D&D 5E Does being Heavily Obscured grant Cover... And should it???

[ninjayeti]

I think it makes sense. In 1E both cover and concealment provided penalties to hit rolls although concealment provided a smaller penalty than the equivalent amount of cover. So you could say that three-quarters concealment gives a +2 AC bonus (same as half cover) and total concealment gives a +5 AC bonus (same as three quarters cover). Hiding behind a fog cloud isn't as effective as hiding behind a brick wall, but its not useless either.

 

[MarkB]

The whole point of cover and obscurement granting different things is so that their effects can be applied independently, or in combination, as required. A character who is heavily obscured is hard to see and target, but one who is heavily obscured and also manages to find something solid to hide behind is even moreso.

 

[Mannahnin]

The whole point of cover and obscurement granting different things is so that their effects can be applied independently, or in combination, as required. A character who is heavily obscured is hard to see and target, but one who is heavily obscured and also manages to find something solid to hide behind is even moreso.

Exactly.

 

[Dausuul]

But should it grant cover???

No.

Cover is both a mechanic and a rules shorthand for "there is a physical barrier between you and the attack." You can have other mechanics that say "when you have cover, XXX." As soon as you start granting cover in cases where there is no such barrier, you have to go back and rewrite those other mechanics.

If you don't think being heavily obscured grants enough defensive benefit, then the rules for obscurement are what you should be fixing. Don't get cover involved where it doesn't apply.

For instance, at my table, we have a house rule that you do not get advantage on ranged attacks if there is mutual blindness (you can't see the target and it can't see you). So the disadvantage is not canceled out, and you attack with disadvantage.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I think the area where the rules for attacks in heavy obscurement need work is on the end of the player and enemies knowing where to target. If they attack an area and their enemy isn't there then that enemy effectively has full cover from an attack. Unfortunately for metagame reasons of the hidden enemy often being still represented on a game board, or of the players knowing the enemy's turn hasn't come up for him to move yet since the last time they were seen, the principle extra protection one gets from heavy obscurement, an enemy not knowing where you actually are so that they can effectively attack you, is often moot.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I think the area where the rules for attacks in heavy obscurement need work is on the end of the player and enemies knowing where to target. If they attack an area and their enemy isn't there then that enemy effectively has full cover from an attack. Unfortunately for metagame reasons of the hidden enemy often being still represented on a game board, or of the players knowing the enemy's turn hasn't come up for him to move yet since the last time they were seen, the principle extra protection one gets from heavy obscurement, an enemy not knowing where you actually are so that they can effectively attack you, is often moot.

In a VTT game, the hidden enemy can be moved to the GM layer to “hide” them from the players. Or, for an in-person game (or on a VTT), the DM can simply say the token/mini represents the last known location of the enemy. The players then decide where to attack. Metagaming doesn’t need to be a concern.

 

[Shiroiken]

As others have pointed out, it should not grant cover, both by RAW and RAI.

2) The classic "shooting at a target in a Fog Cloud" scenario in which advantage and disadvantage always cancel out.

This came up very early in 5E and our group has a very simple houserule for it:

When a creature you can see can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.

This removes the cancelling of disadvantage while blinded. If two people can't see each other, there's going to be a LOT more missing than two people who can see each other.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

RAW, no, and it shouldn't because the rules don't say that.

RAI, no, and it shouldn't because that would have several knock-on effects and make certain actions/effects even more powerful than they are. Especially because magic is one of the only ways to (spontaneously) create total concealment, so you'd be giving yet another shiny new toy to casters while weakening non-casters.

Natural language, no, and it shouldn't because "cover" means you have some thing covering you, e.g. hiding behind a barrier to physical objects, whereas concealment simply means you can't be seen. Someone could be standing in the middle of an empty field under unnaturally dark conditions and have total concealment without cover, while someone could be standing behind a thick glass barrier and have cover without any concealment whatsoever.

I honestly don't see any way of analyzing this situation that says you should do this. Neither a gamist nor a narrativist reading leads to this conclusion.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I think it would be better if you could only get advantage for being an unseen attacker if you yourself can see the target. Two characters fighting in the dark trying to hit each other should both have disadvantage.

 

[TheSword]

I think it would be better if you could only get advantage for being an unseen attacker if you yourself can see the target. Two characters fighting in the dark trying to hit each other should both have disadvantage.

Absolutely this. This idea that wildly swinging in the dark is successful because the opponent can’t see you wildly swinging is ridiculous. Even more so when it comes to ranged attacks. You shouldn’t be the same efficacy attacking in the dark (or worse, more effective if they already have some form of disadvantage.)

It falls into the same unsatisfying category of rules as invisibility not making you better at hiding behind a crate or in a light fog.