D&D 5E How Are People Handling Cover?

[KarinsDad]

A-----> B -- C <------D

If A fires at B, he gets no cover from C, despite C providing cover to B from A's attack.

If A fires at B, he (B) gets no cover from C, despite C providing cover to B from A's attack.

If A fires at B, he (A) gets no cover from C, despite C providing cover to B from A's attack.

Which of these two interpretations did you mean (if either)?

Not that either of these two interpretations make sense to me with either your diagram or mine.

When attacking at an angle, use your judgement as to when the cover no longer applies.

So, we have no rule on this is what you are saying, which is what I expected.


My original example, although I was not clear on it, was one of PCs C, D, and E shooting at NPC A past PC B who is engaged. How far over would they have to be for PC B to no longer be in the way (i.e. giving cover to NPC A)? I would think that this is a very frequent scenario due to the stickiness of OA in this edition.

Alternatively, NPC A on his turn should be able to position himself to the best location such that he gets cover against as many of C's, D's, and E's ranged attacks from PC B as possible. Granted, PCs C, D, and E could move to eliminate that cover, but in doing so, they are forced to move (which means that they might have to exit the rocks or trees that are giving them cover). PC B on his turn could move to the opposite side of NPC A and then give all of his allies PCs B, C, and D shots at NPC A without penalty. On NPC A's turn, he could then again move to the opposite side of Fighter B, etc.

If the answer is #1 above, then C only has to move a few feet and A no longer has cover from B. This is a bit nonsensical to me. If half cover applies, then moving a couple of feet 50 feet away means that C sees a hair more of A, but B is still significantly in the way. I think I'll go with #2. It makes more sense than #1 (too restrictive) or #3 (too generous) and 60 degrees is easy to judge (having used hexes for years).

 

[KarinsDad]

It is also wise to remember that the three scenarios the op outlines are never actually going to occur.

In real life people do not stand about for 6 seconds waiting for their next turn like chess pieces. The floor is very unlikely to be as flat as a chess board either. People in real life are going to try and get low to the ground even when running, and if the wizard sees someone to the right of him start to loosen an arrow, he's probably going to move more to the left and behind the warrior if he can.

Actually, you are mistaken. Say C is shooting his bow from behind a rock at his enemy A. C doesn't want to move. His rock gives him cover. A is trying to keep his enemy B between himself and C since C is shooting at A. So, on B's turn, B cannot move away from A without disengaging or provoking, so B might move to the opposite side of A. If A's initiative occurs before C's initiative, then A moves behind B again. If C's initiative occurs before A's initiative, then C fires while A does not have cover and before A moves behind B again.

With how initiative is handled, this could be a frequent occurrence.


In fact, with how this works, it is a GOOD tactic for the front line melee PCs to not move straight up to NPCs, but to move in from the side. That way, PC ranged attacks do not get cover penalties. Granted, the melee PCs then open themselves up to NPC ranged attacks, but in scenarios where there are few NPC ranged attackers, this would be a good option. It also incentivizes the NPC ranged attackers to attack the high AC melee PCs as opposed to the low AC PCs further back on occasion.

The classic "the fighter moves up to the foe with his allies behind him" is often not the best tactic anymore.

 

[MerricB]

If A fires at B, he (B) gets no cover from C, despite C providing cover to B from A's attack.

If A fires at B, he (A) gets no cover from C, despite C providing cover to B from A's attack.

Which of these two interpretations did you mean (if either)?

Neither! Mis-type on my part: should be "despite C providing cover to B from D's attack."

The strict rules for a grid aren't there yet; determining degree of cover is a DM call.

Cheers!

 

[KarinsDad]

It occurred to me that a simple drawing might resolve this, at least for me.

I drew one in Paint, but for some reason, I cannot upload it today.

Bottom line of the drawing, two PCs standing 5 feet away from each other (center mass to center mass), the one gives cover in about a 60 degree arc.

One interesting aspect of it, though, was that the 60 degrees started with the creature getting the cover, not the one giving the cover. So, that moves the 60 degree arc back 5 feet and that increases the size slightly further away.

So, more or less, I'll be using option #2 since it most closely represents how much cover one creature would give another with about 50% of the second creature not being seen when they stand 5 feet apart from each other.

 

[evilbob]

D) None of the above.

Since we'll be using "cover = disadvantage" and the ranged attacker is already getting disadvantage, none of those matter.

However, even if that weren't the case, we would probably still use none of the above and adjudicate that no cover was given. The point of the disadvantage for ranged attacks is that you're already taking a penalty; plus this is a little fiddly for me.

If B were standing directly in front of C, then B would grant cover, though.