I'm not sure that I would call it minutia. Two sets of cover have been part of D&D for the last 14 years (and possbily in 2E, but I cannot remember). There are definitely situations which I think warrant superior or 3/4ths cover (an arrow slit), or normal or 1/2 cover (hiding behind a small tree).
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E No cover rules, just dis/adv, what breaks?
- Thread starter Juriel
- Start date
I'm not sure that I would call it minutia. Two sets of cover have been part of D&D for the last 14 years (and possbily in 2E, but I cannot remember). There are definitely situations which I think warrant superior or 3/4ths cover (an arrow slit), or normal or 1/2 cover (hiding behind a small tree).
My personal feeling is I've used +/- modifiers for decades. I have used them in the case of cover. I am not annoyed/confused/cognitively disassociated from cover using modifiers vs adv/dis. So on that score, I'll keep them. Unifying mechanics for the sake of unifying mechanics is a bit silly, imo. Just be warned: using Adv/Dis gets rid of some of the granularity that +/- can bring. Effectively it gets rid of any minor penalties and major penalties (dis) can be negated by major bonuses (adv). Certainly simpler, faster, etc. But that is where the weird stuff comes in. If you're in the Gamist camp: Go for it. But if you're a simulationist at heart, use cover as is.
The cases where Adv cancels the Dis of Cover can occur more frequently than we might realize at first blush. Raging Barbarian, Sneak Attack, Faerie Fire, etc Using +/- ensures that cover is meaningful in all situations.
One way to think about it: Adv/Dis is a shorthand for active combat modifiers, ie stuff that people do (sneak, cast a spell, rage, etc). The +/- for cover is a passive combat modifier, ie stuff that just happens.
If a fight occurs on a swaying rope bridge and the DM wants to mimic the swaying in the wind hindering combat. He could use Adv/Dis, but again, it gets weird: My rage/sneak attack/Faerie Fire is canceled by the swaying? You could justify it by saying it is really windy and go for it, but I for one would prefer a -1 to -4 penalty depending on how much sway there was (perhaps a 1d4 at the beginning of each round representing the gusts).
The cases where Adv cancels the Dis of Cover can occur more frequently than we might realize at first blush. Raging Barbarian, Sneak Attack, Faerie Fire, etc Using +/- ensures that cover is meaningful in all situations.
One way to think about it: Adv/Dis is a shorthand for active combat modifiers, ie stuff that people do (sneak, cast a spell, rage, etc). The +/- for cover is a passive combat modifier, ie stuff that just happens.
If a fight occurs on a swaying rope bridge and the DM wants to mimic the swaying in the wind hindering combat. He could use Adv/Dis, but again, it gets weird: My rage/sneak attack/Faerie Fire is canceled by the swaying? You could justify it by saying it is really windy and go for it, but I for one would prefer a -1 to -4 penalty depending on how much sway there was (perhaps a 1d4 at the beginning of each round representing the gusts).
Juriel
First Post
Yeah, I found it after 'shooting into melee' didn't bring up anything.
'a target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be...a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend'
Which isn't an overall 'shooting into melee' penalty, it only seems to apply if the cover-to-be is directly between the shooter and the target.
Which requires a grid and minis to keep track of, so you know.
Juriel
First Post
Yes, but do those differences come up often enough? If a small tree is half cover, but a large tree is 3/4 cover, then you're suddenly left having to describe every tree as small or large. Which I would definitely rank as 'keeping track of minutia'.
Plus, then you have to use terms like 3/4 cover.
Maybe, but I don't think it is too important. The DM typically should just describe trees and only worry about how much they help if the players ask or the situation warrants it.
DMs have been adjudicating situations and applying various modifiers for decades. Continuing to do so is not game breaking.
I suspect that most players trust their DM to make a reasonable ruling as to whether a given tree is major or minor cover (or whatever terms one wishes to use for it), and only real munchkins would have their PC jump from biggest tree to biggest tree to make sure they always have great cover. It really only becomes important when it actually becomes important.
And have to use terms like 3/4 cover.
I do think that going back to the 3E terms of 1/2 cover and 3/4 cover, while more descriptive, is a bit lame. I would use terms like 4e, cover and superior cover; or minor cover and major cover, or some such.
Plus, then you have to use terms like 3/4 cover.
Change it to lesser cover and greater cover?
"Requires" is a strong term. Having a grid and minis would help, but things like this cover most of the cases in my experience:
The party comes into a space containing monsters. The Melee characters move forward to attack, the ranged attackers stay back. The melee characters are now between the Monsters and the Missile characters.
It never has in the 20-odd years I have been playing the game.
Juriel
First Post
Okay, it requires a constant game of 'GM may I?', which is annoying as hell.
Similar Threads
