Degrees of cover in 3.5

[Blackhawk748]

Ok, I'm asking for a RAW ruling here, though I will accept that there may not be one. in old 3.0 books you see things like 1/4 cover or 1/2 cover and they give a bonus. In 3.5 there is just Cover, and the DM adjudicated if it gets more or less based on their subjective opinion.

So what do you do when an item gives 1/4 cover from attacks? Is it just a +1 AC or is it just Cover in 3.5 and therefore gives a flat +4?

[Nifft]

I'm guessing the item was written for 3.0e.

The flat +4 bonus seems like it would be the most direct 3.5e interpretation.

[Blackhawk748]

I'm guessing the item was written for 3.0e.

The flat +4 bonus seems like it would be the most direct 3.5e interpretation.

It is, and that's the assumption I'm going with, but I'm curious if there's a ruling somewhere I don't know about.

[Troacctid]

Here's the rules for cover as they appeared in 3.0.


Cover provides a bonus to a character's AC. The more cover a character has, the bigger the bonus.

Degree
of Cover
Cover
AC Bonus
Cover Reflex
Save Bonus


1/4
+2
+1


1/2
+4
+2


3/4
+7
+3


9/10
+10
+4*


Total
–
–




* Half damage if save is failed; no damage if successful.



+4 AC was for standard half cover, so 1/4 cover is half as much: +2 AC (and +1 Reflex). There was also a rule for striking the cover instead of the intended target (which became an optional rule in 3.5), and there was no such thing as soft cover.

[KillianHawkeye]

The 3.5 versions that I've seen in the Rules Compendium (not sure off hand where else they were printed before that) are as follows: limited cover for +2 AC/+1 Reflex, and superior cover for +8 AC/+4 Reflex plus Improved Evasion (being half and double what the standard cover gives).

This is simplified from the 3.0 version as posted by Troacctid, and has the advantage of being easy to remember and adjudicate, while still feeling numerically significant.

But yes, for terminology, 3.5 cover is equivalent to 3.0 half cover, and you can extrapolate from there.

[Khedrac]

The 3.5 versions that I've seen in the Rules Compendium (not sure off hand where else they were printed before that) are as follows: limited cover for +2 AC/+1 Reflex, and superior cover for +8 AC/+4 Reflex plus Improved Evasion (being half and double what the standard cover gives).

This is simplified from the 3.0 version as posted by Troacctid, and has the advantage of being easy to remember and adjudicate, while still feeling numerically significant.

But yes, for terminology, 3.5 cover is equivalent to 3.0 half cover, and you can extrapolate from there.

ImprovedSuperior cover is in the PHB and SRD.

Varying Degrees of Cover: In some cases, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Hide checks.
The PHB says a bit more:

Varying Degrees of Cover: In some cases, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. For instance, a character peering around a corner or through an arrow slit has even better cover than a character standing behind a low wall or an obstacle. In such situations, the DM can double the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies (see the improved evasion ability in the rogue class description, page 51). Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Hide checks.
The DM may impose other penalties or restrictions to attacks depending on the details of the cover. For example, to strike effectively through a narrow opening, you need to use a long piercing weapon, such as an arrow or a spear. A battleaxe or a pick just isn’t going to get through an arrow slit.
I was unaware of partial cover - thanks for that one. :smallsmile:

[Thurbane]

Degrees of cover is one of the few things I preferred about 3.0 rules...

[Blackhawk748]

Degrees of cover is one of the few things I preferred about 3.0 rules...

Certainly made plenty of sense to me. Don't know why they'd drop it when they have that nice chart already made

[Nifft]

Degrees of cover is one of the few things I preferred about 3.0 rules...
Yeah but it demanded some extra arbitration, and that sometimes meant arguments.


Certainly made plenty of sense to me. Don't know why they'd drop it when they have that nice chart already made
Maybe enough people complained about arguments slowing the game down?


Personally I also liked the gradations, and I think it could be done in a better way -- with very clear-cut distinctions between the types of cover, and very clear rules about stacking cover.

[KillianHawkeye]

There is some value in simplicity, and 3.5 still has 3 degrees of cover between full cover and no cover at all. I'm really not seeing the loss here.