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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5126305" data-attributes="member: 51942">I based myself on the MM statistics as posted in another thread.  Presumably, these are accurate, if not, please post that there.For extra info, I decided to look at all standard level 1 monsters in MM2 (minions, elites + solos should be similar, but they may be subtly different and in any case, this is less to check.Blood Hawk: +6 vs. ACBullywug Mucker: +4 vs. AC, +5 vs. FortFell Taint Lasher: +5 vs. Ref, +5 vs. WillFell Taint Pulsar: +4 vs. Ref, +6 vs. Ref. +4(multi) vs. RefGoblin Acolyte of Maglubiyet: +6 vs. AC, +5(sometimes multi) vs. FortI stand by my analysis; attacks vs. NAD's are less that 2 lower than those vs. AC (on average), despite more commonly being multi-target.  Not a single creature has the +2 bonus you claim is more common.  If you check the MM, you'll see that there too all creatures that have attack bonuses from +4 to +6 regardless of whether they attack AC or NAD's, with just one exception (the stormclaw scorpion, with a +8 vs. AC attack and a +6 vs. Fort attack).In short, based on the published guidelines and based on both MM's, to hit approximate equally often, NAD's should be at most 2 lower on average to be on par with AC.This is simply false - perhaps you happened to check very peculiar distribution of monsters that was neither from MM1 nor MM2?The earlier conclusion stands; if NADs are to be hit about as reliably as AC (i.e. 45-50% of the time vs. average PC's) then the average NAD should be just 1 or 2 lower than the average AC - i.e. at least 15.</blockquote>

Verification