/Signed
The 3rd edition system worked just fine. Drawing lines to box corners is both more time consuming and more retarded what with edge cases like the 4'10" square hole of total cover.
What was wrong with:
No Meaningful Cover
~25% cover
~50% cover
~75% cover
Near Total Cover
Total Cover
That system was fast and elegant. It got screwed up into something more miniatures friendly but less role-play friendly in 3.5, but fixing it involves going back, not going even farther into madness.
-Frank
I like it even simpler -- +4 for cover of any kind, or full concealment. Fast and does the job.
-The Gneech
I assume they were doing these detailed rules to stop any arguments.
I will still probably use the fast and quick +4 bonus for cover.
The cover rules do seem needlessly complicated. I think the original rules would work just fine.
Maybe you could elaborate on the use of cover for larger and smaller creatures?
I read the cover rules and thought that they were complicated and time-consuming, and sounded like being from some miniature table-top game - it is practically impossible to use these without miniatures, I´d guess. Go back to 0/25/50/75/100 % cover, and leave it there. No adjudicating corners of squares, please.
Stefan
The four lines system is also much harder to implement into a non-mini game.
Cover and soft cover is much simpler to handle.
I must not understand the PRPG Alpha 1 cover rules. It says under ranged "Lines that run along the edge of a hard surface or creature count as being blocked."
So if you are in a 5' wide hallway with an opponent any corner of your square will run along the wall to two of the opponents squares corners. This can't count at 2, which will give him cover +2, can it?
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Also the squares/lines system seems a bit too much dependant on battlemap/grid use, which is something that I really don't look forward to.
Agreed. Simpler is better. I like the concept, but I'd prefer it as an optional rule or sidebar so tactically-minded groups that play with battlemats could use it, but I don't have to.
Yep. As written in the Alpha release, they're too complex. I'd suggest, as others have above me, that you keep it simple. If something is physically blocking line of effect towards part of a creature, but not all of it, then that creature has cover (+4 AC). If line of effect is nearly non-existent (such as trying to shoot an arrow at a goblin through a crack in a wall) then the creature has improved cover (+8 AC).
I would stick with Hard cover, soft cover, concealment and total concealment. The system used in 3.0 and D20 Modern can be mentioned as an optional rule sidebar.
/Signed
The 3rd edition system worked just fine. Drawing lines to box corners is both more time consuming and more retarded what with edge cases like the 4'10" square hole of total cover.
What was wrong with:
No Meaningful Cover
~25% cover
~50% cover
~75% cover
Near Total Cover
Total CoverThat system was fast and elegant. It got screwed up into something more miniatures friendly but less role-play friendly in 3.5, but fixing it involves going back, not going even farther into madness.
-Frank
Yes, definitely something like this - or even simpler with no cover/partial cover/total cover.
Now maybe I need to take a look at some minis on a mat, but this whole line drawing thing (that was in 3.5? Sure ignored that!) sounds like more of a pain that it's worth. If I can't glance and eyeball it instantly, I'm not going to use it. If this was a minis game like Warhammer 40K or something, sure, it's a cool rule. But that's not what I'm looking for in an RPG.
Plus, like others have said, if you don't use a battlemat, this rule is useless. We usually do use a mat, but often we also just have a white board with PC initials on them. No grid, just estimated distances and such. Personally, I don't care if these cover rules are in 3P or not, but unless I am very wrong about how fast you can eyeball it, I know I won't keep using them. *shrug*
|
Couldn't agree more with this thread!
I'd give three levels as an easy rule of thumb:
1. Light Cover: Some branches, a creature a size category smaller, a low barrier in front of a standing creature, or any other minor amount of cover grants a +2 bonus to AC.
2. Moderate Cover: Foliage, crouched behind a low barrier, a creature of the same or larger size, or similar distinct cover provides a +4 bonus to AC.
3. Heavy Cover: Thick fog, more than one creature of the same size or larger is in the way, dense foliage, lying prone behind a barrier, and similar major amounts of cover provide a +8 bonus to AC.
Easy to remember, simple to use with a battle-mat or without.
Dear Paizo,
I humbly request that you not make the rules for adjudicating cover any more complicated than they already are. It's bad enough that, in 3.5, I have to draw lines from every corner of one square to every corner of another square in order to determine if a critter's got cover, but at least with that system I can stop once I find a line that crosses an obstacle. With this new system, I have to keep going, and keep a running count of the number of blocked lines? Is the increased resolution of AC bonuses due to cover really worth the extra effort at the table?
IMHO, combat's slow enough as it is. :)
Thanks for listening!
-Will!
I completly support that. Drawing those lines are a bit ridiculous and require a lot of work from the DM to decide whether its a +2 or +4. They cost time, slow combat and in the end do not matter that much.
Can you even imagine having fun drawing all those lines? Kill them please.
It's just great everyone agrees on this one. Me too, of course.
Greetings, Daniel
I also think that only two strata of cover are necessary--cover (+4) for an obstacle in line of effect and improved cover (+8) for near-total blockage. Simply saying, "An obstacle in line of effect" is enough for both the people that use and don't use minis. While the 3.0 system was detailed, it seldom mattered that much for the detail to be there.
I like it even simpler -- +4 for cover of any kind, or full concealment. Fast and does the job.
-The Gneech
I agree all wholeheartedly.
The whole move to 4e was to make thing simpler so as to not slow down the game. If Pathfinder is to keep up - it must stay simpler too. 3.5's +4 for any cover other than complete is simpler for me. I don't even care about lines. Counting lines slows the gameplay and leads to the inevitable argument.
Now 4e is going for only a generic +2 for cover. I prefer the current +4 - but either works.
I'll throw my vote in for simplified cover, not that it looks like it needs it. There seems to be major consensus here. I tend to use a battlemat, and we just eyeball it and more or less make something up, so we would never use complex, time-consuming cover rules.
|
|
I was thinking it could be simplified to only deal with the lines of the square that face the direction of the attack, so you have at most one or two lines to deal with. Why should the lines on the other side of the square affect an attack that wouldn't even cross them?
Of course, this means that someone being attacked diagonally behind two blocked lines supposedly has more cover than someone being attacked along a line of squares, where only one line can block the attack. Which doesn't seem right.
Then there is the problem of large and huge creatures hiding behind a 5' pillar...
One thing I did like about the attempt was that it prevents someone from Hiding when he only has a small amount of pillar obstructing the view.
|
|
I agree. I think that the cover method described is overly complicated. For the most part I use the no cover, cover, improved cover, full cover method a more or less variant of the 3.0 rules. Unless it is in one of the rare times that I'm using a battle mat. I think that the cover rules should be simplified, and that an optional rule in the side bar should cover the rules that are currently in the 3.p book, but that's just my opinion...
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I agree that something more along the lines of 3.0 or 3.5 cover rules would be better, this version has way too many lines and would slow the game down a lot. I also would like to see the rules for soft cover (when another body is between you and your target) easier to find in the rules, and modified slightly. I think the 3.5 rules for this are a little burried, I can't tell you how often I have to point it out in the book to players in my games when they think I'm making something up because they overlooked it.
I also slighly modify the rules for cover, by allowing for adjacent allies do not provide any cover to opponents, as long as they are not also adjacent to the attacker. This allows archers to have a blocker/shieldbearer in front of them and still fire arrows at foes far off in combat without a penalty, or while hiding behind a tree, etc.
Agreed. I started reading the cover section and quickly gave up; there is no way that thing is going to make the beta.
My first post on a playtest item!
I immediately didn't like the cover rules for one reason--they automatically assume use of a battlemap. Beyond that, they also seemed overly complicated for an RPG (perhaps not for a minis combat/tactical game). Empower the DM to make the call on amount of cover, given some guidelines. Allow for light/50% medium/75% and heavy/90% cover (provide a pic to demonstrate what these look like). Go with a bonus for Reflex saves that is half the AC bonus (eases memorization). In my games this is pretty much the system I use:
Light (attacker can see at least half the target--human standing behind a 3' wall): +2 AC, +1 Reflex
Medium (attacker cannot see half the target--human shooting around a corner with arm and head exposed): +4 AC, +2 Reflex
Heavy (attacker can see very little of the target--peeking around a corner): +6 AC, +3 Reflex
|
The more feedback Paizo gets the better.
Complicated cover is unnecessary.
I agree the system does need a bit more detail (more l ike 3rd Ed and less like 3.5). Many of the suggestions here have been good, such as using a rule for degrees of cover.
Cover
For every square of cover on a side with your attacker, +2 AC and +1 reflex saves. This way a giant behind a wall with a human gets less of a benefit from the cover.
It has little to do with the attacker. Simply look at the line along the relevant side of a creature and add up the size of the intersecting object.
|
|
I was going to start a thread about Cover being way to complicated in the alpha rules and slowing down combat for system that needs to be spead up not slowed down, but you guys pretty much covered *Get it covered :-) * it.
Only thing I will add is that Cover should always go to the defender. In other words if a defender can use something to cover himself from view from an attacker it should always be assumed he is using it for the best of his/her ability.
Example,
A wall corner where you can see partially the person you are attacking it should be assumed the defender uses that cover to a point where he can't be seen at all *assuming the attacker does not move around the corner, the defender puts his back to the wall so he can't be seen or hit with out the attacker moving*
Cover rules PFRPG Pg. 40 -41 table 9-1
I played a rather limited game Saturday night. The cover rules as described were initially a little difficult. My player involved in the cover incident stated " this is tedious crap". I kind of agree.
I propose this condition be changed before the release. I thought the original 3.0 version was ok and 3.5 was so so. I am certain there is a better way to do this.