Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Mariozi Jan 25, 2015 14:06:25	Hi all,   I was looking and reading about the DM Screen Art and I was wondering on the chances of that ranger hitting the dragon and I came to this riddle:    You spot an elk (large), a goat (medium), and a rat (tiny) at 100 feet away... Great vision fir the rat. Which one is easier/harder to hit with a long bow?   I think it's about the bounded accuracy, but it looked weird to me. Any thoughts? Did I miss something?   Mariozi
#2 AaronOfBarbaria Jan 25, 2015 15:23:07	That entirely depends on what intervening conditions are present.   The elk is less likely to have cover/concealment because it is larger, so you are likely aiming just for its AC of 10. The goat being a bit smaller than the elk is more likely to have some cover/concealment and probably has a +2 AC because of it for an adjusted AC of 12. The rat is small enough to very likely have cover or concealment to such a degree that if you can even target it at all, it likely has a +5 AC for an adjust AC of 15.   Of course, in a more concealment-heavy environment like a forest, you might find that you can't even see the rat (can't target it), the goat has 3/4 cover (15 AC), and the elk has 1/2 cover (12 AC).
#3 El_Condoro Jan 26, 2015 4:13:57	Mariozi makes an interesting point, if I have his intention straight: there is no provision for size affecting the 'to hit' chance of ranged weapons. If a dragon and a rat had the same AC for a melee attack they have the same AC for ranged attack, although the rat (assuming they are both in the open with no environmental modifiers) would normally be harder to hit with a ranged weapon at 100 ft., as per the example given. The DM could impose a modifier such as disadvantage on hitting the rat, but that would be a ruling rather than a rule.
#4 QwertyAzerty Jan 26, 2015 7:33:41	back in 3.X edition, you had size modifier:   small gave you +1AC and +1 to attack roll (also small where giving you +2Dex and -2 strenght compare to the same creatue medium size), the monster manual had a convertion table to make any monster bigger or smaller and how to adjust it for it.   Small player race (halfling, gnome), in the racial feature entry, for "small" was giving them +1AC, +1 on all attack roll, +4 on stealth IIRC, which was great for some class and bad for other. But you also had different weapon size (a small longsword would deal only 1d6 damage, and a small shortsword was dealing 1d4 etc...).   I really liked this, but I guess it was making it too complex for new player.   If you want to integrate those rule in 5e remember that now your AC formula are going to be Base armor value+dex+size Mage armor/dragonbloodline sorcerer= 13+dex+size Barbarian=10+dex+con+size Monk=10+dex+con+size.   And you need to adjust the monster AC to reflect htere size as well.   But like Aaron said, you already have the "size modifier" included in how easy it is to get cover/concealment.
(Reply to #3) Coredump00	El_Condoro wrote:
#6 Mariozi Jan 26, 2015 11:04:00	Yeah, its more like Conodoro said...   Interesting how designers left size modifiers out, relying on bounded accuracy for this.   I guess they would say that even though the Elk should be easier to hit, his tougher skin (compared to the rat) would compensate that...   I dont know... How do you guys run this?
#7 RenoGM Jan 26, 2015 11:07:38	I think the designers (with playtester input) went out of their way to eliminate nickel and dime modifiers like this. It is the number one reason why 5th edition has so quickly become my favorite edition. If it seems like a big enough factor for advantage then great, use it. If not it doesn't really matter.
#8 Illithidbix Jan 26, 2015 11:09:19	Thing is "rolling to hit" isn't just about making contact, it's also about hitting somewhere that does damage. Big creatures might be easy to hit, but tend to have pretty tough hides. I already kinda think it's been factored in given how low the AC for large monsters Griffons and Wyverns are this edition   Which is why it's easier to "hit" a rogue with DEX:20 who just wearing their pants than it is to hit a Knight in Plate armour.   As has already been pointed out, the rat will find getting cover or concealment alot easier than the elk.   I also tend to assume that AC applies when in "meaningful combat" or similar tense situation. Which shooting a rat *probably isn't* (although it could be a evil druid/wizard/princess trying to make a run for it I suppose...)   Yep, sometimes the rules leads to sillyness, esp given disadvantage doesn't stack, but I tend to assume that even 1st level characters are pretty much superhuman anyway.