Do cover bonuses stack?

[two]

Bonuses from same don't stack.

Generally.

Is this true of cover?

Shooting through a friendly square, then through another friendly square, and then hitting the enemy. Is there coverx2 applied, or just 1 cover penalty. Because bonuses from the same source don't stack.

I know, semantically, a penalty is not a bonus. Is this part of why it DOES stack?

I have a feeling cover penalties DO stack.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Cover bonus doesn't stack use the best one.

 

[two]

Related I guess

Let's say a cleric is using a Tower Shield and also has a "shield" spell up from a potion or wondrous item.

Does the variable tower shield "bonus" to AC stack with the "shield spell" bonus? They are different cover bonuses....?

I'm tempted to say yes. Just common sense. You have to get through both a huge fat wall shield and a small fast invisible shield to hit the guy. Is this wrong?

 

[two]

Wait Now I'm Confused

Cover bonuses DO NOT stack?

Does that mean it is as easy to shoot through 20 squares of occupied friendlies to hit a monster as 1 square?

Or am I getting confused with penalties. ?

 

[AGGEMAM]

Re: Wait Now I'm Confused

Cover bonuses DO NOT stack?

That's right, they don't.

Now that doesn't mean that you can't have better cover.

You will have better cover sitting behind a equal sized creature than standing, but that is better cover not stacking.

 

[Christian]

Cover is a little strange-there's generally going to be a DM judgment involved in anything but the most straightforward situations. What you do is look at the proportion of the target that's exposed to fire, and look up the AC bonus for that amount of cover on the table. Two intervening figures between the attacker and the target (all of the same size) would likely give a +7 AC bonus for three-quarters cover. I'm not sure how many it would take to reach the +10 bonus for nine-tenths cover-probably four or five. And there'd have to be a whole bunch to give total cover ... Someone with a shield spell up (+7, three-quarters cover) and peering around their tower shield (+10, nine-tenths cover) would get nine-tenths cover, but stepping out far enough to attack (+4, one-half cover) would probably still get that +10 (nine-tenths cover between the shield and the shield). (See Degree of Cover on p. 132 of the Player's Handbook.)

 

[AuraSeer]

Re: Wait Now I'm Confused

Cover bonuses DO NOT stack?

That is correct.

Does that mean it is as easy to shoot through 20 squares of occupied friendlies to hit a monster as 1 square?

No, it doesn't mean that. All it means is that half cover + half cover does not equal 100% cover. Multiple characters in the way stll give better cover than just one; the exact amount is a DM call.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Imagine this setup:



<Monster>


000


000

<Archer>


Where the '0's are two walls. As the archer is leaning out from the wall to fire, he's gaining 1/2 cover. However, would you say that the second wall is granting him any more cover? No, it's not. He still has only the benefit of 1/2 cover, regardless of whether there are one or two walls.

Now multiple creatures are different. They're moving, of different sizes and shapes, etc. But the two covers still don't just simply stack, for the same reason that the two walls don't stack: some of that cover is going to overlap and be useless. So instead, with multiple creatures, more bracken between archer and target, etc., the DM simply assigns a higher cover bonus for the whole thing based on his judgement.

 

[Christian]

That was a great example, Lord P.

two, has this answered your questions?

 

[two]

No not really answered it

Actually, I thought that example was very contrived, showing 2 static objects that granted...exactly the same cover. Meaning, they had exactly the same "coverage" effect, they completely overlapped. When you shoot above/around one wall, you shoot above/around the other wall be default.


Something a little less "set-up" might be as follows:

<Monster>

XXXXXXXXXXXXX (light trees)

0000000000 (wall)

<Archer>


Let's say the light trees give a +2 to AC for the monster, and the wall grants a +4 to AC (each considered seperately). My initial question was, "can you just add them up," and now I see the anwer is "duh, no" because you might end up with +20 to AC due to various additive coverbonuses -- and 9/10 cover only grants +10. After +10 it's "total" cover you can't attack. OK. Makes sense.

So, what about the above? The archer shoots at the monster. What bonus does the monster have to AC from cover if it is not "+2 + +4" = +6?

As people said, cover does not stack, but more cover is better cover. The GM looks it over and says, "yeah, it's harder to hit the monster shooting over the wall and through the trees than just over the wall, so the monster gets +5 cover." Or whatever. Point is, better cover = better AC, up to GM's adjustment.

Similarly:

(monster)

XXXXX (party member 1)
XXXXX (party member 2)
XXXXX (party member 3)
XXXXX (party member 4)
XXXXX (party member 5)

(archer)

Archer shoots at monster. According to the LP, I presume, since all the party members give the same cover "bonus" only the highest applies, thus it doesn't matter if it's one party member there or a billion. The monster just gets a flat +4 to AC. The difference between this and a wall is that party members in squares are not static, they move around all the time in a round. So just because member5 did not get hit by the arrow because he was at the right edge of the 5' square does not mean member4 isnt' sitting right in the middle of the square to get pegged. Etc. for 3, 2, 1. Meaning, if an archer wanted to try this, I would let them try, but if they missed the monster there is a pretty decent chance member 1-5 of the party would be hit by the stray arrow (according to miss chance, etc. etc. rules). For AC bonus to the monster? I'd give +10, like 9/10th cover. You are shooting through 5 occupied squares, after all! Ok maybe only +8 to AC, but still. It's tough.

So, am I STILL missing it here or is the above a reasonable way to do cover?