I have been having a week long argument with my DM (former DM myself).
imaginary scenario is this:
I am 20ft back from a front line fight consisting of 2 players side by side, and 4 "monsters" staggered 2 in the front, one off to one side, and one 10ft behind the first 2.
My DM is claiming I can not cast chaos bolt on the monster behind the first 2 engaged with the fighters because the fighters and the other 2 monsters are blocking the spell.
RAW is that the only thing that stops a spell is "Full cover". Am I right in thinking that I can fire through the melee and hit the caster in the back without hitting the friendlies or the interviening monsters?
RAW, a creature interposed between the caster and target might create cover for the target, which can be 1/2, 3/4, or full based on the size of the creature (or number of creatures) as determined by the DM.
Personally, as a DM I never interpose full cover from intervening creatures (except for gelatinous cubes and others that fill their space), and the DMG chapter 8 only provides rules for adjudicating 1/2 and 3/4 cover in combat (full cover being hard to create due to the fact it truly has to cover 100% of the creature), but it is the DMs right to define what and how much cover is provided, and if they say full, full it is.
The DMG also has optional rules for hitting other creatures that are providing cover (usually that happens if the roll meets or exceeds the targets normal AC, but not the AC plus cover bonus)
"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."
This is the only cover rule that mentions creatures providing cover. It's conceivable that multiple creatures could provide 3/4 cover. It's even conceivable that a Large or Huge monster might provide total cover. But I feel like usually you could shoot between the legs or something.
You are trying to find a gap to a creature past two lines of other creatures. It is entirely the DMs decision how much cover that affords. While I would not say that gives full cover it is not an unreasonable ruling. You should not argue for a week over such things, just ask them how they decide whether you can see a target / how much cover they get. The DM should be consistent, if you can not cast a spell because they are behind full cover, they should not be able to target you.
You are trying to find a gap to a creature past two lines of other creatures. It is entirely the DMs decision how much cover that affords. While I would not say that gives full cover it is not an unreasonable ruling. You should not argue for a week over such things, just ask them how they decide whether you can see a target / how much cover they get. The DM should be consistent, if you can not cast a spell because they are behind full cover, they should not be able to target you.
And wherever are you going to find a gap between 2-4 people moving around 5 feet away from each other? If they were squeezed into the same space shoulder to shoulder, then sure. But this is basically asking if creatures in a room can be seen through the doorway (except the door moves a little).
I have been having a week long argument with my DM (former DM myself).
imaginary scenario is this:
I am 20ft back from a front line fight consisting of 2 players side by side, and 4 "monsters" staggered 2 in the front, one off to one side, and one 10ft behind the first 2.
My DM is claiming I can not cast chaos bolt on the monster behind the first 2 engaged with the fighters because the fighters and the other 2 monsters are blocking the spell.
RAW is that the only thing that stops a spell is "Full cover". Am I right in thinking that I can fire through the melee and hit the caster in the back without hitting the friendlies or the interviening monsters?
He is correct in the RAW because the books say he gets to determine it. He's probably wrong in the 'fairplay angle' because full cover from a creature doesn't make sense whatsoever unless they very literally occupy the entirety of the square they're in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This is probably one of those "mission failed successfully" opportunities for you and your group. If your DM has dug their feet in that two adjacent creatures provide full cover, or even that two adjacent creatures in combat with two other adjacent creatures provides full cover... I think that the players are going to have a lot more opportunities to strategically exploit that ruling and weaponize it vs. the DM than vice versa. Hello total safety for your backline casters! Hello easy hiding for your rogue!
As the others said, half cover is almost mandatory in that setup, 3/4 would probably be fair since we're talking about more than one row of intervening creatures, but total is probably pushing it for most tables (but within your DM's right).
I have been having a week long argument with my DM (former DM myself).
imaginary scenario is this:
I am 20ft back from a front line fight consisting of 2 players side by side, and 4 "monsters" staggered 2 in the front, one off to one side, and one 10ft behind the first 2.
My DM is claiming I can not cast chaos bolt on the monster behind the first 2 engaged with the fighters because the fighters and the other 2 monsters are blocking the spell.
RAW is that the only thing that stops a spell is "Full cover". Am I right in thinking that I can fire through the melee and hit the caster in the back without hitting the friendlies or the interviening monsters?
I completely agree with C_C. Anything that completely stops your spells also completely stops incoming spells and weapon attacks. The best move here is:
Make sure your DM understands the consequences of their ruling - it's better for everyone this way. They define the rules, but you can help ensure they are doing so in an informed fashion.
Politely request the standard "polite" treatment of sudden house rules that radically alter combat: the ability to change decisions you made under the belief the RAW was being follows. For example, if you're a Sorcerer, it's only reasonable to let you change your spells known to reflect the nature of combat physics in the world you grew up in, which it turns out is not the world the player who made the Sorcerer was expecting.
Play to the rules of your DM's campaign, rather than the RAW, since those are the rules you're playing under. As C_C said, such a world means offensive casters and archers can generally only target the front line, and the back line can neither hit the opposing back line nor be hit by it. That means optimal combat is a front line whose job is to exist for as long as possible, and that's it - they need to exist, no other jobs. Provided they can do that, the back line does all the heavy lifting: they murder the enemy front line while nearly immune to reprisal due to disadvantage if a front line attacks the back, and when it evaporates, they murder the enemy backline, which is now their frontline. Lean into spells that assume that that's the nature of combat. For example, you can lean hard into being made of glass - your primary defense is your front line being alive.
Thank you for all these answers, I am going to sit down before the next session and have a "civil" chat with the DM. This is his first D&D TTRPG so it's a learning curve for him. Will put across some of the different points of view and see if he prefers one over the other or if he wants to keep it to his way, which is making it VERY hard as a caster in his game. Thanks once again for the input everyone! Will let you know how it goes!
Thank you for all these answers, I am going to sit down before the next session and have a "civil" chat with the DM. This is his first D&D TTRPG so it's a learning curve for him. Will put across some of the different points of view and see if he prefers one over the other or if he wants to keep it to his way, which is making it VERY hard as a caster in his game. Thanks once again for the input everyone! Will let you know how it goes!
One other item to consider: is all your combat on a flat plane? because creature creating conditions of cover can be lessened by finding high ground where you can better see over them as well. (this might reduce or remove the cover provided by intervening creatures, depending on how high up you are)
We use cover modifiers pretty heavily. We also play on a VTT so, we can easily see how our movements affect line of sight. I would advise both strategic positioning and picking some spells that work off something other than aimed spell attacks or DEX saves.
We use cover modifiers pretty heavily. We also play on a VTT so, we can easily see how our movements affect line of sight. I would advise both strategic positioning and picking some spells that work off something other than aimed spell attacks or DEX saves.
Picking other offensive spells wouldn't help at all. The targets aren't getting half or 3/4 cover (and aren't getting a bonus to AC or Dex saves), they're getting total cover, which blocks all spell targeting - forget about switching away from Dex saves to something like Int saves, the enemy backline is also immune to magic missile, which isn't an attack, literally can't miss, isn't saveable, and accordingly can't be shrugged off even with legendary resistance. Strategic positioning might help, but assuming the math is 1 intervening creature = 1/2 cover and 2 intervening creatures = total cover, minionmancy would help even more - just bring your own total cover to the party that steps out of the way when you don't want it and steps back into the way when you do.
I personally think its a fair ruling. I tend to go with 3/4 cover in this scenario rather than full cover, but depending on the size of the players/monsters total cover could be appropriate. If the DM was playing by the same rules with his monsters in this combat, there isn't really an issue imo.
Also think the most obvious answer is to move to a position where you have a better chance to his, and this rule only becomes an issue in a corridor.
We use cover modifiers pretty heavily. We also play on a VTT so, we can easily see how our movements affect line of sight. I would advise both strategic positioning and picking some spells that work off something other than aimed spell attacks or DEX saves.
Picking other offensive spells wouldn't help at all. The targets aren't getting half or 3/4 cover (and aren't getting a bonus to AC or Dex saves), they're getting total cover, which blocks all spell targeting - forget about switching away from Dex saves to something like Int saves, the enemy backline is also immune to magic missile, which isn't an attack, literally can't miss, isn't saveable, and accordingly can't be shrugged off even with legendary resistance.
You can fire a Fireball or similar shaped spell off to the side and hit all of them.
Strategic positioning might help, but assuming the math is 1 intervening creature = 1/2 cover and 2 intervening creatures = total cover, minionmancy would help even more - just bring your own total cover to the party that steps out of the way when you don't want it and steps back into the way when you do.
They can hold their actions and attack when your minions step out of the way. Players can do the same.
Something you can potentially do as a caster is cast APE spells above the target. If you eyes are 5ft above the ground and a creature 7ft tall 20ft away is providing the cover you should still be able to cast fireball 9ft above the ground, 40ft away.
I personally think its a fair ruling. I tend to go with 3/4 cover in this scenario rather than full cover, but depending on the size of the players/monsters total cover could be appropriate. If the DM was playing by the same rules with his monsters in this combat, there isn't really an issue imo.
To block an entire 5ft space they'd need to be at least 5ft wide. Possible? Yes. Likely? No
If they're humanoid targets, the average width of a woman is like 14 inches and an man is roughly 16 inches, this is at their widest point, the shoulders. It would take at least 3 or 4 humanoids standing shoulder to shoulder to entirely block line of sight at just shoulder height, probably 5 tbh. So if they had billowing robes and capes draping all the way to the ground, then, there you go. But, that's all of them crammed shoulder to shoulder inside the same exact space. And, at least 3 or 4 of them, not just 2. For 2? They'd need to be 30 inches wide, fully twice the normal width of a person.
In combat, you're moving around, so you'd need them to somehow block all vision beyond them while they're chaotically shuffling around and not actually next to one another, a far most challenging feat. One way to visualize how much of a 5ft space a person actually occupies is to imagine a guy with his arms straight out to the sides, spinning in place. That area he is spinning though is roughly the top of a 5ft space. How easy would it be to see past him? Very.
So, fair ruling? Maybe. Unlikely. But maybe. If they're 3ft+ wide and barrel shaped creatures.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I personally think its a fair ruling. I tend to go with 3/4 cover in this scenario rather than full cover, but depending on the size of the players/monsters total cover could be appropriate. If the DM was playing by the same rules with his monsters in this combat, there isn't really an issue imo.
To block an entire 5ft space they'd need to be at least 5ft wide. Possible? Yes. Likely? No
If they're humanoid targets, the average width of a woman is like 14 inches and an man is roughly 16 inches, this is at their widest point, the shoulders. It would take at least 3 or 4 humanoids standing shoulder to shoulder to entirely block line of sight at just shoulder height, probably 5 tbh. So if they had billowing robes and capes draping all the way to the ground, then, there you go. But, that's all of them crammed shoulder to shoulder inside the same exact space. And, at least 3 or 4 of them, not just 2. For 2? They'd need to be 30 inches wide, fully twice the normal width of a person.
In combat, you're moving around, so you'd need them to somehow block all vision beyond them while they're chaotically shuffling around and not actually next to one another, a far most challenging feat. One way to visualize how much of a 5ft space a person actually occupies is to imagine a guy with his arms straight out to the sides, spinning in place. That area he is spinning though is roughly the top of a 5ft space. How easy would it be to see past him? Very.
So, fair ruling? Maybe. Unlikely. But maybe. If they're 3ft+ wide and barrel shaped creatures.
Maybe read my post again…? :) I did stipulate that my answer would depend on the size and type of enemy.
I personally think its a fair ruling. I tend to go with 3/4 cover in this scenario rather than full cover, but depending on the size of the players/monsters total cover could be appropriate. If the DM was playing by the same rules with his monsters in this combat, there isn't really an issue imo.
To block an entire 5ft space they'd need to be at least 5ft wide. Possible? Yes. Likely? No
If they're humanoid targets, the average width of a woman is like 14 inches and an man is roughly 16 inches, this is at their widest point, the shoulders. It would take at least 3 or 4 humanoids standing shoulder to shoulder to entirely block line of sight at just shoulder height, probably 5 tbh. So if they had billowing robes and capes draping all the way to the ground, then, there you go. But, that's all of them crammed shoulder to shoulder inside the same exact space. And, at least 3 or 4 of them, not just 2. For 2? They'd need to be 30 inches wide, fully twice the normal width of a person.
In combat, you're moving around, so you'd need them to somehow block all vision beyond them while they're chaotically shuffling around and not actually next to one another, a far most challenging feat. One way to visualize how much of a 5ft space a person actually occupies is to imagine a guy with his arms straight out to the sides, spinning in place. That area he is spinning though is roughly the top of a 5ft space. How easy would it be to see past him? Very.
So, fair ruling? Maybe. Unlikely. But maybe. If they're 3ft+ wide and barrel shaped creatures.
Maybe read my post again…? :) I did stipulate that my answer would depend on the size and type of enemy.
I read it fine the first time, thanks. Do you often fight 3ft wide barrels? or, even more relevant, since it was his party members blocking him... do you adventure alongside 3ft wide barrels?
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Why are you intent on arguing with me? It depends on the monsters involved. I’m not suggesting your slinky unarmored adventurers are in the way, but a well armoured Goliath and another bulky creature? Sure.
With two “normal” monsters in the way, they’re not making a solid wall, hence me saying I’d rather go three quarters cover, but I understand the argument that with them moving during combat might make it impossible to aim a spell or arrow through their spaces. Combatants appear static when using a grid, but remember they’re constantly moving within that 5ft space and clashing against each other.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have been having a week long argument with my DM (former DM myself).
imaginary scenario is this:
I am 20ft back from a front line fight consisting of 2 players side by side, and 4 "monsters" staggered 2 in the front, one off to one side, and one 10ft behind the first 2.
My DM is claiming I can not cast chaos bolt on the monster behind the first 2 engaged with the fighters because the fighters and the other 2 monsters are blocking the spell.
RAW is that the only thing that stops a spell is "Full cover".
Am I right in thinking that I can fire through the melee and hit the caster in the back without hitting the friendlies or the interviening monsters?
RAW, a creature interposed between the caster and target might create cover for the target, which can be 1/2, 3/4, or full based on the size of the creature (or number of creatures) as determined by the DM.
Personally, as a DM I never interpose full cover from intervening creatures (except for gelatinous cubes and others that fill their space), and the DMG chapter 8 only provides rules for adjudicating 1/2 and 3/4 cover in combat (full cover being hard to create due to the fact it truly has to cover 100% of the creature), but it is the DMs right to define what and how much cover is provided, and if they say full, full it is.
The DMG also has optional rules for hitting other creatures that are providing cover (usually that happens if the roll meets or exceeds the targets normal AC, but not the AC plus cover bonus)
You are probably right. Half cover (+2 to target's AC) is probably more appropriate.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#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."
This is the only cover rule that mentions creatures providing cover. It's conceivable that multiple creatures could provide 3/4 cover. It's even conceivable that a Large or Huge monster might provide total cover. But I feel like usually you could shoot between the legs or something.
They should probably have half cover.
You are trying to find a gap to a creature past two lines of other creatures. It is entirely the DMs decision how much cover that affords. While I would not say that gives full cover it is not an unreasonable ruling. You should not argue for a week over such things, just ask them how they decide whether you can see a target / how much cover they get. The DM should be consistent, if you can not cast a spell because they are behind full cover, they should not be able to target you.
And wherever are you going to find a gap between 2-4 people moving around 5 feet away from each other? If they were squeezed into the same space shoulder to shoulder, then sure. But this is basically asking if creatures in a room can be seen through the doorway (except the door moves a little).
He is correct in the RAW because the books say he gets to determine it. He's probably wrong in the 'fairplay angle' because full cover from a creature doesn't make sense whatsoever unless they very literally occupy the entirety of the square they're in.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This is probably one of those "mission failed successfully" opportunities for you and your group. If your DM has dug their feet in that two adjacent creatures provide full cover, or even that two adjacent creatures in combat with two other adjacent creatures provides full cover... I think that the players are going to have a lot more opportunities to strategically exploit that ruling and weaponize it vs. the DM than vice versa. Hello total safety for your backline casters! Hello easy hiding for your rogue!
As the others said, half cover is almost mandatory in that setup, 3/4 would probably be fair since we're talking about more than one row of intervening creatures, but total is probably pushing it for most tables (but within your DM's right).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I completely agree with C_C. Anything that completely stops your spells also completely stops incoming spells and weapon attacks. The best move here is:
Thank you for all these answers, I am going to sit down before the next session and have a "civil" chat with the DM. This is his first D&D TTRPG so it's a learning curve for him.
Will put across some of the different points of view and see if he prefers one over the other or if he wants to keep it to his way, which is making it VERY hard as a caster in his game.
Thanks once again for the input everyone!
Will let you know how it goes!
One other item to consider: is all your combat on a flat plane? because creature creating conditions of cover can be lessened by finding high ground where you can better see over them as well. (this might reduce or remove the cover provided by intervening creatures, depending on how high up you are)
We use cover modifiers pretty heavily. We also play on a VTT so, we can easily see how our movements affect line of sight. I would advise both strategic positioning and picking some spells that work off something other than aimed spell attacks or DEX saves.
Picking other offensive spells wouldn't help at all. The targets aren't getting half or 3/4 cover (and aren't getting a bonus to AC or Dex saves), they're getting total cover, which blocks all spell targeting - forget about switching away from Dex saves to something like Int saves, the enemy backline is also immune to magic missile, which isn't an attack, literally can't miss, isn't saveable, and accordingly can't be shrugged off even with legendary resistance. Strategic positioning might help, but assuming the math is 1 intervening creature = 1/2 cover and 2 intervening creatures = total cover, minionmancy would help even more - just bring your own total cover to the party that steps out of the way when you don't want it and steps back into the way when you do.
I personally think its a fair ruling. I tend to go with 3/4 cover in this scenario rather than full cover, but depending on the size of the players/monsters total cover could be appropriate. If the DM was playing by the same rules with his monsters in this combat, there isn't really an issue imo.
Also think the most obvious answer is to move to a position where you have a better chance to his, and this rule only becomes an issue in a corridor.
You can fire a Fireball or similar shaped spell off to the side and hit all of them.
They can hold their actions and attack when your minions step out of the way. Players can do the same.
Something you can potentially do as a caster is cast APE spells above the target. If you eyes are 5ft above the ground and a creature 7ft tall 20ft away is providing the cover you should still be able to cast fireball 9ft above the ground, 40ft away.
Something to raise in you civil chat.
To block an entire 5ft space they'd need to be at least 5ft wide. Possible? Yes. Likely? No
If they're humanoid targets, the average width of a woman is like 14 inches and an man is roughly 16 inches, this is at their widest point, the shoulders. It would take at least 3 or 4 humanoids standing shoulder to shoulder to entirely block line of sight at just shoulder height, probably 5 tbh. So if they had billowing robes and capes draping all the way to the ground, then, there you go. But, that's all of them crammed shoulder to shoulder inside the same exact space. And, at least 3 or 4 of them, not just 2. For 2? They'd need to be 30 inches wide, fully twice the normal width of a person.
In combat, you're moving around, so you'd need them to somehow block all vision beyond them while they're chaotically shuffling around and not actually next to one another, a far most challenging feat. One way to visualize how much of a 5ft space a person actually occupies is to imagine a guy with his arms straight out to the sides, spinning in place. That area he is spinning though is roughly the top of a 5ft space. How easy would it be to see past him? Very.
So, fair ruling? Maybe. Unlikely. But maybe. If they're 3ft+ wide and barrel shaped creatures.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Maybe read my post again…? :) I did stipulate that my answer would depend on the size and type of enemy.
I read it fine the first time, thanks. Do you often fight 3ft wide barrels? or, even more relevant, since it was his party members blocking him... do you adventure alongside 3ft wide barrels?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Why are you intent on arguing with me? It depends on the monsters involved. I’m not suggesting your slinky unarmored adventurers are in the way, but a well armoured Goliath and another bulky creature? Sure.
With two “normal” monsters in the way, they’re not making a solid wall, hence me saying I’d rather go three quarters cover, but I understand the argument that with them moving during combat might make it impossible to aim a spell or arrow through their spaces. Combatants appear static when using a grid, but remember they’re constantly moving within that 5ft space and clashing against each other.