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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FourthBear" data-source="post: 4299293" data-attributes="member: 55846">In this case, I would say the recipe is both very clear and very direct: the   appropriate stats for a given opponent of a specific role and level are given in the DMG.  Those are the numbers that playtesting has presumably shown results in the best chance of the opponent behaving as expected in a given encounter.  If they are much higher or lower than those given target numbers, it is reasonable to posit that the opponent has a higher chance of not resulting in the desired effect in the encounter.In 3e, the DM was encouraged to play a mini-game of enemy construction, using classes, equipment, base monster stats, monster advancement, templates and special exceptions to generate opponents that the system would supposedly output as reasonable.  If this mini-game resulted in numbers outside acceptable ranges, the DM didn't play the mini-game well enough.  Gave the gargoyle barbarian magical full plate and now the appropriately leveled party can't hit him?  Better luck next time!  Heck, many DMs regard that kind of optimization as a win, since you've managed to construct really high numbers out of the mini-game, despite the fact that the PCs can't hit it.I think the 4e system, where they give you clear, transparent target numbers is far superior.  That way, the DM knows if they're outside the expected values quite easily.  Certainly you can start deconstructing opponent stats, calculate AC stats, realize that they could afford better armor, supply them with such armor and then recalculate all of their ACS with the improved values.  I hope any DM who does so realizes that doing has a significant likelihood of giving the opponent ACs inappropriate for the level and role.  And to my mind, what actually happens at the table matters enormously more than a highly consistent armor system.</blockquote>

Verification