Am I justified? Would like opinions.

[Xaroth]

The edition is 3.5e using some 3e materials, and the campaign is my own homebrew campaign using many of the books I have at my disposal, from all the monster manuals to the fiend folio to monsters of faerun to tome of battle to deities and demigods, and the list goes on.

To preface this: My party, currently, doesn't seem to have any issues. I'm just worried personally as a DM whether or not what I'm doing seems right or not, based on the opinions of people here. If your opinion didn't matter, I wouldn't be here. Don't be afraid to criticise me.

So at the moment the party consists of the following:


Human Knight 11 w/ his Dire Lion
Human Cleric 10
Dragonkin Bard 6/Crusader 2/Jade Phoenix Mage 2/Sublime Chord 1
Gnome Barbarian 10
Skeleton (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?128511-3-5e-Skeletons-as-an-LA-0-PC-Race) Wizard 10 (Homebrew race because he made the effort for a backstory for it)
Elf Rogue 10

Recently, I had an issue with the Cleric of the party. He was obsessed with having high AC, and I felt I had to end up countering it so that there wasn't a healing machine walking around the battlefield basically invulnerable to anything but a natural 20. He had an AC of 39 at one point, and I ended up busting out a Werewolf Lord (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Werewolf_Lord) in Hybrid Form. They didn't take really kindly to it because for some members in the party, it was impossible for the thing to miss unless it rolled a 1.

When I realised that my options for encounters boiled down to the enemy being able to hit the healer only on a 20, or the enemy being able to hit everyone else on a 4 or lower, it struck me that hey: Something's really off, and I should do something about this, because a 10th level Cleric should not have AC on par with Bel, Lord of the First, before spells. The problem with that was, if I went with the former, nobody would die because the cleric would be healing everyone without a care in the world. But if I went with the former, not only did nobody really stand a chance as far as avoiding damage, and the damage would be incredibly high due to the strength granting a high to-hit.

I sat down with my party and talked for a while with them, went over our options, and the cleric brought up that he felt he had to have high AC because of how I was changing the encounters for higher attack rolls. When I explained that I was changing them for higher attacks to counteract the ridiculous AC, he understood, and we realised that we'd unintentionally been countering each other without realising that we were both at fault. I didn't really understand that, as a Cleric, he's going to be up closer to the front lines, and I didn't consider that he'd be taking damage that much. So I helped him find some damage reduction items in place of his AC items, and when we got to what we felt was a reasonable AC - he was on par with the Knight, now - we agreed to call it a night and I made sure they knew that I appreciated their willingness to talk about it, and not get overly defensive and rage quit.

I seriously got lucky with this group. I don't know what I did to deserve them. They're funny, they're patient, they understand when to take things seriously and they enjoy the RP of it! And what's more, so many of them are on at once, and I really appreciate it, despite them being from all across the world. This is just me gushing about them a bit, I'll get back to the meat of it.

Since then, whenever the members of my party have asked me whether or not they can get something or purchase something, I've gotten more strict. I denied the barbarian, who's the hardest hitter in the party at the moment, teeth slot magic items. I forget the name of them exactly but one of them gave Earthquake 3/day for like 43k, which due to the loot that they've acquired and other such stuff, is actually affordable. I also denied someone the Starmantle cloak (no damage from non-magic weapons and Reflex save 15 to half damage) despite my own character having it (he isn't a part of the campaign, I only use him for mock battles in order to determine the power of someone's character).

One thing that was suggested during the counteracting AC discussion was giving warblade levels to enemies to let them get touch attacks, or something of the sort. And I just felt like it would be too much trouble, adjusting possible mobs with warblade levels so that they can actually hit members of the party when I have the quests and story and possible different outcomes to upcoming scenarios on the way.

And ultimately, the Dragonkin in the party has a lot of experience with 3.5e much like myself, but he has a bit too much fun when it comes to optimization. Initially, he was hitting ACs of about 50, and then I told him "You're a bard, and yet you're making the rest of the party completely and utterly redundant. You need to tone yourself down", to which he agreed. But now, despite being the bard still, he's turned himself into the party's secret weapon. He gets like 6 natural attacks and blood rage from the instruments set from the Magic Item Compendium, and with his buffs, he can hit really high, though he has a low AC, and gives 6d6 fire damage to the party through dragonfire inspiration while doing it. To put this into perspective, the Barbarian can currently only hit thrice, once with each end of his Gnome Hooked Hammer at max BAB, and once with the flat end at BAB - 5. The bard was the party member that wanted the Starmantle Cloak as well.

So, to kinda sum it up, I suppose my questions are as follows:

Was it lazy of me or reasonable of me to say I didn't want to adjust mobs with Warblade levels?
Would it be bad of me to ask the Dragonkin to tone himself down further?
Is it bad of me to deny these things, to keep them down at a level more in line with the party and the encounters I have planned, rather than helping the rest of the party keep up?
And finally, is there anything that it seems like I'm doing wrong? I'm kinda concerned. These guys are amazing and extremely patient with me, and I worry that I'm not giving them the experience they deserve. I've asked them, and they believe that I'm doing a great job thus far, they thoroughly enjoy it and look forward to it week after week, though the person with more experience did tell me privately that he believes the story elements could've been prepared better, and I agree: I didn't expect this group to last, and my pessimism led to me being unprepared for the greatest group I'd ever host.

If you did read this the whole way through, thanks a bunch for listening to me rant, and even if you don't give any feedback, hope you have a great day!

[JustIgnoreMe]

Your cleric is healing during fights? Most people around here seem to think that's a terrible use of a cleric's actions.

Sounds like your Bard is somewhat optimised and your Barbarian is... a Martial character struggling to keep up with casters.

[Xaroth]

Your cleric is healing during fights? Most people around here seem to think that's a terrible use of a cleric's actions.

Sounds like your Bard is somewhat optimised and your Barbarian is... a Martial character struggling to keep up with casters.

Yeah, he heals up during fights in order to make sure people don't die, in addition to using Revivify.

The Bard is the most experienced player, so...yeah. The Cleric and the Rogue both sorta have experience but not tons, while everybody else was completely new to D&D. I approached it as a new group.

[OldTrees1]

1. No, there is nothing unreasonable about saying you don't want to give every mook a Warblade level.

Although for future cases I should note some game design: The idea about adding touch attacks was to expand the meaningful range of AC values. You would want the attacks that resort to touch AC to be weaker than the other attacks so it goes something like 10% hit for normal or 40% hit for weaker. That way the high AC character knows that they are too well protected for normal attacks and they are working on their protection vs the precise(touch) attacks.

2. Asking the bard to tone down further is a valid option, but so is strengthening the barbarian. There is a balancing act here.

3. People tend to like buffs and dislike nerfs. However it is easier to change 1 thing than change everything but 1 thing. I suggest being mildly biased towards buffing the weak (be they a relatively weak PC or your encounters). However use both tools since they each have a place.

4. You are doing well. Think about that Cleric AC situation. That went nearly perfect (obviously better communication sooner would have been better). Try to learn why it went so well. That knowledge should help your confidence.

[ace rooster]

If his AC is sky high, don't attack AC. heck, don't even attack him! Even fairly stupid mooks will realise pretty quick that their weapons are not getting through, and will try something else. From memory, I believe revify is a touch spell, so you don't need to kill the cleric to prevent it. You just need to keep the cleric away from the target that they want to revify. Tripping or grappling are options, even for those without the feats to boost them. After the first revify, moving bodies away from the cleric is also a fairly obvious tactic. A strong enemy could ready an action to bull rush anyone that attempts to touch the bodies.

I would just let him have his AC of no, and try to work around it. It cannot win encounters on it's own, so is not a game ending power.

[Sian]

yeah, instead of targeting the Cleric's regular AC, start sprinkling opponents that target his saves (Reflex being the most obvious one for Cleric) or have some way of attacking Touch AC, or looking into locking him down with battleground control (I'm waging his balance skill is fairly pitiful so a simple Grease should do the trick) ... only sprinkle through since otherwise you'd de-facto pummel him with a disguised nerf-bat

[Zombimode]

And finally, is there anything that it seems like I'm doing wrong? I'm kinda concerned. These guys are amazing and extremely patient with me, and I worry that I'm not giving them the experience they deserve. I've asked them, and they believe that I'm doing a great job thus far, they thoroughly enjoy it and look forward to it week after week, though the person with more experience did tell me privately that he believes the story elements could've been prepared better, and I agree: I didn't expect this group to last, and my pessimism led to me being unprepared for the greatest group I'd ever host.

Focusing on this Point: well, saying you are doing something "wrong" is difficult. As Long as you and your Players are having a good time, you are doing it right.
From the limited perspective I got from reading your post, there are some Points that got my Attention.

First, some of those numbers seem... suspicious. Sure, AC 39 or Attack Bonus of +40 is not impossible at this Level, but for the most part you have to jump through very specific hoops to get there (being an Outsider and using Alter Self to transform into an Dwarven Ancestor for the AC, for instance). As most of those hoops are in the realm of "well, I don't think this is how the rules were intended" they are rather easy to adress.
Buuut... before you do anything as DM, the first Thing you should do is to check if the Players builds actually work. Just because a Player claims that something works doesn't mean they are correct. And from what you've written I do get the Impression that not everything your Players do is within the realm of the rules.

For istance, the "teeth Slot item". Yeah, a teeth Slot doesn't exists. Thats an indication that this Player does not really know (or care about) the rules.


Then there is the whole issue of adjusting your Encounters to the PCs abilities. I highly advise against that. You have discovered a reason why this is often a bad idea. The General Problem with this practice is that if you are invalidating the Players choices. It goes both ways: if you are adjusting the Attack Bonus, you are invalidating the Players choice to be hard to hit. If you avoid using undeads/constructs etc. to accomodate the characters relying on sneak attack you are taking away the Players responsibility for their choices and to come up with solution to deal with those situations.
So, before making any adjustments out of behalf of the PCs abilities, stop and reconsider: is this actually worth it?


As an aside: AC is just one defense. There are Touch AC, attacks that target saves, and attacks that ignore both saves and AC. Grapple also cares only for touch AC and then only for starting a grapple.
Having one character of many to have a high AC is not really an issue anyway. The other character provide you with enough Targets.

[Nibbens]

1. No, there is nothing unreasonable about saying you don't want to give every mook a Warblade level.

Although for future cases I should note some game design: The idea about adding touch attacks was to expand the meaningful range of AC values. You would want the attacks that resort to touch AC to be weaker than the other attacks so it goes something like 10% hit for normal or 40% hit for weaker. That way the high AC character knows that they are too well protected for normal attacks and they are working on their protection vs the precise(touch) attacks.

2. Asking the bard to tone down further is a valid option, but so is strengthening the barbarian. There is a balancing act here.

3. People tend to like buffs and dislike nerfs. However it is easier to change 1 thing than change everything but 1 thing. I suggest being mildly biased towards buffing the weak (be they a relatively weak PC or your encounters). However use both tools since they each have a place.

4. You are doing well. Think about that Cleric AC situation. That went nearly perfect (obviously better communication sooner would have been better). Try to learn why it went so well. That knowledge should help your confidence.

OldTrees1 has the right of it. Out of game discussion went really well for you - and you handled it considerably well.

Here's my thought: HP is not the only resource. Every encounter is made to be a drain on resources, no matter how slight. If your characters get wounded a little from a APL -1 or APL fight and the cleric busts out several lower powered cures or one mass cure, then you've caused a drain on resources and the fight was a success. Even if the fight only ended in just a few spell levels and per/days being used, then it was a success.

Many people go on about the worthlessness of fighters, but from a balancing perspective it makes sense. The fighter doesn't burn spell levels (a resource drain) to cause big bursts of damage like a caster does, but instead causes a significantly lower amount of damage (and has less utility) than their robe-wearing counterparts for zero resource expenditure. His resource drain comes from easily recovered HP loss and having the other characters support him.

Maybe, hitting your cleric isn't the point. Maybe just him burning through his healing spells or per/days is resource drain enough. You're getting to a level where death doesn't even challenge your PCs, so a shift in mentality is also necessary on the part of the DM.

However, would also like to add one more bit of advice. I don't know how your encounters are structured, but this may help: Instead of relying on 4-6 Cr appropriate creatures all the time as a suitable challenge, use 3-5 Cr appropriate creatures, and 4-20 Highly CR under-appropriate enemies. Point being, action economy is where encounter difficulty is at. Fights take longer and burn more resources (like higher level spells) to deal with an army of minions, than it does to focus fire on just a few CR appropriate baddies.

[OldTrees1]

For istance, the "teeth Slot item". Yeah, a teeth Slot doesn't exists. Thats an indication that this Player does not really know (or care about) the rules.

1st 3rd of the Tome of Magic. The Tooth magic item is a slotless magic item that goes in your jaw(you replace one of your teeth). A common one for warriors to take is the Cl 20 Greater Magic Weapon 1/day Tooth.

[Darth Ultron]

Justified, sure. It worked out ok.

Talking is ''great''....when it works. And it does not always work.

And you have set yourself up to do this 100's of more times...for each player and ability and power and such. But that is what ''talking'' gets you, and it is great as long as it works.

[OldTrees1]

Justified, sure. It worked out ok.

Talking is ''great''....when it works. And it does not always work.

And you have set yourself up to do this 100's of more times...for each player and ability and power and such. But that is what ''talking'' gets you, and it is great as long as it works.

Talking, aka communicating, is what strengthens and maintains good relationships.
Teamwork is what strengthens and maintains a cooperative group dynamic.
These and many more benefits go to groups that ignore Darth Ultron's advice.

[CharonsHelper]

Curious - how did the cleric get his AC that high?

Was he within the normal WBL guidelines? It's generally tough to get your AC too much above 20+level.

Also - it sounds like everyone else's AC kinda sucks. 15+level is the general rule for anyone even thinking about melee, and around 10ish that realistically goes up a bit. The other melee characters should probably be around 30ish to be respectable.

[Zombimode]

1st 3rd of the Tome of Magic. The Tooth magic item is a slotless magic item that goes in your jaw(you replace one of your teeth). A common one for warriors to take is the Cl 20 Greater Magic Weapon 1/day Tooth.

Ah, the Teeth of Dahlver-Nar.
On forums the teeth are mentioned quite often... although one has to assume that those people suggesting them simply ignore the parts of the effects the teeth have on your character they don't like.
On tables where the DM is not a doormat I don't think the Teeth of Dahlver-Nar are all that common... for more then one reason.

[Nibbens]

Curious - how did the cleric get his AC that high?

Was he within the normal WBL guidelines? It's generally tough to get your AC too much above 20+level.

Also - it sounds like everyone else's AC kinda sucks. 15+level is the general rule for anyone even thinking about melee, and around 10ish that realistically goes up a bit. The other melee characters should probably be around 30ish to be respectable.

Just a thought, does 3.5 do away with stacking of bonuses like PF does, or is that one of the things that PF changed. I can't recall. Because, stacking is king - if you want to reach absurd levels.

[Blu]

Pardon my intrusion, but 39 AC cleric sounds a bit... Can you explain how the player achieved that?

The issue for you seems that you have 2 players that are mid op their characters while the rest are new players(that probably are not or just optimizng a little). Well, toning down or asking the players to do so is the easy solution, but has you stated it's also hard on the player. Managing a way to buff the others characters in a discrete way seems the solution that can make everyone happy, but also one of the hardest. I will list some solutions that poped in to my head.

A) Help the new players optimize their characters, go easy on them on retraining rules so that eventually they can achieve a power level closer to the other characters, help them pick items, feats and etc. Problem here is that is really a solution on the long term.

B) Give them buffs on their characters, like increased stats, skills or things of the sort. Solves the short term but is not fair and does not help the players improve.

C) Optimize the enemy's to better at fighting the optimized characters while not negating their abilitys. Possibly the hardest to do, not fair but solves the issues.

You can also bring the issue to the table and discuss with your players what do they think about it.

[CasualViking]

Everything from every book with “of Faerun" or "Forgotten Realms" in the title should be banned by default, and only allowed after careful consideration.

[Stealth Marmot]

If you want stuff that hits touch AC you literally need nothing more than alchemists fire or acid bottles.

Or a wizard. Or a grappling monster.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a character having an obnoxiously high AC so long as you balance out your encounters to have it so some things use things besides AC (reflex saves for example) or hit touch AC. But if he invests so much into AC, no reason he shouldn't be protected from a lot of things.

A rogue with a high reflex save and improved evasion is all but invulnerable to most reflex save requirements, why should a cleric be different if he invests in AC boosting items? You need to keep in mind the opportunity cost of such a move.

Let's assume he is using a heavy steel shield, and plate armor. That's 21 AC just from the bonuses. Assuming he went the Mithril armor route, he at best gets a +3 from dexterity. Total 24 AC. That's 15 AC needed to account for. Assuming a +2 ring of protection, +5 armor, +5 Shield, and a +2 Natural armor amulet, and a dusty rose ioun stone, that is an investment of... almost exactly 100k gold. (I won't bore you with the calculations, I'm assuming a lot about their equipment anyway)

That's well above the WBL guidelines for a level 10ish character.

[CharonsHelper]

Just a thought, does 3.5 do away with stacking of bonuses like PF does, or is that one of the things that PF changed. I can't recall. Because, stacking is king - if you want to reach absurd levels.

PF allows stacking - just not of the same type - which I know was the case in 3.5, and I think in 3.0 too. (Though Pathfinder did limit some of the item stacking with things such as all physical stats going to the belt etc.)

But with mithril full plate, a heavy shield, and a dex of 16 (with gloves of dex) that's a 24 AC. Put +3 on the armor & shield, and give +2 on ring of prot & amulet of nat armor and you're at a 34 AC. 35 AC if you're small sized. That's only a bit over 1/2 of standard WBL.

Without spells or class/racial abilities, they might have burned the rest of their wealth on getting armor & shield up to +4 & a dusty ioun stone. That's put a medium sized character at 37. Maybe Dodge? Another feat or two?

The above 34-35 AC is just over 1/2 WBL spend on AC (maybe without a shield) is really pretty standard for a front-liner at level 10-11. At least upper 20's or they're gonna die horribly.

So - it sounds like the cleric made a character which is a bit extreme - and the other characters are all too easy to hit. I'd work to get the other characters up to 30ish (aside from arcane casters) and let the cleric be hard to hit.

But - it sounds like your group is being cool with tweaking.

Edit: Semi-ninja'd

[Darth Ultron]

Talking, aka communicating, is what strengthens and maintains good relationships.
Teamwork is what strengthens and maintains a cooperative group dynamic.
These and many more benefits go to groups that ignore Darth Ultron's advice.

Note also such groups have all the problems that comes from ignoring my advice too.

Your option on things is great in very vague, general ways. Like saying ''everyone likes to have a good time''....most people will agree with that. But such things break down in the real world....

[Segev]

You handled it well. The one advice bit I would give you is to take seriously to heart the realization you and the cleric had together: ramping up the attack rolls in response to him making himself harder to hit only led to a game of one-upsmanship as he felt he had to get higher still.

To elaborate, if you see a person - player or DM - deliberately pushing for something to be unassailably big as a number, you should carefully consider whether this is truly a problem. Look at his other numbers. Look at what he's giving up to achieve it. Consider how to challenge him in ways OTHER than that number. Because - to take AC as it's what was the relevant stat in this case - a near-unassailable AC that he's putting real effort into making as high as possible is a signal that he wants "not being hit by AC attacks" to be a thing for his PC.

Now, it's worth talking about anyway, to make sure it isn't just a generic "trying to get all numbers high" thing. But it is not uncommon for a player to have something he just doesn't want his character to have to worry about. Taking steps to make one's character all but immune to poison doesn't mean the DM should come up with poisons that can overwhelm even him; it means the player would like, if poisons hit the party, to be the one guy who shakes it off. Or at least one of the guys who does.

Your high-AC cleric is still vulnerable to save-inducing effects (even if, as a cleric, his Fort and Will are pretty good). Hit him with a fireball along with the rest of the party.

Again, you've handled it well already; I'm just trying to give some advice on how you can deal with future situations like this one, and how you can recognize them and dodge the escalation problem.

If he's invested in AC and isn't being hit with attack rolls, but he's still taking save-inducing effects, he'll probably shift his focus a bit.


Note also such groups have all the problems that comes from ignoring my advice too.

Your option on things is great in very vague, general ways. Like saying ''everyone likes to have a good time''....most people will agree with that. But such things break down in the real world....

Thing is, in the real world, people who apply your advice don't have fun games, as a general rule. I'm glad your advice works for your table, but in any group I've EVER played with, the GMs who act like you advise are the worst to play with, and don't keep games long.

[Stealth Marmot]

Justified, sure. It worked out ok.

Talking is ''great''....when it works. And it does not always work.

And you have set yourself up to do this 100's of more times...for each player and ability and power and such. But that is what ''talking'' gets you, and it is great as long as it works.
That's...literally what being a DM is about.

I'm not seeing the problem.

[tedcahill2]

Optimization needs to be an everyone or no one type of thing in my opinion.

If you have half the party optimized it makes unoptimized characters feel weak and players jealous, or just upset they made a bad character. It also become impossible to DM effectively, anything that's a challenge for your unoptimized character will be way to easy for the optimized ones and vice versa if you try to challenge your optimized characters.

Regarding the cleric: since he spent so much of his resources on increasing his armor, does he have any real damage potential? If not, then I would suggest the monsters be smart enough to not try and hit him. Make him spend every turn running around healing or doing standard attacks. With an AC as high as his I assume his mobility has suffered. Make him fight highly mobile enemies. Throw in some climbing, balancing, or swimming challenges (assuming his armor check penalty is high).

[Sheogoroth]

1. I think we both have very different gaming philosophies coming in, so I'm not sure that my advice will be of much use to you...

I try to adjust the encounters as little as possible going into the fight from what I had in mind originally. If your characters do something bizarre and game breaking- it's the villains, not you who should adjust their tactics a-la Tucker's Kobolds (http://www.tuckerskobolds.com/) or Steve the Aboleth (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/18sozf/the_adventures_of_steve_the_aboleth/).

It really depends on the story, but my big bads would be throwing grapplers, landmines, splash grenades, breath weapons, and immobilizers at that guy. Good luck getting 39 AC on a cleric in an anti-magic field, bucko! In fact, if they figure out he's basically turning the party unstoppable, they would be EXTREMELY inclined to specifically target him- Explosive rune letter bombs, poison envelopes, death curses, etc.

2.
Again, I think of banning anything that wouldn't cause a massive gaping hole in my plot(teleportation magic in a travel campaign) as taboo at my table.
I let a friend play a leveled down Balor because he really wanted to- and he was really happy up until the moment he was murdered by an angry mob.
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.

3.
I don't see myself as having much responsibility to nanny my players with too much in the way of tailored loot and adventures. If my fighter wants magic Grillz for his teeth, well if he's got the cash, there's probably a wizard kicking around willing to make them! Evil party gets a holy avenger- hilarity ensues. My job is to tell a story, their job is to try to shape it.

4.
I'm sure they would be flattered you care. :smallredface:
But ultimately, if they're having fun you've got nothing to worry about regardless of what it looks like.

[JonathanPDX]

There's already so much great advice in this thread already, here's how I would approach it:
1. Review the characters to make sure they are optimized and not broken. If a couple players each interpret one or two rules incorrectly it can stack up to major imbalance.
2. Make a list of the things the party is good at handling and a list of things they are not prepared for. Touch attacks, AOE spells, anti-magic auras, psionics, grappling tentacle monsters, illusions, etc. You can use this to plan encounters and determine whether or not their requests for magical items are acceptable.
3. Look for unique combinations of elements the party is weak at, or challenge them to "match up" better with their foes. If there's a big guy with a greatsword charging at your squishy wizard and a caster with a ranged touch attack aimed at your cleric then the party needs to adjust their tactics to something smarter than "Hit the guy closest to me." Smart foes will plan around the party's strengths and weaknesses and plan encounters that maximize their odds of winning.
4. Design encounters around resource management and action economy. Make them fight numerous times without a rest, limiting their use of powerful abilities. Make them spend actions leaping from platform to platform, or pulling levers, or lighting torches. My players perk up immediately when the encounter includes an element besides fighting. "Okay, we have to pull the two levers every round to keep the anti-magic aura disabled. Who can defend themselves alone at the switches? Who can afford to give up actions or positioning to take responsibility for it? How do the rest of us protect them while they do this task?"
5. Evaluate their non-combat utility and consider challenges that force them to balance their characters, as opposed to just maxing out AC and damage. They might start investing in different items the first time a clever pickpocket steals their stuff, an illusionist lures them into a trap, or a fast-talking Bard convinces them to do something against their own interests.
6. When in doubt, surprise the players. Give them something unexpected that throws their whole strategy off and forces them to adapt. The Cleric is confident that he can wade in and count on his high AC to protect him. What happens when he swings his mace and all the bad guys go ethereal? Or sprout wings and fly into the air? Or somebody hidden in a tree casts casting Grease and web, or throwing nets down onto him? Or the illusion wears off and he's just smashed his mace right into the king's kidnapped daughter!

It sounds like you're doing great. I love having engaged players who think about their characters. It tells me they can accept a challenge and my job as DM is to create unique situations that push them in more ways than who can roll the highest number.

[Darth Ultron]

That's...literally what being a DM is about.

I'm not seeing the problem.

Well, it starts with the player being a jerk. And if you believe in the in the ''gentleman agreement'' the jerk player violates it right here when they choose to be a jerk.

So what does the DM do? He gets down on his knees and begs the player to not be a jerk. The jerk player up on his jerk high horse and demands the DM do things and change things. I guess some people would say having a jerk force someone to do what they wanted and give the person what they wanted...but only as the jerk started it...is ''compromise''.

So jerk player is happy as a clam as he gets everything they ever wanted. DM is...well, sort of happy he ''fixed that one problem'', but now is forced to live under the jerk players demands...so, er, victory?

And there is nothing stopping jerk player...and all the other players from just doing this all again.

And everyone says ''best way ever''.....

[OldTrees1]

And everyone says ''best way ever''.....

Communication is how you get non jerk players to not accidentally act like jerks and to identify actual jerk players and remove them.

Lack of communication is how you get accidental jerk behavior(like several of your DM suggestions).

[Dagroth]

You do realize that the Cleric could be DMM Persisting Magic Vestment & the spell to enchant your shield (that I can't recall at the moment). Sure does save on WBL, doesn't it?

Or heck, even just casting the spells, if there aren't a lot of fights and enough warning ahead of time.

[Quertus]

I want to yell at you. I really do. And I'm going to. But first, great job! You saw what you thought was a problem, you discussed it with your players, you even went into it with eyes open enough to see where you were in the wrong, too, and you came to a solution that made everyone happy. Keep it up. This is the hallmark of a great GM, and a great person.

Let me explicitly state a grain of wisdom that you seem to already realize: Never get into an arms race with your players, because they cannot win.

However, the lesson you seem to have walked away with - that the GM should meddle - is the wrong* one.

Because, before we even get into that, let's look at the "problem" you were trying to solve: the cleric had a high AC. The guy doing the thankless job of handing out bandaids is really hard to hurt one particular way. And you felt the need to first invalidate his choices by buffing the monsters, and then to take that away from him. Bzzzt, sorry, wrong* answer.

Now, people have given you lots of ways that you can still hurt "cleric in a can": touch attacks, grappling, fireball, etc. Here's the thing: if you start using them to "counter" the cleric, you're still doing it wrong*. That is, a diversity of encounter types, opponents with different strategies and capabilities should already be included in your adventure. You should be able to write the whole thing up, module style, without ever having laid eyes on the PCs, and not suddenly find, oh no, every single one of my encounters targets AC. Your goal should be that no one obvious, trivial thing shuts down 100% of your encounters. It prevents things like this from being a problem in the first place, and provides more variety for your players, which usually equates to making the game more fun than the endless sea of identical encounters.

Trying to micromanage your players is the wrong* approach. Instead, care about whether people are having fun. Was anyone upset that the cleric was unlikely to die while handing out bandaids? If not, why try to change it? Reward the players for making the game fun.

Is a tooth of earthquake - on a muggle, no less! - really going to break your game, and ruin everyone's fun? If not, let him have his fun. If you think so, follow your previous example, and talk to him about it. Probably reactively, rather than proactively.

Same thing with the Dragon born. Is he actively hurting people's fun? If so, talk to him. If not, who cares?

* ok, time for me to get off my soap box. While I believe my advice will serve you - and most anyone else - well, here's the thing: there's no one right way to play the game. Depending on your group - and that includes you - you may have fun without following my advice. You may even find that my advice isn't fun, for y'all. Maybe your players want you to custom tailor every encounter to their strengths and weaknesses. Maybe your players want to get in an arms race with the GM, contrary to my advice. Maybe your players want you to micromanage them. Maybe they want whether they succeed or fail to be on your head. Maybe they'd be happier if you just built and leveled their characters for them. Maybe they'd be happier if they were your characters, not theirs. Maybe they'd be happier with you reading them a story than participating in one. But that doesn't describe me, or anyone I've ever gamed with.

And I'm still on my soap box, aren't I?

[Dagroth]

And I'm still on my soap box, aren't I?

I think your soapbox was on a soapbox, so getting off your soapbox just left you standing on a soapbox. :smalltongue:

[Quertus]

I think your soapbox was on a soapbox, so getting off your soapbox just left you standing on a soapbox. :smalltongue:

That's... Exactly the way I was visualizing it, actually.

[CharonsHelper]

You do realize that the Cleric could be DMM Persisting Magic Vestment & the spell to enchant your shield (that I can't recall at the moment). Sure does save on WBL, doesn't it?


Not really. Smart foes start using Dispel Magic around 10-11, and pretty soon they'll dispel it, losing the wealth and/or exp used on permanency.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You do realize that the Cleric could be DMM Persisting Magic Vestment & the spell to enchant your shield (that I can't recall at the moment). Sure does save on WBL, doesn't it?

Or heck, even just casting the spells, if there aren't a lot of fights and enough warning ahead of time.

OP said that the 39 AC was -before- spells. That's too high not to raise eyebrows at level 10.

I too, would like to see how.

[Xaroth]

OP said that the 39 AC was -before- spells. That's too high not to raise eyebrows at level 10.

I too, would like to see how.

I'm responding to everyone I can in one post but I feel like this is an important point to respond to immediately. I've been refreshing the page to see when new posts come in as I type and do other things irl for the past...uh...2 hours?

He had +2 Ring of Protection, +5 Amulet of Natural Armor, +5 Full Plate, and a +4 animated tower shield. That's 2 + 5 + 13 + 8, in addition to a maximum dex bonus of +1. That comes to a +29 AC bonus, right?

The fact that he was even able to afford this was my own fault. I got too happy giving everyone loot and they ended up amassing enough gold to do it.

EDIT: Dunno why I formatted it weird initially.

EDIT 2: Asked him when he got on, his words: "total of 10 base + 13 plate + 9 shield + 5 deflection + 1 dex + 1 insight". The insight was from the dusty rose ioun, and he had a +5 ring of protection.

[Quertus]

If you're not playing strict with WBL to begin with, it's even easier to boost the weak, if party balance ever becomes an issue.

[Dagroth]

Not really. Smart foes start using Dispel Magic around 10-11, and pretty soon they'll dispel it, losing the wealth and/or exp used on permanency.

Persist Spell Metamagic, using the Divine Metamagic feat and turn attempts... not Permanency.

[Xaroth]

Sorry about taking so long to get back to everyone. I've had a really long, really hard day, and it hasn't gotten any better, so I'm just coming back here for some semblance of hope at things chilling out.


1. No, there is nothing unreasonable about saying you don't want to give every mook a Warblade level.

Although for future cases I should note some game design: The idea about adding touch attacks was to expand the meaningful range of AC values. You would want the attacks that resort to touch AC to be weaker than the other attacks so it goes something like 10% hit for normal or 40% hit for weaker. That way the high AC character knows that they are too well protected for normal attacks and they are working on their protection vs the precise(touch) attacks.

2. Asking the bard to tone down further is a valid option, but so is strengthening the barbarian. There is a balancing act here.

3. People tend to like buffs and dislike nerfs. However it is easier to change 1 thing than change everything but 1 thing. I suggest being mildly biased towards buffing the weak (be they a relatively weak PC or your encounters). However use both tools since they each have a place.

4. You are doing well. Think about that Cleric AC situation. That went nearly perfect (obviously better communication sooner would have been better). Try to learn why it went so well. That knowledge should help your confidence.

I'll keep that first one in mind. As for the bard vs. barbarian, it honestly didn't even pop to mind that there may be a problem with the barbarian's power. He's smashed his way through everything so far without much issue whatsoever with high to-hits and high damage output + lucky crits. I did suggest an alternate path from what he was going for (he was going for Bear Warrior, and is now going for Champion of gw-whatever the hell his name is).

Currently the party can fight CR 13-14 creatures perfectly fine, as a level 10-11 party. I don't really know if they need buffs? It's entirely possible that it's my fault, just due to how much loot I've given them in the past, though. And, thank you for your input about doing well. I'll keep in mind why it went so well.


If his AC is sky high, don't attack AC. heck, don't even attack him! Even fairly stupid mooks will realise pretty quick that their weapons are not getting through, and will try something else. From memory, I believe revify is a touch spell, so you don't need to kill the cleric to prevent it. You just need to keep the cleric away from the target that they want to revify. Tripping or grappling are options, even for those without the feats to boost them. After the first revify, moving bodies away from the cleric is also a fairly obvious tactic. A strong enemy could ready an action to bull rush anyone that attempts to touch the bodies.

I would just let him have his AC of no, and try to work around it. It cannot win encounters on it's own, so is not a game ending power.

Something that strikes me bad here is something someone else in the thread brought up: Jealousy. I know what it's like, being in a party where one guy's nearly untouchable, while everyone else in the party's struggling to fight the opponents. Almost without a doubt, when I work around it or when people don't get rez'd or healed, they're going to turn to the healer and say "Yeah, what the hell, high AC doesn't do you any good when you can't get to us and now we're all dead, thanks" or "Hey, how come you get to have such a high AC? I wanna have such a high AC" and then they forget about the things that are actually important for their character and focus on that instead.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to bring them back down to earth and make them realise what's important for their character, so the latter part isn't a huge issue. But the jealousy part, and the blame-the-healer part, will probably end up happening. And it will probably lead to an argument. And I want to stop that before it happens because it's happened in the past and it ended with the healer just leaving.


yeah, instead of targeting the Cleric's regular AC, start sprinkling opponents that target his saves (Reflex being the most obvious one for Cleric) or have some way of attacking Touch AC, or looking into locking him down with battleground control (I'm waging his balance skill is fairly pitiful so a simple Grease should do the trick) ... only sprinkle through since otherwise you'd de-facto pummel him with a disguised nerf-bat

That's...not a bad idea. I'll think on that. And yeah, one thing about sprouting touch-ac enemies from the ground was that he'd just feel like I'm targeting him with a spring glove that punches him in the face, wrapped in a regular encounter that just seems like a loot fest.


*snip*

I actually pulled the Dwarven Ancestor trick for a boss fight. They loved it.

Honestly, I actually use undead and constructs a lot. The players are in a construct dungeon right now, and the rogue was having a seriously hard time. I decided to houserule something a long while back because the campaign is heavily undead themed (end goal is slaying a god of necromancy), and give the rogue half sneak attack damage on things immune to crits, and it's worked out pretty well. I later found out there was a thing that actually does grant that, but I wasn't sure whether I should say to him "If you want to continue doing this, you need to take this thing" or leave him be, so I let him be for now. EDIT: Found out he just loses trap sense for it, which he doesn't use, so he said he'll take it anyway.

The tooth slot item does exist, as someone else in the thread pointed out.


Here's my thought: HP is not the only resource. Every encounter is made to be a drain on resources, no matter how slight. If your characters get wounded a little from a APL -1 or APL fight and the cleric busts out several lower powered cures or one mass cure, then you've caused a drain on resources and the fight was a success. Even if the fight only ended in just a few spell levels and per/days being used, then it was a success.

*snip*

However, would also like to add one more bit of advice. I don't know how your encounters are structured, but this may help: Instead of relying on 4-6 Cr appropriate creatures all the time as a suitable challenge, use 3-5 Cr appropriate creatures, and 4-20 Highly CR under-appropriate enemies. Point being, action economy is where encounter difficulty is at. Fights take longer and burn more resources (like higher level spells) to deal with an army of minions, than it does to focus fire on just a few CR appropriate baddies.

I never thought about it like that, having to use cures being equal to spending resource. When you put it like that, it is just as important as having HP, isn't it?

And considering that they're coming up to a construct themed boss, I think I'm going to take that idea into account. Recently they faced a boss battle with 3 barbed devils, a skeletal black dragon, a knight guy that took the Knight on a one-on-one fight crippling the rest of the party from their primary tank and damage soaker, and a Grimweird that had fireball and lightning bolt. Also, they were crafted with Destruction Retribution.

I can't take credit for nearly 90% of the idea though, that credit goes to John Longarrow in this thread I started a while back. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?510117-Need-help-with-a-boss-duo-trio!) That guy's incredible, all I did was give the characters some personality and add destruction retribution. If you're reading this John, I appreciate you, buddy.


Curious - how did the cleric get his AC that high?

Was he within the normal WBL guidelines? It's generally tough to get your AC too much above 20+level.

Also - it sounds like everyone else's AC kinda sucks. 15+level is the general rule for anyone even thinking about melee, and around 10ish that realistically goes up a bit. The other melee characters should probably be around 30ish to be respectable.

Knight is at 32 (34 with readied shield), Cleric is now at 32, with 35 having a divine metamagic'd persisted shield of faith. He has +5 full plate and a +5 animated shield. Barb is at around 28. The rogue is at 27. See my response to Kelb for how he got AC that high.


Ah, the Teeth of Dahlver-Nar.
On forums the teeth are mentioned quite often... although one has to assume that those people suggesting them simply ignore the parts of the effects the teeth have on your character they don't like.
On tables where the DM is not a doormat I don't think the Teeth of Dahlver-Nar are all that common... for more then one reason.

Yeah, I kinda flat out said "Nope, nuh uh" to them when I saw them.


Pardon my intrusion, but 39 AC cleric sounds a bit... Can you explain how the player achieved that?

The issue for you seems that you have 2 players that are mid op their characters while the rest are new players(that probably are not or just optimizng a little). Well, toning down or asking the players to do so is the easy solution, but has you stated it's also hard on the player. Managing a way to buff the others characters in a discrete way seems the solution that can make everyone happy, but also one of the hardest. I will list some solutions that popped in to my head.

A) Help the new players optimize their characters, go easy on them on retraining rules so that eventually they can achieve a power level closer to the other characters, help them pick items, feats and etc. Problem here is that is really a solution on the long term.

B) Give them buffs on their characters, like increased stats, skills or things of the sort. Solves the short term but is not fair and does not help the players improve.

C) Optimize the enemy's to better at fighting the optimized characters while not negating their abilitys. Possibly the hardest to do, not fair but solves the issues.

You can also bring the issue to the table and discuss with your players what do they think about it.

I think if anything, I've already gone with option A. After a few months into the campaign, I told everyone "Alright, so. I'm sure that by this point you've found stuff that you want, but are sad that you can't get, because you've already picked a feat for a slot or something. Well, good news everyone! You get a free retrain! You can retrain your character into whatever you like, so long as you stick with the general theme that you went with, and you don't change your equipment", because I felt it'd be strange to see a knight suddenly become a caster while remaining the same person. It was just, weird, in my eyes.

Also, responded to Kelb about how the AC was achieved.


You handled it well. The one advice bit I would give you is to take seriously to heart the realization you and the cleric had together: ramping up the attack rolls in response to him making himself harder to hit only led to a game of one-upsmanship as he felt he had to get higher still.

To elaborate, if you see a person - player or DM - deliberately pushing for something to be unassailably big as a number, you should carefully consider whether this is truly a problem. Look at his other numbers. Look at what he's giving up to achieve it. Consider how to challenge him in ways OTHER than that number. Because - to take AC as it's what was the relevant stat in this case - a near-unassailable AC that he's putting real effort into making as high as possible is a signal that he wants "not being hit by AC attacks" to be a thing for his PC.

Now, it's worth talking about anyway, to make sure it isn't just a generic "trying to get all numbers high" thing. But it is not uncommon for a player to have something he just doesn't want his character to have to worry about. Taking steps to make one's character all but immune to poison doesn't mean the DM should come up with poisons that can overwhelm even him; it means the player would like, if poisons hit the party, to be the one guy who shakes it off. Or at least one of the guys who does.

Your high-AC cleric is still vulnerable to save-inducing effects (even if, as a cleric, his Fort and Will are pretty good). Hit him with a fireball along with the rest of the party.

Again, you've handled it well already; I'm just trying to give some advice on how you can deal with future situations like this one, and how you can recognize them and dodge the escalation problem.

If he's invested in AC and isn't being hit with attack rolls, but he's still taking save-inducing effects, he'll probably shift his focus a bit.

This did make me think about things a lot. Thanks, that was actually really eye opening, and I think that the constructs in the dungeon they're in are going to have a little but of custom work put to them now. Not to make them impossible to kill or anything, just to make them...a little bit more deadly, I suppose. Currently hitty-mc-facey the 252nd is getting a little tiresome for the party, so it was about time I mixed it up more.

Going to stop this post here and continue in the next one.

[CharonsHelper]

I'm responding to everyone I can in one post but I feel like this is an important point to respond to immediately. I've been refreshing the page to see when new posts come in as I type and do other things irl for the past...uh...2 hours?

He had +2 Ring of Protection, +5 Amulet of Natural Armor, +5 Full Plate, and a +4 animated tower shield. That's 2 + 5 + 13 + 8, in addition to a maximum dex bonus of +1. That comes to a +29 AC bonus, right?

The fact that he was even able to afford this was my own fault. I got too happy giving everyone loot and they ended up amassing enough gold to do it.

EDIT: Dunno why I formatted it weird initially.

EDIT 2: Asked him when he got on, his words: "total of 10 base + 13 plate + 9 shield + 5 deflection + 1 dex + 1 insight". The insight was from the dusty rose ioun, and he had a +5 ring of protection.

You had 2 problems.

1. Gave them too much loot.

2. Allowed Animated shields. It was a stupidly OP 3.x enchantment: there is a reason Pathfinder nerfed the heck out of it.

[Deophaun]

Persist Spell Metamagic, using the Divine Metamagic feat and turn attempts... not Permanency.
I just don't know why anyone would bother burning Turn attempts to Persist something that lasts 10 hours.

Also, jumping through all the hoops to make magic vestment a valid candidate in the first place.

[Dagroth]

Currently the party can fight CR 13-14 creatures perfectly fine, as a level 10-11 party. I don't really know if they need buffs? It's entirely possible that it's my fault, just due to how much loot I've given them in the past, though. And, thank you for your input about doing well. I'll keep in mind why it went so well.

My group has done this before, due to high optimization and targeted loot acquisition. We were able to take on CR 19 foes at Levels 13-14.


That's...not a bad idea. I'll think on that. And yeah, one thing about sprouting touch-ac enemies from the ground was that he'd just feel like I'm targeting him with a spring glove that punches him in the face, wrapped in a regular encounter that just seems like a loot fest.

Put a 10' deep pit trap in a room... or even more than one. The monsters know where the traps are, of course, and the Rogue won't notice them unless he's right next to one and looking for it. They don't hurt (1d6-2 damage), but they do split up the party for the couple of rounds it takes to climb out.


I actually pulled the Dwarven Ancestor trick for a boss fight. They loved it.

Honestly, I actually use undead and constructs a lot. The players are in a construct dungeon right now, and the rogue was having a seriously hard time. I decided to houserule something a long while back because the campaign is heavily undead themed (end goal is slaying a god of necromancy), and give the rogue half sneak attack damage on things immune to crits, and it's worked out pretty well. I later found out there was a thing that actually does grant that, but I wasn't sure whether I should say to him "If you want to continue doing this, you need to take this thing" or leave him be, so I let him be for now. EDIT: Found out he just loses trap sense for it, which he doesn't use, so he said he'll take it anyway.

The "Trap Sense" he loses is not the Trapfinding ability. It's the small bonus to saves that he gets if he fails to find/disarm a trap.

Very well worth it if you're fighting a lot of Constructs or Undead.

[JonathanPDX]

He had +2 Ring of Protection, +5 Amulet of Natural Armor, +5 Full Plate, and a +4 animated tower shield. That's 2 + 5 + 13 + 8, in addition to a maximum dex bonus of +1. That comes to a +29 AC bonus, right?[/S]
The fact that he was even able to afford this was my own fault. I got too happy giving everyone loot and they ended up amassing enough gold to do it.
EDIT 2: Asked him when he got on, his words: "total of 10 base + 13 plate + 9 shield + 5 deflection + 1 dex + 1 insight". The insight was from the dusty rose ioun, and he had a +5 ring of protection.

Well that's the problem right there. I don't have 3.5 books in front of me but in Pathfinder math you'd have that character with well over twice their wealth-by-level rating just in AC items. I'm going to guess that said character has more gear than just those AC items, too. So, if you are equipping your party as if they are 4+ levels higher, you literally have nowhere to go. Either they advance in level without gaining any loot (which would feel very weird given the way it's been given out like candy previously) until their toys match their level, or you continue to give loot as they gain exp and the imbalance grows even worse, as you have to keep handing out more and more overpowered equipment just to make it appealing over what they already have.

I see a few options:
1. Continue to hand out gear and accept that balance is out the window. You have to raise the CR significiantly and work way harder to challenge them.
2. Boost their level without increasing gear. "Congrats, well of Knowledge boosted you all to level 15 (or 18, or whatever it takes until the numbers match,) now your gear matches your level and we can use standard CR enemies again!"
3. Continue to play as-is but stop handing out any gear until their level and wealth are somewhere close to balanced.
4. Take all the toys away.
5. Start over again and don't make the Monty Haul mistake again.

I don't mean to be critical, every DM has made that mistake at some point. It's a very hard thing to undo because the players start to think that fun = success = acquiring powerful items. Therefor, taking powerful items away (or not handing them out) = not fun.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You had 2 problems.

1. Gave them too much loot.

By far. Time to break out the rust monsters, ethereal filchers, et al.


2. Allowed Animated shields. It was a stupidly OP 3.x enchantment: there is a reason Pathfinder nerfed the heck out of it.

That's a new complaint I haven't seen before. Can't say as I agree. Being able to two hand a weapon and use a shield at the same time just isn't all that potent outside of charger builds. Even then, it's the charger creating a problem rather than the shield.

That said, a tower shield is not a valid target for that particular enhancement so you might want to correct that, ASAP.

[SirNibbles]

This is why you get your players' character sheets before you start playing.

"Phil, it says here you get 12 Natural Attacks and you have 50 AC."
-"Yup."
"Your character is too strong compared to the other players. Please power down a bit."

_

As for high AC, go after not his AC (as others have said).

Sticky Floor (Sorc/Wiz 1, Races of the Dragon) Entangles with no save/SR and prevents movement on a failed Reflex save. Entangled characters need a DC 15+spell level Concentration check to cast successfully. Escaping from being unable to move is a standard action and targets in the area have to save every round or become stuck.
Grease (Sorc/Wiz 1, PHB) forces Reflex vs prone every round and forces Balance checks to move and remain standing when taking damage. Balancing with fewer than 5 ranks of Balance means you're Flat-Footed.
Use no save/SR range touch spells (like Orb of Force) to deal damage.
Use swarms.
Use monsters/spells that return damage every time you touch them (like with a Natural Weapon).
Fire resistant/immune mobs don't take fire damage.

etc.

_

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. Yes. You should get an idea of what people are building in advance so you can plan party balance and encounters. If everyone's really strong except for one person, you can pump up the encounter difficulty and buff the weak person while slightly nerfing the strong people. If everyone's weak except one person, you can nerf that person and slightly buff the rest.

[Mordaedil]

I wouldn't ever give out magic items that is much more than what a cleric can get by casting his spells or maybe 1 point above. I believe magic vestment at their level would bring their armor to +3, which is the highest they should have had. That's something to consider.

But you know what, there are better ways to deal with this than to use rust monsters. Actually, I think you have two options (ignoring the weaker party members here for a moment, you should give them some cool stuff too though while working on this) and the first is simply to level them up faster. They are cruising through encounters because they have equipment that puts them way above their current level and the easiest way to reign it in is to simply let them earn experience quicker to the point where they catch up with their equipment and you can reign down the CR of the monsters. Right now I don't think it's a big issue if you toss CR 15-17 encounters at them. Just reward them appropriately and don't give so much treasure from now on and things should even out on their own.

The second option, especially for the cleric, is to give treasure that arguably plays better to his future. For instance, how about a +1 shield that resists all elements by 10 or 20 points? He can self-buff that shield to a +3 and he might consider it a better investment than a tower shield with a high AC as it protects him in situations his other shield cannot. Or a +1 armor with fast healing 2, suddenly making his +5 full plate seem kind of weak in comparison.

Well, those are my takes. Clerics shouldn't really be walking around with AC boosting gear as their spells are more than enough anyway.

[Segev]

The big advice I would hammer home is that a player heavily investing in a particular defense to the point that you feel you need to get into an arms race with him over it is actually signaling you that his fun is in being nearly untouchable in that fashion.

The first thing I think you should do, upon realizing this, is ask yourself: "Is this really a problem?" The answer might be "yes." If it is, that's when you talk to the player about it, because the arms race is only going to frustrate both of you (and possibly make the rest of the party feel like they have to try to keep up, exacerbating the problem). Figure out why he feels he needs AC (as in this case) so high. Then come to an agreed-upon maximum AC he'll get. When he knows he's hit the cap and that he isn't allowed to go any higher (at least for now), he will take the resources he's expending on pushing it past that point and reinvest them elsewhere. Be sure to let him. Even if it means retconning build choices or gear purchases at full gp value.

If the answer is "no," you might still talk to him, let him know you've noticed. Find out if it really is a thing he's bent on, and discuss how he envisions it playing out. If his vision is a goal of true invincibility, you'll want to remind him that AC isn't everything, just so he isn't monofocused and shocked/disappointed when he's hit in a weaker defense. Again, let him do some retooling if it turns out he's made a mistake.

If he's fine with that, though, just build your encounters normally. If you find that everything you're doing hits that one defense, then do change that up, but don't do it with a specific eye towards hitting the cleric in the weak spot; do it with an eye towards hitting all the various kinds of defenses in various ways.

[Stealth Marmot]

EDIT 2: Asked him when he got on, his words: "total of 10 base + 13 plate + 9 shield + 5 deflection + 1 dex + 1 insight". The insight was from the dusty rose ioun, and he had a +5 ring of protection.

Just going to Math a bit.

26000 for the armor, 49000 for the shield, 50000 for the ring, 5000 for the stone. 130,000 total for AC items alone.

WBL are guidelines to be sure, and having a game that is high magic and high loot is fine, even fun, but you have to adjust your encounters accordingly. With that much loot, you could boost the CR by at least 1-2 overall.

That said, i echo the sentiments that if a character is willing to invest that much to get only partial immunity, just balance your encounters and LET his work pay off some of the time.

[Particle_Man]

Another option, if you and the players are willing to do it, is to port everything over to 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons. The "bounded accuracy" design concept behind 5e should prevent any "player A is only hit on a natural 20 or players B through E are only missed on a natural 1" issues.

Mind you, that is a big "if".

[Jarmen4u]

Another option, if you and the players are willing to do it, is to port everything over to 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons. The "bounded accuracy" design concept behind 5e should prevent any "player A is only hit on a natural 20 or players B through E are only missed on a natural 1" issues.

Mind you, that is a big "if".

Definitely don't do that. Ever.

I've been in a game that was 3.5 originally that the DM ported over to 5th edition. It was terrible. Disclaimer: 5th ed. is great, and I enjoy playing it. When it's what I want to play. But if I want to be a half-dragon War Weaver with Bear Warrior and Druid levels, there's no amount of compromise that's going to port that to 5e. It's a good, light system with little customization. 3.5e is where you go when you want to have options. It's like the classic iOS vs. Android argument: Polish vs. Versatility.

[Gruftzwerg]

First let me tell you: You have done well with communicating the issue.

As alredy been pointed out, there is a lil WBL issue. But imho, this is nothing that will break your neck. As far as I get your scenario, the healer isn't overshadowing everything (doing everything by himself). And imho it's not worth it to tune him down. He could have achieved that with some kind of cheese (and lesser magic items) too.

The point is, the game between DM and PCs can be described like the connection between hackers and anti-virus programming companies. It goes hand in hand. Each learns from the other and tries to adopt to it and come up with new strategies.
So, it's your (and your PCs) duty to learn strategies and grow more powerful.
Just like the items get better, your tactics need to get better too.

You got a high AC healer? Can't scratch him? He seems to make his allies invincible?

Well, how about Grease? I bet he will have trouble to even stand, not even thinking about going up to his teammates and heal them? And while we are at casters, you just need a few more enemy caster. They will ignore for the most part his absurd AC.
It doesn't need to be in every fight! Let him shine here and there. But also kick him in his butt when the time comes, so that he also needs sometimes to rely on the help of his teammates.

Special Attacks that don't target AC is another option. Bull Rush, Trip, or creature with touch attacks. Grapple would be another strong option to bypass the high AC.
There are plenty of options if you search for them. And since you don't need em in every fight, the work for you should be an acceptable amount.

See it as learning curve of the interaction between DM and PCs.

[Quertus]

Another option, if you and the players are willing to do it, is to port everything over to 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons. The "bounded accuracy" design concept behind 5e should prevent any "player A is only hit on a natural 20 or players B through E are only missed on a natural 1" issues.

Mind you, that is a big "if".

... And how does the fact that, if I understand correctly, since I don't know 5e, the bounded accuracy on the monsters guarantees that even the gods can't hit the cleric in any way help here?

[Gears]

And ultimately, the Dragonkin in the party has a lot of experience with 3.5e much like myself, but he has a bit too much fun when it comes to optimization. Initially, he was hitting ACs of about 50, and then I told him "You're a bard, and yet you're making the rest of the party completely and utterly redundant. You need to tone yourself down", to which he agreed. But now, despite being the bard still, he's turned himself into the party's secret weapon. He gets like 6 natural attacks and blood rage from the instruments set from the Magic Item Compendium, and with his buffs, he can hit really high, though he has a low AC, and gives 6d6 fire damage to the party through dragonfire inspiration while doing it. To put this into perspective, the Barbarian can currently only hit thrice, once with each end of his Gnome Hooked Hammer at max BAB, and once with the flat end at BAB - 5. The bard was the party member that wanted the Starmantle Cloak as well.


If the Dragonkin in your group has 6 lvl Bard, 2 lvl Crusader, 2 lvl Jade Phoenix Mage and 1 lvl Sublime Chord + 7 Racial HD + 2 ECL it is a Level 20 Charakter. Way above a Level 10 Gnome Barbarian. I think buffing the Barbarian isn't the right way. I think it is more favourable to change the dragonkin to a more comparable size.

[Particle_Man]

... And how does the fact that, if I understand correctly, since I don't know 5e, the bounded accuracy on the monsters guarantees that even the gods can't hit the cleric in any way help here?

Because by 5e rules, the cleric's AC will never get that high. Thus the monsters will always be able to hit the cleric.

Now if you switched, some crunch would be gone. I ported over a Sapphire Hierarch and a lot of stuff (espeically the initiate stuff) was lost. I became a cleric of knowledge with a LN alignment. I still had fun with it, but yeah, the price of "both cleric and the rest of the party can sometimes, but not always, be hit by any monsters I throw at them" is "the cleric loses a lot of modifiers that gave the cleric a very, very high AC".