Hitting Cover variant rule - impossible to hit the covering creature?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












After reading the optional rule of Hitting Cover, it strikes me that the rule is flawed.



The Hitting Cover variant rule states (DMG 272):




When a ranged attack misses a target that has cover,
you can use this optional rule to determine whether the
cover was struck by the attack.



First, determine whether the attack roll would have
hit the protected target without the cover. If the attack
roll falls within a range low enough to miss the target
but high enough to strike the target if there had been
no cover, the object used for cover is struck.



If a creature
is providing cover for the missed creature and the
attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the
covering creature is hit.




Case



So imagine that I want to hit a target, behind an other creature.
For simplicity, we refer the target as: "target", and the creature who is covering the target as: "creature".



The target has an AC of 16, and receive's a bonus of +2 due to half cover.



The creature has an AC of 18.



Example



I roll to attack the target, and roll a 17.



I hit the target without cover, but I do not hit the target with cover: so I hit the object that is used for cover. (16 < 17 < 18)



But since my attack roll is lower that the creature's AC (17 < 18), I miss him.



Conclusion



Is it not possible at all to hit the creature, as long as the creature has +2 AC of the target?










share|improve this question





















  • Are you asking about this specific case of ACs 18/16 or in general with the rule?
    – NautArch
    44 mins ago















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












After reading the optional rule of Hitting Cover, it strikes me that the rule is flawed.



The Hitting Cover variant rule states (DMG 272):




When a ranged attack misses a target that has cover,
you can use this optional rule to determine whether the
cover was struck by the attack.



First, determine whether the attack roll would have
hit the protected target without the cover. If the attack
roll falls within a range low enough to miss the target
but high enough to strike the target if there had been
no cover, the object used for cover is struck.



If a creature
is providing cover for the missed creature and the
attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the
covering creature is hit.




Case



So imagine that I want to hit a target, behind an other creature.
For simplicity, we refer the target as: "target", and the creature who is covering the target as: "creature".



The target has an AC of 16, and receive's a bonus of +2 due to half cover.



The creature has an AC of 18.



Example



I roll to attack the target, and roll a 17.



I hit the target without cover, but I do not hit the target with cover: so I hit the object that is used for cover. (16 < 17 < 18)



But since my attack roll is lower that the creature's AC (17 < 18), I miss him.



Conclusion



Is it not possible at all to hit the creature, as long as the creature has +2 AC of the target?










share|improve this question





















  • Are you asking about this specific case of ACs 18/16 or in general with the rule?
    – NautArch
    44 mins ago













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











After reading the optional rule of Hitting Cover, it strikes me that the rule is flawed.



The Hitting Cover variant rule states (DMG 272):




When a ranged attack misses a target that has cover,
you can use this optional rule to determine whether the
cover was struck by the attack.



First, determine whether the attack roll would have
hit the protected target without the cover. If the attack
roll falls within a range low enough to miss the target
but high enough to strike the target if there had been
no cover, the object used for cover is struck.



If a creature
is providing cover for the missed creature and the
attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the
covering creature is hit.




Case



So imagine that I want to hit a target, behind an other creature.
For simplicity, we refer the target as: "target", and the creature who is covering the target as: "creature".



The target has an AC of 16, and receive's a bonus of +2 due to half cover.



The creature has an AC of 18.



Example



I roll to attack the target, and roll a 17.



I hit the target without cover, but I do not hit the target with cover: so I hit the object that is used for cover. (16 < 17 < 18)



But since my attack roll is lower that the creature's AC (17 < 18), I miss him.



Conclusion



Is it not possible at all to hit the creature, as long as the creature has +2 AC of the target?










share|improve this question













After reading the optional rule of Hitting Cover, it strikes me that the rule is flawed.



The Hitting Cover variant rule states (DMG 272):




When a ranged attack misses a target that has cover,
you can use this optional rule to determine whether the
cover was struck by the attack.



First, determine whether the attack roll would have
hit the protected target without the cover. If the attack
roll falls within a range low enough to miss the target
but high enough to strike the target if there had been
no cover, the object used for cover is struck.



If a creature
is providing cover for the missed creature and the
attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the
covering creature is hit.




Case



So imagine that I want to hit a target, behind an other creature.
For simplicity, we refer the target as: "target", and the creature who is covering the target as: "creature".



The target has an AC of 16, and receive's a bonus of +2 due to half cover.



The creature has an AC of 18.



Example



I roll to attack the target, and roll a 17.



I hit the target without cover, but I do not hit the target with cover: so I hit the object that is used for cover. (16 < 17 < 18)



But since my attack roll is lower that the creature's AC (17 < 18), I miss him.



Conclusion



Is it not possible at all to hit the creature, as long as the creature has +2 AC of the target?







dnd-5e cover






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 53 mins ago









Inferno IV

5241314




5241314











  • Are you asking about this specific case of ACs 18/16 or in general with the rule?
    – NautArch
    44 mins ago

















  • Are you asking about this specific case of ACs 18/16 or in general with the rule?
    – NautArch
    44 mins ago
















Are you asking about this specific case of ACs 18/16 or in general with the rule?
– NautArch
44 mins ago





Are you asking about this specific case of ACs 18/16 or in general with the rule?
– NautArch
44 mins ago











3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote



accepted










Your conclusion is correct.



If the Cover's AC is too great, then it won't be possible to hit the Cover incidentally while trying to attack the covered creature. Either you'll roll high enough to hit the Covered Creature, or you'll roll just barely low enough that it'll miss both. In that situation, if you wanted the cover to take damage, you should be targeting it directly.



The rule is mostly designed to handle objects like Walls, where their AC is usually pretty low and intended to crumble + break when used as cover. Obviously, it applies to creatures as well, which means a lot of high AC creatures straight-up cannot be hit if they're not being directly targeted, but that generally makes sense: if a covered creature has an AC of 12+2==14, and gets missed by a 13, you wouldn't expect that to target the Covering Creature with an AC of 20, since that would lead to that creature being inexplicably easier to target just because they have an object behind them. That doesn't make much sense.






share|improve this answer



























    up vote
    5
    down vote













    Missing AC just means you dealt no damage it doesn't mean you didn't hit



    Failing to hit, or 'missing' a target's AC, is just an abstraction to indicate that you did not deal damage to the target. How this occurs varies significantly based on each character, but take the following example for a Barbarian whose AC is 10 + Dex + Con:



    Bruto the Barbarian's nips won't quit and has an AC of 18 because his Dex and Con modifiers are both +4. If you shoot an arrow at Bruto and beat an AC of 10, but not 14 Bruto may've simply juked out of the way. If you beat an AC of 14, but not 18, you shot Bruto, but his scarred and calloused body provides a thick hide which your arrow could not effectively penetrate. If you beat an AC of 18, good job! You made Bruto bleed his own blood and he might be kind enough to bring the arrow back to you.



    Other characters in heavy armor get to enjoy the benefits of that armor as attacks clang off them ineffectively. While characters in light armor and dex based characters may evade attacks on them or parry them aside.



    Regardless, the attack has failed to do damage because you failed to beat the target's AC.




    To clarify a bit further, there's a 'hit' and a 'Hit'; the former means you hit something somehow and is mostly just narrative, while the latter means you hit something in a manner that deals damage per the rules. In some situations those terms are synonymous, but not necessarily. Furthermore, there's a 'miss' and a 'Miss', which are usually synonymous but the latter is a rule term indicating a failure to hit a target's AC and might have specific rule implications.



    So in the cited portion of the rules you quoted, "...the covering creature is hit." But the covering creature wasn't Hit, so no damage is not necessarily dealt.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 2




      You may want to clarify that there's a difference between a hit and a Hit; Mechanically, if you fail to get an attack roll above a target's AC, you Miss them, and effects which depend on "when you Hit a creature" do not trigger. Narratively/Flavorwise, you might very well land a glancing blow that doesn't cause harm, or hit the armor, causing no damage, but in terms of the game mechanics, you simply miss. As written, the header on this answer could be misleading.
      – Xirema
      19 mins ago










    • @Xirema Good point, added.
      – Pyrotechnical
      11 mins ago

















    up vote
    2
    down vote













    The Hitting Cover variant rule may have been designed with non-living cover in mind (i.e. walls or trees) but your scenario doesn't necessarily 'break' it.



    A creature's AC is a pretty abstract concept used to determine whether your attack causes damage, but if you swing your sword at a target and miss you can easily interpret that miss as either swinging wide or your sword glancing off the target's armour.



    D&D is pretty free with how you interpret the abstract combat rules.



    So in your scenario, your weapon misses the original target and "hits" the creature being used for cover. But since you still don't overcome that creature's AC, it harmlessly deflects off their armour (or scales).






    share|improve this answer




















      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "122"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135040%2fhitting-cover-variant-rule-impossible-to-hit-the-covering-creature%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest






























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      4
      down vote



      accepted










      Your conclusion is correct.



      If the Cover's AC is too great, then it won't be possible to hit the Cover incidentally while trying to attack the covered creature. Either you'll roll high enough to hit the Covered Creature, or you'll roll just barely low enough that it'll miss both. In that situation, if you wanted the cover to take damage, you should be targeting it directly.



      The rule is mostly designed to handle objects like Walls, where their AC is usually pretty low and intended to crumble + break when used as cover. Obviously, it applies to creatures as well, which means a lot of high AC creatures straight-up cannot be hit if they're not being directly targeted, but that generally makes sense: if a covered creature has an AC of 12+2==14, and gets missed by a 13, you wouldn't expect that to target the Covering Creature with an AC of 20, since that would lead to that creature being inexplicably easier to target just because they have an object behind them. That doesn't make much sense.






      share|improve this answer
























        up vote
        4
        down vote



        accepted










        Your conclusion is correct.



        If the Cover's AC is too great, then it won't be possible to hit the Cover incidentally while trying to attack the covered creature. Either you'll roll high enough to hit the Covered Creature, or you'll roll just barely low enough that it'll miss both. In that situation, if you wanted the cover to take damage, you should be targeting it directly.



        The rule is mostly designed to handle objects like Walls, where their AC is usually pretty low and intended to crumble + break when used as cover. Obviously, it applies to creatures as well, which means a lot of high AC creatures straight-up cannot be hit if they're not being directly targeted, but that generally makes sense: if a covered creature has an AC of 12+2==14, and gets missed by a 13, you wouldn't expect that to target the Covering Creature with an AC of 20, since that would lead to that creature being inexplicably easier to target just because they have an object behind them. That doesn't make much sense.






        share|improve this answer






















          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted






          Your conclusion is correct.



          If the Cover's AC is too great, then it won't be possible to hit the Cover incidentally while trying to attack the covered creature. Either you'll roll high enough to hit the Covered Creature, or you'll roll just barely low enough that it'll miss both. In that situation, if you wanted the cover to take damage, you should be targeting it directly.



          The rule is mostly designed to handle objects like Walls, where their AC is usually pretty low and intended to crumble + break when used as cover. Obviously, it applies to creatures as well, which means a lot of high AC creatures straight-up cannot be hit if they're not being directly targeted, but that generally makes sense: if a covered creature has an AC of 12+2==14, and gets missed by a 13, you wouldn't expect that to target the Covering Creature with an AC of 20, since that would lead to that creature being inexplicably easier to target just because they have an object behind them. That doesn't make much sense.






          share|improve this answer












          Your conclusion is correct.



          If the Cover's AC is too great, then it won't be possible to hit the Cover incidentally while trying to attack the covered creature. Either you'll roll high enough to hit the Covered Creature, or you'll roll just barely low enough that it'll miss both. In that situation, if you wanted the cover to take damage, you should be targeting it directly.



          The rule is mostly designed to handle objects like Walls, where their AC is usually pretty low and intended to crumble + break when used as cover. Obviously, it applies to creatures as well, which means a lot of high AC creatures straight-up cannot be hit if they're not being directly targeted, but that generally makes sense: if a covered creature has an AC of 12+2==14, and gets missed by a 13, you wouldn't expect that to target the Covering Creature with an AC of 20, since that would lead to that creature being inexplicably easier to target just because they have an object behind them. That doesn't make much sense.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 34 mins ago









          Xirema

          10.5k13169




          10.5k13169






















              up vote
              5
              down vote













              Missing AC just means you dealt no damage it doesn't mean you didn't hit



              Failing to hit, or 'missing' a target's AC, is just an abstraction to indicate that you did not deal damage to the target. How this occurs varies significantly based on each character, but take the following example for a Barbarian whose AC is 10 + Dex + Con:



              Bruto the Barbarian's nips won't quit and has an AC of 18 because his Dex and Con modifiers are both +4. If you shoot an arrow at Bruto and beat an AC of 10, but not 14 Bruto may've simply juked out of the way. If you beat an AC of 14, but not 18, you shot Bruto, but his scarred and calloused body provides a thick hide which your arrow could not effectively penetrate. If you beat an AC of 18, good job! You made Bruto bleed his own blood and he might be kind enough to bring the arrow back to you.



              Other characters in heavy armor get to enjoy the benefits of that armor as attacks clang off them ineffectively. While characters in light armor and dex based characters may evade attacks on them or parry them aside.



              Regardless, the attack has failed to do damage because you failed to beat the target's AC.




              To clarify a bit further, there's a 'hit' and a 'Hit'; the former means you hit something somehow and is mostly just narrative, while the latter means you hit something in a manner that deals damage per the rules. In some situations those terms are synonymous, but not necessarily. Furthermore, there's a 'miss' and a 'Miss', which are usually synonymous but the latter is a rule term indicating a failure to hit a target's AC and might have specific rule implications.



              So in the cited portion of the rules you quoted, "...the covering creature is hit." But the covering creature wasn't Hit, so no damage is not necessarily dealt.






              share|improve this answer


















              • 2




                You may want to clarify that there's a difference between a hit and a Hit; Mechanically, if you fail to get an attack roll above a target's AC, you Miss them, and effects which depend on "when you Hit a creature" do not trigger. Narratively/Flavorwise, you might very well land a glancing blow that doesn't cause harm, or hit the armor, causing no damage, but in terms of the game mechanics, you simply miss. As written, the header on this answer could be misleading.
                – Xirema
                19 mins ago










              • @Xirema Good point, added.
                – Pyrotechnical
                11 mins ago














              up vote
              5
              down vote













              Missing AC just means you dealt no damage it doesn't mean you didn't hit



              Failing to hit, or 'missing' a target's AC, is just an abstraction to indicate that you did not deal damage to the target. How this occurs varies significantly based on each character, but take the following example for a Barbarian whose AC is 10 + Dex + Con:



              Bruto the Barbarian's nips won't quit and has an AC of 18 because his Dex and Con modifiers are both +4. If you shoot an arrow at Bruto and beat an AC of 10, but not 14 Bruto may've simply juked out of the way. If you beat an AC of 14, but not 18, you shot Bruto, but his scarred and calloused body provides a thick hide which your arrow could not effectively penetrate. If you beat an AC of 18, good job! You made Bruto bleed his own blood and he might be kind enough to bring the arrow back to you.



              Other characters in heavy armor get to enjoy the benefits of that armor as attacks clang off them ineffectively. While characters in light armor and dex based characters may evade attacks on them or parry them aside.



              Regardless, the attack has failed to do damage because you failed to beat the target's AC.




              To clarify a bit further, there's a 'hit' and a 'Hit'; the former means you hit something somehow and is mostly just narrative, while the latter means you hit something in a manner that deals damage per the rules. In some situations those terms are synonymous, but not necessarily. Furthermore, there's a 'miss' and a 'Miss', which are usually synonymous but the latter is a rule term indicating a failure to hit a target's AC and might have specific rule implications.



              So in the cited portion of the rules you quoted, "...the covering creature is hit." But the covering creature wasn't Hit, so no damage is not necessarily dealt.






              share|improve this answer


















              • 2




                You may want to clarify that there's a difference between a hit and a Hit; Mechanically, if you fail to get an attack roll above a target's AC, you Miss them, and effects which depend on "when you Hit a creature" do not trigger. Narratively/Flavorwise, you might very well land a glancing blow that doesn't cause harm, or hit the armor, causing no damage, but in terms of the game mechanics, you simply miss. As written, the header on this answer could be misleading.
                – Xirema
                19 mins ago










              • @Xirema Good point, added.
                – Pyrotechnical
                11 mins ago












              up vote
              5
              down vote










              up vote
              5
              down vote









              Missing AC just means you dealt no damage it doesn't mean you didn't hit



              Failing to hit, or 'missing' a target's AC, is just an abstraction to indicate that you did not deal damage to the target. How this occurs varies significantly based on each character, but take the following example for a Barbarian whose AC is 10 + Dex + Con:



              Bruto the Barbarian's nips won't quit and has an AC of 18 because his Dex and Con modifiers are both +4. If you shoot an arrow at Bruto and beat an AC of 10, but not 14 Bruto may've simply juked out of the way. If you beat an AC of 14, but not 18, you shot Bruto, but his scarred and calloused body provides a thick hide which your arrow could not effectively penetrate. If you beat an AC of 18, good job! You made Bruto bleed his own blood and he might be kind enough to bring the arrow back to you.



              Other characters in heavy armor get to enjoy the benefits of that armor as attacks clang off them ineffectively. While characters in light armor and dex based characters may evade attacks on them or parry them aside.



              Regardless, the attack has failed to do damage because you failed to beat the target's AC.




              To clarify a bit further, there's a 'hit' and a 'Hit'; the former means you hit something somehow and is mostly just narrative, while the latter means you hit something in a manner that deals damage per the rules. In some situations those terms are synonymous, but not necessarily. Furthermore, there's a 'miss' and a 'Miss', which are usually synonymous but the latter is a rule term indicating a failure to hit a target's AC and might have specific rule implications.



              So in the cited portion of the rules you quoted, "...the covering creature is hit." But the covering creature wasn't Hit, so no damage is not necessarily dealt.






              share|improve this answer














              Missing AC just means you dealt no damage it doesn't mean you didn't hit



              Failing to hit, or 'missing' a target's AC, is just an abstraction to indicate that you did not deal damage to the target. How this occurs varies significantly based on each character, but take the following example for a Barbarian whose AC is 10 + Dex + Con:



              Bruto the Barbarian's nips won't quit and has an AC of 18 because his Dex and Con modifiers are both +4. If you shoot an arrow at Bruto and beat an AC of 10, but not 14 Bruto may've simply juked out of the way. If you beat an AC of 14, but not 18, you shot Bruto, but his scarred and calloused body provides a thick hide which your arrow could not effectively penetrate. If you beat an AC of 18, good job! You made Bruto bleed his own blood and he might be kind enough to bring the arrow back to you.



              Other characters in heavy armor get to enjoy the benefits of that armor as attacks clang off them ineffectively. While characters in light armor and dex based characters may evade attacks on them or parry them aside.



              Regardless, the attack has failed to do damage because you failed to beat the target's AC.




              To clarify a bit further, there's a 'hit' and a 'Hit'; the former means you hit something somehow and is mostly just narrative, while the latter means you hit something in a manner that deals damage per the rules. In some situations those terms are synonymous, but not necessarily. Furthermore, there's a 'miss' and a 'Miss', which are usually synonymous but the latter is a rule term indicating a failure to hit a target's AC and might have specific rule implications.



              So in the cited portion of the rules you quoted, "...the covering creature is hit." But the covering creature wasn't Hit, so no damage is not necessarily dealt.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited 12 mins ago

























              answered 42 mins ago









              Pyrotechnical

              13.5k350127




              13.5k350127







              • 2




                You may want to clarify that there's a difference between a hit and a Hit; Mechanically, if you fail to get an attack roll above a target's AC, you Miss them, and effects which depend on "when you Hit a creature" do not trigger. Narratively/Flavorwise, you might very well land a glancing blow that doesn't cause harm, or hit the armor, causing no damage, but in terms of the game mechanics, you simply miss. As written, the header on this answer could be misleading.
                – Xirema
                19 mins ago










              • @Xirema Good point, added.
                – Pyrotechnical
                11 mins ago












              • 2




                You may want to clarify that there's a difference between a hit and a Hit; Mechanically, if you fail to get an attack roll above a target's AC, you Miss them, and effects which depend on "when you Hit a creature" do not trigger. Narratively/Flavorwise, you might very well land a glancing blow that doesn't cause harm, or hit the armor, causing no damage, but in terms of the game mechanics, you simply miss. As written, the header on this answer could be misleading.
                – Xirema
                19 mins ago










              • @Xirema Good point, added.
                – Pyrotechnical
                11 mins ago







              2




              2




              You may want to clarify that there's a difference between a hit and a Hit; Mechanically, if you fail to get an attack roll above a target's AC, you Miss them, and effects which depend on "when you Hit a creature" do not trigger. Narratively/Flavorwise, you might very well land a glancing blow that doesn't cause harm, or hit the armor, causing no damage, but in terms of the game mechanics, you simply miss. As written, the header on this answer could be misleading.
              – Xirema
              19 mins ago




              You may want to clarify that there's a difference between a hit and a Hit; Mechanically, if you fail to get an attack roll above a target's AC, you Miss them, and effects which depend on "when you Hit a creature" do not trigger. Narratively/Flavorwise, you might very well land a glancing blow that doesn't cause harm, or hit the armor, causing no damage, but in terms of the game mechanics, you simply miss. As written, the header on this answer could be misleading.
              – Xirema
              19 mins ago












              @Xirema Good point, added.
              – Pyrotechnical
              11 mins ago




              @Xirema Good point, added.
              – Pyrotechnical
              11 mins ago










              up vote
              2
              down vote













              The Hitting Cover variant rule may have been designed with non-living cover in mind (i.e. walls or trees) but your scenario doesn't necessarily 'break' it.



              A creature's AC is a pretty abstract concept used to determine whether your attack causes damage, but if you swing your sword at a target and miss you can easily interpret that miss as either swinging wide or your sword glancing off the target's armour.



              D&D is pretty free with how you interpret the abstract combat rules.



              So in your scenario, your weapon misses the original target and "hits" the creature being used for cover. But since you still don't overcome that creature's AC, it harmlessly deflects off their armour (or scales).






              share|improve this answer
























                up vote
                2
                down vote













                The Hitting Cover variant rule may have been designed with non-living cover in mind (i.e. walls or trees) but your scenario doesn't necessarily 'break' it.



                A creature's AC is a pretty abstract concept used to determine whether your attack causes damage, but if you swing your sword at a target and miss you can easily interpret that miss as either swinging wide or your sword glancing off the target's armour.



                D&D is pretty free with how you interpret the abstract combat rules.



                So in your scenario, your weapon misses the original target and "hits" the creature being used for cover. But since you still don't overcome that creature's AC, it harmlessly deflects off their armour (or scales).






                share|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote









                  The Hitting Cover variant rule may have been designed with non-living cover in mind (i.e. walls or trees) but your scenario doesn't necessarily 'break' it.



                  A creature's AC is a pretty abstract concept used to determine whether your attack causes damage, but if you swing your sword at a target and miss you can easily interpret that miss as either swinging wide or your sword glancing off the target's armour.



                  D&D is pretty free with how you interpret the abstract combat rules.



                  So in your scenario, your weapon misses the original target and "hits" the creature being used for cover. But since you still don't overcome that creature's AC, it harmlessly deflects off their armour (or scales).






                  share|improve this answer












                  The Hitting Cover variant rule may have been designed with non-living cover in mind (i.e. walls or trees) but your scenario doesn't necessarily 'break' it.



                  A creature's AC is a pretty abstract concept used to determine whether your attack causes damage, but if you swing your sword at a target and miss you can easily interpret that miss as either swinging wide or your sword glancing off the target's armour.



                  D&D is pretty free with how you interpret the abstract combat rules.



                  So in your scenario, your weapon misses the original target and "hits" the creature being used for cover. But since you still don't overcome that creature's AC, it harmlessly deflects off their armour (or scales).







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 41 mins ago









                  PJRZ

                  6,2011435




                  6,2011435



























                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135040%2fhitting-cover-variant-rule-impossible-to-hit-the-covering-creature%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest













































































                      Comments

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      What does second last employer means? [closed]

                      Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

                      One-line joke