Mixing
Can a target have 2 AC values?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I had an idea for a kobold operated tank.
The armor would be thick enough to be immune to damage from all mundane projectiles (arrows, bolts, flintlocks, javelins, etc.), and resistant to magic and melee damage. I have heard AC described as "how hard it is to hit you", and do to the size and speed (big and slow) it should have a low AC. really easy to hit but really hard to do damage to. I however wanted to add hard to hit weak points, like a pair of slits in the armor for the driver and ballista operator to see though, or the tank treads.
My question is this:
Can a target have TWO AC values? One low, easy to hit AC for the main body and a harder to hit but very vulnerable AC for specific weak points?
dnd-5e armor-class
edited 36 mins ago
Sdjz
8,35134083
asked 39 mins ago
Mike Cosgrove
836
New contributor
Mike Cosgrove is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I had an idea for a kobold operated tank.
The armor would be thick enough to be immune to damage from all mundane projectiles (arrows, bolts, flintlocks, javelins, etc.), and resistant to magic and melee damage. I have heard AC described as "how hard it is to hit you", and do to the size and speed (big and slow) it should have a low AC. really easy to hit but really hard to do damage to. I however wanted to add hard to hit weak points, like a pair of slits in the armor for the driver and ballista operator to see though, or the tank treads.
My question is this:
Can a target have TWO AC values? One low, easy to hit AC for the main body and a harder to hit but very vulnerable AC for specific weak points?
dnd-5e armor-class
edited 36 mins ago
Sdjz
8,35134083
asked 39 mins ago
Mike Cosgrove
836
New contributor
Mike Cosgrove is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
What are you expecting a hit to an arrow slit to do? Hurt the guy inside? Because that sounds more like "rules for cover" and less "having two AC values".
– Erik
32 mins ago
1
By "hard to hit weak points", isn't that the same as having a high AC? You wouldn't be trying to hit the non-weak points in the same way you don't try to hit your opponent's hair even if it is easy to hit, you try to hit their body, arm, etc.
– firedraco
26 mins ago
1
What is the purpose of the "easy to hit AC for the main body"? Why would anybody target the main body, assuming it is "immune to damage from all mundane projectiles" and "resistant to magic and melee damage" (and has a lot of hp, presumably)?
– enkryptor
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I had an idea for a kobold operated tank.
The armor would be thick enough to be immune to damage from all mundane projectiles (arrows, bolts, flintlocks, javelins, etc.), and resistant to magic and melee damage. I have heard AC described as "how hard it is to hit you", and do to the size and speed (big and slow) it should have a low AC. really easy to hit but really hard to do damage to. I however wanted to add hard to hit weak points, like a pair of slits in the armor for the driver and ballista operator to see though, or the tank treads.
My question is this:
Can a target have TWO AC values? One low, easy to hit AC for the main body and a harder to hit but very vulnerable AC for specific weak points?
dnd-5e armor-class
edited 36 mins ago
Sdjz
8,35134083
asked 39 mins ago
Mike Cosgrove
836
New contributor
Mike Cosgrove is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I had an idea for a kobold operated tank.
The armor would be thick enough to be immune to damage from all mundane projectiles (arrows, bolts, flintlocks, javelins, etc.), and resistant to magic and melee damage. I have heard AC described as "how hard it is to hit you", and do to the size and speed (big and slow) it should have a low AC. really easy to hit but really hard to do damage to. I however wanted to add hard to hit weak points, like a pair of slits in the armor for the driver and ballista operator to see though, or the tank treads.
My question is this:
Can a target have TWO AC values? One low, easy to hit AC for the main body and a harder to hit but very vulnerable AC for specific weak points?
dnd-5e armor-class
dnd-5e armor-class
edited 36 mins ago
Sdjz
8,35134083
asked 39 mins ago
Mike Cosgrove
836
New contributor
Mike Cosgrove is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 36 mins ago
Sdjz
8,35134083
asked 39 mins ago
Mike Cosgrove
836
New contributor
Mike Cosgrove is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 36 mins ago
Sdjz
8,35134083
edited 36 mins ago
Sdjz
8,35134083
edited 36 mins ago
Sdjz
8,35134083
8,35134083
asked 39 mins ago
Mike Cosgrove
836
New contributor
Mike Cosgrove is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 39 mins ago
Mike Cosgrove
836
asked 39 mins ago
Mike Cosgrove
836
836
New contributor
Mike Cosgrove is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Mike Cosgrove is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Mike Cosgrove is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
What are you expecting a hit to an arrow slit to do? Hurt the guy inside? Because that sounds more like "rules for cover" and less "having two AC values".
– Erik
32 mins ago
1
By "hard to hit weak points", isn't that the same as having a high AC? You wouldn't be trying to hit the non-weak points in the same way you don't try to hit your opponent's hair even if it is easy to hit, you try to hit their body, arm, etc.
– firedraco
26 mins ago
1
What is the purpose of the "easy to hit AC for the main body"? Why would anybody target the main body, assuming it is "immune to damage from all mundane projectiles" and "resistant to magic and melee damage" (and has a lot of hp, presumably)?
– enkryptor
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
3
What are you expecting a hit to an arrow slit to do? Hurt the guy inside? Because that sounds more like "rules for cover" and less "having two AC values".
– Erik
32 mins ago
1
By "hard to hit weak points", isn't that the same as having a high AC? You wouldn't be trying to hit the non-weak points in the same way you don't try to hit your opponent's hair even if it is easy to hit, you try to hit their body, arm, etc.
– firedraco
26 mins ago
1
What is the purpose of the "easy to hit AC for the main body"? Why would anybody target the main body, assuming it is "immune to damage from all mundane projectiles" and "resistant to magic and melee damage" (and has a lot of hp, presumably)?
– enkryptor
10 mins ago
3
3
What are you expecting a hit to an arrow slit to do? Hurt the guy inside? Because that sounds more like "rules for cover" and less "having two AC values".
– Erik
32 mins ago
What are you expecting a hit to an arrow slit to do? Hurt the guy inside? Because that sounds more like "rules for cover" and less "having two AC values".
– Erik
32 mins ago
1
1
By "hard to hit weak points", isn't that the same as having a high AC? You wouldn't be trying to hit the non-weak points in the same way you don't try to hit your opponent's hair even if it is easy to hit, you try to hit their body, arm, etc.
– firedraco
26 mins ago
By "hard to hit weak points", isn't that the same as having a high AC? You wouldn't be trying to hit the non-weak points in the same way you don't try to hit your opponent's hair even if it is easy to hit, you try to hit their body, arm, etc.
– firedraco
26 mins ago
1
1
What is the purpose of the "easy to hit AC for the main body"? Why would anybody target the main body, assuming it is "immune to damage from all mundane projectiles" and "resistant to magic and melee damage" (and has a lot of hp, presumably)?
– enkryptor
10 mins ago
What is the purpose of the "easy to hit AC for the main body"? Why would anybody target the main body, assuming it is "immune to damage from all mundane projectiles" and "resistant to magic and melee damage" (and has a lot of hp, presumably)?
– enkryptor
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
One AC value should be enough
AC isn't about how hard it is to hit you. It is about how hard it is to damage you.
See PHB, page 14 Armor Class:
Your Armor Class (AC)represents how well your character avoids being wounded in battle.
Your tank is supposed to be "really hard to do damage to", that means it has quite big AC. DMG page 246 suggests AC 19 for iron and steel. When an attack overcomes this AC, it hits a weak point.
Your tank is also supposed to be "immune to damage from all mundane projectiles". You can use the Damage Threshold to reflect this. See DMG page 247:
Damage Threshold. Big objects such as castle walls often have extra resilience represented by a damage threshold. An object with a damage threshold has immunity to all damage unless it takes an amount of damage from a single attack or effect equal to or greater than its damage threshold, in which case it takes damage as normal.
A brief historical reference. The very idea of one target having several AC values is not groundbreaking. Prior versions of D&D had a few AC values for different situations. There were at least three of them — "normal AC", "flat-footed AC" and "touch AC". 5th edition changes this for the sake of simplicity. As a DM, you can change this back, if that seems reasonable for you; I'm just saying that wouldn't comply with the 5e design philosophy.
answered 13 mins ago
enkryptor
22.7k979192
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Raw? No
A target can have multiple ways to calculate AC, but it has to choose one to actually use. There is no such thing as a "called shot" or similar in 5e, so AC applies to every part of the creature. It's part of the abstraction of combat.
There is nothing stopping you from doing this anyway
As DM you have free reign to make cool stuff. You want to make certain parts of the tank harder to hit? Go for it.
If it helps, you can imagine/design the harder-to-hit portions as distinct creatures that happen to be attached to the larger tank, so the PCs can choose to target them or the tank. There is also nothing stopping you from saying, "When this thing gets hit, this other thing happens", where the 'other thing' could be the tank's speed dropping to 0, or losing resistance, or whatever you want.
answered 22 mins ago
GreySage
12.5k44584
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
There is a precedent.
Some creatures in the Monster Manual have body parts that, under certain circumstances, have a different AC from the creature itself. The Roper's Grasping Tendrils, for example.
But does that apply here?
Compare your theoretical kobold tank to a knight in plate armor. Is the knight harder to hit -- in the sense of 'make contact with' -- than a guy running around in his shorts? No, not at all. The armored juggernaut is the broad side of a barn, relatively speaking. The high AC he has comes from the difficulty of landing a blow that does any damage, because his heavy armor tends to absorb or deflect attacks harmlessly.
Similarly, the sides of a tank would be effectively invulnerable, and so an AC of, say, 22 could easily represent the difficulty of getting a hit in that actually goes through an eye slot, or wedges into a joint, or some such thing, rather than merely bouncing off.
Do whichever is more fun.
There's nothing wrong with deciding that different parts of the tank have different AC and HP values, too. It could be a fun fight where the tank itself has a ton of HP, so you can just smash your way through, but it has a series of 'challenges' that make the fight easier if the players are clever enough to use them -- like if you deal enough damage through the eye slot, it disables a weapon; if you deal enough damage to the wheels/treads, it stops moving, and so on. I think it's great to introduce a tactical element to the fight like that -- especially if you can achieve the same effects through clever use of skills, like a high enough strength check to wedge a crowbar into the turret so it can't turn anymore, or an Investigate roll that reveals a leaky fuel tank full of burnable fluid.
answered 8 mins ago
Darth Pseudonym
6,7391437
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
One AC value should be enough
AC isn't about how hard it is to hit you. It is about how hard it is to damage you.
See PHB, page 14 Armor Class:
Your Armor Class (AC)represents how well your character avoids being wounded in battle.
Your tank is supposed to be "really hard to do damage to", that means it has quite big AC. DMG page 246 suggests AC 19 for iron and steel. When an attack overcomes this AC, it hits a weak point.
Your tank is also supposed to be "immune to damage from all mundane projectiles". You can use the Damage Threshold to reflect this. See DMG page 247:
Damage Threshold. Big objects such as castle walls often have extra resilience represented by a damage threshold. An object with a damage threshold has immunity to all damage unless it takes an amount of damage from a single attack or effect equal to or greater than its damage threshold, in which case it takes damage as normal.
A brief historical reference. The very idea of one target having several AC values is not groundbreaking. Prior versions of D&D had a few AC values for different situations. There were at least three of them — "normal AC", "flat-footed AC" and "touch AC". 5th edition changes this for the sake of simplicity. As a DM, you can change this back, if that seems reasonable for you; I'm just saying that wouldn't comply with the 5e design philosophy.
answered 13 mins ago
enkryptor
22.7k979192
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
One AC value should be enough
AC isn't about how hard it is to hit you. It is about how hard it is to damage you.
See PHB, page 14 Armor Class:
Your Armor Class (AC)represents how well your character avoids being wounded in battle.
Your tank is supposed to be "really hard to do damage to", that means it has quite big AC. DMG page 246 suggests AC 19 for iron and steel. When an attack overcomes this AC, it hits a weak point.
Your tank is also supposed to be "immune to damage from all mundane projectiles". You can use the Damage Threshold to reflect this. See DMG page 247:
Damage Threshold. Big objects such as castle walls often have extra resilience represented by a damage threshold. An object with a damage threshold has immunity to all damage unless it takes an amount of damage from a single attack or effect equal to or greater than its damage threshold, in which case it takes damage as normal.
A brief historical reference. The very idea of one target having several AC values is not groundbreaking. Prior versions of D&D had a few AC values for different situations. There were at least three of them — "normal AC", "flat-footed AC" and "touch AC". 5th edition changes this for the sake of simplicity. As a DM, you can change this back, if that seems reasonable for you; I'm just saying that wouldn't comply with the 5e design philosophy.
answered 13 mins ago
enkryptor
22.7k979192
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
One AC value should be enough
AC isn't about how hard it is to hit you. It is about how hard it is to damage you.
See PHB, page 14 Armor Class:
Your Armor Class (AC)represents how well your character avoids being wounded in battle.
Your tank is supposed to be "really hard to do damage to", that means it has quite big AC. DMG page 246 suggests AC 19 for iron and steel. When an attack overcomes this AC, it hits a weak point.
Your tank is also supposed to be "immune to damage from all mundane projectiles". You can use the Damage Threshold to reflect this. See DMG page 247:
Damage Threshold. Big objects such as castle walls often have extra resilience represented by a damage threshold. An object with a damage threshold has immunity to all damage unless it takes an amount of damage from a single attack or effect equal to or greater than its damage threshold, in which case it takes damage as normal.
A brief historical reference. The very idea of one target having several AC values is not groundbreaking. Prior versions of D&D had a few AC values for different situations. There were at least three of them — "normal AC", "flat-footed AC" and "touch AC". 5th edition changes this for the sake of simplicity. As a DM, you can change this back, if that seems reasonable for you; I'm just saying that wouldn't comply with the 5e design philosophy.
answered 13 mins ago
enkryptor
22.7k979192
One AC value should be enough
AC isn't about how hard it is to hit you. It is about how hard it is to damage you.
See PHB, page 14 Armor Class:
Your Armor Class (AC)represents how well your character avoids being wounded in battle.
Your tank is supposed to be "really hard to do damage to", that means it has quite big AC. DMG page 246 suggests AC 19 for iron and steel. When an attack overcomes this AC, it hits a weak point.
Your tank is also supposed to be "immune to damage from all mundane projectiles". You can use the Damage Threshold to reflect this. See DMG page 247:
Damage Threshold. Big objects such as castle walls often have extra resilience represented by a damage threshold. An object with a damage threshold has immunity to all damage unless it takes an amount of damage from a single attack or effect equal to or greater than its damage threshold, in which case it takes damage as normal.
A brief historical reference. The very idea of one target having several AC values is not groundbreaking. Prior versions of D&D had a few AC values for different situations. There were at least three of them — "normal AC", "flat-footed AC" and "touch AC". 5th edition changes this for the sake of simplicity. As a DM, you can change this back, if that seems reasonable for you; I'm just saying that wouldn't comply with the 5e design philosophy.
answered 13 mins ago
enkryptor
22.7k979192
edited 44 secs ago
answered 13 mins ago
enkryptor
22.7k979192
answered 13 mins ago
enkryptor
22.7k979192
answered 13 mins ago
enkryptor
22.7k979192
22.7k979192
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Raw? No
A target can have multiple ways to calculate AC, but it has to choose one to actually use. There is no such thing as a "called shot" or similar in 5e, so AC applies to every part of the creature. It's part of the abstraction of combat.
There is nothing stopping you from doing this anyway
As DM you have free reign to make cool stuff. You want to make certain parts of the tank harder to hit? Go for it.
If it helps, you can imagine/design the harder-to-hit portions as distinct creatures that happen to be attached to the larger tank, so the PCs can choose to target them or the tank. There is also nothing stopping you from saying, "When this thing gets hit, this other thing happens", where the 'other thing' could be the tank's speed dropping to 0, or losing resistance, or whatever you want.
answered 22 mins ago
GreySage
12.5k44584
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Raw? No
A target can have multiple ways to calculate AC, but it has to choose one to actually use. There is no such thing as a "called shot" or similar in 5e, so AC applies to every part of the creature. It's part of the abstraction of combat.
There is nothing stopping you from doing this anyway
As DM you have free reign to make cool stuff. You want to make certain parts of the tank harder to hit? Go for it.
If it helps, you can imagine/design the harder-to-hit portions as distinct creatures that happen to be attached to the larger tank, so the PCs can choose to target them or the tank. There is also nothing stopping you from saying, "When this thing gets hit, this other thing happens", where the 'other thing' could be the tank's speed dropping to 0, or losing resistance, or whatever you want.
answered 22 mins ago
GreySage
12.5k44584
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Raw? No
A target can have multiple ways to calculate AC, but it has to choose one to actually use. There is no such thing as a "called shot" or similar in 5e, so AC applies to every part of the creature. It's part of the abstraction of combat.
There is nothing stopping you from doing this anyway
As DM you have free reign to make cool stuff. You want to make certain parts of the tank harder to hit? Go for it.
If it helps, you can imagine/design the harder-to-hit portions as distinct creatures that happen to be attached to the larger tank, so the PCs can choose to target them or the tank. There is also nothing stopping you from saying, "When this thing gets hit, this other thing happens", where the 'other thing' could be the tank's speed dropping to 0, or losing resistance, or whatever you want.
answered 22 mins ago
GreySage
12.5k44584
Raw? No
A target can have multiple ways to calculate AC, but it has to choose one to actually use. There is no such thing as a "called shot" or similar in 5e, so AC applies to every part of the creature. It's part of the abstraction of combat.
There is nothing stopping you from doing this anyway
As DM you have free reign to make cool stuff. You want to make certain parts of the tank harder to hit? Go for it.
If it helps, you can imagine/design the harder-to-hit portions as distinct creatures that happen to be attached to the larger tank, so the PCs can choose to target them or the tank. There is also nothing stopping you from saying, "When this thing gets hit, this other thing happens", where the 'other thing' could be the tank's speed dropping to 0, or losing resistance, or whatever you want.
answered 22 mins ago
GreySage
12.5k44584
answered 22 mins ago
GreySage
12.5k44584
answered 22 mins ago
GreySage
12.5k44584
answered 22 mins ago
GreySage
12.5k44584
12.5k44584
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
There is a precedent.
Some creatures in the Monster Manual have body parts that, under certain circumstances, have a different AC from the creature itself. The Roper's Grasping Tendrils, for example.
But does that apply here?
Compare your theoretical kobold tank to a knight in plate armor. Is the knight harder to hit -- in the sense of 'make contact with' -- than a guy running around in his shorts? No, not at all. The armored juggernaut is the broad side of a barn, relatively speaking. The high AC he has comes from the difficulty of landing a blow that does any damage, because his heavy armor tends to absorb or deflect attacks harmlessly.
Similarly, the sides of a tank would be effectively invulnerable, and so an AC of, say, 22 could easily represent the difficulty of getting a hit in that actually goes through an eye slot, or wedges into a joint, or some such thing, rather than merely bouncing off.
Do whichever is more fun.
There's nothing wrong with deciding that different parts of the tank have different AC and HP values, too. It could be a fun fight where the tank itself has a ton of HP, so you can just smash your way through, but it has a series of 'challenges' that make the fight easier if the players are clever enough to use them -- like if you deal enough damage through the eye slot, it disables a weapon; if you deal enough damage to the wheels/treads, it stops moving, and so on. I think it's great to introduce a tactical element to the fight like that -- especially if you can achieve the same effects through clever use of skills, like a high enough strength check to wedge a crowbar into the turret so it can't turn anymore, or an Investigate roll that reveals a leaky fuel tank full of burnable fluid.
answered 8 mins ago
Darth Pseudonym
6,7391437
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
There is a precedent.
Some creatures in the Monster Manual have body parts that, under certain circumstances, have a different AC from the creature itself. The Roper's Grasping Tendrils, for example.
But does that apply here?
Compare your theoretical kobold tank to a knight in plate armor. Is the knight harder to hit -- in the sense of 'make contact with' -- than a guy running around in his shorts? No, not at all. The armored juggernaut is the broad side of a barn, relatively speaking. The high AC he has comes from the difficulty of landing a blow that does any damage, because his heavy armor tends to absorb or deflect attacks harmlessly.
Similarly, the sides of a tank would be effectively invulnerable, and so an AC of, say, 22 could easily represent the difficulty of getting a hit in that actually goes through an eye slot, or wedges into a joint, or some such thing, rather than merely bouncing off.
Do whichever is more fun.
There's nothing wrong with deciding that different parts of the tank have different AC and HP values, too. It could be a fun fight where the tank itself has a ton of HP, so you can just smash your way through, but it has a series of 'challenges' that make the fight easier if the players are clever enough to use them -- like if you deal enough damage through the eye slot, it disables a weapon; if you deal enough damage to the wheels/treads, it stops moving, and so on. I think it's great to introduce a tactical element to the fight like that -- especially if you can achieve the same effects through clever use of skills, like a high enough strength check to wedge a crowbar into the turret so it can't turn anymore, or an Investigate roll that reveals a leaky fuel tank full of burnable fluid.
answered 8 mins ago
Darth Pseudonym
6,7391437
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
There is a precedent.
Some creatures in the Monster Manual have body parts that, under certain circumstances, have a different AC from the creature itself. The Roper's Grasping Tendrils, for example.
But does that apply here?
Compare your theoretical kobold tank to a knight in plate armor. Is the knight harder to hit -- in the sense of 'make contact with' -- than a guy running around in his shorts? No, not at all. The armored juggernaut is the broad side of a barn, relatively speaking. The high AC he has comes from the difficulty of landing a blow that does any damage, because his heavy armor tends to absorb or deflect attacks harmlessly.
Similarly, the sides of a tank would be effectively invulnerable, and so an AC of, say, 22 could easily represent the difficulty of getting a hit in that actually goes through an eye slot, or wedges into a joint, or some such thing, rather than merely bouncing off.
Do whichever is more fun.
There's nothing wrong with deciding that different parts of the tank have different AC and HP values, too. It could be a fun fight where the tank itself has a ton of HP, so you can just smash your way through, but it has a series of 'challenges' that make the fight easier if the players are clever enough to use them -- like if you deal enough damage through the eye slot, it disables a weapon; if you deal enough damage to the wheels/treads, it stops moving, and so on. I think it's great to introduce a tactical element to the fight like that -- especially if you can achieve the same effects through clever use of skills, like a high enough strength check to wedge a crowbar into the turret so it can't turn anymore, or an Investigate roll that reveals a leaky fuel tank full of burnable fluid.
answered 8 mins ago
Darth Pseudonym
6,7391437
There is a precedent.
Some creatures in the Monster Manual have body parts that, under certain circumstances, have a different AC from the creature itself. The Roper's Grasping Tendrils, for example.
But does that apply here?
Compare your theoretical kobold tank to a knight in plate armor. Is the knight harder to hit -- in the sense of 'make contact with' -- than a guy running around in his shorts? No, not at all. The armored juggernaut is the broad side of a barn, relatively speaking. The high AC he has comes from the difficulty of landing a blow that does any damage, because his heavy armor tends to absorb or deflect attacks harmlessly.
Similarly, the sides of a tank would be effectively invulnerable, and so an AC of, say, 22 could easily represent the difficulty of getting a hit in that actually goes through an eye slot, or wedges into a joint, or some such thing, rather than merely bouncing off.
Do whichever is more fun.
There's nothing wrong with deciding that different parts of the tank have different AC and HP values, too. It could be a fun fight where the tank itself has a ton of HP, so you can just smash your way through, but it has a series of 'challenges' that make the fight easier if the players are clever enough to use them -- like if you deal enough damage through the eye slot, it disables a weapon; if you deal enough damage to the wheels/treads, it stops moving, and so on. I think it's great to introduce a tactical element to the fight like that -- especially if you can achieve the same effects through clever use of skills, like a high enough strength check to wedge a crowbar into the turret so it can't turn anymore, or an Investigate roll that reveals a leaky fuel tank full of burnable fluid.
answered 8 mins ago
Darth Pseudonym
6,7391437
edited 2 mins ago
answered 8 mins ago
Darth Pseudonym
6,7391437
answered 8 mins ago
Darth Pseudonym
6,7391437
answered 8 mins ago
Darth Pseudonym
6,7391437
6,7391437
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Mike Cosgrove is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mike Cosgrove is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mike Cosgrove is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mike Cosgrove is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f133671%2fcan-a-target-have-2-ac-values%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
3
What are you expecting a hit to an arrow slit to do? Hurt the guy inside? Because that sounds more like "rules for cover" and less "having two AC values".
– Erik
32 mins ago
1
By "hard to hit weak points", isn't that the same as having a high AC? You wouldn't be trying to hit the non-weak points in the same way you don't try to hit your opponent's hair even if it is easy to hit, you try to hit their body, arm, etc.
– firedraco
26 mins ago
1
What is the purpose of the "easy to hit AC for the main body"? Why would anybody target the main body, assuming it is "immune to damage from all mundane projectiles" and "resistant to magic and melee damage" (and has a lot of hp, presumably)?
– enkryptor
10 mins ago