D&D 5E Silly/Senseless Rules You Have Found

[Paraxis]

Allies generally don't give partial cover. 5E doesn't base cover on squares like previous editions, it's based on the creatures themselves. While it's reasonable that a halfling could be hiding behind an ally as they are working together, it isn't really reasonable that someone being in a 5 foot cube beside an enemy in a 5 foot cube is going to have half their body being obstructed. The only time I'd rule there could be cover is if all three characters are in a straight line. If there is any angle at all then it is almost geometrically impossible for there to be cover unless there are some size differences going on.

Yes and no.

Under Cover PHB pg. 196

Yes - "A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover."
So yes you can move off to the side and shoot if that angle is available to you.

No - "A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall. a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend."
Creatures both allies and enemies grant cover.

 

[Chocolategravy]

Creatures both allies and enemies grant cover.

No, it's just yes. My point was cover is based on obstructing half the creature, not half the square. An ally obstructing half the enemy pretty much never comes up.

 

[Tormyr]

No, it's just yes. My point was cover is based on obstructing half the creature, not half the square. An ally obstructing half the enemy pretty much never comes up.

Except when the fighters engage in melee and the ranged attackers are behind them.

 

[SilverfireSage]

No, it's just yes. My point was cover is based on obstructing half the creature, not half the square. An ally obstructing half the enemy pretty much never comes up.

You're assuming that cover can only be granted if the target is standing still and happens to be wide enough to provide half cover. A person in combat is moving around, dodging and attacking, and will be taking up the 5ft square simply by their movement. The cover is granted because it's difficult to shoot around a person, but not impossible, or it would be 3/4 or total cover.

 

[Riley37]

If you interpret RAW with excessive literalism, you get this scenario:

Human is on top of a mountain, on a moonless night. Human is in darkness. Human is "effectively blinded" and cannot see the tree that's five feet away from the human.
At the base of the mountain, there is a bonfire. Halflings dancing around the bonfire are in a lit area and can see normally.
Halflings near bonfire cannot see the human, because the human is in darkness.
Human also cannot see the halflings, because the human cannot see *out* of the darkness - because darkness is mechanically identical to heavy foliage or fog.

To which I reply: Oh come on. If you believe that the human should be able to look down and see, a mile away, halflings dancing around a bonfire, then rule accordingly and carry on. (Though go even more realistic, and have the human's pupils contract, losing their night-vision adaptation.)

 

[pedro2112]

If you interpret RAW with excessive literalism, you get this scenario:

Human is on top of a mountain, on a moonless night. Human is in darkness. Human is "effectively blinded" and cannot see the tree that's five feet away from the human.
At the base of the mountain, there is a bonfire. Halflings dancing around the bonfire are in a lit area and can see normally.
Halflings near bonfire cannot see the human, because the human is in darkness.
Human also cannot see the halflings, because the human cannot see *out* of the darkness - because darkness is mechanically identical to heavy foliage or fog.

To which I reply: Oh come on. If you believe that the human should be able to look down and see, a mile away, halflings dancing around a bonfire, then rule accordingly and carry on. (Though go even more realistic, and have the human's pupils contract, losing their night-vision adaptation.)

Riley,

The DMG addresses the "darkness issue" and clearly states that someone in the dark can see a light source from miles away. So no, you will not get the scenario you described above via RAW.

 

[WilliamCQ]

Darts aren't light while Daggers, weighing 4X more, are; both have the same thrown range.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Darts aren't light while Daggers, weighing 4X more, are; both have the same thrown range.

The light property of weapons has nothing to do with weight. It is only for "you can use this weapon for fighting with two weapons," and even then that gets limited to being melee weapons so darts would not benefit from having the light property in any way.

The only potentially "silly" rule involved in comparing darts and daggers is that a dagger is a melee weapon even when you throw it, so the Archery fighting style and other features that enhance attacks with ranged weapons don't apply to daggers.

 

[WilliamCQ]

darts would not benefit from having the light property in any way.

I know a player that likes his PC to throw things 2-handed; I was listing him daggers and had to restrain from adding darts.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I know a player that likes his PC to throw things 2-handed; I was listing him daggers and had to restrain from adding darts.

I don't follow.