Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6245235" data-attributes="member: 2525">I know it's a long thread, but it's worth reading, and it would prevent some confusion. In this case, it seems like you didn't get to the part that explains that's not the build, just the maximum I could come up with.  The basic build requires no other spellcasters.Mountain Dwarf (+1 AC race) Ranger 5 (+1 AC Defense) / Mage 2 (Aura constantly providing Disadvantage) with three magic items (+1 plate armor (19 AC), +1 shield (+3 AC), +1 ring of protection (+1 AC)), who casts Barksin (+2 AC) on himself.  Total AC 27, all foes have Disadvantage when attacking him.As the highest attack bonus in the game so far is +8 (and that is only for the highest level monsters in the game), I'd say an AC like that is not within the "expected margin".  When the highest level creature would need to roll double 19s/20s just to hit with one of their attacks against a PC that isn't even necessarily high level himself, it's an "issue".  Of course they can do other things, but we're focusing on this AC issue right now.Yes I was not saying anything other than describing the AC issue.  Though I later describe a Druid build that can solo a red dragon.  For completeness, here he is again:Mountain Dwarf Paladin 2 (Defense) / Druid 5 (Barkskin, Elemental Mantel spell = Immunity to Fire), with the three magic items.  It needs a natural 20 to hit with any of it's attacks, and you're immune to it's breath weapon.And that is part of the topic. You should read the whole thread.  It's a good thread.  The question is, should they end some stacking bonuses to deal with this issue, or should they adjust the monster attacks higher, or both? It's a delicate balance with wide reaching ramifications however you choose to deal with it.I think I should post it here in response to a thread about the topic.  That's part of what message boards like this are for, in my opinion.</blockquote>

Verification