|
10 months ago ::
Aug 31, 2012 - 12:44PM
#191
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2008
|
I guess I'm asking "Did I miss something?"
Yes... the point.
The important thing, when thinking about the current playtest rules is that for the sake of Cover, the stationary object, in this case the Tree, is between the two people and could, potentially provide cover to either or both from the other. As it is a facingless system, it doesn't matter which direction either person is facing in, because what direction they're facing in is undefined.
I guess I see what you are trying to say, but I don't see it working like that. The way I understand a "facingless" system is that it doesn't matter from which direction the attack comes as long is there is line of sight. Which is to say a guard fleeing down a corridor offers no additional benifets to the Rogue trying to put in arrow in his back despite the real life effect that he has fewer defensive options in that scenario. However, we do not assume that because facing does not give an advatage or disadvantage that it is completely absent, hence the "line of sight" rule. In your example you made it very clear where the two guys were looking, but if they attacked they would have to turn to do so, putting the tree in way of the line of sight.
If you are saying it doesn't matter which direction the defender is looking, his AC will be the same then you are correct. But this doesn't seem to prove anything about the cover mechanic and shields which I assume was what you were trying to do.
We always assume the defender and attacker are facing each other, if there is cover inbetween them that will interfere with the attack. No one has stated differently, so what was the point of the example, it didn't prove anything different as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 31, 2012 - 1:22PM
#192
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2012
|
I have addressed every concern you have raised in chronological order and dispelled them.
No, you haven't... You're just married to your own idea and won't let it go ignoring perfectly reasonable suggestions made my Mooncabbage which much more closely align with the goals of the D&D Next.
$1000 if the 'opponent gets the cover benefit' mechanic makes it into the retail edition... Please make sure Wizard has good contact information for you so I can get you the money.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 31, 2012 - 3:11PM
#193
|
Date Joined:
Mar 30, 2007
|
I have addressed every concern you have raised in chronological order and dispelled them.
No, you haven't... You're just married to your own idea and won't let it go ignoring perfectly reasonable suggestions made my Mooncabbage which much more closely align with the goals of the D&D Next.
Yeah, I'm funny like that when collectively engaging discourse is replaced with your disproved repetitive rantings. Mooncabbage isn't very discriminating when it comes to needing more than "I like this--I don't like that--that's stupid" from you. It clearly hasn't done your debating skills any favours. I'm not so lenient.
Here's an idea. Instead of trying to bate me with more of your broken-record insistences, why not address Chaosmancer's post (above) with a calm, measured, and substantiated reply. Prove to everybody here that you can do something other than throw a temper tantrum when your ideas aren't universally accepted. No, this is good for you Scott. It's a big opportunity. You can do it!
*Pushes Scott along on his new training bike*
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 31, 2012 - 3:59PM
#194
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2012
|
Here's an idea. Instead of trying to bate me with more of your broken record insistences, why not address Chaosmancer's post (above) with a calm, measured, and substantiated reply.
Short answer... ROI.
I don't see adequate entertainment return on the investment in digging back through the posts to figure out what the the initial stimilus was.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 31, 2012 - 4:30PM
#195
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2012
|
Read: Cop-out..
As you wish.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 02, 2012 - 8:02AM
#196
|
Date Joined:
Jan 25, 2008
|
Greetings,
This is my first post about the Next rules and discussions so please be gentle. I'm not sure who I'm siding with but I think what makes the biggest difference between a tower shield and normal cover is control. The examples I've read have not taken into account who is controlling cover here. I believe if cover is "able to be controled by one person and one person only" he has more benefit. If I know what direction my "cover" is moving and when, I have an advantage. I believe the person bearing a shield can react much faster to an opening. I can move it aside slightly to allow me to stab them, then pull it back in place. Having watched many a bout at the SCA, a very large shield helps the wielder of that shield much more than the attacker because the wielders arm projects past the shield to strike at his opponent then draws back while the shield is then thrust forward to keep him off balance. I'd like to hear everyones views on this please.
I've been playing this game since chainmail and still have every copy of every book and module I do believe in my library. I sure hope they do this right and for once I'm going to start being vocal in these forums.
Cheers,
Dave
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 02, 2012 - 8:29AM
#197
|
|
|
Ive removed content from this thread because harassment is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 02, 2012 - 8:59AM
#198
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2012
|
I think what makes the biggest difference between a tower shield and normal cover is control. The examples I've read have not taken into account who is controlling cover here. I believe if cover is "able to be controled by one person and one person only" he has more benefit.
Dave
Another rational and reasoned argument against the Opponent garnering the benefit of Cover from the Weilder's shield.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 02, 2012 - 9:40AM
#199
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2012
|
It seems a bit unreasonable to get an overall -15 speed penalty, effectively halving your speed, if you don't have 20 strength. Your table overall seems to have a few issues but I do agree with your initial statements and, yes, the armor in DnD Next is pretty wonky right now.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 02, 2012 - 9:57AM
#200
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
It seems a bit unreasonable to get an overall -15 speed penalty, effectively halving your speed, if you don't have 20 strength. Your table overall seems to have a few issues but I do agree with your initial statements and, yes, the armor in DnD Next is pretty wonky right now.
Yes, this was why I though 17 strength was a better threshold because it's achievable at level 1 if you put a bit of investment into it and easily achieveable if you spend some points as you level up but just outside what's optimal (most people wanting +3 would stop at 16 so some points investment is involved).
However, remember that armour should be about choices. Not every PC should end up with a super high AC because they will want to invest in other abilities for skills, saving throws, and class features. Not everybody need take a hit on speed for a shield but it's a trade off. Dwarves will be able to pile on the armour and still move at a reasonable speed, others will be slower unless they're strong. The strongest person in plate armour carrying a tower shield is still going to be slowed down by the bulk.
|
|
|
