Monster AC & HP Values too low?

I can't help but feel that monsters have icredibly low AC and HP values for example a Glabrezu demon which is a level 11 encounter has and AC of 14 and 104 HP. Am I the only one who finds this to be odd when a player with a level 2 Fighter with leather armor has  AC of 17 and HP 22. 
 They are running with Bonded Accuracy. You are not going to have more than +7 or 8 to hit as an 11th level fighter in normal circumstances.

 Check out the bonded accuracy thing somewhere. Monster HPs in current package are VERY low compared to player damage, they are adressing that next package as far as Im aware.
The OP is not the only one who finds it odd. In the handful of DDN games I have played, missing an enemy seemed to be a rarity. Even with horrible die rolls (like 3 or 4) it seems that players never miss. On the other hand, it seems that way iwth monsters too. Which makes, IMO, AC almost unimportant and HP all-important. I think that is something that needs fixing.
I finished my 7th session as a DM yesterday, and was going to come here to make the same thread.  I hadn't really noticed it until this session.  My players are level 5, and they had a fight with 4 zombies.  According to the DMG, 6 level 5 characters call for 2280XP worth of monsters for an average encounter.  I only had 4 zombies, so this one was supposed to be between easy and ave.  Basically the party hit them every time they hit, but the zombies missed the party most of the time.  When they did hit, they really hit hard.

I really got the feeling that monsters needed to be put down in the firt few rounds or the party would be in serious trouble.  Up until the last session, I was 100% happy with the speed of encounters.  Refreshing compared to 4e, but now that the party is gaining levels, making the kills quickly is getting to be the goal.

I couldn't really explain that.  Of course killing mobs quickly is the point, but there is a line there.  Something that I see optimizers and min/maxers use as a goal, instead of normal play.  Kill in 2 rounds or die type of stuff instead of making a stand and having a fight. 
The newest bestiary is certainly better than the older one in terms of monsters and their "to hit" scores but overall, I think there needs to be more variety so that some monsters have lower "to hit" scores (we still should have some +1, and +2 monsters), while others have higher to hit scores.   Also, some monsters of each type should have more hit points, and some should be more difficult to injure based on enhanced armor.

I like the idea that gives DM complete discretion to create elite types of any monster type by adding 50%-100% more hit points, giving it better armor (either by having it wear better armor, or by enhancing its hide or carapace), and special abilities to some monsters and spells to some wizard, priest or shaman versions of monster types. I've been modifying some monsters (and creating my own or converting prior edition monsters) in my playtests, I'm beginning to find it easier and easier to infuse variety of experiences and challenge levels in the adventures that I'm running. 

I hope that WoTC will devote a section in their final bestiary or monster manual that details all the ways DMs can modify monsters.   I really think this kind of tool has to be in the DMs arsenal because different groups like different play experiences.   Some groups like to breeze through combat encounters so that they can continue with their story telling, exploring and roleplaying.   Other groups like to dwell on longer, more tactical battles.   Some groups like to vary it and change things up encounter to encounter (which I suspect is what most groups enjoy).  To allow for each group/DM to create the kind of encounter, session or campaign he or she wants, there should be clear guidelines that make it easy. 

A Brave Knight of WTF

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

I would look to 1e monster stats for inspiration.  There was a more bounded system than later editions where AC was 10 to -10 and the toughest non-deity had 200hp.  Fighter attack rolls were capped at +17 which could have been adjusted by exceptional strength magic items and magical swords but +25 was probably going to be your max.  Even then, that's 95% attack success for fighters - other classes were a lot lower.  So I suppose that if a top fighter had a 95% chance to hit the toughest AC by level 20 then in DDN if you are looking at a similar % I suppose if you are looking at +15 to hit by level 20 AC-10 would have to be equivalent to AC17.  You can see why monster AC has been capped so low.

If we look at 75% success as a more realistic goal we end up with AC21?  Personally I think they could increase class level attack bonuses slightly and tease maximum AC up to AC21.  I have no issue if peasant folk can only hit the toughest monsters on a natural 20 as long as it's a true rarity.  Even Level 1 characters will usually have bonuses to attack, which in conjunction with advantage, spells, and combat manoeuvres should mean that they can still hit often enough to survive a fight.  The key would be to balancing the monsters' other abilities to make sure a high AC monster is not unbalanced.

Quicklings had something like AC-7 in 1e?  I'd be happy to see them with very high AC as long as their hp make them one-shot kills and their damage is kept low.  I suppose if you use the 3e calculation it would be Dex29 for +9 and +1 for small size for AC20.  That looks ok to me.  Asmodeus had AC-9 so I'd probably pitch him at AC20 as well. 
The idea of maxing monster AC/HP seems to be a coomon theme in the new playtests. 

I wonder though, in the end isnt that what is allowing us to increase the speed of our encounters? If not what other variables can be tweaked that would allow for challenging combat encounter, while maintaining  a higher paced game (with repect to speeds seen in 4E)?

 
It is what's increasing the speed of combats... and it is much appreciated. However, there are still some challenges that should present, well, a challenge to the PCs and take a little more effort and time to defeat. When a party of level 2 characters blow through a level 5 challenge in 3 or 4 turns without needing to tap any spells, healing or any of their other resources, something is out of whack.

Yes? 
Yes, AC and HP are out if whack, currently. I've been almost doubling hit points in my sessions just to create sone tension in combat.
I did some quick estimations during my last game:

Monster AC was slightly lower on average than the players
Monster HP was on par with player HP
Monster damage dealt (after parry and other tricks) was about 1/5 of player damage (and only because I cheated and gave the main bad guy double HP)
My group was an all martial group of 5 players.

So... if you want to emulate MMORPGs where 99% of fights outside of boss fights are no threat at all, then play DND next in the current version.


Oh and to comment on my own comment above. They didnt adress anything of the sort, they just made it worse
Take max hp instead of the recommended value if you want a tougher grade of enemy. Like Rhenny said, giving better equipment helps enemies in encounters (I've even given a few enemies mdd to spice things up). Unfortunately, the xp rules aren't transparent enough to see how these affect the encounters.
I feel like the very first playtest got the hp to ac to damage ratios really well. Smart players trounced bad dudes and retreating was a reasonable notion. I want the PCs to win through their meaningful choices, not because the math is on their side.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
@YouKnowTheOneGuy Changes are coming in the form of beefed up monster AC and Monster Damage, thats certain. It seems to be about the only thing the old-schoolers and new schoolers agree upon. DnD Next is a MESS right now nowhere near ready for release, I doubt the final version will look anything like what we currently have. The Damage Output to Damage Input ratios are way off. A Level 5 monsters should be enough to challenge a single Level 5 player by my estimation...(or a level 5 party if you want to be technical) but neither is the case.
8.8 My House Rules! (roll the d20) *click to roll*8.8
I'm not a huge fan of HP boosting because that just causes inflation. I'd rather they just adjust up the AC values a bit and tone down player damage as needed. 

Another option might be to tone down player ability scores a little. Right now it's really easy to get to a 20 prime stat with a 15 base due to racials, class bonus, and level advances. I personally think ability scores should range from +1 to +3 on the bonus side and having them go up as a player levels seems a bit needless.
It's pretty clear they know that player damage is too high - they note it as a problem in the Read This section of the neweste play packet.  I agree that the solution is to reduce player damage rather than increase monster hit-points, and everybody seems to think that MDD are going to get a shuffle.

Give monsters parry, a lot of it. The more they are intended to be solitary the more dice you give. After all they have to use a reaction for it, they are forfeiting an OA, allowing your other guys to maneuver in position.


If you don't want to roll all that dices every time then just use average values for it, it worked for damage after all.

Personally, I don't think it was just inflated Hit Points that caused long combats in 4E, in fact, I would say that it was the enormous amount of tactical maneuvering and effect tracking that was the largest contributor to exhaustive combats.  As a DM, a few extra slashes off the hit points and a few extra bounding dice was hardly an impedement to combat speed for me.  However, tracking a dozen effects
(ongoings, auras, marks, dazes, immobilizes, push-me-pull-me-slides, interupts, guardian effects, etc, etc) really slowed things down.

To get a feel for what 5E should feel like in my opinion, we've done some retro playing for comparison here after literally playing no less than 75 sessions of NEXT over many packets.  Be it AD&D or Pathfinder, the fact that the ratio of attacks to kills is dramatically less (we've seen simple combats go 6 rounds that never lasted more than a round and a half in 5E) has not resulted in drawn out, tiring battles.  Player turns are coming around quickly, results are read easily, and encounters flow fast.

One-shot auto-kills make for fast encounters, no doubt, but just because it took our Rogue and Ranger last night 6 rounds (there was some bad luck) to chase off a Giant Frog didn't mean it was a terribly fatiguing session.  In fact, it gave many more opportunities for the ranger to call to his deity for guidance upon his arrow and for the halfling to utter a few choice curses (the frog, after all, was digesting her brother) - she is a little (and I mean little with her 6 STR) spitfire.  The whole battle took maybe 5 minutes at most (and the frog coughed up the brother and got away to boot).  I am 100% certain they enjoyed the foray.

In very similar encounters in 5E, there has been nearly 0 chance the battle lasted even the entire first round.

I've seen four 5th-level martial characters take down a 14th-level creature (dracolich) in less than 2 rounds with 5E. 

Yes, the combat is fast.  Yes, it's refreshing compared to 4E.  However, adding extra mechanics to lengthen combat shouldn't be the only solution.  I love the maneuvers and options we see with NEXT, but combat needs to have some build-up to it, tension, and drama.  It doesn't, though, need more mechanical rules to turn it into a game of bookkeeping or reactions-to-reactions-to-actions to achieve it.
 

I am with ya on how 4e could get bogged down with tons of effects, reactions, counter reactions, etc... Even veteran 4e players can still hold up combat with "Oh wait I forgot the +5 ongoing damage and they can't play the banjo for the next 3 rounds"


From what I've seen in 5e the battles can be much quicker but that can be caused by either side getting crushed. AKA at low levels both PCs and bad guys have so few hit points a few lucky hits in one round can completely turn the battle.

I am concerned about bigger monsters (especially solo critters) getting dropped too quickly. AKA the Ogre has on average 32 HP and really bad AC 11. Since the Ogre has Dex of 8 (AKA -1) on average its initiative would be a 9. So a 1st level party that rolled OK on initiative stands a really good chance of dropping the Ogre in one round before it could even act. Two martial PCs doing let’s say 9 points each then a rogue type doing 6 then casters at worst doing 4 points each. Smack in one round Ogre dead and everyone just got almost 25% of the XP needed for 2nd level! Heck even if the first round isn't that good it’s unlikely that in one round the Ogre would straight out kill a PC. Sure it could put one way in the negatives but the Ogre would more than likely die in the second round and someone just has to pop out a healer’s kit to stabilize the one dying PC.

I don't think messing with AC too much is a good plan since at the moment it’s really straight forward and works the same for PCs, pig farmers, and heavily armored Orcs. The overall HP system might need a tweek (for both PCs and monsters). As some have said tracking a few more HPs won't bog things down its creating too many counter compensating rules that makes things go off the rails.

I do like the idea of having creatures that are typically solo encounters gain a parry trait or maybe resistance to damage types that make sense. I want the big scary monster to be well "big and scary" so that he or she takes a while to drop or can get away when it’s not going their way, but I don't want the monsters stat block to be big and scary with a ton of effects and rules.

just a little food for thought, a buddy and I looked at a hypothetical "best case scenario" for a level 20 fighter attacking our buddy Asmodeus. For those who don't know the average HP on Asmod is ~250

so the situation goes as such, a lvl 20 fighter blowing a combat surge and dual wielding. That's 4 attacks, and double Martial dice values on (main hand) attack. We didn't account for critting. We assumed Dual-wield and either dwarf or elf to assure d10 1handed weapon damage and we assumed a +5 bonus from strength

best case scenario:

Attack 1:1d10 +( 5 str) + (20 MDB) + (6d6*2) or 10+5+20+72 = 107
offhand: 1d10 or 10 (I'm not sure of MDB applies to offhand with how two-weapon fighting is worded)

Attack 2: 1d10 +( 5 str) + (20 MDB) or 10 + 5 + 20 = 35
offhand: 1d10 or 10

Total= 107 +10 +35 +10 = 162 damage in 1 round of combat.

Going back to Asmod we see that that's a bit over half his life in 1 turn, but we also need to remember that is a perfect roll of the dice.

I'm not suggesting that this is indicitive of where they descided to balance, but I thought it was an interesting data point to share.

btw, if you can further expand upon my example or correct me please do so, since I know this a very boiled down and maybe incorrect example
I have an 11th level group of 5 martial characters. Their minimum damage on a hit is 22 (6d6 MDD+10 MDB +5 Ability +dX weapon) if they all hit thats 108 damage at the absolute minimum. They have +7 to +9 to hit, so they hit "most things*" around 65% of the time, so that gives them a MINIMUM of 70 damage every round on average. This is before manouvres, dayli powers, magic weapons etc.

 An 11th-14th level monster has between 85-150 HP. I have yet to see them fail killing anything in 1 round if they all attacked the same target. A sneak attack here, and a crit there and they can push 200 single target damage in a round easy.

 This puts a lot of preasure on me as the DM to come up with constant ideas to make combat be more interesting. Terrain, minions, spells are good for this, but I tend to cop out and just double HP/parry dice instead. I would LOVE a little more focus on making this challange more enjoyable with some more DM aid so we dont have to blag it constantly.


*Bar things like the Deathknight whom only have 85 HP so died in 1 round anyway
.


Monsters die to quickly.


This is due to the combination of:


Monster hit points (can be increased)
PC damage per hit (can be decreased)
Monster defenses (can be increased)
PC atttack bonus (cannot really be decreased anymore)

The first three of these are the dials which can be adjusted.

Monster hit points are an easy one to change - but may not be the best.

PC damage needs to come down (remains to be seen).

Monster defenses were reduced around two to three points in the last packet (together with PCs attacks going down).  They need to go back up to where they were (without bringing PC attacks back up. Dragons should not have a 15 AC).


But the real problem is that we need to bring back something analagous to standard, elite and solo from 4E. 


Some monsters - especially the tribal humanoids you fight at low level - are typically encountered in large numbers.  These are actually about right at present (although their defenses may be a bit low - and a couple have damage that might even be too high).

 Some monsters - especially those that you start to fight in the middle levels - are typically encountered in small groups.  These are currently a bit weak.  I'd start by making them around 30% more durable.

Some monsters - especially those you fight at the higher levels - are typically found alone.  These are currently a joke.  I'd start by making them around twice as durable as they are currently.

Carl
I ran another session last night and one of the encounters was and "average" encouter (using the XP suggestions from the encounter building section fo the DM Guidelines).

This particular session had 2 1st level fighters facing 6 goblins in one of the encounters. I rolled HP for the goblins and ended up with the following:

HP 6
HP 6
HP 6
HP 1
HP 5
HP 2

The combat lasted about 5 rounds (one of the fighters has "cleave" which shortened it), and each of the PCs lost 2 HP total by the time the combat was over.

They ended up leaving the last goblin (which unbeknownst to them was the 1 that started with 1 HP) alive for questioning, but would have easily killed him had they chosen to do so.

I know that there is a blurb in the opening of the Caves of Chaos document that says this playtest isn't a hard test of player vs. monster ability, but I still would expect there to be more damage to the PCs than a whopping total loss of 4 HP between them.

It wasn't that the goblins never rolled high enough to hit, it was the fact that the Parry skill reduced almost all of the damage from the goblins to nothing, while at the same time the MDD bonus on successful attacks from the players quickly ensured that the goblins were gone with 1 hit (or 2 at the very most).

We've been having fun, but the challenge level just doesn't feel right at this point.
I ran another session last night and one of the encounters was and "average" encouter (using the XP suggestions from the encounter building section fo the DM Guidelines).

This particular session had 2 1st level fighters facing 6 goblins in one of the encounters. I rolled HP for the goblins and ended up with the following:

HP 6
HP 6
HP 6
HP 1
HP 5
HP 2

The combat lasted about 5 rounds (one of the fighters has "cleave" which shortened it), and each of the PCs lost 2 HP total by the time the combat was over.

They ended up leaving the last goblin (which unbeknownst to them was the 1 that started with 1 HP) alive for questioning, but would have easily killed him had they chosen to do so.

I know that there is a blurb in the opening of the Caves of Chaos document that says this playtest isn't a hard test of player vs. monster ability, but I still would expect there to be more damage to the PCs than a whopping total loss of 4 HP between them.

It wasn't that the goblins never rolled high enough to hit, it was the fact that the Parry skill reduced almost all of the damage from the goblins to nothing, while at the same time the MDD bonus on successful attacks from the players quickly ensured that the goblins were gone with 1 hit (or 2 at the very most).

We've been having fun, but the challenge level just doesn't feel right at this point.

Try using my threat dice system Very easy to you and it balances the challenge of the encounter quite well
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
8.8 My House Rules! (roll the d20) *click to roll*8.8
I havent played D&D for about a year i think now. We played 4th ed level 1 - 20 over about 3 years. My last memory of 4E was fights went waaaaay too long. So from what ive read here, fights are faster - thank baby jesus for that!

If monsters are too easy meat then reduce player damage I say. Dont increase monster HP!

I havent played 5E so... er yeah. Plan on giving it a go later this year.
My 4e group took a break from the campaign and we ran our first Next session with me as DM. I enjoyed the speed of the session - we were able to get a lengthy amount of rp as well as 5 average combat encounters in around 4 hours, so that was a very welcome change. As a session overview it was nice to get a significant amount of story advancement through interaction and encounters that you cant normally get in 4e with a tight time budget.

Im not sure how i feel about the balance of combat at the moment, it very much felt that the group had a fairly easy time until they hit the 5th encounter and had essentially spent all their resources and things predictably went south (i had to fudge a few rolls, this was a character freindly session) I think however they were very much aware of what kind of creek they found themselves. 

I think its fair to say, and the designers have mentioned that martial characters do a little too much and thats something that going to be tweaked.

Monster AC's seem skewed in places although i think thats mainly towards the upper end, i'd also like to see monsters use more individualised abilities.

I also think that there needs to be more development towards monster classification and encounter building. The current system borrow heavily from 4e and i think it should use more - as a previous poster mentioned more clarity on monster types such as minions, brutes, solo's etc. I dont think these classifications need be linked to any new mechanics, rather to guide and aid the DM when preparing encounters for his session.
I think the most reasonable response to Parry is NOT resetting the MDD on every player's turn.  Right? 
I think the most reasonable response to Parry is NOT resetting the MDD on every player's turn.  Right? 



I think so. And also possibly starting as a d4 instead of a d6, and increasing at later levels.
I think the most reasonable response to Parry is NOT resetting the MDD on every player's turn.  Right? 


100% agree. It's way more fun if you have to strategize your use of martial dice. My group is house ruling it so you only use MD once per round
I think the most reasonable response to Parry is NOT resetting the MDD on every player's turn.  Right? 



I think so. And also possibly starting as a d4 instead of a d6, and increasing at later levels.




Sorta in line with this, I was thinking of converting all MDD into d4s as a test, has anybody attempted this?
I think the most reasonable response to Parry is NOT resetting the MDD on every player's turn.  Right? 



I think so. And also possibly starting as a d4 instead of a d6, and increasing at later levels.




Sorta in line with this, I was thinking of converting all MDD into d4s as a test, has anybody attempted this?



did, but stopped, not because it was not balanced, only because D4 are stupidly shaped

cut their MDD in half instead and it works like a charm 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
Increasing AC and/or HP (or reducing PC damage) doesn't make a fight any harder, player skill wise, in itself.

Perhaps they should seperate out the monsters into two categories.

1. The whittle down monsters, meant to not do much damage, but over a series of combats the PC's will have used up various resources.
and

2. Throw down monsters: They will pretty much make you use up all resources in one fight.

You can't mix and match the two, though.

"In the game there is magic" - Orethalion

 

Only got words in my copy.

It has been stated above by others, but I really don't want to see monster hit point inflation. Nor do I want to have to roll reactive parries for monsters -- this is not Runequest. Adjust PC damage down!
Yeah, monster AC and hitpoints are way too low.  AC is at the very least.  I mean a troll is only AC 11?  11?  An old lady with a broom could hit a troll every round.
I ran another session last night and one of the encounters was and "average" encouter (using the XP suggestions from the encounter building section fo the DM Guidelines).

This particular session had 2 1st level fighters facing 6 goblins in one of the encounters. I rolled HP for the goblins and ended up with the following:

HP 6
HP 6
HP 6
HP 1
HP 5
HP 2

The combat lasted about 5 rounds (one of the fighters has "cleave" which shortened it), and each of the PCs lost 2 HP total by the time the combat was over.

They ended up leaving the last goblin (which unbeknownst to them was the 1 that started with 1 HP) alive for questioning, but would have easily killed him had they chosen to do so.

I know that there is a blurb in the opening of the Caves of Chaos document that says this playtest isn't a hard test of player vs. monster ability, but I still would expect there to be more damage to the PCs than a whopping total loss of 4 HP between them.

It wasn't that the goblins never rolled high enough to hit, it was the fact that the Parry skill reduced almost all of the damage from the goblins to nothing, while at the same time the MDD bonus on successful attacks from the players quickly ensured that the goblins were gone with 1 hit (or 2 at the very most).

We've been having fun, but the challenge level just doesn't feel right at this point.



See 1d8.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-evolution-o...




 I mean a troll is only AC 11?  11?  An old lady with a broom could hit a troll every round.



Reading this and looking at your Avatar made me laugh (in a good way).    I agree that AC for many monsters is too low.

A Brave Knight of WTF

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

Personally I'm a big fan of the low AC values.  Increase monster difficulty with higher HP, damage, and resistances/immunities. 

Think epic battle sequences:  the common guards, police, etc. can usually HIT the beast, it just usually shrugs it off or the attack passes right through (it's somewhat more dramatic IMO when you do hit and your attack fails than if you just can't hit, think vampire calmly looking down at the blade that skewered it, pulling it out, and laughing).  Granted, variety is good, have some monsters with high AC low HP, but generally I like the new dynamic.   
Personally I'm a big fan of the low AC values.  Increase monster difficulty with higher HP, damage, and resistances/immunities. 

Think epic battle sequences:  the common guards, police, etc. can usually HIT the beast, it just usually shrugs it off or the attack passes right through (it's somewhat more dramatic IMO when you do hit and your attack fails than if you just can't hit, think vampire calmly looking down at the blade that skewered it, pulling it out, and laughing).  Granted, variety is good, have some monsters with high AC low HP, but generally I like the new dynamic.   



I agree with you, but I would like the ACs to reflect at least a little more toughness with creatures that are supposedly tougher.  For example, a troll should have the equivilent of studded leather armor AC 13.   With D&DNext, to make humanoids more difficult, the DM can give them better armor.

I also am beginning to like the new dynamic where PCs hit monsters more often.   Last weekend, I played D&DNext and then right afterwards I played Pathfinder, and it was remarkable how different the games felt.   In the D&DNext game, we were cruising through the encounters, but we felt like we were in combat and we could suffer if the dice went against us.   The DM could certainly make encounters more difficult by throwing larger mobs or more damaging creatures at us (especially ones with area attacks), or giving the humanoids better equipment, etc.   In the Pathfinder game, we slogged through encounters often missing attacks so even a 4 PC vs. 4 kobold encounter lasted 3+ rounds.   I had more fun with the D&DNext game.  

A Brave Knight of WTF

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

If it has been acknowledged that the Martial characters do too much damage...

Get rid of the 5 to 20 bonus damage that they add on. I don't really know why that happened and then
there wasn't a similar treatment for the casters.



To be honest, the majority of the 1e AC ranks (which were largely explained in 3e MM) would be fine in DDN, possibly adjusting most of them down by 1 if AC 18 or lower and by 2 if above 18, 3 if above 24, 4 if above 26, and capped at 25.  So Lolth (AC-10 or AC30) and Asmodeus (AC-9 or AC29) would have AC25.  I also don't agree that armour should have no effect on a monster's AC if they have natural armour.  Wearing medium armour should increase a monster's AC by 1 and heavy armour by 2 (subject to dexterity and movement adjustmenmts).

I'm quite happy for some monsters to be very hard to hit if it forces PCs to think tactically of other ways to fight them.  One adjustment I do approve of is giving the annis a better AC than a green hag.  That always seemed an oddity to me.
Personally I'm a big fan of the low AC values.  Increase monster difficulty with higher HP, damage, and resistances/immunities. 

Think epic battle sequences:  the common guards, police, etc. can usually HIT the beast, it just usually shrugs it off or the attack passes right through (it's somewhat more dramatic IMO when you do hit and your attack fails than if you just can't hit, think vampire calmly looking down at the blade that skewered it, pulling it out, and laughing).  Granted, variety is good, have some monsters with high AC low HP, but generally I like the new dynamic.   

I'm with Russetanan on the part about giving some monsters resistance to attacks. Expanding on the examples given I keep thinking that Orge's, Giants, and Dragons should shug off most physical attacks aka resistance to Slashing, piecing, and Bludgeoning damage. Feels right somehow. Sure you swing at one of those hulks and you'd never miss per say (really big target) but 1/2 of that damage just bounces off their thick hide and bones.