Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vegepygmy" data-source="post: 5707375" data-attributes="member: 40109">That change, however, is crucial...because the rule goes on to say: &quot;If a creature is providing cover for another character and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature takes the damage intended for the target.&quot;&nbsp;So by making it a 1, 2, 3, or 4, you are making it so that the attack hits (i.e., is blocked by) the ally providing cover, but deals no damage (because the attack roll is never [very rarely, at best] going to be good enough to beat the ally's AC). So what's the point?&nbsp;See, you really have to keep the &quot;would have hit but for the ally providing cover&quot; range at the top end of the attack roll, unless you are prepared to rule that the ally's AC is irrelevant and he always takes damage -- but of course, that's unrealistic, too.&nbsp;And we haven't even started to question why the attacker's full attack bonus applies to a target he isn't trying to hit, and whether it would be more realistic to just roll an unmodified d20 and see if that beats the cover-providing ally's flat-footed AC or something like that.&nbsp;As I said before, you can have it be realistic, but it probably won't be fair and it certainly won't be simple.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vegepygmy, post: 5707375, member: 40109"] That change, however, is [I]crucial[/I]...because the rule goes on to say: "If a creature is providing cover for another character and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature takes the damage intended for the target." So by making it a 1, 2, 3, or 4, you are making it so that the attack hits (i.e., is blocked by) the ally providing cover, but [I]deals no damage[/I] (because the attack roll is never [very rarely, at best] going to be good enough to beat the ally's AC). So what's the point? See, you really have to keep the "would have hit but for the ally providing cover" range at the top end of the attack roll, unless you are prepared to rule that the ally's AC is irrelevant and he always takes damage -- but of course, [I]that's[/I] unrealistic, too. And we haven't even [I]started[/I] to question why the attacker's full attack bonus applies to a target he isn't trying to hit, and whether it would be more realistic to just roll an unmodified d20 and see if that beats the cover-providing ally's flat-footed AC or something like that. As I said before, you can have it be realistic, but it probably won't be fair and it certainly won't be simple. [/QUOTE]

Verification