Cover rules and physics

[Louro]

http://s27.postimg.org/rwho27qc3/cover.jpg

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 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.

So, how do you handle this? For me the first picture will be 3/4 cover while the second is concealed.

[burninatortrog]

I'd handle it as written in the book? The rules you quoted are general rules, the hexes variant rules are specific rules. When specific and general rules clash, you follow the specific rules, not the general rules.

[Louro]

It's not a matter of hexes because with the squares example I see the same problem.

It says that with just one tangencial line then you can shoot. The problem is that this is not true and even goes against the "how much space a creature occupies" rule. The creature is not filling the entire squares/hexes, that space is the amount he is "using" to move and defend himself. So, as far as I understand it, being able to see one "pixel" of the space a creature is occuping doesn't grant you vision of that creature. I houserule it as if you are half covered you have half cover, and if you are almost totally covered (head out) then you have 3/4.

There is also a problem with cover and movement, since a creature could move, shoot from 3/4 and go back to total concealment forcing the enemies to make a huge investment in actions to just be able to shoot at him. I give disadvante to people doing this as they seem more concerned with their defence than with their attack (losing sight of the battle every turn, so they need to expend a fraction of their turn in getting how is everything going on, thus the disadvantage).

[VoxRationis]

You're the DM; common-sense rule it. If the creature has no reason to actually put its body on the very edge of its space, then seeing that edge won't allow an attack. But if that creature is moving about, engaging in a melee with a third party, perhaps, then it might well expose itself periodically.

[burninatortrog]

It's not a matter of hexes because with the squares example I see the same problem.

A square grid is also a variant rule with its own specific cover rules that trump the general cover rules.

In all cases, the rules for cover are gameistic, not realistic. The grid combat rules aren't required to be consistent with the theater of the mind rules, and one set of rules is not more "correct" than another.

On one hand, it means that you're justified in using whatever house rules work for you, that's fine. On the other hand, it means the rules as written in the book aren't "wrong."

[Coidzor]

http://s27.postimg.org/rwho27qc3/cover.jpg


So, how do you handle this? For me the first picture will be 3/4 cover while the second is concealed.

Are you playing with minis and a battle map? Are you playing with the Theater of Mind for combat?

[SharkForce]

the creature isn't filling the space. but it is, at some point during it's movement/action/turn/etc, within most parts of that space.

unless you are specifically cramming yourself into cover, that's how i'd rule it. the shot is taken at some point in time when you are not fully behind cover.

[Louro]

We use hexagonal grid map, but I'm not drawing imaginary lines to see how much cover a creature has. I judge it on the fly according to position and cover size.

Look at the 3/4 picture. The attacker can NOT see the hex, he can just see the hex line (zero vision on the space inside that line). The map cover rules are wrong IMO.

[JNAProductions]

Then why ask the forum, if you've already made a ruling?

[Louro]

Anything wrong with asking about others opinions when you already have one?

I would just like to know what other players/DMs think about this. I follow most of the rules but don't hesitate to make changes when I feel like they will make the game:
- More fun
- Faster
- More realistic
In that precise order.

[Occasional Sage]

the creature isn't filling the space. but it is, at some point during it's movement/action/turn/etc, within most parts of that space.

unless you are specifically cramming yourself into cover, that's how i'd rule it. the shot is taken at some point in time when you are not fully behind cover.


You're the DM; common-sense rule it. If the creature has no reason to actually put its body on the very edge of its space, then seeing that edge won't allow an attack. But if that creature is moving about, engaging in a melee with a third party, perhaps, then it might well expose itself periodically.

THese are the voices of reason and sense; listen to them.

Also, take into account what the cover is and what the creature is. If an ogre has tipped a couple of human dining tables on their sides, that's not much cover (unless the ogre goes prone behind them), whichever way the tables are oriented. If a troll is lurking behind a couple of hydrangeas, it's not looking at much cover. Now, if the ogre has tipped a couple of farmers' wagons over, we have a different scenario.

[Coidzor]

Anything wrong with asking about others opinions when you already have one?

I would just like to know what other players/DMs think about this. I follow most of the rules but don't hesitate to make changes when I feel like they will make the game:
- More fun
- Faster
- More realistic
In that precise order.

So how does this make the game more fun or any faster than eyeballing things based upon the map grid examples?

[SharkForce]

THese are the voices of reason and sense; listen to them.

Also, take into account what the cover is and what the creature is. If an ogre has tipped a couple of human dining tables on their sides, that's not much cover (unless the ogre goes prone behind them), whichever way the tables are oriented. If a troll is lurking behind a couple of hydrangeas, it's not looking at much cover. Now, if the ogre has tipped a couple of farmers' wagons over, we have a different scenario.

actually, only he's the voice of reason. i'm just a bunch of sharks or something. it's really not clear, actually.

(sorry, couldn't resist the name-pun).

[Occasional Sage]

actually, only he's the voice of reason. i'm just a bunch of sharks or something. it's really not clear, actually.

(sorry, couldn't resist the name-pun).

Fair. Though I didn't name either of you, so I feel free to describe you however seems right.

Also, I will now think of you both as "the Bobs" from now on.

[Safety Sword]

As soon as you say "physics" you should weep for the cat girls and rethink your position.

I have mentioned this before, but one of my groups started at a university physics department. We try not to bring physics into the game. Too many PhDs, MSc's and BSc's.

[SharkForce]

Fair. Though I didn't name either of you, so I feel free to describe you however seems right.

Also, I will now think of you both as "the Bobs" from now on.

names are in the quote blocks ;)

but yeah, i just couldn't resist when i noticed he was username voxrationis (literally the voice of reason) :P

[Occasional Sage]

names are in the quote blocks ;)

but yeah, i just couldn't resist when i noticed he was username voxrationis (literally the voice of reason) :P

I meant, I didn't chose your name when you registered. Clearly I need to sleep, I'm not making much sense even to myself.

[Louro]

OK, let's just ignore that physics thing and swap it for "common sense".
Cover rules and common sense, yeah.

As I said, seeing just the line of the square a creature is in won't allow you to attack. Now, since I will be using a really complex scenario on the next game, including lots of walls and huge "furniture", I'm afraid of the movement mechanics. You know, concealment, move to 3/4, attack and move back to concealment. If we both (players and DM) use this fights will get really long and boring.

You must expend action+reaction to attack someone (with +5 AC) doing that concealment-3/4 trick. So I thought doing that could give you disadvantage on attack rolls as you are more concerned about your defence that about getting enemies down.
Any other ideas or suggestion about how to deal with this?

[ImSAMazing]

Ill only use cover when I really need it, most of the time I don't. Our DM gives us half cover if we hide behind something but most of our vital bodyparts(or head and chest) are still above the cover, 3-quarters cover if only our head is above the cover.

[Louro]

7 lv 8 players facing goblinoids. I need to give them an edge and it will be the terrain. Most probably they will just charge so goblins will stop them while others retreat to cover. I like that imSAmazing, due to size goblins will get 3/4 while players only half, to disencourage turtling. But I want to be prepared in case that happens.

Yeah, goblins at lv 8. It's all part of a plan to ambush them. That awareness feat giving +5 to passive perception is enforcing me to create really imaginative ways of ambushing my players.