[DM] Range weapons and PC obstacles

[_felagund]

Hey Guys,

How do you interpret the range weapon atacks if the line of sight goes thru another pc or thru the narrow gap between two players?

Do you give enemy a cover bonus or a fumble chance to two pc's?

[FightStyles]

Hey Guys,

How do you interpret the range weapon atacks if the line of sight goes thru another pc or thru the narrow gap between two players?

Do you give enemy a cover bonus or a fumble chance to two pc's?

Well, like most answers to these questions, it depends on the DM, escpecially since 5e is geared more towards theatric battles over grid.

However, in a current campaign I am DMing, I describe that you shoot past heads and and swinging arms (giving no cover bonus) unless it seems unreasonable, such as a player in a 5 ft wide hallway.

*Note: I also will have you hit another PC if you roll an (optional) crit fail that is within line of the ranged attack, but I'm the DM so I'm allowed to do that. :smallyuk:

[Kryx]

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 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.
Underline emphasis mine.

I play on a grid so it's quite easy to adjudicate if the line of fire crosses an obstacle and how much of the target is covered. I measure from the most ideal corner of the square from the person firing to the four corners of the target. I then apply either half or 3/4 cover based on how many corners are blocked and how much of the target is covered.
1 obstacle = half cover and generally 2 or more is 3/4, though the 3/4 is more variable based on circumstance.

That is how RAW works.

[jkat718]

The DMG actually has rules for how to adjudicate this, under "Hitting Cover" in the Combat Options section of the Dungeon Master's Workshop.



When a ranged attack misses a target that has cover, you can use this optional rule to determine whether the cover was struck by the attack.

First, determine whether the attack roll would have hit the protected target without the cover. If the attack roll falls within a range low enough to miss the target but high enough to strike the target if there had been no cover, the object used for cover is struck. If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.

[JFahy]

I give the target a cover bonus. Philosophically, I think accidental hits should
be a thing but I have yet to see a system that does a great job handling them.
(The DMG system is nicely simple but as written it doesn't take into account
the covering creature's AC, which is a little weird.)

If you gloss over the effect of your buddies being in the way, ranged damage
becomes monotonous and perhaps unfairly strong relative to melee.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Personally I only give out cover bonuses to targets that are actively trying to use cover.
In the interests of simplification, I ignore any "incidental" or "transitory" sources of cover, such as a handful of melee combatants dancing around each other.
Conversely, an army marching in formation would grant cover to anyone not on the front line.

[jkat718]

(The DMG system is nicely simple but as written it doesn't take into account
the covering creature's AC, which is a little weird.)

What do you mean, the covering creature's AC is ignored?

If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.

Person A is shooting person B, but person C is in the way, granting half cover. Person A gets a total attack roll of (1d20+3 STR+2 PROF) = 15, which is not enough to pass person B's AC of (13 chain mail+1 DEX+2 half cover) = 16, but it would've hit them if not for the half cover. Therefore, person C gets hit. The AC for person C is (18 plate), so person A shoots person C, but it gets deflected by the armor. If person C hadn't been wearing armor, their AC would've been (10 base+0 DEX) = 10, and they would've taken damage.

I like to use a variation of this rule when determining where a hit lands (usually for when a PC attacks a party member, as they are wont to do :smalltongue:). For example, the player will try to hit a baddie who has an AC of (14 scale mail+1 DEX+2 shield) = 17. If the player rolls a 10 or below, they flat-out miss. If they get an 11 (low enough that only the DEX bonus would've blocked the hit), the baddie steps out of the way. If the attack roll is 12 (with just a shield, the attack would be blocked), then the baddie smacks the player's weapon with the shield. 13, either the baddie dodges, knocking the blow aside with its shield or it just hits the armor; 14, the armor gets hit; 15, then the baddie dodges and the hit glances off their armor; 16, player hits shield hard enough to power through, but is stopped by the armor; 17+, the player hits.

[JFahy]

What do you mean, the covering creature's AC is ignored?


Ignore that. I read it way too fast. :P

That method actually meets most/all of my requirements; I'll probably try it out.

[Daremonai]

The ramifications of this get interesting when the cover is provided by a monk or similarly unarmoured person - it doesn't hit them because they got out of the way, yet still provided cover to make the shot miss its target...

[Galen]

As per rules, a Medium-sized creature grants half-cover (+2 AC to the target), see free PDF, pg. 74. Having to shoot through a narrow opening could be assessed by the DM as either half-cover or 3/4-cover (+5 AC).

[mephnick]

I ignore cover for allies, because that's needless. I assume these hardened adventurers are communicating enough in combat not to shoot their friend in the back of the head.

I only give cover for enemies or PC's if it makes sense. It may make range combat less varied, but the guy that picked "shoot bow" as his combat style probably wasn't worried about that anyway.

Edit: I also don't want to force every ranged character to take sharpshooter, which the current cover rules do.

[Kryx]

I only give cover for enemies or PC's if it makes sense. It may make range combat less varied, but the guy that picked "shoot bow" as his combat style probably wasn't worried about that anyway.
+2 to atk from the fighting style is meant to counteract this. Removing part of it increases the power of archers. Just FYI.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

+2 to atk from the fighting style is meant to counteract this. Removing part of it increases the power of archers. Just FYI.

Fine by me. I'm really not worried about balance between range and melee at that fine of a resolution. I just want to keep the game flowing forward without stopping frequently for discussions on line of sight.

[mephnick]

Pretty much. I have a bow ranger in my party right now and it's not like the bonus is shooting him ahead of the paladin or anything.