Astrosicebear
First Post
It'd allow a Paladin truly sick AC, more than the freaking Tarrasque or an Ancient Dragon - even assuming no other magical defensive items.
High AC is old edition thinking. Its all about the HP now.
It'd allow a Paladin truly sick AC, more than the freaking Tarrasque or an Ancient Dragon - even assuming no other magical defensive items.
I don't have that module, but you CAN get pretty damn good AC with Fighter 1/Sorc X.
21 from fullplate/shield/defense mastery, 23 with +2 from haste, 28 with +5 from shield spell (worth casting every round you get hit for sure). All of this is without any items, and I think the Staff of Defense makes it even easier.
Using Defensive Duelist feat, the AC gets even crazier, but only for one attack/round. And all of this is a heavily specialized AC mechanic build.
I'm very pro-bounded accuracy BTW, and think it does work, even in extreme cases like this. Love it.
High AC is old edition thinking. Its all about the HP now.
You can cast any spell at higher slots. Not every spell gives a benefit for doing so.In theory, sure. But you can only cast shield 4 times (since it's not a spell you can cast with higher slots) unless you use your sorcery to give up spell slots to purchase lower ones. And I just can't see that happening very often in actual game play with everything else going on (need for spells in non-combat, various tactics in combat, etc) And with the way 5e is, you won't get full plate until at least mid levels I'm guessing.
TLDR version: I'm not a big fan of very specific theory builds because they rarely ever end up that way in actual play
This. You can create a character capable of reaching (and even maintaining) astronomical ACs, but your damage output is going to be somewhere between fluffy bunny and corn dog.I really like how 5e is an edition of trade-offs.
In theory, sure. But you can only cast shield 4 times (since it's not a spell you can cast with higher slots) unless you use your sorcery to give up spell slots to purchase lower ones. And I just can't see that happening very often in actual game play with everything else going on (need for spells in non-combat, various tactics in combat, etc) And with the way 5e is, you won't get full plate until at least mid levels I'm guessing.
TLDR version: I'm not a big fan of very specific theory builds because they rarely ever end up that way in actual play
As always, but bonuses work differently. You start with +2 proficiency bonus to some skills/attacks/saves and it improves by +1 each 4 lvls, contrary to +1 base attack each lvl.I probably should read through the entire Basic game (I did download it, but with no potential to play it in the near-term, I found it drier than I prefer for casual reading), but how exactly do they implement bounded accuracy, then? I see an awful lot of stuff about higher level monsters not being so monstrously statted compared to prior editions, but how does leveling actually work, then?
Well, there's nothing preventing you casting shield in a higher-level slot, it just doesn't give any additional benefits if you do.
It's interesting so far.
The only problem I'm seeing is that after awhile, my players are only missing on very low rolls. Actually, I'm not sure that's a problem. Let's call it an observation, instead. It seems to work because players inherently enjoy "hitting" -- and this lets them do that, and often. Moving the goalpost from AC to Hit Points took some getting used to, but I'm liking it a lot.
On the DM side of things, I'm absolutely LOVING it. "A swarm of kobolds, but we're 9th level? ... maaaaybe we should sneak around." When's the last time that happened in PF or 3.X? It makes the world feel a bit more real to me. YMMV, of course, but it's definitely a mark in the positive column for me.
There are a couple of ill-advised items in the modules released prior to the DMG (and magic item rules) being finalised which definitely strain Bounded Accuracy. I expect they'll be errata'd and magical items will be kept in hand.
At least for a couple of years.