D&D 5E 5th Edition Armor Class 20 Max

[jadrax]

COULD have yes. Do we know at this stage whether they will even be supporting the old +X on armor and shields? It would be fairly counter productive to the prerogative to flatten the probability math to keep those bonus's on armor and shields.

In the absence of any solid proof to the contrary (and if you know something, please give me a link) Im actually guessing that +X on armor and shields will be a real bad fit for the direction they are aiming for, an the concept of enchanted armor and shields will have to follow a different model for implementation.

Old +x style Armour is in the playtest. But take that how you will.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

2e had it right

AC 10 was the worst
AC 0 was great
AC-6 was what most people thought of as godlike
AC-10 was a soft cap

Some Dragons and a few gods hit -12.

Going up would be:
AC 10 was the worst
AC 20 was great
AC 26 was what most people thought of as godlike
AC 30 was a soft cap

Some Dragons and a few gods hit 32.

 

[BobTheNob]

Old +x style Armour is in the playtest. But take that how you will.

Didnt hit that. Im surprised, I had just assumed you couldnt support +X armor/shields under the flattened math model they were putting forward. Now Im going to get out my copy of play test and check for it.

EDIT : I stand corrected. I saw +1 heavy shield. Hmmm, Well, in that case, given bonus to hit has been scaled right back, I would hope scaling of +X items is also scaled right back, otherwise the game will become too much about the loot. Watch that space I guess.

 

[ren1999]

You're forgetting you could have magic armor + magic shield, which would give a magic bonus of +10 alone (not including the +5 for Str), unless the game to somehow limits you so you can only get +5 from all magic bonuses (say +3 from armor, +2 from shield, +1 from armor, +4 from shield or some combination inbetween). Wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but might offend some of the (other) long-time gamers.

Yes. I don't think it would hurt the "flat math" concept too much if AC was maxed at 30 with magic.

It's the bonuses that need to be kept to +10 or under.

 

[Njall]

Oh, I'm fine with AC being hard capped at 20, as long as to hit is hard capped at +10.
If to-hit isn't capped, AC shouldn't be either.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

If to-hit isn't capped, AC shouldn't be either.

I can't overemphasize how much I support this.

 

[keterys]

I'd like for +5 shields to not stack with +5 armor - it makes shields too automatic a choice and makes for way too big of an AC swing for using a shield. like if a monster needs an 11 to hit someone normally, 18 with a shield? Or 11 with a shield, 4 without? Either way, pretty awful.

That and it would justify much better all those armorless guys with shields pictures and minis

Anyhow, trying to stay in the 15-25 range sounds good, because otherwise you lose the point of the whole "flatter math" bit. Look at some kobolds and orcs, and add 20 to that. That's about as high as you should probably be ranging.

 

[ren1999]

Oh, I'm fine with AC being hard capped at 20, as long as to hit is hard capped at +10.
If to-hit isn't capped, AC shouldn't be either.

Agreed.

 

[variant]

If the AC cap is 20, the magical AC cap should be 25.