Variant: Stacking Cover

[Kryx]

The topic is now "How should this be handled". Please see my later post. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18844515&postcount=22


Default rules:

There are three degrees of cover. If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies; the degrees aren't added together. For example, if a target is behind a creature that gives half cover and a tree trunk that gives three-quarters cover, the target has three-quarters cover.
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.
A target with three-quarters cover has a +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has three-quarters cover if about three-quarters of it is covered by an obstacle. The obstacle might be a portcullis, an arrow slit, or a thick tree trunk.

Suggested Rule: For every other form of half cover beyond the first add an additional +1 AC bonus to AC (up to the same maximum as three-quarters cover: +5 AC). Examples: +2 AC for 1-2 forms of half-cover, +3 for 3-4, +4 for 5-6, +5 for 7+.

Most common occurrence: Ranged attacking through creatures.
Example: You are shooting through 2 creatures and past a low wall (3 forms of half-cover). Normally this would give the creature +2 AC. With this variant rule this would be +3 AC.

Consequences: Ranged attacks would be slightly nerfed if they're attacking through multiple forms of cover, which would be logical.
Plus with threads like Reason to fight in melee: For what reason would you make a character that specilizes in melee? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?392781-Reason-to-fight-in-melee) and the graphs from Class Comparisons for Ranged Damage (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?375185-Class-Comparisons-for-Ranged-Damage) I'm not concerned with their damage being slightly lower.

Additional: Sharpshooter ignoring half and 3/4 cover is very very powerful. It likely shouldn't imo as the other 2 bullet are pretty strong as well. I'll likely consider replacing that bullet with something decently good, but not ignoring cover.

Any thoughts on the alternate rule?

[Slipperychicken]

It sounds finding every source of cover is a lot of work that I wouldn't want to do. I'd be more partial to saying something like "If the combination of these cover sources obscure half of the target's space, treat it as half cover. If the combination of cover sources obscures three-quarters of the target's space, treat it as three-quarters cover".

Also, there's an simple problem with half cover stacking. Suppose that a target is behind a pair of waist-high walls (like one might find beside a path), with each wall having equal height. The target is no more obscured than if he were standing behind a single wall, but the stacking houserule suggested here would give him increased protection.

[Kryx]

It sounds finding every source of cover is a lot of work that I wouldn't want to do.
The main source of cover is other creatures. It's not easy to stack.


I'd be more partial to saying something like "If the combination of these cover sources obscure half of the target's space, treat it as half cover. If the combination of cover sources obscures three-quarters of the target's space, treat it as three-quarters cover".
And how would that work with X number of creatures between you and the target? In that case any creature blocks ~3/4 of the square, not the mention multiple creatures or large creatures.


Also, there's an simple problem with half cover stacking. Suppose that a target is behind a pair of waist-high walls (like one might find beside a path), with each wall having equal height. The target is no more obscured than if he were standing behind a single wall, but the stacking houserule suggested here would give him increased protection.
+1 for every other is meant as a general rule of thumb. If it's the exact same obscuration then it shouldn't stack. In my experience the most common is the creature blocking. Firing through 10 creatures is harder than 1.

[Daishain]

I tend to agree with Slippery Chicken on this one. Adding up every single source of cover is liable to get rediculous. I'd just count multiple sources of half cover as 3/4s, and if there are multiple sources of 3/4s cover, I'd make up what seems like an appropriate additional bonus to AC.

[CrusaderJoe]

I tend to agree with Slippery Chicken on this one. Adding up every single source of cover is liable to get rediculous. I'd just count multiple sources of half cover as 3/4s, and if there are multiple sources of 3/4s cover, I'd make up what seems like an appropriate additional bonus to AC.

This and slippery chicken.

What is being proposed goes against everything 5e stands for on the basis of simplicity.

[Kryx]

I'd just count multiple sources of half cover as 3/4s
That may be simpler, but is a HUGE nerf to ranged attacks as 2 forms of half-cover is quite common.

[eastmabl]

Stacking bonuses is for 3.5. There's no need to make this game harder than it already is.

Give disadvantage as appropriate when you're trying to thread the needle through a line of ranged targets.

[HoarsHalberd]

That may be simpler, but is a HUGE nerf to ranged attacks as 2 forms of half-cover is quite common.

Most ranged fighter builds go sharpshooter anyway. But maybe just have a common sense ruling, "if the DM deems it likely multiple sources of half cover cause 3/4 coverage, give the 3/4 cover rule."

[Kryx]

Most ranged fighter builds go sharpshooter anyway. But maybe just have a common sense ruling, "if the DM deems it likely multiple sources of half cover cause 3/4 coverage, give the 3/4 cover rule."
As you see above I'm not a fan of Sharpshooter's ability to ignore cover.


maybe just have a common sense ruling, "if the DM deems it likely multiple sources of half cover cause 3/4 coverage, give the 3/4 cover rule."
The issue with this is it is far less granular. Based on my "complex" system above it would be 7 or more. If there were no gradual steps it'd likely be ~3 in my head, which is worse overall.

[HoarsHalberd]

As you see above I'm not a fan of Sharpshooter's ability to ignore cover.


The issue with this is it is far less granular. Based on my "complex" system above it would be 7 or more. If there were no gradual steps it'd likely be ~3 in my head, which is worse overall.

Personally I think its a fair ability. -5 +10 is only really useful on groups of weak enemies. If you need an 11+ to hit its actually a trap if you're using the longbow/heavy crossbow. Meanwhile the increased range is useful but incredibly situational. The feat is about equal with spell sniper in power, which isn't considered a required feat on most spellcasters.

And your system is complex, it requires lots of close attention to the board and invites lawyering. The simplicity of leaving it to DM fiat is essentially 5e (especially variant rules) in a nut shell.

[eastmabl]

As you see above I'm not a fan of Sharpshooter's ability to ignore cover.

If you don't like Sharpshooter's ability to ignore cover... there's always Disadvantage.

[Kryx]

Personally I think its a fair ability. -5 +10 is only really useful on groups of weak enemies. If you need an 11+ to hit its actually a trap if you're using the longbow/heavy crossbow. Meanwhile the increased range is useful but incredibly situational. The feat is about equal with spell sniper in power, which isn't considered a required feat on most spellcasters.
I have no problems with the other parts of the feat.


And your system is complex, it requires lots of close attention to the board and invites lawyering. The simplicity of leaving it to DM fiat is essentially 5e (especially variant rules) in a nut shell.
For my group the complexity would be preferred over an ambiguous break point. But that seems to definitely be less popular here.


Question at this point then: Are people against the idea of half-cover increasing to 3/4 cover? Or just the complexity? Do you have 1/2 scale up to 3/4 at all?

[EvanescentHero]

This sounds like the needless complexity I left behind in 3.P. If two sources of cover are providing half cover, it seems pretty reasonable to me to deem that three-fourths cover. When you're shooting through six monsters and a chest-high wall, how can you possibly hope to hit your target anyway?

[CrusaderJoe]

This sounds like the needless complexity I left behind in 3.P. If two sources of cover are providing half cover, it seems pretty reasonable to me to deem that three-fourths cover. When you're shooting through six monsters and a chest-high wall, how can you possibly hope to hit your target anyway?

Because you are a god dang awesome hero*, that's how. A commoner may not be able to do it but a damn Fighter or Ranger or whomever else that has PC levels surely can.

*or villain

[Slipperychicken]

When you're shooting through six monsters and a chest-high wall, how can you possibly hope to hit your target anyway?

By being a superhuman ranged attack specialist in a magic elf game.

[CrusaderJoe]

By being a superhuman ranged attack specialist in a magic elf game.

People forget this all the time.

[Kryx]

Crusader & slippery: do you both scale the cover up to 3/4 based on fiat? Your words earlier alluded to it, but I'd like confirmation either way.

If so as a general concept after how many creatures being shot through would you increase it to 3/4?

[CrusaderJoe]

Crusader & slippery: do you both scale the cover up to 3/4 based on fiat? Your words earlier alluded to it, but I'd like confirmation either way.

If so as a general concept after how many creatures being shot through would you increase it to 3/4?

Please explain how my words alluded to me saving the cover up to 3/4 because I don't see it...

[Kryx]

Please explain how my words alluded to me saving the cover up to 3/4 because I don't see it...
You quoted daishan above and said "this"

[CrusaderJoe]

My bolding didn't work.

Ridiculous was supposed to be bolded. Because the proposed rule change is ridiculous.

[eastmabl]

Again, I'll suggest imposing Disadvantage on the attack.

It is representative of the 5e design where multiple bonuses/penalties no longer stack but involve rolling multiple d20s.
It imposes the same effective penalty on the attack - +5 AC or ~-5 to the roll with disadvantage.
Since it's not cover, the Sharpshooter feat doesn't ignore this penalty.

Lastly, since it's disadvantage, you can use inspiration to negate the penalty - thereby getting the reward of a good roleplaying.

Or you could cling to outmoded game design from two editions ago. Your call.

[Kryx]

I come here to receive feedback and adjust my opinions accordingly so no need to do the whole "badwrongfun" schtick.
I've received sufficient feedback to understand that my implementation is unpopular.

I have not understood how other individuals handle the situation. A new thread would likely be better, but I'll try one last time here:

If a creature is using a ranged attack that has several creatures in the way how do you rule it/how should it be ruled? Assume the use of a grid for clarity of how many creatures are in the way. Some options:

RAW The creature receives +2 AC from half-cover no matter how many are in between.
RAW DM Fiat The attacker receive disadvantage for shooting through multiple creatures.
DM Fiat Houserule If there are enough creatures in between the cover is considered 3/4 cover.

[Gwendol]

The first option: RAW.

It has the advantage of making life easier for the DM.

[Giant2005]

I come here to receive feedback and adjust my opinions accordingly so no need to do the whole "badwrongfun" schtick.
I've received sufficient feedback to understand that my implementation is unpopular.

I have not understood how other individuals handle the situation. A new thread would likely be better, but I'll try one last time here:

If a creature is using a ranged attack that has several creatures in the way how do you rule it/how should it be ruled? Assume the use of a grid for clarity of how many creatures are in the way. Some options:

RAW The creature receives +2 AC from half-cover no matter how many are in between.
RAW DM Fiat The attacker receive disadvantage for shooting through multiple creatures.
DM Fiat Houserule If there are enough creatures in between the cover is considered 3/4 cover.


RAW isn't really that specific. A person between you and your target is half cover but it doesn't make any statements regarding more than one person - the rules leave it entirely in the hands of the DM to adjucate.
As for your example, it would depend on the sizes of the target and the people between it - obviously a bunch of Halflings wouldn't be imposing any cover at all if your target was a Tarrasque and the opposite would be true (Full cover) if the Tarrasque was between you and your target. If they were all of equal size, I think I'd consider one person in my line of fire to be half cover, 2-3 people in the line of fire to impose 3/4 cover and any more than 3 people would constitute full cover.

[CrusaderJoe]

I come here to receive feedback and adjust my opinions accordingly so no need to do the whole "badwrongfun" schtick.
I've received sufficient feedback to understand that my implementation is unpopular.

I have not understood how other individuals handle the situation. A new thread would likely be better, but I'll try one last time here:

If a creature is using a ranged attack that has several creatures in the way how do you rule it/how should it be ruled? Assume the use of a grid for clarity of how many creatures are in the way. Some options:

RAW The creature receives +2 AC from half-cover no matter how many are in between.
RAW DM Fiat The attacker receive disadvantage for shooting through multiple creatures.
DM Fiat Houserule If there are enough creatures in between the cover is considered 3/4 cover.


I never said badwrongfun, I said it would be ridiculous to add up and make things harder for someone playing in a magic elf game.

The gem of 5e is its simplicity of rules. You were proposing that every time a player fires a ranged weapon that you or another DM would figure out how much cover by adding up monsters and knee high walls and such.

Instead of just going with the assumption that these PCs are awesome superhuman heroes/villians and within that second or two they can shoot in between the shambling mess of enemies and such.

The way you seem to want to do things is tonpunish archery players for playing a type of character.

Will you punish magic users in the same way? Not just attack rolls but if its hard to target with a bow then shouldn't it be hard to land a fireball exactly where you want? Makes no sense you can target a fireball perfectly when creatures are in the way buy not an arrow.

Or you can do it the simple way and assume competency as an awesome superhuman (or superrace... But that sounds a bit... Yeah...) PC.

But above all else you are pushing to make the game way more complex than it needs to be and will punish archers more for trying to have fun.

Might I suggest, if you will be badwrongfun archers/ranged spell casters at least make things balanced and put the following in the game.

New AoE rule: choose a spot where you want your AoE to land. If there is half cover or more to that spot roll a d20. On 11+ the AoE lands where you want, otherwise roll a d8 and determine the new origin for the AoE.

[Kryx]

I never said badwrongfun
That was actually targeted at the poster after you, but it does somewhat apply to your post as well. It's unnecessarily confrontational. You do it again with your superhuman PCs mindset.


Instead of just going with the assumption that these PCs are awesome superhuman heroes/villians and within that second or two they can shoot in between the shambling mess of enemies and such.
...
Or you can do it the simple way and assume competency as an awesome superhuman


This type of argument never worked for me in 3.X and it won't work for me here. The rules specify what is possible. Plus PCs aren't considered "superhuman" in 5e - quite the opposite. Not all DMs do or should subscribe to these ideals. You can, but should not enforce them on others.



Please answer the proposed question: How would you handle the attacking through multiple creatures situation? I'd love opinions from others as well.

[CrusaderJoe]

That was actually targeted at the poster after you, but it does somewhat apply to your post as well. It's unnecessarily confrontational. You do it again with your superhuman PCs mindset.


This type of argument never worked for me in 3.X and it won't work for me here. The rules specify what is possible. Plus PCs aren't considered "superhuman" in 5e - quite the opposite. Not all DMs do or should subscribe to these ideals. You can, but should not enforce them on others.



Please answer the proposed question: How would you handle the attacking through multiple creatures situation? I'd love opinions from others as well.

No. You are absolutely wrong. Each PC is in fact superhuman within their world.

The fact that it takes X (where X > 1 or 2) commoners to kill any PC class straight up shows the PC is superhuman. A level 1 PC could take on a whole mob. Sure PC power is down compared to 3.5 and 4e but they are superhuman none the less.

Even the lowly champion fighter (who is yhe closest you get to a commoner) is superhuman. Take the Champion (at levels 1, 10, 15, and 20) and the commoner and drop them from the same height and see which one goes splat more often. Raise the height by 10' and repeat. Over the range of 100' which lives more often? As the champion levels up they become even more super human. Sure the champion is a boring superhuman but still a superhuman.

Treating them as anything else is disengenious to the game and your players.

Edit: Answer: Treat the players as super humans they are and don't try to screw specific builds.

[EvanescentHero]

A level 1 PC could take on a whole mob.

In this edition? I don't think so.

[Kryx]

Greater than commoner =/= superhuman. The gap massively shrunk between older editions and this one.

I'm not trying to screw specific builds. At this point I'm trying to see how others rule the situation that I encounter often, but apparently trying to understand the rules and how people implement them is badwrongfun.

I'll try to discern how to handle the situation in a less polluted thread.

[Slipperychicken]

Maybe soft cover should go up to 3/4 when you can't draw a straight line between the attacker's and target's square without passing through another creature's square?

Also, my bad for bringing up the PCs = superhuman thing. Let's try to get this thread back on the rails.

[Notafish]

Maybe soft cover should go up to 3/4 when you can't draw a straight line between the attacker's and target's square without passing through another creature's square?

I was actually surprised to find "degrees" of partial cover in this edition, given the advertised goal of simplicity. I would have thought that "no cover", "partial cover", and "full cover" would be sufficient.

To respond to the question, I would personally go for only giving a target in soft cover 1/2 cover no matter what for the sake of simplicity and quicker resolution of combat. However, I think that SlipperyChicken's suggested variant would work well if you wanted a more tactical game.

Of course, this would complicate things more if you were also using the "Hitting Cover" option in the DMG (you'd probably want to decide in advance what process you'd use to determine what cover got hit on a near miss -- personally, I'd say the first cover in the line, but a dice roll/ coin flip could also work).