Who Gets The AC?

[Pex]

It's probably easier to think in D&D terms, but I suppose any game will do.

A magic item appears that boosts AC, doesn't matter if you wear armor or not, and it may or may not have other buffs as well. Who in the party should get it? The squishy who has low AC and can't wear armor to get high AC so he needs every AC bonus he can get? The tank with already high AC who's in the enemy's face getting attacked, taking the hits, but it would be nice to have the bad guys miss him a few times extra for more staying power? The artillery who can wear armor, if not the best, to get a decent AC if not as much as the tank? He stays in the back doing range attacks, and while not attacked as often as the tank does get attacked and would be nice to make the enemy miss more so he can range attack without the enemy being able to retaliate as often.

If it helps presume it's the first permanent magic item the party gets, so an answer of "Whomever has the fewest items" while admirable and kind is not an applicable solution.

[Tvtyrant]

I think this is game dependent. In 3.5 it worked better to raise a low AC and ignore getting above a certain amount, because enemies had such high attack rolls the first attack was almost certain to hit anyway and it was preventing iteratives from hitting.

In 4E you raise the tanks AC, and they use stickiness to protect the squishy character.

In 5E tanks aren't that sticky, it depends on the party composition I think. If they are a Cavalier or one of the other good tanks than the tank gets it, if they aren't the squishy one does.

I can't think of a lot of scenarios where the midarmor one gets the AC bonus.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

The squishy likely has other defensive abilities, be it Mirror Image or Greater Invisibility, or some kind of automatic miss chance like 3.5 Displacement or 5e Armor of Hexes, or Spring Attack or bonus action disengage or similar to stay out of reach, etc. If any of those are the case, the squishy doesn't need the AC, he relies on other things that aren't AC to avoid damage.

The party most likely has multiple frontliners. In that case the frontliner with the lowest AC should get it, provided that character is just as reliant on AC as the other frontliner. For example, if one of those is a 5e Barbarian who relies on damage resistance more than AC and reckless attacks every round, it's not going to do him much good.

So give it to the character who's likely to be in melee more often than not, who's more dependent on AC than any other defenses, who has the lowest AC among all party members who fit those two criteria.

[Ninja Bear]

Take the Abraham Wald approach: who goes down the most? Put more AC on them.

Action economy is typically important enough, and healing is usually plentiful enough, to make it so that "one party member goes down, everyone else is at full HP" is more of a problem than "everyone is at fractional HP but still up." A party that survives a combat with everyone having 1HP is, tautologically, a party that survived the combat.

[Jay R]

Exactly. The extra AC is to save somebody. So who had the fewest hit points at the end of the last several encounters?

[Duff]

Take the Abraham Wald approach: who goes down the most? Put more AC on them.

Action economy is typically important enough, and healing is usually plentiful enough, to make it so that "one party member goes down, everyone else is at full HP" is more of a problem than "everyone is at fractional HP but still up." A party that survives a combat with everyone having 1HP is, tautologically, a party that survived the combat.

Either this, or "Who doesn't fulfill their full potential because they have to stay out of harm's way". Would the squishy healer be wiling to go into melee and do better healing if the enemy missed them sometimes? Does the artillery keep moving instead of shooting to keep distance and cover? Does the tank avoid getting surrounded which means the great sweeps of the axe can only hit 4 enemies at a time?

[KillianHawkeye]

Here's a somewhat different take on it:

You put it on the person who's AC is the lowest, so that you don't widen the gap between the highest and lowest AC in the party. This means the DM won't have to bring a more powerful monster in order to have a chance at hitting the tank, and it means that monsters who sometimes hit the tank won't always hit the squishy characters if given the opportunity to strike at them. This not only benefits the weaker members of the party, but makes the DM's job of balancing encounters easier.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Whoever currently needs it. In my current 5e party we have a warlock who wore no armor (because the adventure started at a fancy party) but who wanted to be able to go into melee after casting their two spells. So the DM gave her permanent barkskin for AC16 anytime anywhere. Was I a little bit jealous on behalf on my AC15 (at the time) rogue who had invested in a dex stat and armor and who was continuously behind in hp despite having the same hit dice and con modifier as the warlock? Yes. But is the game more fun for me if the warlock is able to play the game the way they want? Definitely yes too. If that had been a "randomly" dropped item rather than a request it should probably have gone to the warlock anyway (even if it was a +x AC rather than a minumum y AC item). I may be more squishy, but I have a bow. There is no simple universally applicable answer. (Although I like the way KillianHawkeye approaches the general situation.)

(Also in this special case I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't want the DM to bend the rules as written a little for other players. I like bending rules.)

[Pauly]

It depends hugely on the game, as there are different mechanics as to who is the optimum character to have it.

Generally speaking “Who will use it the most?” is the question I would ask. Giving a +2 bonus to leather armor is more efficient than giving a +2 to full plate armor, because in most game systems the full plate will defend against most attacks anyway, where the leather armor is 50-50 at best.
One exception is when the bonus moves a character into the “invulnerable for practical purposes” area. It gives the party a huge tactical advantage if one of the PCs can become an immovable object.

[Hytheter]

Give it to an Artificer and get him to make three more.

Seriously though, for me I'd probably offer it to whoever seems to go down the most.

[Xervous]

Depends on how each character plays generally. If we are to look at a party that can funnel enemies to a single or few characters you want your wall to be the sturdiest thing around. (You stick the wesnoth dwarvish guardsman on the choke). However if the party generally presents a broader front you need to shore up the weak points as such gaps are the prime targets for exploitation.

[Kelb_Panthera]

There really is no single, universal answer to this. It's too dependent on circumstances beyond just the typical, "squish, tank, or inbetween" like what kind of terrain does most combat take place in, how often do the enemies currently hit everybody, etc. That's without even touching on whether you're in a system where hawking it for cash to buy other things is an option that might be a better choice than letting anybody keep it.

In 3e, I'd say give it to whoever is currently behind the curve for AC for their class' general role; appx level +10 for the back row, +13 for the skirmishers, and +15 or more for front-liners. If none of them are, sell it and buy something more useful.

[Tvtyrant]

Here's a somewhat different take on it:

You put it on the person who's AC is the lowest, so that you don't widen the gap between the highest and lowest AC in the party. This means the DM won't have to bring a more powerful monster in order to have a chance at hitting the tank, and it means that monsters who sometimes hit the tank won't always hit the squishy characters if given the opportunity to strike at them. This not only benefits the weaker members of the party, but makes the DM's job of balancing encounters easier.

I think this is kind of problematic. Why is the DM trying to get the monsters to hit the person who devoted their build to not being hit? Especially since tanks are usually just okay at other defenses, it comes off as combative.

[Pex]

Exactly. The extra AC is to save somebody. So who had the fewest hit points at the end of the last several encounters?

I like this approach. DM style can be a factor. Some DMs like to attack those in the back more often than others, so the squishy gets it or artillery if squishy has other defenses in spell use. However, the tank can make the case if he keeps getting pummeled. It is his job, no complaints, but it helps to get a breather.

[KillianHawkeye]

I think this is kind of problematic. Why is the DM trying to get the monsters to hit the person who devoted their build to not being hit? Especially since tanks are usually just okay at other defenses, it comes off as combative.

This is a combat game. And combat is an arms race.

I think many (if not most) DMs will want to challenge the players by having some foes that are actually a threat to them. That means having more than a 5% chance to hit the tank. A tank's job is to soak hits and not die if possible, not to be invulnerable.

Do you expect the PCs to never run into an enemy that's tough and difficult to defeat? Or should there be a chance for the party to sometimes run up against a heavy hitter that can threaten even the party tank? My opinion leans heavily to the latter, even as a player, because being strong is cool but being invincible is boring.



In the end, my point is that AC is the most commonly used defense value, and that a DM needs to consider the entire party when balancing encounters. A large range in AC values can lead to balance issues when a monster is either too strong to hit the softies (without almost killing them) or too weak to hit the tank.

Personally, when I DM, I use a wide variety of monsters against the PCs, including weak guys that pose little threat, real enemies of roughly equal ability, and climactic boss monsters that no one is safe from who push the team to their limits. And it's not because I'm a bad DM who wants to beat the players, it's because players need to be challenged and occasionally face the possibility of losing. (Note: My players very rarely actually lose, but sometimes it's important for them to feel like they might.)

If you don't agree, you're free to not follow my advice.

[Tvtyrant]

This is a combat game. And combat is an arms race.

I think many (if not most) DMs will want to challenge the players by having some foes that are actually a threat to them. That means having more than a 5% chance to hit the tank. A tank's job is to soak hits and not die if possible, not to be invulnerable.

Do you expect the PCs to never run into an enemy that's tough and difficult to defeat? Or should there be a chance for the party to sometimes run up against a heavy hitter that can threaten even the party tank? My opinion leans heavily to the latter, even as a player, because being strong is cool but being invincible is boring.



In the end, my point is that AC is the most commonly used defense value, and that a DM needs to consider the entire party when balancing encounters. A large range in AC values can lead to balance issues when a monster is either too strong to hit the softies (without almost killing them) or too weak to hit the tank.

Personally, when I DM, I use a wide variety of monsters against the PCs, including weak guys that pose little threat, real enemies of roughly equal ability, and climactic boss monsters that no one is safe from who push the team to their limits. And it's not because I'm a bad DM who wants to beat the players, it's because players need to be challenged and occasionally face the possibility of losing. (Note: My players very rarely actually lose, but sometimes it's important for them to feel like they might.)

If you don't agree, you're free to not follow my advice.

I clearly don't, it's analogous to saying squishy characters shouldn't exist because they are too hard to balance, or casters shouldn't have to exist because you would have to use AMFs. Heck, it's directly analagous to saying the Monk and Cleric should lower their wisdom saves so the Mindflayers are more equally dangerous to the whole party.


The tank isn't threatened by melee monsters, that's their combat roll. In most editions they gave up on control, DPS and other abilities to focus their stats, items and abilities on that. Rather than invalidate their abilities why not roll with them? In D&D there is between 4 and 8 defense types, focus on any of the others.

[evilmastermind]

Who in the party should get it?

You should answer that with another question: "Who in the party is ALWAYS taking damage and risking their life on every single encounter?".
It depends on your players... it could be the tank, who is doing an excellent job at absorbing hits, or it could be the rogue who always stands too close to mortal enemies... or that wizard who "for the love of god should choose safer positions from which to cast spells."

[aglondier]

Who needs the AC is part of the answer...but what does the item look like? We recently had a very (un)fashionable green and yellow cloak of shielding (+2 shield bonus to AC). No one wanted it because it clashed horribly with their characters style...

[Kaptin Keen]

Always giving AC to the character who takes the most damage does run the risk of rewarding an incorrect playstyle. If you play a rogue like a barbarian, you're going to go down a lot =)

And I'm not pulling this example out of thin air. I've seen people misplay their role that badly.

[Rynjin]

The perhaps-too-obvious-sounding answer is: whoever benefits from it the most.

That is not as simple as "whoever has the lowest/highest AC". You need to factor in exactly HOW low/high a party member's AC is compared to what you're facing.

So here's a quick example. You're a level 8 party, and thus consistently facing level 8-11 enemies.

According to Pathfinder's monster creation guide, here is a rough estimate of what enemies at each CR will be throwing at you:

CR 8: low 11, high 15.
CR 9: low 12, high 17.
CR 10: low 13, high 18.
CR 11: low 14, high 19.

So you will be facing attack bonuses of +11 at the lowest, and +19 at the highest.

You have a sample of 4 party members now.

The party Wizard, with an AC of 14.
The party Cleric, with an AC of 17.
The party Fighter (frontliner), with an AC of 20.
The party Fighter (archer), with an AC of 21.

All ACs are VERY low for the level because you said this was the first magical item the party has received.

In this scenario, the Wizard is being hit on a 3 at the extreme low end, or on a 2 by everything else. The Cleric is being hit on a 6 at the low end, or a 2 at the highest. The frontliner is being hit on a 9 at the lowest, and a 2 at the highest. The archer is being hit on a 10 at the lowest, and 2 at the highest. Taking the average between 11 and 19, a 16: Wizard 2, Cleric 2, Frontliner 4, Archer 5.

So, basically, everyone is being hit by a 2 on the boss, while the "scrubs" are easily hitting the Wizard and Cleric, but struggle a bit against both Fighters (or class of choice filling the same role).

Giving a +1 Ring of Protection to the Wizard is ultimately pointless, even though he has the lowest AC. They are still being hit on a 2 by the average attack roll, so it does almost literally nothing for them except against the lowest attack of the average scrub enemy.

Giving it to the Cleric is likewise pointless; they are also still hit on a 2 by the average attack.

The frontliner taking it gives them the usual 5% lower chance of being hit; the enemy now needs a 5 to hit rather than a 6, though they are still now being hit on a 2 by the highest possible attack roll.

The archer taking it gets a 5% lower chance of being hit at ALL attack bonuses; they hit the breakpoint of being hit by a 3 rather than 2 at the highest possible attack bonus, and 7 rather than 6 on average.

Does this mean the archer should take it? Potentially. You then need to go into on average how many hits people take in a game. Is the frontliner targeted twice as often as the rest of the party? Well, that extra 5% chance for an enemy is essentially doubled in value, even though it doesn't necessarily matter against the boss monster.

The other end also applies; if at a certain point most enemies only hit a party member on a 20...well it doesn't matter how often they;re targeted, an extra +1 AC is almost literally worthless for them as well.

There is probably some kind of objective mathematical breakdown you could do with enough info...but I'm not a mathematician even if we did have that info. But the basic principle still stands. You do a quick rundown of how easy it is for the enemies to hit each party member, weighted by how many times they are targeted per session, and give teh AC bonus to the one that gets the most benefit.

[KillianHawkeye]

A tank's job is to soak hits and not die if possible, not to be invulnerable.

The tank isn't threatened by melee monsters, that's their combat roll.

We have different play styles. Cool. My advice isn't for you. But someone else might find it a useful perspective. There's no need to argue about it.

[Tvtyrant]

We have different play styles. Cool. My advice isn't for you. But someone else might find it a useful perspective. There's no need to argue about it.

I'm certainly not coming to your house to make you play my way, nor anyone reading it. I do disagree with it, and I laid out my reasons why.

[KillianHawkeye]

I'm certainly not coming to your house to make you play my way, nor anyone reading it. I do disagree with it, and I laid out my reasons why.

Great. Thanks for the recap on our conversation.

[Tvtyrant]

You should answer that with another question: "Who in the party is ALWAYS taking damage and risking their life on every single encounter?".
It depends on your players... it could be the tank, who is doing an excellent job at absorbing hits, or it could be the rogue who always stands too close to mortal enemies... or that wizard who "for the love of god should choose safer positions from which to cast spells."

Yeah this seems like a good answer. Practical application is usually best.

Great. Thanks for the recap on our conversation.

You are quite welcome.

[Knaight]

Insufficient data - though I assume the item can be transferred, so there are at least certain situations which are probably pretty straightforward (if somebody is going into a duel they almost certainly get the item*). That said, there are a few particular questions worth asking:

1) Is fighting everybody's job?
Sure, anybody could potentially end up in a fight, but if there's a dedicated combatant who handles most of the fights then a fight useful item should probably go to them. If it's more of an "everyone is a warrior" situation (D&D style), that's not as useful.

2) How much of a protected back line is there?
If there's no real backline and everyone is in the thick of it, then whoever has the worst personal defense almost certainly needs the item. If there's a backline so thorough that it works out to someone off the actual battlefield entirely acting through proxies (e.g. a Shadowrun Rigger) they clearly don't need the item.

3) Are there any tactical options opened up by better defenses?
The main thing I'm thinking about here is high impact skirmishers suited to hit and run tactics, who might be able to apply those tactics on heavier duty targets, or larger groups, but there's all sorts of possibilities here (that just covers the likely mid defense case). Other notable cases would be anyone with special mobility options who might benefit from defenses in fights only they're going to end up in. If you've got a superhero team in a beachside city the water hero might end up getting the alien protective artifact for the simple reason that they're the only one that can do the underwater fights.

*Real edge cases like the duel as a diversion for action elsewhere aside, and even then it might be helpful.

[Pex]

The perhaps-too-obvious-sounding answer is: whoever benefits from it the most.

That is not as simple as "whoever has the lowest/highest AC". You need to factor in exactly HOW low/high a party member's AC is compared to what you're facing.

So here's a quick example. You're a level 8 party, and thus consistently facing level 8-11 enemies.

According to Pathfinder's monster creation guide, here is a rough estimate of what enemies at each CR will be throwing at you:

CR 8: low 11, high 15.
CR 9: low 12, high 17.
CR 10: low 13, high 18.
CR 11: low 14, high 19.

So you will be facing attack bonuses of +11 at the lowest, and +19 at the highest.

You have a sample of 4 party members now.

The party Wizard, with an AC of 14.
The party Cleric, with an AC of 17.
The party Fighter (frontliner), with an AC of 20.
The party Fighter (archer), with an AC of 21.

All ACs are VERY low for the level because you said this was the first magical item the party has received.

In this scenario, the Wizard is being hit on a 3 at the extreme low end, or on a 2 by everything else. The Cleric is being hit on a 6 at the low end, or a 2 at the highest. The frontliner is being hit on a 9 at the lowest, and a 2 at the highest. The archer is being hit on a 10 at the lowest, and 2 at the highest. Taking the average between 11 and 19, a 16: Wizard 2, Cleric 2, Frontliner 4, Archer 5.

So, basically, everyone is being hit by a 2 on the boss, while the "scrubs" are easily hitting the Wizard and Cleric, but struggle a bit against both Fighters (or class of choice filling the same role).

Giving a +1 Ring of Protection to the Wizard is ultimately pointless, even though he has the lowest AC. They are still being hit on a 2 by the average attack roll, so it does almost literally nothing for them except against the lowest attack of the average scrub enemy.

Giving it to the Cleric is likewise pointless; they are also still hit on a 2 by the average attack.

The frontliner taking it gives them the usual 5% lower chance of being hit; the enemy now needs a 5 to hit rather than a 6, though they are still now being hit on a 2 by the highest possible attack roll.

The archer taking it gets a 5% lower chance of being hit at ALL attack bonuses; they hit the breakpoint of being hit by a 3 rather than 2 at the highest possible attack bonus, and 7 rather than 6 on average.

Does this mean the archer should take it? Potentially. You then need to go into on average how many hits people take in a game. Is the frontliner targeted twice as often as the rest of the party? Well, that extra 5% chance for an enemy is essentially doubled in value, even though it doesn't necessarily matter against the boss monster.

The other end also applies; if at a certain point most enemies only hit a party member on a 20...well it doesn't matter how often they;re targeted, an extra +1 AC is almost literally worthless for them as well.

There is probably some kind of objective mathematical breakdown you could do with enough info...but I'm not a mathematician even if we did have that info. But the basic principle still stands. You do a quick rundown of how easy it is for the enemies to hit each party member, weighted by how many times they are targeted per session, and give teh AC bonus to the one that gets the most benefit.

Your philosophy is fine, but I think you're erring on when it applies. In a Pathfinder game the party's first magic item usually appears earlier than 8th level. When is not set in stone, and sure it's possible to get the first one at 8th level but not likely. A simple Amulet of Natural Armor +1 could appear at level 4 or 5. Do the numbers change when Rings of Protection +2 come around? If someone has the Amulet +1 can the character also get the Cloak of Protection +1 that comes later? Not trying to move the goalpost via saying "if it helps" it's the first magic item. That was to dissuade giving it to the one has less magic items. I'm more interested in the philosophy of boosting AC discussion. It doesn't have to be the party's first magic item.

Do you keep your philosophy if it was a 5E game? With Bounded Accuracy every +1 matters. At level 8, no magic weapon, you're looking at PCs with +8 to hit so let's say the monster is at +8. It needs to roll a 10 to hit the fighter in platemail and 8 to hit the wizard with mage armor and 16 DX. Who gets the Cloak of Protection?

[Rynjin]

Your philosophy is fine, but I think you're erring on when it applies. In a Pathfinder game the party's first magic item usually appears earlier than 8th level. When is not set in stone, and sure it's possible to get the first one at 8th level but not likely. A simple Amulet of Natural Armor +1 could appear at level 4 or 5. Do the numbers change when Rings of Protection +2 come around? If someone has the Amulet +1 can the character also get the Cloak of Protection +1 that comes later? Not trying to move the goalpost via saying "if it helps" it's the first magic item. That was to dissuade giving it to the one has less magic items. I'm more interested in the philosophy of boosting AC discussion. It doesn't have to be the party's first magic item.

It does appear earlier than 8th, usually, but the philosophy still applies. The relative math stays the same even when the specific numbers change. Changing the numbers by doubling the AC bonus granted or halving the attack roll values only shift the particulars, since there will always be someone who benefits from it the most, fairly objectively. Likewise if that person benefits the most from a second, or third magic item...generally in my parties we still agree to give it to them. This is EXTREMELY common at low levels in my games, with it often being the big dumb Fighter sort getting the lion's share of magical gear for a good long while; who else can make better use of the +1 Breastplate, or +1 Sword, or Cloak of Resistance than the guy who's eating the most hits, taking the most swings, and has the worst saves?

Also recall that magic items are not attuned or bonded in Pathfinder or any such thing. If the item is best for the Cleric at levels 1-3, even if no other item is found, it could be passed off to whoever benefits from it the most later.

Do you keep your philosophy if it was a 5E game? With Bounded Accuracy every +1 matters. At level 8, no magic weapon, you're looking at PCs with +8 to hit so let's say the monster is at +8. It needs to roll a 10 to hit the fighter in platemail and 8 to hit the wizard with mage armor and 16 DX. Who gets the Cloak of Protection?

Keep in mind I don't play 5e, and haven't for years. But I imagine the same philosophy applies. If the Wizard is getting targeted more, then it might be valid to grant them the Cloak(?) of Protection, as it raises them a bit closer to a "safety breakpoint" even if the raw number granted is the same. But if (as in most games) the Fighter is being targeted more, the fact that they already have more AC is irrelevant; they benefit more since they are already being hit on a lower than a 19 number, and are being targeted twice as much, meaning they benefit twice as much (or more).

[Pex]

I used to think give it to the one with the lowest AC, but today I lean toward give it to the tank. The squishy and artillery do get attacked, but I find the tank gets attacked more. They purposely run into danger. Even one less hit is enough of a breather for staying power. Those in the back are always looking for means to keep out of danger. Especially with 5E's more freedom of movement they can do their thing then duck behind cover. It's part of their strategy not being attacked. Tanks want to be attacked. A miss against them is easier than a miss against the squishy, which means a wasted enemy turn. No doubt it sucks for the squishy and artillery when they do get attacked. They remember it more because it doesn't happen that often. The tank is attacked all the time.

[Mordante]

It depends mostly in the R in RPG IMHO.

In many parties that I played a certain item would not be used a some people even if they would benefit the most. Because it would not fit their character.

Like a pacifist illusionist who does not use direct damage spell might benefit greatly from a ring of fire balls or something similar. But the character would never ever use it. This game is not just min/maxing the party. It is about character development as well.

[Kane0]

From my tables we usually pick the guy(s) that uses their AC the most, or intends to. Even if the benefit is marginal because it's already high, we know that they will be taking attacks against that AC one way or another and the rest of the party can focus on not being subject to those attacks where possible.