Clarification on attacking around corners

[Obryn]

Cover (–2 Penalty to Attack Rolls):

​

​

The target is around a corner or protected by terrain. For example, the target might be in the same square as a small tree, obscured by a small pillar or a large piece of furniture, or behind a low wall.
simpleas that...​

seems they forgot to add that deermining cover is only used for ranged attacks​

​

​

from the DMG:

The rules in the​

​

​

​

Player’s Handbook for determining cover are straightforward. A creature that’s around a corner from the attacker, or protected by terrain, has cover.​

I noticed that, but it's in an intro section and isn't clear about what kinds of situations it's discussing. I mean, it's clear than an enemy around a corner has cover against missile or reach attacks. I'd argue the grey box takes precedence for combat rules, and the grey box is pretty precise about how cover is determined.

Some clarification or errata in the grey section would be pretty welcome, though. I can see how it mentions corners in a lot of places, and indeed that could be the intention!!

-O

 

[Infiniti2000]

I noticed that, but it's in an intro section and isn't clear about what kinds of situations it's discussing.

IMO, you're stretching a lot in order to not include valid text. Moreover, it's doesn't contradict any other rule, it clarifies them. Specific-trumps-general is not exactly a contradiction.

 

[Tallifer]

Yes, you can attack around a corner.

Yes, the target gets cover (for -2 to the attack.)

An interesting thing also is that Line of Sight is not required. No line of sight means -5. What is required is Line of Effect. Usually they are the same, but there are many spells and effects which block Line of Sight.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

IIRC the quote is from the grey box...

and determining cover by drawing lines is not possible when you have furniture or trees which grant cover...

so this is the general rule. and the most important part: nowhere is it stated in the determining cover section, that you will not have cover if 0 lines are blocked. (Which would actually incalidate the complete section about cover)

 

[DracoSuave]

IIRC the quote is from the grey box...

and determining cover by drawing lines is not possible when you have furniture or trees which grant cover...

No, you use the rules for Cover Terrain in the DMG.

so this is the general rule. and the most important part: nowhere is it stated in the determining cover section, that you will not have cover if 0 lines are blocked. (Which would actually incalidate the complete section about cover)

There's no rule guaranteeing you can use your powers if you're not dazed; that doesn't mean you can't use your powers when you -are- dazed.

When there's no intervening cover, there's no cover. It's a damn tautology.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

I noticed that, but it's in an intro section and isn't clear about what kinds of situations it's discussing. I mean, it's clear than an enemy around a corner has cover against missile or reach attacks. I'd argue the grey box takes precedence for combat rules, and the grey box is pretty precise about how cover is determined.

Some clarification or errata in the grey section would be pretty welcome, though. I can see how it mentions corners in a lot of places, and indeed that could be the intention!!

-O

The whole situation is foggy. The rules for cover in the PHB state that fighting in melee arround a corner does not grant cover. The intro and "common sense" says "thats not right," so the PHB points you to the DMG if you actually want precise rules that take up half a column that in the end just say "fighting around a corner in melee provides cover." The PHB and the DMG pretty much leave it to the gaming group to decide whether or not the PHB or the DMG rules take precidence.

So again, the core rules present two options surrounding this: corners provide cover for melee, or covers do not provide cover for melee. Your group must decide which to use. Neither is wrong, the former is presented as optional.

 

[DracoSuave]

The whole situation is foggy. The rules for cover in the PHB state that fighting in melee arround a corner does not grant cover.

No they don't. They don't say if no line is blocked, the target does not have cover. That's where the rules for cover terrain and corner cases come into play--the PHB is not the 'THIS IS ALL THE RULES OF THE GAME' book, never has been, never will be, and has never pretended to be.

A DM should have read through the DMG. Everything says that. It's not exactly 'You -might like to read this.-' It's considered mandatory for running the game.

And if players argue 'It's in the DMG' has always been good enough. Just cause they print the books with a white background for the logo doesn't change that.

The intro and "common sense" says "thats not right," so the PHB points you to the DMG if you actually want precise rules that take up half a column that in the end just say "fighting around a corner in melee provides cover." The PHB and the DMG pretty much leave it to the gaming group to decide whether or not the PHB or the DMG rules take precidence.

It leaves it up to the -DM- to decide which take precedence. It's not up to my players whether or not I use the DMG. And if they -expect- that, they're not focused on the right aspects of the game, imho.

So again, the core rules present two options surrounding this: corners provide cover for melee, or covers do not provide cover for melee. Your group must decide which to use. Neither is wrong, the former is presented as optional.

No, the core rules present one option. In general, unbroken lines between corner and target's corners provide no cover. Specifically, corners provide cover in melee.

You know. Specific beats General.

There's no real problem here. One is correct most of the time, and the other is correct in its specific case.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No, you use the rules for Cover Terrain in the DMG.



There's no rule guaranteeing you can use your powers if you're not dazed; that doesn't mean you can't use your powers when you -are- dazed.

When there's no intervening cover, there's no cover. It's a damn tautology.

No, Draco.

the question was: does attacking arond a corner suffer from cover in the PHB.

Answer: yes. The first paragraph says: you have cover when you are around a corner or behind a pillar

Question: does the last paragraph in the PHB invalidate this? Answer no: even when no lines are blocked, you are still around a corner.

Lets try it with logic:

Let A be: you are around a corner
Let B be: 1 or more lines are blocked
Let C be: you have cover

The Rules state:

A => C
B => C

so: (A or B) => C

what can you say about the relation between A and B? Nothing. If you invert you get:

not C => not (A or B)

so: not C => (not A) and (not B)

So the only thing you can say: if you don´t have cover you neither are around a corner and neither line is blocked

What does the DMG say:
It is no minis game: use common sense. But if you lack thereoff, use the advanced rules from DnD Mini which are reprinted here.

@forbidden master: No, the rules don´t say attacking around a corner doesn´t grant cover. It is stated explicitely that a corner does provide cover. Or if more than one line is blocked you have cover.

Nothing in the rules contradict anything. But t could have been made more more clear, that both rules (no introductory text) are of equal importance.

 

[DracoSuave]

No, Draco.

the question was: does attacking arond a corner suffer from cover in the PHB.

Answer: yes. The first paragraph says: you have cover when you are around a corner or behind a pillar

I was refering to the case of 'having overturned tables' or whatever in the way. Obviously corners provide cover, it's explicitly in the rules.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Ok, seems we are on the same side here