AC to hit a location

[Kryx]

What is the AC to hit a location?


1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.

The PHB never seems to specify the AC of a location. DMG 246 covers typical AC of Objects. That is more to damage them, but I think it's very helpful in this mystery.

A cloth or paper object has AC 11. Cloth Armor is also AC 11 which tells me that cloth gives 1 AC (default AC is 10 for PCs). Therefore I'd be inclined to say that targeting a location is AC 10.

That would also work with the current bounded accuracy system. If a location was only AC 5 like old editions then any PC at level 1 will always hit it except on a 1 (2 prof + 3 stat = 5). If it were 10 then the PC would hit it 75% of the time not including cover. Over time they would hit it 95% of the time.

[Mellack]

I understand that to refer to spells that are save-based, such as web or fireball. You just aim those to hit a location, and it effects anyone (or anything) in that location.

[Yorrin]

Yeah, I'm going to go with the "you automatically hit an unoccupied location" interpretation.

[Grey Watcher]

Yeah, I'm going to go with the "you automatically hit an unoccupied location" interpretation.

I can see a few corner cases where it might be relevant. You have to toss the Evil MacGuffin into the Negative Space Wedgie to destroy it, but the bad guys are preventing you from just walking up and dropping it in. Handy to have a baseline for "what does it take to hit an arbitrary spot on the map?", and you can add modifier, (dis)advantage and such from there.

But yes, for most cases, a DC of "Yes" will suffice.

[Kryx]

Spells aren't really what I'm asking for. Well in the end, maybe, but that's not the main point.

An example would be an archer shooting a pressure point on the wall.


If it auto hits then please explain PHB 194. Attack rolls do not automatically hit. Step 3 says you make an attack roll.

[sophontteks]

just do a difficulty check against his weapon skill. You determine how hard it is. Unless its an exceptionally hard shot its probably not worth rolling. One can expect a proficient archer can reliably hit something the size of an archery target within his weapons range.

[eastmabl]

I would be inclined to believe that the base AC for an object is 10, with reasonable bonuses/penalties made for the size of the object.

Don't forget to award advantage for attacking objects when they are stationary.

[Kryx]

just do a difficulty check against his weapon skill.
Please refer to PHB 194 as I've now specified twice in this thread. It is an attack roll.

[sophontteks]

yeah your example is right back to an object, but I think looking for AC is a mistake in the first place. Its no different from using a grappling hook, or any other tool in the example you provided. Its a skill roll using the weapon as the tool. Works great, no memorizing AC of mundane things, easy to change on the fly based on other factors.

[sophontteks]

Please refer to PHB 194 as I've now specified twice in this thread. It is an attack roll.
I think when we're trying to determine the AC of literally nothing it doesn't hurt to be a little creative.

[MrStabby]

I got puzzled as the title made me think the band was going on tour.

So a stationary guy in heavy armour probably has an AC of about 18 and 1ft square of less protected area for an arrow to hit. I would roughly scale for about -3 DC for each extra square foot of size. This being within close range.

[Grey Watcher]

Spells aren't really what I'm asking for. Well in the end, maybe, but that's not the main point.

An example would be an archer shooting a pressure point on the wall.


If it auto hits then please explain PHB 194. Attack rolls do not automatically hit. Step 3 says you make an attack roll.

True. Pity 5E doesn't have official size modifiers to AC. AC 10 would be for hitting something roughly human sized. Maybe as small as a human child/halfling (again, the lack of size modifiers to AC). If you're hitting a pressure point on the wall, that's presumably something smaller, like the size of a tablet computer or smaller, so you have to figure out how many points on the DC it's worth to hit something smaller.

Still nothing stopping you from importing the 3E size modifiers as a guideline.

[Kryx]

Don't forget to award advantage for attacking objects when they are stationary.
Why? Incapacitated as the rationale? That doesn't really make sense when you look at all the examples of AC:
Giant Spider Web: AC 10
Bigby's Hand: AC 20
Mirror Image: AC 10+dex
Unseen Servant: AC 10
Wall of Ice: AC 12
Wall of Stone: AC 15
Bone of the Earth: AC 5
Wall of Water: AC 5

DMG 246 also lists
Cloth, paper, rope: AC 11
Crystal, glass, ice: AC 13
Wood, bone: AC 15
Stone: AC 17
Iron, Steel: AC 19
Mithral: AC 21
Adamantine: AC 23

No mention of advantage when the object isn't moving.




yeah your example is right back to an object, but I think looking for AC is a mistake in the first place. Its no different from using a grappling hook.
So if it was just a square then it is auto hit, but if something is there then there is an attack roll to determine if it hits? I'd expect PCs to walk around each room hitting the walls then.
A grappling hook has historically been a ranged attack roll. Unfortunately 5e PHB doesn't specify how it works.




I think when we're trying to determine the AC of literally nothing it doesn't hurt to be a little creative.
You're welcome to run it however you want, but that's not RAW or RAI as specified anywhere. PHB 194 shows the RAW that targeting a location requires an attack roll.

[sophontteks]

Your not quite getting this. There is no difference between what I'm saying and an attack. I can change the wording for you.
Make an attack against a difficulty DC of your choosing. That is what the rules state you to do when there isn't anything more specific available.

If you think the target is easy for the character to do, because its stationary and not very small then roll the attack against DC 10. If its smaller, or the shot is longer make it a DC 15. For exceptional shots like shooting the rope off a distant chandelier while distracted, roll something like a dc 20 or even 25.

This is fast, intuitive, and requires no memorization.

If you don't like that, its cool. I'll just drop it.

[CNagy]

Can't imagine what it'd be aside from AC 10. If you were trying to hit a location you could not see for whatever reason, disadvantage on the roll. I have to say, just reading the title of this thread gave me flashbacks to called shots and grenade-like attacks.

[Kryx]

Your not quite getting this. There is no difference between what I'm saying and an attack. I can change the wording for you.
Make an attack against a difficulty DC of your choosing. That is what the rules state you to do when there isn't anything more specific available.

If you think the target is easy for the character to do, because its stationary and not very small then roll the attack against DC 10. If its smaller, or the shot is longer make it a DC 15. For exceptional shots like shooting the rope off a distant chandelier while distracted, roll something like a dc 20 or even 25.
That's exactly how I'd run it as well.

However I'd like to discuss the semantics to understand your position. You said "That is what the rules state you to do when there isn't anything more specific available." - can you provide a quote for that? I'd like to understand what the PHB specifies. Currently it seems unspecified to me, hence this thread.

[bardo]

Hitting a floor tile 30 feet away is harder than hitting an average dex person standing on that floor tile [source: dodgeball]. The floor tile doesn't move, but the person has a lot more surface area facing towards you.

AC 10 sounds fair for a 5-foot area. Apply size modifiers based on the size of the area so a 10-foot area (Large) becomes AC 9. If it's a weapon attack give disadvantage beyond the weapon's normal range as usual. Give advantage when aiming at a wall, much easier to hit at a distance than the floor. I'd also give advantage for hitting the floor tile you're standing on, and all adjacent floor tiles.

Bardo.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm pretty sure that "location" in this context (under the Making an Attack heading) is simply referring to when you can't see your target. If you can't see your target, as if he were invisible for example, then you choose the location to attack. If the location you chose is incorrect, you automatically miss. If your location is correct, you then proceed to step 2, where you apply disadvantage because you can't see your target.
So a location doesn't have an AC. In this context, it refers to a location because sometimes you don't have a visible target to choose. You'd still use the target's AC for the attack, but if you choose the wrong location then it auto-misses.

[sophontteks]

Its under difficulty class in the DM handbook.

This is a lot to do with the changes between 5e and 3.5. 5e is focusing much more on open interpretation, and 'winging it', while 3.5 had specific rules and just about everything imaginable.

Its like how on the same page it mentions you can use an attack roll for things like an archery contest, but it doesn't specify how.

The further problem with trying to determine AC is that your not trying to destroy said object in your example. If the player wanted to destroy the stone pressure plate for some reason, then it has an AC of 17, but that's not representing whats going on.

[Kryx]

AC 10 sounds fair for a 5-foot area. Apply size modifiers based on the size of the area so a 10-foot area (Large) becomes AC 9. If it's a weapon attack give disadvantage beyond the weapon's normal range as usual. Give advantage when aiming at a wall, much easier to hit at a distance than the floor. I'd also give advantage for hitting the floor tile you're standing on, and all adjacent floor tiles.
As far as I'm aware there are no size modifiers in 5e.
Nor is there any advantage given for hitting a stationary target (see the AC in spells/abilities I quoted above - none mention it)

Are you going off any example?





Its under difficulty class in the DM handbook.
DMG 238 specifies tasks, not attacks. Though we agree on the end result so it isn't really worth discussing this semantic difference


Its like how on the same page it mentions you can use an attack roll for things like an archery contest, but it doesn't specify how.
It's under attack rolls, so you'd use an attack roll. Though as you say the rest seems to be up to DM discretion.

[Whyrocknodie]

Looks like there's no AC specified for 'locations' to me. I'd have to make it up if someone used an attack action to target a location.

Interestingly, things like acid and alchemist's fire don't allow you to attack a location in their description. That makes me think that attacking locations may have been something initially but was removed later on during the simplification process.

That said, I might not consider an attack action to be required for a location. For example, if someone was striking a wall with a pick-axe or chopping down a tree - a manual task using a tool rather than an 'attack'.

[Kryx]

Looks like there's no AC specified for 'locations' to me. I'd have to make it up if someone used an attack action to target a location.
Funnily, Bombs and similar items on DMG 267 just hit. Oh 5e.... *rolls eyes*

[DivisibleByZero]

All the examples that everyone is giving apply to an Object (a rope, a wall, etc).
The "location" terminology only exists for when you're attacking an unseen/invisible target. In all the examples you guys have given, you'd use the object's (possibly modified) AC.
(Re: what I posted above)

[Joe the Rat]

When you come right down to it, Armor Class is basically the Difficulty Class to inflict a telling blow on a target. It's your target number. Note that that isn't "to hit", but "to inflict a telling blow." The AC for several objects reflects their "hardness" - hitting it "well" enough that you damage it in a noticeable way.

That said, there are reasons to keep this an attack roll (beyond that's what the rules are stating):
- combat modifiers are relevant: Archery style gives you benefit for attack rolls, not ability checks.
- ability check modifiers may be inappropriate: Are you okay with the guidance cantrip assisting your bullseye? Or Champions?


But let's ignore the damage it part, and just say hit. Like throwing an oil flask at a target square.

Some options: AC10 - the default.
DEX 0 - either this is N/A (AC10), or treated as 0-1, for a -5 (AC5). Low dex makes a small-to-medium zombie easier to hit, and a point in space is even less mobile. I believe this is how 3.x came up with their AC5 to hit a 5' square.
No size modifiers exist, but if you really want to go there, measure your object in terms of halfling silhouettes. Conveniently, 5e halflings are roughly circular in profile (or rather, two stacked circles of near-equal size).

Is your target about the size of a halfling? AC 5 (or 10 if you prefer)
Is it between 1/2 to 1/4 the size of a halfling silhouette? That's like half cover in terms of target, so -2 to the attack roll or +2 to the AC*
Is your target 1/4 halfling silhouette or less? That's three-quarter's cover. -5 to roll or +5 to AC*

Another way you could treat this is pretend like Dex modifiers for small creatures relies partially on being physically smaller, and step your target AC depending on size. +2 AC per size level under small or medium if you like.

Now keep in mind when trying to break objects with listed ACs, you should just take the higher of the two: by size, or by hardness. But for hitting, size should be sufficient.

*-Your choice of making it a harder shot or a higher AC in important relative to Sharpshooter and Spell Sniper feats. You need to decide if these should be relevant to hitting small targets.

[Kryx]

All the examples that everyone is giving apply to an Object (a rope, a wall, etc).
The "location" terminology only exists for when you're attacking an unseen/invisible target. In all the examples you guys have given, you'd use the object's (possibly modified) AC.
(Re: what I posted above)
The problem is there is no rule for targeting a square unless we assume a floor of different materials is harder to hit. For example an admantine floor would be AC 23 to hit while a stone floor would be AC 17.

To further complicate the issue Alchemist fire can only target a creature or object (rolled as an improvised weapon) while a bomb from DMG 267 just auto hits.

I think you're right that "location" isn't a "square", but that complicates it. If it is an object then we have to ignore the normal object AC and just go with a flat 10. Which is fine w/ me, but 5e seems to be inconsistent in this regard (see alchemist fire vs bomb)

[bardo]

As far as I'm aware there are no size modifiers in 5e.
Nor is there any advantage given for hitting a stationary target (see the AC in spells/abilities I quoted above - none mention it)

Are you going off any example, or just your opinion of how it should work?

Just opinion to make it somewhat realistic, easy to remember, and not too easy to abuse.

Let's say there's a lamp with an open flame on a shelf on the wall some 30 feet away. Throwing a bottle of oil at that lamp to cause a small fire should be easy (the player is aiming at the vicinity of the lamp). Throwing a dagger at that lamp to knock it off the shelf should be much harder (the player is aiming at the lamp itself). I dunno how to do that without size modifiers.

Bardo.

[DivisibleByZero]

The problem is there is no rule for targeting a square unless we assume a floor of different materials is harder to hit. For example an admantine floor would be AC 23 to hit while a stone floor would be AC 17.

How hard would it be to hit the area you're trying to hit? The DMG and PHB have rules for this.
Is it a 5 foot square, where it's darn near impossible to miss? Very Easy, DC/AC 5
Is it an arrowhead, a'la Robin Hood? Nearly impossible, DC/AC 30
Somewhere in between? Use something appropriate in between.

[Kryx]

How hard would it be to hit the area you're trying to hit? The DMG and PHB have rules for this.
Is it a 5 foot square, where it's darn near impossible to miss? Very Easy, DC/AC 5
And how hard is it to hit a stone wall? 5e says harder than AC 5

Here is the list again:

Giant Spider Web: AC 10
Bigby's Hand: AC 20
Mirror Image: AC 10+dex
Unseen Servant: AC 10
Wall of Ice: AC 12
Wall of Stone: AC 15
Bone of the Earth: AC 5
Wall of Water: AC 5

DMG 246 also lists
Cloth, paper, rope: AC 11
Crystal, glass, ice: AC 13
Wood, bone: AC 15
Stone: AC 17
Iron, Steel: AC 19
Mithral: AC 21
Adamantine: AC 23

By your logic a wall of ice and wall of stone should be AC 5, but they aren't. AC 10 is the default, not 5.

[eastmabl]

Why? Incapacitated as the rationale? That doesn't really make sense when you look at all the examples of AC:
Giant Spider Web: AC 10
Bigby's Hand: AC 20
Mirror Image: AC 10+dex
Unseen Servant: AC 10
Wall of Ice: AC 12
Wall of Stone: AC 15
Bone of the Earth: AC 5
Wall of Water: AC 5

DMG 246 also lists
Cloth, paper, rope: AC 11
Crystal, glass, ice: AC 13
Wood, bone: AC 15
Stone: AC 17
Iron, Steel: AC 19
Mithral: AC 21
Adamantine: AC 23

No mention of advantage when the object isn't moving.




So if it was just a square then it is auto hit, but if something is there then there is an attack roll to determine if it hits? I'd expect PCs to walk around each room hitting the walls then.
A grappling hook has historically been a ranged attack roll. Unfortunately 5e PHB doesn't specify how it works.




You're welcome to run it however you want, but that's not RAW or RAI as specified anywhere. PHB 194 shows the RAW that targeting a location requires an attack roll.

I'd analogize the stationary object to being unconscious, as it cannot react to its environment and is unaware of its surroundings.

Admittedly, it's an analogy. It appears that there's no hard and fast rule on how to handle this situation --- thus my analogy.

[sophontteks]

And how hard is it to hit a stone wall? 5e says harder than AC 5

Here is the list again:

Giant Spider Web: AC 10
Bigby's Hand: AC 20
Mirror Image: AC 10+dex
Unseen Servant: AC 10
Wall of Ice: AC 12
Wall of Stone: AC 15
Bone of the Earth: AC 5
Wall of Water: AC 5

DMG 246 also lists
Cloth, paper, rope: AC 11
Crystal, glass, ice: AC 13
Wood, bone: AC 15
Stone: AC 17
Iron, Steel: AC 19
Mithral: AC 21
Adamantine: AC 23

By your logic a wall of ice and wall of stone should be AC 5, but they aren't. AC 10 is the default, not 5.
No, look at the post he quoted when he responded. These ACs are to hit and destroy the target, which isn't what the player is doing in the scenario

[DivisibleByZero]

And how hard is it to hit a stone wall? 5e says harder than AC 5

By your logic a wall of ice and wall of stone should be AC 5, but they aren't. AC 10 is the default, not 5.

What you're missing is that those ACs assume you're attempting to do harm to the object in question.
Hitting a Location is not the same thing as attempting to Hit an Object.
If all you're trying to do is hit a Location (and not harm the object in question, just simply make contact with it), the Ability Check DCs used as I just described above work perfectly fine for our purposes.

If you want to shoot an arrow into a 5x5 area, anywhere inside of it mind you, then the AC of the object in question is irrelevant. It's DC 5, or in this case because we're using an attack roll, it's AC 5. Doesn't matter if it's wood or adamantine or paper. It's a stationary 5x5 target, very easy to hit, DC/AC 5.
If you wanted to Hit an Object, and thus attempt to damage the wall, THEN the AC would vary depending on the material in question.
That's the difference between hitting an Object and hitting a Location.

[Kryx]

No, look at the post he quoted when he responded. These ACs are to hit and destroy the target, which isn't what the player is doing in the scenario
So, a cloth object adds 6 AC for psuedo-hardness?

Of course not.

[sophontteks]

So, a cloth object adds 6 AC for psuedo-hardness?

Of course not.
yes. cloth is very resistant to damage. All of the AC numbers you posted are dealing with attempting to destroy the object.

[Kryx]

yes. cloth is very resistant to damage.
I can't tell if you're serious or not..

Cloth armor adds 1 to the normal AC calc, but somehow adds 6 to an object's?

No.

[Shining Wrath]

I'd call a spot on the wall AC 5. Reason: a person has a base AC of 10, but also a Dexterity (used to dodge) of 10 - and a wall has Dexterity 0, so -5 to AC. A spot on the wall might be an immobilized person, which gives Advantage (paralysis or petrification) to attack rolls - and Advantage ~= +5 to hit, so it's about the same as dropping AC to 5 and not granting Advantage.
I'd use about the same for dropping something from a height and hoping it lands in the river, not on the rocks.
The minute someone or something is interfering with the task all bets are off.

[sophontteks]

Your getting the 6 ac out of some false pretenses in this comparison.
Its a skill check of 5 to hit something right next to you, because its stupid easy. This number has nothing to do with AC.

10 is considered the base, and cloth items have an AC of 11.

Does this make sense? In every way shape and form. Ya know, cloth really is pretty strong. It was the most common form of armor ever, and the amount it adds to survivability is not nearly represented by the 1 ac the game provides.

If you want to get an understanding of this. I want you to grab a ball. Now toss that ball onto some dirty laundry.
Wow, that was easy!

Now try destroying the laundry with that ball. Yeah rip holes in the clothes with the ball. its not happening.

Now for the tensile strength test of cloth...
Take a shirt you don't like, put it on the ground and slash it with a big sharp knife.
Its not easy... Cloth is strong.

In the second example we are debunking the myth that cloth can't protect someone against a sword. In fact it is far harder to pierce then skin is, especially if the weapon is being used in a slashing motion.

[JoeJ]

I can't tell if you're serious or not..

Cloth armor adds 1 to the normal AC calc, but somehow adds 6 to an object's?

No.

Where are you getting the 6?

[DivisibleByZero]

Look at it this way:
You have a target X
It doesn't matter if that target is backed with wood or paper or hay or steel or my grandmother. That target, 1'x1' and 50 yards away, would probably be DC 20-25 or so.

Perhaps what we're trying to say will make more sense to you if we alter the terminology somewhat.

Hurt a creature = set AC of X
Harm an Object = set AC of X
Hit a Location = variable DC (in this case AC) using the Ability Check DC table
Does that make more sense?

In your paper AC 11 example, you are once again attempting to use the Harm an Object AC instead of the Hit a Location DC.
You can't do both. You either want to hit a location or harm an object. Hitting a location will always be easier than harming an object.
It's like when you throw your dart and it hits the bullseye (DC 15), but it doesn't sink into the corkboard (DC 20). You Hit your Location (with a attack roll of 17), but you did not throw it hard enough to Harm the Object (because it didn't meet that DC of 20).
Does that help explain the difference?

[Kryx]

Where are you getting the 6?
Their argument is that an object's base AC is 5. On DMG 246 Where Cloth, Paper, and rope are AC 11. If their 5 is true then that means cloth adds 6 AC to the base AC for objects, but only adds 1 for creatures.

There is no false pretense. I'm literally taking your number and comparing it to the DMG's list of object ACs to show how wrong that number is.





Hurt a creature = set AC of X
Harm an Object = set AC of X
Hit a Location = variable DC (in this case AC) using the Ability Check DC table
That's exactly how I'm looking at it. Again, given your statement that the AC (or DC) to hit an object (same as a location) is 5 then cloth armor is providing a boost of 6 to that.

Once again I challenge you to look at the 10-15 examples I put above. Nothing lists AC 5 or anything close to it except wall of water. A cloth object in the DMG is the best example for why 5 is incorrect.

[sophontteks]

The action of hitting the object is DC 5. We are not talking about AC at all. he only mentioned it to avoid confusing you. This is a difficulty check.

[Kryx]

he only mentioned it to avoid confusing you.
Please stop being condescending.


The action of hitting the object is DC 5. We are not talking about AC at all. This is a difficulty check.
No it is not. Please see PHB 194, DMG 246, and the several spells that I listed above.

I have quoted these rules over and over and over. The only thing you two have provided is your opinions and now condescensions.

[sophontteks]

Please stop being condescending.


No it is not. Please see PHB 194 and DMG 246.

I have quoted these rules over and over and over. The only thing you two have provided is your opinions and now condescensions.

I'm not being condescending, that is exactly why he used the term AC/DC. There are rules for doing stuff like this, and it is not rolling against an objects AC unless your actually trying to damage the object.

I'm sorry, I don't know what else to say. I'm trying really hard to break this down in the most relatable ways possible. If you could just step back from the rules, there isn't really anything complex here, your just overthinking it.

[DivisibleByZero]

That's exactly how I'm looking at it. Again, given your statement that the AC (or DC) to hit an object (same as a location) is 5 then cloth armor is providing a boost of 6 to that.

Once again I challenge you to look at the 10-15 examples I put above. Nothing lists AC 5 or anything close to it except wall of water. A cloth object in the DMG is the best example for why 5 is incorrect.

I already did in an edit, but I'll paste it here. Basically, you're just not understanding the difference between Hitting a Location and Harming an Object.

Look at it this way:
You have a target X
It doesn't matter if that target is backed with wood or paper or hay or steel or my grandmother. That target, 1'x1' and 50 yards away, would probably be DC 20-25 or so.

Perhaps what we're trying to say will make more sense to you if we alter the terminology somewhat.

Hurt a creature = set AC of X
Harm an Object = set AC of X
Hit a Location = variable DC (in this case AC) using the Ability Check DC table
Does that make more sense?

In your paper AC 11 example, you are once again attempting to use the Harm an Object AC instead of the Hit a Location DC.
You can't do both. You either want to hit a location or harm an object. Hitting a location will always be easier than harming an object.
It's like when you throw your dart and it hits the bullseye (DC 15), but it doesn't sink into the corkboard (DC 20). You Hit your Location (with a attack roll of 17), but you did not throw it hard enough to Harm the Object (because it didn't meet that DC of 20).
Does that help explain the difference?

[Kryx]

the difference between Hitting a Location and Harming an Object.
Please describe what the following effects are (either object or location):

The ground
Stone floor
Stone wall
The roof
5 ft in the air 20 ft "over there"


Now explain why the ground is different from a wall. Simply in terms of hitting - not dealing damage.

If I choose to hit the stone wall, but have no intention of doing damage, is it an object, or a location?

Please provide some rules quotes.


@Sophontteks: You're condescending even in your message of saying you're not condescending. You've been condescending by stating that I "just don't understand it".
Again, I ask you to stop.

[JoeJ]

Their argument is that an object's base AC is 5. On DMG 246 Where Cloth, Paper, and rope are AC 11. If their 5 is true then that means cloth adds 6 AC to the base AC for objects, but only adds 1 for creatures.

I'm not trying to speak for anyone, but I understood their argument to be that hitting a location has an AC of 5. If you're trying to hit the cloth then it's AC 11, assuming you're trying to hit hard enough to make a damage roll. If you just want to physically touch the cloth and don't care whether or not you damage it, it's still AC 5.

[Kryx]

I'm not trying to speak for anyone, but I understood their argument to be that hitting a location has an AC of 5.
Hitting a location having an AC of 5 isn't supported by 5e. That comes from 3.X where the base was 10 and then you removed 5 from 0 dex.

In 5e as has been pointed out in this thread you either automatically hit (see Bombs on DMG 267) or must target a creature or object (Alchemist's Fire PHB 148-151).

[sophontteks]

Your are frustrated. That is not because of any ill will I have dealt to you. Just relax.

[Kryx]

Your are frustrated.
You're right, there is no point in continuing this conversation as I have continuously pointed out rules and examples from 5e while the two of you have continuously provided opinions and condescension.

[JoeJ]

Hitting a location having an AC of 5 isn't supported by 5e. That comes from 3.X where the base was 10 and then you removed 5 from 0 dex.

In 5e as has been pointed out in this thread you either automatically hit (see Bombs on DMG 267) or must target a creature or object (Alchemist's Fire PHB 148-151).

So I guess you have the answer to your original question.

[Shaofoo]

When you say hit, do you mean you want to actually deal damage to the location or just make sure you land your attack in the general area.

For example, a large cube made of wood and a large cube made of adamantine should be about the same to hit technically but the adamantine cube would be much more difficult to damage than wood.

If you don't want to actually deal damage to the enviroment then I think the AC to hit an area is the same regardless on whether the floor is made of dirt, stone or adamantine plates. But usually locations don't have hit points, at best you can have a variety of DCs depending on what you want to do with the area.

[Kryx]

When you say hit, do you mean you want to actually deal damage to the location or just make sure you land your attack in the general area.
Lets use an Acid vial for example. An acid vial says we can target a creature or an object and it has a radius of 5 feet.

Now presume I am a level 1 PC with 16 dexterity.

If I target that creature I have a +5 to hit vs his average AC of 13 and hit him on a 8+, or 65% of the time
Now if I target the square next to him I either auto hit and hit him 100% of the time or I target some AC. If that AC is 5 I only miss on a 1 so I hit him 95% of the time. If that AC is 10 I hit it on a 5 or above, or 80% of the time.

It seems best to always avoid targeting the creature if possible, but Acid by RAW doesn't allow that. Though I doubt any DM would say "You can't aim in the middle of 6 guys because there is no creature there".
This is further complicated by a bomb just auto hitting an area and the targets having to make a Dex saving throw to avoid the effect which is further complicated as it always assumes you hit the area whereas Acid does not.
EDIT: Read Acid wrong.

Previous editions handled this with things like splash weapon rules or this from Fireball in PF: "If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely."

[sophontteks]

You're right, there is no point in continuing this conversation as I have continuously pointed out rules and examples from 5e while the two of you have continuously provided opinions and condescension.
Its not that these are opinions contrary to rules. Its that there are no rules in 5e for these things and we are explaining how you handle these situations. This is something the book does mention frequently; how to improvise.

This is a fundamental difference between 5e and 3.5. If your looking for precise rules and modifiers for specific actions you won't find them because they don't exist.


Lets use an Acid vial for example. An acid vial says we can target a creature or an object and it has a radius of 5 feet.

Now presume I am a level 1 PC with 16 dexterity.

If I target that creature I have a +5 to hit vs his average AC of 13 and hit him on a 8+, or 65% of the time
Now if I target the square next to him I either auto hit and hit him 100% of the time or I target some AC. If that AC is 5 I only miss on a 1 so I hit him 95% of the time. If that AC is 10 I hit it on a 5 or above, or 80% of the time.

It seems best to always avoid targeting the creature if possible, but Acid by RAW doesn't allow that. Though I doubt any DM would say "You can't aim in the middle of 6 guys because there is no creature there".
This is further complicated by a bomb just auto hitting an area and the targets having to make a Dex saving throw to avoid the effect which is further complicated as it always assumes you hit the area whereas Acid does not.

Previous editions handled this with things like splash weapon rules or this from Fireball in PF: "If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely."

In this example you can easily hit the floor with the acid, but the acid doesn't have any AOE. The effect would be
"You throw a vial of acid at the ground and the acid eats away at the ground slightly before dissipating"

[JoeJ]

Lets use an Acid vial for example. An acid vial says we can target a creature or an object and it has a radius of 5 feet.

Where are you reading that? On p. 148 of the PHB it says you can splash it onto a creature within 5 feet or throw it up to 20 feet. Both count as ranged attacks against a creature or object (not location), doing 2d6 damage on a hit. Nothing at all about the attack having any radius.

[Kryx]

Where are you reading that? On p. 148 of the PHB it says you can splash it onto a creature within 5 feet or throw it up to 20 feet. Both count as ranged attacks against a creature or object (not location), doing 2d6 damage on a hit. Nothing at all about the attack having any radius.
Ah, that's my mis-reading of Acid.

So it seems 5e is consistent then. Single target = ranged attack. Multiple target = Dex save.

[sophontteks]

There are plenty of rules and examples there. I've quoted them and discussed them throughout this thread. You've chosen to ignore them in favor of using DM adjudication based on how you think it should work, not how 5e has done it.

I'm not ignoring them. Those are rules for determining if you have damaged an object. They aren't relevant.

[Vogonjeltz]

What is the AC to hit a location?

Unless someone is actively trying to stop it from happening (or there's an extreme circumstance of some kind, or a contest like for archery) I'd just let it happen (AC/DC 0).

[HoarsHalberd]

Base AC of 10. -5 for no dex. AC 5. Assuming you're not trying to do damage. Then the targets resistance to damage comes in. So you're shooting at a gong to make a noise AC 5. You shooting at a gong to put your arrow through it. AC of a thin piece of metal.

[Vogonjeltz]

Base AC of 10. -5 for no dex. AC 5. Assuming you're not trying to do damage. Then the targets resistance to damage comes in. So you're shooting at a gong to make a noise AC 5. You shooting at a gong to put your arrow through it. AC of a thin piece of metal.

Are you pulling that number out of thin air, or is that actually in one of the books?

[weaseldust]

3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll.

In my idiolect, this entails that you make the attack roll if there is one, but not that there is an attack roll. I don't know whether the same goes for the idiolect of the designers, though.

Regardless, the only example of an attack against a location given is when you are attacking an unseen creature. You know or guess their location, then you have to make an attack roll anyway (at disadvantage) if you get the right square. So it's quite possible that being able to target locations is called out only for that purpose. In which case, targeting a location without targeting a creature in it does not necessarily have to be resolved as an attack at all. It does, however, imply that you don't have to roll to hit a 5 foot square within range, which I think is reasonable.

On the subject of attacking cloth, when you attack a cloth object you are trying to tear it apart, so only hits sufficient to make a big tear count. When you attack a creature in cloth armour, any hit that damages the creature counts, regardless of the damage to the cloth. I think it is appropriate that damaging a cloth object is more than 5% harder than touching it, whereas damaging a creature in cloth armour is only 5% harder that damaging the creature without it.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm not ignoring them. Those are rules for determining if you have damaged an object. They aren't relevant.

I had been trying to explain that to him all day. I stopped because he's being hypocritical and insulting.
He says that "have continuously provided opinions and condescension," and that we're ignoring what he says, but that's exactly what he's doing to us.

[Kryx]

I chose not to engage with you as much as I've seen the results in the past.

Your argument isn't supported by the rules except in the case that anything can be a DC. And to you that DC is "very easy". If it's up to DM determination then it's a sliding scale entirely up to DM discretion.

I know the options. I'm looking for rules examples and support in 5e. Though the vast majority have just provided their opinion which conflicts with the examples I have presented (bomb).

[djreynolds]

Let's assume I am a D&D famer and I have stats of all 8's. Now let's say I'm using a rock, and since I suck at sports and rode the bench I have no proficiency in them. And let's assume the AC to hit a wall is 10. Which could be wrong?

So I have a -1 to hit and/or the wall has an AC of 10 but a DC of 11 to hit. Now what is the range of throwing said rock. 90ft, pitchers mound distance now. The DC has gone up considerably if that spot is the strike zone, but not its AC. But how big is the wall? 20ft by 20ft from 90ft is the DC still 11? Am I at disadvantage from 90ft. If I halve the distance to 45ft, am I now within range? If I halve that distance to 22.5ft am I at advantage to hit a wall 20ft by 20ft.

If I'm the farmer my AC is 9 with my normal 8 dexterity giving me a -1 from an AC of 10. The wall which is 20ft by 20ft is AC 10?
I am 2ft wide by 6ft tall. Someone else throwing a rock is going to have an easier time hitting me, a smaller target than the wall?

I think we need to understand armor class, it encompasses more than just armor. It incorporates also my defensive skills, intelligence, dexterity, and luck of a living creature. A wall has none of these things, not even luck. The wall isn't moving and I am. And it should be considered in combat that no one is just standing still. A rogue's get bonus damage on sneak attacks because they have an advantage and can land a finesse strike to vital spot because the enemy's awareness is not on them but the enemy is moving as they attack and defend from the fighter. Also if I am aware I am defending myself, unaware grants you advantage to hit me, or prone because movement is lessened.

So really a wall has a zero AC, but you the attacker may have advantages or disadvantages to hit the wall depending on distance, the size of the wall and the properties of the rock and your skill at throwing thus changing the DC to hit the wall.

Take breaking down a door, it involves a DC. The door has no defense from you but it has "hit points" and resistance and vital areas, and these areas may have a higher DC than the rest of the door because you have to aim to hit them. Chopping wood, the wood has no AC because it has no properties itself, but if the land is sloped or the ground wet you DC will go up. The bark may have more damage resistance vs a blunt object, but in time it will be destroyed by constant hits. Your hammer may break in the mean time and you may have to get a new one and if you leave it alone, the tree may heal.

So to hit a inanimate object like a wall or tree, though it is living, the object has no AC. But there is a DC and that has variables in regards to distance and wind and the environment. And your ability to hit this DC changes with your skill at it. And to destroy the tree or wall it has hit points, vital areas and resistance to some attacks.

Now with a living conscious creature, not a tree, we can sense danger and your DC to hit me is my armor class because I'm conscious. This number may be lower or higher or you may gain advantage to hit me if I'm sleeping or incapacitated. But even unconscious, I may still have on armor.

A question this invokes is at what point does a living creature have an armor class of zero and/or effectively become non-sentient? Does a man on ventilator have an AC of 10. I don't think he does, he is alive, unconscious, but the medicine he has been given has taken away his ability to act or even react. Does chopping of his head require a higher DC than hitting him in his mid section? Yes it is a smaller target. Is someone knocked out posses "animate" qualities? Depends. A person under the sleep spell will awaken if struck.

So a wall's AC has to be zero. Even if the book says no.

[Malifice]

AC 10 plus cover. Disadvantage for long range. Move on.

[djreynolds]

AC 10 plus cover. Disadvantage for long range. Move on.

I'm easy going guy, good enough for me. We're not landing on the moon.

But I told everyone I rode the bench in highschool.

[Malifice]

It's not worth splitting hairs over or hand wringing. On the off chance it comes up, just pick a number that feels right, roll to hit and get on with the game.

AC 10 plus cover (so an AC of between 10-15) sounds about right for mine.

[Mr.Moron]

I'm in the "Depends how big the location is, and the precise nature of what you're hitting with it camp" off the top of my head though, how I might rate some things if you asked me to do it right now:


Broadside, of Barn: AC 0
Dart Board: AC 5
Dart Board, Inner Circle: AC 10
Dart Board, Bullseye: AC 15
Keyhole: AC 24
5'x5' Area, indirect shot: AC 8
5'x5' Area, direct shot: AC 3
'Yo Momma: AC -99

[djreynolds]

Call it AC or call it DC. Whatever keeps my wizard from dying? Getting crappy spells from the merchant is more of a problem.

That said, very interesting thread

[DivisibleByZero]

I chose not to engage with you as much as I've seen the results in the past.

Your argument isn't supported by the rules except in the case that anything can be a DC. And to you that DC is "very easy". If it's up to DM determination then it's a sliding scale entirely up to DM discretion.

I know the options. I'm looking for rules examples and support in 5e. Though the vast majority have just provided their opinion which conflicts with the examples I have presented (bomb).

You most certainly did engage me/us.
Here's how the last two pages went:
You: What's the AC of a location?
Us: Location refers to when you can't see your target.
You: No, I'm talking about when I'm trying to hit a location.
Us: OK, then don't use the object's AC, use the Ability Check DC table (not AC 5, as you claim I'm saying) to determine out how hard it would be to simply hit the area you want, independently of what it's made of.
You: But paper isn't tough enough to justify +6 AC.
Us: Stop looking at the object AC, it's irrelevant to hitting a location.
You: But paper isn't tough enough to justify +6 AC. Your argument makes no sense. Here's the object AC list I put together.
Us: You're not understanding what we're saying. We're saying you need to ignore what the object is made of. You aren't trying to damage an object, you're trying to hit a location. The material that it's made of is not relevant, and neither is the object AC for that material.
You: But paper isn't tough enough to justify +6 AC. Here are the object AC lists I put together once again.
Us: Why do you keep showing us that list? It doesn't matter.
You: Because it's rules, and you guys are being condescending and ignoring what I'm showing you. Here's the list again.

I gave up.

[Kryx]

I said as much. The results here are the same as in the past. You believe you are correct and anyone else must be wrong or "not understand" your correct position.

In the end your argument is it must be a DC 5 because it is a DC check and that's how hard you think it should be. You have no rules or examples to back it up.

[DivisibleByZero]

I said as much. The results here are the same as in the past. You believe you are correct and anyone else must be wrong or "not understand" your correct position.

In the end your argument is it must be a DC 5 because it is a DC check and that's how hard you think it should be. You have no rules or examples to back it up.

The rules are the Ability Check DC rules. So yes, I gave rules.
The example I gave was a dartboard. I gave it twice. You ignored it twice and then accused me of not giving rules or examples and ignoring you.
That's when I gave up for your hypocrisy.
Do it however you want to.

[Kryx]

Making a DC check to begin with is your opinion. Making that DC 5 is also your opinion. There are no rules that show this. If so, please quote them (which you haven't done once).

Based on a bomb in the DMG it auto hits. I don't agree with that, but that's how 5e does it for hitting a square with an aoe item.

If you're targeting anything other than a location then it becomes an object. At which point you make an attack vs ac as outlined in the PHB.
Examples: Grappling Hook, Shooting an arrow at a wall, shooting an arrow at a keyhole.

[DivisibleByZero]

If you're targeting anything other than a location then it becomes an object. At which point you make an attack vs ac as outlined in the PHB.
Examples: Grappling Hook, Shooting an arrow at a wall, shooting an arrow at a keyhole.

If you believe that to be true then why did you or are you arguing with the statement that targeting a location refers to when you can't see your target, as we said on page one?
If you always target the object, then what circumstance will there be when this question ever needs to be answered for you in game?
You're asking a question which, by your logic, will never need to be answered, and then you're complaining when we tell you to wing it because 5e is designed around DMs making judgement calls.

[Kryx]

you're complaining when we tell you to wing it because 5e is designed around DMs making judgement calls.
You didn't tell me to wing it. If your whole point from the beginning was "this is how I would do it" then I could've ignored it and moved on, but you passed it off as official (which is what I was seeking).

[DivisibleByZero]

You didn't tell me to wing it. You told me what was correct. If your whole point from the beginning was "this is how I would do it" then I could've ignored it and moved on, but you passed it off as official (which is what I was seeking).


How hard would it be to hit the area you're trying to hit? The DMG and PHB have rules for this.
Is it a 5 foot square, where it's darn near impossible to miss? Very Easy, DC/AC 5
Is it an arrowhead, a'la Robin Hood? Nearly impossible, DC/AC 30
Somewhere in between? Use something appropriate in between.

How hard would it be to hit the area that you're trying to hit? ((that's the part where you have to wing it))
The DMG and PHB have rules for this. ((that's the part where the rules for winging it come into play))

I'm moving on now. Have fun trying to find rules for every tiny little insignificant detail that according to your philosophy will never come into play in a game.
This is 5e. Every little detail isn't spelled out like it was in previous editions. I thought you had figured that out by now. My apologies.

[ad_hoc]

Look at it this way - Wearing full plate doesn't make it harder for a weapon to come into contact with you. It makes it harder to be hurt by that weapon.

Does it make sense now?

We use 'hit' as a short form of 'successfully deals damage' but in this case we are using 'hit' to mean 'come into contact' which is entirely different and likely where the confusion is when you are reading the rules.

[Kryx]

@ad_hoc: The thread has already run it's course. I've gotten my answer. I now fully understand the rules and have provided quotes to support that. Aoe stuff auto hits by RAW. Hitting an object is an attack roll.

The rules do not support what you've just written so if you disagree with that then please provide rules quotes that show that to be incorrect. If this is your opinion of how it should work then I respectfully disagree based on the cloth object I have referenced several times. If you believe there is a difference between a location and an object and have set a location to be "very easy" then I consider it to be "easy". Disagreeing here is fine.

[broodax]

I think the best answer has been come up with if you look at this thread in aggregate. If I can summarize:

Here are the only things we know for certain:

1) The rules are unclear - if you read only the letter there is no answer provided. The text says that you use an attack roll to attack locations, but provides no ACs for locations anywhere.
2) There is one place in the rules where a 5' square is able to be targeted, but this does not use an attack roll.

So, taken together, either the rules are not only unclear, they are self contradictory. It has been suggested that:

3) When the Attack Roll section refers to a location, it does so only to cover the case where one is guessing at the location of a target, not targeting a point in space directly.

I happen to think this is extremely likely. If you take it as given, then you are left with:

4) There are no rules for targeting points in space with attack rolls at all.

And then I think you can easily conclude:

5) When a character wishes to make his weapon or ammunition come in contact with a particular point in space, the right thing to do is make a check of some kind, and it's up to the DM what form that takes.
6) The exact nature of this check likely depends on too much to draw a general rule.
7) Refer to 2) to level set that a 5' square within a certain distance is trivially easy, and scale up the difficulty from there.

[Mellack]

I want to throw out my views on this. Say I hang a 5 foot diameter ring in the air (magic, ya know.) Now an archer wants to shoot an arrow through the ring from say 30 feet. This is a fairly easy task, I have seen first time archers regularly do this on their first day.
Now I hang a piece of cloth over the ring. Why would this change if the archer can still hit that 5 foot area? How about wood, or stone or adamantium. Note, we are not trying to get through the material, just contact it. There is no logical reason I can see that adamantium is harder to bounce an arrow off of than stone. So we can disregard the idea that our roll is vs AC. That is for determining damage. That leaves us with using DC, since we are trying to determine just where the arrow goes.
Maybe this visualization will help some, although I doubt it. :)

[MeeposFire]

One can use the same DC and show it as an AC. You still use an attack roll but the target AC is not for damage but for just touching the target. The system can certainly handle that.

[djreynolds]

One can use the same DC and show it as an AC. You still use an attack roll but the target AC is not for damage but for just touching the target. The system can certainly handle that.

Very true, its weird but not broken. There just no point in discussing whether it is AC or DC.

I guess in this case they can just be used as if they're same thing.

I mean its like shocking grasp, you have to beat the AC just to "touch" him but you're using your intelligence and proficiency to do that not dexterity or strength but still have to beat the actual armor he is wearing and his natural 10 and dex bonus if he has on half-plate, just to touch him as if your strike was a rain drop. I mean you're not penetrating the armor between the "chinks".
It used to be a touch spell ignored armor and just had to beat the natural 10 and dex bonus, the actual armor wasn't factored in.

I'll just leave it alone because you are using your casting stat and that is probably higher than your dexterity or strength anyhow.

[JoeJ]

I mean its like shocking grasp, you have to beat the AC just to "touch" him but you're using your intelligence and proficiency to do that not dexterity or strength but still have to beat the actual armor he is wearing and his natural 10 and dex bonus if he has on half-plate, just to touch him as if your strike was a rain drop. I mean you're not penetrating the armor between the "chinks".
It used to be a touch spell ignored armor and just had to beat the natural 10 and dex bonus, the actual armor wasn't factored in.

That doesn't seem strange at all. You're not trying to just touch the armor, you're trying to get past the armor and do damage to the person wearing it. Touch AC was a pointless complication that added nothing IMO, and I'm happy to see it go.

[djreynolds]

That doesn't seem strange at all. You're not trying to just touch the armor, you're trying to get past the armor and do damage to the person wearing it. Touch AC was a pointless complication that added nothing IMO, and I'm happy to see it go.

I don't care either way. I get having just one rule system to rule them all is easier.

But I could just touch your hand, its all that it requires. And why am I using say intelligence to touch?

I just say whatever. It doesn't ruin the game either direction.