The new rules for cover seems more fluid and simple. Good job to PFRPG designers (see "Complicated Cover" threads). But I have some more thoughts.
My suggestion for cover comes from my years of GMing without using the "grid & squares" system (only the basics). Like many has stated before: when not using a grid, how can you determined corners of squares?
(... and I can open a full discussion about getting rid of this tactical grid... Who moves around following a grid? ok.. maybe a robot... but that's another subject)
Since many minis we used are on a round base, I suggest using "tangency & center". I'll try to be clear:
If I can connect both sides of a mini to the correspondig sides of the other mini, there is no cover. If a side line is blocked, but center to center is not, it's light cover (+2). And if center to center is blocked, it's heavy cover (+5). It works well with small, huge, tiny. It goes well with reach too. And with ranged attacks.
For some cases where a Large is attacking a Huge, with a obstacle in between (a 5' pillar), I use the "center-to-center line blocked" and go with heavy cover.
To allow sniping, I would suggest ignoring adjacent cover for the attacker (the rogue behind the tree).
In short:
-Sides connect: no cover
-Centers connect, but a side does not: light cover +2
-Centers don't connect: heavy cover +5
-Centers connect, but both sides don't: heavy cover +5
-Ranged attacks ignore adjacent obstacle to allow sniping
A final note:
This "tangency" system can also be use to determine flanking. If both tangency lines of attackers pass through the defender, the attackers are flanking.
|
/snip
In short:
-Sides connect: no cover
-Centers connect, but a side does not: light cover +2
-Centers don't connect: heavy cover +5
-Centers connect, but both sides don't: heavy cover +5
-Ranged attacks ignore adjacent obstacle to allow snipingA final note:
This "tangency" system can also be use to determine flanking. If both tangency lines of attackers pass through the defender, the attackers are flanking.
I'm a big fan of this - for some reason this seems much easier to my brain to figure out. Also, for gridless play this is SUPERB.
A possibly stupid question however.. Actually, more of an example leading to a possibly stupid question.Aforementioned rogue hides behind a rock this time. Rock is approximately 20' to a side (big rock). Would a ranged attack ignore this adjacent obstacle? (Presumably only if he was at an edge, correct?)
Perhaps it would be good to mention that at least one line must be able to be drawn from some point on each mini to the other in order to have LOS. Common sense, i know.
|
|
Since many minis we used are on a round base, I suggest using "tangency & center". I'll try to be clear:
...
In short:
-Sides connect: no cover
-Centers connect, but a side does not: light cover +2
-Centers don't connect: heavy cover +5
-Centers connect, but both sides don't: heavy cover +5
-Ranged attacks ignore adjacent obstacle to allow sniping
Great description. I know nothing about tactics but can easily visualize each of the situations you describe. I didn't study it carefully, but I was somewhat confused when I read the cover rules in Alpha 1.1. Your way seems easier.