Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4051131" data-attributes="member: 4937">I base my DM style on all the things that have irritated me as a player.  I hate it when my DM stops the action to resolve things and flips through books.  I hate it when I offer some reasonable proposition and the DM can't handle because, "Uh... that's not in the rules."  Rules are the DM's tools, not his shakles.Wouldn't they then be actually more effective then?  Or mean, not more effective in defending against fireballs?  I mean, as long as we are allowing someone using a ranged attack to fight defensively (and I don't see why we shouldn't), why not magical ranged attacks?  And if those magical ranged attacks happen to avoid the penalty of fighting defensively because they don't need an attack roll, well jolly good for you.Yeah, but in this case the player is wanting to have the best of both worlds.  You want the full cover bonus, but you also don't want the enemy to have full cover from you.  That's something for nothing.  That's what the rules are there to prevent.  But I'm saying, split the difference.  So long as both squares are empty, you are free to pretend that he's standing on the line between the two and take half cover.  Don't let the rules stop you from doing something reasonable, else you really are modeling a pixelated world where everything moves in 5' quanta.</blockquote>