Size matters - or it should when dealing with cover

There needs to be a size clause regarding cover. AKA if a medium PC has 3/4 cover behind lets say a boulder then his buddy the halfling (AKA small creature) should have total cover behind the same boulder. If they are fighting an Ogre and he gets on the other side of the boulder he shouldn't have more than say 1/2 cover.

AKA all cover is not created equal. In fact these is almost nothing short of a house or large hillside that should provide cover for full grown Dragon.

So I was thinking a simple additional note to the cover rules stating:

For each size catagory smaller than the creature currrently receiving cover from an object increase the cover by one factor (AKA 1/2 cover for a medium creature is 3/4 cover for a small creature and total cover for tiny creature).
For each size atagory larger than the creature currrently receiving cover from an object decrease the cover by one factor (AKA 3/4 cover for a medium creature is 1/2 cover for a large creature and no cover for a huge or bigger creature) 

This isn't really a session feedback, so I'll move it to Playtest Packet Discussion.


Sorry I had it in player playtest feedback because it had come up as a question in combat with various sized creatures when they were swapping the same cover position. Move it to where you feel it should be though.
The rules in place already cover this.  Half cover is, as written, when "an obstacle blocks at least half of its body."  Likewise, three-quarters cover is "if about three-quarters of it is covered by an obstacle."

So a medium rock could be full cover for a very small halfling and only half cover for a human according to these rules.

Edit:  Page 15 on How to Play (1/28 packet)
Yeah I hear ya Chipossabuns but it seems to implied or inferred and I know how that can cause long discussions sometimes at the gaming table. Not really asking for a rule change more of rule comment clarification to be added. As they said they are trying to expand explanations and descriptions of rules.
I agree with dbmoore.  Only because I have experience with these kinds of situations and wordings that it may cause some unneeded problems.  Chipossabuns points out that the wording for each of the different cover categories mentions it being a factor of relative size, and you're right, but this part of the text seems like fluff, and therefore secondary to the mechanical effect.  People may just assume the context that it's all relative to a medium-sized creature (since most PC races are medium-sized).

Perhaps they should put in a note after Total Cover saying, roughly:

Different Sizes: Creatures of different size categories may benefit more, or less, from the same cover.  For example, a halfling and a human may be hiding behind the same rock where the halfling will benefit from 3/4 cover and the human will only benefit from 1/2 cover.

It's a relatively minor change and just adds further clarification to the whole section.
Bingo! thats all I'm asking for, a little clarification goes a long way with both new players getting the hang of things and long time players that can get bogged down with vague rules discussions.
I hope the game can avoid gratuitous rules, and computer codes of technicalities.

Seems to me, the main “requirements” are:
• You obviously can hide behind something
• You obviously cant hide behind something
• It is uncertain whether you can or cant, so make an ability check to hide, possibly with the advantage or disadvantage.

D&D tends to use Dexterity for Hiding, especially for sneaking around on foot.

But there me situations where using Wisdom is more helpful for Hiding, having a keen eye and perceiving the best locations to avoid detections by the keen senses of others. This includes camouflage.

Even Charisma can be important to “Hide” in a busy place, knowing how to not draw attention to oneself.

Ability checks seem able to resolve many challenges where skill, effort, or luck seem to be the solution.
I apologize if I caused any confusion with my previous post.  The clarification isn't for Stealth, but rather for the type of cover (1/2, 3/4, or Total) that you get based on your size category.  I used the example of "hiding," but I should have said "taking cover."

But I agree with the spirit of your response.  I like that we can use a variety of ability scores for certain overarching concepts (like Stealth).
Oh, that kind of cover. I see them as the same thing, except one kind of cover applies to “line of effect”, while the other kind of cover, the cover of darkness, applies to line of sight, only.

Anyway, same principle. A situation is either, Yes, No, or Maybe. If maybe, roll an ability check.
Sign In to post comments