NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6684471" data-attributes="member: 5834">Not in 5E. This wasn't an issue in 3E/Pathfinder unless a guy built for AC. The paladin is not building for AC. So far it has been the case with any heavy armor and shield user. Plate armor, shield, and defensive fighting style, all obtainable very early on, gives an AC of 21. Your average rogue with an 18 dex has an AC of 17. Your average caster with mage armor and a 15 or 16 Dex has an AC of 15 to 16. Casting that one spell takes up 25% of his 1st level spell slots. Use shield once, it takes up 50% of his 1st level spell slots. These types of AC discrepancies weren't quite as large in 3E/Pathfinder largely due to easy access to disposable magic items allowing mage armor to be cast without expending a spell slot and shield lasting an entire combat. You would often see low level wizards in battle with roughly equivalent AC with a shield spell and mage armor with Dex. Rogue-types usually wore a Chain shirt with high Dex. You're starting with an AC of 18 with the fighter with plate armor and shield having an AC of 21. A much tighter AC grouping than 5E. 3E/Pathfinder doesn't have Bounded Accuracy. So the AC ranges often stay relatively tight unless someone really focuses on AC due to magic item inflation. It's kind of a unique element of the idea behind Bounded Accuracy I'm running into as a DM. That's why I mentioned it. It didn't work this way in 3E/Pathfinder. I'm wondering if many other DMs have run into the situation. I always like to hear from others as far as their experiences with a fairly wide AC variation in a game with tight ACs and attack roles.</blockquote>

Verification