Can a target have two Armor Class (AC) values?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
12
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 due to the size and speed (big and slow) it should have a low AC: it would be 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?










share|improve this question









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.















  • 6




    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
    6 hours ago






  • 4




    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
    6 hours ago






  • 4




    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
    6 hours ago











  • You can target objects being held, so why can’t you target separate parts of the tank. Barrel and treads aren’t permanently attached, if those are damaged the whole tank isn’t destroyed. See my post / comments for further explanation.
    – XAQT78
    4 hours ago










  • resistant to magic and melee damage - you are in the wrong edition of the game with this phrasing. Suggest you look up types of damage in the PHB and revise the question to incorporate how it works in 5th edition.
    – KorvinStarmast
    3 hours ago















up vote
12
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 due to the size and speed (big and slow) it should have a low AC: it would be 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?










share|improve this question









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.















  • 6




    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
    6 hours ago






  • 4




    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
    6 hours ago






  • 4




    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
    6 hours ago











  • You can target objects being held, so why can’t you target separate parts of the tank. Barrel and treads aren’t permanently attached, if those are damaged the whole tank isn’t destroyed. See my post / comments for further explanation.
    – XAQT78
    4 hours ago










  • resistant to magic and melee damage - you are in the wrong edition of the game with this phrasing. Suggest you look up types of damage in the PHB and revise the question to incorporate how it works in 5th edition.
    – KorvinStarmast
    3 hours ago













up vote
12
down vote

favorite









up vote
12
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 due to the size and speed (big and slow) it should have a low AC: it would be 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?










share|improve this question









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 due to the size and speed (big and slow) it should have a low AC: it would be 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 vehicles






share|improve this question









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.











share|improve this question









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.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 9 mins ago









V2Blast

16.7k242107




16.7k242107






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 7 hours ago









Mike Cosgrove

1368




1368




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.







  • 6




    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
    6 hours ago






  • 4




    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
    6 hours ago






  • 4




    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
    6 hours ago











  • You can target objects being held, so why can’t you target separate parts of the tank. Barrel and treads aren’t permanently attached, if those are damaged the whole tank isn’t destroyed. See my post / comments for further explanation.
    – XAQT78
    4 hours ago










  • resistant to magic and melee damage - you are in the wrong edition of the game with this phrasing. Suggest you look up types of damage in the PHB and revise the question to incorporate how it works in 5th edition.
    – KorvinStarmast
    3 hours ago













  • 6




    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
    6 hours ago






  • 4




    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
    6 hours ago






  • 4




    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
    6 hours ago











  • You can target objects being held, so why can’t you target separate parts of the tank. Barrel and treads aren’t permanently attached, if those are damaged the whole tank isn’t destroyed. See my post / comments for further explanation.
    – XAQT78
    4 hours ago










  • resistant to magic and melee damage - you are in the wrong edition of the game with this phrasing. Suggest you look up types of damage in the PHB and revise the question to incorporate how it works in 5th edition.
    – KorvinStarmast
    3 hours ago








6




6




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
6 hours 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
6 hours ago




4




4




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
6 hours 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
6 hours ago




4




4




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
6 hours 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
6 hours ago













You can target objects being held, so why can’t you target separate parts of the tank. Barrel and treads aren’t permanently attached, if those are damaged the whole tank isn’t destroyed. See my post / comments for further explanation.
– XAQT78
4 hours ago




You can target objects being held, so why can’t you target separate parts of the tank. Barrel and treads aren’t permanently attached, if those are damaged the whole tank isn’t destroyed. See my post / comments for further explanation.
– XAQT78
4 hours ago












resistant to magic and melee damage - you are in the wrong edition of the game with this phrasing. Suggest you look up types of damage in the PHB and revise the question to incorporate how it works in 5th edition.
– KorvinStarmast
3 hours ago





resistant to magic and melee damage - you are in the wrong edition of the game with this phrasing. Suggest you look up types of damage in the PHB and revise the question to incorporate how it works in 5th edition.
– KorvinStarmast
3 hours ago











5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
13
down vote



accepted










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.



All that said, there's nothing wrong with deciding that different parts of the tank have different AC and HP values. 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.



What I'm kind of thinking of here is Battletech, where each mech has a number of body locations you can aim for that each have different amounts of HP and different effects if you destroy them. The fastest way to win is sometimes to come right at your enemy and keep pounding away at the heavy frontal plating until it breaks, but other times you want to take the more difficult shots to aim for an arm or leg, to destroy a dangerous weapon or cripple its movement rather than just trade hits. (It works better for mechanical devices than monsters, who presumably feel pain and bleed and so on. Though now I'm thinking about a giant zombie fight with siege weapons and effects for causing arm damage or cutting a leg....)






share|improve this answer





























    up vote
    23
    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 the 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". Your tank is slow but heavily armored, so it would have high "normal AC" (so it is hard to hit a weak point), but low "touch AC" (it is quite easy to hit its armor) in 3rd edition. 5th edition changes this for the sake of simplicity, now we have only one AC per creature1. 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.




    1Usually. The rules also suggest dividing Gargantuan objects and some creatures to smaller parts.






    share|improve this answer






















    • D&D really doesn't do itself any favors with things like Damage Reduction. AC is how hard it is to damage something, but DR is also how hard it is to damage something. With so many other things representing difficultly to damage, people want to read more into AC than is there. 5th edition has smoothed some of this out, but some weirdness remains.
      – Michael W.
      6 hours ago






    • 2




      @MichaelW. how DR is related to my answer?
      – enkryptor
      6 hours ago






    • 1




      I was expanding on why "AC is how hard it is to damage you" trips people up even though it's a very simple sentence... Apologies if that wasn't clear.
      – Michael W.
      5 hours ago










    • Homebrews are like the the 3.5 Murlynd’s Spoon: warm cardboard. Find something similar and change it. Making an Apparatus of Kwalish a Goblin Tank isn’t breaking anything. Treat the barrel as held weapons, the tread/wheels as equivalent to legs. You just have to categorize what the game mechanics intent was. Anything that targets a creature ability to move, can effect the tank. Based on its size, would be granted advantage etc.
      – XAQT78
      4 hours ago










    • A good example of one AC should be enough in this case is the Apparatus of Kwalish (DMG page 151) which has AC 20 and 200 hitpoints - and it's a thing that a group of cobolds could use as a tank.
      – Sumyrda
      2 hours ago

















    up vote
    7
    down vote













    RAW? No, one target can't have multiple ACs.



    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.






    share|improve this answer





























      up vote
      3
      down vote













      One method might be to treat the tank as an object, while treating the Kobold occupants as separate targets that have Three-quarters Cover from the tank (for +5 AC). For even higher AC, you could use say, the Kobold Chieftain stats (or have the tank crew wear better armor).






      share|improve this answer



























        up vote
        0
        down vote













        You can supplement the tank with the Apparatus of Kwalish as well as use the rules of Cover and Mounted Combat.



        • Cover (PHB pg. 196)

        • Mounted Combat (PHB pg. 198)

        • Animated Object Spell (PHB pg. 213) (objects size & AC)

        • Apparatus of Kwalish (DMG pg. 151)

        • Injuries (DMG pg. 272) (varied limb damage)

        Sounds like a fun campaign.






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        XAQT78 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.













        • 1




          Hi there! If you could elaborate a little more on the actual implementation of your idea, this answer could stand on its own and wouln't be half bad. It would also be even better if you've actually done this yourself and could speak to the experience!
          – Jason_c_o
          3 hours ago










        Your Answer




        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
        );
        );
        , "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function()
        var channelOptions =
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "122"
        ;
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
        createEditor();
        );

        else
        createEditor();

        );

        function createEditor()
        StackExchange.prepareEditor(
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: false,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        );



        );






        Mike Cosgrove is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









         

        draft saved


        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function ()
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f133671%2fcan-a-target-have-two-armor-class-ac-values%23new-answer', 'question_page');

        );

        Post as a guest






























        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes








        up vote
        13
        down vote



        accepted










        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.



        All that said, there's nothing wrong with deciding that different parts of the tank have different AC and HP values. 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.



        What I'm kind of thinking of here is Battletech, where each mech has a number of body locations you can aim for that each have different amounts of HP and different effects if you destroy them. The fastest way to win is sometimes to come right at your enemy and keep pounding away at the heavy frontal plating until it breaks, but other times you want to take the more difficult shots to aim for an arm or leg, to destroy a dangerous weapon or cripple its movement rather than just trade hits. (It works better for mechanical devices than monsters, who presumably feel pain and bleed and so on. Though now I'm thinking about a giant zombie fight with siege weapons and effects for causing arm damage or cutting a leg....)






        share|improve this answer


























          up vote
          13
          down vote



          accepted










          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.



          All that said, there's nothing wrong with deciding that different parts of the tank have different AC and HP values. 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.



          What I'm kind of thinking of here is Battletech, where each mech has a number of body locations you can aim for that each have different amounts of HP and different effects if you destroy them. The fastest way to win is sometimes to come right at your enemy and keep pounding away at the heavy frontal plating until it breaks, but other times you want to take the more difficult shots to aim for an arm or leg, to destroy a dangerous weapon or cripple its movement rather than just trade hits. (It works better for mechanical devices than monsters, who presumably feel pain and bleed and so on. Though now I'm thinking about a giant zombie fight with siege weapons and effects for causing arm damage or cutting a leg....)






          share|improve this answer
























            up vote
            13
            down vote



            accepted







            up vote
            13
            down vote



            accepted






            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.



            All that said, there's nothing wrong with deciding that different parts of the tank have different AC and HP values. 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.



            What I'm kind of thinking of here is Battletech, where each mech has a number of body locations you can aim for that each have different amounts of HP and different effects if you destroy them. The fastest way to win is sometimes to come right at your enemy and keep pounding away at the heavy frontal plating until it breaks, but other times you want to take the more difficult shots to aim for an arm or leg, to destroy a dangerous weapon or cripple its movement rather than just trade hits. (It works better for mechanical devices than monsters, who presumably feel pain and bleed and so on. Though now I'm thinking about a giant zombie fight with siege weapons and effects for causing arm damage or cutting a leg....)






            share|improve this answer














            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.



            All that said, there's nothing wrong with deciding that different parts of the tank have different AC and HP values. 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.



            What I'm kind of thinking of here is Battletech, where each mech has a number of body locations you can aim for that each have different amounts of HP and different effects if you destroy them. The fastest way to win is sometimes to come right at your enemy and keep pounding away at the heavy frontal plating until it breaks, but other times you want to take the more difficult shots to aim for an arm or leg, to destroy a dangerous weapon or cripple its movement rather than just trade hits. (It works better for mechanical devices than monsters, who presumably feel pain and bleed and so on. Though now I'm thinking about a giant zombie fight with siege weapons and effects for causing arm damage or cutting a leg....)







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 2 hours ago

























            answered 6 hours ago









            Darth Pseudonym

            6,8641438




            6,8641438






















                up vote
                23
                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 the 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". Your tank is slow but heavily armored, so it would have high "normal AC" (so it is hard to hit a weak point), but low "touch AC" (it is quite easy to hit its armor) in 3rd edition. 5th edition changes this for the sake of simplicity, now we have only one AC per creature1. 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.




                1Usually. The rules also suggest dividing Gargantuan objects and some creatures to smaller parts.






                share|improve this answer






















                • D&D really doesn't do itself any favors with things like Damage Reduction. AC is how hard it is to damage something, but DR is also how hard it is to damage something. With so many other things representing difficultly to damage, people want to read more into AC than is there. 5th edition has smoothed some of this out, but some weirdness remains.
                  – Michael W.
                  6 hours ago






                • 2




                  @MichaelW. how DR is related to my answer?
                  – enkryptor
                  6 hours ago






                • 1




                  I was expanding on why "AC is how hard it is to damage you" trips people up even though it's a very simple sentence... Apologies if that wasn't clear.
                  – Michael W.
                  5 hours ago










                • Homebrews are like the the 3.5 Murlynd’s Spoon: warm cardboard. Find something similar and change it. Making an Apparatus of Kwalish a Goblin Tank isn’t breaking anything. Treat the barrel as held weapons, the tread/wheels as equivalent to legs. You just have to categorize what the game mechanics intent was. Anything that targets a creature ability to move, can effect the tank. Based on its size, would be granted advantage etc.
                  – XAQT78
                  4 hours ago










                • A good example of one AC should be enough in this case is the Apparatus of Kwalish (DMG page 151) which has AC 20 and 200 hitpoints - and it's a thing that a group of cobolds could use as a tank.
                  – Sumyrda
                  2 hours ago














                up vote
                23
                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 the 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". Your tank is slow but heavily armored, so it would have high "normal AC" (so it is hard to hit a weak point), but low "touch AC" (it is quite easy to hit its armor) in 3rd edition. 5th edition changes this for the sake of simplicity, now we have only one AC per creature1. 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.




                1Usually. The rules also suggest dividing Gargantuan objects and some creatures to smaller parts.






                share|improve this answer






















                • D&D really doesn't do itself any favors with things like Damage Reduction. AC is how hard it is to damage something, but DR is also how hard it is to damage something. With so many other things representing difficultly to damage, people want to read more into AC than is there. 5th edition has smoothed some of this out, but some weirdness remains.
                  – Michael W.
                  6 hours ago






                • 2




                  @MichaelW. how DR is related to my answer?
                  – enkryptor
                  6 hours ago






                • 1




                  I was expanding on why "AC is how hard it is to damage you" trips people up even though it's a very simple sentence... Apologies if that wasn't clear.
                  – Michael W.
                  5 hours ago










                • Homebrews are like the the 3.5 Murlynd’s Spoon: warm cardboard. Find something similar and change it. Making an Apparatus of Kwalish a Goblin Tank isn’t breaking anything. Treat the barrel as held weapons, the tread/wheels as equivalent to legs. You just have to categorize what the game mechanics intent was. Anything that targets a creature ability to move, can effect the tank. Based on its size, would be granted advantage etc.
                  – XAQT78
                  4 hours ago










                • A good example of one AC should be enough in this case is the Apparatus of Kwalish (DMG page 151) which has AC 20 and 200 hitpoints - and it's a thing that a group of cobolds could use as a tank.
                  – Sumyrda
                  2 hours ago












                up vote
                23
                down vote










                up vote
                23
                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 the 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". Your tank is slow but heavily armored, so it would have high "normal AC" (so it is hard to hit a weak point), but low "touch AC" (it is quite easy to hit its armor) in 3rd edition. 5th edition changes this for the sake of simplicity, now we have only one AC per creature1. 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.




                1Usually. The rules also suggest dividing Gargantuan objects and some creatures to smaller parts.






                share|improve this answer














                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 the 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". Your tank is slow but heavily armored, so it would have high "normal AC" (so it is hard to hit a weak point), but low "touch AC" (it is quite easy to hit its armor) in 3rd edition. 5th edition changes this for the sake of simplicity, now we have only one AC per creature1. 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.




                1Usually. The rules also suggest dividing Gargantuan objects and some creatures to smaller parts.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited 3 hours ago









                KorvinStarmast

                68.7k16215381




                68.7k16215381










                answered 6 hours ago









                enkryptor

                22.9k979193




                22.9k979193











                • D&D really doesn't do itself any favors with things like Damage Reduction. AC is how hard it is to damage something, but DR is also how hard it is to damage something. With so many other things representing difficultly to damage, people want to read more into AC than is there. 5th edition has smoothed some of this out, but some weirdness remains.
                  – Michael W.
                  6 hours ago






                • 2




                  @MichaelW. how DR is related to my answer?
                  – enkryptor
                  6 hours ago






                • 1




                  I was expanding on why "AC is how hard it is to damage you" trips people up even though it's a very simple sentence... Apologies if that wasn't clear.
                  – Michael W.
                  5 hours ago










                • Homebrews are like the the 3.5 Murlynd’s Spoon: warm cardboard. Find something similar and change it. Making an Apparatus of Kwalish a Goblin Tank isn’t breaking anything. Treat the barrel as held weapons, the tread/wheels as equivalent to legs. You just have to categorize what the game mechanics intent was. Anything that targets a creature ability to move, can effect the tank. Based on its size, would be granted advantage etc.
                  – XAQT78
                  4 hours ago










                • A good example of one AC should be enough in this case is the Apparatus of Kwalish (DMG page 151) which has AC 20 and 200 hitpoints - and it's a thing that a group of cobolds could use as a tank.
                  – Sumyrda
                  2 hours ago
















                • D&D really doesn't do itself any favors with things like Damage Reduction. AC is how hard it is to damage something, but DR is also how hard it is to damage something. With so many other things representing difficultly to damage, people want to read more into AC than is there. 5th edition has smoothed some of this out, but some weirdness remains.
                  – Michael W.
                  6 hours ago






                • 2




                  @MichaelW. how DR is related to my answer?
                  – enkryptor
                  6 hours ago






                • 1




                  I was expanding on why "AC is how hard it is to damage you" trips people up even though it's a very simple sentence... Apologies if that wasn't clear.
                  – Michael W.
                  5 hours ago










                • Homebrews are like the the 3.5 Murlynd’s Spoon: warm cardboard. Find something similar and change it. Making an Apparatus of Kwalish a Goblin Tank isn’t breaking anything. Treat the barrel as held weapons, the tread/wheels as equivalent to legs. You just have to categorize what the game mechanics intent was. Anything that targets a creature ability to move, can effect the tank. Based on its size, would be granted advantage etc.
                  – XAQT78
                  4 hours ago










                • A good example of one AC should be enough in this case is the Apparatus of Kwalish (DMG page 151) which has AC 20 and 200 hitpoints - and it's a thing that a group of cobolds could use as a tank.
                  – Sumyrda
                  2 hours ago















                D&D really doesn't do itself any favors with things like Damage Reduction. AC is how hard it is to damage something, but DR is also how hard it is to damage something. With so many other things representing difficultly to damage, people want to read more into AC than is there. 5th edition has smoothed some of this out, but some weirdness remains.
                – Michael W.
                6 hours ago




                D&D really doesn't do itself any favors with things like Damage Reduction. AC is how hard it is to damage something, but DR is also how hard it is to damage something. With so many other things representing difficultly to damage, people want to read more into AC than is there. 5th edition has smoothed some of this out, but some weirdness remains.
                – Michael W.
                6 hours ago




                2




                2




                @MichaelW. how DR is related to my answer?
                – enkryptor
                6 hours ago




                @MichaelW. how DR is related to my answer?
                – enkryptor
                6 hours ago




                1




                1




                I was expanding on why "AC is how hard it is to damage you" trips people up even though it's a very simple sentence... Apologies if that wasn't clear.
                – Michael W.
                5 hours ago




                I was expanding on why "AC is how hard it is to damage you" trips people up even though it's a very simple sentence... Apologies if that wasn't clear.
                – Michael W.
                5 hours ago












                Homebrews are like the the 3.5 Murlynd’s Spoon: warm cardboard. Find something similar and change it. Making an Apparatus of Kwalish a Goblin Tank isn’t breaking anything. Treat the barrel as held weapons, the tread/wheels as equivalent to legs. You just have to categorize what the game mechanics intent was. Anything that targets a creature ability to move, can effect the tank. Based on its size, would be granted advantage etc.
                – XAQT78
                4 hours ago




                Homebrews are like the the 3.5 Murlynd’s Spoon: warm cardboard. Find something similar and change it. Making an Apparatus of Kwalish a Goblin Tank isn’t breaking anything. Treat the barrel as held weapons, the tread/wheels as equivalent to legs. You just have to categorize what the game mechanics intent was. Anything that targets a creature ability to move, can effect the tank. Based on its size, would be granted advantage etc.
                – XAQT78
                4 hours ago












                A good example of one AC should be enough in this case is the Apparatus of Kwalish (DMG page 151) which has AC 20 and 200 hitpoints - and it's a thing that a group of cobolds could use as a tank.
                – Sumyrda
                2 hours ago




                A good example of one AC should be enough in this case is the Apparatus of Kwalish (DMG page 151) which has AC 20 and 200 hitpoints - and it's a thing that a group of cobolds could use as a tank.
                – Sumyrda
                2 hours ago










                up vote
                7
                down vote













                RAW? No, one target can't have multiple ACs.



                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.






                share|improve this answer


























                  up vote
                  7
                  down vote













                  RAW? No, one target can't have multiple ACs.



                  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.






                  share|improve this answer
























                    up vote
                    7
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    7
                    down vote









                    RAW? No, one target can't have multiple ACs.



                    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.






                    share|improve this answer














                    RAW? No, one target can't have multiple ACs.



                    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.







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited 9 mins ago









                    V2Blast

                    16.7k242107




                    16.7k242107










                    answered 6 hours ago









                    GreySage

                    12.6k44584




                    12.6k44584




















                        up vote
                        3
                        down vote













                        One method might be to treat the tank as an object, while treating the Kobold occupants as separate targets that have Three-quarters Cover from the tank (for +5 AC). For even higher AC, you could use say, the Kobold Chieftain stats (or have the tank crew wear better armor).






                        share|improve this answer
























                          up vote
                          3
                          down vote













                          One method might be to treat the tank as an object, while treating the Kobold occupants as separate targets that have Three-quarters Cover from the tank (for +5 AC). For even higher AC, you could use say, the Kobold Chieftain stats (or have the tank crew wear better armor).






                          share|improve this answer






















                            up vote
                            3
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            3
                            down vote









                            One method might be to treat the tank as an object, while treating the Kobold occupants as separate targets that have Three-quarters Cover from the tank (for +5 AC). For even higher AC, you could use say, the Kobold Chieftain stats (or have the tank crew wear better armor).






                            share|improve this answer












                            One method might be to treat the tank as an object, while treating the Kobold occupants as separate targets that have Three-quarters Cover from the tank (for +5 AC). For even higher AC, you could use say, the Kobold Chieftain stats (or have the tank crew wear better armor).







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered 4 hours ago









                            Matt Vincent

                            7,39321443




                            7,39321443




















                                up vote
                                0
                                down vote













                                You can supplement the tank with the Apparatus of Kwalish as well as use the rules of Cover and Mounted Combat.



                                • Cover (PHB pg. 196)

                                • Mounted Combat (PHB pg. 198)

                                • Animated Object Spell (PHB pg. 213) (objects size & AC)

                                • Apparatus of Kwalish (DMG pg. 151)

                                • Injuries (DMG pg. 272) (varied limb damage)

                                Sounds like a fun campaign.






                                share|improve this answer








                                New contributor




                                XAQT78 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.













                                • 1




                                  Hi there! If you could elaborate a little more on the actual implementation of your idea, this answer could stand on its own and wouln't be half bad. It would also be even better if you've actually done this yourself and could speak to the experience!
                                  – Jason_c_o
                                  3 hours ago














                                up vote
                                0
                                down vote













                                You can supplement the tank with the Apparatus of Kwalish as well as use the rules of Cover and Mounted Combat.



                                • Cover (PHB pg. 196)

                                • Mounted Combat (PHB pg. 198)

                                • Animated Object Spell (PHB pg. 213) (objects size & AC)

                                • Apparatus of Kwalish (DMG pg. 151)

                                • Injuries (DMG pg. 272) (varied limb damage)

                                Sounds like a fun campaign.






                                share|improve this answer








                                New contributor




                                XAQT78 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.













                                • 1




                                  Hi there! If you could elaborate a little more on the actual implementation of your idea, this answer could stand on its own and wouln't be half bad. It would also be even better if you've actually done this yourself and could speak to the experience!
                                  – Jason_c_o
                                  3 hours ago












                                up vote
                                0
                                down vote










                                up vote
                                0
                                down vote









                                You can supplement the tank with the Apparatus of Kwalish as well as use the rules of Cover and Mounted Combat.



                                • Cover (PHB pg. 196)

                                • Mounted Combat (PHB pg. 198)

                                • Animated Object Spell (PHB pg. 213) (objects size & AC)

                                • Apparatus of Kwalish (DMG pg. 151)

                                • Injuries (DMG pg. 272) (varied limb damage)

                                Sounds like a fun campaign.






                                share|improve this answer








                                New contributor




                                XAQT78 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                You can supplement the tank with the Apparatus of Kwalish as well as use the rules of Cover and Mounted Combat.



                                • Cover (PHB pg. 196)

                                • Mounted Combat (PHB pg. 198)

                                • Animated Object Spell (PHB pg. 213) (objects size & AC)

                                • Apparatus of Kwalish (DMG pg. 151)

                                • Injuries (DMG pg. 272) (varied limb damage)

                                Sounds like a fun campaign.







                                share|improve this answer








                                New contributor




                                XAQT78 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                share|improve this answer



                                share|improve this answer






                                New contributor




                                XAQT78 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                answered 5 hours ago









                                XAQT78

                                2236




                                2236




                                New contributor




                                XAQT78 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.





                                New contributor





                                XAQT78 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                XAQT78 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.







                                • 1




                                  Hi there! If you could elaborate a little more on the actual implementation of your idea, this answer could stand on its own and wouln't be half bad. It would also be even better if you've actually done this yourself and could speak to the experience!
                                  – Jason_c_o
                                  3 hours ago












                                • 1




                                  Hi there! If you could elaborate a little more on the actual implementation of your idea, this answer could stand on its own and wouln't be half bad. It would also be even better if you've actually done this yourself and could speak to the experience!
                                  – Jason_c_o
                                  3 hours ago







                                1




                                1




                                Hi there! If you could elaborate a little more on the actual implementation of your idea, this answer could stand on its own and wouln't be half bad. It would also be even better if you've actually done this yourself and could speak to the experience!
                                – Jason_c_o
                                3 hours ago




                                Hi there! If you could elaborate a little more on the actual implementation of your idea, this answer could stand on its own and wouln't be half bad. It would also be even better if you've actually done this yourself and could speak to the experience!
                                – Jason_c_o
                                3 hours ago










                                Mike Cosgrove is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                                 

                                draft saved


                                draft discarded


















                                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.













                                 


                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function ()
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f133671%2fcan-a-target-have-two-armor-class-ac-values%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                );

                                Post as a guest













































































                                Popular posts from this blog

                                How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                                Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                                How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?