D&D 5E Highest Possible AC

[The Crimson Binome]

There is no upper limit. As long as you're dwelling in theorycraft, you can always theorize a boon that increases your Dexterity or AC by an arbitrary amount. That's both RAW and RAI.

 

[Voi_D_ragon]

There is no upper limit. As long as you're dwelling in theorycraft, you can always theorize a boon that increases your Dexterity or AC by an arbitrary amount. That's both RAW and RAI.

Nope, all stats cap at 30, so that would be the upper limit for dex & con, and
1) We said level 20 was the ceiling and (so you can't get epic boons or the extra ASIs after 20 to reach 30)
2) You can only gain stat increases from magic items once.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Nope, all stats cap at 30, so that would be the upper limit for dex & con, and
1) We said level 20 was the ceiling and (so you can't get epic boons or the extra ASIs after 20 to reach 30)
2) You can only gain stat increases from magic items once.

You can get boons whenever; you don't need to be level 20 or anything. And those boons can be anything; the ones in the book are just suggestions.

The DM is fully empowered to say that, by rescuing the prince of fairyland, everyone gets a +10 arbitrary bonus to AC. The rules support that as intentional.

The highest possible AC is not a limit which exists within the game; the only limit is what you accept as plausible, but a DM granting an AC boon after completing a quest is significantly more plausible than anyone playing a fighter 17/ barbarian 1 and maxing out both their Dexterity and Constitution while also finding four specific magic items.

 

[schnee]

Good thing shield of faith is not a shield

Please show me where I was replying to that again?

 

[FrogReaver]

Please show me where I was replying to that again?

My bad. The few posts above yours were talking about shield of faith. I should have read yours more closely. Sorry.

 

[schnee]

No big, thanks.

 

[Ancalagon]

While this is amusing (and a bit iffy - depending on rolling 12? Two shields? pfff), reading this thread made me realize something - armor has a strange return curve.

Going from AC 12 to AC 13 is almost insignificant. It's usually worth it for PCs to get *some* kind of AC so they don't have AC 10, but that's because the efforts needed to do so are pretty minor (cast a petty spell, spend a few dozens gp etc). However, increasing your AC by 1 or 2 at those AC and sacrificing something big for it is usually not worth it. If a foe hits you 50% of the time, and now they are hitting you 45% of the time... congrats, you just reduced incoming damage by 1/10th... not bad, but not great.

However, once your AC becomes pretty good, 1 AC makes a pretty big difference. If an enemy needs 18 or higher to hit you, one more AC means you've just cut incoming damage by a third!

*however*... if you have AC 30 and they must roll a 20 to hit you... getting AC 31 doesn't help you *at all*, you are still hit on a 20! So going overboard on defense is not the best way to go

 

[Bardbarian]

You are correct Ancalogon, its also important to note that these threads are only realy useful as a mental exercize. D&D is much like a team sport in which each player needs to be able to contribute to the whole. That is true of damage absorption/mitigation. If onle player get their AC to the point where they cannot be hit any intelligent enemy will shift tactics to harm those who can be hit. If in a group of 4 one player becomes unhittable then the damage intended for 4 players will be shifted to 3 increasing the damage the rest of the party takes, presumeably they are not equally defensive as the one "turtle" player. Rather than becoming unhittable I found it better to be difficult to hit yet still able to be threatened. This improves the flow of the game and the Dm gets to get a few hits in as well, after all they are playing too.

 

[Caliban]

You are correct Ancalogon, its also important to note that these threads are only realy useful as a mental exercize. D&D is much like a team sport in which each player needs to be able to contribute to the whole. That is true of damage absorption/mitigation. If onle player get their AC to the point where they cannot be hit any intelligent enemy will shift tactics to harm those who can be hit. If in a group of 4 one player becomes unhittable then the damage intended for 4 players will be shifted to 3 increasing the damage the rest of the party takes, presumeably they are not equally defensive as the one "turtle" player. Rather than becoming unhittable I found it better to be difficult to hit yet still able to be threatened. This improves the flow of the game and the Dm gets to get a few hits in as well, after all they are playing too.

That's mainly true if the fight lasts several rounds, or the enemies know how "unhittable" the one player is before combat starts. Many fights only last 2-3 rounds, and soaking up a bunch of attacks in the first rounds can make a huge difference to the rest of the party. Intelligent positioning is important as well - if the tank is out in front, or in a choke point, it may be hard to attack anyone other than the tank for the first round or two.

But there will definitely be fights where the highest AC person gets ignored for the people in light armor and robes. At least until they prove themselves to be too much of a threat to be ignored (paladins are good at this).

 

[Ancalagon]

It's also worth noting that if the foe has multiple options on how to deal with the PCs, targeting the unkillable looking tank with some kind of mental magic is a pretty obvious solution. AC 30, -1 to wisdom save...