Unsure about stacking for AC

[zutox]

I am DM'ing for a group of friends, and we have a max/min player who is really doing his very best to "be the best" so to speak.

His character now has 21 AC at lvl 1.

But I am wondering that some of his AC giving items does not stack.
Can someone please guide me a little?

He has 20 in dex, so a +5. His armor grants him +4 AC and lets him take advantage of +5 DEX, he is using a buckler for a +1 to AC,
Bracers of protection for +1 AC,
and amulet of natural armor for a +1 to AC.

Also, he is playing a catfolk so he has claw, claw, bite.

Does he do all of them with no minuses?

[Cerefel]

A few things:
1. All of those things are allowed to stack
2. If I'm not mistaken, that adds up to 22 AC
3. How can a level 1 character afford all of this stuff? :smallconfused:

[Troacctid]

Assuming the bracers of protection are giving a deflection bonus to AC and not an armor bonus, then yes, those all stack.

Your friend's AC should actually be even higher, because catfolk also have a racial +1 natural armor bonus that stacks with the amulet of natural armor. I'm counting AC 23.

[zutox]

Assuming the bracers of protection are giving a deflection bonus to AC and not an armor bonus, then yes, those all stack.

Your friend's AC should actually be even higher, because catfolk also have a racial +1 natural armor bonus that stacks with the amulet of natural armor. I'm counting AC 23.

Thank you both :)

He is playing the Felis Sapiens type of catfolk so no racial armor.

And he could afford it because we are playing with Apprentice levels, and it takes a long time for my players to level :) Again, thank you both for your help.

[Gruftzwerg]

stacking AC isn't that OP it may seem. Only if your enemies are stupid low rank soldiers it's of use. Any Spell or anything else that forces a Save-roll will effect him. Enough ways to overcome the players AC, don't get afraid.
You could root (spell/trap) him and just deny his melee attacks if you want to annoy him/keep him off a fight.

[rrwoods]

3. How can a level 1 character afford all of this stuff? :smallconfused:
This. A level 1 character's AC usually isn't this high (though as others have pointed out that's not necessarily a problem). Part of the reason is usually they can't afford to get it this high.

What armor is he using that has +4 armor bonus and max dex +5 (or more)? My guess is the bog-standard mithral shirt, which is an 1100 gp item -- something else that he shouldn't be able to afford at level 1.

If he's buying these things fairly, then presumably your other players also have this much money to spend and are using it on things other than AC. You may or may not find those other things to be much more of a problem, depending on the group's optimization disparity.

[Jay R]

And he could afford it because we are playing with Apprentice levels, and it takes a long time for my players to level :)

Then don't compare him to a standard level one character. He is way above 1st level in wealth, and that affects his AC.

[dboxcar]

With regard to the secondary original question;

he can attack once with one of his natural attacks as a standard action. As a full-round, he can attack once with each, but all except the "primary" one (probably bite) take a -5 to-hit (up to -2 with the Multiattack feat) and only add half Str to damage

[Zanos]

And he could afford it because we are playing with Apprentice levels, and it takes a long time for my players to level :) Again, thank you both for your help.
That is the cause of this, then. A level one character doesn't usually have a couple thousand in wealth to go around. Any character with heavy armor proficiency and 12 dex could have 20 AC with full plate, 22 with a heavy shield, and 24 with a tower shield, and would have spent less money.

For reference, 21 AC isn't crazy high, even at level 1. It's very good, certainly, but with starting wealth most frontline classes can easily afford, say, scale mail and a heavy shield, for 17 AC before dexterity.

[Necroticplague]

AC is mostly unrelated to level. AC scales with money. A higher level PC doesn't have more AC because of his class features (with some exceptions). He has higher AC because he has more wealth with with which to buy items that improve his AC. If the PC has more money than usual for his level, it's to be expected his AC is ahead of the curve.

[CharonsHelper]

And he could afford it because we are playing with Apprentice levels, and it takes a long time for my players to level :) Again, thank you both for your help.

You should try to avoid that. Generally stick to the ballpark of Wealth by Level or it throws game balance out of whack, especially jacking up AC. AC is gotten almost entirely through wealth, while offense is gained primarily through levels.

[Firest Kathon]

Bracers of protection for +1 AC

Assuming the bracers of protection are giving a deflection bonus to AC and not an armor bonus, then yes, those all stack.

To clarify this: There is no standard item called "Bracers of protection", however there are two similary-named items:

Bracers of armor (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/bracers-of-armor): These give an armor bonus to AC, and do not stack with the armor bonus given by actual armor (only the higher value applies)
Ring of protection (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/rings/ring-of-protection): It gives a deflection bonus to AC and does stack with armor

You could, however, have a custom magic item which gives the same AC bonus as the Ring of Protection, but using the arms slot.



Also, he is playing a catfolk so he has claw, claw, bite.
Does he do all of them with no minuses?

Yes. See here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules#TOC-Natural-Attacks). Both claws and bite are primary natural attacks, so they use the full attack bonus. However, if he uses a manufactured weapon in one (or more) of the hands, the remaining attacks are automatically secondary natural attacks and take a -5 penalty (-2 with Multiattack (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/monster-feats/multiattack-combat)).

[Scorponok]

stacking AC isn't that OP it may seem. Only if your enemies are stupid low rank soldiers it's of use. Any Spell or anything else that forces a Save-roll will effect him. Enough ways to overcome the players AC, don't get afraid.
You could root (spell/trap) him and just deny his melee attacks if you want to annoy him/keep him off a fight.

As an addendum to this, magic missile, color spray, sleep, cause fear and touch spells (though the high DEX might make it harder) would take a level 1 character down pretty easily, regardless of how high his AC is.

[Gallowglass]

Most everything has been covered, but I will add that if he uses the claw attack on the arm with the buckler, he will lose the bucklers whopping +1 to AC for the round that he uses the claw attack.

I know, I know, that will make all the difference.

[CharonsHelper]

Most everything has been covered, but I will add that if he uses the claw attack on the arm with the bracer, he will lose the bracers whopping +1 to AC for the round that he uses the claw attack.

I know, I know, that will make all the difference.

No. That's only for bucklers, not magical bracers.

[Gallowglass]

No. That's only for bucklers, not magical bracers.



... he is using a buckler for a +1 to AC, ...

I mean buckler, not bracer. Editted post.

[CharonsHelper]

I mean buckler, not bracer. Editted post.

Then I totally agree. In addition to the attack penalty for having the buckler on your arm.(Though in 3.5 there was a feat to keep the AC. One of the things my home group banned and I was very happy that Pathfinder didn't replicate.)

[Inevitability]

Then I totally agree. In addition to the attack penalty for having the buckler on your arm.(Though in 3.5 there was a feat to keep the AC. One of the things my home group banned and I was very happy that Pathfinder didn't replicate.)

Why? Spending a feat for +1 AC is by no means overpowered. I've seen people houserule Dodge as a stacking +1 AC bonus and still have no one pick it.

[Necroticplague]

Why? Spending a feat for +1 AC is by no means overpowered. I've seen people houserule Dodge as a stacking +1 AC bonus and still have no one pick it.

While I agree with you on principle (i.e, the feat is balanced or a bit on the weak side), I'd like to point out that bucklers can be enchanted, so that can be one feat for +6 AC.

[Inevitability]

While I agree with you on principle (i.e, the feat is balanced or a bit on the weak side), I'd like to point out that bucklers can be enchanted, so that can be one feat for +6 AC.

Fair point: I didn't think of that.

[Tanuki Tales]

Why? Spending a feat for +1 AC is by no means overpowered. I've seen people houserule Dodge as a stacking +1 AC bonus and still have no one pick it.

And Pathfinder did do this with dodge.

AC is really meaningless once you starting getting to decent BAB and strength levels. Unless you really sink money into it and can push it into...what, the 40s-60s?

[DarkSonic1337]

While I agree with you on principle (i.e, the feat is balanced or a bit on the weak side), I'd like to point out that bucklers can be enchanted, so that can be one feat for +6 AC.

Considering all the things feats can do...I still wouldn't take a feat for +6 to AC. (just get an animated shield instead).

[CharonsHelper]

And Pathfinder did do this with dodge.

AC is really meaningless once you starting getting to decent BAB and strength levels. Unless you really sink money into it and can push it into...what, the 40s-60s?

It's not that hard to keep your AC relevant. Even if you don't sink too much gold, it's very easy to make it relevant vs iterative attacks. (Really - that was the logic of the design of iterative attacks in the first place; they make various ACs matter more. Against someone with +30 to hit with two iterative attacks, having a 32 AC is much better than having a 22 AC, even though the first swing will hit on a 2+ either way, the 32 AC has a good chance of one of the iterative attacks missing.)

[CharonsHelper]

Considering all the things feats can do...I still wouldn't take a feat for +6 to AC. (just get an animated shield instead).

Yet another thing my 3.5 group banned and I'm glad Pathfinder did away with.

[Tanuki Tales]

It's not that hard to keep your AC relevant. Even if you don't sink too much gold, it's very easy to make it relevant vs iterative attacks. (Really - that was the logic of the design of iterative attacks in the first place; they make various ACs matter more. Against someone with +30 to hit with two iterative attacks, having a 32 AC is much better than having a 22 AC, even though the first swing will hit on a 2+ either way, the 32 AC has a good chance of one of the iterative attacks missing.)

A 32 isn't really going to help you once you get closer and closer to taking on end game threats though.

The higher the level, the more likely iterative attacks are going to hit, which is why melee devolves into rocket tag.

[CharonsHelper]

A 32 isn't really going to help you once you get closer and closer to taking on end game threats though.

The higher the level, the more likely iterative attacks are going to hit, which is why melee devolves into rocket tag.

I was in no way saying that an AC of 32 would be sufficient at level 20. Please don't take my example out of context.

At 18-20, it's not at all difficult to get an AC well into the 40's, and with a bit of effort into the 50's.

Ex: +5 Mithril full plate (+13/14) / +3 Dex / +5 ring / +5 AoNA / +5 shield (+7) / +1 ioun stone

That's 44 right there without even really trying (45 in Pathfinder), and that's pre-buffing, and not counting any potential class abilities etc.

[Tanuki Tales]

I was in no way saying that an AC of 32 would be sufficient at level 20. Please don't take my example out of context.

It wasn't out of context.


AC is really meaningless once you starting getting to decent BAB and strength levels. Unless you really sink money into it and can push it into...what, the 40s-60s?

That was my clarification question.



It's not that hard to keep your AC relevant. Even if you don't sink too much gold, it's very easy to make it relevant vs iterative attacks. (Really - that was the logic of the design of iterative attacks in the first place; they make various ACs matter more. Against someone with +30 to hit with two iterative attacks, having a 32 AC is much better than having a 22 AC, even though the first swing will hit on a 2+ either way, the 32 AC has a good chance of one of the iterative attacks missing.)

Your response.

[CharonsHelper]

It wasn't out of context.

Yes it was.

You made no mention of the level you were talking about. No context at all.

I made the context of the AC 32 relative to a +30 to hit so that it had some measure of context. (Obviously not level 20.)

[Tanuki Tales]

Yes it was.

You made no mention of the level you were talking about. No context at all.


Now you're just being disingenuous. At what level is this hypothetical +30 attack bonus being levied against our intrepid, AC 32 PC?

I also never specified level 20, just "end game threats" and "as you get higher level", it was you who specified level 20.

[vasilidor]

yes it is entirely possible to keep ac relevant through out the entire game. what is actually more difficult is defending against other forms of attacks, i.e. high end save or suck, at least for some character types. also sometimes it can be difficult just getting characters into a position where they can deal damage effectively. a high ac should be expected form some character concepts, that being the entire point of some builds. what should be more worrisome is if you get an archer capable of dishing out an average of 100 points of damage at level 10 with that kind of wealth spread around (though admittedly we did house rule dexterity to damage for ranged attacks, which accounted for about twenty to thirty points). max for that particular character was 160, and about to go up to 224 (extra attack from level, extra arrow from feat, already had access to a item with haste). the scary part was i actually wasted a good chunk of my wealth throwing parties. i good have had an extra +5 vorpal blade for what i blew on those. I was also the only party member optimized for combat.

[Troacctid]

Now you're just being disingenuous. At what level is this hypothetical +30 attack bonus being levied against our intrepid, AC 32 PC?
Probably in the 10–12 range, since that's around when level-appropriate monsters start to get that kind of bonus, on average. Definitely not at level 20—attack bonuses are much higher there.

[vasilidor]

actually a quick cursory glance at some cr 11 monsters (a dragon, a demon, and a golem) reveal that the average attack bonus for that range is +20. I have had a AC of 28 by level 7 before in a 3.5 game on a sword sage.

[CharonsHelper]

actually a quick cursory glance at some cr 11 monsters (a dragon, a demon, and a golem) reveal that the average attack bonus for that range is +20. I have had a AC of 28 by level 7 before in a 3.5 game on a sword sage.

I believe that the general rule is that an AC of 15+level is decent, and 20+level is solid, though it starts to break down around 12-14 when your AC really needs to be higher than those formulae.

Anyway - here is the Pathfinder #s for monster creation (obviously many individual monsters don't fit - but it's a decent ballpark.) - http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/monster-creation

At CR 11 high attack is +19 & low attack is +14.

At CR 20 high attack is +30 & low attack is +23. (I actually didn't even look at this table when I did my theoretical +30 attack bonus above.)

Both seem a bit low, but that might be for monsters with quite a few attacks, using Power Attack, and/or pre-buffing.

[vasilidor]

I just checked the high end hitters, now that i think of it. that said it is pretty darn easy for a fighter using wealth by level (and probably a couple feats) to get ac in the thirties by that point.

[Necroticplague]

Yet another thing my 3.5 group banned and I'm glad Pathfinder did away with.

O.k, that just seems like an incredibly odd things to be hating on. What's wrong with hands-free shields (since that's the commonality between buckler and animated, I assume that's the problem)?

[CharonsHelper]

O.k, that just seems like an incredibly odd things to be hating on. What's wrong with hands-free shields (since that's the commonality between buckler and animated, I assume that's the problem)?

Because part of what makes a game system interesting is options, each with pros & cons. If one option is far better than all other options, then it invalidates those other options, drastically reducing real player choice and player agency.

Edit: good example here (Extra Credits ep about player agency) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q7ECX5FaX0 - at 2:30ish is a perfect example of what I'm talking about

[Necroticplague]

Because part of what makes a game system interesting is options, each with pros & cons. If one option is far better than all other options, then it invalidates those other options, drastically reducing real player choice and player agency.

Edit: good example here (Extra Credits ep about player agency) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q7ECX5FaX0 - at 2:30ish is a perfect example of what I'm talking about

Even if hands-free shields exist, that doesn't automatically make them the superior option for everyone. Monks won't take any kind of shield, hands free or not, for example. There's also the fact that hands-free sheilds cost money. Money that could be spent on something else. So you still have to make a choice: do I want the AC the shield provides me (and penalties, if applicable), or do I want something else that money can buy me?

[CharonsHelper]

Even if hands-free shields exist, that doesn't automatically make them the superior option for everyone. Monks won't take any kind of shield, hands free or not, for example. There's also the fact that hands-free sheilds cost money. Money that could be spent on something else. So you still have to make a choice: do I want the AC the shield provides me (and penalties, if applicable), or do I want something else that money can buy me?

At high levels a +3 shield (+1 Animated) is almost nothing (9.2k) considering that it gives a +3 bonus to your AC (+2 for casters since they get a light shield to avoid spell failure). That makes it so that no one past level 8ish will ever not have an animated shield unless they are intentionally gimping themselves, which renders useless all other ways to get a shield bonus. (And if you're playing a 3.5 monk, you're already choosing terrible options, so it's a moot point for you I suppose.) It makes Sword & board worthless, as being -2 AC for all of the advantages of fighting two-handed is a bargain.

[rrwoods]

At high levels a +3 shield (+1 Animated) is almost nothing (9.2k) considering that it gives a +3 bonus to your AC (+2 for casters since they get a light shield to avoid spell failure). That makes it so that no one past level 8ish will ever not have an animated shield unless they are intentionally gimping themselves, which renders useless all other ways to get a shield bonus. (And if you're playing a 3.5 monk, you're already choosing terrible options, so it's a moot point for you I suppose.) It makes Sword & board worthless, as being -2 AC for all of the advantages of fighting two-handed is a bargain.

I'm almost certain that I'll have better things to spend money on than +3 AC at level 8-10 as a whisper gnome swordsage. But not completely certain.

There is a real choice here. It's not "how do I increase my AC" but rather "do I increase my AC". The viewpoint that thinks that "the only shields are animated shields" presents a non decision is a viewpoint that has already locked themselves into using a shield at all, which (ironically) has turned something that should be a decision into a non decision.

There will always be nonviable options in any game. The fact that sword and board is non viable in 3.5 at mid-op tables is not (necessarily) a flaw.

[CharonsHelper]

The viewpoint that thinks that "the only shields are animated shields" presents a non decision is a viewpoint that has already locked themselves into using a shield at all, which (ironically) has turned something that should be a decision into a non decision.

Normally using shields or not would be an actual choice. However, getting a +1 Animated Shield is just over 3k per AC. That means that you should get it before upgrading your ring of protection or AoNA to +2 as that costs 6k for +1 AC.

[lord_khaine]

So yes? that just means its yet another thing that has a more effective way of being done? In the same way that you will want to get an amulet of natural armor +1 before you upgrade your ring of protection to +2?
Its not like using a shield in most cases are not strictly inferior to going with either 2 weapons or one larger weapon. At least unless you have buffed shields somehow.

Not to mention 9k is still a pretty nice chunk of cash for most characters, who in a lot of cases has other things to use it on.

[Necroticplague]

Normally using shields or not would be an actual choice. However, getting a +1 Animated Shield is just over 3k per AC. That means that you should get it before upgrading your ring of protection or AoNA to +2 as that costs 6k for +1 AC.

And? You could say the same for pretty much all armor as well, due to the wondrous items being on an exponential curve of cost to benefit, while all armor is on a less steep curve. Because you know what else is 3k/AC? Simply upgrading your armor from being masterwork to +3 armor. So yes, if you're going for AC, you upgrade your shield and armor first. This is true regardless of whether Animated shields exist or not.

[CharonsHelper]

And? You could say the same for pretty much all armor as well, due to the wondrous items being on an exponential curve of cost to benefit, while all armor is on a less steep curve. Because you know what else is 3k/AC? Simply upgrading your armor from being masterwork to +3 armor. So yes, if you're going for AC, you upgrade your shield and armor first. This is true regardless of whether Animated shields exist or not.

Yes, but you can get both, and it negates all other ways go gain a shield bonus by its ease & cheapness. Only wealth cost with no opportunity character cost.

In Pathfinder sword & board is a very viable combat style. It's great for secondary combatants in general (cleric/bard etc.), and it's solid for primary combatants who go TWF, with slightly lower damage than standard TWF & an extra feat cost, but with boosted AC.

Edit: If you're okay with reduced viable options, that's fine. But a large part of why I like RPGs is the player agency, and that includes various viable mechanical choices.

[DarkSonic1337]

Sometimes I actually don't get an animated shield because of the exponential increase. I do need to fit soulfire onto that buckler after all (my DM ruled that we can't use animated shield to wield EXTRA shields). Sometimes I just...don't buy AC (I was a gish with enough no buttons that I just didn't need it lol).