According to the rules, both creatures and objects can provide Half-Cover, but only objects can provide Three-Quarters or Total Cover.
Half Cover: "Another creature or an object that covers at least half of the target" Three-Quarters: "An object that covers at least three-quarters of the target" Total Cover:"An object that covers the whole target"
So, regardless of how many creatures are between an attacker and a target, Half-Cover is the maximum cover provided by those creatures?
I'm just checking how others are playing, because in my group, creatures are treated the same as objects when determining cover.
I recall a similar thread where this was discussed. This was my answer at the time. The thread has an interesting conversation so it might be helpful for you.
According to the rules, in general another creature in the way will provide Half Cover:
Cover
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover, making a target more difficult to harm. As detailed in the Cover table, there are three degrees of cover, each of which gives a different benefit to a target.
A target can benefit from cover only when an attack or other effect originates on the opposite side of the 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.
@DnDSphinx your Dragon Talk podcast on targeting--very cool. Question: Do creatures block a 'clear path' for fireball? @JeremyECrawford Creatures don't provide total cover. @Cybren why not @JeremyECrawford Take a look at the rules on cover (PH, 196). A creature provides half cover. @Cybren wouldn't this be contingent on relative sizes of covering/covered? @JeremyECrawford Notice that the rule doesn't mention creature size. A creature's space isn't completely filled (space between limbs etc).
If nothing else, this is one of those things where a DM can override the general rule if they feel a particular case should be an exception. Overall, it seems a more reasonable approach than not.
If nothing else, this is one of those things where a DM can override the general rule if they feel a particular case should be an exception. Overall, it seems a more reasonable approach than not.
I think there are certain circumstances where you could rule that a creature is providing total cover.
Obvious example: You are one end of a hallway that is 10' wide and 10' high. There is a Archer at the other end. Between the two of you is a Gelatinous Cube.
Logically, there is no way for the Archer to shoot you with the Gelatinous Cube in the way, so you would have total cover from the Archer. This might not be exactly RAW, but I can't see many people arguing against this ruling.
Considering a Gelatinous Cube fills its entire space specifically, exceptional ruling more than Half Cover creatures generally provides seems appropriate to me in this case.
Thanks for your insights! It seems our group's approach to cover is rooted in D&D 3.5. Unlike later editions, D&D 3.5 treated creatures and obstacles identically for cover. D&D 3.5 did not have distinct cover categories, either it was cover or it wasn't.
According to the rules, both creatures and objects can provide Half-Cover, but only objects can provide Three-Quarters or Total Cover.
Half Cover: "Another creature or an object that covers at least half of the target"
Three-Quarters: "An object that covers at least three-quarters of the target"
Total Cover:"An object that covers the whole target"
So, regardless of how many creatures are between an attacker and a target, Half-Cover is the maximum cover provided by those creatures?
I'm just checking how others are playing, because in my group, creatures are treated the same as objects when determining cover.
I recall a similar thread where this was discussed. This was my answer at the time. The thread has an interesting conversation so it might be helpful for you.
And this is from the Dev:
If nothing else, this is one of those things where a DM can override the general rule if they feel a particular case should be an exception. Overall, it seems a more reasonable approach than not.
I think there are certain circumstances where you could rule that a creature is providing total cover.
Obvious example: You are one end of a hallway that is 10' wide and 10' high. There is a Archer at the other end. Between the two of you is a Gelatinous Cube.
Logically, there is no way for the Archer to shoot you with the Gelatinous Cube in the way, so you would have total cover from the Archer. This might not be exactly RAW, but I can't see many people arguing against this ruling.
Considering a Gelatinous Cube fills its entire space specifically, exceptional ruling more than Half Cover creatures generally provides seems appropriate to me in this case.
Thanks for your insights! It seems our group's approach to cover is rooted in D&D 3.5. Unlike later editions, D&D 3.5 treated creatures and obstacles identically for cover. D&D 3.5 did not have distinct cover categories, either it was cover or it wasn't.