* but the question is what does (or should) it give on *defense*?

Lanefan