Cover behind a creature - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Hilanar Mar 23, 2015 17:27:44	The rules about cover state a character behind a creature (enemy or ally) has half cover (+2 bonus on AC and on Dexterity saving throws). The optional rule on hitting covers on DMG states the creature providing cover is hit if an attack roll against the character behind her falls within his base AC value and the value determined by the cover. Let's suppose we have a ranger with a leather armor (AC 11) who tries to provide cover with his body to an armorless wizard (AC 10) and later to a cleric wearing a chain mail (AC 16). An enemy fires 3 arrows to the wizard while he is behind the ranger, obtaining a 10, a 11 and a 17 on his attack rolls. The first result is not enough to bypass the cover, nor to damage the ranger providing it; the second is not enough to bypass the cover but enough to damages the ranger providing it; the third reaches the wizard and damages him. Later, another enemy fires 3 arrows to the cleric while he is behind the ranger, obtaining a 10, a 11 and a 17 on his attack rolls. The first two attacks are not enough to hit che base AC of the cleric, so the ranger cannot be armed by the same roll (11) that damaged him before. The third roll is not enough to bypass the cover but enough to damages the ranger providing it. Let's examine another case. We have a fighter wearing a full plate armor (AC 18) who tries to provide cover with his body to a cleric wearing a chain mail (AC 16) and later to a paladin wearing a splint mail (AC 17) An enemy fires 2 arrows to the cleric while he is behind the fighter, obtaining a 17 and a 18 on his attack rolls. The first result is not enough to bypass the cover, nor to damage the fighter providing it; the second reaches the cleric and damages him. Later, another enemy fires 2 arrows to the paladin while he is behind the fighter, obtaining a 17 and a 18 on his attack rolls. The first result is not enough to bypass the cover, nor to damage the fighter providing it; The second is not enough to bypass the cover but enough to damages the fighter providing it. We have the same numbers, but different outcomes, not deriving on the AC of the character providing cover, but on the AC of the target of the attacks. How can this be justified by logic? TL;DR I have troubles to understand why, under the optional rule on hitting covers on DMG, the same covering creature may be injured or may be missed depending on the AC value of the character behind her, instead of hers.
#2 EmpactWB Mar 23, 2015 17:57:39	I believe the logic is that, if that +2 is what made it miss, the character in front must have interposed itself at the wrong time. If I chose to use that rule, I'd definitely rule that it would glance off if the attack roll wasn't enough to normally hit the person in front.
#3 jaelis Mar 23, 2015 18:19:22	TL;DR I have troubles to understand why, under the optional rule on hitting covers on DMG, the same covering creature may be injured or may be missed depending on the AC value of the character behind her, instead of hers.
#4 strider13x Mar 23, 2015 19:05:03	Next lets try and justify HP is all meat! NOT! Really, d20 is an abstraction as are many things in D&D. Logic is applied by the DM. Focus on telling a good story and those details melt away. If you insist on making something out of it then come up with a rule that works for your group. Maybe if you miss by one or two roll a second d20 and compare to the AC of the possible target then roll damage. Or maybe if you miss by one or two then DEX mod in damage to the possible target. Finally, what you are describing is not "providing cover", its more like interposing ones self and should have a different ruling anyway.
#5 Byakugan01 Mar 24, 2015 3:07:14	Just skip the optional rules about hitting cover...they dont really make the game more fun.
#6 Hilanar Mar 24, 2015 5:44:18	strider13x wrote:
#7 Illithidbix Mar 24, 2015 9:35:04	Page 272 of the Dungeon Masters Guide wrote: wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Hilanar

Mar 23, 2015 17:27:44

The rules about cover state a character behind a creature (enemy or ally) has half cover (+2 bonus on AC and on Dexterity saving throws).

The optional rule on hitting covers on DMG states the creature providing cover is hit if an attack roll against the character behind her falls within his base AC value and the value determined by the cover.

Let's suppose we have a ranger with a leather armor (AC 11) who tries to provide cover with his body to an armorless wizard (AC 10) and later to a cleric wearing a chain mail (AC 16).

An enemy fires 3 arrows to the wizard while he is behind the ranger, obtaining a 10, a 11 and a 17 on his attack rolls. The first result is not enough to bypass the cover, nor to damage the ranger providing it; the second is not enough to bypass the cover but enough to damages the ranger providing it; the third reaches the wizard and damages him.

Later, another enemy fires 3 arrows to the cleric while he is behind the ranger, obtaining a 10, a 11 and a 17 on his attack rolls. The first two attacks are not enough to hit che base AC of the cleric, so the ranger cannot be armed by the same roll (11) that damaged him before. The third roll is not enough to bypass the cover but enough to damages the ranger providing it.

Let's examine another case. We have a fighter wearing a full plate armor (AC 18) who tries to provide cover with his body to a cleric wearing a chain mail (AC 16) and later to a paladin wearing a splint mail (AC 17)

An enemy fires 2 arrows to the cleric while he is behind the fighter, obtaining a 17 and a 18 on his attack rolls. The first result is not enough to bypass the cover, nor to damage the fighter providing it; the second reaches the cleric and damages him.

Later, another enemy fires 2 arrows to the paladin while he is behind the fighter, obtaining a 17 and a 18 on his attack rolls. The first result is not enough to bypass the cover, nor to damage the fighter providing it; The second is not enough to bypass the cover but enough to damages the fighter providing it.

We have the same numbers, but different outcomes, not deriving on the AC of the character providing cover, but on the AC of the target of the attacks.

How can this be justified by logic?

TL;DR

I have troubles to understand why, under the optional rule on hitting covers on DMG, the same covering creature may be injured or may be missed depending on the AC value of the character behind her, instead of hers.

EmpactWB

Mar 23, 2015 17:57:39

I believe the logic is that, if that +2 is what made it miss, the character in front must have interposed itself at the wrong time. If I chose to use that rule, I'd definitely rule that it would glance off if the attack roll wasn't enough to normally hit the person in front.

jaelis

Mar 23, 2015 18:19:22

TL;DR

I have troubles to understand why, under the optional rule on hitting covers on DMG, the same covering creature may be injured or may be missed depending on the AC value of the character behind her, instead of hers.

strider13x

Mar 23, 2015 19:05:03

Next lets try and justify HP is all meat! NOT!

Really, d20 is an abstraction as are many things in D&D. Logic is applied by the DM. Focus on telling a good story and those details melt away. If you insist on making something out of it then come up with a rule that works for your group. Maybe if you miss by one or two roll a second d20 and compare to the AC of the possible target then roll damage. Or maybe if you miss by one or two then DEX mod in damage to the possible target. Finally, what you are describing is not "providing cover", its more like interposing ones self and should have a different ruling anyway.

Byakugan01

Mar 24, 2015 3:07:14

Just skip the optional rules about hitting cover...they dont really make the game more fun.

Hilanar

Mar 24, 2015 5:44:18

strider13x wrote:

Illithidbix

Mar 24, 2015 9:35:04

Page 272 of the Dungeon Masters Guide wrote: wrote: