Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5876328" data-attributes="member: 42582">I know about the repeating 20s, as well as the footnote/sidebar canvassing two different options for interpreting them and what comes after them.As for ACs below -10, Fullplate +4 and Shield +5 gives -9. (Even if you're not using UA, Plate Mail +5 and Shield +5 gives -8.) A handful of bonuses on top of that (from DEX and/or other magic, such as a Defending sword) will give an AC below -10. One of the character types more likely to wear this armour combination is a cavalier, and cavaliers receive a level bonus to DEX, so getting a DEX bonus of +3 or better (at DEX 17+) is not that unrealistic.High level barbarians, who are allowed to use magic items and who get a +2 bonus to AC per point of DEX above 14, can also get ACs below -10.And there are probably other ways I'm not remembering, involving Bracers plus Rings and/or Cloaks of Protection plus other miscellaneous magic items plus DEX. I haven't got my books here, but I think the best Bracers are AC 2, the best Ring +6 (giving -4), +4 or +5 from DEX is not out of the question for a mage or thief, which will then give us AC -11 with another +3 of bonuses. (I have a feeling that a Cloak will stack with a ring. If it doesn't, I'm pretty sure that there are other options.)My memory is that the rules actively encouraged GMs to have monsters use the magic in their treasure hoards. If Asmodueus puts on a Ring of Protection +3, presumably his AC becomes -11. (The fact that items will work when he puts them on is reinforced, isn't it, by the special rules for Daemons and the way their magic resistance also has the peculiar effect of stopping magic items that they wear from working.)I haven't play enough 3E to have any strong view on this, but it seems plausible. But also seems somewhat orthogonal to the question of whether the AD&D table was intended to impose a hard cap, or rather admitted of extrapolation.</blockquote>

Verification