Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Isaac Springsong
Introducing the Cover rules from 5e PHB page 196. For a rough summary, shooting "through" another creature (ally or enemy) provides your target with +2 to its AC, if the creature is covering at least 1/2 of the target. So, as an example:

X -> YZ

If X shoots at Y, X rolls their attack as normal.

If X shoots at Z, Z gets a bonus of +2 to its AC

Implementing this solves the problems created by granting Advantage/Disadvantage to attacking from/against a target above/below you. For starters, it's less of a mechanical bonus or penalty to the Attack roll, which makes the impact on combat of even small changes in height less pronounced. Solving that problem can trickle down to realigning enemy AC/HP values with what they should be in the monster's stat block, which solves a whole host of other issues.

However, it still provides a reward/penalty for use of the 3d terrain. Using the previous example, if X is 10 meters up in the air, and shoots at Z, Z would likely not receive any bonus to its AC because X is high enough so that Y isn't blocking at least 1/2 of Z. Moreover, X will have the reward of being able to Move to the edge of the cliff/roof/etc., shoot, then move backwards to possibly gain Cover from whatever is providing their height advantage.

Isn't this just changing the name? The latter mechanic, shooting over Y to shoot Z already exists, in the Advantage of high ground, exactly as per your example. I'm not sure how the game calculates shooting at z through y, but if it's applying disadvantage now, that would be the same as the AC bonus Z gets, or at least similar?


Ultimately, the difference is one of numbers and how much elevation *can* impact combat.

Right now, being higher than your enemy is *always* a benefit, with a roughly average +5 to your attack rolls (Advantage). That's huge. Additionally, your target will have -5 to their attack rolls (Disadvantage), coming out to a net benefit of +-10!!! to the target that is elevated. That's.....that's just insane.

Using Cover mechanics, the elevated position is *sometimes* as a benefit, and the difference is noticeably less impactful. Being higher than your target would only be a benefit if it somehow allowed you to ignore the target's Cover. If there is no cover between X and Z on a flat plane, then X would get no benefit to their attack roll from being in an elevated position.

It doesn't matter if I'm using a bow, or a sniper rifle, if I have high ground, I'll have an advantage, double that if I have cover. Your net benefit is also wrong. You don't have a +10 to hit because you have high ground, you have the advantage roll, + any bonuses you may have, and minus any penalties, are you human, shooting into a darker zone? The penalty to your opponent does not affect your hit chance. Being higher does, because, as in the example laid out in the post I replied to, you can shoot over that cover, whether that's another NPC, or a boulder, or a barricade. There's a reason snipers go for high ground today. I don't really want to go into the full physics of projectiles here, but we'll suffice it to say that arrows or bullets do not climb higher as they fly farther, but drop, and that drop can be significant, according to the range, and the initial velocity of the projectile.


Last edited by robertthebard; 23/10/20 07:48 AM. Reason: typo