Mixster said:
Did everyone miss how awesome an idea this was?
By giving you a roll on the "cover save" you make big covers better than small covers.
And you can even customize it further and simply go: the percentile part of the body that's in cover is your cover percentile. Whenever a ranged attacker shoots at you you get an opposed roll on a skill equal to this cover percentile if you choose not to evade. Attacks that hit cannot hit a location in cover.
And marvelously we've cleared almost any circumstance that will happen up and found an intuitive solution to the problem.
Well, I am not that sure I like the idea of passive cover directly. It sorta all boils down to : do we want a passive modifier for being behind a wall, and if yes - to what limit?
We are talking a modifier against people that in no way defend themselves (as that will be handled by the evade check). So image if we hang up a scarecrow behind a wall covering its legs... If I am shooting at him with a bow or a rifle from, say, 20 meters... is he harder to hit because he is behind a wall? (if he had any CAs and using the wall actively, i.e. by evade, then sure he would be harder to hit) I wouldn't think so.. He is a smaller target, but only marginally so.. I think I would just naturally shoot against the part of him I could see, and don't bother with the legs being covered.
Now, image we hang him behind a wall that covers everything except his head. Is he harder to hit now? Certainly, I would think so. He is presenting a much smaller target and it will thus take me longer to aim specifically for his head.
That is why I like the idea of using the size penalties instead (you could streamline them to make them easier to calculate on the spot) - as they only take effect below SIZ 5 - i.e. when there are only 2 hit locations showing.
A person with his head, chest and 1 arm above a wall will then be just as easy to hit as a person in the open AS LONG as he does not actively defend (because then you always Choose Location). Of course, if he is defending actively, he will often not give you that CM and your arrows will clank against the wall.
Just to give one more example: Imagine a guy standing on a fort paraphet, having a talk with a girl he fancies. He is leaning against the palisade, his arms resting atop it - so his chest, abdomen and legs are covered. Now, a boy from the village who also fancies the girl wants to throw a stone at him, from the bush he is hiding in.
To me, it doesn't seem to make much sense that a penalty should be applied to the throw (it is on the edge, and one could discuss if the limit should be with 3 locations instead of 2...). It makes no sense to me that a thrower who succeeds on his attack roll (no penalties from cover), should not be able to hit him on the forehead (i.e. choose location). He is still presenting the same size as, say a targeting sack of potatoes - and we don't apply penalties to that attack as the target sack is not small enough.
Of course, if the guy sees the boy and makes an evade roll, most likely he will either dodge interely or at least deny him a CM -> which means that the stone most likely rattles against the palisade.
I find this makes more sense to me, than simply giving a penalty based on size of the cover. By introducing static penalties a guy standing behind a wall covering his legs will gain some sort of defense, in if he does not actively use it (evade). I find the idea of a guy standing behind a 3 foot wall and having 2/7 = 28% cover rather silly. Of what if he only has 1 leg behind a wall, will he then benefit from 14 % cover even though he still presents a nice juice body to target?
At least my experience, which is not that extensive, tells me that cover only takes an effect when the defender has limited his effective target area extensively.. as we do tend to aim for smaller part of the body anyway when we shoot.
But, Your Legend May Vary, as always.
- Dan