Partial Cover in Crowded Rooms

[deljzc]

So I'm curious how some DM's use cover in crowded dungeon encounters.

I was running a dungeon the other day with 5 PC's and we were using a white board and figures on a map.

Needless to say and encounter in a typical room with objects, furniture, pieces of stuff, etc. and things started getting crowded.

If an encounter in a dungeon starts to get crowded like this and you have a ranged attack from the far side of the room against an enemy on the other end of the room with possibly 4-5 people/enemies between them. How do you run it?

Any chance of friendly fire? Do you just say the enemies are partially covered. Attacks made with disadvantage?

Even something as simple as a Dragonborn (6'8" and 280 lbs) on one side of a doorway vs. an enemy in the other square on the other side of the door. Does the enemy have any cover if someone in the room behind the Dragonborn wants to shoot an arrow at it?

Curious how you rule on stuff like this. Seems to happen a lot so far in my group.

[Man_Over_Game]

So I'm curious how some DM's use cover in crowded dungeon encounters.

I was running a dungeon the other day with 5 PC's and we were using a white board and figures on a map.

Needless to say and encounter in a typical room with objects, furniture, pieces of stuff, etc. and things started getting crowded.

If an encounter in a dungeon starts to get crowded like this and you have a ranged attack from the far side of the room against an enemy on the other end of the room with possibly 4-5 people/enemies between them. How do you run it?

Any chance of friendly fire? Do you just say the enemies are partially covered. Attacks made with disadvantage?

Even something as simple as a Dragonborn (6'8" and 280 lbs) on one side of a doorway vs. an enemy in the other square on the other side of the door. Does the enemy have any cover if someone in the room behind the Dragonborn wants to shoot an arrow at it?

Curious how you rule on stuff like this. Seems to happen a lot so far in my group.

The official ruling is that shooting through any creature, even an ally, grants Partial Cover to the defender. Technically, this would even apply to Dex Saves. Although from my understanding, hitting an AC that would not hit the intended target, but would hit the cover, hits the cover instead, although I guess Dex Saves are only considered for targets that were already going to be hit by it.

As to how much "person" counts as 3/4 or full cover? I guess that'd depend on circumstance, as any rule I can come up with just seems complicated an unnecessary compared to common sense and judgement calls.

[x3n0n]

The rules do have something for this:

Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.

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 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.

A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.

So, "degree of cover" is "about half", "significantly more than half", or "complete".

The AC bonus thing means that you can stack it on top of disadvantage (or advantage).

As far as friendly fire or hitting the covering person instead, I'm not aware of any official RAW.

[Keltest]

In general, my table assumes that, barring a fumble of some kind, friendly fire wont really occur. You miss because youre taking pains to not hit your friends/the source of the cover, not because you accidentally hit them. We have a fumble table for stuff like that.

[Man_Over_Game]

As far as friendly fire or hitting the covering person instead, I'm not aware of any official RAW.

My bad, the text is a variant rule in the DMG, Hitting Cover (p. 272):

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.

[MrStabby]

My bad, the text is a variant rule in the DMG, Hitting Cover (p. 272):

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.

I can see two different interpretations of this. One is that the cover blocks your shot - physically. The other is that it conciels the target sufficiently that you don't get the opportunity to take the shot, or that you pullit away at the last second. I don't really know which I prefer.

I suspect that the non-variant rules are a bit better, just because I can imagine fights where no one is not in cover and the ranged PCs are worried about hitting their ownteam sojust do nothing. Having players just do nothing isn't really fun.

[Man_Over_Game]

I can see two different interpretations of this. One is that the cover blocks your shot - physically. The other is that it conciels the target sufficiently that you don't get the opportunity to take the shot, or that you pullit away at the last second. I don't really know which I prefer.

I suspect that the non-variant rules are a bit better, just because I can imagine fights where no one is not in cover and the ranged PCs are worried about hitting their ownteam sojust do nothing. Having players just do nothing isn't really fun.

The thing is, you can only ever hit your ally if:

• You missed the target's AC by 1 or 2
• Your ally's AC is less than the original target's

And most of the people standing in the way of my shots are characters with high AC.


And from what I understand, Cover is limited to physical obstructions. There's not any rules for taking cover behind an illusory wall and still trying to apply Cover rules to it.

[MrStabby]

The thing is, you can only ever hit your ally if:

• You missed the target's AC by 1 or 2
• Your ally's AC is less than the original target's

And most of the people standing in the way of my shots are characters with high AC.

It is a bit wierd that if your ally is (very) high AC that it is easierto hit them by accident shooting an enemy behind them that it wouldbe to shoot directly at them.

[Man_Over_Game]

It is a bit wierd that if your ally is (very) high AC that it is easierto hit them by accident shooting an enemy behind them that it wouldbe to shoot directly at them.

No, both have to be true. So if your ally's AC is at least equal to the intended's target (after considering cover), you'll never be at risk of hitting them, and otherwise only be at risk of hitting them if you missed your intended target by 1-2 points.

For example, assume we have to hit a target with an AC of 10 that's behind an ally, and your roll is:

1-10: Completely miss
11-12: Treat this attack roll as if it was instead against the target's cover
13+: Hit the intended target.

There is a very slim chance of actually hitting an ally. This rule is probably more relevant for walls and stuff.

[MrStabby]

No, both have to be true. So if your ally's AC is at least equal to the intended's target (after considering cover), you'll never be at risk of hitting them, and otherwise only be at risk of hitting them if you missed your intended target by 1-2 points.

For example, assume we have to hit a target with an AC of 10 that's behind an ally, and your roll is:

1-10: Completely miss
11-12: Treat this attack roll as if it was instead against the target's cover
13+: Hit the intended target.

There is a very slim chance of actually hitting an ally. This rule is probably more relevant for walls and stuff.

And... this is what happens when I stop reading and miss the last sentence. Quite right.