Partial Cover

[CRMcNeill]

As part of this, I've been thinking about how to apply Cover in combat, depending on how you're using said Cover. I'm also thinking about changing up the Partial Cover Modifiers, thusly:

Target is:
25% Covered = +2
50% Covered = +1D
75% Covered = +2D
95% Covered = +3D

The main reasoning behind this shift is to better align with the general formula use in my Scale System and Coordination Bonus Chart, specifically the x2 = +1D Rule. Here, I'm applying the inverse, with 50% of Cover reducing the target silhouette by 50%, therefore increasing the Difficulty to hit by 1D. At 75%, the silhouette is 1/4th normal, thus +2D, and so on.

For purposes of combat use, a character simply peeking around the edge of Cover, only exposing part of their head, would be 95% Covered, while a character firing a pistol or rifle around the edge would be 75% Covered.

Anyway, just wanted to get this written down before bed, and I have to be up very early in the AM. Later.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[Dr. Bidlo]

Considering how easy it is to hit in the RAW, a +2 penalty for shooting at 1/4 cover actually makes more sense than +1D... The more I think about this, the more I like it, plus, your logic is reinforced with that combined action pattern (inversed)inverted. I am sold - it is going to be implemented next game.

[Dr. Bidlo]

I am all on board for 25% - 75%, which are the cover values in the RAW, I am just not sure about 95%.

You list 95% cover as +3D to difficulty. How did you make this jump and what would you consider 95% cover. My guess would be something like shooting the pilot out of the viewport of an AT-ST when open. Because the math isn't as perfect for 95% cover and it is more extreme, would a higher to hit penalty be appropriate similar to a called shot?

[garhkal]

Agreed. I can see 75% cover, but not 90 or higher..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[CRMcNeill]

Okay, that's what I get for posting right before bedtime. I missed a step in the conversion and arbitrarily decided to convert from fractions to rounded percentages, which confused things even more. I'll explain.

What I was going for was additional steps every time the character's exposed silhouette was reduced by half. So, going by the RAW Chart, it would look thusly:

Target is:
1/4 Covered = +2
1/2 Covered = +1D
3/4 Covered = +2D
7/8 Covered = +3D
15/16 Covered = +4D

If you were to convert those fractions over to percentages, you would get this:

1/4 = 25%
1/2 = 50%
3/4 = 75%
7/8 = 87.5%
15/16 = 93.75%

However, those last two percentages were a bit cumbersome, so I rounded them up to 90% and 95% respectively. Then, when I wrote up the above system, I was a little rushed, and forgot to include the 87.5% / 90% step.

For practical application in personal combat, use the following:

15/16 / 95% (93.75) = Character exposing part of their head to peer out from around Cover, or using a hand to extend a holo-cam or similar device.
7/8 / 90% (87.5) = Character firing a one-handed weapon (pistol, or a carbine with a folded stock) around the edge of Cover.
3/4 / 75% = Character firing a two-handed weapon (rifles and similar devices)
1/2 / 50% = Character firing a heavy weapon such as a light or medium repeating blaster (at GM's discretion).

_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[Dr. Bidlo]

I am rereading the concept and understand the 2 x bonus concept, but why did you start at a bonus of +2 instead of +1D at 1/4 cover? If you started at +1D, you would gave the same pattern. Did you feel +1D was just a little too much for 1/4 cover? As long as you didn't jump from +2D at 1/2 cover to +4D at 3/4 cover, you still follow the pattern. The end result is your house rule reduces protection from 3/4 cover from +4D per RAW to +2D, which is... well, bad for making cover helpful. I was curious to hear more about your thoughts on how you got there.

[CRMcNeill]

Because the formula being used is x1/2 = -1D. To get a full -1D of Protection, the target's silhouette would have to be reduced by 1/2. Because it is only reduced by 1/4, it doesn't get the full -1D modifier, and -2 is the closest thing in the RAW to a D3.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[Dr. Bidlo]

I think the concern is the application of penalties at increasingly reduced effectiveness for partial cover. This concept works for combined actions to prevent 800 stormtroopers from blowing up the Death Star if they shoot their blaster rifles at it at the same time, but I don't know if it is vest for partial cover.

In the RAW, the bonus doubles at each step and this convention is used in other places as well, such as smoke, darkness, and protection. Similar but slightly different penalties are applied toward called shot and targeting specific parts of ships. Regardless, the penalties get increasing larger than increasingly smaller as a rule and I think that is appropriate.

[CRMcNeill]

[Dr. Bidlo]

I guess it just seems to me the strict adherence to the 2x = +1D convention is not appropriate for the calculation of penalties. Per page 76 under Random Difficulties, 1D is very easy, 2D is easy, 3D-4D is moderate, 5D-6D is difficult, 7D-8D is very difficult, and 9D+ is heroic.

Using the RAW penalties, the added difficulty to hit someone with 1/4 cover is very easy (+1D), someone with 1/2 cover is easy (+2D), and someone with 3/4 cover is moderate (+4D).

That feels right. Only +2D at 3/4 cover just doesn't. But that is just my opinion.

[CRMcNeill]

Well, if you look at a human silhouette and only cover 1/4 of it, that accounts for, say, 1 leg and half of the pelvis and lower abdomen. Or maybe standing with one arm and leg behind a wall corner, but with most of the torso, head and other limbs still exposed. 1/4 Cover really isn't all that much, especially if the shooter even sorta knows what they're doing.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[Dr. Bidlo]

[CRMcNeill]

[Dr. Bidlo]

[CRMcNeill]