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

[Generico]

I think a lot of it has to do with the type of combat that the designers want to encourage. In the Star Wars movies, there are many battle scenes that feature combatants hiding behind cover, popping out and exchanging fire. Giving a big bonus for cover - especially when most players won't get much from armor - is a good way to encourage this kind of cinematic fire fight.

D&D combat is not like SW combat. In D&D, they want lots of guys in heavy armor with big swords, battling it out for glory and honor. If you give large bonuses for cover, you're giving players more incentive to focus on ranged attacks. Ranged combatants already have an inherent advantage, and 4e gives them another one by increase overall mobility in combat. So maybe they think a +5 cover bonus on top of that would make ranged combat a little too enticing.

 

[delericho]

Any of the three options would work fine in D&D, since missile combat is relatively unimportant. Since DDM uses +2, and since the games really should be consistent except where there is a compelling reason for a difference, I would have to say +2.

However...

At some point there may well be a d20 Modern 4e. In such a game, missile fire will be much more common (as, indeed, it is in Star Wars). That game really should encourage characters to make use of available cover, which means a +2 bonus is really not suitable - +4 or +5 should be used. If the designers are going to insist on consistency between D&D and that game (which would probably be a mistake, but bigger mistakes have been made), then they should take the step of using the 'right' cover value now, which is probably +4.

That said, for that hypothetical d20 Modern 4e, a graduated cover rule (as in 3.0e) would be the best solution anyway.

 

[Jhaelen]

I don't really have a clear preference yet, since I'm not sure what the typical range of AC vs. to hit bonuses will be on the various character levels (or tiers).

I'd like the bonus to be significant in the lower levels but less so in the higher levels. I'm also pretty sure there will still be 'improved cover', so as a DM, it's my decision what bonus a particular kind of cover grants.

Finally, I think it's entirely possible that 4E cover will grant benefits besides an AC bonus. Since the DDM rules are typically a more streamlined version of the D&D combat rules, they could well have chosen to ignore these.

 

[Derren]

Any of the three options would work fine in D&D, since missile combat is relatively unimportant. Since DDM uses +2, and since the games really should be consistent except where there is a compelling reason for a difference, I would have to say +2.

Is it? With all the ray and ranged touch spells and now area spells requiring an attack roll, ranged combat is very important in D&D.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Four degrees of cover:

Cover: Behind a bush or a drapery or with about 1/4 to 1/3 your body covered by a solid object. +2
Improved Cover: Behind a solid object (a rock or a stone), with about 1/2 your body covered. +5
Superior Cover: Almost totally behind a solid object, with at most one limb exposed. +10.
Total Cover: No exposure, line of effect negated.

 

[MaelStorm]

Four degrees of cover:

Cover: Behind a bush or a drapery or with about 1/4 to 1/3 your body covered by a solid object. +2
Improved Cover: Behind a solid object (a rock or a stone), with about 1/2 your body covered. +5
Superior Cover: Almost totally behind a solid object, with at most one limb exposed. +10.
Total Cover: No exposure, line of effect negated.

Thank you so much for you input KM. I'm going to use this in my games if I don't find the 4E ones, satisfactory.

 

[Hussar]

Any of the three options would work fine in D&D, since missile combat is relatively unimportant. Since DDM uses +2, and since the games really should be consistent except where there is a compelling reason for a difference, I would have to say +2.

However...

At some point there may well be a d20 Modern 4e. In such a game, missile fire will be much more common (as, indeed, it is in Star Wars). That game really should encourage characters to make use of available cover, which means a +2 bonus is really not suitable - +4 or +5 should be used. If the designers are going to insist on consistency between D&D and that game (which would probably be a mistake, but bigger mistakes have been made), then they should take the step of using the 'right' cover value now, which is probably +4.

That said, for that hypothetical d20 Modern 4e, a graduated cover rule (as in 3.0e) would be the best solution anyway.

Gotta go with Del on this one. Does cover come up in your games so often that you actually need a cover rule in the first place? I'm trying to think of the last time cover actually came into play, and I'm drawing a blank in the games I play.

 

[Celebrim]

The poll doesn't really reflect my opinion because I'm still playing variant 3.0.

So my normal situation is that well-prepared cover can be worth up to +10, with assorted other benefits. SW:SE doesn't even come close to what I've already got.

When designing encounters I've often taken the approach of providing cover (perhaps disguised as something, such as a balcony or a heavy throne, or even just the collumns in the room) and designing the encounter such that 'if you don't find and take cover, this is going to be a very difficult fight'. I'm also very fond of taking a relatively weak foe, giving them some advantages like cover, elevation, and perhaps difficult terrain between him and the PC's and seeing how the players respond.

The last thing I want from a system supposedly focused on combat is one that reduces tactical interest. So far what I've heard from 4e sounds alot to me like tactical illusionism, and is about as potentially deep as a kiddy pool. The 'ughhh.. cover makes you just stand in one place' or 'gee, terrain is complicated...' philosophy that seems to be behind this sort of decision is not encouraging.

 

[Toryx]

I've not played SWSE so I didn't know about +5 for cover, but in the end that's what I voted for. Personally, I prefer a variable amount with +5 at the upper range (complete cover being unhittable). But I really think they should make some coherent rules for using cover effectively.

The difficulty is, taking cover from ranged attacks and making ranged attacks from cover are very different from cover used in melee attacks, and I'm not sure how to make a strong system that isn't too complex.

In most every D&D game I've ever played I've seen players, especially those playing casters, want to use cover fairly regularly, but there's never been any effective way to deal with someone hiding behind a wall, poking their head out and using a wall and then ducking back. In 3.x you could use Shot on the Run, I suppose, but that sort of simplicity of motion shouldn't require a feat. On the other hand, ducking in and out of battle to shoot from behind cover shouldn't exactly be easy either, so I always thought that depending on the amount of cover obtained (+2 for small cover, +4 or +5 for large) there should also be a penalty for the attack from cover as well, simply because it's difficult to take aim when jumping back and forth like that.

For some reason, though, the rules have never seemed to cover that so far as I know, and given the simplicity of 4e (from all I've seen) I doubt they'll do it in the new edition either.

 

[Celebrim]

In most every D&D game I've ever played I've seen players, especially those playing casters, want to use cover fairly regularly, but there's never been any effective way to deal with someone hiding behind a wall, poking their head out and using a wall and then ducking back.

I think most people dealing with this are trying to get too concrete in the middle of D&D's abstract combat system. Someone standing at the corner of a wall has say 1/2 cover. If they expessly say that they duck back and forth to stand behind the wall part of the time, then this concrete action is expressed abstractly as 'fighting defensively'.

Problem solved without the need to deal with problimatic issues like readied actions.

In 3.x you could use Shot on the Run, I suppose, but that sort of simplicity of motion shouldn't require a feat.

Agreed, though 'Shot on the Run' is quite a bit more powerful though than merely sticking your head out. I'm not sure if the feat needs to be reworked or not, but the basic idea ('I can move and fire accurately') is pretty good.