[brombur]

Thankfully the rules are pretty clear about the effects of characters taking cover and being 100% behind obstacles but what are the rules(if any) for shooting at targets with obstacles between them and the shooter where there was no take cover action used. Here is my in game scenario and what I did


Player runs across the warehouse floor to toss an explosive into the back of the bad guys get away van. Once he completes the toss he turns to run back to the safety of the teams own vehicle but is short on movement and ends up exposed. Three gang members spring form hiding and open up on the runner. He was unaware and didn't take cover but isn't surprised. Based on the location of the shooters there was a vehicle in the line of fire for one and a metal staircase in the way of the other.   The runner was about 3 meters away from the car and the same from the staircase. I figured there would some penalty for having part of his body blocked and I applied the 2 dice modifier to the shooters. 

this is technically wrong and per the letter of the rules there should have been no mods, other than the runner's running target mod. Which should be a 4 dice swing? -2 to the shooters and +2 to the runner, again a rule that is fuzzy do to placement of the rules. 

Thanks for the input

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I think the overall aim of SR5 rules is to modify an action-taker by raising or lowering the threshold necessary for success, while the opposition in opposed tests gets modifications in the form of +/- to the dice pool.

Of course there are lots of exceptions where an action taker gets modifications in the form of +/- dice pool as well/instead... it can seem to be there's little rhyme or reason when consistency is violated.

[Jack_Spade]

In this specific case you'd use the visibility modifiers to simulate an obscured line of sight.

[Kiirnodel]

The way I've run it in the past was to downgrade the benefit of the cover one step when the defender hasn't specifically taken the action to "Take Cover". So if the defender is behind only partial cover they get no benefit, and good cover gives +2 dice on their defense. The reasoning being that they are still behind the cover but since they didn't take an action, they aren't using it to full effect. Another option would be to halve the benefit (so +1 for partial).

Visibility doesn't really cover it, because the visibility modifiers are for things like sight conditions. Smoke, for example, obscures vision but won't stop a bullet...

Lastly, I also want to point out that you are mistaken about the running modifier. Running gives the defender bonus defense dice if they are running. But the attacker only takes a penalty if they are running. You don't take a penalty on attack rolls if your target is moving.

[Reaver]

I have to be clear here, as there is a difference between line of sight and line fire.

This is important: You can "see" a target in lots of ways, but your line of fire is a direct line between you and the target. (Yes, there is such a thing as bullet drop, etc. not relative here)

If the line of fire is blocked then the cover rules apply in as best can be applied. (AKA: use your best judgement)

There is always the option to shoot THOUGH cover (which can be handy if the target is in complete cover, like on the other side of a wall). See Barriers in the CRB.

[Jack_Spade]

The way I've run it in the past was to downgrade the benefit of the cover one step when the defender hasn't specifically taken the action to "Take Cover". So if the defender is behind only partial cover they get no benefit, and good cover gives +2 dice on their defense. The reasoning being that they are still behind the cover but since they didn't take an action, they aren't using it to full effect. Another option would be to halve the benefit (so +1 for partial).

Visibility doesn't really cover it, because the visibility modifiers are for things like sight conditions. Smoke, for example, obscures vision but won't stop a bullet...

This is the old confusion about cover and concealment. Just because people can't see you well, doesn't mean you are in cover. Shooting through everyday barriers isn't particularly hard - you have to actively find a place where you are somewhat protected from bullets - the engine of a car or a barrel of water for example.
Gaining a bonus to defense requires an act on behalf of the target. In the described situation that's clearly not the case.

Concealment on the other hand is something that affects the shooter, in this case obscuring scenery. Bullets can still reach the target, even if it has to punch through a bit of metal or plastic first.

[Kiirnodel]

This is the old confusion about cover and concealment. Just because people can't see you well, doesn't mean you are in cover. Shooting through everyday barriers isn't particularly hard - you have to actively find a place where you are somewhat protected from bullets - the engine of a car or a barrel of water for example.
Gaining a bonus to defense requires an act on behalf of the target. In the described situation that's clearly not the case.

Concealment on the other hand is something that affects the shooter, in this case obscuring scenery. Bullets can still reach the target, even if it has to punch through a bit of metal or plastic first.

Well, first off, there isn't any modifier in the combat chapter for "Concealment" that modifies the attacker. If you're referring to the Visibility Environmental Modifier, that is very specifically referring to environmental conditions that broadly obscure vision, such as smoke, fog, or rain. The environmental modifiers don't deal with terrain/barriers at all.

And the cover rules don't actually require you to be taking cover behind a particular type of barrier. A paper wall and concrete slab will provide equal bonuses as far as the cover bonus is concerned for defense. The only thing it cares about is amount of body coverage. And it does bring in the rule that ties cause the attack to hit now (instead of miss) but the attack was through the barrier.

Now, I do agree that "Taking Cover" does require a willful act, which is why I suggested that just happening to be behind cover does not provide the same level of protection. But actively taking cover does not mystically make the terrain any more difficult to shoot through, and neither does not having taken cover make it easier to shoot through. Clearly, if you are going to apply some sort of penalty to the attacker for the target being concealed by terrain, it should apply any time terrain blocks sight... which is at least partially what the Take Cover action provides. That's why it gives a bigger bonus for being better/more cover. Which brings us full circle back around to why I would consider physical barriers to fall under the Cover rules.