Cover rules

[person29]

Two questions about cover

1) For half cover another creature is listed as an example. Do you think this is intentionally hiding behind another creature or the rogue is standing behind the fighter, the orc directly across from them fires a bow at the rogue, the rogue has half cover?

2) The potential balance issues of rather than using the +AC and Dex saves for cover, instead giving attacker disadvantage (or advantage on save)

Thanks

[Sartharina]

... wow. Why the heck did they go with numeric bonuses instead of Disadvantage?

[Inevitability]

... wow. Why the heck did they go with numeric bonuses instead of Disadvantage?

Because there had to be a noticeable difference between hiding behind a small boulder and hiding behind an arrow slit.

[Secret Bard]

... wow. Why the heck did they go with numeric bonuses instead of Disadvantage?

How would you differentiate from half and three quarters cover using disadvantage?

[Person_Man]

How would you differentiate from half and three quarters cover using disadvantage?

This is a big issue with the larger Advantage/Disadvantage rules. It has 0 distinction between different levels of anything.

I would solve the issue by making Advantage/Disadvantage an additional 1d6, which is then added to or subtracted from your result. If you have multiple Advantages/Disadvantages, then you roll additional dice, but only take the highest result. You can have a maximum of 3 Advantage or Disadvantage dice for any one roll, and Advantages and Disadvantages cancel each other out.

That would have a very similar numeric effect (Advantage/Disadvantage currently adds or subtracts 1-5 points depending on your target number, but doesn't change the minimum or maximum range), but with a higher level of granularity to account for such effects. Also, new players own multiple d6 from other games, but only 1d20.

But alas, the ship on Advantage/Disadvantage has sailed, and so we end up with kludgey cover rules instead.

[Feldarove]

1) From how I read it, it would seem that creatures provide cover, regardless of size or intention. It states that the creature can be a friend or foe, which leads me to believe its always the case. Interpreting the rule so that you must declare that you are taking cover behind another creature seems like it would lead to bickering....

Some games have this rule...some don't...some have variants, I have never been a fan of creatures providing cover, as it seems to slow down the game, e.g. people are using a straight edge to determine if they are in fact in a straight line with another creature...so and and so forth. I have also just viewed it that creatures/adventurers are constantly moving around in battle and don't exactly provide a "cover" to hide behind. Now if your beefy fighter says..."I am going to stand here and provide cover and nothing else"...I could see someone building a case for that.

I think one variant that makes sense is that another creature can provide cover if it is 1 size category (or more) larger than the creature attempting to gain cover. But that is not specifically stated here....

2) I think allowing A/DA for cover rules would probably be workable. Sure it doesn't differentiate between categories of cover, but it gets rid of Math and would probably make the game move slightly faster. However, as far as I can tell, this is the only rule (outside of class abilities/spells) that creates Math...and it is just 2 numbers to remember.


Also, great use of Kludgey Person_Man. I really like A/DA and I could care less about its overall balance or realism....

[Doug Lampert]

How would you differentiate from half and three quarters cover using disadvantage?

IMAO:

You don't.

Seriously, any game picks a resolution mechanism and from that gets a resolution scale, things below the scale fall through the cracks.

For 5e they've largely decided that the resolution scale for actions is "d20 + possible advantage or disadvantage as the only modifiers you have to handle on the fly".

A lot of people don't like this choice, the constant complaints that advantage or disadvantage should stack or that 24 sources of disadvantage shouldn't all be canceled by one source of advantage is due to people thinking this scale is too course, I tend to agree that it's too course, but it's the scale they've chosen and it works for what they're trying to do, which is "simple and fast with no need to track lots of modifiers that change dynamically".

Having made that decision, STICK WITH IT! No spells that grant small numeric bonuses, No cover granting scaling bonuses based on quality of cover. Anything that's too small to fit that scale should correctly be ignored. Otherwise your "simpler, faster to implement" rule comes out WORSE than 3e or 4e as you now need to track both advantage/disadvantage and a bunch of numeric modifiers.

Small edges and small handicaps too small to be advantage or disadvantage are ignored. That's your scale choice. So "half cover" doesn't exist and gives no benefit, that's an easy rule, 3/4 cover gives advantage/disadvantage as appropriate, that's an easy rule; and they both work with the rest of the rules and fit the same scale as the rest of the rules.

When they chose "Advantage/Disadvantage" as their allowed situational modifier they chose to ignore stuff like the distinctions between no cover/half cover/three fourths cover/arrow slit and fit it into two categories. Stick with that, it's the decision your target audience wants, because you've already lost the people who insist on a finer gradient of modifiers.

[Sartharina]

Actually, with the more constrained math, the +/- 2/5 isn't as bad as it was in D&D 3.5.

[Tholomyes]

This is a big issue with the larger Advantage/Disadvantage rules. It has 0 distinction between different levels of anything.

I would solve the issue by making Advantage/Disadvantage an additional 1d6, which is then added to or subtracted from your result. If you have multiple Advantages/Disadvantages, then you roll additional dice, but only take the highest result. You can have a maximum of 3 Advantage or Disadvantage dice for any one roll, and Advantages and Disadvantages cancel each other out.

That would have a very similar numeric effect (Advantage/Disadvantage currently adds or subtracts 1-5 points depending on your target number, but doesn't change the minimum or maximum range), but with a higher level of granularity to account for such effects. Also, new players own multiple d6 from other games, but only 1d20.

But alas, the ship on Advantage/Disadvantage has sailed, and so we end up with kludgey cover rules instead.I actually saw a somewhat similar method of doing it, in a rules light homebrew system I came across, far before 5e. It was 3d6, and advantage and disadvantage (called something else, if I recall correctly, but I don't remember what) were you'd add an extra d6 and take the highest (or lowest for disadvantage) 3. Multiple stacks of advantage and disadvantage would add more d6s. While a neat little concept, it wasn't all that good of a system, mechanically. Mostly, I think, because the makers didn't understand the probability models behind 3d6 and 1d20. So characters who were good at a task were too good, and characters who were even slightly subpar had a much reduced chance for success, so essentially the only way to keep a Fighter from hitting regularly was to impose disadvantage (occasionally multiple times), and the only way for a character who was weak at something to do decently would be to give advantage (again, sometime multiple stacks).

[obryn]

It at least partly solves the concerns recently ranted about in another thread: "... but what if I'm blinded and they're in cover!"