Does anyone actually use cover rules?

[CrazyCrab]

Hi everyone,
making a modern weapons booklet for 5e and I'm thinking of ways to counterbalance guns and i realized that, well, people take cover.

Maybe because I'm playing XCOM at the moment, but now that I think back to it it feels like everyone, everywhere, whenever guns are present, uses cover. Whether its movies, games or fiction, how often do you see soldiers just parading through the battlefield without taking cover? By the default, RAW cover rules give 2AC and 2DEX Save for 1/2 cover (so for example standing behind a desk) and 5AC and 5DEX Save (that's a TON with bounded accuracy) for 3/4 cover - peeking from behind a wall, a tree trunk or using an arrowslit. These aren't variant or optional rules.

I realized that this is something I can work with - yes, guns are strong, but melee ignores all cover. I mean, if your target is peeking from behind a tree trunk you just move one more step to the side and smack them. You cannot do that with a gun unless you outflank them, which generally requires a lot more then a step.

With that in mind, now that I think back to my recent games I cannot recall the last time someone actually respected these rules... people keep firing from behind walls into walls and then into enemies behind other enemies and rarely people pay attention. Maybe it's because I also play some wargames like Infinity but I find it somewhat annoying, but then again, I'm not the DM at the moment. I mean you don't need guns for cover to be applicable - the forum's favorite, Warlock 2 Eldritch blast dip actually gets a lot worse when the enemy can take cover.

So, what is the situation like in your games? Do you use the cover rules or ignore them completely? What do you think of them, are they too convoluted when it gets to the whole 'flanking' thing and will people just spend hours arguing whether or not the enemy has cover?

[TurboGhast]

I've honestly been totally forgetting them. Part of it is having cover in the game requires areas physically with cover along with ranged attackers, and often I create fights no cover, or no ranged attackers. I probably should start using them, with an encounter somewhere emphasizing that I'm following the cover rules now.

[Grubble]

Every time I try to use them, the player archer has Sharpshooter and ignores the cover anyway.

[Giant2005]

I have never played in a game that used them, but I do take note of all of those shots that would have ordinarily been penalized by half cover - and that was virtually all of the shots fired.
Not using the cover rules is why Archery is so powerful (although as Grubble mentioned, they are also easily ignored if they start to inconvenience the player too much).

[hymer]

We use it quite a lot. Two points of cover because someone's in the way is the most common kind of cover, but fighting in caves, buildings, forests, etc. give ample chances for cover, whether intended or just because you can only manoeuvre so much per round while shooting. I had a small encounter in my intro session with some skeletons in a small temple with good cover, and various pieces of cover smart PCs could run between moving towards them, so they could get close without exposing themselves too badly. I think it drove home the point to any who needed it.

[smcmike]

Sure, we use them.

[Erys]

I use them every chance I get.

[Cybren]

I can't imagine not using cover. But to be honest, I don't think I'd let cover work vs many firearms due to over-penetration (depending on the cartridge, obviously.)

[Gignere]

Extensively so much so it is annoying the range PCs and forcing all of them to get Sharpshooter or just go melee

[Elminster298]

I always take note of it in my games but I don't usually math it out. More often than not cover decides who gets focused by enemies. This is only a generalization of course. Hit an enemy hard enough or generally piss then off and they are coming for you. Smarter enemies also place their attacks more carefully. However, for streamlined design this works really well for me as a DM. Players realize that cover has a purpose, I don't have to track various ACs, and overall battle retains a tactical feel without being overly complicated.

[Tanarii]

Always. Because the second rank will very often be dealing with the issues of shooting through the first rank, which provide cover, in a tight space. And that's a situation both PCs and their enemies run into a lot.

Pretty sure if I introduced a 'ignore cover' and 'no disadvantage in melee' Feat, every single PC that makes ranged attacks regularly would snap it up, without any other benefits attached at all. :smallamused: It's a huge, if annoying to ranged PCs, balancing factor for being able to safely sit at the back. Edit: not that the back is *always* safe. Smart parties use a rear guard as well as a front rank.

[Pope Scarface]

I enforce cover in my games, but being able to move and attack from any point of your movement reduces its impact somewhat*. Also seems like part of why the archery fighting style gets +2 to hit (an ally standing in the way is 1/2 cover, so +2 AC; it is kind of a backdoor precise shot).

*Less so in tight quarters, but I lean towards more open battlefields, and don't do a lot of actual dungeon encounters.

[Tanarii]

*Less so in tight quarters, but I lean towards more open battlefields, and don't do a lot of actual dungeon encounters.
Yep. Ranged attacks tend to rule in that situation, unless there is a lot of hard cover. I'm fine with that personally, because it's 'realistic'. Or rather, mobility or the lack thereof affecting the melee / ranged balance is a a kind of tactical (dis)advantage I can appreciate.

[Zman]

I use them often, through not three quarters cover that often. In fact I also deem firing into a melee as half cover by default regardless if they are actually blocking the target or not. I also. Ha be the cover ignoring feats to merely downgrading cover one step.

[Hrugner]

I try to use enough so that jumping over obstacles is worthwhile and people aren't always out in the open against flyers.

[KorvinStarmast]

I try to use enough so that jumping over obstacles is worthwhile and people aren't always out in the open against flyers. Our DM used cover in our campaign (it ended last year, sadly, as schedule conflicts killed it) from the get go. Some of the players were better than others in terms of using cover. His monsters used it whenever they could.

[Scaleybob]

Yup, both the game I play in, and the one I run use cover extensively. We like using figures, and having 3D terrain on the table, so it's easy to see what gives cover. 3/4 cover doesn't show up that much, but lots of half cover.

Enemies and friendlies also give cover, and that comes up a lot. We were playing that being engaged gave cover no matter where the shot came from, but we discovered that was wrong. Still deciding if we're going to stick with that rule.

The biggest limiting factor to ranged weapons is the movement rules - being able to move, then shoot, then move means if there's a nice piece of LoS blocking terrain you can hide behind it, move 3, shoot, and duck back again. If both sides do this, then no-one can really shoot at each other as all the targets are hidden.

[hymer]

The biggest limiting factor to ranged weapons is the movement rules - being able to move, then shoot, then move means if there's a nice piece of LoS blocking terrain you can hide behind it, move 3, shoot, and duck back again. If both sides do this, then no-one can really shoot at each other as all the targets are hidden.

Don't forget to use Ready Action, then.

[Gignere]

Don't forget to use Ready Action, then.

Or spells that goes around cover like fireball.

[R.Shackleford]

There was a DM PSA about this recently :smallwink:

Something like Archery style is pretty dang powerful when you don't use the cover rules. I've seen plenty of tables completely ignore cover.

However, I don't ignore cover, but I don't specifically tell my players that a creature is getting a bonus due to it.

Me: The uber-goblin is peaking out from behind a tree..
PC 1: I shoot at the goblin, I rolled in total a 14.
Me: (To Myself: Normal AC is 13 but with cover it is 15) the arrow lodges itself into the tree.

One thing people forget tho is that things like reach and thrown weapons are hurt by cover as is spells like Lightning Bolt. If you have three creatures in a line, the creature's behind the first one have cover because creatures provide cover.


Edit


I use them often, through not three quarters cover that often. In fact I also deem firing into a melee as half cover by default regardless if they are actually blocking the target or not. I also. Ha be the cover ignoring feats to merely downgrading cover one step.


Depends on where the target is but you may be playing this by RAW.

" 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."

[imneuromancer]

Cover doesn't come up a lot in a fantasy game because melee is such a huge component. I haven't seen a lot of combats that are all ranged opponents shooting at one another. And when I have cover has been a pretty big part. It is more the nature of the combat setups more than the rules that are a factor in using cover, etc.

[Zman]

Depends on where the target is but you may be playing this by RAW.

" 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."

I rule it half cover whether they are being blocked or not as a melee is a swirling mess and just knowing an ally is close makes shots more difficult whether the ally is in the way or not. Most of he time it is I distinguisable from RAW, and it speeds up play as no one questions firing into melee as cover.

[Citan]

Hi everyone,
making a modern weapons booklet for 5e and I'm thinking of ways to counterbalance guns and i realized that, well, people take cover.

I realized that this is something I can work with - yes, guns are strong, but melee ignores all cover.

So, what is the situation like in your games? Do you use the cover rules or ignore them completely? What do you think of them, are they too convoluted when it gets to the whole 'flanking' thing and will people just spend hours arguing whether or not the enemy has cover?
Hi!
First, please let me correct a false assertion: cover can also be applied to melee attacks. It's just that such situations happen less frequently. But, a simple example would be, a tavern brawl when you try to hit or slice a creature, while a knocked over table stand between you. ;)

Second, what you say (in short, "nobody I played with is using it") is very saddening to me. Cover is one of the few tactical aspects that are simple to understand for everyone and actually reward smart placement and coordination.
While I don't push myself to design encounters with systematic cover "just because tactics" (it does slow down the encounter quite a bit, and my players are not that fond of tactical fights), having at least one of them in a session has generally felt satisfactory for me and players alike.

[gfishfunk]

I find that Players use cover to the extent that the GM provides cover in the maps.

If the GM uses cover, the players will as well. If the GM provides interesting maps, the players have the opportunity to use cover. If the GM provides interesting but crappy maps, the GM provides cover for the enemies, but none for the players. That is bad GMing.

[Tanarii]

I find that Players use cover to the extent that the GM provides cover in the maps.For battle mat play, this is absolutely true.

That's one thing I was pleasantly surprised about switching to 5e's (rather pompously named) Theater of the Mind* style of combat. As I expected, it rather reduced individual level tactical maneuvering (I run around is guy, and attack that dude). But it increased non-grid tactical maneuvering, leaping over things, ducking behind them, forming battle lines for combat, swinging off chandeliers ...

Okay, so that last hasn't specifically happened yet. I'm sure it'll come eventually. :smallwink:

(*I feel like the name should have little motes of light floating around it and rainbow sparks shooting out each end)

[Theodoxus]

Every ranged player I've had has taken SS (sharp or spell). It's so bad, I've houseruled that the feats, while still providing the range increase, don't provide the cover reduction outside their normal range. I'm ok with a longbow hitting a target at 500 feet without disadvantage. I'm much less so letting them ignore the fact that their target is behind an arrowslit they can barely make out, or peeking from around a tree at that range.

I've also found that TofM kills any concept of cover. Either everything is behind a broken wagon or halfwall or it's just a Matrix style white room of nothing. I know I'm biased, having used maps and minis since the 80s, and TotM has been rarely used, but one game I'm currently in, the DM is using it (after the first two sessions of using a map) and tactics have gone to poop. My rogue pretty much can always get sneak, there's no cover, ever, and as far as I can tell, it's a bit video-gamey, with no collision detection and all of us standing in the same spot smacking on the monsters. Needless to say, I'm not a fan - though I think the DM is being particularly lazy, being more interested in the RP aspects of the game, rather than the combat... and I can certainly get behind that, I just wish he'd of been a bit more upfront about it - it's a Meetup group of strangers... some notice should be provided when no one knows anything about the others play style...

[Citan]

Every ranged player I've had has taken SS (sharp or spell). It's so bad, I've houseruled that the feats, while still providing the range increase, don't provide the cover reduction outside their normal range.
I'm ok with a longbow hitting a target at 500 feet without disadvantage. I'm much less so letting them ignore the fact that their target is behind an arrowslit they can barely make out, or peeking from around a tree at that range.

100% agreed, and I actually wonder why they didn't write it this way in the first place. Anyways, very nice houserule, which I will probably steal as a consequence (thanks ;)).:smallwink:

I diverge on your opinion about Theater of the Mind, though. I think you reflect more of the particular style of your DM than making a general statement.
Using cover in Theater of the Mind can be done. BUT, it's indeed much more difficult to manage, both for the players and DMs, because you have to actually describe the object used each time or track in a more precise way creature placement.
And since each people around the table will visualize the scene in his own way, it makes accurate description much more important.
I know that I myself can't use it accurately on a fight I'm improvizing, especially "outside". For encounters in a closed room, I find this a bit easier because there are more points of reference. But I guess it's just a matter of practice either way, and I personnally need to have prepared the encounter nearly as well as if it was "on paper" for it to work without any frustration resulting from misunderstandings. ;)

[R.Shackleford]

I rule it half cover whether they are being blocked or not as a melee is a swirling mess and just knowing an ally is close makes shots more difficult whether the ally is in the way or not. Most of he time it is I distinguisable from RAW, and it speeds up play as no one questions firing into melee as cover.

Might as well give everyone a reaction save, if you fail then you can't act on that round if you acted in the previous round. I mean, everything is happening all so fast and combat is a swirling mess and you might take a misstep or freeze up...

:smallannoyed:

[Maxilian]

I've honestly been totally forgetting them. Part of it is having cover in the game requires areas physically with cover along with ranged attackers, and often I create fights no cover, or no ranged attackers. I probably should start using them, with an encounter somewhere emphasizing that I'm following the cover rules now.

Same, i normally forget, my players do use the cover mechanic sometimes (when they remember, and its normally when they are fighting something big enough that I can't use the cover rule)

[Zman]

Might as well give everyone a reaction save, if you fail then you can't act on that round if you acted in the previous round. I mean, everything is happening all so fast and combat is a swirling mess and you might take a misstep or freeze up...

:smallannoyed:

I don't see why the poor attempt at sarcasm was necessary. I use a simple houserule that is close to raw, but speeds up play and "makes sense".

[RickAllison]

For battle mat play, this is absolutely true.

That's one thing I was pleasantly surprised about switching to 5e's (rather pompously named) Theater of the Mind* style of combat. As I expected, it rather reduced individual level tactical maneuvering (I run around is guy, and attack that dude). But it increased non-grid tactical maneuvering, leaping over things, ducking behind them, forming battle lines for combat, swinging off chandeliers ...

Okay, so that last hasn't specifically happened yet. I'm sure it'll come eventually. :smallwink:

(*I feel like the name should have little motes of light floating around it and rainbow sparks shooting out each end)

I haven't swung off any chandeliers, but I did cut one down to act as an impromptu difficult terrain so our caster's persistent AoEs would be even more effective :smallbiggrin:

[R.Shackleford]

I don't see why the poor attempt at sarcasm was necessary. I use a simple houserule that is close to raw, but speeds up play and "makes sense".

Any rule that actively punishes players is a no go in my book.

Especially when, no, it doesn't make sense to do as such.

Seriously, you may as well give everyone reaction saves at the start of each round so that it "makes sense" that these fantasy characters would be able to react every six seconds while their life is in mortal danger.

Hell, after three or four rounds I guess everyone should get a level of exhaustion till their next short rest.

Maybe we should get rid of magic? I mean, it doesn't make sense that they can cast spells.


Edit

And really your "shoot into melee" should equal out.

The creatures being shot at can't focus on the shooter since they are in melee.

You know, if we want to "make sense".

[Tanarii]

Any rule that actively punishes players is a no go in my book.

Especially when, no, it doesn't make sense to do as such.

IMX far more than just the majority of the time, enemies in melee actually do get cover from the PC's allies. His rule not only makes plenty of sense, and doesn't actively punish the players significantly more than just using the rule normally would.

ZMan, that's a good enough house-rule I may just adopt it myself, instead of messing around trying to figure out if the archer can actually get to a clear shot without endangering himself. (Spoiler alert: that's almost never possible unless the melee PC is willing to let himself get surrounded / flanked.)

[RickAllison]

IMX far more than just the majority of the time, enemies in melee actually do get cover from the PC's allies. His rule not only makes plenty of sense, and doesn't actively punish the players significantly more than just using the rule normally would.

ZMan, that's a good enough house-rule I may just adopt it myself, instead of messing around trying to figure out if the archer can actually get to a clear shot without endangering himself. (Spoiler alert: that's almost never possible unless the melee PC is willing to let himself get surrounded / flanked.)

In many ways, it can actually help the PCs! Dedicated PC archers likely have ways to get around that anyway, while NPCs don't.

[Plaguescarred]

Cover is huge. In my campaign we use mostly half-cover, rarely three-quarter or total cover. Cover from obstacles or creatures are most frequently used and usually against ranged attack. More rarely melee attack benefit from cover and its always involving reach.

[Zman]

Any rule that actively punishes players is a no go in my book.

Especially when, no, it doesn't make sense to do as such.

Seriously, you may as well give everyone reaction saves at the start of each round so that it "makes sense" that these fantasy characters would be able to react every six seconds while their life is in mortal danger.

Hell, after three or four rounds I guess everyone should get a level of exhaustion till their next short rest.

Maybe we should get rid of magic? I mean, it doesn't make sense that they can cast spells.


Edit

And really your "shoot into melee" should equal out.

The creatures being shot at can't focus on the shooter since they are in melee.

You know, if we want to "make sense".

By actively punish PCs I'm going to assume to meant affects PCs and the PCs opposition equally and is not a punishment to either side, and PCs actually have ways around it and enemies don't. If hat is what you meant, then it'd be correct.


IMX far more than just the majority of the time, enemies in melee actually do get cover from the PC's allies. His rule not only makes plenty of sense, and doesn't actively punish the players significantly more than just using the rule normally would.

ZMan, that's a good enough house-rule I may just adopt it myself, instead of messing around trying to figure out if the archer can actually get to a clear shot without endangering himself. (Spoiler alert: that's almost never possible unless the melee PC is willing to let himself get surrounded / flanked.)

Yep,not simplifies and speeds up play and affects both sides effectively equally.


In many ways, it can actually help the PCs! Dedicated PC archers likely have ways to get around that anyway, while NPCs don't.

That it can, anything that downgrades or ignores cover does it. Sharpshooter, Spell Sniper, Wand of the War Mage etc.

[Scaleybob]

I rule it half cover whether they are being blocked or not as a melee is a swirling mess and just knowing an ally is close makes shots more difficult whether the ally is in the way or not. Most of he time it is I distinguisable from RAW, and it speeds up play as no one questions firing into melee as cover.

That's what we've been doing by accident since we started play. It works well, although we're still deciding whether to keep doing it. No-one noticed it was wrong, because we didn't really have a ranged based character until recently. Also the group is a mixture of Pathfinder and 4th Ed Players so the PF players just presumed the rules were similar to what they were used to.

To be honest, it can be quite hard to get a completely clear LoS on an enemy at the best of times, so it's not that big a change.

I do find it's a stealth upgrade to Spell Caster's though - there's no effect for either cover or being engaged for a Save based spell, other than Dex Saves. My Bard can quite happily Biting Words, or Dissonant Whispers or even Shatter someone no matter what they're behind or if he's completely surrounded.