what do you consider a "good" AC?

[dcollins]

Nonepic character: Human Fighter-10 / Duellist-10; uses rules from FRCS, S&F, DotF....

(1) As I warned about, and you even quoted, a common trick is to be "counting a series of extremely situation-specific modifiers into their claimed AC. "

The following would all fall under such a categorization:

(unnamed)/5 ... "Expertise" feat, maximum benefit of +5AC/-5 to-hit
cover/7 ... Potion of Shield
dodge/10 ... Duellist class ability when fighting defensively; triggered by "Expertise" entry above (see S&F).
dodge/1 ... "Dodge" feat
dodge/2 ... "Twin Sword Style" feat (see FRCS)
dodge/2 ... "Off-Hand Parry" feat (see S&F)
... +8 more (Greater Mobility Duellist class feature, see S&F) when avoiding AoO's provoked by movement through threatened areas.

So that's 27 points of AC by my count that are not available when ambushed, starting combat unawares, shot from afar by an archer or rock-thrower etc., i.e., do not truly count as "base AC".


(2) The potion of shield is quite questionable. Many players and DMs do not believe the potion of shield is allowed by the potion-creation rules. It's certainly not in the table of potions, DMG p. 191. (But that's somewhat a nonissue, since it's included in #1 above.)

(3) Again, the bracers of armor don't stack with the enhanced buckler shield. (See discussion and reference above.) There is not, in fact, a unique "shield" bonus type. -- That would knock off 5 AC armor bonus points from your count above.

(4) You also added the buckler haste bonus together with the defender weapon in the same hand, when you cannot use both at the same time, per PH p. 105, under "buckler": "if you use a weapon in your off-hand, you don't get the buckler's AC bonus". -- That would imply you need to forego at least the 4 points from the speed buckler.

(5) Again, I'll take your word that the equipment price math works out...


So, just removing issues #1-4 above out of the calculation reduces the full-time AC of this character to: 85 - 27 - 5 - 4 = 49, that is, under AC 50, pretty much like I theorized in my preceding 10/21 post.

 

[Gunslinger]

PH p. 104, under the "Armor Bonus" heading: "Bonuses from armor and a shield stack. This bonus is an armor bonus, so it does not stack with other effects that increase your armor bonus, such as the mage armor spell or bracers of armor."

This has been confirmed by the Sage in Dragon #284 and the Official D&D FAQ.

[/url]

It seems quite nonsensical to me that 2 armor bonuses from different physical items should stack, having different AC boxes, but when one is magical they don't. However rules are rules.

 

[dcollins]

So, it's a DM call as to wether or not it's to be allowed in their campaign, but, it's not a house rule; the option to MAYBE do that very thing, is built directly into the Permanency spell. And in fact, it's a DM's call as to wether or not -anything- is allowed intheir campaign.

The distinction between "house rules" and "new things allowed by the DM" is completely unbelievable. Such an expansion is no different from the DM's ability to allow "new spells" and "new items" -- this clause under permanecy even specifically references the "new spells" section of the DMG.

I don't think there's a specific definition of "house rule" in the D&D rulebooks. However, the statement "As DM, you get to make up your own spells <e.g., expand permanency>, magic items, races, and mosters!" is on DMG p. 11, under "Changing the Rules" -- "Additions to the Game", and that's clearly what everyone means by the term "house rule".


Anyway, I've got to close my participation in this thread. Deconstructing these "champion high AC" constructs takes more time than I really have to devote to it. Hopefully I've given some support to my 10/21 assertion (full-time ACs over 50+ under the core rules seem to always have mistakes in the calculation) enough for anyone who is curious and cares about it.

 

[Pax]

(1) As I warned about, and you even quoted, a common trick is to be "counting a series of extremely situation-specific modifiers into their claimed AC. "

ALL armor bonusses, except the first 10, are situational. Is your warrior even wearing his armor, or X magical doodad? That's a situational issue too. Did your wizard cast Mage Armor for the day yet? I guess Mage Armor should also be considered situational.

As for "extremely" situational ... I don't think so. By and large: not flatfooted, and the benefits work. None of the bonusses I cited as regularly there, are "extremely situational". The only situation required is, "not flatfooted" (other than one, Off Hand Parry, which i listed seperately when calculating the final AC).

The following would all fall under such a categorization:

(unnamed)/5 ... "Expertise" feat, maximum benefit of +5AC/-5 to-hit
cover/7 ... Potion of Shield
dodge/10 ... Duellist class ability when fighting defensively; triggered by "Expertise" entry above (see S&F).
dodge/1 ... "Dodge" feat
dodge/2 ... "Twin Sword Style" feat (see FRCS)
dodge/2 ... "Off-Hand Parry" feat (see S&F)
... +8 more (Greater Mobility Duellist class feature, see S&F) when avoiding AoO's provoked by movement through threatened areas.

So that's 27 points of AC by my count that are not available when ambushed, starting combat unawares, shot from afar by an archer or rock-thrower etc., i.e., do not truly count as "base AC".

First: Off Hand Parry was not counted in the final 85AC; you will note, I said "85 AC ... +2 more when making a full attack" ...

And ... why do you say ALL of it goes away, even for JUST a ranged attack? If the Duellist assumes a defensive posture, s/he gets a Dodge bonus equal to their Duellist level. Nothing specifies this bonus is applicable only against melee attacks. Expertise, similarly, does not require a melee attack; nothingin the wording of the feat requires your attack action or full attack action to be made with a melee weapon; an archer could just as easily fight defensively, sacrificing ability to strike home, in order to reduce his odds of BEING struck in return.

Oh, by the way, you forgot to count in the Dexterity/Intelligence combined bonus, which totals another 18 points. So yes, when flatfooted, this fellow loses a LOT of armor class ... around 43 points of it, in fact. But with the Improved Initiative feat, and his godlike Dexteroity, he has a +13 initiative modifier. Flatfooted AC for him should be a rare event.

But I defy you to show me an official ruling saying the cover and dodge bonusses woud be denied the Duellist (or anyone) solely because the attack is a RANGED attack. The first shot of an archer from afar ... that's flatfooted, wether the attack is ranged or melee, therefor should not be cited seperately form the issue of being flatfooted.

(2) The potion of shield is quite questionable. Many players and DMs do not believe the potion of shield is allowed by the potion-creation rules. It's certainly not in the table of potions, DMG p. 191. (But that's somewhat a nonissue, since it's included in #1 above.)

Eliminating the potion of Shield would be the house rule. Brew Potion says ANY 3d level or lower spell, which targets a creature `or creatures. Sine spellcasters are, by definition, "creatures which cast spells" -- thus, are creatures -- Shield is applicable. The only catch is, the decision element is set when the potionis made; simply enough, decide the shield covers "my front half" ... so it's no good for attacks from behind.

DMs and Players may not LIKE the idea, and they are welcome to feel that way. But goign strictly "by the book" ... shield is a perfectly legitimate application of hte Brew Potion feat. It is 3d level or less, and, targets a creature or creatures.

(3) Again, the bracers of armor don't stack with the enhanced buckler shield. (See discussion and reference above.) There is not, in fact, a unique "shield" bonus type. -- That would knock off 5 AC armor bonus points from your count above.

As I allowed for in my restatement, reducing the AC from 85 to 80.

(4) You also added the buckler haste bonus together with the defender weapon in the same hand, when you cannot use both at the same time, per PH p. 105, under "buckler": "if you use a weapon in your off-hand, you don't get the buckler's AC bonus". -- That would imply you need to forego at least the 4 points from the speed buckler.

Perhaps the Buckler's AC bonus, but not the Haste bonus. That applies regardless of wehter or not you can defend with the buckler. So, see above, 5 points of AC already subtracted, for a net of 80. Losing the innate AC bonus of hte buckler does NOT negate good (or bad) effects of having the item equipped.

The +4 Haste bonus originates form the effect of being hasted, not from the buckler itself. It doesn't matter if the haste effect ITSELF comes from the buckler. You lose only the buckler's OWN armor bonus (including all enhancements, ofc).

(5) Again, I'll take your word that the equipment price math works out...

100K-ish for the buckler, 50K tops for the amulet, perhaps 30K for ring, 75K for the dagger (more than enough), 65K for the bracers, 5K for the potion if you go with a metamagicked "Persistant" version, that's all RIDICULOUSLY within reach of a 20th level character's expected 760,000gp resource limit. Just under HALF of it, in fact, just iusing the err-on-the-high-side estimates I've just cited.

So, just removing issues #1-4 above out of the calculation reduces the full-time AC of this character to: 85 - 27 - 5 - 4 = 49, that is, under AC 50, pretty much like I theorized in my preceding 10/21 post.

Except you're flat out wrong on many counts. For one, #1 is no more "extremely situational" than any other measue of AC. The character suffers more from being flatfooted, surely ... but with a +9 initiative from Dexterity alone, thats hould be relatively infrequent. Also, 2 points of yoru #1 were already NOT counted into the final total, but instead were cited as a situational-dependant boost to the declared AC.

Frankly, some of the silly objections you raised make it look like you did everything in your power to find ANY means to cut the AC down below 50, wether it was truly relevant, or not (and frankly, much of it was not).

AT BEST, youv'e taken out 9 points, which is still an AC of 76 (78 during a full attack, or, 84 when avoiding AoO's prompted by moving through a threatened area). The other 25, you discount as "extremely" situational ... bah, I say. No more situational than the armor bonus of full plate, or the deflection bonus of a Mage Armor spell. Funnily enough, even TAKING your objections at face value, I still come up with a 51 (as I've said, the 2 dodge form Off Hand Parry were -not- added into the stated AC of 85).

As for the shield/bracer stacking, I -did- concede that point, andmerely mentioned in passing what IMC I did to correct what is IMO a flaw. *shrug* make of that whatever you like.

You've managed to knock down all of 5 points of AC, and point out (surprise surprise) that some of the AC isn't available all the time. Well DUH; unless your RACE has an armor bonus other than Natural Armor, there's SOME way or other to bypass it (touch attacks, for example). And even if your race DOES have such a bonus, it probably can -still- be bypassed in some situations.

Please, do try again, only this time ... put some thought into it, and stay relevant, hm?

 

[Piratecat]

If you continue this thread, everyone do so without being snide, please.

 

[Fenes 2]

I am not sure, but I thought that potions could only be made if the spell targetted "a creature", or "creatures", but not "caster".

 

[Spatzimaus]

I'm not dcollins, but I'd like to throw in a few things. First of all, Pax, I really like your character; a Duellist 10 is expected to have a high AC, of course. I just don't think the way you totalled things is good for these discussions.

ALL armor bonusses, except the first 10, are situational. Is your warrior even wearing his armor, or X magical doodad? That's a situational issue too. Did your wizard cast Mage Armor for the day yet? I guess Mage Armor should also be considered situational.

"Situational", to me, means spells that last minutes or less, potions that need to be drunk, or something that either requires a large change in your combat strategy or that has a penalty you won't always want (like Expertise or Barbarian Rage). Yes, it's a bit open-ended.

Mage Armor isn't situational. Any 20th-level caster casts it once when he wakes up, and it's up the entire day unless he gets dispelled. You can reasonably expect a flat-footed mage to still have the spell up. In fact, interrupt him in his sleep and he's still got a good chance of having it up.

Shield, on the other hand, is situational. Short duration, and you need to aim it. You can reasonably expect that it'll only be up during combat.

Expertise, similarly, does not require a melee attack; nothingin the wording of the feat requires your attack action or full attack action to be made with a melee weapon

PHB, page 82, Expertise Feat:
"When you use the attack action or full attack option IN MELEE, you can take a penalty..."

Admittedly their grammar could use a little work, but it's there.

Eliminating the potion of Shield would be the house rule.

This has been covered in a few other threads. Here's the reason it's been argued the other way:

PHB, p.251, Shield spell: "Range: Personal, Target: You", and "You designate half the battlefield..."
DMG, p.190, "Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber. The character taking the potion doesn't get to make any decisions about the effect..."
PHB, p. 80, Brew Potion: "You can create a potion of any spell of 3rd level or lower that you know and that targets a creature or creatures"

So, first, there's disagreement on whether "You" works as "a creature". Someone can probably find the link, but I remember a Sage response saying that it doesn't count, that only spells that can be cast on someone else work. Note the DMG part about "spells cast upon the imbiber". As in, it only works if the person who makes the potion is capable of casting it on the person drinking.
That's why there's not a single Personal spell on the list of potions. Note that the official errata removed Clairvoyance and Detect Thoughts from the list, every spell remaining on the list has at least a range of Touch.

As for designating "my front half", the spell says you designate half the battlefield, not half the person. In 3E there is no facing; you have no inherent front or back. You can declare "west half of the battlefield" or "east half", but not "my front" or "my back". It wouldn't rotate with you.
Since a potion doesn't allow the drinker to make decisions, this means you'd have to make it be a Potion of Shield (north) or something. Not very useful, and I'd have to question how a potion even knows which way is north. Maybe Potion of Shield (one particular direction when I drink it)? Still not that useful.

Either way, you shouldn't count it here due to the short duration, and the fact that as a potion it's a 1-shot item. Fight 3 battles in one week, and the potion is only useful for one. I could make a Rogue with 20 nearly-depleted wands, and claim the bonuses from tons of high-level spells, but that's not really a fair evaluation of the character.

Perhaps the Buckler's AC bonus, but not the Haste bonus.

You're right on this one. The Haste effect stays, and that's what you get for paying for a +10 shield. Of course, if you're not getting the AC you might as well go with Boots of Speed, but redundancy is nice too.

For one, #1 is no more "extremely situational" than any other measue of AC.

IMHO it is. Unless you're going to be using Expertise/Fighting Defensively/Defending weapons on every turn (which pretty much guarantees you'll never hit anything ever again), it's not fair to count that AC. If a spell is so short in duration that you have to spend an action during combat getting it up (Shield), it's not a good thing to count. If it requires using a one-shot item, it's not a good thing to count because we're talking about characters over the long haul.

Personally, I only keep track of 2 ACs: unbuffed (when you get hit by lots of Dispel Magics), and typical (Items and any spell lasting all day that I can cast on myself).

 

[demon_jr]

thanks for the replies, everyone.

i guess it safe to say that my character needs a higher AC.

now all i have to do is convince my DM to give out more magical protection.



for those who are curious, here is the current AC for my 14th level character:

10 - natural
5 - dexterity 20 (16 nat + gauntlets of dex +2 + arm of nyr)
2 - ring of prot +2
1 - ring of natural armor +1
1 - dodge feat

AC: 18 or 19

i had a mithral shirt, but it got destroyed fighting a demon. i haven't gotten around to buying new armor, since i have just recently picked up 1 level of sorcerer and armor would interfere with my spell casting. in addition, in order for me to get my +5 dex bonus, the only armor that would allow me to do that would be padded or leather, which would only be +1 or +2 to AC. i would rather have no penalty to spellcasting than the +1 or +2 to AC.

but that may change in the future, considering all the posts.

 

[Kraedin]

That's why there's not a single Personal spell on the list of potions.

Potion of alter self is still on the list.

 

[Kraedin]

Holy crap! My 3rd level paladin has a better AC than that.

Base 10

• +8 masterwork full-plate
• +2 masterwork spiked steel sheild
• +1 Dexterity 13
• +4 (situational) Divine Sheild feat

AC: 21 (25).