Talk:Understanding Bounded Accuracy (5e Guideline)

Can a Mook hit a demigod?

This is a nice article, I like the explanations of weird new philosophies. I do take issue however with "Should a random nobody mook have a chance of stabbing the legendary demigod hero of the universe, even if the damage would be negligible?", and somehow implying that 3.5e/Pathfinder answers this question with "No". It very objectively answers the question with Yes, but more of a "Yes, but they'd only realistically hit if they were real lucky", which is arguably far more true to reality. I guess I'll rewrite this section sometime, as I'm just way too defensive about Pathfinder. --SgtLion (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2017 (MST)

Their is one thing that i noticed, and thats the Warforged's ac from heavy plating can go up to 22 ac by the time they have a +6 proficiency bonus. (16 + proficiency bonus) I thought i would bring that up because it goes against the the very design philosophy they follow.

I don't follow. A someone wearing heaving magical armor and magical shield can get higher. I don't think warforged goes against philosophy. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2019 (MST)

The issue with "Should a random nobody mook have a chance of stabbing the legendary demigod hero of the universe, even if the damage would be negligible?", is the fundamental - going back to AD&D and before - idea of a 'hit' as one that delivers damage. So hits that don't cause damage can be assumed to happen, but we just don't waste time rolling for them: "during a one-minute round many attacks are made ... one, or possibly several, have the chance to actually score damage. For such changes, the dice are rolled" (Gygax, DMG 1st Ed, p61). So, in answer to the question of whether some 'random mook' should have the chance to damage a demigod, the answer really should be 'no'. - Calzier 26 Jan 2024

Also - worth noting that THAC0 came in with AD&D 2nd Edition, not with AD&D - the 1st edition DMG has tables, lots of them (p74-75), which we continued to use in place of THAC0 even when moving to 2nd edition. - Calzier 26 Jan 2024

Source

https://web.archive.org/web/20140715051206/http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604
nice official source to back up the theories. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2018 (MDT)

Exceeding Bounded AC (5e)

So this section states that: "Generally, nobody will ever be able to roll higher than 31 for an attack, check, or save." and "they made sure that PC ACs could not exceed 21". I'm intrigued by this as a 20th level barbarian with 20 dexterity and 24 constitution can exceed both of those. The barbarian could roll up to 33 for attacks (using finesse or ranged weapons), for dexterity based checks, and for constitution based checks and saving throws all without magic items. Same for the AC, this barbarian can have an AC 22 without any items and by simply holding a non-magical shield can have AC 24.

This seems to go against their rules for Bounded AC, especially when the barbarian starts using magic items in addition to the above. A +3 finesse weapon (or any weapon if the barbarian has 20 strength too) pushes the attack maximum up to 36, anything that gives +2 to dexterity or constitution checks/saves boosts that maximum up to 35 and a +3 shield would boost the AC to 27. --Foxfire94 (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

the statement is generally. Sure if you munchkin things and go min maxing then things change. But in general.. ~ BigShotFancyMan 15:42, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

Fair, although does giving favourable scores and using ASIs to improve core/needed abilities count as min/maxing and/or munchkin-ing things? A 20 Dex, 24 Con Barb ain't that hard to do. --Foxfire94 (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

I don't think it is hard to do with Barbarian but Barbarian is not a very common pick. The guide is written for general considerations. In general, PC classes do not get attack rolls or ACs that high. Generally, groups are not playing 20th level characters. There are certainly exceptions to guides in every scenario for every topic. If more than half the PC classes were overcoming these guidelines than maybe we should reevaluate. I trust the creator of the page, and haven't analyzed in great detail its legitimacy. ~ BigShotFancyMan 21:03, 22 April 2019 (MDT)