How does one Optimize Armor Class [3.5]

[D4rkh0rus]

I've heard of people getting upwards of 50 AC with items/etc.

Is there any guide or thread that details how this is possible? Cause I can't find it anywhere, everyone says "yea with optimization you can get upwards of 50 AC" but no one explains how...

[Curmudgeon]

Most of those claims are based on temporary spell effects. Others ignore some rules, like using Defending (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#defending) on weapons which aren't swords.

[J-H]

Base: 10
Dex: 3
Mithril full plate +5: 13
Heavy shield +5: 7
Ring of Protection +5: 5
Amulet of Natural Armor +5: 5
item giving +1 insight to AC: 1

Total: 44

Add class features like skirmish, dwarven defender, haste, and I don't recall what else, and you can get up there.

The problem is that AC is the 4th best type of defense:

1) HP: Protects against everything
2) Saves: Protects against magic
3) Miss chance (blur, concealment, invisibility, displacement): Protects against all physical & touch attacks, no matter what the attack's to-hit roll is
4) AC: Protects against non-touch attacks where the attacker doesn't have a massive to-hit bonus (dragon, big golem, etc).

As an example, an Adult red dragon (CR23) is probably a decent encounter for some level 16 adventurers, which is about the right WBL to have +5 everything for your defensive gear.

It's to-hit roll is +31, so it can't hit your 50 AC. Instead, it breathes fire on you for 12d10 damage (around 60-70 damage, assuming it has no metabreath feats), DC 26 half. Your Reflex save is probably around +12 to +15 with a Cloak of Resistance.
You're heavy and can't fly well, so it takes to the sky and comes back when it wants to burn you again, or it flies past your 20' movement per round self to attack the party wizard.

Or, it initiates a grapple with a melee touch attack (against which your AC is around 18). Its grapple modifier is +41. Yours is probably about +24 (16 BAB +8 str), so it's going to win. It picks you up, flies up into the sky, and drops you on a mountain like a bird drops a clam to break its shell.

There are non-heavy armor ways to optimize AC, but it's the easiest. Most of them still carry the same disadvantages.

[Seerow]

It all depends on how much you're willing to invest into it. There's a lot of stuff out there that offers endlessly stacking bonuses. For example, defending weapons. By RAW you can buy +1 Defending Armor Spikes for 8000gp, get GMW cast on them, and suddenly get a +5 to AC. Now repeat that for as many other wearable weapons as you want. That's generally the go-to way of dealing with it.

There's various ways to add extra stats to AC (see the X stat to Y bonus thread), many of which stack with each other. When you're running a build that gets Wis to AC twice in addition to dex, or a Dwarf adding con to AC with heavy armor, AC cranks up pretty quickly.

Polymorph and similar spells can give a huge chunk of natural armor very cheaply. Then of course there's non-transformation spells that give strong defensive benefits.

There's a number of things that will add to Combat Expertise/Fighting defensively. I once had a character who with a -2 penalty to hit could crank up a +12 to AC on top of whatever else he had.

There's also feats and abilities that give large boosts. For example Protection Devotion and Law Devotion both give rather large sacred bonuses to armor class, making them a big bonus that stacks with everything else.


There's a lot more beyond that, I'm sure. This was off the top of my head. The real problem is that actually stacking high AC requires a pretty significant investment on the part of the character, and AC is fairly easy to invalidate so stacking it isn't a particularly sound tactic. But if you dig around a bit, there are a ton of different ways to boost AC very quickly.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Depends on the class, really. Most casters have it relatively easy, especially if you're good aligned and/or wisdom based.

Take Greater Luminous Armor (+8), add a Monk's Belt for anywhere between +10-20 depending on access to Owl's Insight, wildshape into a form with high natural AC and you're already there, because druids are awesome.
Bards get access to Sirine's Grace which grants your charisma bonus as deflection AC, so that's probably also a +10 at least at level 20, most likely more.
Polymorph/Alter Self gives you access to forms with high natural armor, which can take care of a lot.
Psions can augment Inertial Armor for a +13 armor AC at ML 20. Similar, Magic Vestment turns your armor/shield into a +5 version without eating your gold.

There's tons of spells that add AC in a variety of flavors. The ones who suffer are the non-casters, because Rings of Deflection and Amulets of Natural Armor get really expensive at the higher bonuses. You're often better served buying a Pearl of Power or two if your parties casters won't buff you otherwise.

[Necroticplague]

Ghosts can take advantage of a lot of +cha to AC to get pretty obscene amounts. Ghost 1/Battledancer1/Monk1/Sorcerer 1(feat for Precocious Apprentice)/Generic Warrior1 (feat for Ascetic Mage)/Arcane Duelist2 gets CHA to AC 4 times. This means that every time they take the Evolved template (which they can buy off pretty easily) gives them a +5 to ac (+4 from CHA increase, +1 the template increase ti deflection bonus). Doing a method similar to this, I've gotten AC upwards of 120 (Evolved 15 times, CHA as my only real stat), though that was an admittingly high powered game. For more, just pile on +5 ghost touch armor, enchanted animated buckler, and as many +1 defending poison rings as you can afford ( as to curmudgeon mentioning swords only for defending: its listed as a melee special ability, and "sword" isn't a defined game term, so what's to just stop me from saying my poison ring counts as a sword?).

Of course, you have to keep ratcheting up AC as enemies get better to-hit, while miss-chance retains is value throughout time.

[Curmudgeon]

For example, defending weapons. By RAW you can buy +1 Defending Armor Spikes for 8000gp, get GMW cast on them, and suddenly get a +5 to AC. Now repeat that ...
By RAW, you cannot do that with armor spikes.
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. This property is specifically only for swords.

[Necroticplague]

By RAW, you cannot do that with armor spikes. This property is specifically only for swords.

Define "swords". As far as I know, dnd does not do so, so there's nothing to stop one from saying that armor spikes are swords. Additionally, it's listed as a Melee Weapon property without any note on the table like (swords only), unlike similarly restricted vorpal, disruption, or keen.

[torrasque666]

Define "swords". As far as I know, dnd does not do so, so there's nothing to stop one from saying that armor spikes are swords. Additionally, it's listed as a Melee Weapon property without any note on the table like (swords only), unlike similarly restricted vorpal, disruption, or keen.

Text trumps table remember?

And when D&D fails to define something, you go with the real world definition IIRC.

[Necroticplague]

Text trumps table remember?
And would only apply if it had language similar to Splitting, online the lines of "This property can only be a applied to X, which it lacks.


And when D&D fails to define something, you go with the real world definition IIRC.

"A bladed weapon used primarily for thrusting or cutting." Given how poisoned rings do have blades, and they are used primarily for cutting, it looks like they qualify as swords.

[Troacctid]

It also refers to the sword's enhancement bonuses, but refers to the weapon in other instances. So if you have a +1 defending mace and a +5 sword, you should be able to use the +1 defending mace to reallocate the enhancement bonus of "the sword."

Actually, it's not really clear which sword it's referring to. Maybe there's some legendary sword out there--"The" Sword--whose enhancement bonus is being constantly reassigned by all the defending weapons on the plane.

[Curmudgeon]

Define "swords".
If the D&D books use the exact letter combination "sword" in describing the weapon, it's a sword. For example:
Falchion: This sword, which is essentially a two-handed scimitar, has a curve that gives it the effect of a keener edge.

[Knaight]

"A bladed weapon used primarily for thrusting or cutting." Given how poisoned rings do have blades, and they are used primarily for cutting, it looks like they qualify as swords.

That's a terrible definition. Axes have blades, they're used primarily for cutting. Some spears have blades, they're used primarily for thrusting. By your definition, the picture below is of two swordsmen fighting with swords:
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/pix/swdnspr1a.jpg

I'm pretty sure that's not a description anyone would ever actually use here. I'm pretty sure the sword in the defending property is a typographical error and it's meant to work for any melee weapon. I'm also pretty sure that that's the sort of argument one should make if they want a defending poisoned ring or whatever, not that a poisoned ring is somehow a sword.

Also, your sword definition actually excludes a handful of late civilian dueling weapons, which have a point but no real blade. They consist of a hilt with pommel and hand guard, with a long metal rod coming out of it which comes to a point. They're clearly swords. Yet those don't count by your definition, which includes spears, axes, and poisoned rings (provided that it has a blade and not a spike). That definition is useless.

[eggynack]

Take Greater Luminous Armor (+8), add a Monk's Belt for anywhere between +10-20 depending on access to Owl's Insight, wildshape into a form with high natural AC and you're already there, because druids are awesome.
Very true. One of the best I'm aware of currently is the maulgoth (FF, 123), made available through aberration wild shape, which runs an AC of 39 at the base. You really don't have to do all that much after that point.

[(Un)Inspired]

Greater luminous armor+shield+ 1 level of battle dancer+Sorcerer+abjuring champion+amulet of NA+ring of protection= AC in the 50s pretty easily. Add polymorph instead of the amulet and ring for even more.

Easy peasy living greasy. Plus this build can cast greater mirror image which is better than basically any amount of AC.

[gorfnab]

Optimizing (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?178445-A-short-guide-to-defensive-fighting) Combat Expertise and defensive fighting can get you fairly high AC.

[ericgrau]

50 AC is pretty easy with basic magic items without getting too cheesy. Cover every bonus type available, mix, add. No need for defending or etc. 90+ AC OTOH uses some silly tricks.

[Necroticplague]

I'm pretty sure that's not a description anyone would ever actually use here. I'm pretty sure the sword in the defending property is a typographical error and it's meant to work for any melee weapon. I'm also pretty sure that that's the sort of argument one should make if they want a defending poisoned ring or whatever, not that a poisoned ring is somehow a sword.
I agree wholeheartedly. This is merely an uber-pedantic argument with people on the internet, I would simply argue its a typo to the DM of a game I'm actually playing.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Easy peasy living greasy. Plus this build can cast greater mirror image which is better than basically any amount of AC.

By the time you get GMI True Seeing will be in play as well, and only become more prevalent. Not that GMI is a bad spell, but i wouldn't rely on it as my only means of defense.
And AC still has its uses, especially touch AC. You just have to get it efficiently, without spending too many resources on it that are more useful elsewhere.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Cleric 12, DMM: Persistent, Extra Turning, Spell domain, Wis 20 (17 + levels). Lesser Rod of Extend, Night Stick, Reliquary Holy Symbol, Monk's Belt, standard Strand of Prayer Beads missing the Bead of Smiting (9k total per DMG pricing). That's less than half his WBL.

Activate Bead of Karma.
+6 Monk bonus: Wis 20, Monk's Belt.
+14 Natural Armor bonus: Cast Greater Anyspell, prepare Draconic Polymorph, cast it with DMM: Persistent to become a War Troll.
-1 Size penalty: Large size (War Troll form).
+3 Dex bonus: Dex 16 (War Troll form).
+8 Shield bonus: Cast Anyspell, prepare Shield, cast it with DMM: Persistent, put Lesser Rod of Extended Magic Vestment on it.
+12 Armor bonus: Cast Extended Greater Luminous Armor, put Lesser Rod of Extended Magic Vestment on it.
AC 52 at level 12, spending less than half WBL, without any Ring of Protection or Amulet of Natural Armor (which provides an Enhancement bonus to the War Troll's natural armor bonus).

Edit: You can get a 6th level Pearl of Power to prepare and cast Greater Anyspell again, to cast Bite of the Wereboar with DMM: Persistent to get a +8 Enhancement bonus to natural armor, for an AC of 60.

[sleepyphoenixx]

+8 Shield bonus: Cast Anyspell, prepare Shield, cast it with DMM: Persistent, put Lesser Rod of Extended Magic Vestment on it.
+12 Armor bonus: Cast Extended Greater Luminous Armor, put Lesser Rod of Extended Magic Vestment on it.


You can't cast Magic Vestment on a magical force effect.

[Knaight]

I agree wholeheartedly. This is merely an uber-pedantic argument with people on the internet, I would simply argue its a typo to the DM of a game I'm actually playing.

The pedantry doesn't help at all here. Being pedantic would be more along the lines of contesting a much better definition of a sword involving a comparatively long blade on the end of a significantly shorter hilt, shaped such that there is some amount of guard and pommel - that is at least generally a functional definition, though the pointed but not bladed swords, messers, and some longer knives can all be pointed to as shortcomings. If the definition of sword in use includes a spear, pedantry isn't on your side here.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

You can't cast Magic Vestment on a magical force effect.

Where do the rules say this? From what I can see, a Shield spell creates a shield of magical force, and Greater Luminous Armor creates a suit of armor of magical force. You can cast Magic Vestment on a shield or suit of armor, regardless of what it's made from. As long as the target of your Magic Vestment spell provides a shield bonus or an armor bonus to AC, Magic Vestment provides an enhancement bonus to that shield bonus or armor bonus.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Where do the rules say this? From what I can see, a Shield spell creates a shield of magical force, and Greater Luminous Armor creates a suit of armor of magical force. You can cast Magic Vestment on a shield or suit of armor, regardless of what it's made from. As long as the target of your Magic Vestment spell provides a shield bonus or an armor bonus to AC, Magic Vestment provides an enhancement bonus to that shield bonus or armor bonus.

You're mixing mechanics and fluff. Mechanically, neither spell actually creates a tangible effect, they're just buffs increasing your AC.
An active spell is not a viable target for Magic Vestment because it is not a shield or armor anymore than Haste or Bull's Strength.

[ericgrau]

Where do the rules say this? From what I can see, a Shield spell creates a shield of magical force, and Greater Luminous Armor creates a suit of armor of magical force. You can cast Magic Vestment on a shield or suit of armor, regardless of what it's made from. As long as the target of your Magic Vestment spell provides a shield bonus or an armor bonus to AC, Magic Vestment provides an enhancement bonus to that shield bonus or armor bonus.


Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you.

Shield doesn't make a shield, it makes a tower shield-sized mobile disc of force. Thus it is an invalid target.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Shield doesn't make a shield, it makes a tower shield-sized mobile disc of force. Thus it is an invalid target.

More importantly imo, it is not an effect spell. It's a targeted buff that grants an AC bonus. The "tower shield of force" is just fluff.

[ranagrande]

It's pretty easy to get high AC even without items or magic.

Using the standard array for ability scores, a Dragonborn Gnome Undying Way Monk 2/Stoneblessed (Dwarf) 3/Dwarf Paragon 1/Forsaker 10/Deepwarden 2/Fist of the Forest 1/Dwarven Defender 1 with Vow of Poverty and Vow of Peace can get an AC of 66:

10 Base
12 Exalted
5 Deflection
14 Natural Armor
10 Constitution (replaces Dex)
10 Constitution
3 Wisdom
1 Dodge
1 Size

+10 more for 76 while in Defensive Stance.

Note that that involves using the standard array and starting with 11 Con. If you instead started with 18 Con, it would have an AC of 75, or 85 while in Defensive Stance.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

More importantly imo, it is not an effect spell. It's a targeted buff that grants an AC bonus. The "tower shield of force" is just fluff.

Then what are the opponents' weapons glancing off of? Nothing? It's not intangible, it's a solid object of force, which means you can touch it to cast magic vestment on it. If it's shaped like a shield and serves the same purpose as a shield, it does not have to be explicitly called out as being a shield to be one. Magic vestment provides an enhancement bonus to the touched object's armor or shield bonus to AC, it's perfectly within the rules for a tangible effect named Shield that provides a shield bonus to AC to be a valid target for this spell.

[ericgrau]

It's not even shaped like a shield it's a disc. It's just a hovering circle not a shield in any sense of the word except that it also protects.

[Max Caysey]

It's pretty easy to get high AC even without items or magic.

Using the standard array for ability scores, a Dragonborn Gnome Undying Way Monk 2/Stoneblessed (Dwarf) 3/Dwarf Paragon 1/Forsaker 10/Deepwarden 2/Fist of the Forest 1/Dwarven Defender 1 with Vow of Poverty and Vow of Peace can get an AC of 66:

10 Base
12 Exalted
5 Deflection
14 Natural Armor
10 Constitution (replaces Dex)
10 Constitution
3 Wisdom
1 Dodge
1 Size

+10 more for 76 while in Defensive Stance.

Note that that involves using the standard array and starting with 11 Con. If you instead started with 18 Con, it would have an AC of 75, or 85 while in Defensive Stance.

Dont forget Expertise and the class battle dancer, which adds charisma to AC.

[ranagrande]

Dont forget Expertise and the class battle dancer, which adds charisma to AC.

If flaws are an option, Combat Expertise is an excellent choice. Otherwise, the build I posted uses all of its available feats (except for some bonus exalted ones) on prerequisites. Even without that though, we could still add +2 for fighting defensively.

Battle Dancer might be a good addition if it goes epic. Even then, something to boost Con some would probably give better returns.

[Eldariel]

The easiest, most efficient means is being a spellcaster. A level 17 Cleric can easily trundle around in 70+ AC all day even in relatively small amount of sources and the wonderful thing is that spellcasters don't need to invest gold into this. Just the usual: a shapechanging spell (on these levels, Shapechange), armor bonus + magic vestment, shield-bonus + magic vestment, deflection bonus and natural armor bonus generally have you covered and the only one you might have to itemize for is the Natural Armor. Everything else is granted by relatively long duration spells (Deflection is pretty short but it's still tens of minutes and we're talking a character with 8-9 slots of that level available).

Same goes for Druid and Wizard, naturally, but it's a bit easier with Wisdom-based classes (due to Monk's Belt) and Cleric in particular has a nice Core array of buffs. The more sources you add the more different AC-buffs you have to stack of course; mostly just new spells that supplant or stack with the Core ones. Like, Shapechange into Pit Fiend grants 40 base AC alone. Then you can stack spells and bonuses on top of that. Bracers of Armor +8 and Monk's Belt (with 34 Wisdom) gives you +21, then you add +5 Deflection and Natural Armor and you're looking at 71 AC. You can use the "Shield"-spell for a bit more but it's short duration. You could also Reduce Person yourself and do stupid stuff to that effect but in all likelihood that's not necessary nor really worth the effort.

[Max Caysey]

If flaws are an option, Combat Expertise is an excellent choice. Otherwise, the build I posted uses all of its available feats (except for some bonus exalted ones) on prerequisites. Even without that though, we could still add +2 for fighting defensively.

Battle Dancer might be a good addition if it goes epic. Even then, something to boost Con some would probably give better returns.

Indeed.. I just wanted to throw it out there.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Then what are the opponents' weapons glancing off of? Nothing? It's not intangible, it's a solid object of force, which means you can touch it to cast magic vestment on it. If it's shaped like a shield and serves the same purpose as a shield, it does not have to be explicitly called out as being a shield to be one. Magic vestment provides an enhancement bonus to the touched object's armor or shield bonus to AC, it's perfectly within the rules for a tangible effect named Shield that provides a shield bonus to AC to be a valid target for this spell.

That's fluff. Mechanically the spell does not create anything anymore than Haste does.
Compare:

Shield
Abjuration [Force]
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 min./level (D)

Floating Disk
Evocation [Force]
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: 3-ft.-diameter disk of force
Duration: 1 hour/level
Floating Disk creates a tangible effect that can be targeted with spells. The only spells that can target Shield are those that interact with active spells, like Dispel Magic.
To do what you're suggesting Shield would need to have "Effect: a tower shield made of force" instead of "Target: You".

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

That's fluff. Mechanically the spell does not create anything anymore than Haste does.
Compare:

Floating Disk creates a tangible effect that can be targeted with spells. The only spells that can target Shield are those that interact with active spells, like Dispel Magic.
To do what you're suggesting Shield would need to have "Effect: a tower shield made of force" instead of "Target: You".

Who are you to decide what parts of a spell's description are fluff and which parts are mechanics? "Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you," is just as much rules text as, "It negates magic missile attacks directed at you."

Pyrotechnics has "Target: One fire source, up to a 20-ft. cube" but it can create several effects which are much larger than the target itself. You can Gust of Wind its smoke cloud effect, but by your reasoning that's just fluff and your only options would be effects that can target the fire source that it's cast on.

Furthermore, Dispel Magic doesn't target spells, it has "Target or Area: One spellcaster, creature, or object; or 20-ft.-radius burst" so even your examples are wrong.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Who are you to decide what parts of a spell's description are fluff and which parts are mechanics? "Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you," is just as much rules text as, "It negates magic missile attacks directed at you."

Pyrotechnics has "Target: One fire source, up to a 20-ft. cube" but it can create several effects which are much larger than the target itself. You can Gust of Wind its smoke cloud effect, but by your reasoning that's just fluff and your only options would be effects that can target the fire source that it's cast on.

Furthermore, Dispel Magic doesn't target spells, it has "Target or Area: One spellcaster, creature, or object; or 20-ft.-radius burst" so even your examples are wrong.
It doesn't create a tangible effect that would be in any way compatible with the allowed targets for Magic Vestment.
If you rule differently that's your business, but it's far from generally accepted. The ruling that Magic Vestment needs an actual physical target is far more common in my experience, and imo the one that makes sense.
I've explained my reasoning. If you agree or not is up to you.

Also:

Targeted Dispel

One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell.
I suggest actually reading the whole thing before accusing others of being wrong.