Tactical Use of Cover

[RogueDM]

I have a question concerning the judicious use of cover during primarily ranged combat. I've just been through the Cover section of the PHB (3.5) and saw no mention of movement in relation to peering around corners or leaning out from behind cover.

My understanding of movement would lead me to rule simple things like this as Free Actions, but leaves me with a problem. If I have a bow or crossbow and, as a free action, lean out from behind my cover, fire, and then I can return to the safety of my cover as another free action.

To an extent this makes sense, but it is going to force everybody into using the same tactic and make combat time consuming. Some people are going to hug cover like it was a very expensive courtesan while others will hang out and ready actions to plug them in the gourd when they pop out again.

Should I leave this system as-is, or should I rule shifting in and out of cover the equivalent of a five-foot-step or a swift action, meaning you can only do it once during a given turn? That is, if you poke your head out you can't turtle back up until your next turn.

Acknowledgement: I know you can still attack somebody with Partial Cover with a modification to their AC, but I'm more thinking about the potential abuse (or at least annoyance) of lots of Complete Cover.

[Cozod]

If you're behind total cover, you can't draw line of sight. You can't "peek out" and take a shot, you'd have to take a 5 foot step.

At least that's my thought.

[Lightlawbliss]

If you have total cover, there is no way to "peek out"
peeking out would only be possible in partial cover. one way to think about it is you can attack them and they can attack you when you attack them.

[Curmudgeon]

Regular cover is what allows you to still see your enemy but have some protection. That includes all the cases where you're firing over a low wall or around a corner. You're making minor movements with respect to the terrain, but staying within your 5' square.

If you're leaving a square which has complete cover, you're not just "peeping out"; you're moving at least 5' to get to another square.

The closest match to what you want is (regular) cover, total concealment, and something that lets you see through that concealment. You'll still have line of sight to your enemies but they won't have line of sight to you. And even if they guess which square you're in, you've still got the boost to AC from the cover.

[RogueDM]

I just want to make sure I am understanding this correctly ( I have a player who is full of nit-picky questions so I like to have my bases covered.) If I am Archer A and I am standing directly behind a 5'x5'x5' stone block and my enemy, Archer B, is 30' away from the opposite side we would have Complete Cover from one another. No LOS, right?

So, the only way to restore LOS would be to take a five-foot-step out to one side, which I would think would remove me entirely from cover.

I know that Archer B could just take his own 5'-step and turn A's Complete Cover to Standard Cover, but that's beside the point. And I'm fairly certain I'm correct about the 5x5x5 stone block providing total cover, because a tower shield is able to do the same and it isn't any larger than 5x5.

[Lightlawbliss]

5x5x5 would only be normal cover for a medium creature (if your standing up tall) (assuming the partial or full cover, no fractional)

Also, LoS affects concelment, LoA is cover.

[Scow2]

5x5x5 would only be normal cover for a medium creature (if your standing up tall) (assuming the partial or full cover, no fractional)

Also, LoS affects concelment, LoA is cover.You can use something as small as 3'x4' or 4'x4' for total cover - it would probably take a move or 5' step-style action to pop out of cover. Or even a free action. Yes, it bogs the game down. That's what cover does.

Of course, if non-total cover wasn't worthless in 3.5, we probably wouldn't be having this issue at all.

[Curmudgeon]

Of course, if non-total cover wasn't worthless in 3.5, we probably wouldn't be having this issue at all.
It's not worthless at all. Rather, it's exactly what you need to make the otherwise worthless Dark Creature template Hide in Plain Sight function. :smallsmile:

[RogueDM]

@Lightlawbliss: Yes, LoA is what I was intending. Not usually terms I deal in.

@Scow2: That was my thought as well. But that brings me back to the initial question; in regards to shifting behind cover (opting for partial rather than total) what would -you-, the playgrounders, rule that as at your table?

As stated above, dealing with the optional transition from total to partial cover seems like it should be a free action to me, but should I Houserule that to a Swift Action, make it a 5'-step equivalent action (not really moving the whole 5' but the same reasoning), just say "You move in 5' increments, deal with it!", or let it lay as a Free action and deal with prairie dog shootouts?

Really, making it Swift and 5'-step equivalent are almost the same, in that you can do it for next to no action cost, but only once.

[Fyermind]

If you can take a five foot step for free I see no reason why you can't take a two foot step for free. You can't keep total cover in most situations without moving on either side of your attack action. One notable exception is that dropping prone is a free action. If you have something you can take cover by falling over and a place you can have cover standing you can do a multi-turn cycle where you step out from cover, full attack, and fall down. If you get a way to stand as a free action (such as lots of ranks in tumble) this can be done every turn.

[Slipperychicken]

Doesn't cover provide concealment? That's what makes cover worthwhile IIRC.

[Lightlawbliss]

Doesn't cover provide concealment? That's what makes cover worthwhile IIRC.

I've heard people argue it does and people argue it doesn't. I don't remember any official rule one way or the other.

[RogueDM]

If you get a way to stand as a free action (such as lots of ranks in tumble) this can be done every turn.

Kip Up allows this as well. But outside of situations with free action standing you have to use a move action on one side of that scenario. Working a "2'-step" the same as "5'-step" at least restricts you to doing so once per round leaving a window where you're exposed to harm.

I just feel that making it a free action that you could use twice in a round just makes it a little too easy to exploit. Had a DM who allowed you to 5' step on both ends of a turn and I will admit that I abused that like you wouldn't believe.

A second thing I noticed/thought of: normal cover allows you to make a hide check, so I'd reason that you could use a "partial 5'-step" as part of using the "snipe" option, to hide until you could slip back into total cover. But I guess that's getting of subject.

[Curmudgeon]

If you can take a five foot step for free
You can't. That is, if you elect to take a 5' step in the round, you are disallowed from any other movement for the turn. A 5' step isn't a free action.
I see no reason why you can't take a two foot step for free.
A 2' step doesn't get you out of your square so it's no movement at all, because D&D doesn't bother with any movement that's less than 1 square. And a square either has total cover for its entirety or it doesn't, so shifting around in the square accomplishes nothing.

[Lightlawbliss]

...
A second thing I noticed/thought of: normal cover allows you to make a hide check, so I'd reason that you could use a "partial 5'-step" as part of using the "snipe" option, to hide until you could slip back into total cover. But I guess that's getting of subject.

sniping is attacking from cover/concealment and hiding in that square. a "partial 5 ft step" isn't needed (or existent).

[Fyermind]

You can't. That is, if you elect to take a 5' step in the round, you are disallowed from any other movement for the turn. A 5' step isn't a free action.
A 2' step doesn't get you out of your square so it's no movement at all, because D&D doesn't bother with any movement that's less than 1 square. And a square either has total cover for its entirety or it doesn't, so shifting around in the square accomplishes nothing.

Okay, the idea of a 2' step is that my world, and my combat isn't forcibly drawn into 5' squares. If you are within 5' of your opponent you are treated as adjacent and can attack them, but if you want to redefine the grid so you can have partial cover behind a corner and attack instead of having total cover and be unable to attack, that is fine by me.

If you feel that the world of D&D is actually segmented into 5' sections and rooms of dimensions 8' by 12' cannot exist, we clearly play different games, and I'm sorry if I appeared to be imposing my game on yours.

[Lightlawbliss]

Okay, the idea of a 2' step is that my world, and my combat isn't forcibly drawn into 5' squares. If you are within 5' of your opponent you are treated as adjacent and can attack them, but if you want to redefine the grid so you can have partial cover behind a corner and attack instead of having total cover and be unable to attack, that is fine by me.

If you feel that the world of D&D is actually segmented into 5' sections and rooms of dimensions 8' by 12' cannot exist, we clearly play different games, and I'm sorry if I appeared to be imposing my game on yours.

I like that system, but we can't use that in this discussion unless the OP tells us (s)he is using that sort of system. Unless OP says differently, we are stuck with RAW and RAI.

[RogueDM]

sniping is attacking from cover/concealment and hiding in that square. a "partial 5 ft step" isn't needed (or existent).

That sort of is why I'm bringing this up. If I'm behind total cover and want to emerge to attack I would have to do a full five foot step out of cover to do so. So, the idea is to allow my players the option of not moving the full five feet for the same action type. To move to the edge of your total cover so it could be utilized as partial cover.

Secondly, I'm aware of what sniping is and how it works. My point, tangential to my original post, was simply another tactic one could employ using the same system. Just using snipe after my proposed less-than-five-foot-step in a vie to not catch an arrow in the face -if- I were to not rule such a Free Action (different than the special rules that govern a five foot step). Which is the matter at hand: I think the option of allowing a player to forgo total cover in favor of partial cover is a valid one, but how to work it mechanically?

Hence, I'm toying with the idea of working it in a way similar to a five-foot-step, but obviously moving less than five feet as that would potentially move one completely out of cover. The option could also be worked as a Free Action, but my concern is that it would be -too- useful without having any off-set cost (like ranks in Tumble or Kip Up as with Low Cover).

[BowStreetRunner]

If you are in a square where you can peek around the corner, you probably have cover, not total cover.

If you can draw a line from any corner of the square occupied by the attacker to any corner of the square occupied by the target without passing through an obstacle, then you have line of effect.
If you can draw a line from any corner of the square occupied by the attacker to any corner of the square occupied by the target and the line is blocked by an obstacle, the target has cover.
If you can draw a line from every corner of the square occupied by the attacker to every corner of the square occupied by the target without passing through an obstacle, then the target has no cover.
If you can draw a line from every corner of the square occupied by the attacker to every corner of the square occupied by the target and every line is blocked by an obstacle, the target has total cover (no line of effect).

A lot of times I see a figure standing next to the corner of a wall and the player forgets that someone can draw a line to their leading corner (the one touching the wall) without actually passing through the wall. This figure has cover, not total cover.

[Lightlawbliss]

If you are in a square where you can peek around the corner, you probably have cover, not total cover.

If you can draw a line from any corner of the square occupied by the attacker to any corner of the square occupied by the target without passing through an obstacle, then you have line of effect.
If you can draw a line from any corner of the square occupied by the attacker to any corner of the square occupied by the target and the line is blocked by an obstacle, the target has cover.
If you can draw a line from every corner of the square occupied by the attacker to every corner of the square occupied by the target without passing through an obstacle, then the target has no cover.
If you can draw a line from every corner of the square occupied by the attacker to every corner of the square occupied by the target and every line is blocked by an obstacle, the target has total cover (no line of effect).

A lot of times I see a figure standing next to the corner of a wall and the player forgets that someone can draw a line to their leading corner (the one touching the wall) without actually passing through the wall. This figure has cover, not total cover.

correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it not restricted to corners. for example, If there is a small hole in the wall big enough for you to attack through but all corners would be blocked from the exact other corners, it's still only cover.
Corners is easiest for most situations to be sure (they are the extremes).

[RogueDM]

@BowStreetRunner: You may have touched on my confusion. I've always perceived the above mention 5x5x5 block as providing total cover to the person standing behind it. That is to say, that the line passing along the edge of the obstructed block to the leading corner is likewise obstructed.

@LightLawBliss: I guess the rules Fyermind is using are something like the idea I'm toying around with implementing. I will definitely table it for discussion, unless, of course, BowStreetRunner is correct and the subject is a moot one.

Edit: Talked to one of my players, and the fact came up that Tower Shields provide total cover, even though it wouldn't provide much more cover than the corner. This may well be a special case, specific trumping general and all.