D&D 5E Cover: Who Has It?

[jayoungr]

Okay, I have a question about cover. The description of half cover on p. 196 of the PHB says this:

"A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend."

It seems straightforward to me, but this has been a source of disagreements at my table. Let's say a squishy sorcerer is standing behind a meatwall paladin. Does the cover provided by the paladin work both ways? In other words, if a goblin is in the room on the far side of the paladin and the sorcerer doesn't move, does that mean the sorcerer's attack is made at -2 for half cover? If so, doesn't that essentially negate the whole idea/value of a front line and second line, for PCs and monsters alike?

The player says the sorcerer's attack shouldn't be penalized because it's "like ducking around a tree trunk," and so far I've been allowing that character to attack without the cover penalty. But I'm starting to wonder if I'm doing that right. In open spaces, we could just assume move-attack-move, but this group likes to make extensive use of choke points, so the sorcerer wouldn't always have the option of moving to a better position.

Then there's the question of what happens if the goblin runs forward and engages the paladin in melee. This is where most of the disagreements have come up in my game. I say the sorcerer attacks the goblin at -2 because of cover. The player says, "No, the paladin is my cover." I say cover works both ways there, but the player clearly feels that he's getting the shaft. If I am interpreting this correctly, is there anything else in the rules I can point to as evidence, or does it come down to the sentence I quoted above?

It may be relevant to mention that I'm teaching 5E to the entire group, and they used to play D&D 3.5 exclusively. They are having a hard time adjusting to the lack of five-foot step, which is part of the source of the disagreement.

 

[wedgeski]

Honestly, I long-ago dispensed with *any* notion of combatants as cover save for exceptional circumstances (such as massive size difference). One of those things that is waaaay more trouble than it's worth.

 

[jayoungr]

But if combatants don't provide any kind of cover, then there's no penalty for shooting into melee. And I'm worried that can lead to ranged attackers being disproportionately powerful.

 

[doctorhook]

I rule that whoever is adjacent to cover can easily shoot around it to avoid penalties. Here's how I'd rule the situation you described:

Let's say the sorcerer and goblin are 20 feet apart, meaning three empty 5-foot-squares between the sorcerer's and goblin's spaces.

• If the paladin is in the square adjacent to the sorcerer (SP__G), then the sorcerer has cover against the goblin but not vice versa.
• If the paladin is in the square adjacent to the goblin (S__PG), then the goblin has cover against the sorcerer but not vice versa.
• If the paladin is in the square equidistant from the sorcerer and the goblin (S_P_G), then both have cover against the other.

If the sorcerer and goblin are closer, such that both are adjacent to the paladin and directly opposite one another (_SPG_), then I'd say neither sorcerer nor goblin has cover, because both can reach around cover.

In this example, the fact that cover is another character confuses this issue, but I'd be comfortable with this ruling at my table.

 

[wedgeski]

But if combatants don't provide any kind of cover, then there's no penalty for shooting into melee. And I'm worried that can lead to ranged attackers being disproportionately powerful.

That can easily be applied as a blanket penalty, though (and as a bonus works very well without a grid/battle-mat, if that's a consideration). The chaos of armed combat is a different problem than characters actively cowering behind their armoured chums, however!

 

[steeldragons]

But if combatants don't provide any kind of cover, then there's no penalty for shooting into melee. And I'm worried that can lead to ranged attackers being disproportionately powerful.

Is there a penalty to fire into melee if combatants do provide cover? Not that I've seen. Disadvantage for ranged attacks in "close combat" (something within 5'). But nothing I could find about "firing into melee penalty."

Does this penalty say anything about being linked to the cover rules? Cuz there's not anything I've found in the cover "rules."

Only thing I could find about cover is that using a creature gives you half cover. Is the goblin using the paladin for cover? In your situation above, is the sorcerer using the paladin as cover? Like, standing immediately behind him while he's in melee combat and trying to duck and shift to stay immediately behind the paladin? If not, then I'm saying no they don't get the "benefit" of cover.

Seems to me, the larger concern, than "who gets the benefit of cover", then becomes "What are the sorcerer's chances to get hit on the paladin's back swing?"

My answer, if you're a halfling, you can use others as cover...even in combat. Otherwise, you're all just bodies for the hitting.

 

[77IM]

I agree with doctorhook. Firing out of an arrow-slit gives you cover, it doesn't give your targets cover. Adjacency seems to be the clearest guideline, as does treating objects and creatures alike for cover purposes.

 

[jayoungr]

Is there a penalty to fire into melee if combatants do provide cover? Not that I've seen. Disadvantage for ranged attacks in "close combat" (something within 5'). But nothing I could find about "firing into melee penalty."

The -2 half-cover penalty is what I've been using; I figure it takes the place of the old blanket "fire into melee" penalty. (Could be negated if they move so that the melee attacker isn't between the ranged attacker and the target, but I'm okay with that.)

Only thing I could find about cover is that using a creature gives you half cover. Is the goblin using the paladin for cover? In your situation above, is the sorcerer using the paladin as cover? Like, standing immediately behind him while he's in melee combat and trying to duck and shift to stay immediately behind the paladin? If not, then I'm saying no they don't get the "benefit" of cover.

The rule doesn't say the target has to be actively trying to hide behind the thing to get the benefit of cover; it just says something has to be in the attacker's way that hides at least half of the target's body.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I'd give the -2 penalty both ways. The paladin isnt like an inanimate rock the sorcerer can reach around and shoot over. The paladin is fighting, and just happens to get in the way of both the goblin and the sorceror shooting away each other. Particularly if they're using choke points!

If the sorceror wants to ignore the paladin cover penalty, he needs to take the crossbow expert feat, which allows ranged attacks (including spells, it seems) to ignore cover penalties.

 

[Leatherhead]

If the sorceror wants to ignore the paladin cover penalty, he needs to take the crossbow expert feat, which allows ranged attacks (including spells, it seems) to ignore cover penalties.

The Sharpshooter feat does that but it only applies to weapon rolls.
The Spell Sniper feat allows you to ignore cover penalties with spells.
The Crossbow Expert feat only negates the penalty for shooting when an enemy is 5' away, but it does work on spells for some reason.

As for using cover without being penalized in 5e, it's really easy: Just move out of cover, shoot, and then move back into cover. I believe that kind of "trench warfare" combat is even intended. But if you want to stay in one place you need the feat.

Of course, the sorcerer could just take spells that call for non-dex saves and not have to deal with any of that.