Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JustinA" data-source="post: 3701618" data-attributes="member: 51618">That was the rule in 3.0. The rule was dumped into the DMG as a variant in 3.5, IIRC, largely because it makes no sense when you actually start analyzing the numbers. (So I'm less likely to get hit if I'm standing in front of someone wearing plate armor than I am if I'm standing in front of a naked guy? How does that make any sense?)Attempts to fix this oddity just make things worse. I wrote a lengthy Usenet post about this awhile back, let me see if I can find it on Google Groups... Here we go:<a href="http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/msg/7d64c467621194b9" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/msg/7d64c467621194b9</a>I seem to recall discovering a math error in there somewhere, but I can't remember what it is now. The overall point remains valid in any case.There's really no good way to handle this without adding a lot of new rules and new resolution points (most likely with new dice rolls). Every single solution I have ever seen proposed simply shuffles the location where the odd and unintuitive results crop up.So, as much as I would like to have a system that could model accidental friendly fire (for reasons of both realism and dramatic conceit), I've come to the conclusion that it's better to have a simple system for handling cover than a more complicated one which provides unsatisfcatory results.(Of course, I still use the 3.0 rules for determining degree of cover because the minor addition of that complexity gives me much more satisfactory results.)Justin Alexander<a href="http://www.thealexandrian.net" target="_blank">http://www.thealexandrian.net</a></blockquote>

Verification