Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nymrohd" data-source="post: 5110029" data-attributes="member: 59126"><p>There is obviously an argument on the importance of each defense. Wizards has not made it easy there either tbh; it would have been logical for many attacks that currently are damage+effect to be damage plus secondary attack to a more appropriate def so as to apply said effect. Attacks vs AC or Ref applying physical effects that should be defended against with fortitude for instance are ubiquitious. A design with higher verisimilititude in attack patterns would allow for defenses to be more predictable in what they defend against. I expect that the current design was conscious so that people could not pick and choose what to shore up (for instance you could have the tank who drops avoidance to make himself a good target (low AC/Ref) but makes sure that he can resist most any effect that would remove him from combat (high Fort/Will); this seemingly haphazard design prevents that, and removes the tactical choice from players (check for instance the gaming engine behind the Dragon Age game, which I consider a very intelligent way to simulate RPG combat). The concern is mainly in campaign design; is the DM expected to take note of what defenses his NPCs attack in combat and intentionally vary them?</p></blockquote><p></p>