Fixing the "infinite AC" bugs

[CleverNickName]

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

I guess I'm the only one that's bothered by it. Perhaps my players have been right all along...maybe I really am Lawful Evil. :\

But in the spirit of helping out a fellow DM, let's pretend that it bothered you, too. Would you consider the bonus granted by a defending weapon to be an enhancement bonus, a deflection bonus, or even a luck bonus? Obviously it can't be a dodge bonus (since it is tied to a weapon and has nothing to do with agility). So I guess what I'm asking is, if you had to "type" the bonus, what type would you give it?

Same for the bonus to AC granted by the Aid Another option. Assuming that it drove you crazy like it does me, what kind of bonus to AC should it grant? A cover bonus, since someone is in the way of a clear shot? Or perhaps a deflection bonus, since these allies can deflect incoming blows?

 

[WhatGravitas]

I guess I'm the only one that's bothered by it. Perhaps my players have been right all along...maybe I really am Lawful Evil. :\

But in the spirit of helping out a fellow DM, let's pretend that it bothered you, too. Would you consider the bonus granted by a defending weapon to be an enhancement bonus, a deflection bonus, or even a luck bonus? Obviously it can't be a dodge bonus (since it is tied to a weapon and has nothing to do with agility). So I guess what I'm asking is, if you had to "type" the bonus, what type would you give it?

Same for the bonus to AC granted by the Aid Another option. Assuming that it drove you crazy like it does me, what kind of bonus to AC should it grant? A cover bonus, since someone is in the way of a clear shot? Or perhaps a deflection bonus, since these allies can deflect incoming blows?

Hmm... I'd say call the bonus from the defending weapon defence bonus and the bonus from aid another aid bonus. That way, it won't stack, and doesn't mess up with the existing bonus types, otherwise you're clearly gimping the existing rules and item...

In fact, it if you assign an already existing bonus, you'll basically just say: "I don't like defending weapons and aid another, so I'm making them useless."

 

[DogBackward]

Well, if it really bothers you that much, then I suggest the following:

Defending
You must be actively wielding the weapon in order to gain teh bonus from Defending. Thus, you can never have more bonuses than you have hands, and defending weapons to hold in those hands. You can't use armor spikes for the defending property, because you can't maneuver them well enough to intercept blows. You can't use a dancing shield to use defending, because the dancing property concentrates only on moving the shield, not the spikes.

Thus, for 144,000 gold, you could get a +10 untyped bonus to AC. In return for being absolutely useless with your weapons (no enhancement bonus anymore), and not having any free hands.

Aid Another
Aid Another is limited by space, so you can only have so many helping. The shadows using it doesn't work. Aid Another works by your allies distracting the foe. IF all of the distractions are coming from the same space, it doesn't help any more than only one coming from that space. Aid Another attempts for attack or AC bonuses coming from the same square do not stack.

 

[Kisanji Arael]

Umm... I'm just weird, but if it got to be a problem, here's how I'd handle it:

1. Use the Fibonacci sequence. 2 people grants a +3 total bonus, 3 people is +5, etc.

2. #1 assumes that all characters involved are medium sized creatures. However, if a character is smaller than medium, lower the amount they contribute using the same amount that they can carry. (so small is 3/4)

3. Incorporeal/ ethereal creatures cannot aid another creature (which really solves the shadow bug)

 

[WhatGravitas]

1. Use the Fibonacci sequence. 2 people grants a +3 total bonus, 3 people is +5, etc.

Four people +8, six people +13, seven people +21, eight people +34... NO. Just no, please. Keep a linear sequence - easier to remember, and a lot harder to abuse.

 

[Kisanji Arael]

Four people +8, six people +13, seven people +21, eight people +34... NO. Just no, please. Keep a linear sequence - easier to remember, and a lot harder to abuse.

No, you misunderstand me. What I was suggesting is a system that requires 3 people to gain a +5 bonus (under the current system, 3 gives a +6). Four people give no bonus (over the already present +5 for having 3 people) at all because it has not reached the next number; it is assumed to be negligible. 5 people gives a +8 bonus, as opposed to RAW, where it gives a +10. It seems negligible, I know, but consider: 21 people under the current system gives a +42. All I'm proposing is that it instead gives a +34 bonus, which I suggested to account for the fact that the more people you have working on a project, the less efficient (but very likely more possible) it's going to be.


But you're right, it is math heavy. I can understand why you wouldn't wish to use it. But hey, I was raised on Ender's Game, and I counted myself to sleep with doubling because of it.

 

[WhatGravitas]

No, you misunderstand me. What I was suggesting is a system that requires 3 people to gain a +5 bonus (under the current system, 3 gives a +6). Four people give no bonus (over the already present +5 for having 3 people) at all because it has not reached the next number; it is assumed to be negligible. 5 people gives a +8 bonus, as opposed to RAW, where it gives a +10. It seems negligible, I know, but consider: 21 people under the current system gives a +42. All I'm proposing is that it instead gives a +34 bonus, which I suggested to account for the fact that the more people you have working on a project, the less efficient (but very likely more possible) it's going to be.

D'oh! I see what you're meaning. Using the sequence itself, not the progression of the series, thanks for clarifying. But that means you have to a) do the Fibonacci each time; b) have it ready in your head; c) have a table.

I don't think that's really good, far to complicated, unless you've fun with maths. I have... but I know my group would kill me if I brought anything beyond basic addition and multiplication into a game!

 

[Destil]

Defending makes sense, just label it. How about an enhancement on your deflection bonus to AC. Or an Insight bonus, if you don't use psionics.

For aid another, just not allowing it to work for incorporeal creatures makes the most sense.

 

[Destil]

D'oh! I see what you're meaning. Using the sequence itself, not the progression of the series, thanks for clarifying. But that means you have to a) do the Fibonacci each time; b) have it ready in your head; c) have a table.

I don't think that's really good, far to complicated, unless you've fun with maths. I have... but I know my group would kill me if I brought anything beyond basic addition and multiplication into a game!

Easy. For every +2 from aid another that's already in effect the DC on the attack roll is increased by +1.

 

[shurai]

d20 isn't intended to be as mathematically precise as a computer program, which is why I don't think we don't really have to worry about Infinity bugs. It's not like we're going to overflow the DM's registers or something. : ]

Moreover, "Infinity" is effectively a lot closer than you think. All a character has to do is bump their AC to a level at which all the attackers in an encounter must roll natural 20s to hit. That means that if the highest attack bonus a party of adventurers can produce is +10, that AC 30 is just as good as AC 859. There are other ways to produce situations that are worse than this "effective Infinity" anyway. There are also many ways to render oneself invulnerable to physical attacks entirely.

Can I make a gentle suggestion? I think being weirded out by these strange corner cases is a sign of taking the rules too seriously. These corner cases are definitely strange, but there are hundreds of others hiding in all sorts of funny places. No amount of house-ruling can ever rectify all of them. Instead, why not just have the DM ignore them and rule whatever is reasonable; that's his job right?

What I like to do is think of the game rules as a convenient way of simulating in-game events, rather than as a direct representation of them. So, it's okay for someone's AC to get to actual infinity even in a real encounter, precisely because the rules that produced it aren't the final authority on what's happening in-game. Again, that's the DM's job.