D&D 5E Can water provide cover?

[James Gasik]

This came up when I ran the Tales from the Yawning Portal conversion of Forge of Fury. I'll give the text here (page 58): "She (the dragon) begins combat at a range of 20 to 30 feet, raising only her head and part of her neck above the water (granting her three-quarters cover)..."

This has caused a lot of contention with my play group, and online discussions that I have had since. One of the most common complaints is that the rules for cover do not mention water. The underwater combat rules do not mention cover either (though, granted, it's rules for underwater combat, not rules for fighting creatures below water when you're above water).

Sage Advice ruled something like a sheet of glass could provide cover, but it's a solid object, where water is obviously not normally solid (though it's surface tension and depth might simulate one, based on circumstance).

So I'm curious what other people think about this, since the rules are completely silent on this point. Some say that this is a mechanic for this specific combat only, and you can't extrapolate anything about the rules for other encounters from it. Others say that water can provide cover from some things, but not other things.

 

[Satyrn]

This has caused a lot of contention with my play group, and online discussions that I have had since. One of the most common complaints is that the rules for cover do not mention water.

I'll start by saying I'm a "Rulings trump Rules" type of DM. If I decide that water ought to provide cover in one situation then it does. It doesn't matter if the rules are silent on this matter, and it doesn't matter if I've previously ruled it doesn't provide cover in a situation (unless the situations were essentially the same, in which case I'd like to be reminded by my players so that my rulings can be consistent).

Because no two situations are exactly the same, and no rule can cover all variables, it is up to me as the DM what rules to use and ignore in any given situation.

So that said. This module ruling makes sense. The writer is looking at this situation and seeing that most of the creature's body is blocked by water and will be harder to hit from attackers standing on the ground. From that view of the situation, the writer has decided that best rule to apply to model this is apply the cover rules.

It's close enough, makes enough sense, and is probably what a player would expect if at some point he dives into a pond to escape from a goblin spearchuckers.

Now, if your players set themselves up to attack from some position that the scenario writer isn't considering when presenting this suggestion to give the dragon cover, then you ought to rule otherwise.

The DM needs to use his judgement. (And that includes not following what the module says, too, if he finds that cover wouldn't make sense.)





(Not that any self respecting adventurer should run from goblins! )

 

[cmad1977]

I'm with him ^


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[abirdcall]

Make a ruling. Everything can't be codified. It's completely reasonable.

Also a helpful tip when making rulings; think about it flipped around as though a PC where in the situation. Let's say a PC dove into a river because creatures were attacking them with Firebolts. If you ruled that water doesn't grant cover the player would probably be annoyed.

 

[Caliban]

5e has very few rules regarding underwater combat, and no rules regarding combat that takes place both above and under water at the same time.

When making a melee weapon attack, a creature that doesn’t have a swimming speed (either natural or granted by magic) has disadvantage on the attack roll unless the weapon is a dagger, javelin, shortsword, spear, or trident.

A ranged weapon attack automatically misses a target beyond the weapon’s normal range. Even against a target within normal range, the attack roll has disadvantage unless the weapon is a crossbow, a net, or a weapon that is thrown like a javelin (including a spear, trident, or dart).

Creatures and objects that are fully immersed in water have resistance to fire damage.

Back in 3e, they did have rules about attacks passing through the air/water interface - it gave cover (+4 AC in that edition).

Having it give +5 AC in this edition would be the equivalent in 5e.

And it does make sense - not only does water slow and blunt physical attacks that enter it, it also provides a visual distortion at the air/water interface similar to displacement.

 

[Xeviat]

Mythbusters showed that bullets were significantly deflected and shattered when shot from out of water into water. I'd imagine they'd mess with arrows and such too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Harzel]

This came up when I ran the Tales from the Yawning Portal conversion of Forge of Fury. I'll give the text here (page 58): "She (the dragon) begins combat at a range of 20 to 30 feet, raising only her head and part of her neck above the water (granting her three-quarters cover)..."

This has caused a lot of contention with my play group, and online discussions that I have had since. One of the most common complaints is that the rules for cover do not mention water. The underwater combat rules do not mention cover either (though, granted, it's rules for underwater combat, not rules for fighting creatures below water when you're above water).

Sage Advice ruled something like a sheet of glass could provide cover, but it's a solid object, where water is obviously not normally solid (though it's surface tension and depth might simulate one, based on circumstance).

So I'm curious what other people think about this, since the rules are completely silent on this point. Some say that this is a mechanic for this specific combat only, and you can't extrapolate anything about the rules for other encounters from it. Others say that water can provide cover from some things, but not other things.

I don't know if it would mollify your players, but I might give the attacker a choice:

• specifically aim for the part of the target above water, in which case use the rules for cover (+5 AC for 3/4 cover in your case); OR
• aim normally in which case use the rules for underwater combat because the attack will likely go through the water (disadvantage for most attacks).

If the target is totally underwater, just use the rules for underwater combat.

Not perfect, but probably close enough for 5e.

 

[Seramus]

Its not unreasonable. You could rule that water offers 3/4 cover, or you could rule that water just poses disadvantage. The only thing i wouldnt rule is that dipping below water gives total cover, i would just make it 3/4 cover whether you are peeking your head out or completely submerged.

 

[Oofta]

The vast majority of the dragon cannot be directly targeted, so I agree. Arrows don't travel far after they hit water, and unless the water is crystal clear and it's a bright sunny day you aren't going to see much but the dragon's head.

 

[James Gasik]

Wow, ok, thanks for the replies, I admit I wasn't expecting so many positive answers. As far as total cover goes, would water never provide it, or would sufficient depth be acceptable?