D&D 5E Can you get cover from area effects, like cone as in breath wepon?

[The_Gneech]

The breath weapons that require Con saves are things that fill the area and you are "toughing it out" like poison breath and freezing cold, that you aren't just ducking out of the way of (otherwise it would be a Dex save). So in that case, cover shouldn't apply, no. There could be other situational bonuses, tho– having some form of sealed "life support" bubble effect or being on fire or something...

-The Gneech

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The short answer is that 5e isn't well written enough that you can take it as gospel.. If you think a particular effect sounds like something you can take cover from, let the target take cover from it.

It's not just that it isn't written so that it can be taken as gospel, it's that approach having not been the goal of the writing.

The game is designed with the assumption that each group will be doing exactly this sort of rule-changing call when they feel the rules don't address the situation in the desired way. "Make the game your own" isn't just some catch-phrase, it's how the designers expect the game to be played.

 

[aco175]

I find that things like this with DM calls fall into 2 categories, either advantage to the save or 1/2 damage on a fail and 1/4 on a save. You could even allow the player to choose.

 

[Saeviomagy]

It's not just that it isn't written so that it can be taken as gospel, it's that approach having not been the goal of the writing.

If the goal of 5e was always rulings not rules, then it falls short of the mark. Too many corner cases are covered in illogical ways without reference to why the ruling has been made. This very situation is a prime example.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If the goal of 5e was always rulings not rules, then it falls short of the mark. Too many corner cases are covered in illogical ways without reference to why the ruling has been made. This very situation is a prime example.

I don't think that the rules presented in the book being accompanied by explanation of why that rule was made in the way it was is necessary for it to be made clear by the book that the DM is intended to be, rather than just use, the rules. I think the introduction in the Player's Handbook communicates that idea clearly enough on its own (of course I have to admit I can't remove my own knowledge that I had at the time of reading to ensure that my understanding gained in that reading could be gained from the words on the page alone).

 

[Saeviomagy]

I don't think that the rules presented in the book being accompanied by explanation of why that rule was made in the way it was is necessary for it to be made clear by the book that the DM is intended to be, rather than just use, the rules. I think the introduction in the Player's Handbook communicates that idea clearly enough on its own (of course I have to admit I can't remove my own knowledge that I had at the time of reading to ensure that my understanding gained in that reading could be gained from the words on the page alone).

I think you need more than just an introduction stating it to be so for the rules to genuinely be a system designed with that ethos.

 

[Jester David]

I'd probably give advantage against most cones are areas from large forms of cover, like a bolder or pillar. Not something like amother creature through, which might not cover the whole body.


Most of the time anyway. A green dragon's poison gas cloud likely goes around corners.

 

[Satyrn]

I think you need more than just an introduction stating it to be so for the rules to genuinely be a system designed with that ethos.

When I glance through the Dungeon Master's Guide I regularly see it telling me to do things the way I want, to ignore rules I don't like and add in ones I do. Sometimes it says this directly, but

Quite often it's presenting multiple, mutually exlcusive options as its advice, with the implied unwritten option of "or whatever you think best." And then there are those rules, like chases, madness, or the oathbreaker, where it's saying "here's something for you to use if you want. Or don't. Its cool."

And it references the PH, too, saying "meh, whatever. Skip what you don't like "


Obviously, I'm paraphrasing.

 

[maraxion]

If you're DMing, then you should allow it. But don't forget that the PC races don't even come close to filling up the 5 foot square they occupy, sojust because you're in the square behind your buddy, you may still not be behind your buddy.

If he's in he front left corner of his square while you're in the back right of yours, you are completely exposed . . . with at least five feet of space between you, too.

I agree. I was more in the way of thinking that if a medium creature is behind another in a blast they should get 2/3 of the damage og maybe just a +2 to con save.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

If the creature in front makes it's save, then maybe give the creature in back advantage on it's save. If the front creature fails, then there is a good chance it is on the ground, exposing the creature behind it to the full blast as well.