D&D 5E Conundrum: Ranged attack sequence/cover bonus for players

[Arvok]

You're doing it right. The monster are basically doing an Australian Peel (technically an Australian Peel on a two-man front). The only issue might be if you don't allow the players the same opportunity if the tables are turned. If they are fighting a BBEG and want to use the same tactic, you have to let them if you're going to be fair (they could all declare they're going to act in concert on the lowest PC's initiative roll or they just choose a player to roll for the whole group).

They do have a minor legitimate gripe in the matter of fairness because they are more likely to face hordes of weaker creatures and benefit less from the tactic, but that really won't matter once they get access to fireball et al.

 

[vlysses]

????
I was under the impression that these penalties only applied IF an ally was in hand to hand with your target. Did I get it wrong?

Example: A1 is in hand to hand with B1. A2 wants to shoot B1 then a cover penalty applies. If A2 wants to shoot B2 10 feet further than B1 then no cover penalty should apply.
Do I get it wrong?
Edit: Added my example.

yeah, my understanding is that RAW in 5e there is no penalty just for shooting into melee (that's probably 3.5 muscle memory), but there is a penalty if there is no clear line of sight. ie, if there is a melee happening in front of your target, the target gets partial cover (normally +2 to AC)

 

[Helldritch]

Ok... So in my example. Would attacking B2 be done with the penalty or not? There is a melee going on right in front of it.

And what about B1. There is an obstructed line of sight. That much is clear from my POV but by RAW is there a penalty?

 

[vlysses]

You're doing it right. The monster are basically doing an Australian Peel (technically an Australian Peel on a two-man front). The only issue might be if you don't allow the players the same opportunity if the tables are turned. If they are fighting a BBEG and want to use the same tactic, you have to let them if you're going to be fair (they could all declare they're going to act in concert on the lowest PC's initiative roll or they just choose a player to roll for the whole group).

They do have a minor legitimate gripe in the matter of fairness because they are more likely to face hordes of weaker creatures and benefit less from the tactic, but that really won't matter once they get access to fireball et al.

they already have access to fireball!!!

and yes, well, in principle they have had the same situation as the monsters, when it's the monsters' turn, they all act one after another, therefore when it's the players turn, they just act according to their Initiative, but equally, one after the other...

 

[vlysses]

Ok... So in my example. Would attacking B2 be done with the penalty or not? There is a melee going on right in front of it.

And what about B1. There is an obstructed line of sight. That much is clear from my POV but by RAW is there a penalty?

you simply draw a line from your shooter to the target - if it passes through any friend or foe, the target gets +2 to AC...

so yes, B2 gets +2 to AC bc of cover

 

[Helldritch]

Thank you.

 

[Li Shenron]

You're right, they're wrong. Each goblin takes its turn separately. Rolling initiative as a group works the same as if the goblins had all just happened to roll the same number on the d20.

Ask the players if they would like you to enforce similar rules when two of them happen to roll the same initiative. (Except, maybe don't do that, because they might say yes and then you've opened a horrendous can of worms. D&D is really, really not set up for simultaneous turns.)

It may actually be interesting, and since I saw the demo of BG3, I can totally imagine how a group of allies sharing the turn makes them MORE powerful.

So if I were his players, I would be careful what we ask... all enemy archers sharing the turns means they can optimize better.

 

[groody]

I‘m one of the players. In my opinion, the issue is not with the individual moves but with the fact that a joint initiative roll for all monsters increases variance of the game, which always - while superficially fair as the same is applied to players and monsters - favors monsters.

Sure players enjoy if the monsters roll low on and then they all get fried in a fireball before they ever get to shoot. It also sure sucks from the player perspective if the monsters roll high and turn the wizard into a pincushion so that he cannot fireball them. If a PC dies, that is much worse than having a victory without getting hit at all is good.

That group of monsters acts only for a single encounter. For the PCs the game is a long chain of encounters. 5e tends to favor a gradual wearing down of player resources with each encounter, increasing predictability and reducing variance. I believe this is also the reason why 5e does not as a default have instant kill critical hits - they increase variance, which while superficially fair is deadlier for the PCs who have lots of encounters.

In my view, the GM should break up the monsters into a few logical groups if possible, each with their own initiative. One for the bugbears, one for the goblins coming from one side, and one for those from the other side. That seems a fair balance between management overhead and outlier reduction.

Enough lecturing. My Wizard has some goblins to fry.

 

[3catcircus]

I always roll individual initiative for all of the NPCs and have them go on their turn rather than do group initiative to avoid any possibility of either a TPK or a total NPC kill.

That having been said, even if you use group initiative for the NPCs, every NPC will have a different reaction time, so individually moving/shooting by them is totally fine.

You did it right. If your players continue to complain, go to group initiative for them as well. You'll quickly prove your point when they all want to individually act on the same spot in the initiative order.

In order for things to go smoothly the PCs and NPCs have to be using the same rules...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The rules in the game are an imperfect reflection of how the game world really works. Most of the time, the rules are close enough for our purposes, given certain assumptions. The DM exists to adjudicate corner cases, when those assumptions may no longer hold.

There are certain assumptions about what combat is supposed to involve, which allow us to use discrete turns in order to resolve actions, and that's why the rules tell us there's no cover penalty in this case. However, I would expect a reasonable DM to rule that those assumptions no longer hold here, at least as far as determining cover is involved; for much the same reason that the peasant rail-gun doesn't actually work. It has nothing to do with simultaneous initiative, and everything to do with the six-second combat round.

I could also understand if a reasonable DM just runs with the rules as they are written in this case, though, for simplicity.