Skip to main content
Wrong slashes.
Source Link
Derek Stucki
  • 27.8k
  • 8
  • 97
  • 128

What type of cover do you get from hiding behind a 5ft-wide (we assume it is high enough to fully cover the target vertically) tree against an opponent staying right onto opposite side?
Everything I'm asking is about square grid

DMG page 250 states that you need to draw lines from any corner of attacker's space to all corners of target's space. And if at least 2 of these lines are not interrupted by obstacle, we are getting 1\21/2 cover.
At the same time pictures on pg250 show that corners of cover doesn't count as obstacle. And on pg251 we see that Hex edge (I assume it also counts for squares) doesn't block anything either.

This is absolutely counter-intuitive for me, when you mechanically can't effectively hide behind a 5 foot tree against a non-moving attacker.

example:
enter image description here

(brown squares are attackers, black is the cover, yellow-the target)

The bottom attacker obviously suffers from half cover (3\43/4 lines are not blocked) and the top one, surprisingly, too - 2\42/4 lines go through the edge of cover and are not blocked.

What type of cover do you get from hiding behind a 5ft-wide (we assume it is high enough to fully cover the target vertically) tree against an opponent staying right onto opposite side?
Everything I'm asking is about square grid

DMG page 250 states that you need to draw lines from any corner of attacker's space to all corners of target's space. And if at least 2 of these lines are not interrupted by obstacle, we are getting 1\2 cover.
At the same time pictures on pg250 show that corners of cover doesn't count as obstacle. And on pg251 we see that Hex edge (I assume it also counts for squares) doesn't block anything either.

This is absolutely counter-intuitive for me, when you mechanically can't effectively hide behind a 5 foot tree against a non-moving attacker.

example:
enter image description here

(brown squares are attackers, black is the cover, yellow-the target)

The bottom attacker obviously suffers from half cover (3\4 lines are not blocked) and the top one, surprisingly, too - 2\4 lines go through the edge of cover and are not blocked.

What type of cover do you get from hiding behind a 5ft-wide (we assume it is high enough to fully cover the target vertically) tree against an opponent staying right onto opposite side?
Everything I'm asking is about square grid

DMG page 250 states that you need to draw lines from any corner of attacker's space to all corners of target's space. And if at least 2 of these lines are not interrupted by obstacle, we are getting 1/2 cover.
At the same time pictures on pg250 show that corners of cover doesn't count as obstacle. And on pg251 we see that Hex edge (I assume it also counts for squares) doesn't block anything either.

This is absolutely counter-intuitive for me, when you mechanically can't effectively hide behind a 5 foot tree against a non-moving attacker.

example:
enter image description here

(brown squares are attackers, black is the cover, yellow-the target)

The bottom attacker obviously suffers from half cover (3/4 lines are not blocked) and the top one, surprisingly, too - 2/4 lines go through the edge of cover and are not blocked.

Became Hot Network Question
added 14 characters in body
Source Link
Rubiksmoose
  • 95.6k
  • 21
  • 486
  • 580

What type of cover do you get from hiding behind a 5ft-wide (we assume it is high enough to fully cover the target vertically) tree against an opponent staying right onto opposite side?
Everything I'm asking is about square grid

DMG page 250 states that you need to draw lines from any corner of attacker's space to all corners of target's space. And if at least 2 of these lines are not interrupted by obstacle, we are getting 1\2 cover.
At the same time pictures on pg250 show that corners of cover doesn't count as obstacle. And on pg251 we see that Hex edge  (iI assume it also counts for squares) doesn't block anything either.

This is absolutely counter-intuitive for me, when you mechanically can't effectively hide behind 5 FOOT TREEa 5 foot tree against a non-moving attacker.

example:
enter image description here

(brown squares are attackers, black is the cover, yellow-the target)

The bottom attacker obviously suffers from half cover  (3\4 lines are not blocked) and the top one, surprisingly, too - 2\4 lines go through the edge of cover and are not blocked.

What type of cover do you get from hiding behind a 5ft-wide (we assume it is high enough to fully cover the target vertically) tree against an opponent staying right onto opposite side?
Everything I'm asking is about square grid

DMG page 250 states that you need to draw lines from any corner of attacker's space to all corners of target's space. And if at least 2 of these lines are not interrupted by obstacle, we are getting 1\2 cover.
At the same time pictures on pg250 show that corners of cover doesn't count as obstacle. And on pg251 we see that Hex edge(i assume it also counts for squares) doesn't block anything either.

This is absolutely counter-intuitive for me, when you mechanically can't effectively hide behind 5 FOOT TREE against non-moving attacker

example:
enter image description here

(brown squares are attackers, black is the cover, yellow-the target)

bottom attacker obviously suffers from half cover(3\4 lines are not blocked) and the top one, surprisingly, too - 2\4 lines go through the edge of cover and are not blocked

What type of cover do you get from hiding behind a 5ft-wide (we assume it is high enough to fully cover the target vertically) tree against an opponent staying right onto opposite side?
Everything I'm asking is about square grid

DMG page 250 states that you need to draw lines from any corner of attacker's space to all corners of target's space. And if at least 2 of these lines are not interrupted by obstacle, we are getting 1\2 cover.
At the same time pictures on pg250 show that corners of cover doesn't count as obstacle. And on pg251 we see that Hex edge  (I assume it also counts for squares) doesn't block anything either.

This is absolutely counter-intuitive for me, when you mechanically can't effectively hide behind a 5 foot tree against a non-moving attacker.

example:
enter image description here

(brown squares are attackers, black is the cover, yellow-the target)

The bottom attacker obviously suffers from half cover  (3\4 lines are not blocked) and the top one, surprisingly, too - 2\4 lines go through the edge of cover and are not blocked.

edited body; edited title
Source Link
Rubiksmoose
  • 95.6k
  • 21
  • 486
  • 580

Does hiding behind 5-ft-wide cover gives agive full cover?

What type of cover do you get from hiding behind a 5ft-wide (we assume it is high enough to fully cover the target vertically) tree against an opponent staying right onto opposite side?
Everytihng i'mEverything I'm asking is about square grid

DMG page 250 states that you need to draw lines from any corner of attacker's space to all corners of target's space. And if at least 2 of these lines are not interrupted by obstacle, we are getting 1\2 cover.
At the same time pictures on pg250 show that corners of cover doesn't count as obstacle. And on pg251 we see that Hex edge(i assume it also counts for squares) doesn't block anything either.

This is absolutely counter-intuitive for me, when you mechanically can't effectively hide behind 5 FOOT TREE against non-moving attacker

example:
enter image description here

(brown squares are attackers, black is the cover, yellow-the target) 

(brown squares are attackers, black is the cover, yellow-the target)

bottom attacker obviously suffers from half cover(3\4 lines are not blocked) and the top one, surprisingly, too - 2\4 lines go through the edge of cover and are not blocked

enter image description here

Does hiding behind 5-ft-wide cover gives a full cover?

What type of cover do you get from hiding behind a 5ft-wide (we assume it is high enough to fully cover the target vertically) tree against an opponent staying right onto opposite side?
Everytihng i'm asking is about square grid

DMG page 250 states that you need to draw lines from any corner of attacker's space to all corners of target's space. And if at least 2 of these lines are not interrupted by obstacle, we are getting 1\2 cover.
At the same time pictures on pg250 show that corners of cover doesn't count as obstacle. And on pg251 we see that Hex edge(i assume it also counts for squares) doesn't block anything either.

This is absolutely counter-intuitive for me, when you mechanically can't effectively hide behind 5 FOOT TREE against non-moving attacker

example:

(brown squares are attackers, black is the cover, yellow-the target) 

bottom attacker obviously suffers from half cover(3\4 lines are not blocked) and the top one, surprisingly, too - 2\4 lines go through the edge of cover and are not blocked

enter image description here

Does hiding behind 5-ft-wide cover give full cover?

What type of cover do you get from hiding behind a 5ft-wide (we assume it is high enough to fully cover the target vertically) tree against an opponent staying right onto opposite side?
Everything I'm asking is about square grid

DMG page 250 states that you need to draw lines from any corner of attacker's space to all corners of target's space. And if at least 2 of these lines are not interrupted by obstacle, we are getting 1\2 cover.
At the same time pictures on pg250 show that corners of cover doesn't count as obstacle. And on pg251 we see that Hex edge(i assume it also counts for squares) doesn't block anything either.

This is absolutely counter-intuitive for me, when you mechanically can't effectively hide behind 5 FOOT TREE against non-moving attacker

example:
enter image description here

(brown squares are attackers, black is the cover, yellow-the target)

bottom attacker obviously suffers from half cover(3\4 lines are not blocked) and the top one, surprisingly, too - 2\4 lines go through the edge of cover and are not blocked

Source Link
elenhil
  • 151
  • 1
  • 3
Loading