Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5767139" data-attributes="member: 58197">Hmm. It may be, but I think it needs to be broken down further. There are really three schools of monster design in D&D; the AD&D school, the 3E school, and the 4E school.AD&D: "The dragon is covered in iron-hard scales. That means it oughta be pretty hard to hurt it. I'm gonna say... AC -2."3E: "Okay, the dragon is covered in iron-hard scales. That's about +20 natural armor. But it's got a Dex of 8, so -1 for that. Then it's Gargantuan, so -4. Add all that up, base AC 10, final result... AC 25."4E: "The dragon is a 10th-level controller. *checks table* That's AC 26, give or take."Personally, I favor a mix of the AD&D and 4E approaches. A monster's AC should be consistent with its description, but it should also be consistent with its stated threat level (whether you express that as 4E level/role, 3E challenge rating, or AD&D XP value). If there's a conflict, go with the description but adjust threat level to fit.I dislike the 3E approach, which I consider the worst of both worlds. It does not lead either to good simulation (house cats versus wizards for the win!) or to good game balance (as evidenced by how monsters often had to have their stats kludged with giant special modifiers), and it's a serious headache into the bargain.</blockquote>