D&D 5E Highest Possible 5E AC

[Illithidbix]

Sorry my bad

No probs, it is something of a wall of numbers.

 

[Pauln6]

Hmm well personally, I have proceeded on the assumption that bonuses of the same type should not stack, since they did not in previous editions and that would be even more bonkers in a bounded system, so if you have plate +3 and a shield +3, I would only apply the highest magical bonus. Similarly, the ring of protection AC bonus never used to stack with magical armour bonuses, so you would only get the save bonus (and cloaks of protection only worked with light armour in 1e). There is also a reasonable argument for requiring +3 items to take up an attunement slot.

I do appreciate that the RAW do not state this expressly but I always assumed it made sense otherwise you run the risk of making a mockery of bounded accuracy.

Feats and class features are more interesting since your character with 20 in two stats and a high AC is going to be vulnerable elsewhere, with lower attack rolls, damage rolls, or less versatility. The question is whether the trade off is good enough and for some it will be I guess. Most people would want a more rounded character.

If you remove some obvious stacking issues, you are left with situational bonuses, which lead to greater tactical thinking and a better game so it makes complete sense.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Hmm well personally, I have proceeded on the assumption that bonuses of the same type should not stack, since they did not in previous editions and that would be even more bonkers in a bounded system, so if you have plate +3 and a shield +3, I would only apply the highest magical bonus. Similarly, the ring of protection AC bonus never used to stack with magical armour bonuses, so you would only get the save bonus (and cloaks of protection only worked with light armour in 1e). There is also a reasonable argument for requiring +3 items to take up an attunement slot.

I do appreciate that the RAW do not state this expressly but I always assumed it made sense otherwise you run the risk of making a mockery of bounded accuracy.

Feats and class features are more interesting since your character with 20 in two stats and a high AC is going to be vulnerable elsewhere, with lower attack rolls, damage rolls, or less versatility. The question is whether the trade off is good enough and for some it will be I guess. Most people would want a more rounded character.

If you remove some obvious stacking issues, you are left with situational bonuses, which lead to greater tactical thinking and a better game so it makes complete sense.

I'm not really sure why a +N shield wouldn't stack with +M armor. The shield's bonus adds to what it contributes to your AC, and can be lost or removed in ways that armor can't be (dropping it, for instance). And if the +N from the shield *doesn't* stack, why is it that the natural +2 of the shield *does*? I don't see the logic there.

Edit: Also, uh, no you don't actually have to have that much "lower" rolls elsewhere. A Barbarian that goes for maxed Dex and Con can attack with that max Dex, giving actually more versatility than if they'd gone Str+heavy armor, particularly since they can still wear a shield (and thus, under your scheme, get the benefits of a magic shield without "wasting" the benefit of magic armor). Mountain Dwarf gives you +2 Con and +2 Str; with point buy, you can get 16/14/16 as your physical stats and no negative mental modifiers (or one +1, one -1, one 0, if you prefer). You'd expend your five feats to get Dex and Con to 20 (3 Dex, 2 Con), and then at max level, you'd end up with 20/20/24/10/10/10 or something like that. 22 base AC (Unarmored Defense, 10+5+7); baller magic shield gives a total of +5; magic jewellery gives another +2, possibly more if there are Rings of Protection that give bigger than +1 bonuses (there may or may not be). Total AC is at least 29, without any buffs. You're only so-so at any mental tasks, but physical tasks are hugely your wheelhouse; you can use any ranged or melee weapon with equal ease. If you roll and get even slightly lucky (since PB is less effective than the average roll), you may even be able to squeeze some "full" feats in there.

For comparison, with your "armor and shield +X don't stack" rule, a Fighter or Paladin can get 1 (Defensive style) + 21 (+3 plate) + 2 (shield) + 1 (ring of prot) + 1 (Ioun stone) = 26 total AC. Meaning you're exactly 3 AC "behind"...

 

[Blue]

I Had a look at the Battlemaster using Superiority Dice, I think you can add +D12 to your AC using Evasive Footwork but the phrasing is (When you move, you can expand one superiority dice, rolling the dice and adding the number rolled to your AC until you stop moving)
Which could be (defensive fighting style, +3 plate armor, +3 shield, Defender, ring and cloak, shield of faith and cloak etc)
= AC: 36 + D12

AC: 47+D12 if you're in 3/4 Cover (as you move...) and use your reaction to activate "Defensive Duelist" upon actually being hit....

If using the UA articles, both of the new fighter subclasses let you add a superiority die as a reaction in certain circumstances (mounted or wearing light/medium armor), though that would preclude Defensive duelist or Shield.

 

[Pauln6]

Well armour and shield stacking shouldn't stack because bounded accuracy. It's as simple as that. Plus your armour bonus and shield bonus will not always be the same.

If Tiamat is missing 70% of the time then your lower monsters are pretty much screwed and so is bounded accuracy. Logical bounds make sense given the stated goal.

 

[Remathilis]

So just to confirm (since the dizzying array of numbers hurt my head).

The highest "always on" ACs are in the low-mid 30's. (30-36)

They only come at 17th+ level and require several magical items (+3 amor, +3 shield, Rings or Ioun stones)

Spike ACs (good for one round or one combat) can go as high as 42, but require multiple spells or terrain to achieve.

By the time those ACs come around (17th level) monsters have other ways of dealing with foes (spells or special attacks) or attack bonuses ~ 15.

Assuming the DM is reasonable and doesn't monty haul out AC items, it seems like those 30 ACs are either hard to pull off, very build/situation intensive, or only at the very highest levels anyway.

Seems fair to me.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well armour and shield stacking shouldn't stack

As your personal opinion, fine.

The rules are clear: the stacking rules of previous editions are simply not there in 5th Edition.

If you don't feel armor and shield stacking is balanced, the 5E solution is this:

Don't give your player both items.

 

[CapnZapp]

Seems fair to me.

Remember that the game is designed to function perfectly well even if you never hand out even a single +1 AC item regardless of level.

Actually, it is wise to remember that a +1 to offense is much less unbalancing than a +1 to defense.

 

[spectacle]

As your personal opinion, fine.

The rules are clear: the stacking rules of previous editions are simply not there in 5th Edition.

If you don't feel armor and shield stacking is balanced, the 5E solution is this:

Don't give your player both items.

You can't really control how your players will distribut their items though, so to keep AC under control then if one character has magic armor then nobody else can get a +something shield since they might end up with the same character.

 

[Athinar]

PHB
Armor Class (AC). Armor protects its wearer from attacks. The armor (and shield) you wear determines your base Armor Class.