Fixing the "infinite AC" bugs

[CleverNickName]

In another thread in the D&D Rules forum, I proposed a question...what is the absolute highest armor class a non-epic character can have according to the System Reference Document. The official answer was "a billion," thanks to a couple of bugs in the rules system.

So in the name of fairness, I will be implementing the following house rules that will fix the AC rules...allowing my players to focus more on playing, and less on finding "OMG 133t AC RULZ LOL!!!111" loopholes. Feedback is appreciated, especially on how I am categorizing the bonus types (should the first be deflection or should it be something else, etc.)

And if you know of an AC bug that I haven't found, please let me know so we can squash it.

Bug 1: Defending Weapon Stack
The Problem: under the SRD rules, a defending weapon can transfer all or some of its enhancement bonus to its wielder's AC, "as a special bonus that stacks with all others." This is all fine and good for a single weapon...but it doesn't take a munchkin long to figure out that he can also enchant a pair of spiked gauntlets, his armor spikes, his shield spikes, his double weapon, etc., racking up a rediculious +30 (or more) to his armor class.

The Solution: a defending weapon can transfer all or some of its enhancement bonus to its wielder's Armor Class, as a deflection bonus. (Note that deflection bonuses do not stack.)


Bug 2: Infinite Aid Another
The Problem: under the SRD rules, your allies can use the Aid Another option to give you a +2 bonus to your armor class, attack rolls, and skills. This is fine and good if you are being assisted by one or two allies, but it gets out of hand quickly when the number of allies increases. One of the most extreme examples was a necromancer who commands a handful of shadows (each of which commands shadows of their own, and so forth). In theory, these incorporeal creatures could occupy the same space and use the Aid Another option to grant a +2 bonus each to the necromancer's armor class, attack rolls, and skill checks, forever.

Extreme and farfetched? Yes.
Possible? Sadly, yes.

The Solution: the Aid Another option grants a +2 competence bonus. (Note that competence bonuses are not stackable.)

 

[hong]

Your bug #1 is mostly hypothetical. I've never seen anyone make a defending weapon. People generally have better things to spend their money on, even if they're looking to make an unhittable build.

Your solution #2 hoses a number of valid uses of aid another, where lots of people might reasonably be able to contribute.

Are your players actually of the type that would try to abuse these tricks?

 

[GreatLemur]

Infinite.

 

[CleverNickName]

Your bug #1 is mostly hypothetical. I've never seen anyone make a defending weapon. People generally have better things to spend their money on, even if they're looking to make an unhittable build.

True; I suppose they are both purely hypothetical...but doesn't this one seem like an obvious oversight?

Your solution #2 hoses a number of valid uses of aid another, where lots of people might reasonably be able to contribute.

Hmm...you are right again. I don't really know how to handle it fairly, however. On one hand, I would like to allow the stronger members of the party to rally together to protect the cleric as he performs CPR on the fallen mage...on the other hand, I would like to protect it from deliberate abuse. How would you handle it?

Are your players actually of the type that would try to abuse these tricks?

Sadly, yes. One of them especially. He hasn't gamed with us in a while (we stopped inviting him to our games) but he was one of the most efficient min/maxers I've ever seen. It seemed like he only played the game to find and exploit loopholes. And worse, he loved to argue.

Don't get me wrong, I like for my players to get involved in the character creation process and achieve victory through creativity and resourcefulness. That is the most satisfying element of the game, IMO. These rules aren't intended to diminish anyone's enjoyment of the game...I'm just trying to close a few loopholes.

 

[szilard]

I don't see either of these as a problem.

#1 isn't a problem. The SRD states:

"he wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon"

I read this as requiring that the wielder use the weapon (or at least be able to use the weapon) in the turn he gets the bonus. He can't use (or be able to use) an infinite number of weapons.


#2 isn't a problem. The SRD states:

"If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action."

An infinite number of allies can be in such a position?

-Stuart

 

[Felnar]

bug #1: a strict reading of the defending property only allow swords to transfer the enhancement bonus to AC

 

[RithTheAwakener]

Bug 2: Infinite Aid Another
The Problem: under the SRD rules, your allies can use the Aid Another option to give you a +2 bonus to your armor class, attack rolls, and skills. This is fine and good if you are being assisted by one or two allies, but it gets out of hand quickly when the number of allies increases. One of the most extreme examples was a necromancer who commands a handful of shadows (each of which commands shadows of their own, and so forth). In theory, these incorporeal creatures could occupy the same space and use the Aid Another option to grant a +2 bonus each to the necromancer's armor class, attack rolls, and skill checks, forever.

I'd allow it. That would be awesome to see a necromancer with ghosts / disembodied souls flying around him extremely fast.. in fact I think I've seen it before in some game or movie. Either way, kill the ghosts kill the necro, a Daylight would help.

 

[Stalker0]

Hmm...you are right again. I don't really know how to handle it fairly, however. On one hand, I would like to allow the stronger members of the party to rally together to protect the cleric as he performs CPR on the fallen mage...on the other hand, I would like to protect it from deliberate abuse. How would you handle it?

Kill the shadows!! It actually makes mooks useful, so use them!!

 

[DogBackward]

Who cares if someone can get an infinite AC? I mean, really, think about it.

+5 Defending costs 72,000g. You can have a total of 5 items that use it: Armor Spikes, Double Weapon (2x cost), Spiked Gauntlets* (2x cost). If you really want to go overboard, you can use an Animated Spiked Shield, for an additional 72k for the spikes and 9k for teh shield's animated properties. That's a total of 441,000g for all of this, not counting the gold spent on the mundane parts. The earliest this can possibly be done is level 19, 18 if your DM gives you an extra 1000g. This also leaves you nothing else.

* Even this is iffy, as I'd say you have to actually be wielding the weapons used, and you can't wield the gauntlets while you wield the double-weapon.

So, if a player wants to spend, literally, all of their gold on this "project", I say let 'em. That's a total of +30 AC, in a world where AC is not, by far, everything. Sure, you'll have a character nearly invincible in melee combat. Hit him with a Dominate Person, turn the unhittable against his allies. Hit him with any number of non-attack requiring spells.

The bottom line is, there is nothing that can be done in this game (that I have seen, anyway) that truly makes a character invincible. There is always a counter, that's the genius of the system. +30 AC isn't broken. It's unbalanced, but your game will not crash and die if you have a character with 60+ AC. There are always other methods of attack.

And furthermore, in allowing it, you have a player who's incredibly proud of his AC. This leads to a happy player. You could even say he'd be having fun, and as mentioned above, not managing to break the game while he's at it. Now, here's the hard-ball question...

"What, exactly, is the game of DnD all about?"

 

[WhatGravitas]

Sadly, yes. One of them especially. He hasn't gamed with us in a while (we stopped inviting him to our games) but he was one of the most efficient min/maxers I've ever seen. It seemed like he only played the game to find and exploit loopholes. And worse, he loved to argue.

Then he was a bad player (and therefore not invited anymore) and the rule was okay. No problem.

And for the "mook-bug": If a well-placed area attack spell cannot wipe out the shadows, then there are a) so many, and b) so powerful shadows, that they're waaaay better off, when they're just swarming the enemy from the ground.

High AC is fine and dandy... but the shadows are *not* doing their nasty strength damage. And if a necromancer (!) has enough shadows to get such an unhittable AC... well, then he has enough undead to do much more useful things.