D&D 5E No cover rules, just dis/adv, what breaks?

[fjw70]

As a side note, using minis and a map or terrain does not require a grid. I make a lot of my own terrain, and it does not have a grid. We use measuring sticks marked in 5s at 1" intervals on the stick. The last session, nobody even asked for one of the measuring sticks. Everything was eyeballed.

i have been using minis and a big dry erase board to draw the map on. The scale is 1" equals 5 ft but we just eyeball it and don't use measuring devises.

Also I really like the cover rules where they are. 1/2 cover is equivalent to using a shield and 3/4 cover is really good (as it should be),

 

[KidSnide]

The thing with advantage/disadvantage is that it's either on or its off. There aren't gradations of advantage and if you have advantage (or disadvantage) from two different sources, the second source doesn't affect the combat. The benefits of having advantage of a mechanic are simplicity and impact: if most modifiers are just "advantage", it's easier to remember and the modifiers matter since rolling that second die has a big impact on the outcome. The tradeoff is the difficulty in expressing small modifiers and the risk that important things stop mattering because advantage / disadvantage already applied.

My suspicion is that most tables break down into (a) tables that play tactically, likely with maps, and use cover a lot and (b) tables that don't play tactically, sometimes using TotM, and don't use cover that much. If you don't use cover that much, then these modifiers are a little fiddly to remember, but you probably ignore them anyway. But if you do use cover, then gradations of cover is probably important to your game. If I'm spending time thinking about exactly which square my character is located in and how he's using terrain and screening allies, then (a) I probably already remember the modifiers from the past couple editions and (b) I don't want to lose that gradation or have disadvantage suddenly stop mattering because the enemy is already behind cover (or visa versa). I imagine a lot of tactical D&D players thinking that at least one character or monster is behind cover 90% of the time in combat and that many tactically interesting decisions about positioning would go away if cover lost the levels of granularity in the last two editions.

I don't see this as a theorycraft issue. The theory is not that complicated. It's just a practical question of whether cover is a mechanic that is important enough to deserve its own subsystem. I think they tried D&DN with cover rolled into advantage / disadvantage and enough designers / playtesters liked it better the old way.

-KS

 

[Juriel]

My suspicion is that most tables break down into (a) tables that play tactically, likely with maps, and use cover a lot and (b) tables that don't play tactically, sometimes using TotM, and don't use cover that much. If you don't use cover that much, then these modifiers are a little fiddly to remember, but you probably ignore them anyway. But if you do use cover, then gradations of cover is probably important to your game.

Or c), like our table, where if the modifiers are there, we will do our best to make use of them, but that may not lead to the desired experience. We don't necessarily enjoy chasing for bonuses, but will do our best so as not to die, because the game expects those.

If that consideration is removed from the table, we can just not worry about it, and carry on. If you have defensive Advantage already, then you're settled, you don't have to hide behind every bush if you don't want to.

 

[KidSnide]

Or c), like our table, where if the modifiers are there, we will do our best to make use of them, but that may not lead to the desired experience. We don't necessarily enjoy chasing for bonuses, but will do our best so as not to die, because the game expects those.

If that consideration is removed from the table, we can just not worry about it, and carry on. If you have defensive Advantage already, then you're settled, you don't have to hide behind every bush if you don't want to.

If your table (as I understand it) plays tactically but doesn't enjoy it, using disadvantage for cover could be an excellent house rule. Essentially, you would ignore partial cover, but 3/4 cover would be very useful.

-KS

 

[Mistwell]

One of the appeals of Adv/Dis is that it's an extra die everyone at the table can physically to to ensure compliance.

With that in mind, what would you think about a d3 or d4 roll (similar to bless) for a 'minor adv/dis?

It maintains randomness, it is an extra die to roll, and the d4 is even seen elsewhere in the system as a bonus.

Thaumaturge.

I think I would prefer a d4 for 1/2 cover, and d8 for 3/4 cover. It would be more consistent with the rest of the game.

 

[Thaumaturge]

I think I would prefer a d4 for 1/2 cover, and d8 for 3/4 cover. It would be more consistent with the rest of the game.

Funny. I was so wrapped up in the 'minor advantage' piece of the discussion, I missed the cover component.

So yeah, I think d4 for light cover and d8 for 3/4 cover are good fits. Subtract for attacking into cover, and add for Dex saves behind cover.

Fun fact: I'm giving blood while posting this. What more do you people want from me?

Thaumaturge.

 

[camilaacolide]

If your table (as I understand it) plays tactically but doesn't enjoy it, using disadvantage for cover could be an excellent house rule. Essentially, you would ignore partial cover, but 3/4 cover would be very useful.

-KS

And this is exactly what I plan on doing!
It just flows nicely.