AC and description

[UngeheuerLich]

yeah, maybe...

still i have a bad feeling, when AC is so much LOWER then expected...

I am much less worried about those really tough dragonshields as i am about the slingers... maybe i just change their AC to 15, which seems reasonable... no other Monster i have seen has such a low AC... I would even say it is a typo or oversight if i didn´t knew better...

 

[TheSleepyKing]

It's a fudge, but I don't think it any more of a fudge than 3e's "natural armor" bonus (in which boar skin was actually stronger than chainmail). In 4e, though, rather than try try rationalize monster AC, they've just said screw it -- lets make the AC this and be done with it. I like this approach -- it's more honest if nothing else.

 

[PeelSeel2]

It is very refreshing to be able to look at a stat block and not have to justify the numbers behind it. It reminds me so much of BD&D and AD&D with their 'black box' monsters. Long live the 'Black Box' monsters!! Live long Dragonborn females with BOOBS!!

 

[thalmin]

It isn't so far off from what affects the PCs anyway. Defenses, including AC, scale with level. Why does a 5th level character have a better AC than a 1st level of same race, class, abilities, and equipment? Because he's harder to hit. He knows how to avoid the blows. Same for monsters. Avoiding blows doesn't have to be a function of level, but of style, like fighting defensively. Some are just more tricksy.

 

[Vrecknidj]

It is very refreshing to be able to look at a stat block and not have to justify the numbers behind it.

This is what I've been doing all along. Thank goodness the system has finally caught up.

Dave

 

[Wormwood]

It is very refreshing to be able to look at a stat block and not have to justify the numbers behind it

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Lizard]

I still find it one of the most annoying things about 4e, in large part because its unnecessary -- for precisely the reasons mentioned. What's so hard about setting a 'natural' armor bonus for a monster, then making sure the armor he wears doesn't raise that beyond the expected limits (or adjusting the XP value slightly if it does)?

(Honestly, I suspect the problem is that the stat blocks are erroneous, and that people are trying to justify them by saying it's intended design. Why bother giving the kobolds armor if it's basically meaningless? Just say they have hides of varying thickness and be done with it.)

Or, one could argue that 4e allows for a great deal of subtle variation, and some kobolds wear 'inferior leather armor' that provides a lower bonus.

 

[Jawa1972]

according to the customizing monster excerpt armor does follow a formula its just worn armor is not the main factor. There is a base AC from level, A bonus from Dex or Int if in light or no armor and then the armor modifier.

For example, an ogre savage normally has an Armor Class of 19 (it’s assumed to be wearing crude hide armor). Its effective armor bonus is +5 (19 – 10 – 4 [Dex]). Giving the ogre chainmail instead would improve its AC by 1 to 20, since the armor’s +6 bonus is 1 higher than this number.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

wow, noone adresses my issue:

its not the fudge of getting higher AC which bothers me.

It is the LOWER AC of the Minions and the slinger.

17 DEX, lether armor and end up with 13 AC?

with a reflex score of 14?

This is the most annoying thing. And when you have a direct comparison between two kobolds, the slingers with armor and dragonscale shields with no armor, how should the players judge by the description alone which is the foe with higher AC.

Its not the system which is wrong, just THIS particular example. The goblin description (even if they also don´t "add up") seems to match their RELATIVE AC compared whithin that creature group.

Problem: high agile armored slingers, much easier to hit than low agile unarmored guys...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Using armor change guidelines, a slingers effective armor bonus is: 13 - 10 - 3(Dex) = 0 ...