Going for Cover: encourage, discourage or keep the bonus the same?
- Thread starter frankthedm
- Start date
Celebrim
Legend
The results of this poll and the attached comments make me wonder how many people simply ignored 3.5's simplified cover rules. (I did, but then with the exception of fixes to a few problem spells, I ignored all of 3.5.)
And for that matter, why do the designers seem to be trending away from the way the majority of players play?
Yes, not a scientific sample and all that, but still.
And for that matter, why do the designers seem to be trending away from the way the majority of players play?
Yes, not a scientific sample and all that, but still.
Celebrim said:
Because the designers think the simplification will not try any players away while getting new people which formerly thought D&D was too complicated to play.
At least thats the way they do it with 4E. It could also have been bad market research or that we on ENworld are all ubernerds who willingly use complex rules.
I'd don't have too much on an opinion without playing the game, but I would tend to think it should be kept low. If movement and environment become much more of a focus in the game, you don't want the cover bonus to be too high, because everyone would have it and combat would take forever, but you want it high enough for players to think about needing to get behind some from time to time (or for creatures to, say, want to smash that table to tinder so that the PC doesn't have cover anymore).
+2 to +4 seems like a decent range for most covers. Anything higher should be reserved for very rare, almost complete concealment. While I don't want the PCs to be easily shooting through arrow slits, I would like the party's archer to be able to do so semi-reliably (such as Legolas putting a few arrows through the holes the goblins smashed in the door was they attempted to break into the crypt in Moria).
+2 to +4 seems like a decent range for most covers. Anything higher should be reserved for very rare, almost complete concealment. While I don't want the PCs to be easily shooting through arrow slits, I would like the party's archer to be able to do so semi-reliably (such as Legolas putting a few arrows through the holes the goblins smashed in the door was they attempted to break into the crypt in Moria).
Haffrung Helleyes
First Post
Celebrim said:
It seems to me that WoTC has made a strategic decision to converge 4E and D&D minis, making the tactical level of D&D use the D&D mini skirmish rules.
And, given that D&D minis makes more money than D&D, they are designing the converged system with the needs of the minis game in mind, not the needs of the RPG.
Ken
frankthedm
First Post
Yes, but the average amount of cover[50%] still was +4.TerraDave said:
