Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9697837" data-attributes="member: 18">I think it is though, because you use a D&D attack as an example, but because 5E decided to be weird, we do in fact have to ask "is there cover on the attack" in 5E as a step if we're playing RAW.In practice, I would say most people ignore that concern unless someone is intentionally trying to use cover, or the DM really doesn't want you to hit their precious NPC (ahem), but it is a step, and a weird alien step that doesn't fit with the rest of D&D's resolution.Like a skill resolution in D&D is much reliably straightforward - it'll always be d20 + modifier vs DC, succeed or fail, you're done.But in combat for whatever reason, D&D insists cover must extraneous-ass modifier that you have to consider, RAW. I mean are we going RAW/RAI or "how people actually play it" - I guess that's another question. And I think it kind of points to how it's not the number of steps that leads to onerous/not onerous, it's what those steps are - and cover generally seems extraneous, so typically is a step that gets skipped.To be clear, "circumstance modifiers" that aren't Advantage or Disadvantage (or the DM picking a different DC) are NOT A THING in D&D 5E. They don't exist. Except cover. So there's no general category to which cover belongs. It is unique weird thing that 5E combat inexplicably insists upon.</blockquote>