Why bother with armor?

[Story]

I've seen it said many times here that AC is worthless past low levels without heavy optimization, and it seems pretty obvious just from looking at the numbers.

A frontline meleer will automatically get +1BAB per level, with another +1 every 8 levels from strength increases, plus whatever weapon enchantments and str boosting items they buy. On the other hand, AC is pretty much only increased by armor enchantments and a couple of other magic items.

So why do people bother with armor at all? All it will do is slow you down and give the goblins time to destroy all the loot. Is it just to keep the low level mooks from hitting you? Or is it purely for the enchantments you can stick on your armor? It seems like a huge waste to me.

[Deadline]

Three things:

1. Armor is there to primarily stop iteratives from hitting.
2. You can optimize your AC without tremendous effort to make hitting you in the first place a difficult prospect.
3. Miss chance is generally better than AC. If you can combine both, that's even better.

[Flickerdart]

Enchantments are one reason, yes. Having a decent AC also means that people can't Power Attack you into oblivion, and before you can get miss chance, AC is absolutely crucial, because at the same time, you have very low HP.

Also, why in the world would goblins waste time destroying loot?

[Ailowynn]

Even though it won't usually block attacks, it's still worth it to keep AC fairly high. As long as it blocks some attacks, it's worth it. That's why we roll the dice, after all: so that there's a chance of someone missing. If every single attack hits you, you will eventually run out of HP. And if you aren't in turn hitting your enemy with every single attack, you'll die before they do.

In general, though, you're right: it isn't really worth it to focus on AC. Just splurge on a shield or armor enhancement every several levels. Eventually, you will no longer be able to stop the majority of attacks, but you will stop some, and that's what matters.

[Ravens_cry]

I've seen several attempts to build high DR, high HP, low AC builds.
They do not end well.

[Deaxsa]

I once read in a homebrew thread, about adding 1/2 BAB to armor as a bonus. (i think it was untyped, but it may have been dodge). point is, would this help solve the AC problem? (if monster's Nat Armors were also lowered to compensate, otherwise monsters would ridiculous AC, and never be hit)

[Ravens_cry]

I once read in a homebrew thread, about adding 1/2 BAB to armor as a bonus. (i think it was untyped, but it may have been dodge). point is, would this help solve the AC problem? (if monster's Nat Armors were also lowered to compensate, otherwise monsters would ridiculous AC, and never be hit)

There is an official variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm) that is similar.

[Flickerdart]

I once read in a homebrew thread, about adding 1/2 BAB to armor as a bonus. (i think it was untyped, but it may have been dodge). point is, would this help solve the AC problem? (if monster's Nat Armors were also lowered to compensate, otherwise monsters would ridiculous AC, and never be hit)
If by help the AC problem you mean screw over mundanes, then yes. Hitting things is the only way they have of contributing, and if things are harder to hit, it is more difficult for them to contribute.

[Pechvarry]

I once read in a homebrew thread, about adding 1/2 BAB to armor as a bonus. (i think it was untyped, but it may have been dodge). point is, would this help solve the AC problem? (if monster's Nat Armors were also lowered to compensate, otherwise monsters would ridiculous AC, and never be hit)

I'm running this in my game, currently (as a dodge bonus, to make "flat-footed" worth more).

So far, so good. It honestly helps my NPCs more than my players, which is good since I pretty much only use creatures with class levels.

[ericgrau]

I've seen it said many times here that AC is worthless past low levels without heavy optimization, and it seems pretty obvious just from looking at the numbers.

That's not true though. It's a common myth. It's cheap and easy to keep up with AC right through high levels if you look at the numbers.

[Story]

Also, why in the world would goblins waste time destroying loot?

That was an OOTS reference.

[Vorr]

So why do people bother with armor at all? All it will do is slow you down and give the goblins time to destroy all the loot. Is it just to keep the low level mooks from hitting you? Or is it purely for the enchantments you can stick on your armor? It seems like a huge waste to me.

To make your character harder to hit, obviously. Character with armor equals AC 20, character without armor equals AC 10. Even with magic, the mundane bonus goes a long way. If you get a plus ten to your AC, then a character with no mundane armor has an AC of 20, but the character in armor has an AC of 30.

[awa]

As others have mentioned iterative attacks, also the whole armor is useless thing is a fairly late game phenomenon its easy at low level to stack your ac so high that non touch attacks by level appropriate monsters are fishing for 20s. the bonus from armor is fairly large and fairly cheap for example mithral chain shirt dastana and chariama (probably mangled the spelling) grants +6 armor for a cost less then that of a ring of protection +1 with no armor check penalty or speed reduction.

[Ellrin]

That's not true though. It's a common myth. It's cheap and easy to keep up with AC right through high levels if you look at the numbers.

Could you show some examples or point me in the right direction to find such means? Everything good I've found or worked out myself has been of rather questionable RAW validity.

Thanks.

[nedz]

It is possible to optimise AC, and do it fairly well, the main problem is that it doesn't help with spells, or flying monsters, or a host of other things which you can fix via the same resource i.e. cash. So you are better off spending your resources on other things.

[killem2]

That's why we roll the dice, after all: so that there's a chance of someone missing.

I wish this logic was used when talking about magic spells, very much so with "staples" like color spray around here. :smallbiggrin:


Armor class is very much an important aspect. Sure, it's not as abundant a stat over all, but it isn't to out there to think you can't optimize in it.

I do wish the rules allowed for some stacking, maybe the first three points stack or something, but what ya gonna do? Pound on the plate and pray for the misses!

[Flickerdart]

I wish this logic was used when talking about magic spells, very much so with "staples" like color spray around here. :smallbiggrin:

The math on spells is different - being able to hit one of three saving throws makes it a lot easier to aim for the enemy's weak point, whereas attacks only target one number.

[NotScaryBats]

As with any sort of min maxing, if you 'min' your AC too much, it just becomes a huge hole in your defenses. It isn't hard to keep it relatively high, and with a little focus will offer you general protection, but always remember you have several different defensive lines, so an eye on all of them (IE, saves, AC, HP, etc)

[Darius Kane]

Fashion. fjfjfjjdr

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Ignoring touch attacks, a dwarf can reach some silly AC numbers by means of barbarian, fist of the forest, and that one PrC from Races of Stone whose name escapes me. End result would be AC of 2xCon mod plus whatever armor you have.

Of course, things like Abjurant Champion allow gishes free +X full-plate and +X Shield for the low, low cost of X class levels and two spell slots.

[Kelb_Panthera]

As others have mentioned iterative attacks, also the whole armor is useless thing is a fairly late game phenomenon its easy at low level to stack your ac so high that non touch attacks by level appropriate monsters are fishing for 20s. the bonus from armor is fairly large and fairly cheap for example mithral chain shirt dastana and chariama (probably mangled the spelling) grants +6 armor for a cost less then that of a ring of protection +1 with no armor check penalty or speed reduction.

Cahar-aina and dastana don't stack with each other, though using one or the other as a vehicle for extra armor enhancements may make getting both worthwhile.

On-topic: hyperbole sometimes gets a bit out of hand. AC isn't remotely worthless but miss-chances are better. They're cheaper and offer a flat rate of missed attacks compared to AC's relative rate of missed attacks.

While the BAB of full BAB classes outpaces AC pretty well that's generally all those classes really get. Most creatures and characters get average BAB, though, and for them AC and attack keep pace with one another reasonably well.

[Shining Wrath]

Having low AC is like having low Fortitude or Reflex or Will; sooner or later, someone or something is going to find your weakness and exploit it. Plus there are various paths to increased AC - deflection, dodge, natural, and for some classes Wis bonuses.

Since there are various paths to increased AC, you can buy items giving you a +2 here and a +2 there more cheaply than you can just boost your armor by +4.

My Warforged Warblade has mithral plates (+5), a Dex of 18 (+4), and an Amulet of Natural Armor (+2). That adds up to AC = 21, which is not bad for a 2H fighter.

[Twilightwyrm]

I wonder if it would help to reduce the BAB of all monsters either by one step, or to a max of 3/4. The creatures that have full BAB already tend to have very high strength, making full BAB somewhat overkill, and it would mean that those monsters that don't widely make use of iterative attacks (read: the vast majority) less inclined to easily bypass your AC with pretty much all of their natural attacks. Plus, it helps establish full BAB as something you only gain from actual combat training, rather than simply by virtue of being a Dragon, or Outsider, or Monstrous Humanoid, etc.

Note: Obviously, this won't help defend you against a full fighter, barbarian, etc., much, but it could be seen as somewhat justified, as more reliably hitting things it one of their primary capabilities.

[Marnath]

Cahar-aina and dastana don't stack with each other, though using one or the other as a vehicle for extra armor enhancements may make getting both worthwhile.


Actually, they explicitly work together. Dastana give a shield bonus(it's clearer in the A&E guide where the section is marked shields and not shields&additions), and Cahar-aina works with both the foundation armor and any shield worn(the dastana.)

[LTwerewolf]

Really easy way to bump up armor is via the chain shirt method imo. Chain shirt, dastana, chahar-aina. Then put armor spikes on there and make it defending, and a animated shield (still need proficiency even if it's animated).

Using just that your ac can get pretty high. Now start stacking on a lot of other things like nat armor and deflection, and some sacred bonuses, and you'll be pretty hard to hit after the first attack, and pretty hard to hit with a power attack.

[Deaxsa]

I wonder if it would help to reduce the BAB of all monsters either by one step, or to a max of 3/4. The creatures that have full BAB already tend to have very high strength, making full BAB somewhat overkill, and it would mean that those monsters that don't widely make use of iterative attacks (read: the vast majority) less inclined to easily bypass your AC with pretty much all of their natural attacks. Plus, it helps establish full BAB as something you only gain from actual combat training, rather than simply by virtue of being a Dragon, or Outsider, or Monstrous Humanoid, etc.

Note: Obviously, this won't help defend you against a full fighter, barbarian, etc., much, but it could be seen as somewhat justified, as more reliably hitting things it one of their primary capabilities.

yes, i definitely agree. however, dragons and (some)outsiders are VERY combat oriented. dragons are the epitome of magic and might combined, and outsiders should REALLY be based on subtype(or even on a case-by-case basis), not type. for instance, i can understand demons or devils or archons, but a formian worker? it isn't practicing combat, it's WORKING. so i agree in some cases but do not in others. that said, Magical Beasts, oozes, and humanoids should all move down.


Really easy way to bump up armor is via the chain shirt method imo. Chain shirt, dastana, chahar-aina. Then put armor spikes on there and make it defending, and a animated shield (still need proficiency even if it's animated).

Using just that your ac can get pretty high. Now start stacking on a lot of other things like nat armor and deflection, and some sacred bonuses, and you'll be pretty hard to hit after the first attack, and pretty hard to hit with a power attack.

what's this thing i'm hearing of? never heard of it before, and people are just stating HOW to do it, not WHAT it does.

[aeauseth]

I worked up a simple table (http://aaronwiki.us/index.php?title=Armor_Class_Guide#Sample_Fighter_A rmor_Class) for reference.

Now on to my opinions. :smallsmile:

As a general guideline I try to keep my AC roughly equal to 20 + LEVEL. A bit less for wizards, a bit more for a front line fighter.

The OP suggested that armor is useless at high levels. Taking a fighter at level 15. He has a base attack in the +23/+18/+13 range. That same fighter might have an AC of 39. A fictional attack against himself is a 20% for the first hit, a 5% hit for the second & third attacks. That's a great AC.

Take the same scenario where you stopped improving armor at level 5, since it's worthless. An AC of 24. Well the first attack has a 95% chance to hit, second one has 70% chance, and third has 45% chance. That is a huge difference. If you don't have a decent armor class then you have to mitigate the damage some other way.

Going with the 20+LEVEL guideline the 15th level fighter will have an AC of 35. The first attack has a 40% chance to hit, second attack is 15%, and last one is just 5%. Not a great armor class, but a very decent compromise.

Now I do agree that maxing your AC at the expense of saving throws, or other defenses can be a mistake. But so can ignoring your AC.

** Please excuse any math errors, my point should still be valid even if my math isn't. :smallwink:

[Story]

So basically, the moral is to pump AC as high as you can get it without trying?

[tyckspoon]

So basically, the moral is to pump AC as high as you can get it without trying?

Basically. It's not so much that 'All AC is worthless, don't even bother'- that's an echo-chambered distortion. It's more 'AC becomes disproportionately expensive relative to its benefit; once you hit that point stop worrying about it and start investing in alternate defenses.' You can get good and even excellent AC; it's just not worth doing if it requires half of your character's resources (feats/class levels/money/etc) dedicated to that single defense.

[aeauseth]

So basically, the moral is to pump AC as high as you can get it without trying?

Well... Ya!

Scarcasm aside. It depends on the DM and the challanges put forth. If your always in the back line and never get hit, they why bother with AC. If the DM is always hitting your character, and you don't like it, then get more AC. If the DM throws easy fights at you all the time and you rarely get hurt, then don't bother with AC.

The DM is always a wildcard. If you have a 40 AC and the DM can't hit the fighter with any of his monsters, then the DM will likely start cheating, or throwing harder monsters your way. If you have a 15 AC and the DM is beating the crap out of you, he might ease off, he also might decide your AC is just too low and keep piling on. Did I say the DM is always a wildcard?

[eggynack]

So basically, the moral is to pump AC as high as you can get it without trying?
Basically, yeah. It's possible to get decent AC without even trying, but past there you either optimize it or you don't, and it's more viable not to. If you spend lotsa money on a bunch of little AC bonuses, then your AC will block lots of attacks, but you'll have spent a bunch of money on AC bonuses. That's not really my favorite place to be.

[Clistenes]

what's this thing i'm hearing of? never heard of it before, and people are just stating HOW to do it, not WHAT it does.

Use a +5 mithral chain shirt or similar armor that counts as light and allows a high dexterity bonus to armor.

You can use a Chahar-aina (oriental breastplate) and Dastana (oriental bracers) over the mail. Each offers +1 to armor class.

A ring of proteccion and an amulet of natural armor can offer up to +5 to deflection and natural armor.

An Animated Shield that floats around you allows you to use a +5 shield and a two-handed weapon at the same time. I hate Animated Shields because they are ridiculous. I would rather strap a buckler to my left arm.

Some feats, like Divine Shield, can give you sacred bonuses to armor.

The weapon property "Defending" allows you to reduce the enhancement bonus of the weapon and transfer to you armor class. Technically you can use +5 spiked dastanas for that, but it's CHEESY.

[awa]

if your a cleric don't waste your money buffing your defending spike gauntlets/ shield/ armor just use magic weapon on it

[Kelb_Panthera]

Actually, they explicitly work together. Dastana give a shield bonus(it's clearer in the A&E guide where the section is marked shields and not shields&additions), and Cahar-aina works with both the foundation armor and any shield worn(the dastana.)

No they don't. The actual text in the dastana's entry still has it granting an armor bonus that stacks with the foundation armor and any shield worn. Cahar-aina says the same. Text trumps table and they both grant an armor bonus while neither is the foundation armor. This creates an odd situation where the cahar-aina would stack with the dastana but the dastana does not stack with the cahar-aina because they both grant the same type of bonus. You'd be right if only the dastana granted a shield bonus instead.

A&EG's listing the dastana explicitly as a shield is actually a nerf since armor enhancements are generally better than shield enhancements and a number of shield enhancements require you to toss the shield to the ground or otherwise let go of it.

[Clistenes]

No they don't. The actual text in the dastana's entry still has it granting an armor bonus that stacks with the foundation armor and any shield worn. Cahar-aina says the same. Text trumps table and they both grant an armor bonus while neither is the foundation armor. This creates an odd situation where the cahar-aina would stack with the dastana but the dastana does not stack with the cahar-aina because they both grant the same type of bonus. You'd be right if only the dastana granted a shield bonus instead.

A&EG's listing the dastana explicitly as a shield is actually a nerf since armor enhancements are generally better than shield enhancements and a number of shield enhancements require you to toss the shield to the ground or otherwise let go of it.

I haven't re-read the Oriental Adventures handbook for some time, but I'm quite sure that Chahar-aina and Dastana armor bonuses stack with each other. The essentially make your armor a better one, rather than being armor themselves.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I haven't re-read the Oriental Adventures handbook for some time, but I'm quite sure that Chahar-aina and Dastana armor bonuses stack with each other. The essentially make your armor a better one, rather than being armor themselves.

A&EG is the more recent source and, thus, the officially RAW version to use. Not that it matters. The only difference in how they appear in the two sources is where they appear on the tables. In OA they're both listed under add-ons while in A&EG the dastana is listed under shields while the cahar-aina is listed under medium armor.

[awa]

no hes right by raw they don't stack the reason it's so confusing is it's clearly intended that they stack and they were both worn together in real life so people kinda assume that the logical answer is the raw answer and in this case it's not.
edit
as he said it's a matter of bonus type 2 deflection bonuses don't stack so you couldn't wear two rings of protection.
2 armor bonuses don't normally stack the the armor upgrades have an exception that allows them to stack with the armor but the writers neglected to put in an exception that allows them to stack with each other.

[Kelb_Panthera]

FWIW, I houserule that the dastana grants a shield bonus instead but otherwise functions the same as the RAW version. This way it stacks but it doesn't apply to flat-foot AC. It seems more accurate to how such an item should function to me.

[Greenish]

FWIW, I houserule that the dastana grants a shield bonus instead but otherwise functions the same as the RAW version. This way it stacks but it doesn't apply to flat-foot AC. It seems more accurate to how such an item should function to me.I thought shield bonuses applied to flat-footed AC.

[awa]

wait i thought you only lost dex when flat footed is the losing a shield bonus while flat footed an unrelated house rule or am i missing something?

[Deaxsa]

wait i thought you only lost dex when flat footed is the losing a shield bonus while flat footed an unrelated house rule or am i missing something?

it makes sense to me that you lose shield bonus while flat-footed, because you are not actively trying to put it between you and your enemy. however, i can totally see that as a house rule(in fact, i'm almost certain it is). i KNOW that the 'shields protect against touch attacks' rule is a house rule though.

[Marnath]

No they don't. The actual text in the dastana's entry still has it granting an armor bonus that stacks with the foundation armor and any shield worn. Cahar-aina says the same. Text trumps table and they both grant an armor bonus while neither is the foundation armor. This creates an odd situation where the cahar-aina would stack with the dastana but the dastana does not stack with the cahar-aina because they both grant the same type of bonus. You'd be right if only the dastana granted a shield bonus instead.

The term "shield bonus" did not exist when that book was printed. According to the 3.0 material I've seen, dastana use the same language as other shields.

[LTwerewolf]

what's this thing i'm hearing of? never heard of it before, and people are just stating HOW to do it, not WHAT it does.

Defending adds to ac, so you pump up the armor spikes to as high as you can afford. You also pump up the enchantment on the chahar-aina (or chain mail), and do the actual armor enchants on the chain mail (or chahar-aina if you did it the other way, doesn't really matter). Then you enchant either the shield or the dastana as high as you can, and add the other shield enchants on the one you didn't pump up.

So let's say that you get each of the pump-ups to +5, that's an additional +15 from those three things before you add on anything else. With the chain mail that's 19, with the dastana it's 20, with the cahar-aina it's 21. Let's call it a heavy steel shield, so 23. Add the base 10 you're at 33 before rings and amulets, and before dexterity.

It's not unreasonable to get a +4 dex at higher levels, so that'll be 37 (can get higher pretty easily). Then add +5 deflection and nat armor and you're sitting at a base of 47. These assumptions are all pretty reasonable as well. It's not hard to make that armor mithril to pump out a bit more dex, and to throw a shield spike on the shield for an additional defending enchant.

[Clistenes]

Defending adds to ac, so you pump up the armor spikes to as high as you can afford. You also pump up the enchantment on the chahar-aina (or chain mail), and do the actual armor enchants on the chain mail (or chahar-aina if you did it the other way, doesn't really matter). Then you enchant either the shield or the dastana as high as you can, and add the other shield enchants on the one you didn't pump up.

So let's say that you get each of the pump-ups to +5, that's an additional +15 from those three things before you add on anything else. With the chain mail that's 19, with the dastana it's 20, with the cahar-aina it's 21. Let's call it a heavy steel shield, so 23. Add the base 10 you're at 33 before rings and amulets, and before dexterity.

It's not unreasonable to get a +4 dex at higher levels, so that'll be 37 (can get higher pretty easily). Then add +5 deflection and nat armor and you're sitting at a base of 47. These assumptions are all pretty reasonable as well. It's not hard to make that armor mithril to pump out a bit more dex, and to throw a shield spike on the shield for an additional defending enchant.

I think you can only use a defending item at the same time. You are supposed to be using that item to block attacks, after all (for example, parrying blows with you spiked gauntlet).

[LTwerewolf]

I think you can only use a defending item at the same time. You are supposed to be using that item to block attacks, after all (for example, parrying blows with you spiked gauntlet).

Negative.

SRD:
Defending

A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword’s enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the effect to AC lasts until his next turn.

Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus.

Stacks with all others, there's no clause in there that says you can't double up.

[Clistenes]

Negative.

SRD:
Defending

A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword’s enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the effect to AC lasts until his next turn.

Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus.

Stacks with all others, there's no clause in there that says you can't double up.

But you have to wield the weapon. You can wield/parry with a spiked gauntlet, maybe two spiked gaunlets or a spiked gauntlet and a spiked shield, but...a gauntlet, a shield, a dastana and a chahar-aina at the same time?.

[LTwerewolf]

But you have to wield the weapon. You can wield/parry with a spiked gauntlet, maybe two spiked gaunlets or a spiked gauntlet and a spiked shield, but...a gauntlet, a shield, a dastana and a chahar-aina at the same time?.

The only thing you're actually wielding would be the armor spike.. Two of those are armor, and the shield is animated.

[Clistenes]

The only thing you're actually wielding would be the armor spike.. Two of those are armor, and the shield is animated.

But an animated shield can't be used to bash, and if you can't use it as a weapon, isn't it defending property inactive?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I thought shield bonuses applied to flat-footed AC.


wait i thought you only lost dex when flat footed is the losing a shield bonus while flat footed an unrelated house rule or am i missing something?

Now that you mention it, I suppose that was a houserule. It makes sense though. How do you put a shield between yourself and an attack that catches you by suprise?

Oh and whoever mentioned shield bonus as part of touch ac, there's a feat for it in PHB2; shield ward.

[Greenish]

Now that you mention it, I suppose that was a houserule. It makes sense though. How do you put a shield between yourself and an attack that catches you by suprise?

Oh and whoever mentioned shield bonus as part of touch ac, there's a feat for it in PHB2; shield ward.There's two feats for that, actually, the other being Parrying Shield from LoM, which has the advantage of only requiring proficiency with shield as a prerequisite.

Still, if shield bonus comes from putting a shield between yourself and an attack, it's a reasonable houserule just to allow it to apply to touch AC without costing a feat. (Far too much cool melee stuff is locked behind feats, in my opinion.)

[Venger]

Ignoring touch attacks, a dwarf can reach some silly AC numbers by means of barbarian, fist of the forest, and that one PrC from Races of Stone whose name escapes me. End result would be AC of 2xCon mod plus whatever armor you have.

Of course, things like Abjurant Champion allow gishes free +X full-plate and +X Shield for the low, low cost of X class levels and two spell slots.

deepwarden is the name of that class.

abj champ doesn't let you wear full-plate without the normal problems with ASF that entails.

[Eldariel]

With access to Magic Vestment on a Cleric getting that Beads of Karma eventually (he'll prolly want it anyways), it becomes quite cheap to keep fairly high AC. The more group magic available, the cheaper it gets of course.

Though I would suggest against using non-animated shield outside the first few levels; that surrenders about 50% of your damage, and ability to use reach weapons meaningfully. It might make you harder to kill but only AC-wise (the higher you get the more attacks target Touch AC or saves and some just autohit), and it does not protect your party at all unless monsters stubbornly focus you (while increased damage always protects your party since the faster your enemies die the less damage they can do; and reach + movement control like tripping is like to negate much more damage than AC).


EDIT: Later on, DR + Damage Reduction is a viable replacement of course. For instance, Tarrasque Slayer Fighter (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=164101) I threw together was able to take I believe 4 or 5 full attacks from Big T before finally killing him.

The combination of Crit Immunity, Starmantle Cloak, DR, Elusive Target, HP pool and 1/400 chance of failing the Starmantle Cloak roll made it fairly irrelevant to not have any AC whatsoever. There were few emergency measures in place too of course.

Bit more extreme variant would be a caster like Twice-Betrayer where you go for straight-out immunity instead of damage reduction.

If I was making a charger Barbarian I'd probably get enough AC to ignore mooks and then stop investing in it; beat up mooks without using your big guns and charge down anybody more dangerous - since Shock Trooper puts your AC in the negatives anyways you actually can't use AC even if you'd want to. Miss Chances are okay as are damage immunities and reductions tho. Starmantle Cloak is nice in that it more or less negates mooks entirely so you don't have to worry about that either.

[Greenish]

Ignoring touch attacks, a dwarf can reach some silly AC numbers by means of barbarian, fist of the forest, and that one PrC from Races of Stone whose name escapes me. End result would be AC of 2xCon mod plus whatever armor you have.Fist of the Forest Con to AC only works when not wearing armour.


abj champ doesn't let you wear full-plate without the normal problems with ASF that entails.TDC meant Greater Luminous Armour and Shield (the spell).

[Barsoom]

I think in general the derision toward AC stems from the fact it's just one of several possible defenses a character has. It doesn't help against a Web spell, nor against Charm Person, or Stinking Cloud, or touch attacks (usually), or being grappled, and so on. The DM can always shift the goalposts and make one very-highly-optimized defense irrelevant. "So you have a shiny new Shield+5? Very nice. Now, there's a cloud of noxious gases rolling your way, what do you do?"

And this leads to the broad problem of 3.5, that offense optimization is just much easier than defense optimization. On defense, you need to defend against many possible tricks. On offense, you only need one very good trick; optimize the heck out of it, and do it again and again. Kill the enemy before they have a chance to hurt you.

[Venger]

Fist of the Forest Con to AC only works when not wearing armour.

TDC meant Greater Luminous Armour and Shield (the spell).
ah, ok
yep, that works just fine.

deepwarden con to AC, however, works with armor, replacing your dex bonus.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I think in general the derision toward AC stems from the fact it's just one of several possible defenses a character has. It doesn't help against a Web spell, nor against Charm Person, or Stinking Cloud, or touch attacks (usually), or being grappled, and so on. The DM can always shift the goalposts and make one very-highly-optimized defense irrelevant. "So you have a shiny new Shield+5? Very nice. Now, there's a cloud of noxious gases rolling your way, what do you do?"

And this leads to the broad problem of 3.5, that offense optimization is just much easier than defense optimization. On defense, you need to defend against many possible tricks. On offense, you only need one very good trick; optimize the heck out of it, and do it again and again. Kill the enemy before they have a chance to hurt you.

This is a very dangerous line of thinking. If you only have one good means of offense and the enemy isn't vulnerable to that particular type of offense then you can't do anything noteworthy to him; ubercharging vs enemies with high miss-chances, for example. The more types of offense you have the more types of enemy you can squish. Like defense, it's necessary to try and strike some sort of balance.

[Barsoom]

This is a very dangerous line of thinking. If you only have one good means of offense and the enemy isn't vulnerable to that particular type of offense then you can't do anything noteworthy to him; ubercharging vs enemies with high miss-chances, for example. The more types of offense you have the more types of enemy you can squish. Like defense, it's necessary to try and strike some sort of balance.

Offense and defense are not equivalent here.

If your optimized offensive trick was rendered irrelevant, you sit on the proverbial sidelines while the other 3-4 party members show off their tricks. It's not fun, but there's always the hope to shine in the next encounter.

If your optimized defensive trick was rendered irrelevant, you die.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, by the way, just noting that because of this 3.5 pushes you to optimize offense over defense.

[Togo]

We had a phrase on the tournament circuit - Armour class counts in large amounts. Basically, the idea was that you should either focus on AC, or just get a decent amount and don't worry too much about it.

You have to look at how to hit works. If your AC means the monster hits you half the time, then moving your AC up or down a point isn't going to change the tactical situation all that much, If you AC is already high compared to the to hit, say the monster needs a 15 or 16 to hit you, then every point of AC on top greatly reduces your chances of being hit, and extends the amount of time you can spend being a target.

So don't bother with an additional point of AC when you can spend the money more usefully on something else - unless you really want to go for AC as a tactic, in which case maximise it for all it's worth.

More mundanely, simply wearing armour gives you another slot for special abilities, or two if you use armour crystals. Using a sheild gives you another again. If you can rely on someone in the party casting magic vestment on you all day, then there's little point in getting enhancement bonuses to AC, just get them from the spellcaster, and use your money to enchance your armour in other ways.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Offense and defense are not equivalent here.

If your optimized offensive trick was rendered irrelevant, you sit on the proverbial sidelines while the other 3-4 party members show off their tricks. It's not fun, but there's always the hope to shine in the next encounter.

If your optimized defensive trick was rendered irrelevant, you die.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, by the way, just noting that because of this 3.5 pushes you to optimize offense over defense.

Never said that offense and defense were of equal value; only that overspecializing your offense was risky business.

Edit: actually, the conclusion following those two inescapably true statements doesn't really follow from those statements.

If a failure of offense means being bored for a few turns during a combat and a failure of defense means not making to the next combat then reason would suggest that defense should be the priority since a failure of offense has far less dire consequences.

Barring certain save-or-lose effects (hold, imprisonment, dominate, etc) -somebody- has to be capable of doing HP damage to actually make a fight end quickly. If his schtick is blocked by the nature of an encounter then -everyone's- defense just became a lot more important since the fight is going to drag-on for a few rounds.

[Barsoom]

Never said that offense and defense were of equal value; only that overspecializing your offense was risky business.
Fair enough, but sometimes you just have no choice. Especially if you're not a member of one of 'dem "I can do anything because I have spellz" classes, you often only have enough resources (feats, wealth, etc) to optimize just one trick.

[limejuicepowder]

I once read in a homebrew thread, about adding 1/2 BAB to armor as a bonus. (i think it was untyped, but it may have been dodge). point is, would this help solve the AC problem? (if monster's Nat Armors were also lowered to compensate, otherwise monsters would ridiculous AC, and never be hit)

I play with this house rule, and I think it works well. In order to not screw around with monsters and CR and whatever though, I only give it to beings with class levels.

Another rule I've considered but never used is switching iterative attacks to be only 3 lower rather than 5 (but not change when they are gained).

[Togo]

Offense and defense are not equivalent here.

If your optimized offensive trick was rendered irrelevant, you sit on the proverbial sidelines while the other 3-4 party members show off their tricks. It's not fun, but there's always the hope to shine in the next encounter.

If your optimized defensive trick was rendered irrelevant, you die.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, by the way, just noting that because of this 3.5 pushes you to optimize offense over defense.

I can't agree. The people on these boards tend to push for optimising offense over defence, but the best way to optimise is not to blindly increase numbers and hope, but to try and evolve useable tactics for the party as a whole. High offense can be part of that, of course, but a decent defender in the right spot can also be very useful as part of an overall strategy. (After all, how many spellcaster optimisations start with detailing their defenses, and then just assume that if you can survive attacks your spells will bring people down? )

The other problem is that offense scales badly. At high levels of optimisation, squeezing an extra few points into damage is not likely to change how many rounds it takes to fell a monster. Squeezing an extra few points into AC is likely to change how many rounds it takes to fell you, and the higher your damage or AC, the more true that becomes. Since out of combat healing becomes trivial after a certain point, a defensive character is essentially exploiting his ability to withstand attack to give himself and the rest of the party extra actions. Giving your entire party a round to attack in is much much better than doing more damage yourself.