How Important/Feasible is 3 good NADs?

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

You might want to have a chat with a doctor, just in case..

I'll give that suggestion its due consideration, definitely

One final thought: the monsters that scare me the most are the ones that target my NADs.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Playing 4th edition is about your character getting kicked in the NADs repeatedly. Don't expect the bad guys to ever miss. That way you will be pleasantly surprised the 1 time in 5 or so that the do miss. If you expect them to ever miss, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

 

[Nail]

Playing 4th edition is about your character getting kicked in the NADs repeatedly. Don't expect the bad guys to ever miss. That way you will be pleasantly surprised the 1 time in 5 or so that the do miss. If you expect them to ever miss, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

Huh. My PCs get hit about 50% of the time. You find that not to be the case?

 

[Paul Strack]

Huh. My PCs get hit about 50% of the time. You find that not to be the case?

In my group of 5th level PCs, non-armor defenses are about 4 points lower than AC, on average. Given that attacks against non-armor defenses tend to be 2 points lowers, hits against these defenses are notably more common.

The worst case in our group is the fighter: his Will and Reflex defenses are 8 points lower than his AC. He is rarely hit by attacks against AC (maybe 35% of the time), but is often hit by attacks against Reflex or Will (about 65%).

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

This thread is veering off-topic... more NAD jokes please!

 

[Mengu]

I think if you have a pair, you're good to go. Anything else is unnatural and I can only imagine would be difficult to maintain.

One good defense will be determined by your primary stat.

Reflex is a very commonly targeted defense, so I'd try to focus on that if it's not primary. If it is primary, then I would try to focus on Will since getting hit with a vs. will attack usually has the direst consequences. Attacks against fortitude merely get you out of position or do some additional damage for the most part, so the consequences aren't terrible for non-defenders.

Class bonuses usually give you the right defense bonus you need. For instance Wizard's getting Will is good because a dominated wizard can do serious damage to his party. Defenders get bonus to Fortitude so they are not shoved out of position easily.

I think worrying about three good defenses will merely make you mediocre at everything unless your class/race combination somehow yields three good defenses naturally.

 

[Nail]

In my group of 5th level PCs, non-armor defenses are about 4 points lower than AC, on average. Given that attacks against non-armor defenses tend to be 2 points lowers, hits against these defenses are notably more common.

Your player characters need better NADs.

But seriously: I wonder if the designers took this sort of problem into account. I would like to think they didn't give most mosters an At-Will attack that practically always hits by targeting the PCs NADs. If they goofed this up, then DMs shouldn't always be using the easy attack/dirty trick of hit the PCs in the NADs.

It's a bit below the belt, don't you think?

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

A for effort!

 

[Nail]

..but not enough, Ulorian?

Aww NUTS!

 

[Mistwell]

I don't find it clever. I had the impression it was a standard usage here, and I needed a short term for my title. As I am not the juvenile Beavis and Butthead type who can't use or read a term without being titillated by a racy homophone, it never occurred to me that using it would arouse comment.

But, as the comments below indicate that my attitude is atypical, I will remember in the future to avoid such usages.

/1:1AdmixtureofSeriousAndSnark

Acronyms tend to be overused in hobbies, and this hobby is no exception. It often excludes new people from fully enjoying the hobby, and furthers an insider-type atmosphere. So, I try to only use the most common, and most useful, acronyms (like RPG, or DM, both of which are common and useful).

"NAD" is not, to me, a common or particularly useful acronym, so I do not use it. It's not necessary to get your point across, and using English words would communicate your meaning better to a larger group of people.

Acronyms also usually spell out an English word or pleasant sound on purpose, so you can remember them. You (or someone) chose NAD, which as an English word isn't a particularly good choice, for this field anyway. It's not juvenile to point that out in my opinion, as you (or someone) chose it. It's not like you needed the word "dependency" for example, but you (or someone) picked it so you could use a D instead of, say, Reliance (R), or Usage (U).

In other words, I think you deserve a bit of the playful ribbing you are getting for choosing to use an acronym that is both a bit silly itself, and not particularly useful.