what do you consider a "good" AC?

[demon_jr]

i'm sure this varies from campaign to campaign, but i have come to a conclusion that AC is not that useful in higher level campaigns, unless the AC is amazingly high.

take for instance an AC of 20. from what i have read from the core rule books, that is suppossed to be a fairly decent AC.

however take a 10th level fighter, with a BAB of 10. this fighter will have a 50/50 chance of hitting a character with AC 20, not to mention the addition of any magical bonuses, strength bonuses, or feats.

as the level of the campaign increases, the ability of AC to protect you from being hit is slowly reduced, unless your AC increases accordingly.

in my campaign, my character is 14th-level warrior-type with AC 19. for the most part, i am usually hit in melee and it is very rare that an NPC ever misses when attacking me, but this usually occurs in "meaningful" encounters.

within my campaign, there are basically 2 types of battles: meaningful and non-meaningful. meaningful battles can be characterized as fighting the last bad guy or an encounter with a CR that is reasonable for the pary. non-meaningful can be characterized as fights where the DM wants the players to feel powerful by having them face encounters that have very low CR in respect to the party.

am i wrong in thinking that an AC of 20 is good, considering that full plate, which costs 1500 gp, can give you a max AC of 19, including dexterity bonus?

 

[1337 h4xor]

am i wrong in thinking that an AC of 20 is good, considering that full plate, which costs 1500 gp, can give you a max AC of 19, including dexterity bonus?

yea i'd say you're wrong, especially at 14th level.... by then that armor should at least be magical... throw in a ring of protection a sheild an ammy of nat armor and a fighter type by 14th level should be in the 30's. 1st level wizards can easily have an ac above 20 at 1st level.

 

[Jeph]

I'd say it's level + 10 + some other number, depending on the range of levels that your character is in.

Range . AC+
01-03 . .6
04-08 . .7
09-13 . .9
14-18 . .12
19-20 . .16

 

[dcollins]

What qualifies as a "good AC" strongly depends on the level. Take a close look at the standard NPCs in the DMG, at the end of Chapter 2. You'll see there's a wide range of ACs from 1st through 20th level.

As an example, the standard Fighter (DMG p. 53): At only 2nd level, they should have AC 19. At 14th level they should be up to AC 27. By 20th level an AC 34 is reasonable.

(Note also: these ACs are the baseline from permanent effects and equipment -- temporary buffing or protection spells, or use of feats, can add even more for specific situations.)

By 14th level, an NPC is expected to have 45,000 gp of gear (p. 58), while a PC should have 150,000 gp (p. 145) -- which assumes they'll have a wide array of magical protections which makes 1,500 gp for normal full plate pretty much a nonissue. (If that's not the case, perhaps you're playing in a nonstandard low-magic campaign.) The 14th level Fighter (again, DMG p. 53) is shown having +2 full plate, a +1 large metal shield, a ring of protection +1, boots of speed, and an amulet of natural armor +2, for example.

 

[Thanee]

Good AC? Opponent's attack bonus +20 is pretty good!

Well, in lower levels 20 is good for a non-wizard, 25 for a wizard with shield spell running.

In mid levels, add 5-10 and in higher levels another 5-10.

Anything above AC 40 is hard to get, unless you are getting silly (like being a spellcasting monk bladesinger whatever uber AC dude).

Bye
Thanee

 

[the Jester]

What qualifies as a "good AC" strongly depends on the level. Take a close look at the standard NPCs in the DMG, at the end of Chapter 2. You'll see there's a wide range of ACs from 1st through 20th level.

As an example, the standard Fighter (DMG p. 53): At only 2nd level, they should have AC 19. At 14th level they should be up to AC 27. By 20th level an AC 34 is reasonable.

>snipped for brevity<

...The 14th level Fighter (again, DMG p. 53) is shown having +2 full plate, a +1 large metal shield, a ring of protection +1, boots of speed, and an amulet of natural armor +2, for example.

One thing I'd like to point out here is that this is for npcs. A pc's stuff should be substantially better given equal level and standard treasure values. (And I know you mentioned that in passing, dcollins, but I just feel that it can't be emphasized enough!) A 14th-level fighter pc is likely to have another 2-5 points of AC in there somewhere.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

If I'm playing a wizard, why shouldn't I just resign myself to the fact that I am going to be easy to hit, especially at high levels. The other players in the party are going to be snapping up the rings of protection and that sort of thing--and why shouldn't they, since they are the chief melee fighters?!

As a wizard, I would rather spend my gold on staffs and nifty wondrous items than waste it on trying to get my AC high enough to occasionally dodge a blow.

Do you follow my reasoning? I mean, if I'm going to get hit 70% of the time anyway, then why not just resign myself to 100% and just try to stay out of harm's way altogether and be prepared to take some damage when I can't get far enough away from threats.

Does that sound like a reasonable strategy for character development, or a foolish one?

 

[shilsen]

Good AC? Opponent's attack bonus +20 is pretty good!

I prefer +21 myself. Some of those guys have True Strike spells

 

[Caliban]

It really depends on the character.

I've got a 10th level elven wizard who starts at an AC of 21 (Dex +2, Bracers +5, Amulet of Natural Armor +2, Ring of protection +2) and goes up to AC 33 after casting Shield and Haste. He doesn't get near the fighting if he can help it though. He prefers to do his fighting from 100+ feet away.

I've also got a 7th level dwarven fighter/wizard who's AC starts at 24 or 25 (Dex +1, +1 plate +9, +1 shield +3, and +1 Dodge) and goes all the way up to 39 through the use of Expertise, Fighting Defensively, and casting shield, or 43 if he's moving past someone (because of the Mobility feat). If he's fighting giants he get's another +4 to AC. By the time he hit's 14th level I expect his average AC to increase about 7 points (due to Boots of Speed and enhancements on his shield and armor).

I've also got a 4th level druid who's AC is 16 (+2 Leather, +2 Dex, +2 ring of Protection) and it isn't likely to get much better, other than through the use of the Barkskin spell and Wildshape.

 

[hong]

If I'm playing a wizard, why shouldn't I just resign myself to the fact that I am going to be easy to hit, especially at high levels. The other players in the party are going to be snapping up the rings of protection and that sort of thing--and why shouldn't they, since they are the chief melee fighters?!

This is reasonable when fighting dumb brutish monsters, but when you come up against a smart or balanced enemy, you will be in trouble. When the other guy is also slinging around disintegrates and other ranged spells, not to mention arrows, everyone is potentially a target. Furthermore, 1) you don't have the hit points to soak the damage, unlike the tanks; 2) "get the spellcasters first" is just as important in 3E as it ever was.

The artillery mage metaphor breaks down a little when you consider that artillery these days usually isn't in line of sight to the target.