Return to Answer

#Three-quarters cover applies, not total cover

Diagram of a potential situation where this question could be applicable:

target   3/4  total  point of origin of ice storm
   O      !     |     .

If we apply two things to the scenario, it becomes nearly clear:

1. Things do what they say they do.

Total cover says [target] can't be targeted directly by an attack or spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect.

Three-quarters cover says [target] has a +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws.

Total cover does not say that the target has a +5 bonus to AC and Dex saving throws, so a target benefitting from total cover does not gain those benefits. Similarly, something ignoring total cover does not necessarily ignore three-quarters cover, because it would say so if it did.

2. Specific beats general.

In this question we determine fireball ignores total cover and because of this tweet from Crawford saying "your cover is foiled if an effect spreads around and reaches you", we see that the language "spreads around corners" means "ignores cover".

However, ice storm simply states each creature in the cylinder must make a Dexterity saving throw, being more specific than total cover, and therefore being able to target the creature. It does not use the same "spreads around" language though, so it does not ignore all cover, but the benefits of total cover do not apply.

So?

In the Cover section (PHB 196, emphasis mine):

If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies.

If total cover is not being protective, it is not the most protective degree of cover.

I do not answer about the trebuchet intentionally.

This is because the situation isn't applicable there. The trebuchet was not and could not target you, yes. But when the wall is being destroyed, you're not making a save vs the trebuchet anymore, but the wall, which cannot provide cover versus itself.

#Three-quarters cover applies, not total cover

Diagram of a potential situation where this question could be applicable:

target   3/4  total  point of origin of ice storm
   O      !     |     .

If we apply two things to the scenario, it becomes nearly clear:

1. Things do what they say they do.

Total cover says [target] can't be targeted directly by an attack or spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect.

Three-quarters cover says [target] has a +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws.

Total cover does not say that the target has a +5 bonus to AC and Dex saving throws, so a target benefitting from total cover does not gain those benefits. Similarly, something ignoring total cover does not necessarily ignore three-quarters cover, because it would say so if it did.

2. Specific beats general.

In this question we determine fireball ignores total cover and because of this tweet from Crawford saying "your cover is foiled if an effect spreads around and reaches you", we see that the language "spreads around corners" means "ignores cover".

However, ice storm simply states each creature in the cylinder must make a Dexterity saving throw, being more specific than total cover, and therefore being able to target the creature. It does not use the same "spreads around" language though, so it does not ignore all cover, but the benefits of total cover do not apply.

So?

In the Cover section (PHB 196, emphasis mine):

If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies.

If total cover is not being protective, it is not the most protective degree of cover.

The most protective cover in the case of ice storm is three-quarters, so the benefits of three-quarters cover apply.

I do not answer about the trebuchet intentionally.

This is because the situation isn't applicable there. The trebuchet was not and could not target you, yes. But when the wall is being destroyed, you're not making a save vs the trebuchet anymore, but the wall, which cannot provide cover versus itself.

#Three-quarters cover applies, not total cover

Diagram of a potential situation where this question could be applicable:

target   3/4  total  point of origin of fireball
   O      !     |     .

If we apply two things to the scenario, it becomes nearly clear:

1. Things do what they say they do.

Total cover says [target] can't be targeted directly by an attack or spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect.

Three-quarters cover says [target] has a +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws.

Total cover does not say that the target has a +5 bonus to AC and Dex saving throws, so a target benefitting from total cover does not gain those benefits. Similarly, something ignoring total cover does not necessarily ignore three-quarters cover, because it would say so if it did.

2. Specific beats general.

In this question, it is determined that fireball ignores total cover, not because it ignores all cover, but because the benefits of total cover do not apply.

So?

In the Cover section (PHB 196, emphasis mine):

If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies.

If total cover is not being protective, it is not the most protective degree of cover.

I do not answer about the trebuchet intentionally.

This is because the situation isn't applicable there. The trebuchet was not and could not target you, yes. But when the wall is being destroyed, you're not making a save vs the trebuchet anymore, but the wall, which cannot provide cover versus itself.

#Three-quarters cover applies, not total cover

Diagram of a potential situation where this question could be applicable:

target   3/4  total  point of origin of ice storm
   O      !     |     .

If we apply two things to the scenario, it becomes nearly clear:

1. Things do what they say they do.

Total cover says [target] can't be targeted directly by an attack or spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect.

Three-quarters cover says [target] has a +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws.

Total cover does not say that the target has a +5 bonus to AC and Dex saving throws, so a target benefitting from total cover does not gain those benefits. Similarly, something ignoring total cover does not necessarily ignore three-quarters cover, because it would say so if it did.

2. Specific beats general.

In this question we determine fireball ignores total cover and because of this tweet from Crawford saying "your cover is foiled if an effect spreads around and reaches you", we see that the language "spreads around corners" means "ignores cover".

However, ice storm simply states each creature in the cylinder must make a Dexterity saving throw, being more specific than total cover, and therefore being able to target the creature. It does not use the same "spreads around" language though, so it does not ignore all cover, but the benefits of total cover do not apply.

So?

In the Cover section (PHB 196, emphasis mine):

If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies.

If total cover is not being protective, it is not the most protective degree of cover.

I do not answer about the trebuchet intentionally.

This is because the situation isn't applicable there. The trebuchet was not and could not target you, yes. But when the wall is being destroyed, you're not making a save vs the trebuchet anymore, but the wall, which cannot provide cover versus itself.

#Three-quarters cover applies, not total cover

Diagram of a potential situation where this question could be applicable:

target   3/4  total  point of origin of fireball
   O      !     |     .

If we apply two things to the scenario, it becomes nearly clear:

1. Things do what they say they do.

Total cover says [target] can't be targeted directly by an attack or spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect.

Three-quarters cover says [target] has a +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws.

Total cover does not say that the target has a +5 bonus to AC and Dex saving throws, so a target benefitting from total cover does not gain those benefits. Similarly, something ignoring total cover does not necessarily ignore three-quarters cover, because it would say so if it did.

2. Specific beats general.

In [this question], it is determined that fireball ignores total cover, not because it ignores all cover, but because the benefits of total cover do not apply.

So?

In the Cover section (PHB 196, emphasis mine):

If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies.

If total cover is not being protective, it is not the most protective degree of cover.

I do not answer about the trebuchet intentionally.

This is because the situation isn't applicable there. The trebuchet was not and could not target you, yes. But when the wall is being destroyed, you're not making a save vs the trebuchet anymore, but the wall, which cannot provide cover versus itself.

#Three-quarters cover applies, not total cover

Diagram of a potential situation where this question could be applicable:

target   3/4  total  point of origin of fireball
   O      !     |     .

If we apply two things to the scenario, it becomes nearly clear:

1. Things do what they say they do.

Total cover says [target] can't be targeted directly by an attack or spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect.

Three-quarters cover says [target] has a +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws.

Total cover does not say that the target has a +5 bonus to AC and Dex saving throws, so a target benefitting from total cover does not gain those benefits. Similarly, something ignoring total cover does not necessarily ignore three-quarters cover, because it would say so if it did.

2. Specific beats general.

In this question, it is determined that fireball ignores total cover, not because it ignores all cover, but because the benefits of total cover do not apply.

So?

In the Cover section (PHB 196, emphasis mine):

If a target is behind multiple sources of cover, only the most protective degree of cover applies.

If total cover is not being protective, it is not the most protective degree of cover.

I do not answer about the trebuchet intentionally.

This is because the situation isn't applicable there. The trebuchet was not and could not target you, yes. But when the wall is being destroyed, you're not making a save vs the trebuchet anymore, but the wall, which cannot provide cover versus itself.