Cover in 5e

[Vorpalchicken]

I was shocked to learn that targeting through an ally causes a partial cover bonus to your enemy- not because it doesn't make sense, but because I was certain I had previously read that only enemies provide that bonus. ( I also remember thinking as I read that it was not logical but it must be there for smoother game play or something to that effect.)

I am not questioning the rule but I am very curious to know where I could have picked that up? Play test? Pre errata basic rules? Is it just something from a past edition?

Also does this apply to an attack with a reach weapon? If so, it seems that this is a departure from all previous editions (actually not sure about 3.x), where an attack with a polearm from the second rank was a viable tactic.

[Dalebert]

I don't know but I had a similar misunderstanding a while back so maybe there's something to it.

On a similar note, I was recently surprised to learn that cover provides benefit to dex-saves for attacks that impose them, presumably things like acid splash. I suppose it would also make sense if there's cover between you and the origin point of a fireball. I somehow thought cover only applied for attacks that involve an actual attack roll.

[Slipperychicken]

It's in PHB 196, "Cover".

It lists some things that provide half-cover (+2 AC and Dex saves), and creatures are among them. Doesn't matter if they're allies, enemies, or bystanders.


For your other point: melee attacks are also affected by cover. So I guess it would apply to a reach weapon. Maybe you could waive that cover for a pike formation or something.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I am very curious to know where I could have picked that up?

Back when I played WH40k, that was the rule. Enemy squads blocked line of sight, but you could shoot through friendlies on the assumption that they would get out of the way. So maybe it was something from an older edition / different game.

[Malifice]

It's in PHB 196, "Cover".

It lists some things that provide half-cover (+2 AC and Dex saves), and creatures are among them. Doesn't matter if they're allies, enemies, or bystanders.


For your other point: melee attacks are also affected by cover. So I guess it would apply to a reach weapon. Maybe you could waive that cover for a pike formation or something.

I wouldnt.

Harder to poke someone when there is someone (or something) standing between you and the thing you're trying to poke.

Ive noticed cover is rarely used in games too. I use it all the time personally (in theatre of the mind, shooting into melee is pretty much a -2 unless the PC takes some effort to get into position for a better shot first), but a lot of AL games seem to miss it.

[Zalabim]

I was shocked to learn that targeting through an ally causes a partial cover bonus to your enemy- not because it doesn't make sense, but because I was certain I had previously read that only enemies provide that bonus. ( I also remember thinking as I read that it was not logical but it must be there for smoother game play or something to that effect.)

I am not questioning the rule but I am very curious to know where I could have picked that up? Play test? Pre errata basic rules? Is it just something from a past edition?

Also does this apply to an attack with a reach weapon? If so, it seems that this is a departure from all previous editions (actually not sure about 3.x), where an attack with a polearm from the second rank was a viable tactic.

+2 AC against your polearm doesn't make second rank polearming not a viable tactic (though ringing an enemy with spears is probably a more potent tactic), and I'm fairly sure the "allies will get out of the way" assumption comes from 4E's cover rules. I'm actually surprised WH40K assumes the same. I thought it would go the way of friendly fire, from the general feel of the setting.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I'm actually surprised WH40K assumes the same. I thought it would go the way of friendly fire, from the general feel of the setting.

Disclaimer: I think they changed that rule after I stopped playing.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Why would you assume allies would get out of the way... even though combat HAS to take place in some sort of initiative order to make sense, it is supposed to all be happening withing the same 6 seconds. I'm pretty sure assuming your allies can engage a target and still pay attention to avoid attacks from behind them from friendlies is just openly embracing the fictional round.

That is why the archery style is a great pick... it gets rid of that penalty, and with sharpshooter, actually increases your attack bonus all the time. 'in affect it is this versions precise shot, just without the 30 foot range restriction.

[Kryx]

Ive noticed cover is rarely used in games too. I use it all the time personally
It is seemingly often ignored.

I enforce it as well. I play on roll20 without a grid so most of the time the archer just has to position differently (usually more vulnerably) or accept the half cover. Usually he takes half cover, though it depends on the surroundings and enemies.

[tieren]

It is seemingly often ignored.

I enforce it as well. I play on roll20 without a grid so most of the time the archer just has to position differently (usually more vulnerably) or accept the half cover. Usually he takes half cover, though it depends on the surroundings and enemies.

A dedicated archer could always just take sharpshooter and ignore anything but full cover all the time anyway.

[smcmike]

Also does this apply to an attack with a reach weapon? If so, it seems that this is a departure from all previous editions (actually not sure about 3.x), where an attack with a polearm from the second rank was a viable tactic.

Not in the 3.5 rules. Allies created cover in that system, too, and it was. +4 bonus, not +2. Worse, if you are attacking with a ranged weapon, and the target is engaged in melee with your friend, you take a -4 on the attack roll. Both of these penalties can be overcome with feats, but it takes a lot of investment. It's WAY easier to shoot into a fight in 5e.

[Kryx]

A dedicated archer could always just take sharpshooter and ignore anything but full cover all the time anyway.
That's true by RAW.
Personally, I find that creating all these nice rules and then giving a feat to ignore them is rather unfortunate. It counteracts the idea that archery style negates the half cover benefit, making that benefit a pure boost instead of a sometimes boost. It also unbalances the ranged vs melee debate by allowing ranged to do significantly more damage than I would expect compared to melee.

I always enforce cover (I removed that option from those feats)

[Slipperychicken]

A dedicated archer could always just take sharpshooter and ignore anything but full cover all the time anyway.
If you ask me, sharpshooter is a requirement for a "dedicated archer". Otherwise your PC is just a dex warrior who happens to prefer bows.


Also, I think a lot of these feats need to be roleplayed more so GMs don't assume they're the norm. Someone with sharpshooter should be spending practically all their free time practicing marksmanship and maintaining their main weapons, to emphasize that they have a truly exceptional level of dedication and talent that leads to the results seen in the field.

[Coidzor]

A dedicated archer could always just take sharpshooter and ignore anything but full cover all the time anyway.

And still have the extra +2 to hit from the Archery Fighting Style that's supposed to counteract the cover.


Also, I think a lot of these feats need to be roleplayed more so GMs don't assume they're the norm. Someone with sharpshooter should be spending practically all their free time practicing marksmanship and maintaining their main weapons, to emphasize that they have a truly exceptional level of dedication and talent that leads to the results seen in the field.

I don't see why archers should no longer get downtime over any other skilled PC, or why especially skilled PCs should be locked out in general. Let alone why you'd want to take steps to have more PCs locked out of social scenes due to brooding lonerness and obsessive training.

[pwykersotz]

And still have the extra +2 to hit from the Archery Fighting Style that's supposed to counteract the cover.



I don't see why archers should no longer get downtime over any other skilled PC, or why especially skilled PCs should be locked out in general. Let alone why you'd want to take steps to have more PCs locked out of social scenes due to brooding lonerness and obsessive training.

It's worth noting that neither of these are requisite. You can easily dedicate some narrative time to the devotion the PC's put towards certain talents without taking it away from other scenes.

[JackPhoenix]

Speaking of Sharpshooter, I always find it funny when the archer in my group can headshot someone peeking through an arrowslit 600 feet away, but misses someone lying on the ground 10 feet from her thanks to disadvantage. The paladin should propably take more care when knocking enemies prone with her Shield Master...

[Slipperychicken]

I don't see why archers should no longer get downtime over any other skilled PC, or why especially skilled PCs should be locked out in general. Let alone why you'd want to take steps to have more PCs locked out of social scenes due to brooding lonerness and obsessive training.

Be free time, I mean time not spent on other downtime activities. A PC would still do all the important stuff like crafting or talking to people, but in between that he might be nailing targets, exercising, or sparring a few hours a day to keep sharp. Same way a cleric might be praying or doing services, or a wizard might poke around a library or read a book he brought for the road.

[jas61292]

That's true by RAW.
Personally, I find that creating all these nice rules and then giving a feat to ignore them is rather unfortunate. It counteracts the idea that archery style negates the half cover benefit, making that benefit a pure boost instead of a sometimes boost. It also unbalances the ranged vs melee debate by allowing ranged to do significantly more damage than I would expect compared to melee.

I always enforce cover (I removed that option from those feats)

I agree wholeheartedly. Well... I mean, I personally don't like any element of the Sharpshooter feat whatsoever, but the cover negation is the worst. Not only is it kinda silly from a mechanical and game design perspective, I think it makes no sense even conceptually. So... I can just ignore that arrow slit the guy with a shield is behind, but I can't just ignore the shield itself, despite it giving them far, far less cover. Honestly, either you are precise enough that you just are going to auto hit, or you shouldn't be ignoring cover.

[Kryx]

I agree wholeheartedly. Well... I mean, I personally don't like any element of the Sharpshooter feat whatsoever, but the cover negation is the worst. Not only is it kinda silly from a mechanical and game design perspective, I think it makes no sense even conceptually. So... I can just ignore that arrow slit the guy with a shield is behind, but I can't just ignore the shield itself, despite it giving them far, far less cover. Honestly, either you are precise enough that you just are going to auto hit, or you shouldn't be ignoring cover.
Indeed, I have a personal crusade against -5/+10 myself. Here is my sharpshooter in my half feat system:

Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.
When you are hidden from a creature and miss it with a ranged weapon attack, making the attack doesn't reveal your position.
Took the shoot from hidden from skulker.

Math for my system is in my sig and modified feats: http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/H19CLykV

[Carlobrand]

...Harder to poke someone when there is someone (or something) standing between you and the thing you're trying to poke. ...

That's not been my experience when poking with spears in the real world. Well, semi-real: they were rattan with padded tips, but poking over your own shield wall wasn't any harder than poking past the opposing shields - it covered the same area. Did make things a bit trickier if the opponent didn't have a shield and you were poking from behind a shield wall.