Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes
Only if you insist on a remarkably literal use of just one of the definitions of the word "dive". (In which extreme case you can't literally "dive" behind lots of kinds of cover. That slit trench example might be one of the few, and only then if it's full of water...) Anything that would make Bert the Turtle happy when you "duck and cover" should do, even if it's not a duck.
|
Can you present
any definition of the word 'dive' which makes sense here? I can't think of a single one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes
A better hole in the whole argument is justifying a shield as "cover" in the first place. The shield section in equipment in Characters doesn't actually say they can be cover.
|
No, that's an awful argument. Literally any object can be cover (albeit not necessarily sturdy cover or large enough to afford meaningful protection to a human) and that capability is not normally discussed in equipment writeups.
There's no question that a shield can be cover. The question is, how much cover, how can you arrange that cover, how fast can you do it, and what if any rolls are involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes
If we just want to design more rules for the fun of it, then there's no reason shields should have any special rules. See the existing RAW for the random chance of attacks hitting cover instead of target locations, and just use those to implement shields. Why have a special case system for shields at all? They're just a small piece of portable cover.
|
Are you saying get rid of the shield rules, and pretend that shields are wielded totally passively? (Note - you actually still would actually need new rules to tell you what hit locations the shield covers.)
There have been better developed versions of the idea of replacing the shield rules with something cover-like.