Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5696022" data-attributes="member: 22424">Aye, it's true.Two possible solutions spring to mind:- Situational weaknesses. The fast-moving, low-AC creature is really hard to hit, unless and until you can contrive some means to slow it down, whereupon it becomes easy to dispatch. This probably needs to be a bit more nuanced that just "throw an entange on it"! But merely allowing opponents to find attacks vs the weakest defence is probably a poor solution, since that's just too damn easy (and really not all that interesting).- Make greater use of things like vulnerabilities. Rather than have attacks vs some defences having a better chance to get through, have different types of attacks do more damage. The most obvious example is fire damage vs ice creatures, of course, but why not expand it to, say, bludgeoning weapons vs skeletons? (Essentially, Damage Reduction in reverse.)On the other hand, perhaps this is acceptable anyway. Characters generally should have a range of attacks hitting different defences - the game should actively discourage them putting all their eggs in one basket. And then, if a monster's 'good' defence was, say, 3 points better than their 'poor' defence then there is a bonus for canny players. I'm pretty okay with that. Where it goes wrong is if it's too easy - you can pick out the poor defence with the simplest of cues, or with a near-trivial dice roll.</blockquote>