AC at higher levels, am I missing something?

[Gargravarr]

In a theoretical build I'm spending 3 feats to be able to push AC to 30 at Level 20.

However, seeing as to how most high level monsters can easily crack an AC of 30 (assuming they do not roll a natural 1) I wonder what the point is?
Even with debuffing attack rolls it doesn't seem enough with many having +30 on their attacks.

I guess I could bump AC with enchantments (Ring of Deflection +5 comes to mind) but is that what everybody is doing? I'd rather enchant with more offensive stuff...

Or is defensive party buffing the default #1 go-to solution?

Or is an AC 30 at Level 20 simply too low to start with?

[BWR]

You are doing something wrong. I'll leave it to the experts to point out exactly what, but two of my players, neither of whom are in any way optimized towards AC, are nearly 30 at level 11.

[sleepyphoenixx]

If you want to rely on AC to not be hit you have to go all out or you might as well not bother at all.
If you're not a frontline melee class it's usually enough to get some miss chance somewhere and mostly ignore AC.

Yes, AC 30 at level 20 is much too low. A good rule of thumb is AC = level + 25 to really avoid attacks of CR appropiate melee monsters.

[Yora]

However, seeing as to how most high level monsters can easily crack an AC of 30 (assuming they do not roll a natural 1) I wonder what the point is?
So does everyone else who plays high level games.

[Darth Stabber]

After a certain point flat miss chance becomes so much better in most cases. It becomes rather expensive to chase ac after a while, and unless you are going to go the whole way with it, don't bother. And even if you do go down that hole, remember that the things that will seriously jack up your day don't use attack rolls (they require saves, usually fort or will).

[Gargravarr]

If you want to rely on AC to not be hit you have to go all out or you might as well not bother at all.
If you're not a frontline melee class it's usually enough to get some miss chance somewhere and mostly ignore AC.

Melee Gnome Rogue with Underfoot Fighting + Titan Fighting.
Yeah, trying to build in some miss chance but it'll probably be around 20%.


Yes, AC 30 at level 20 is much too low. A good rule of thumb is AC = level + 25 to really avoid attacks of CR appropiate melee monsters.

So Level 6 should be AC 31? That sounds steep.

[eggynack]

Yes, AC 30 at level 20 is much too low. A good rule of thumb is AC = level + 25 to really avoid attacks of CR appropiate melee monsters.
I'd always thought it was level+23. That's how I remember it, anyways. In any case, AC is basically pointless by level 20 anyway. You also don't really boost it with feats, if you're trying to boost it. Usually, you get the best results through some amount of magic items and spells. I mostly think in terms of druids, so at level 20 I'd usually be running around in dire tortoise form, for an AC of 25, and I'd use greater luminous armor to push that to 33. That's already crushing your build incidentally. Toss on a monk's belt, some wisdom boosters, and maybe a couple of +1 AC items, and the druid is leaving your AC in the dust, and it's barely even trying.

[ArcturusV]

That seems more in line with what I'd expect for an effective safety margin. Like if you wanted to leave the enemy with only about a 10% chance to crack your AC.

Course the other problem being Touch AC. Much harder to jack up. A lot of nasty stuff uses it.

But, figure if I'm going for pure AC... 10, I might use a template like Demonblooded, which gives me +1 Natural AC per level. Full Plate armor for a potential of up to 10. Dual wield Tower Shields for another bump up.

Thus without counting Magic, at level 20 I'm talking about a 48 AC.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It's a little lower at low levels but yes, AC is expensive if you want to keep it effective.

A Druid has it easy. Monks Belt alone can add 15-20 to AC at level 20 and it even applies to touch AC.
Figure in Barkskin, Wildshape, Luminous Armor and you get AC ~50 without too much trouble.

[Andezzar]

In a theoretical build I'm spending 3 feats to be able to push AC to 30 at Level 20. Huh? What now spending feats for AC? which ones?


I guess I could bump AC with enchantments (Ring of Deflection +5 comes to mind) but is that what everybody is doing? I'd rather enchant with more offensive stuff...Doing one does not prrohibit you from doing the other.


Or is defensive party buffing the default #1 go-to solution?

Or is an AC 30 at Level 20 simply too low to start with?Yes and yes.
Without any magic involved you can get to AC 23 already (DEX 16, Mithral Full Plate, heavy shield). According to the WBL table that is doable from Level 6 onwards.

Now you can get +5 to the shield and the armor, and you are at AC 33, add an amulet of natural armor and a ring of deflection +5 and your AC goes to 43. Especially if you have (Improved) Uncanny Dodge get an item with a +5 Dodge Bonus for AC 48.

With creative interpretation of the defending property and shield/armor spikes you can get another +10 AC.

No feat used yet.

That is when you start debuffing the opposition. Don't forget miss chances either.

[Xervous]

Wis focused characters whom the DM allows to become Saints usually end up with ludicrous ACs without even really trying. Just add monk's belt and you have wisdom to AC twice.

Also
+5 defending shuriken. Dirt cheap for +5 untyped AC.

[Sylthia]

In a theoretical build I'm spending 3 feats to be able to push AC to 30 at Level 20.

However, seeing as to how most high level monsters can easily crack an AC of 30 (assuming they do not roll a natural 1) I wonder what the point is?
Even with debuffing attack rolls it doesn't seem enough with many having +30 on their attacks.

I guess I could bump AC with enchantments (Ring of Deflection +5 comes to mind) but is that what everybody is doing? I'd rather enchant with more offensive stuff...

Or is defensive party buffing the default #1 go-to solution?

Or is an AC 30 at Level 20 simply too low to start with?

What's your class? Just from the standard equipment a fighter could have +14 from +5 FullPlate (or +13, maybe in pathfinder fullplate gives +9), +1 Dex, assuming a Dex of at least 12, +5 ring of deflection, +5 amulet of natural armor, +9 for a +5 tower shield. So 10+14+1+5+5+9=44 AC, plus any other forms. That would be going for AC above all other considerations, but that's an easy way to get it, though not optimized in the slightest.

[Urpriest]

Just to reiterate, you are expected to keep your Natural Armor, Deflection, and Enhancement Bonus to Armor Bonus all high enough as you go up in level. Leaving one of them out means that you will be behind the curve.

[Starbuck_II]

If you want to rely on AC to not be hit you have to go all out or you might as well not bother at all.
If you're not a frontline melee class it's usually enough to get some miss chance somewhere and mostly ignore AC.

Yes, AC 30 at level 20 is much too low. A good rule of thumb is AC = level + 25 to really avoid attacks of CR appropiate melee monsters.

Well, does he want Decent, Good, or Tank AC?
Decent is 15 + 1.5 level (Level 1 is 16-17; Level 20 is 45)
Good is 20 + 1.5 level (Level 1 is 21-22; Level 20 is 50)
Tank is 25 + 1.5 level (Level 1 is 26-27; Level 20 is 55)

Just say above average and bad:
Average is 10 + 1.5 level (Level 1 is 11-12; Level 20 is 40)
Bad is 5 + 1.5 level (Level 1 is 6-7; Level 20 is 35)

But if you can't manage that: use miss chances.

[Gargravarr]

What's your class? Just from the standard equipment a fighter could have +14 from +5 FullPlate (or +13, maybe in pathfinder fullplate gives +9), +1 Dex, assuming a Dex of at least 12, +5 ring of deflection, +5 amulet of natural armor, +9 for a +5 tower shield. So 10+14+1+5+5+9=44 AC, plus any other forms. That would be going for AC above all other considerations, but that's an easy way to get it, though not optimized in the slightest.

Rogue with a mithral chain shirt. Didn't think about the +5 amulet, that's a safe buy. Other than that I'm just getting a boost from Dex, a sacred bonus from a feat that scales with level, racial dodge bonus, size bonus and deflection bonus through a ring. I know Rogues usually suffer a crappy AC, so improving on miss chance is probably a better route.

[Sylthia]

Rogue with a mithral chain shirt. Didn't think about the +5 amulet, that's a safe buy. Other than that I'm just getting a boost from Dex, a sacred bonus from a feat that scales with level, racial dodge bonus, size bonus and deflection bonus through a ring. I know Rogues usually suffer a crappy AC, so improving on miss chance is probably a better route.

Unfortunately, the amulet uses the same neck slot as the Con bonus amulet in 3.5, but you can usually transfer that bonus to another slot or tack it onto the same item unless your DM is super strict.

[Urpriest]

Unfortunately, the amulet uses the same neck slot as the Con bonus amulet in 3.5, but you can usually transfer that bonus to another slot or tack it onto the same item unless your DM is super strict.

Strictness of DM shouldn't be a problem, the Magic Item Compendium has rules for combining certain common items, which includes those granting natural armor and Con.

[Andezzar]

Strictness of DM shouldn't be a problem, the Magic Item Compendium has rules for combining certain common items, which includes those granting natural armor and Con.You don't even need the MIC for that. The MIC just makes it cheaper.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Strictness of DM shouldn't be a problem, the Magic Item Compendium has rules for combining certain common items, which includes those granting natural armor and Con.

That's irrelevant to the strictness of the DM. If they won't let you combine items it doesn't matter what the rules say.

[Sith_Happens]

Rogue with a mithral chain shirt. Didn't think about the +5 amulet, that's a safe buy. Other than that I'm just getting a boost from Dex, a sacred bonus from a feat that scales with level, racial dodge bonus, size bonus and deflection bonus through a ring. I know Rogues usually suffer a crappy AC, so improving on miss chance is probably a better route.

10 + 1 (size) + 9 (+5 mithral chain shirt) + 6 (max DEX) + 5 (amulet of natural armor) + 5 (ring of protection) = 36 AC. Total cost: 126100 gp.

Another 26015 gp gets you a +5 mithral buckler for a total of 42 AC. That plus a minor cloak of displacement (24000 gp, 20% miss chance) is probably enough that you don't need the feats (though if you're dual-wielding or using bows you'll need Improved Buckler Defense).

[eggynack]

That's irrelevant to the strictness of the DM. If they won't let you combine items it doesn't matter what the rules say.
You can say that about literally anything. For example, it doesn't matter that the book has armor give you AC, because the DM is strict, and he says it doesn't. Rule zero is a pointless thing to add to a gaming discussion, because everyone's game is different. You basically have to default to the rules, because it's the only stable guide we have in this mixed up crazy world.

[TuggyNE]

That's irrelevant to the strictness of the DM. If they won't let you combine items it doesn't matter what the rules say.

That's not strictness, that's being controlling. One of them is adhering to the letter of the RAW, the other is ignoring it to unilaterally proclaim their own decrees.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Play a spellcaster. A standard arcane gish at level 20 without any items and just four spells will have an AC of 56 all day, flat-footed 52, touch* 13, incorporeal touch 35. That's just from Armor, Shield, Natural, and Dex bonuses, you can easily add on Deflection, Dodge, etc. via feats/items. The spells are Greater Luminous Armor, Shield, Draconic Polymorph: War Troll, and Bite of the Werebear, all of which can be made Persistent by any number of tricks. Opponents who use sight also get a -4 to hit him in melee. Plus he's probably invisible and undetectable by anything short of True Seeing. *He'd be using Ray Deflection as well so all ranged touch attacks automatically miss him no matter what. That example can also get the party's Cleric to cast Magic Vestment +5 on his armor and shield effects, for an extra +10 AC all day.

[Lord Vukodlak]

That's not strictness, that's being controlling. One of them is adhering to the letter of the RAW, the other is ignoring it to unilaterally proclaim their own decrees.

The item creation rules are guidelines not actual rules. As many of the items you can make using those guidelines can be grossly overpowered or at least incredibly under priced.

The point of "Common Item Effects to Existing Items" is not to add a amulet of natural armor to a amulet of health. Its to add these effects to interesting items like putting bracers of armor onto a shroud of scales, or maybe a deflection bonus onto a ring of icy soul. Or in the books own example a dexterity bonus to boots of striding and sprinting.

[Beheld]

The item creation rules are guidelines not actual rules. As many of the items you can make using those guidelines can be grossly overpowered or at least incredibly under priced.

But no one is advocating the use of the item creation guidelines. Only the use of the item creation rules in MiC for combining effects.


The point of "Common Item Effects to Existing Items" is not to add a amulet of natural armor to a amulet of health. Its to add these effects to interesting items like putting bracers of armor onto a shroud of scales, or maybe a deflection bonus onto a ring of icy soul. Or in the books own example a dexterity bonus to boots of striding and sprinting.

I am glad you can mind read a collective of people and divine the intent of the collective. But what they actually say is that you can add common and essential effects for free. And since both Natural Armor and Con are common and essential, you can add both of them without a price markup.

[thewiredone]

where can i find the demonblooded template?

[Scow2]

But no one is advocating the use of the item creation guidelines. Only the use of the item creation rules in MiC for combining effects.The MIC is not Core, and thus not applicable to every table.

[Douglas]

The MIC is not Core, and thus not applicable to every table.
MIC just made it cheaper, the general rule about combining magic items is core (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#addingNewAbilities).

[Lightlawbliss]

the dmg gives guidelines for multiple effects on one item and it IS core.

[sonofzeal]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/sonofzeal/ACbyLevel.png (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/sonofzeal/media/ACbyLevel.png.html)

^ assumes you're investing roughly 35-40% WBL in defence, and picking up varied sources as appropriate (Dusty Rose Ioun Stone, Defending Armor Spikes, etc)

"Good" AC is a 75% wiff chance, "Decent" is 50%, and "Poor" is 25%. Only monsters designed to target AC are included in calculuations.

I think a big part of why these results differ from conventional board wisdom is that somehow people got the bizarre notion that AC doesn't count unless there's a 90% wiff rate from equal-CR bruisers, which is obviously unreasonable through most of the game. You should expect to take a few hits from bruisers, but if they're wiffing a good percent of them then you'll end up doing fairly well. And many fights are against multiple weaker monsters, with correspondingly lower attack bonuses.

[ArcturusV]

where can i find the demonblooded template?

It's BoEF, third party but endorsed by WotC (Least so I recall). Which is probably why you never heard of it because mostly that book inspires snickering and jokes. But if you actually crack it open, lots of neat stuff in there, including Templates for PCs like Demonblooded, Devilblooded, Half-Devil, Half-Demon, Feykissed, Giantborn, Felid, Serpentine, neat PrCs, etc.

[Prime32]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/sonofzeal/ACbyLevel.png (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/sonofzeal/media/ACbyLevel.png.html)Centaur? :smallconfused:

[JKTrickster]

That example can also get the party's Cleric to cast Magic Vestment +5 on his armor and shield effects, for an extra +10 AC all day.

Is that actually true? Would the "Armor" and "Tower Shield" still be valid targets for Magic Vestment even though they are created by magic and made of Force and not actual materials?

[sonofzeal]

Centaur? :smallconfused:
Many playable races have NA (or Small size, or a Dex bonus), and these often end up ahead of the curve on AC. Centaur was just a top-of-the-head addition for demonstration purposes; there's others far more optimized from an AC perspective.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I am glad you can mind read a collective of people and divine the intent of the collective. But what they actually say is that you can add common and essential effects for free. And since both Natural Armor and Con are common and essential, you can add both of them without a price markup.
No I can just read the opening paragraph.

One of the most frustrating roadblocks to using interesting, unusual magic items is that they take up body slots that you need for an ability-boosting item (such as gauntlets of ogre power), a ring of protection, or another must-have item. The intention behind those combination rules is to add the must have boosters to interesting and unusual items. So players can feel more comfortable using them not to combine essential items into as few slots as possible as cheaply as possible.


MIC just made it cheaper, the general rule about combining magic items is core.
Yes the guidelines are core but they make you pay a hefty mark up for combining those effects. (and the same thing is repeated in the MiC). The old DMG guideline for combining effects is on the same page "Adding Common Item Effects to Existing Items" of the MiC.

[Lans]

Anthromorphic Baleen whale is probably the best choice for a martial character.

The importance of AC is more than just not being hit, its not being hit hard. If you have an AC of 10 a dragon can PA for 30 on 6 attacks with no downside

[JKTrickster]

No I can just read the opening paragraph.
The intention behind those combination rules is to add the must have boosters to interesting and unusual items. So players can feel more comfortable using them not to combine essential items into as few slots as possible as cheaply as possible.


Yes the guidelines are core but they make you pay a hefty mark up for combining those effects. (and the same thing is repeated in the MiC). The old DMG guideline for combining effects is on the same page "Adding Common Item Effects to Existing Items" of the MiC.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue here.....yes if we go by core, then it would cost more to combine these items. That's true.

And if we go by MIC it wouldn't cost a thing because they don't say "if you combine essential items and unusual items"

They just say how much it costs to improve an existing item with the following effects: Bonus to Stats, AC, and Saves. No matter how you read that, it's a very straightforward rule :smallconfused:

Finally, DMs can control this however they want but why does that matter? :smallconfused:

[eggynack]

@ Lord Vulkodlak: Who really cares? The MIC item combination rules are rules. They are official rules, and it really doesn't matter if you like them, or if you use them in a weird manner, because they're official non-guideline rules. If you really need something interesting which the character can afford due to the common item combination, our noble AC lover can pick up a belt of battle and anklets of translocation. If you really need to, you can pay the also non-guideline item combination rules in the DMG, but in most games, it won't be necessary. As long as the MIC is part of the game, this is a thing you can do. DM's who don't allow it are unimportant, because discussions have to be based on the actual rules, rather than everyone's personal table.

[Lord Vukodlak]

@ Lord Vulkodlak: Who really cares? The MIC item combination rules are rules. They are official rules, and it really doesn't matter if you like them, or if you use them in a weird manner, because they're official non-guideline rules.

The MiC clearly states what the combination rules are for. You might not like it but RAI is quite clear.

[eggynack]

The MiC clearly states what the combination rules are for. You might not like it but RAI is quite clear.
It doesn't really matter what a thing is for, is what I'm saying. You're completely allowed to stack common item effects onto a single item to your heart's content, for that is the RAW of the thing. You just add on these common magical effects, and there's no surplus, and the RAI is completely and utterly irrelevant. Besides, it's not like I'm going to spend all of my money on common magical effects. You can, if you want, but at some point I'm going to pick up an item that grants actual abilities of some kind. It might be a belt of battle, or even a collar of perpetual attendance, but most people don't actually spend all of their money on armor. Still, completely irrelevant. RAI doesn't actually effect the rules, and following the rules are what the rules are for. You might not like it, but RAW is quite clear.

[Phelix-Mu]

Actually, I find the MIC stuff fairly counter-intuitive.

Mialee wants some unusual combination of two fairly common items x and y.

So, the DMG suggests that combining the effects of items into a custom item is more expensive than buying the two items separately (as a custom item probably should be).

Having something crafted specifically for a character also could reasonably take time, as the craftsperson probably is using an Item Creation feat (the normal method for creating stuff...unless one is Tippy).

Why does someone that is spending their very valuable time to custom make Mialee an item of x+y not increase the price, to account for the value of their time or the unusual construction, or the fact that anything not listed as a distinct item is pretty certain to be less common than the simpler, cheaper items listed?

Now, I can see that MIC pricing makes sense if there is some kind of matter replicator or high-level magic mart going on that means the list of "off the shelf" items is actually as long as the permutations of all possible combinations of listed items. I find it straining belief that any given settlement can actually provide any item up to it's item value cap, since the totality of 3.5 means that this is some staggering variety for even small towns.

Thus, short of saying that I'm DM-fiating the availability of any item in any settlement (something I'm not eager to do), I find myself wondering about middle ground that is at once a.) believable and b.) not punitive. Having what are essentially tricked out cars available at the dealership is cool, but not particularly believable (and where does it leave the people pimping my ride? don't they get some money?).

Anyway, just my personal take. Custom items get marked up, and be prepared to wait (though I don't actually make it 1 day per 1000gp at higher levels).

[Scow2]

@ Lord Vulkodlak: Who really cares? The MIC item combination rules are rules. They are official rules, and it really doesn't matter if you like them, or if you use them in a weird manner, because they're official non-guideline rules. If you really need something interesting which the character can afford due to the common item combination, our noble AC lover can pick up a belt of battle and anklets of translocation. If you really need to, you can pay the also non-guideline item combination rules in the DMG, but in most games, it won't be necessary. As long as the MIC is part of the game, this is a thing you can do. DM's who don't allow it are unimportant, because discussions have to be based on the actual rules, rather than everyone's personal table.This kind of rules-lawyering is a problem. They may be "official" rules, but they're still supplementary, and not "core" rules. The rules in the DMG are merely guidelines. The difference is in expectations: Going into a campaign, you can usually expect all core rules to be followed, and a GM will note important changes. You CANNOT expect the GM to be familiar with or enforce rules only found in supplementary sourcebooks, and so you cannot take such rules for granted.

[eggynack]

Actually, I find the MIC stuff fairly counter-intuitive.

Mialee wants some unusual combination of two fairly common items x and y.

So, the DMG suggests that combining the effects of items into a custom item is more expensive than buying the two items separately (as a custom item probably should be).

Having something crafted specifically for a character also could reasonably take time, as the craftsperson probably is using an Item Creation feat (the normal method for creating stuff...unless one is Tippy).

Why does someone that is spending their very valuable time to custom make Mialee an item of x+y not increase the price, to account for the value of their time or the unusual construction, or the fact that anything not listed as a distinct item is pretty certain to be less common than the simpler, cheaper items listed?

Now, I can see that MIC pricing makes sense if there is some kind of matter replicator or high-level magic mart going on that means the list of "off the shelf" items is actually as long as the permutations of all possible combinations of listed items. I find it straining belief that any given settlement can actually provide any item up to it's item value cap, since the totality of 3.5 means that this is some staggering variety for even small towns.

Thus, short of saying that I'm DM-fiating the availability of any item in any settlement (something I'm not eager to do), I find myself wondering about middle ground that is at once a.) believable and b.) not punitive. Having what are essentially tricked out cars available at the dealership is cool, but not particularly believable (and where does it leave the people pimping my ride? don't they get some money?).

Anyway, just my personal take. Custom items get marked up, and be prepared to wait (though I don't actually make it 1 day per 1000gp at higher levels).
That's not how I read it, though I suppose it's open to interpretation. The way I see it, sticking more magic on a magic item costs more than sticking magic on a non-magic item. A +2 weapon compared to a +1 weapon is a greater price difference than a +1 weapon compared to a masterwork weapon, despite the fact that neither item is particularly customized. These aren't rules for purchasing combination items; they're rules for crafting combination items. In any case, that brings us to common effects. Presumably, these common effects are common enough that sticking them on an already magic item is as easy as sticking them on a regular item. Crafters are familiar with them to the point where having an AC boost doesn't complicate the item's crafting weave, or however crafting works. That's my take on it, anyways.

[eggynack]

This kind of rules-lawyering is a problem. They may be "official" rules, but they're still supplementary, and not "core" rules. The rules in the DMG are merely guidelines. The difference is in expectations: Going into a campaign, you can usually expect all core rules to be followed, and a GM will note important changes. You CANNOT expect the GM to be familiar with or enforce rules only found in supplementary sourcebooks, and so you cannot take such rules for granted.
I explicitly noted that this is contingent on book access in my post. It's not contingent on RAI. If the MIC is in the game, this rule is also in the game, and if the book isn't in the game, presumably the rule goes with it. It's not "rules-lawyering". It's just regular discussion of really straightforward rules.

[Beheld]

This kind of rules-lawyering is a problem. They may be "official" rules, but they're still supplementary, and not "core" rules. The rules in the DMG are merely guidelines. The difference is in expectations: Going into a campaign, you can usually expect all core rules to be followed, and a GM will note important changes. You CANNOT expect the GM to be familiar with or enforce rules only found in supplementary sourcebooks, and so you cannot take such rules for granted.

No one is saying that you should use the rules without talking to the DM, just that they are in fact that rules, and if you have the book you can probably use them, because outside of one crazy person, no one thinks they are bad rules. Speaking of which.


The MiC clearly states what the combination rules are for. You might not like it but RAI is quite clear.

Ignoring for the moment the other sentences which express an additional RAI. So what? It is clear that the rules for Gate where not meant to allow you to summon a create with Gate and chain an infinite army. But the rules clearly do allow you to gate in Solars anyway.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Ignoring for the moment the other sentences which express an additional RAI. So what? It is clear that the rules for Gate where not meant to allow you to summon a create with Gate and chain an infinite army. But the rules clearly do allow you to gate in Solars anyway. That many DM's are going to pick a more conservative RAI over a munchkinish RAW and when planning things out its best to keep that in mind.

[Phelix-Mu]

That's not how I read it, though I suppose it's open to interpretation. The way I see it, sticking more magic on a magic item costs more than sticking magic on a non-magic item. A +2 weapon compared to a +1 weapon is a greater price difference than a +1 weapon compared to a masterwork weapon, despite the fact that neither item is particularly customized. These aren't rules for purchasing combination items; they're rules for crafting combination items. In any case, that brings us to common effects. Presumably, these common effects are common enough that sticking them on an already magic item is as easy as sticking them on a regular item. Crafters are familiar with them to the point where having an AC boost doesn't complicate the item's crafting weave, or however crafting works. That's my take on it, anyways.

So, are you implying that all magic items are created on-demand? I suppose that can work, too, but it means that getting anything magical takes the time listed in the Item Creation feats (minus possible time reducers, a la artificers and the like).

I'm generally of the opinion that some items are around by virtue of just being in circulation among adventurers of the now and of the past. These constitute common items (a.k.a. listed items), and many crafters only make stuff that has a more-or-less guaranteed market. Such items are in-stock when they are below the settlement item-value cap and are in-sync with the area (no sketchy alignment conflicts, no liquid pain at Mom&Pop's Corner Emporium). There's way too much history of magic in many settings for their not to be certain items in excess of the people that need them (witness the frequency of item purchase/creation versus the frequency of item destruction).

Anything the party wants combined, or when someone wants to add to an item they already own, then a craftsperson must be located and I come up with some rubric for how much time it will take to do that customization (sometimes it needs tweaked based on the tempo of the campaign...I don't want to totally shaft players just because I included a countdown in my plot).

Again, this more or less amounts to houserules, but also, in my mind, makes more sense with how the game presents magic and economics (which is to say imperfectly and with an eye toward moving loot acquired toward WBL, an often non-economically sound device by which to model the transfer of wealth...witness murder-hobo economy and the like).

I also toss the slot affinities rule, cause that is just silly. Magic is established to do bizarre and seemingly impossible stuff. Why should an item created with magic follow some kind of faux logic about body slots (which follow their own arbitrary rules, too)?

[eggynack]

So, are you implying that all magic items are created on-demand? I suppose that can work, too, but it means that getting anything magical takes the time listed in the Item Creation feats (minus possible time reducers, a la artificers and the like).

I'm generally of the opinion that some items are around by virtue of just being in circulation among adventurers of the now and of the past. These constitute common items (a.k.a. listed items), and many crafters only make stuff that has a more-or-less guaranteed market. Such items are in-stock when they are below the settlement item-value cap and are in-sync with the area (no sketchy alignment conflicts, no liquid pain at Mom&Pop's Corner Emporium). There's way too much history of magic in many settings for their not to be certain items in excess of the people that need them (witness the frequency of item purchase/creation versus the frequency of item destruction).

Anything the party wants combined, or when someone wants to add to an item they already own, then a craftsperson must be located and I come up with some rubric for how much time it will take to do that customization (sometimes it needs tweaked based on the tempo of the campaign...I don't want to totally shaft players just because I included a countdown in my plot).

Again, this more or less amounts to houserules, but also, in my mind, makes more sense with how the game presents magic and economics (which is to say imperfectly and with an eye toward moving loot acquired toward WBL, an often non-economically sound device by which to model the transfer of wealth...witness murder-hobo economy and the like).

I also toss the slot affinities rule, cause that is just silly. Magic is established to do bizarre and seemingly impossible stuff. Why should an item created with magic follow some kind of faux logic about body slots (which follow their own arbitrary rules, too)?
I'm pretty sure that these are crafting rules, not purchasing rules. Once the item is crafted, the shopkeeper can presumably price it however he wishes, and those prices tend towards double the crafting price. The premium for combining effects obviously has nothing to do with shop based rarity, because these are premiums that are paid upon the construction of the item.

[tonberrian]

That many DM's are going to pick a more conservative RAI over a munchkinish RAW and when planning things out its best to keep that in mind.

Unless you have done a statistical analysis of DM usage of Magic Item Compendium's common effect combination rules, you really have no basis in making this statement. What is one DM's munchkinism is another's bread-and-butter, and, speaking from personal experience (whatever that's worth) most DM's that I have encountered have been willing to use the Magic Item Compendium's common effect combination rules.

[eggynack]

Most DM's that I have encountered have been willing to use the Magic Item Compendium's common effect combination rules, because that means characters don't need to spend as much money and item slots to be competent and can spend more money on the other, more interesting items available.
Heh. I'm just amused because this is the exact goal that Lord's standing behind. Folks are absolutely allowed to pick up nothing but common magical effects until the world is a dead husk (I think you can actually get pretty high up there before you need to move on), but it's not like anyone does that. Sonofzeal mentioned spending about 35-40% of WBL on armor, and a good amount of the remaining money is usually going to go to something that's not on that list. Even if you're pumping AC to the maximum, a lot of those plans are going to include a monk's belt, and that qualifies as an interesting item. Sure, at the lower ranges of WBL you're going to buy more common magical effects, but at some point you're going to want something cool.

Edit: Just wanted to note that I'm agreeing with you, rather than Lord. All I'm pointing out is that actual optimization is usually a lot closer to Lord's RAI thing than to his version of rules lawyering munchkinry. Sonofzeal's estimate was for someone who cares about AC, but optimized builds often don't. After the main ability boosters, and maybe something else off the common items list, you're usually going to be picking up something that's not on that list. Seriously, what optimizer is going to turn down a belt of battle? Those things are crazy. If everyone just wanted common magical effects, VoP would be a lot better.

[Phelix-Mu]

I'm pretty sure that these are crafting rules, not purchasing rules. Once the item is crafted, the shopkeeper can presumably price it however he wishes, and those prices tend towards double the crafting price. The premium for combining effects obviously has nothing to do with shop based rarity, because these are premiums that are paid upon the construction of the item.

Hmm, maybe I need to reread the MIC rule. I'm not clear which rule you are referring to specifically, but it seems to me a difference in a rule with crafting would impact the rule for purchasing, since the two prices are connected.

Upon checking, it seems the DMG makes the pricing of creating an item with multiple abilities to be the cost of the more expensive item ability times two. This is from Table 7-33 in the DMG, page 285, and that table seems to reflect actual prices, not creation costs.

I seem to have reduced it to normal item + (added item cost x 1.5) as a compromise...and then proceeded to forget it was a houserule. Hehe.

[Spuddles]

Power Attack will kill you it you neglect AC. It isn't really all-or-nothing.

[eggynack]

Hmm, maybe I need to reread the MIC rule. I'm not clear which rule you are referring to specifically, but it seems to me a difference in a rule with crafting would impact the rule for purchasing, since the two prices are connected.

Upon checking, it seems the DMG makes the pricing of creating an item with multiple abilities to be the cost of the more expensive item ability times two. This is from Table 7-33 in the DMG, page 285, and that table seems to reflect actual prices, not creation costs.

I seem to have reduced it to normal item + (added item cost x 1.5) as a compromise...and then proceeded to forget it was a houserule. Hehe.
Well, the MIC rule is listed under "crafting magic items", and the DMG section is listed under "creating magic items". Similarly, the DMG rule about adding more effects to a single item specifically refers to the items creator paying these costs. That table is in reference to estimating the gold piece value of items, rather than in reference to any crafting rules. Thus, even if some prices are listed based upon the purchase price, I'm pretty sure that that price is based on a crafting price that is frontloaded in nature. A change in crafting rules does cause a change in sale price, which is a big part of the point.

[TuggyNE]

The intention behind those combination rules is to add the must have boosters to interesting and unusual items. So players can feel more comfortable using them not to combine essential items into as few slots as possible as cheaply as possible.

Fairly simple solution: find some "interesting" item with the right slot that's fairly cheap (perhaps a necklace of fireballs, type I), and then add all the boring boosts for that slot to that item. No extra charge (beyond the base item), no possible RAI violation, no possible RAW violation.


Yes the guidelines are core but they make you pay a hefty mark up for combining those effects. (and the same thing is repeated in the MiC). The old DMG guideline for combining effects is on the same page "Adding Common Item Effects to Existing Items" of the MiC.

It would seem that three things are needed to make these effects hard to get: RAW strictness, ignoring MIC rules, and unwillingness to make custom items available. If MIC is in play, problem solved; if the DM doesn't mind custom items off the DMG guidelines, problem solved.

[Immabozo]

Strictness of DM shouldn't be a problem, the Magic Item Compendium has rules for combining certain common items, which includes those granting natural armor and Con.

Belt of Wonder, or something like that, from the MIC, is +6 to all stats. Done.

Drruids can cheat so badly, dual wielding wilding +3 tower shields and wearing wilding mountain plate +2 is AC 34, and you are comletely naked and hands are free (edit: after wildshaping). Then pick up a 2 handed sword and swing freely (assuming a wildshaping build in a humanoid form), full dex, NA, at level 20 the average NA of creatures is around 15-20 with another 2-5 dex AC, looking at 51 - 56, plus buffs, pushing 60 - 70 (depending on how many buffs), plus ring of deflection, mid 70s.

I had a wildshaping druid in my first D&D campaign. At level 11 we came upon a situation where we were defending a city against an invasion. The general was a made-to-lose encounter (later found out to be storyline reasons, we were gonna get new information from him and start working for him, or something.)

Our DM was bragging about how great this guy was. So I set off to do research. I found, at level 12, I could start the day with an all day buff, then use a 12 hour "next time you wildshape, it's better" buff, twice, it stacked, then a 10 minute buff and then spend the first two rounds of combat buffing and, combined with a few armor upgrades, could have AC 75, 79 if I fought defensively and used my buckler, with regen 9, DR 5/adamantium and DR 3/-, SR 20 and all these things, just so we could befeat the THIRD encounter that DM had made for us that we weren't supposed to win (one was a fight we picked and could have easily avoided, the other was simply cause it was supposed to run away at a certain health, but our thrikeen ninja monk had 1 round of good rolling before it ran away, hit with everything and did about 145 damage and killed it)

Anyway, what class you are has a HUGE impact, if you are building for the tank role, that can guide PrC choices. Barbarians can take ACF to get +2 AC instead of -2 AC when raging (rage completely changes, but I am just addressing AC), Bear warrior can get you a further bonus to nat AC and dex equal to bear type, when raging, Fist of The Forrest and (I believe) unarmed swordsage both give con to AC, taking a LA race with NA and high con bonus synergizes nicely. Barkskin can be permanancied for a bonus to your natural armor bonus of +5 (a +5 enhancement bonus to your natural armor and then a +5 enhancement bonus to your natural armor bonus is a +10)

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Is that actually true? Would the "Armor" and "Tower Shield" still be valid targets for Magic Vestment even though they are created by magic and made of Force and not actual materials?

Yes, spells that provide armor/shield bonuses to AC are tangible force effects, and can be touched and targeted by spells that provide an enhancement bonus to an armor/shield bonus.

[Hua]

This is really easy. It just requires custom magic items. The DMG has rules for this on page 285.
You can get AC bonuses up to +5 each of Luck, Insight, Sacred, and Profane all for bonus squared x 2500gp. All of them stack with each other and natural armor, deflection, and enhancement bonuses. And dodge

You have to avoid the 200,000gp per item limit (or it requires epic rules).
The key is to stack different types of bonuses to AC

Also, as others have mentioned, miss chance is cheap. A blur potion is 300g and it gives a 20% miss chance, regardless of how many pluses the monster has. Blindsight and true seeing avoid this, but those are pretty rare.

Of course as a rogue, you make sure you move to where you finish off opponents that are already targeted on the tank. The dead do no damage.

Also, don't forget that additional con is good too. The extra HP may allow you to take the hit and keep going.

You are never going to be so high AC that you don't get hit. It is about making sure you survive the first two hits and the third and fourth miss you, due to the reduced bonus to hit.
Offense or defense is always a trade off. It comes down to play style, but you can boost either easily, even in just 3.5 core rules.

[Flickerdart]

Power Attack will kill you it you neglect AC. It isn't really all-or-nothing.
Not everything has Power Attack, and not everything knows what your AC is.

[Immabozo]

The dead do no damage.

In D&D? I dont know if you are playing the same game as me, but the dead can do lots of damage!

[Spuddles]

It doesn't really matter what a thing is for, is what I'm saying. You're completely allowed to stack common item effects onto a single item to your heart's content, for that is the RAW of the thing. You just add on these common magical effects, and there's no surplus, and the RAI is completely and utterly irrelevant. Besides, it's not like I'm going to spend all of my money on common magical effects. You can, if you want, but at some point I'm going to pick up an item that grants actual abilities of some kind. It might be a belt of battle, or even a collar of perpetual attendance, but most people don't actually spend all of their money on armor. Still, completely irrelevant. RAI doesn't actually effect the rules, and following the rules are what the rules are for. You might not like it, but RAW is quite clear.

Maybe on the internet.

[Rubik]

Fist of The ForrestLife Is Like A Box Of Cho-co-lates.


and (I believe) unarmed swordsage both give con to ACUnarmed Swordsage 2 grants Wis to AC, just like a monk.

[Phelix-Mu]

Well, the MIC rule is listed under "crafting magic items", and the DMG section is listed under "creating magic items". Similarly, the DMG rule about adding more effects to a single item specifically refers to the items creator paying these costs. That table is in reference to estimating the gold piece value of items, rather than in reference to any crafting rules. Thus, even if some prices are listed based upon the purchase price, I'm pretty sure that that price is based on a crafting price that is frontloaded in nature. A change in crafting rules does cause a change in sale price, which is a big part of the point.

Hmm, actually looking at MIC, I see that the rule I have been using is the one in the earlier paragraph above the entry on Adding Common Item Effects to Existing Items. So I guess I wasn't using the DMG, really, but sticking with the more expensive logic of the MIC versus the rather cheaper system for Adding Common Item Effects.

I think my reasoning is still sound, though. I don't want just anything available at the drop of a hat, or cheaply; more compact, more unusual items are considered custom and marked up. I'm fairly reasonable, though, so I guess if someone could show me where this is onerously impacting people with limited resources, I could be persuaded to rule otherwise.

More generally, I find characters are rarely all in a position of lacking money, even at fairly low levels (aside from when I intentionally make it so as DM). So the main impact is the time required to customize stuff, which is role play dependent and a matter I more or less eyeball with the Item Creation feats in mind.

[Spuddles]

Not everything has Power Attack, and not everything knows what your AC is.

If it doesn't have power attack, it's probably going to do something nastier than make a full attack.

And AC isn't hard to zero in on.

So yeah, low AC is asking to get killed by power attack.

Elusive Target is pretty awesome, though.

[Phelix-Mu]

Life Is Like A Box Of Cho-co-lates.

Unarmed Swordsage 2 grants Wis to AC, just like a monk.

A non-Kung-Fu Genius monk! Yes, they exist! I love the idea of multiclassing between Kung-Fu Genius monk and Unarmed Swordsage. Hehe.

[eggynack]

Maybe on the internet.
I guess. Fortunately we are on the internet, rather than in some other place. We can't just assume a single RAI, because lots of folks have different opinions. It's why we stick to RAW, rather than RAI. If you're saying that the rules don't allow you to stack nothing but common effects, go right ahead, but it's just an incorrect view. Sometimes there's this really hazy argument, and all of the rules are contradictory and weird. This isn't one of those times. There's just the one rule, and it works really well, and there's no contradiction there. It's a really nice feeling.

[eggynack]

Hmm, actually looking at MIC, I see that the rule I have been using is the one in the earlier paragraph above the entry on Adding Common Item Effects to Existing Items. So I guess I wasn't using the DMG, really, but sticking with the more expensive logic of the MIC versus the rather cheaper system for Adding Common Item Effects.

I think my reasoning is still sound, though. I don't want just anything available at the drop of a hat, or cheaply; more compact, more unusual items are considered custom and marked up. I'm fairly reasonable, though, so I guess if someone could show me where this is onerously impacting people with limited resources, I could be persuaded to rule otherwise.

More generally, I find characters are rarely all in a position of lacking money, even at fairly low levels (aside from when I intentionally make it so as DM). So the main impact is the time required to customize stuff, which is role play dependent and a matter I more or less eyeball with the Item Creation feats in mind.
I don't really disagree with you on that one. Once the crafting price is set in stone, the shopkeep can presumably price it however he wants. Ideally, you'd probably just have all the regular items out front, and just toss a flat percentage premium onto custom items, so that the common effect thing is taken into account in that manner. Alternatively, you could just have the items stick to the book price, and have the time investment be the only relevant one.

[Immabozo]

Life Is Like A Box Of Cho-co-lates.

Unarmed Swordsage 2 grants Wis to AC, just like a monk.

I never said FotF was a GOOD PrC, just an option.

Who was it that grants con to AC, other than FotF?

[eggynack]

I never said FotF was a GOOD PrC, just an option.

Who was it that grants con to AC, other than FotF?
Apparently, the list goes deepwarden 2, forsaker, and improved bind vestige (half, and the vestige is dahlver-nar). This comes to you, courtesy of x stat to y bonus (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125732). It's a great thing.

[Rubik]

I never said FotF was a GOOD PrC, just an option.Fist of the forest is a PrC. Fist of the Forrest is a body part of a Gump.

[Phelix-Mu]

I never said FotF was a GOOD PrC, just an option.

Who was it that grants con to AC, other than FotF?

It's that um...yeah...getting late here....

....

....

Deepwarden? Mwahaha, yes, I think that was it. Dwarf only, though, methinks. Supercallafragilisticexpiala-Stoneblessed.

EDIT: Power Ranger'd. [But I didn't look at any list]

[Beheld]

That many DM's are going to pick a more conservative RAI over a munchkinish RAW and when planning things out its best to keep that in mind.

That doesn't seem relevant to me in this conversation, because your strange limited understanding of the RAI is not more conservative and the RAW isn't munchkinish.

I think you will be hard pressed to find any meaningful number of people who think your interpretation is a better or more balanced one.

[Wings of Peace]

A combination of Abjurant Champion, Persistent Spell, Spelldancer, and immunity to constitution damage should solve most of your ac problems at high levels should you wish to focus on ac instead of % miss chance.

[Immabozo]

Fist of the forest is a PrC. Fist of the Forrest is a body part of a Gump.

can I sig this? lol, I love typos sometimes

[Kelb_Panthera]

A combination of Abjurant Champion, Persistent Spell, Spelldancer, and immunity to constitution damage should solve most of your ac problems at high levels should you wish to focus on ac instead of % miss chance.

FIFY :smallbiggrin: ten character minimum

[eggynack]

FITFY :smallbiggrin: ten character minimum
FTFY. :smallbiggrin: The irony was too great to pass up.

[Kelb_Panthera]

FTFY. :smallbiggrin: The irony was too great to pass up.

Do what now? :smallconfused: sorry for killing the joke by making you explain it.

[Rubik]

can I sig this? lol, I love typos sometimesSure, I guess, but you might want to put your sig in a spoiler block, as it's getting rather long.

[eggynack]

Do what now? :smallconfused: sorry for killing the joke by making you explain it.
You typed FIFY, which I presume means, "Fixed that for you." The correct second letter would thus be "T", unless there's another initialism I'm unaware of. Hence, I crossed out the "I", and replaced it with a "T". I wouldn't have done so, but as I noted in the white text, I'm a sucker for ironic stuff.

Edit: Ah. "Fixed it for you". I should really google stuff. Still, meta-ultra-irony is even better than normal irony.

[Rubik]

Edit: Ah. "Fixed it for you". I should really google stuff. Still, meta-ultra-irony is even better than normal irony.Derp.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hEMKLfjLVUE/TfAUQ1hGc5I/AAAAAAAAFpE/m4Z9CbZEnko/s1600/muffin_cannon_by_maximillianveers-d3ib3bd.png

[Trunamer]

In a theoretical build I'm spending 3 feats to be able to push AC to 30 at Level 20.
That does seem low, but you're also missing out on one of 3.x's dirty little secrets:

High-level AC is like a high-quality security system: It's not meant to keep out determined opposition; it's there just to give you the time you need to counteract intrusion. In other words, high-level AC simply prevents the opposition from full-PAing your sorry ass.

(Of course like most stats in 3.x, AC can be twinked to the point where it does prevent hits altogether, and that's a matter of power gaming.)

[eggynack]

Derp.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hEMKLfjLVUE/TfAUQ1hGc5I/AAAAAAAAFpE/m4Z9CbZEnko/s1600/muffin_cannon_by_maximillianveers-d3ib3bd.png
So I get meta-ultra-irony, and a Ditzy-pic*? This is the best incorrect pedantic correction ever.

*The name Ditzy totally still gets used in fic, and I lay claim to this. It is a true thing.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Derp.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hEMKLfjLVUE/TfAUQ1hGc5I/AAAAAAAAFpE/m4Z9CbZEnko/s1600/muffin_cannon_by_maximillianveers-d3ib3bd.png

LOL.

I'm not even a MLP fan and I think that's hilarious.

[Rubik]

So I get meta-ultra-irony, and a Ditzy-pic*? This is the best incorrect pedantic correction ever.

*The name Ditzy totally still gets used in fic, and I lay claim to this. It is a true thing.You also get a muffin-launcher.

Muffins!


LOL.

I'm not even a MLP fan and I think that's hilarious.Ditzy Derpy transcends age, sex, creed, species, genre, and reality itself.

She's practically transcendent.

[Immabozo]

Ditzy Derpy transcends age, sex, creed, species, genre, and reality itself.

She's practically transcendent.

She's Tran-sexual (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO0kRE5OTZI)

Edit: reference to 4:37

[Cybris75]

Dual wield Tower Shields for another bump up.

I was under the impression that shield bonuses to AC do not stack.

[Immabozo]

I was under the impression that shield bonuses to AC do not stack.

AFAIK, it is not a bonus to AC, but AC period. Although I am not sure it works like that, on second thought...

[Wings of Peace]

FIFY :smallbiggrin: ten character minimum

Abjurant Champion makes the process significantly easier and more optimized. Even without cheese like Legacy Champion or Bloodlines those five levels mean that if he uses only 4 applicable spells he's just gained an extra 20 ac.

That said, my original post was off slightly. You should look into getting the Otherworldly feat if still possible for access to that sweet natural ac bonus from Dwarven Ancestor.

[Gargravarr]

Thanks for the suggestions! Especially that chart was pretty enlightening...

[TuggyNE]

AFAIK, it is not a bonus to AC, but AC period. Although I am not sure it works like that, on second thought...

No, it doesn't. Shields give shield bonuses, whether or not they're separate from your body.

[Immabozo]

No, it doesn't. Shields give shield bonuses, whether or not they're separate from your body.

that makes more sense, thank you. But like the question I tried and then failed to answer, can you dual wield them for more AC?

[Andezzar]

No you can't. Both shields provide a shield bonus to AC. Named bonuses do not stack unless there is an explicit rule that says otherwise.

The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#shieldBonus) even says they don't stack with shiueld bonuses.

[Rubik]

that makes more sense, thank you. But like the question I tried and then failed to answer, can you dual wield them for more AC?You can dual-wield them, but you don't gain any additional AC for it. What this does do is it allows you to get multiple non-enhancement bonuses and shield crystals added to you, and it allows you to shield bash without losing AC or having to use a feat.

[Immabozo]

No you can't. Both shields provide a shield bonus to AC. Named bonuses do not stack unless there is an explicit rule that says otherwise.

The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#shieldBonus) even says they don't stack with shiueld bonuses.

I guess that makes sense, otherwise a character dual wielding +3 tower shields with 2 animated +1 tower shields would have 34 AC before counting anything else!!