D&D 5E Can water provide cover?

[Ed Laprade]

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?

As someone else said, Mythbusters proved that sufficient depth is good cover. If a .50 cal. sniper rifle bullet was stopped by 3-4 feet of water, which it was, then your typical arrow or spell ain't getting through either.

 

[Satyrn]

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.

Thinking about this, I'd probably rule a creature more than 5 feet under water would be unhittable by anything not suitable for use in water (spears, tridents and as-yet-unwritten spells). I'd probably apply that to underwater combat, too; it's an alien world with it's own rules!

And this would probably guide me in ruling that the dragon in the OP would indeed have some cover against all but those weapons since most of it's body is indeed unhittable. From that 20 or 30 feet away it starts combat at, since from 5 feet away it would be normally hittable.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Cover and concealment are somewhat related, I think water does both. Having done some country-hick spear fishing in my misspent youth, water slows down thrown weapons pretty quickly. Bullets we know, thanks to MythBusters, don't penetrate very far at all.

The big question is, does it provide cover from spells that only need line of effect like charm person? I'm on the fence on this one myself. My general rule is that if you tried to shoot someone with an arrow, would the arrow have to pass through another object (a window, a wall of force, a brick wall) then the answer is that you do not have line of effect.

 

[Miladoon]

If you explain what is happening using mechanical terms that the players understand they might question your ruling based on RAW. That is normal. Make your description of a dragon swimming in a deep and dark pool, without the terms "having 3/4 cover". You can beef up AC on your monster stats for that particular encounter. A metagamer might see what you have done, but they will hesitate to call you out on RAW. Also, dis/advantage is an easy tool to throw in there as well as mimicking a certain condition, like prone, for instance. Just be consistent either way and you will make the right choice.

 

[Saeviomagy]

In the adventure, the dragon is 20-30ft away. That means that parts of the dragon that are below water actually have ~20-30ft of water in the way of attacks and spells.

So - 20ft of water? I could see that blocking most attacks.

HOWEVER

In the real world, fishing with a bow and arrow is effective. So the idea that an air-water interface is some impenetrable barrier is ridiculous.

So the module's ruling is appropriate for the situation it describes: you can definitely choose to count 20-30ft of natural water as cover. Other situations need other rulings.

 

[James Gasik]

The problem is that the adventure doesn't say she loses the cover if somehow the party gets closer to her. It just says she engages the party at 20-30' out and the shenanigans she uses with her breath weapon give her 3/4 cover. And the adventure stays totally silent about targeting her when she's submerged. I mean, it's not a reasonable assumption that she needs that kind of depth of water to use as cover, but the adventure doesn't say enough one way or another.

I've had people claim that the reason she gets cover is because she's a dragon with innate magical power over water, and it has nothing to do with water being able to provide cover at all! Which is itself not an unreasonable explanation, it's just again, the adventure doesn't say one way or another.

The real problem here is that when/if water provides obscurement/cover is not a binary state- yet the rules of the game are written that way- you either have cover or you don't. It's not like the rules say "hey if you're standing behind a wooden fence, you have cover from arrows but not axes or firebolts". Not that a ruling like that would be insane, but it's a level of complexity that this edition has stepped back from.

 

[CydKnight]

Don't overlook the fact that the vast cavern has no natural light source and it is a Black Dragon. There are limits to Darkvision and any light source not cast on the dragon going to be extremely limited in the light-sucking darkness of this very large cavern. Any light is likely going to reflect right off of the water too at many different viewing angles meaning you won't be able to see below it even if it were crystal clear and not murky.

When I played this encounter recently, my Monk saw nothing while attempting to Hide on a dark outcropping overlooking the cavern pool before being grabbed by the mouth of this dragon and dragged beneath the surface of the water to nearly drown. Our players ended up having to fill the cavern with multiple light sources at the water level (Light, Dancing Lights, Torches on the ledges, etc.) then Hold attack actions contingent upon the dragon surfacing in a particular area. Each player had a different area or zone they were focusing on. A couple of players made their Held attack actions contingent upon seeing other party members release attack actions. Little-by-little we lured the dragon from the water and into the air below the cavern roof. It took 7 of us, lots of healing, and a 4 hour game session to take this dragon down.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

In this case the scenario author has determined that yes, it does provide cover. That specific ruling overrules the general rule.

 

[Oofta]

In the adventure, the dragon is 20-30ft away. That means that parts of the dragon that are below water actually have ~20-30ft of water in the way of attacks and spells.

So - 20ft of water? I could see that blocking most attacks.

HOWEVER

In the real world, fishing with a bow and arrow is effective. So the idea that an air-water interface is some impenetrable barrier is ridiculous.

So the module's ruling is appropriate for the situation it describes: you can definitely choose to count 20-30ft of natural water as cover. Other situations need other rulings.

In my limited experience, spear/bow fishing is getting fish within the first few feet of water, probably no more than 5 ft or so. According to a quick google search, the maximum a modern spearfishing gun could be effective is 30 ft, and even that is pushing it. Assuming you don't have a whaling harpoon handy, attacking submerged creatures should not be simple.

So I would say that anything under 10-15 ft of water is probably not going to be hit by most ranged weapons.

Part of the issue is that the rules don't really deal well with terminology around partially concealed creatures. If you're facing a black dragon in a dark lake, you're not going to be able to see most of the dragon, but the rules don't really cover that.

In any case, I'd just use the ruling from the adventure. At a certain point, D&D can't be too realistic or it starts becoming too difficult to play.

 

[Saeviomagy]

In my limited experience, spear/bow fishing is getting fish within the first few feet of water, probably no more than 5 ft or so. According to a quick google search, the maximum a modern spearfishing gun could be effective is 30 ft, and even that is pushing it. Assuming you don't have a whaling harpoon handy, attacking submerged creatures should not be simple.

So I would say that anything under 10-15 ft of water is probably not going to be hit by most ranged weapons.

In this case, you have completely changed the rules for underwater combat, which say that ranged weapons miss at long range and apply disadvantage at short range.

Now that might be fine, but it's something you should probably have advised players about up front, not suddenly sprung on them once an encounter has already started. Or worse, once they've expended resources to get a clear shot at the dragon that you decide to disallow.

Part of the issue is that the rules don't really deal well with terminology around partially concealed creatures. If you're facing a black dragon in a dark lake, you're not going to be able to see most of the dragon, but the rules don't really cover that.

In that case, part of the issue is that you're mixing up concealment and cover. The rules cover it fine. You, as the DM, can say "you can't see the creature", or you can set a DC to spot it. You don't go "it gets 3/4 cover because it's hard to see". After all, being completely invisible only grants disadvantage.

In any case, I'd just use the ruling from the adventure. At a certain point, D&D can't be too realistic or it starts becoming too difficult to play.

At some point, rules can't be too awful and far from reality, or the game just sucks. "Water is an impenetrable wall... when my monster wants to use it to ambush from" is one of those points.