D&D 5E Can water provide cover?

[Hriston]

As far as total cover goes, would water never provide it, or would sufficient depth be acceptable?

I'd use the underwater combat rule that says ranged weapon attacks automatically miss a target beyond the weapon's normal range.

 

[James Gasik]

That's fair, I was also curious about spell attacks.

 

[Shiroiken]

I would honestly set the cover based on the type of attack. A non-piercing weapon attack would probably suffer the cover penalty, since they deal half damage if they try to attack through the water. A fire (and maybe acid) attack would suffer the cover penalty, because nothing in the water will be affected. Electrical or Cold attacks shouldn't suffer any penalty (and might even gain a benefit) due to the water. Everything else would depend on the description.

 

[GameOgre]

This came up when I ran the Tales from the Yawning Portal conversion of Forge of Fury. I'll give the text here (page 58): "She (the dragon) begins combat at a range of 20 to 30 feet, raising only her head and part of her neck above the water (granting her three-quarters cover)..."

This has caused a lot of contention with my play group, and online discussions that I have had since. One of the most common complaints is that the rules for cover do not mention water. The underwater combat rules do not mention cover either (though, granted, it's rules for underwater combat, not rules for fighting creatures below water when you're above water).

Sage Advice ruled something like a sheet of glass could provide cover, but it's a solid object, where water is obviously not normally solid (though it's surface tension and depth might simulate one, based on circumstance).

So I'm curious what other people think about this, since the rules are completely silent on this point. Some say that this is a mechanic for this specific combat only, and you can't extrapolate anything about the rules for other encounters from it. Others say that water can provide cover from some things, but not other things.

You are 100% fine. You found a nice simple way to work it.

People will complain about anything but the next time a player starts off a fight in the water verse some ranged bowmen I bet they suddenly think your on the spot DM judgments rock!

 

[MNblockhead]

That's fair, I was also curious about spell attacks.

I'm also interest in how other DMs would handle this.

Like glass, I would say that is provides cover and most spells will not work. But that would also mean that spells would not work underwater and I'm not sure I want to go that far. Perhaps you could say a wizard out of water couldn't hit someone completely under water with magic missles, but if both the wizard and target are underway, they could. But that is unsatisfactory to me.

Line of sight and cover rules for spell casting were something that tripped me up initially. But now that I "get" them and rule "correctly" according to RAW as explained by Crawford and Mearles, well, I find situations like these MORE difficult to adjudicate than when I was doing it "incorrectly."

 

[pukunui]

... and unless the water is crystal clear and it's a bright sunny day you aren't going to see much but the dragon's head.

In this particular case, the dragon is lurking in a pool dubbed "The Black Lake", which happens to be in a lightless cavern.

I think that's probably a contributing factor to the granting of cover here. The PCs, even ones with darkvision, simply can't see any part of the dragon that's underwater.

I suppose you could let them guess where the rest of her body is and attack as though blind, which would impose disadvantage ... but that's roughly equivalent to a -5 on the attack roll, which is more or less the same as giving the dragon +5 to her AC for cover.

That's fair, I was also curious about spell attacks.

I'd treat them no differently to weapon attacks, to be honest. If nothing else, the distortion provided by the water's surface will affect your ability to hit the target. That is, even if water doesn't slow down or change the trajectory of magic rays or projectiles, the surface distortion can make it so you're not aiming correctly.

 

[cooperjer]

I'm also interest in how other DMs would handle this.

Like glass, I would say that is provides cover and most spells will not work. But that would also mean that spells would not work underwater and I'm not sure I want to go that far. Perhaps you could say a wizard out of water couldn't hit someone completely under water with magic missles, but if both the wizard and target are underway, they could. But that is unsatisfactory to me.

Line of sight and cover rules for spell casting were something that tripped me up initially. But now that I "get" them and rule "correctly" according to RAW as explained by Crawford and Mearles, well, I find situations like these MORE difficult to adjudicate than when I was doing it "incorrectly."

I let magic only be affected in the manner described by the Underwater Combat section of the PH. Therefore, there is damage resistance to fire damage. There is no change to accuracy for magic because magic. I did put a house rule into player review that states, "Visual range underwater or looking into water is halved. Darkvision ranges are halved. Bright light illumination is hlaved. Dim light illumination is halved. The maximum distance seen into a large body of water during a bright day is 120-ft. The visual range is affected by the turbidity of the water." I haven't had to use it yet, but the PCs are in the water temple of PoTA.

 

[Oofta]

Wow, ok, thanks for the replies, I admit I wasn't expecting so many positive answers. As far as total cover goes, would water never provide it, or would sufficient depth be acceptable?

Ever been in a lake? Looked down and seen all the fish swimming down there? No? Neither have I, with the exception of a handful of crystal clear lakes in the Boundary Waters.

You could use the rules from page 117 of the DMG to decide how far you could see something - although I think even 10 ft in murky water is pushing it.

As far as spells go, I'm probably less forgiving than some other DMs. I don't think lightning or cold based attacks would penetrate very far. Lightning hits lakes on a regular basis, yet fish survive unless it's extremely close. Hail hitting water only goes down a few inches and so on.

But there are always going to be things not explicitly covered by the rules. Make a call and move on. If it's really something that bothers you discuss it with the group after the game and figure out what makes sense for your group.

 

[Hriston]

That's fair, I was also curious about spell attacks.

Spells that specify a target you can see would be limited to penetrating 60 feet into clear water and 10 feet into murky water as per the visual ranges given in the DMG.

 

[James Gasik]

First, thanks for the replies, they're much appreciated.

Second, I keep seeing comments about visibility entering the discussion. These are valid, and I think even in the Nightscale encounter, obscurement and cover are confused for one another- in the murky black waters of the lake, an all-black dragon would be hard to see clearly. But that's a different mechanic. Cover isn't about whether or not you can see the target, but how likely you are to hit an intervening obstacle that isn't your target- the "clear pane of glass" Sage question addresses this point.

That water can provide obscurement (a word that either doesn't exist or I apparently keep mispelling) is quite evident, even in relatively clear water, light is distorted by it.

I think, based on many of your comments, that water can provide cover in certain circumstances, it's just nailing down what those circumstances should be.