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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="evilbob" data-source="post: 6338183" data-attributes="member: 9789">We will definitely be playing with only one type of cover that grants disadvantage to attackers (and advantage on Dex saves).  You're right; the current cover rules make no sense in context with the rest of the rule system, and it's annoying to have to track an extra seemingly random thing.  Plus, the difference between "half cover" and "3/4 cover" is really just splitting hairs to me; why get so nitpicky over this one tiny (and extremely tactical-heavy) thing when so many other things are covered in such broad strokes (especially in the Basic game)?That said:  the main reason I think the ugly cover rules have survived throughout the playtest and now into the Basic game is because there ARE at least a few weird interactions when you throw in the ad/dis mechanic.  Some seem generally ok to me - cover negates someone attacking you from hiding, for example - but some are weird - like cover making out-of-range attacks no more difficult than they would already be.  However, I really don't think there are that many of these situations.  For example, while technically "being prone" and "being in cover" don't stack - which seems weird - I would think that if you were prone behind cover, that means you just can't be targeted altogether (basically "total cover").  It's more of a case of assessing the situation and going beyond the two conditions interacting and seeing if there is a bigger picture.What it really comes down to is:  I think if cover negates certain advantage rolls, that's probably not going to be a big deal.  If the end result was a +5 (average) from advantage being negated by a static -5 from cover, while yes that's technically not the same, it more or less works out.  What IS weird is when cover should stack with an already present disadvantage, like the ranged attack example.  But even this isn't something I am too worried about, because 10 normal disadvantages don't stack, either.  If someone is blind, restrained, and prone, they STILL only get "disadvantage" on their attack rolls to hit me.  If that's part of the core rules, then if I am also behind cover, what does that matter?  Why is that ONE thing still worse than those three other things combined?ALL THIS SAID:  what I'm talking about is a house rule, certainly, and some people enjoy the minutia of different kinds of cover and keeping track of extra bonus/penalties and all that stuff I said at the top I didn't like, so for anyone who enjoys that stuff:  great!  The rule as-written will work.  But for me, it doesn't, and I don't anticipate any major issues from changing it.</blockquote>

Verification