Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Benimoto" data-source="post: 4049009" data-attributes="member: 40093">That's not a new rule.&nbsp; That's been there all through 3.5.&nbsp; If even a colossal dragon's toenail has cover, the whole dragon has cover.I didn't see this rule applied evenly or often at tables I was at, even in &quot;rules heavy&quot; campaigns like Living Greyhawk.&nbsp; I suspect that it often wasn't intuitive that someone standing somewhat near a target, only blocking maybe 10% of the square, would provide the full +4, but so be it.Cover penalties in DDM2 are greatly reduced.&nbsp; It's -2 instead of -4 for any type of cover.&nbsp; Additionally, there's no penalty for firing into melee.&nbsp; I'm not sure whether these changes are also in 4th edition, but they may be.&nbsp; So maybe the lesser penalty will encourage people to actually apply the penalty more, or maybe people will ignore it just as much, but at the same time it won't matter as much that it's ignored.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Benimoto, post: 4049009, member: 40093"] That's not a new rule. That's been there all through 3.5. If even a colossal dragon's toenail has cover, the whole dragon has cover. I didn't see this rule applied evenly or often at tables I was at, even in "rules heavy" campaigns like Living Greyhawk. I suspect that it often wasn't intuitive that someone standing somewhat near a target, only blocking maybe 10% of the square, would provide the full +4, but so be it. Cover penalties in DDM2 are greatly reduced. It's -2 instead of -4 for any type of cover. Additionally, there's no penalty for firing into melee. I'm not sure whether these changes are also in 4th edition, but they may be. So maybe the lesser penalty will encourage people to actually apply the penalty more, or maybe people will ignore it just as much, but at the same time it won't matter as much that it's ignored. [/QUOTE]

Verification