D&D 5E Another "have I always played it wrong?" moment: Cover!

[abirdcall]

It is important to remember that unlike 3e, TOTM is the default way to play 5e. Using a grid is a (popular) variant.

FWIW cover doesn't impact our table's game much. It usually comes up when characters try to fire through another character's space. For new players it can slow the game down as they try to work out how to avoid the penalty. I just urge them to accept it and move on. Once they are used to the idea they will naturally avoid it when possible and it doesn't take extra time.

 

[Li Shenron]

In the Basic Rules, there are other rules for cover (see p.74):

- If a target is behind an obstacle that covers at least half its body, it has half cover (+2 to AC and Dex saving throws).
- If a target is behind an obstacle that covers roughly three-quarters of its body, it has three-quarters cover (+5 to AC and Dex saving throws).
- If a target is completely concealed by an obstacle, it has total cover (can't be targeted by attacks or spells, but might be reachable by an area of effect).

These are the rules I am having second thoughts about.

I've always ruled that "behind" means "immediately behind". But the RAW doesn't say that, it says only "behind".

 

[Oofta]

These are the rules I am having second thoughts about.

I've always ruled that "behind" means "immediately behind". But the RAW doesn't say that, it says only "behind".

There always has to be a judgement call as to "does the cover obstruct enough to matter" and how much. I remember reading a Piers Anthony book in my younger days and the protagonists magical gift was that he was "lucky". A wizard was trying to zap him and kept hitting things in between, first a branch then a bug and so on (I think they got down to microbes).

Obviously an extreme example, but if a fly is between you and your target the fly isn't going to provide cover. I would rule that a halfling next to a colossal beast isn't going to cover a toenail, much less make a difference in targeting the beast. Unless the beast is "lucky" of course.

 

[Li Shenron]

It is important to remember that unlike 3e, TOTM is the default way to play 5e. Using a grid is a (popular) variant.

Yes, and I am aware that 5e is often somewhat "loosely defined". Only I don't necessarily think that TOTM has to always mean to be completely description-based. There is also a way to play the game (not sure if it should be still called TOTM) where a player may simply ask the DM "is there a way to get cover here?" (or higher ground, or concealment or else) and the DM makes the decision without necessarily describing the details.

The way we are playing right now started from this sort of description-light (or even almost description-less) TOTM, and then evolved into using minis on a simplified battlemat (i.e. a table with sparse objects used for elevations and obstacles), but without the grid.

My question came up when reading some miniatures game rules recently (Fantasy Battles: The 9th Age), and those games are quite similar to our situation because they are definitely not TOTM but also they don't use a grid. Anyway, it striked me when I realized that in that kind of games it feels actually obvious that cover works both ways (i.e. if you have cover from an enemy, the enemy has cover from you), because the game is more focused on units rather than individual creatures (although some things are resolved individually), so you don't have things such as arrow slits. D&D rules being for individual characters makes things differently, but it still made me wonder if the default or starting point for cover should be two-way in D&D too, and arrow slits should instead be a special case.

 

[ccs]

There is also a way to play the game (not sure if it should be still called TOTM) where a player may simply ask the DM "is there a way to get cover here?" (or higher ground, or concealment or else) and the DM makes the decision without necessarily describing the details.

That's still TOTM.

My question came up when reading some miniatures game rules recently (Fantasy Battles: The 9th Age), and those games are quite similar to our situation because they are definitely not TOTM but also they don't use a grid. Anyway, it striked me when I realized that in that kind of games it feels actually obvious that cover works both ways (i.e. if you have cover from an enemy, the enemy has cover from you), because the game is more focused on units rather than individual creatures (although some things are resolved individually), so you don't have things such as arrow slits. D&D rules being for individual characters makes things differently, but it still made me wonder if the default or starting point for cover should be two-way in D&D too, and arrow slits should instead be a special case.

I hope you're aware that in miniature war-gaming rules there's almost as many variations on cover rules as there are games. And those cover rules aren't always consistent between editions of the same game either. They vary from the patently absurd/bad/completely abstract all the way to the absurdly detailed. And everything in-between.
So I wouldn't worry about how FB: 9th Age does cover unless I were playing that game.

 

[cmad1977]

Don’t look to miniatures games for guidance on playing 5e. That was for a different version of the game.
Make a call, play on.

 

[Mort]

The way I've always played cover is, character A goes behind cover to get AC bonus from character B who gets nothing. See this picture where "|" is for example 1/2 cover such as a low wall or tree trunk:

A|               B

It seems B does have cover from A, but A has some options:

1. He can just take the cover penalty when shooting;
2. He could stick his arm(s) out and shoot blind(taking disadvantage, which mathematically is worse than than the -2 half cover you mentioned, if it was 3/4s cover it would be slightly better, but not by much), I suppose this depends on the type of weapon and cover as to whether this is actually feasible - DM's call.
3. He could move (pop out from behind the cover), shoot, and pop back into the cover - thereby taking full advantage of the cover; BUT

If he does 3, B may have anticipated that and held his action to shoot as soon as A pops out, thereby also avoiding the cover. Of course that kind of anticipation is dangerous on B's part because if A does anything but pop out, B has lost both his action and his reaction for nothing.

 

[timbannock]

It seems B does have cover from A, but A has some options:

1. He can just take the cover penalty when shooting;
2. He could stick his arm(s) out and shoot blind(taking disadvantage, which mathematically is worse than than the -2 half cover you mentioned, if it was 3/4s cover it would be slightly better, but not by much), I suppose this depends on the type of weapon and cover as to whether this is actually feasible - DM's call.
3. He could move (pop out from behind the cover), shoot, and pop back into the cover - thereby taking full advantage of the cover; BUT

If he does 3, B may have anticipated that and held his action to shoot as soon as A pops out, thereby also avoiding the cover. Of course that kind of anticipation is dangerous on B's part because if A does anything but pop out, B has lost both his action and his reaction for nothing.

We use option 3 in my games all the time; 5E supports breaking up your move over your turn, so why not use that?

That said, we've made it a house rule that if a character or creature uses the Ready action for something relatively generic (most actions: attack, dash, dodge, open a door, activate the Lever of DOOM!!!, etc.) and the triggering condition doesn't happen, then the character or creature still gets to take their action at the end of the round, changing it as minimally as possible. So, if they Ready an Attack to shoot the guy coming out of cover and that guy never comes out of cover but there's another viable target of the same weapon within range, then they can go ahead and shoot that other target.

We do this because it ensures everyone gets to act in a round 99% of time, and therefore damage (generally) is being dealt as often as possible, shortening encounter length. We're also pretty generous with advantage in combat because of this, ensuring most swings are hits. If I had my druthers, ACs would generally drop by 1 or 2 and damage would go up by 3-5 per "tier" across the board, but some of my players aren't on board with that big (over time) of a change.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The only difference between theater-of-the-mind and grid-based play is whether the DM actually draws everything out on a physical map for the players to see, or if they just keep that map in their own head. The underlying rules, by which the DM determines whether you have cover or not, are identical.

 

[Ristamar]

The only difference between theater-of-the-mind and grid-based play is whether the DM actually draws everything out on a physical map for the players to see, or if they just keep that map in their own head. The underlying rules, by which the DM determines whether you have cover or not, are identical.

If that were strictly true, I don't think anyone would ever choose to utilize TOTM. There's a far more nebulous level of fidelity when you lose the grid. A DM acquiesces a certain layer of that fuzzy space to the players with different methods of adjudication which vary from table to table.

Granted, there should still be a relatively clear consistency to any rulings, but the medium of combat is far more malleable to encourage creativity and expedite play.