Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 5722459" data-attributes="member: 1165">It doesn't seem to matter much in my games. On occasion I hear people figure that an NPC likely has a poor Fort defense, as they're not tough-looking and not wearing armor.It used to be a bit more. We have a barbarian player who has 1 or 2 attacks that target Fort, but everything else targets AC. We used to have a psion who had Id Insinuation, which weakens a target's Fort defense, but virtually no one could take advantage of that. We used to have a rogue who could target Reflex with certain attacks, but everything else was vs AC.PC defenses vary a lot more. Last level, the dwarf "cleric" PC had a Reflex of only 13, which is pretty lethal, but fortunately for him the nastiest attacks don't seem to target Ref. I think he has a 14 now, which is still low. (His Fort defense is surprisingly low, too.) I give a lot of monsters non-AC attacking powers, even "martial-type" powers, and find I can easily hit the barbarian's Fort defense, etc. Pretty much the whole group has high AC. TLDR: I find monsters attacking various NADs to play a bigger role than PCs attacking various NADs, and so PC NAD variance is more important than monster NAD variance.I'm a bit curious about how you figured stats for orcs and soldiers though. Most orcs are brutes; can I assume you also gave them poor AC? I guess what I'm really asking is did you apply AC mods for brute and soldier before sprinkling in your fixes?</blockquote>

Verification