I know this has been discussed before, but usually as a side note and not a full discussion (as far as I know). The situation is the halfling rogue uses her cunning action to hide behind an ally. Next the halfling wants to shoot at an enemy with a hand crossbow. I am understanding that the halfling needs to stay behind the ally to maintain stealth, so therefore must shoot through the ally, giving the enemy half-cover, making that shot with advantage but also with a -2 modifier to the attack roll.
Do I have it right, or am I missing some glaring line of sight issue?
Lilika wrote:
There's no definite answer because phrases like "Comes out of cover and approaches the enemy" are quite vague, not to mention that it even advises to factor in how well distracted an enemy is. I personally don't even give a -2 penalty when attacking from cover (mostly for simplicity reasons), but it's quite reasonable to do it.
Lilika wrote:
It's actually quite important for the question, because you might as well move 5ft out of cover, attack at advantage without cover problem, lose hidden, move back behind cover.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Well the rules for cover basically ask you to apply realism and estimate how much cover something gives. And for me, an archer that quickly moves out of cover with part of his body (mostly head is needed) to get a shot at his enemy is not hindered by the cover he uses. If you play any first person shooter you'd quickly realize that being close to an obstacle is a much larger benefit than being in the middle of a room with your enemy close to an obstacle.
And with simplicity I meant that I don't apply cover rules unless someone spefically tells me he wants to take cover. It's easier for me to even remember to apply cover adjustments like that.
And well I won't start discussing about when hiding ends, I only say that it's fully up to interpretation because the only thing that clearly states that it ends hiding for sure is "attacking whether you hit or miss".
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
An interpretation is never in the rules. It's something you do when reading them. Your interpretation is also not in the rules. There neither is a sentence that says "If you are seen, you are no longer hidden" nor is there a sentence that says "You need to be unseen to use the hide action", it's all in our heads. So it's really up to every individual to think what "To hide you need to be unseen" could mean.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
I'm not sure if using realism is a good idea when there are so many examples where the normal interpretation of a word isn't equal to what the rules want you to do (and are more clear than in this case).
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Some rules are "The DM has to evaluate and then decide", other rules are "Do it exactly this way".
This unrelated to the process of interpreting a sentence that is supposed to help understanding how something works, though.
Counterexample: Realistically it doesn't make sense that everybody is standing still during combat while the others act. Yet you are ruling that moving around an obstacle to stay hiding during the turn of someone else is not part of hiding.
Shooting from cover does not give penalties to your shots, usually.
Because all you need to have clear from cover is the weapon and less that quarter of your body. You now see the whole target but target sees less that quarter or half of you(depending on degree of cover).
If shooters cover gives penalty to shooters attack, then snipers would never bother with their skills and tactics.
Horwath wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Horwath wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Horwath wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Horwath wrote:
@Aaron, what you descibed is spray n pray shooting. In effect it is shooting blind. that is something different from cover. Cover is simple, less than 100% of your body is visible to attacker. The less of a percentage more of the AC bonus you get.
But if you get your weapon and half of your skull from cover you have CLEAR line of fire to oponent if he has no cover of his own. And clear line of sight means clear shot.
Lillika, anytime someone tries to claim that the Hide rules are "100%" right or wrong... its a really good sign they are simply pushing their version of how they wish the rules were written. The Hide rules are quite vague with a number of different interpretations possible. (I believe that was intentional on the part of the designers.)
When you add in things like the Halfling or Wood Elf rules... it gets even cloudier. Yet there are still people that will insist...*INSIST* I say.... that their personal interpretation is the "One True Way" of the rules.
I know this has been discussed before, but usually as a side note and not a full discussion (as far as I know). The situation is the halfling rogue uses her cunning action to hide behind an ally. Next the halfling wants to shoot at an enemy with a hand crossbow. I am understanding that the halfling needs to stay behind the ally to maintain stealth, so therefore must shoot through the ally, giving the enemy half-cover, making that shot with advantage but also with a -2 modifier to the attack roll.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
The rules say that obstacles can provide cover and you can benefit from it when on the opposite side. Not that they must.
It's within the rules for a DM to determine that an obstacle only provides cover if the target is close enough to it.
The rules only say that there can't be cover when the attack doesn't come from the opposite side of the obstacle. They don't say that there must be cover whenever there is an obstacle between two creatures.
It says the only time you CAN benefit from cover is when the attack comes from the opposite side of the cover. I'm not sure how it's not clear... Are you doing this on purpose or? Seems like are you are. I'll quote it again for you since it doesn't seem clear for you:
Page 196: "Walls, trees, creatures, and other blocking 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.
So there's 2 "can" in this rules quote.
1. Walls, trees, creatures, and other blocking obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm.
2. A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the cover.
This just means that in 1 they give examples of what has the potential to give cover, if at all. And in 2 they explain that the only time you would gain the benefit of cover is when an attacks come from the opposite side of the cover in question. Refer yourself to the examples I gave above.
It still doesn't say anything that would indicate that an obstacle must give the same amount of cover to every creature attacking a creature on the opposite side of the obstacle.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
No such rule in the book as I noted in the post you yourself just quoted. The DM is free to make that ruling if he wants outside of AL, but that isn't the rules at all. There is no such thing as having "your weapon clearing the cover" while you yourself do not. Spray n pray doesn't exist in the DnD ruleset. It's simply not how it works. You're inventing that to suit your argument.
Page 196: "Walls, trees, creatures, and other blocking 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.
This only says:
1. If there is an obstacle it can provide cover but it mustn't, the DM decides whether an obstacle provides cover or not.
2. When the attack does not come from the opposite side of the obstacle, there is no cover, even if the DM decided that the obstacle provides cover.
3. When the attack comes from the opposite side of the obstacle, the target can benefit from cover but mustn't. Whether the target benefits from cover is decided by the DM.
When a DM decides for something he should use common sense usually. And my common sense tells me that if you are standing behind a low wall, you have half cover, but your targets don't. If a DM ruled that otherwise I'd at the very least tell him that I find this judgement quite unrealistic.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
Not quite, we are also clutching at the Rules.
1/2 cover applies if "an obstacle blocks half of his body". If an archer is standing right next to a wall, that wall is *NOT* blocking any of the target, but it *is* blocking part of the archer from return fire.
Your stance is non-sensical. If an archer is shooting at a target, and can see the entire target, there is no obstacle blocking his attack..... then there is no cover save.
If the target shoots back, and there is an obstacle blocking part of the archer's body, then there is a cover save.
It is perfectly possible, likely, and reasonable, for an obstacle to block the archers body and not block the targets body.
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
So again, you're saying the DM can rule that an element does not provide cover to an attack, even though it originates from the opposite side. Again, congratulations, you're arguing against a strawman you created. No one is saying otherwise.
But at least I'm partially getting through to you.
MrHotter wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
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.
A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body.
A target has three-quarters cover if about three-quarters of it is covered by an obstacle.
A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
--
Considerations of cover are specific to the target, not the attacker.
mrpopstar wrote:
And if you are standing in the middle of a field, no obstacle blocks at least half the body. Indeed, if you are standing behind a low wall, nothing is between, say, the bow you are firing and the target as the bow is above the obstacle.
According to Noctaem, if I am behind a low wall and an enemy is in the middle of a field he can't hit my peener. But that also means it's impossible for me to hit his peener. Even if nothing is blocking the bow shot.
"Can" in the rules does not imply "must" and there is nothing in the rules that says cover or concealment is reciprocal.
guachi wrote:
guachi wrote:
@Noctaem,
Please explain, if I'm behind cover but I see may target perfectly clear, as in 100% clear and I can target any part of my targets body,
how in the nine hells can that target have any cover from my attack?
Noctaem wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
This is another one of those issues where I ask once again "Where's the controversy?"
The text is pretty simple
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.
And one of the examples:
A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body
Nowhere does it state that if creature A has half cover from creature B that creature B necessarily has half cover from creature A.
If A is standing directly behind a low wall, that attack from B does need to originate from the opposite side of the wall. Creature B can only see half of A so A gets a +2 to their AC and dexterity.
Since creature A can easily see over the wall, B has no cover bonus.
_ 
Noctaem wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I would agree that clarification is needed. But it is very important how the question is worded, I could see getting a different answer depending on what exactly is asked.
Noctaem wrote:
Lilika wrote:
Two things...
1) Complete cover rules, taken from Basic Rules
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.
I don't think an illusion can provide actual cover, since an attack can pass through it. If the illusion blocks you from sight then attacks on you have disadvantage, of course. And maybe an illusion could trick an opponent into not attacking you in the first place. But if they can see some part of you and decide to attack, then I don't think the illusion would protect you.
jaelis wrote:
I really think that this discussion has diverged a bit. We were speaking about a halfling hiding behind a combattant because he has cover. In these circumstances, I would certainly rule that the equal cover applies. It's not like you can be "lying behind someone" like a wall or an arrow slit, especially in combat. So if you have cover from your opponent to hide from him, your opponent has cover as well.
That being said, I wonder if there is not a confusion between cover and obscurement. It's not cover that someone needs to hide, it's obscurement, and actually heavy obscurement, which means, as per RAW "blocks vision entirely". Of course, cover hides at least part of you, but as per RAW, you need such a heavy obscurement as to be "blocked entirely from vision" to be allowed to hide. If you can see even 50% or 90% or an opponent, you still SEE him and he can't hide. A halfling can hide behind someone OK, but for me that ONLY means he can somehow get heavy obscurement from the cover.
Now, we fall back into the DM's interpretation's realm again. How much is the halfling allowed to get out of cover without losing the heavy obscurement that allows him to remain hidden (once more, it needs to block vision entirely, otherwise he is seen and cannot remain hidden, I think we agree on this) is up to the DM. But I can see all cases, depending on the DM:
- Light cover because they want to be nice to the halfling and still give him some advantage of being hidden in combat.
- Heavy cover because they say that the halfling is only peeking in holes of the cover to be able to attack, or can target a part of the enemy that does not include the eyes, or whatever explanation you want to give.
- Total cover, because of the need to remain blocked entirely from vision. Note that this is fairly consistent. Being hidden behind someone mostly provides you with the benefit of not being targetable. There is a certain logic in saying that when you do this, the person that you are hiding from is also not targetable by you...
We were speaking about a halfling hiding behind a combattant because he has cover. In these circumstances, I would certainly rule that the equal cover applies.
Nocatem, everyone on the forum disagrees with you on this one. Maybe you should at least thoughtfully consider what we are saying?
Rya.Reisender wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Ilse wrote:
Ilse wrote:
What I am saying is that, for the simple case, I am in agreement with Noctaem, and it seems that you are in agreement as well. And I also think that, in the more specific cases, you are reading too much in Noctaem's answers. In more specific cases, the DM arbitrates about 0%, 50% 75% or 100%, that's all.
Ilse wrote:
Ilse wrote:
Ilse wrote:
Ilse wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
I've removed content from this thread because flaming/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here
Please remember to keep your posts, polite, constructive and on topic. We all love the same game, so can't we all just get along?
Noctaem wrote:
Just to summarize, does anyone dispute the following?
When determining cover, you determine what percentage of a target is behind cover. In order to benefit from cover, the attack has to originate from the opposite side of the cover.
If the obstacle blocks 1/2 of the target it's a +2 to AC and Dexterity saving throws. If an obstacle covers 3/4 of the target, it's a +5 to AC and Dexterity saving throws.
For example, if Bob the Fighter is standing behind a low wall that covers him halfway, he will have a +2 to AC and Dexterity saves from any attack that originates from the orc on the opposite side of the wall. He would not gain any cover from the goblin that moved in to a flanking position and is on the same side of the wall as Bob.
When Bob returns fire, in many cases his view of the orc will not be blocked by the wall (the tricksy goblin hid after attacking). Even though he is attacking someone on the opposite side of the wall, his target does not receive any benefit from cover from the wall since it has 0% cover.
So back to the OP, it's up to the DM to determine how much of the target the halfling can see. Normally a creature provides 50% cover for a +2 to AC and Dexterity saves.
OoftaMeg wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Horwath wrote:
jaelis wrote:
I think the orc would say the same thing. But again this question has nothing to do with the game rules.
jaelis wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Let's simplify the scenario.
Bob is standing directly behind a solid picket fence. He's firing a crossbow at an orc across the street. Bob can clearly see the orc, while the picket fence rises to his waist it does not block his line of sight nor does it interfere with his crossbow in any way.
What percentage of cover would the orc have? I would say 0%, the orc has no cover. It is up to the DM to decide what percentage of cover the target has.
The orc, on the other hand can only see 50% of Bob. Half of his target is obstructed so therefore gains a +2 to AC.
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I find it ironic that Nocatem tell's us to keep our ruling to ourselves when he refuses to keep his to himself.
His ruling is that everytime you are on the opposite side of cover (unless the cover has the property that it only works one way) then your target has cover against your attack. But that's just it... it's just a ruling. It's just like our ruling that there are some situations where an object can give cover 1 direction but not the other.
Even full cover does not have to go both ways.
I could be standing behind an elephant and see 0% (full cover) of the orc standing 20 feet away from the elephant on the other side. That same orc can see my legs sticking out from underneath the elephant so I have half cover from his attacks.
Of course not much of this matters once combat starts. If both sides are using ranged combat then everyone will be trying to move to a location where they gain cover or where they remove their target's cover. If a group was spotted while crossing an open field towards a fort with arrow slits it would be a bad idea to stand in the field and shoot at archers who have heavy cover.
MrHotter wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
epithet wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
It would be funny if your entire armor class worked this way, wouldn't it? "Yeah, you're pretty tough in that plate armor, but you do realise that it protects the Wizard in a bath robe you're trying to hit, too, right?"
MrHotter wrote:
Guys, do you really not understand Noctaem? Because to me it is perfectly in line with most of his rules interpretations.
Stop thinking about this as cover or shooting or anything else. Think of this as writing a computer code, and only that.
There is a thing, a variable. We will call it 'wall'
Now "wall" has certain attributes asigned to it. The DM assigns it the "cover" attribute, and more precisely the "50% cover" attribute.
Now, if you are on one side of the "50% cover wall" and attack something on the other side.... it gets a cover bonus.
If something attacks back, you get cover.
It no longer matters how much of you is in sight...Because this is a computer code, all that matters is the variable and the defined attributes assigned to it.
Now, I am not sure how Noctaem decides which objects (variables) are assigned "no cover" "50% cover" "75% cover" and "total cover". But that is secondary. Once that object (variable) has been defined with that attribute.... that is all that matters.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
epithet wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Ilse wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Ilse wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Ilse wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Noctaem wrote:
Ilse wrote:
Lilika wrote:
Ilse wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Oh, I really do like this discussion btw. Just so everyone knows I went to the GM's that do the local AL just to see what their opinions were and both of them are incredibly generous to halflings and stealthers in general. At their tables halflings don't take -2 on their attacks for cover if behind an ally, and same goes for people behind walls or at wall corners. This doesn't add to the discussion, but will at least give people interested in my situation answers to how this is resolved at the tables I play at. I don't find there rulings to be authoritative in this discussion in any way, but they are authorative at the table I play at.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Ilse wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
The thing we have been disagreeing over since the thread began is about whether cover must apply both ways by RAW.
So Nocatem decided to quote an adventure to strengthen his position by making some point about specific pieces of cover being labeled in that adventure as giving 1/2 cover or 3/4 cover.
The greatest part about it is that very example that he used has cover that only works 1 way.
It's amazing to me that ANYONE would read an example of an adventure that has cover working a single direction and then use that example as evidence to support their position when they have constantly denied that cover can only work a single way by RAW.
FrogReaver wrote:
Ilse wrote:
I find it funny how things always become "vague" or "ambiguous" when an argument is defeated with some people lol 
Anyway glad we got that out of the way. The adventure Ilse quoted does indeed, and elswhere, show that the cover works both ways. Attacking through cover, or making an attack from the opposite side of cover, (both sentences mean the same thing to be clear) grants the target of that attack cover. What coredump is arguing is pure semantics. Saying the cover grants 3/4 cover or +5 to the target of the attack is exactly the same thing. tOmato, tomAto. One gives the name of the game element while the other gives the mechanic benefit. There's 0 point to arguing this so I won't beyond what I've just posted.
Especially in the adventure modules it gets obvious that's it can be one way.
- "The goblins in area 2 notice and attack them through the thicket, which provides the goblins with three-quarters cover."
This one pretty clearly states that it provides the goblins with cover, not the players.
-
"The thickets around the clearing are difficult terrain, but they aren't dangerous-just annoying. They provide half cover to creatures attacking through them."
This one pretty clearly states that half cover only applies if you attack through them. If you shoot over them, there would be no half cover provided.
-
"The piles of sacks and crates can provide half cover to any creature fighting or hiding behind them."
It provides half cover to any creature fighting or hiding behind them - not to creatures that are in the middle of the room.
And in RAW it's also pretty clear, because all it says is "Estimate how much something is covered, find the closest value: 0, 1/2, 3/4 or 1 and then that's the cover you need to apply". That's what RAW says and nothing else. There aren't even "complex" cases, you just apply that simple rule for everything. Whether cover is only in one direction or in both direction or even 3/4 in one direction and 1/2 in the other direction solely depends on the situation. And there are endless possibilities here so of course that's not all covered in RAW, but the simple rule is sufficient to know how to handle it.
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem and Ilse have very similar attitudes and posting styles.
Ilse wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
The size of the cover does not determine the amount of cover a target gets. It's the amount of cover that blocks the targets body that we need to determine.
A gnome and a human both standing behind a short wall will not get the same amount of cover from the wall. A giant behind the same wall will also get different cover.
Any published adventure should point out when things are in the area that could give cover. They don't need to spell out every variable in how much cover could be provided for every attack. We should know the cover rules and be able to figure out cover at the time of the attack.
In the example of the "piles of sacks and crates can provide half cover to any creature fighting or hiding behind them", the crates are against the walls in Klarg's room. If one of the players (or goblin) were standing behind them firing at people in the center of the room I would not give the people in the center of the room the benefit of the cover. I would not want to (mis)interpret the rules in a way that would punish ranged people for trying to find cover.
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Ilse wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Ilse wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ilse wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
That quote, taken out of a larger meaning, makes several assumptions based on a scenario given by someone else. Which I can't help but notice you're leaving out...
1. The DM has determined that something can grant cover, in this case a wall granting half cover.
2. The attack is originating from the opposite side of that cover.
Either way, if the above is true, then cover should be applied by default. The DM however can rule that the cover isn't applicable because he/she is the DM.
Now can you guys please move the hell on and stop trying to make it seem like I'm saying things I'm not. It's really starting to border on harassment and cyberbullying since you don't seem to care at all about if what you're saying is even true. You're not asking questions, you're simply making statements that are blatantly false or missinformed. K thanks.
I've said it from the start. THE DM CAN MAKE RULINGS THAT CIRCUMVENT THE DEFAULT RESULT OF THE GENERAL RULES. CLAIMING I'M NOT, HAVEN'T AND ARE NOT STILL SAYING THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE.
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
A while back I posted how I thought a DM should adjudicate cover in most cases to which you responded:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
How tall the bushes are doesn't matter. The module says it grants 3/4 cover regardless. What you're looking for is a justification to make a houserule and then claim it's not a houserule. I hope you realize that.
Am I to understand then that I need to answer every single scenario posted in this thread just so you can claim I'm not following the rules as a result? Yeah no thanks. I've answered plenty of them. Reference that lol..
the rule for when cover can apply to the target of an attack has been posted multiple times. The description of what half cover is, that it means half the body of a creature is obscured, doesn't come into it and I don't get why you're even bringing it up. The DM decides if cover applies or not, we've said this and so have you so why are you bringing it up again?
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I didn't realize it was an excuse to try and get someone to actually read what they are responding to.
Again, what you're quoting has nothing to do with the discussion. You have no reason to quote it, no one is arguing against what you're quoting. IT means nothing to the discussion to quote it. Anyone could do what you're doing and just quote random stuff from the PHB. It's crazy that you don't understand this after over 5 pages of posts. Are you going to quote the DM guidelines that says a DM can make rulings too? That's pretty the equivalent here.
So again, the answer to complicated scenario vs not complicated is "it depends". I've said this like 4 times now. There is no universal answer no matter how many times you ask.
And no, you weren't asking a simply question. You were asking a quesiton that's already been asked multiple times, while refusing to read the previous answers, hoping to get an answer you could then quote and present another new scenario where it wouldn't apply. There's literally no point answering your questions BECAUSE YOU DON'T READ THEM.
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
One situation that RAW allows cover to not work both ways is an arrow slit with the specific mechanical effect "attacks coming from inside of the castle do not cause their targets to receive cover from this arrow slit".
There you have what you wanted.
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
I do want to offer Nocatem an apology because I had misunderstood what he had been trying to say. Sorry Nocatem.
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Ilse, do you have a point? A better way of determining cover?
Because right now we have two options.
1) An object provides X amount of cover.
2) You determine how much of your target is blocked by cover.*
With option #1, if a module says that an old discarded boot is providing a pixie with half cover, it doesn't matter what creature hides behind the boot. A huge frost giant would also get half cover from the same boot. That to me is a silly rule and makes no sense. In addition it doesn't answer the fundamental question of how much cover is granted by an object. The DM decides is meaningless phrase which gives no guidance to DMs
With the second option in most cases it's pretty straightforward. The pixie gets half cover because they're tiny and the boot covers half of them, the giant would probably have to be behind a small cottage to get half cover.
The latter option doesn't answer some questions of course, like how much cover a creature is going to provide - especially because because people are constantly moving. That's why I refer to the PHB and say that a creature will normally provide half cover . If you'd like I can say "in general I would rule that a creature provides half cover but it depends on the creatures involved and the situation".
Of course there are all sorts of special scenarios that a general rule will never cover like a pixie staying out of combat directly be huge storm giant. In that case I'd say the pixie has total cover.
But normally ... sorry ... generally in most cases unless there's an unusual exception to the rule other creatures are going to provide half cover in combat.
*From page 74 basic rules "A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body"
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Just a reminder.
Nocatatem has stated that objects which provide cover can have a property such that the cover only works one way. He wasn't even opposed to having cover that affected creatures of different sizes differently.
FrogReaver wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
That's great, you should complain about your imaginary 18 foot tall giant to WOTC, since they designed the encounter you're talking about... not me... and maybe they can fix the published adventure to account for a monster that's not even found at any point in time in the entire module. 
Noctaem wrote:
At this stage, we have convinced pretty much everyone, except Ooftameg because he thinks he is a better writer than the people who actually write the modules, and he does not want to read what the other people are writing. Sad, but it's easy to prove...
But first, EVERYONE HERE AND IN PARTICULAR NOCTAEM IS USING THE RULES FROM THE PH, COVER FROM A GIVEN ATTACKER TO A GIVEN TARGET IS GIVEN BY HOW MUCH OF THE TARGET IS COVERED.
Don't even bother disputing that we say otherwise, you won't be able to display one shred of evidence against that. You, however, have been the one saying absurd things like "Normally, a creature provides +2 cover". So, please, a little humility. The way you are putting words in our mouth is actually very, very bad manners. And the reason for us saying "no" to everything you say is because you either say silly things like the above, or you have us "say" things that we haven't. Start making sense and not deforming what we have been writing and we might start agreeing a bit more...
OoftaMeg wrote:
Ilse wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
I don't know what this debate is about anymore. I use cover a lot because I have an archer cleric, archer ranger, and a firebolting wizard so it comes up.
If you are looking for a specific instance where the rules state that creatures provide cover, I would like to point to page 251 and the variant rule Hitting Cover on page 272 in the DMG. Page 196 of the PHB. I play with a grid, so this affects me more.
Creatures are able to provide cover, larger creatures are able to provide more cover. A prone creature may not provide cover though since it isn't blocking anything, or does because even prone they have a lot of girth. A creature may provide cover, how much depends on a number of factors, such as location of the target in relation to the attacker, size of the creature, and statuses like prone, this is not an all inclusive list.
So if what is being said is all creatures provide half cover, that is wrong. If what is being said is that creatures provide cover, that is correct. Other than that I don't know what the argument is.
Anything can be used as cover, how effective it is depends on the situation at that given point and time.
Ilse wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
The summary of my understanding of noctaem's position is that it is some property of an object that provides cover, and that unless the "cover property" of an object states otherwise the cover applies both ways.
The DM is free to override any properties of an object as they see fit, but he never says how or why he would do that.
I went back through part of this thread, and numbered some of his quotes.
- If an object is defined as providing half cover, it always provides half cover. #4, #6
- Cover goes both ways unless specified by the description of the object (arrow slit). #1, #2
- The DM can change the cover property of the object. He doesn't state how or why (although it may be a house rule). #3, #6
- The relative size of the objects and the creatures does not matter in some cases, in other cases it does. He doesn't explain why. #4, #5, #6
- How you determine how much cover an object provides if it's not explicitly spelled out has never been answered.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because personal attacks are a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Man, a thread can go on and on when even just one person can't accept there is no procedure and just a matter of whether the GM wants to apply a modifier on a certain roll.
Then again, I've seen about twenty years of that, so why am I surprised at the same thing happening again?
Where there's an absence of procedure, people will not only make up procedure without even realising they are doing so, but be all the more attached to it since it seems 'so right'. Of course it seems so right because it perfectly matches their own preferences because *drum roll* they made it up - no wonder it matches their preferences in that case!
Noctaem wrote:
Ilse wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Ilse wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
The thing to keep in mind is if you had a text that described an obstacle and other character in textual form and you asked a hundred GMs what cover, if any, the character gets, they wouldn't all answer the same way.
At that point you have to acknowledge that trying to figure anything out from a textual description, like whether 'a creature' in a particular textual description of a circumstance would provide cover, you would also get mixed answers from a hundred GMs.
So you can't say you know the 'right' answer. Because there isn't one with this type of text. I'm pretty sure the WOTC designers know this. But it seems a lot of GMs and players don't.
Noon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Ilse wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Ilse, the problem is not with your assertions. The problem is with Noctaems assertion, you keep saying he is right, even when you don't agree with him.
Us: The sky is Blue
Noctaem: The sky is Orange (but hey if you want to use DM fiat to house rule that the sky is blue, then you are free to do that.)
Ilse: You guys are crazy, Noctaem is completely right... it is obvious the sky is blue.
Us: Wut??
lawrencehoy wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Ilse wrote:
Actually those examples were posted by Ilse herself, I just quoted them: Post #141
Ilse wrote:
Ilse,
I agree that cover can sometimes go both ways. Like in close combat situations with creatures in between or if both parties are in the same thicket. I just view them as separate calculations
If I ever have a halfling in the front lines, I will have to decide whether or not they provide half cover. I hear it can happen. :-D
Next time I quote someone I'll try to include post numbers, but noctaem has repeatedly said that nearly 100% of the time cover goes both ways and that cover is a property of an object and relative size or distance from the cover does not matter. Unless the DM decides to override the property for reasons he's never explained.
mrpopstar wrote:
And we've repeatedly said that cover doesn't alway work both ways, I've said that and so has Ilse. This is just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point which is why I'm not participating anymore. Regardless of the taunts and misrepresentations of what I've said. I mean quoting yourself to prove I said something Lawrenceboy and then linking to a post that doesn't even say what you're claiming? Yep, arguing for the sake of arguing. I suggest everyone moves on!
Noctaem wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
I have to admit you just made me laugh out loud Noon.
Noon wrote:
This thread has somehow transmogrified into a general discussion on the symmetrical/asymmetrical properties of cover, without any real link back to the OP. So, getting back to the issue of hidden halflings shooting from behind the cover of an ally, here are my thoughts:
I generally rule that shooting through a square which is occupied by an active/moving creature grants half cover to your target, as suggested by the PHB. To me, this adequately reflects the difficulty of timing such a shot so that it doesn't hit the active/moving creature who is providing the cover. While I might be persuaded to rule otherwise under exceptional circumstances, I enforce this rule irrespective of how close or far the interposing creature is from the shooter. This provides my players with a feeling of consistency and predictability which many of them seem to appreciate. With reference to the hidden halfling shooting from behind the cover of an ally, I grant the halfling advantage, but I also grant the target a +2 bonus to AC for half cover. I agree with @Noctaem that this represents the purest interpretation of the rules as written, though I do not feel the need to invoke some absolute principle that all cover is symmetrical in order to justify my stance. In the case where there is an active/moving creature between the shooter and his target, symmetry of cover seems like a simple and fair abstraction in order to represent the difficulty of pulling off such a shot, and there is nothing in the rules to suggest otherwise.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Ilse wrote:
Ilse wrote:
Ilse wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
valiant effort Noon.
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I just bought the player's handbook, how do you decide how much cover something gets?
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Vivaldi wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Ilse wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Why do you get to decide what are rules and what aren't in a book specifically made to explain the rules of the game? And furthermore, what makes you feel you have the authority to tell someone that they are wrong or don't make any sense? The answer is that you have none, or actually no more than anyone else on this forum.
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
So basically you define something that is in a rules book as "fluff" and then say because you defined it as fluff it's not a rule?
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
I'd rather look at it case-by-case. There are many things in the rulebook that you might consider fluff because they aren't fixed mechanics, but they still have a lot of meaning because they should influence the DM's decisions in unclear situations.
Even "humans are quick learners" can have an influence. Like when a player wants to use some kind of trick he saw someone else doing and the DM has to think how easy he could be able to pull that off, then he could think that because that player's character is a human he has a lower DC than other races.
Same goes for text like "During combat everybody is on the lookout for enemies". That's not mechanical, but it still is supposed to get the DM to decide more often against remaining hidden.
Macv12 wrote:
Macv12 wrote: