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

[Juriel]

So, what if we ignore half cover, it takes a tree trunk or whatever else qualifies as 3/4 cover (a horrible term, thanks, natural language), and that gives the disadvantage?

Yes, it makes having bare terrain, and having rocky terrain (but with SMALL ROCKS) the same... But I tend to find 'and then I move here into some cover' a no-thought required process in play anyway.

So the only determination would become 'is it major cover'. And if you have a defensive advantage from some other source (like a buff), then you can run around the field like a big hero and not worry about things like ducking behind small rocks at all.

(the inherent dangerousness of a bunch of low-CR critters with ranged weapons may become even more major with this approach, but then, I think that's where things can break down anyway, and the GM would be best-advised not to use such groupings?)

 

[KarinsDad]

Ah, there's the math! I couldn't find it right now, thanks.

That's lot bigger shift than expected, sheesh.

One of the reasons that I will be introducing +2 minor advantage and -2 minor disdvantage. Once in a while, the DM just wants to throw out a modifier based on situation.


The think the main reason that they went with the +2 and +5 for cover is because it would be an equivalent disadvantage to the AC attack roll, but advantage to the Dex saving throw. That is more difficult to explain to people. Plus, +2 and +5 give a different result for 1/2 cover and 3/4 cover. They were really between a rock and a hard place on mechanics here since one is a penalty and one is a bonus, and they wanted two levels of cover.

 

[Thaumaturge]

One of the reasons that I will be introducing +2 minor advantage and -2 minor disdvantage. Once in a while, the DM just wants to throw out a modifier based on situation.

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.

 

[Teataine]

This might not be relevant to Basic, but in the playtest there was an archery feat that let you ignore cover if I remember correctly, so that distinction might be important elsewhere.

There's also the issue of the rare fringe cases where you have an invisible/concealend AND covered opponent, where both modifiers come in play.

I think there was another reason at the back of my mind, but I can't remember it now.

Overall, nothing dramatic.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Well, it's kind of like monster attacks. If you want to speed up the game, you use the set damage, if you want rolls, you roll.

If you are trying to speed up the game, telling the player that he is getting +2 (which means his +5 is now +7) is faster than rolling an extra die.

I don't see the need to roll extra dice. My players are often slow enough with their dice as is. For example, our current 4E player of an Avenger refuses to roll both his oath D20s at the same time. He is superstitious. To prove it one day, he rolled both dice and got 5 or lower on both. This reinforced in his mind his beliefs. I have other players who mostly refuse to roll to hit and damage at the same time. They do not like seeing great damage with a crappy to hit roll.

So, what are you going to do?

Personally, I would minimize the amount of dice being rolled to get beyond these slowups. YMMV.

I see nothing significantly wrong with the house rule you suggest (although D4 does average more than 2 and a 4 just smacks of too much of a boost when it happens), but I just think that a simple +2 or -2 works better for me and my group. I can definitely see the appeal of your approach for players when a player or DM rolls the D4 and without it, the PC would have gotten hit or failed the save. Woo Hoo!!! High fives.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Another factor hinted at already is the impact on snipers. If cover gave disadvantage, it would automatically cancel any advantage gained otherwise and thereby remove, e.g. sneak attack damage. The static modifier does not interact in that way.

I am pretty sure they've considered the possibilities. This makes sense, allows some granularity, and intersects well with other (cleaner) systems.

 

[Juriel]

If cover gave disadvantage, it would automatically cancel any advantage gained otherwise and thereby remove, e.g. sneak attack damage.

Oof. Very true.

On the other hand, we've moved to ignoring light cover, so this only affects what would've been 3/4 cover anyway, whose +5 AC might've dissuaded the Rogue from following that shot anyway?

 

[Thaumaturge]

My players are often slow enough with their dice as is. For example, our current 4E player of an Avenger refuses to roll both his oath D20s at the same time. He is superstitious. To prove it one day, he rolled both dice and got 5 or lower on both. This reinforced in his mind his beliefs. I have other players who mostly refuse to roll to hit and damage at the same time. They do not like seeing great damage with a crappy to hit roll.

So, what are you going to do?

Um. Man. Yeah. I agree. Adding a roll to that set-up is sub-optimal.

My group rolls all of the dice together, so my proposition would work pretty well for us. And my group can get pretty bad about forgetting various plusses and minuses.

For the nonce, I'm going to go with it as is. Cover is only one set of bonuses, and it applies to AC not to the roll. So I control it usually.

Thaumaturge.

 

[evilbob]

We will definitely be playing with only one type of cover that grants disadvantage to attackers (and advantage on Dex saves). You're right; the current cover rules make no sense in context with the rest of the rule system, and it's annoying to have to track an extra seemingly random thing. Plus, the difference between "half cover" and "3/4 cover" is really just splitting hairs to me; why get so nitpicky over this one tiny (and extremely tactical-heavy) thing when so many other things are covered in such broad strokes (especially in the Basic game)?

That said: the main reason I think the ugly cover rules have survived throughout the playtest and now into the Basic game is because there ARE at least a few weird interactions when you throw in the ad/dis mechanic. Some seem generally ok to me - cover negates someone attacking you from hiding, for example - but some are weird - like cover making out-of-range attacks no more difficult than they would already be. However, I really don't think there are that many of these situations. For example, while technically "being prone" and "being in cover" don't stack - which seems weird - I would think that if you were prone behind cover, that means you just can't be targeted altogether (basically "total cover"). It's more of a case of assessing the situation and going beyond the two conditions interacting and seeing if there is a bigger picture.

What it really comes down to is: I think if cover negates certain advantage rolls, that's probably not going to be a big deal. If the end result was a +5 (average) from advantage being negated by a static -5 from cover, while yes that's technically not the same, it more or less works out. What IS weird is when cover should stack with an already present disadvantage, like the ranged attack example. But even this isn't something I am too worried about, because 10 normal disadvantages don't stack, either. If someone is blind, restrained, and prone, they STILL only get "disadvantage" on their attack rolls to hit me. If that's part of the core rules, then if I am also behind cover, what does that matter? Why is that ONE thing still worse than those three other things combined?

ALL THIS SAID: what I'm talking about is a house rule, certainly, and some people enjoy the minutia of different kinds of cover and keeping track of extra bonus/penalties and all that stuff I said at the top I didn't like, so for anyone who enjoys that stuff: great! The rule as-written will work. But for me, it doesn't, and I don't anticipate any major issues from changing it.

 

[evilbob]

But wait, do the rules even say that firing into melee gives a penalty?

I don't think they do; I think the only disadvantage you get from ranged attacks is when someone is right next to you. Nothing about the target, that I recall.