Is it possible to have to much AC?


Advice

Scarab Sages

Looking a bit at the monsters to hit bonuses CR 20 seems to be around +30-35 area so i'm questioning if there's any point in getting more than 54 in AC at level 20.

Ofcause if monsters show up at CR 21+ there might be more of a reason.

So as the thread name says "Is it possible to have to much AC" ?

What do you think is the goal one should aim for in AC and other saves at level 20?


Well, you could always lose some AC because of flat-footed (blind, feint etc.) or a touch attack, even sundered armor / shield or Anticipate Dodge. Invisibility, higher ground, charge, flanking etc. also provide situational attack bonuses - equivalent to lost AC. Depending on the GM, the creatures could get a higher attack bonus to (partially) compensate your AC. So more than 54 AC would help somewhat.

But resources (ability scores, feats, gold etc.) are limited. As a rule of thumb, I'd split my resources about equally between important areas. For a warrior, that might be AC, saves and offense potential. This way I can take many good value options (specialists have to pick from increasingly bad options, because they start with the best), hope for synergy (e.g. withstand enemy counterattacks longer, so more time to deal damage) and better cover my bases.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Azullius Koujou wrote:

Looking a bit at the monsters to hit bonuses CR 20 seems to be around +30-35 area so i'm questioning if there's any point in getting more than 54 in AC at level 20.

Ofcause if monsters show up at CR 21+ there might be more of a reason.

So as the thread name says "Is it possible to have to much AC" ?

What do you think is the goal one should aim for in AC and other saves at level 20?

Well, "it depends" (always a helpful answer).

As was pointed out, it's fairly easy to be debuffed of AC, and also fairly easy for characters to buff their own to-hit numbers (for example, with 'aid another' from minions, which doesn't even require spells).

But I agree -- you don't want to be "all fur coat and no knickers," as the Scottish phrase so colorfully puts it. If your AC is unhittable, a smart monster will simply try to find another way to take you out of the fight, and my first go-to effect would be some sort of mind control. Oh, you dumped your Will save for an extra +5 AC? Good -- roll me a DC 27 save against dominate. And then go shred the cleric.

I find in general that AC isn't worth the arms race; at some level, I'd rather invest in miss chance and/or rocket tag. A 50% miss chance is fairly cheap and scales well, especially if 75% of the monsters are dead before they have a chance to check miss chance.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the replies Sheepish &
Orfamay. I haven't finished gearing up the character but almost done.
Might go back and throw away some AC items for more fun(Or I might just choose not to use Combat Expertise etc)

The Way the Character is atm at his best(can be so for a couple of rounds a day):

AC: 58
Touch: 34
Flat: 38
Fort: 26
Ref: 25
Will: 27
CMB: +38
CMD: 58

Avg dmg a round of combat: ~55 dmg a hit with 7 attacks
Possibly higher depending on damage scaling out of the listed Table (table i've seen gos to lvl 20 but the character should be treated as lvl 30 due to bonuses from favored class & Magic Items


Yes you can have too much AC. If you are unhittable but can't inflict damage back then your no use to anyone so sacraficing basic offense is bad. But having huge defense in just one thing isn't enough, you need SR, good saves, and such too. And keep in mind that your goal is rarely to avoid being hit by the first attack of a BBEG but is to avoid the second third and fourth. And finally no matter how your defense or AC you can always be crit victim.

Scarab Sages

Indeed the crits can always hit.
I haven't played till level 20 before, but the general opinion I hear whenever people mention SR is stay away from it...
THough looking at some of the CR 20 monster abilities that don't grant any saves and can make your character passive for minutes... begs to question getting some kind of SR.

THe number 1 Goal is the entertainment of the group the second we survive, the third we win :P

Thanks for your input Renegade

Adding the standard numbers to my character to in the above post. I'd like to hear if any of the numbers is alarmingly low.

hmm... looks liek i can't add them to that post so i'll add them here:

HP: 224
AC: 42
Touch: 19
Flat: 38
Fort: 24
Ref: 24
Will: 19
CMB: 31
CMD: 50

Avg dmg a round of combat: ~40 dmg a hit with 7 attacks


A high AC will only make enemies less likely to target you, imagine you're confronted by a man in a full suit of armor, with a tower shield, and a guy with a leather shirt.

That guy with the leather shirt is obviously the easier target, and you probably wouldnt waste your time on the armored man.


Soilent wrote:

A high AC will only make enemies less likely to target you, imagine you're confronted by a man in a full suit of armor, with a tower shield, and a guy with a leather shirt.

That guy with the leather shirt is obviously the easier target, and you probably wouldnt waste your time on the armored man.

Agreed. There were sessions when GM tried to avoid attacking my paladin due to the low success rate. I purposely lowered my AC (Risky Striker Feat) in order to get back into the game.


Renegadeshepherd wrote:
Yes you can have too much AC. If you are unhittable but can't inflict damage back then your no use to anyone so sacraficing basic offense is bad. But having huge defense in just one thing isn't enough, you need SR, good saves, and such too. And keep in mind that your goal is rarely to avoid being hit by the first attack of a BBEG but is to avoid the second third and fourth. And finally no matter how your defense or AC you can always be crit victim.

A problem that can be solved independent of AC.

Depending on build, you could use Pin Down, Bodyguard, Compel Hostility, or similar abilities to force opponents to deal with you first.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Azullius Koujou wrote:
Looking a bit at the monsters to hit bonuses CR 20 seems to be around +30-35 area so i'm questioning if there's any point in getting more than 54 in AC at level 20.
Well, "it depends" (always a helpful answer)

If you're the melee type, going toe-to-toe against dragons, you will never waste your money improving AC.

If you're in the back row, lobbing disintegrate spells, then 54+ is a waste, and you should focus on buffs like shapechange, mind blank, foresight, project image, stoneskin, wall of force, etc.


Azullius Koujou wrote:

Looking a bit at the monsters to hit bonuses CR 20 seems to be around +30-35 area so i'm questioning if there's any point in getting more than 54 in AC at level 20.

Ofcause if monsters show up at CR 21+ there might be more of a reason.

So as the thread name says "Is it possible to have to much AC" ?

What do you think is the goal one should aim for in AC and other saves at level 20?

Remember a CR 20 fight for APL 20 party is easy fight. To hit bonuses are higher for CR 23 encounters. Also it should the attack on high CR monsters tends to last resort, they usually have all kinds abilities to debuff or harm you in other ways based on saves. So that high AC doesn't mean much when your will save is +15 and you need to save vs DC 30.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Azullius Koujou wrote:
Looking a bit at the monsters to hit bonuses CR 20 seems to be around +30-35 area so i'm questioning if there's any point in getting more than 54 in AC at level 20.
Well, "it depends" (always a helpful answer)
If you're the melee type, going toe-to-toe against dragons, you will never waste your money improving AC.

I disagree. As an iconic example, a CR 20 red dragon (a wyrm) has three attacks at +38 and three at +36. If you have AC 54, the red dragon needs to roll three sixteens and three eighteens to hit you.

Adding another two points of AC won't actually increase your survivability that much; if the dragon wants to take you, specifically, out, it will use something else -- like an antimagic field that will make all your toys useless anyway. If the dragon is just fighting the party, it will quickly realize that it will do better attacking someone else.

If you absolutely need to increase your survivability, you'd be better off investing the money you'd spend on going from AC 54 to AC 56 into, for example, something that gave you a 50% miss chance. Or increasing your saving throws, or giving yourself some sort of DR, or.....


You can have too much AC depending on your role and what other defenses you let slip because of your focus on AC.

As a tank, meant to hang up enemies so they don't go after squishies? Yeah, you can have too much AC and make yourself an unappealing target. As said squishy- a wizard that is casting spells every round? Sure, having good ac is great, since it doesn't interfere with your main role. Good defense is a secondary role- good to have, but it shouldn't be your main 'thing'- DPS, maneuvers, debuff, buff, summoning, area control, etc.

Also, there is a problem with high AC- it might be seen as a challenge by the GM. Which means he throws in something with a high enough attack to compensate. Which is bad, since other parties members lack your AC. Being too far of an outlier is a problem since it can hurt your party. I think we have all ehard tales about gunslingers that resulted in their party getting a TPK because the GM decided to play rocket tag.


Depends on your role... If you're a Wizard trying to avoid harm at all costs, no it isn't... If you're a Paladin trying to draw enemy fire because you can take it, then yes.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

Well... many things I've run for PCs around level 16-17 hit at +46... and tanks usually have a lot of alone time up front with big nasties (sure, squishy is fun to crush, but squishy is usually annoying: flying, invisible, ethereal, etc.)

Tanks will always need high AC. I've seen players show up at my table with ridiculous concepts like a level 15 Barbarian with a cloak of displacement and an AC of 14. Such schemes always fail and they end up begging the party cleric for a Heal spell EACH bloody round... (and even then, that players died halfway through the second game... probably because I pulled punches on the first game... as he had gone through the trouble of rolling a character... upon seeing the ridiculous AC though, I started imagining him as walking block of soft cured meat.. and I fully embraced my role as a deli destroyer, asking before each attack, "shaved or sliced?" :P )

Grand Lodge

Yes and No as it depends on the DM

A vengeful DM will screw you regardless which approach you take to AC.

You could have a 50 AC and the DM ignore you or He could make every Enemy a Sunder bot till your armor is gone.

If you use Miss chance he could give every enemy Blind-fight, Blind Sense, Blind Sight, scent, and Tremor Sense.

You find a nice medium with Stone Skin, Miss chance, moderate AC.
All your enemies could have Adamantine weapons with a focus on sunder, Blind-sight, and Greater Sunder.

So really it depends on your DM and how he wants to fight you.

Lately many DMs I've run across don't like easy fights and will do what ever they can to make it seem like your just getting through alive. (I absolutely hate that approach) But that is how things on Roll20 have been lately. DMs feel your too optimized even when your clearly not and they are quick to screw you hard and fast. I've had them go as far as saying dumb stuff like: "Your mind effecting spells don't work on any of the trolls cause they are too single minded. And I'm getting tired of Oppressive boredom taking enemies out the fight and making it too easy." (WTF am I playing a wizard for anyways?)

But I digress...Its really a question for YOUR DM to decide instead of the community. Is a really high AC gonna piss him off?

Sovereign Court

No - it is not possible to have too much AC.

HOWEVER - it IS possible to put too many resources into AC.

Where that line is varies, both with the character and the group you're in. The most common thing, is that as soon as one player insists on having a character be a glass cannon, it forces the rest of the party to shift more offensive so that the glass cannon doesn't die horribly before foes are killed. (That seems to be where most higher level 'rocket tag' comes from.)

If the entire group is willing to dedicate significant resources towards defense, there is no glass cannon for enemies to exploit, then the entire group won't die if a fight lasts more than 2-3 rounds.


I don't think there is, honestly, so long as you strive for balance. For a fighter, it typically isn't hard to land a really, really high ac. Hell, with advanced weapon training giving shield bonus options to TWF, 2HF and singletons (With singletons getting a huge boost with Trained Grace), it's rather hard to not get good damage and good AC.

Just go core fighter with ultimately good-ish dex and all the usual suspects for equipment, and you'll not only be hard to hit, but dangerous to ignore, likely with the best ac, damage, and respectable saves with a couple feats and proper advanced weapon training.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

I disagree. As an iconic example, a CR 20 red dragon (a wyrm) has three attacks at +38 and three at +36. If you have AC 54, the red dragon needs to roll three sixteens and three eighteens to hit you.

Adding another two points of AC won't actually increase your survivability that much; if the dragon wants to take you, specifically, out, it will use something else -- like an antimagic field that will make all your toys useless anyway. If the dragon is just fighting the party, it will quickly realize that it will do better attacking someone else.

Adding an extra 4 points of AC at that point is a multiplier. You are ~4x as survivable.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Where that line is varies, both with the character and the group you're in. The most common thing, is that as soon as one player insists on having a character be a glass cannon, it forces the rest of the party to shift more offensive so that the glass cannon doesn't die horribly before foes are killed. (That seems to be where most higher level 'rocket tag' comes from.)

I've found allowing the glass cannon to die a few times results in a more balanced character design.

It also solves most of the rocket tag problem.


Snowlilly wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

I disagree. As an iconic example, a CR 20 red dragon (a wyrm) has three attacks at +38 and three at +36. If you have AC 54, the red dragon needs to roll three sixteens and three eighteens to hit you.

Adding another two points of AC won't actually increase your survivability that much; if the dragon wants to take you, specifically, out, it will use something else -- like an antimagic field that will make all your toys useless anyway. If the dragon is just fighting the party, it will quickly realize that it will do better attacking someone else.

Adding an extra 4 points of AC at that point is a multiplier. You are ~4x as survivable.

Er, no. You are no more survivable, because the dragon goes from not being able to attack your AC effectively to not being able to attack your AC effectively. You're essentially going from a cheap window lock next to an unlocked door to an expensive window lock next to an unlocked door.


Your role matters. Your GM's style matters even more.

If you're looking at level 20 and you're in a home campaign, you should probably stop looking at the bestiaries as the sole source of potential opponents. Look at your GM's brain instead, and then look at your party as a whole. The GM's NPCs aren't contending with just your character.

Start thinking about intelligent creatures in the CR 4-12 range, and then think about how scary they could be with a bunch of class levels thrown on them.

So yes, you could have too much AC. Or too little. Or not enough save bonus. Or...or...and it all depends on your GM and your campaign.


no you cant. there is no too much AC, but there is unbalance resources.

the game is a good one, many sides of defenses.
AC is one.
saves? 3 more.
CMD another.
than there is touch AC, flat footed and more.
if you can get AC, saves, CMD and still do damage?
than something is wrong in the resources of the game.

you can turtle, but lose on maneuvers. boost CMD but screw HP .
add HP, but fall on saves.
ALL classes have a weak spot, nothing is perfect.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

I disagree. As an iconic example, a CR 20 red dragon (a wyrm) has three attacks at +38 and three at +36. If you have AC 54, the red dragon needs to roll three sixteens and three eighteens to hit you.

Adding another two points of AC won't actually increase your survivability that much; if the dragon wants to take you, specifically, out, it will use something else -- like an antimagic field that will make all your toys useless anyway. If the dragon is just fighting the party, it will quickly realize that it will do better attacking someone else.

Adding an extra 4 points of AC at that point is a multiplier. You are ~4x as survivable.
Er, no. You are no more survivable, because the dragon goes from not being able to attack your AC effectively to not being able to attack your AC effectively. You're essentially going from a cheap window lock next to an unlocked door to an expensive window lock next to an unlocked door.

You've gone from a 30% hit chance with your better attack to a 5% hit chance. The high AC character is reducing incoming damage by 83.33% with the extra 4 points of armor.

The weaker attack has gone from a 15% hit chance to a 5% miss chance, a 66.67% reduction in damage, achieved with only +2 AC.

The only question is the opportunity cost paid to acquire that extra +4 AC.


Snowlilly wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

I disagree. As an iconic example, a CR 20 red dragon (a wyrm) has three attacks at +38 and three at +36. If you have AC 54, the red dragon needs to roll three sixteens and three eighteens to hit you.

Adding another two points of AC won't actually increase your survivability that much; if the dragon wants to take you, specifically, out, it will use something else -- like an antimagic field that will make all your toys useless anyway. If the dragon is just fighting the party, it will quickly realize that it will do better attacking someone else.

Adding an extra 4 points of AC at that point is a multiplier. You are ~4x as survivable.
Er, no. You are no more survivable, because the dragon goes from not being able to attack your AC effectively to not being able to attack your AC effectively. You're essentially going from a cheap window lock next to an unlocked door to an expensive window lock next to an unlocked door.

You've gone from a 30% hit chance with your better attack to a 5% hit chance. The high AC character is reducing incoming damage by 83.33% with the extra 4 points of armor.

The weaker attack has gone from a 15% hit chance to a 5% miss chance, a 66.67% reduction in damage, achieved with only +2 AC.

The only question is the opportunity cost paid to acquire that extra +4 AC.

That's not quite the point being made. At this level, let's say that you're fighting the aforementioned Red Wyrm. Sure, they could just attack you, and go up against your high AC. Or they could use their Breath Weapon. Or use a combat maneuver out of your reach. Or case some spells. At high levels, there's suddenly a wide array of options that big bad gribbly things can use. Honestly, the 30% chance to hit is good enough odds in my book, and a sign that it's time to move on to your other defenses.

Grand Lodge

Snowlilly wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

I disagree. As an iconic example, a CR 20 red dragon (a wyrm) has three attacks at +38 and three at +36. If you have AC 54, the red dragon needs to roll three sixteens and three eighteens to hit you.

Adding another two points of AC won't actually increase your survivability that much; if the dragon wants to take you, specifically, out, it will use something else -- like an antimagic field that will make all your toys useless anyway. If the dragon is just fighting the party, it will quickly realize that it will do better attacking someone else.

Adding an extra 4 points of AC at that point is a multiplier. You are ~4x as survivable.
Er, no. You are no more survivable, because the dragon goes from not being able to attack your AC effectively to not being able to attack your AC effectively. You're essentially going from a cheap window lock next to an unlocked door to an expensive window lock next to an unlocked door.

You've gone from a 30% hit chance with your better attack to a 5% hit chance. The high AC character is reducing incoming damage by 83.33% with the extra 4 points of armor.

The weaker attack has gone from a 15% hit chance to a 5% miss chance, a 66.67% reduction in damage, achieved with only +2 AC.

The only question is the opportunity cost paid to acquire that extra +4 AC.

Huge AC verse Dragon....Dragon can't Hit you so he breaths fire on you, Hits you with Frightful presence, and then he Crushes (Ex) you and anyone else near you, Letting his Fire Aura and Crush damage do you in...was AC important...somewhat...but there are answers to huge AC in just about every encounter at CR20+.

Just how does the DM react to over optimization of 1 aspect of a character.


It is really a question for your GM.

I made an 8th level character with a potential AC of 36 in a 10th level party where the best other player had a 32. I was trying to make him survivable due to level disparity but the GM got irked and tossed me out of the game for over optimizing.

The issue is that GMs have different 1) expectation of encounter challenge level for you/the party, 2) level of rules mastery, 3) levels of creativity to address high AC. When any of these suffer,a perfect storm can happen where the GM feels like the players are winning to much. When you pass the GM's threshold of tolerance in any of these areas your risk backlash even if your character uses RAW. Same with archers, trip builds or any character concept that exploits some mechanic to be the best at it (AC, DPS, Control, etc). If the GM feels over taxed by your exploits you may end up fighting critters with psuedo-pod legs (untrippable), natural ranged touch attacks (to blast past AC) and DR (to reduce high DPR), or in my case, inadvertently create ill will.

Grand Lodge

MyCupRunnethOver wrote:

It is really a question for your GM.

I made an 8th level character with a potential AC of 36 in a 10th level party where the best other player had a 32. I was trying to make him survivable due to level disparity but the GM got irked and tossed me out of the game for over optimizing.

The issue is that GMs have different 1) expectation of encounter challenge level for you/the party, 2) level of rules mastery, 3) levels of creativity to address high AC. When any of these suffer,a perfect storm can happen where the GM feels like the players are winning to much. When you pass the GM's threshold of tolerance in any of these areas your risk backlash even if your character uses RAW. Same with archers, trip builds or any character concept that exploits some mechanic to be the best at it (AC, DPS, Control, etc). If the GM feels over taxed by your exploits you may end up fighting critters with psuedo-pod legs (untrippable), natural ranged touch attacks (to blast past AC) and DR (to reduce high DPR), or in my case, inadvertently create ill will.

+1 on this...what I was trying to convey


mourge40k wrote:
That's not quite the point being made. At this level, let's say that you're fighting the aforementioned Red Wyrm. Sure, they could just attack you, and go up against your high AC. Or they could use their Breath Weapon. Or use a combat maneuver out of your reach. Or case some spells. At high levels, there's suddenly a wide array of options that big bad gribbly things can use. Honestly, the 30% chance to hit is good enough odds in my book, and a sign that it's time to move on to your other defenses.

I'm assuming that if you've survived to 20th level, you're more than just AC. That may mean you are a fighter with non-magical flight, or a paladin who simply does not care about the Fear, or a Warpriest that used a swift action to cast Protection from Fire on the first round.

You did not put Righteous, or Unbound or a similar effect on your armor? At 20th level this is a serious failing for any front line character (for a variety of reasons, including offensive ability). So no, the issue of auto pinning should never come up.


MyCupRunnethOver wrote:

It is really a question for your GM.

I made an 8th level character with a potential AC of 36 in a 10th level party where the best other player had a 32. I was trying to make him survivable due to level disparity but the GM got irked and tossed me out of the game for over optimizing.

The issue is that GMs have different 1) expectation of encounter challenge level for you/the party, 2) level of rules mastery, 3) levels of creativity to address high AC. When any of these suffer,a perfect storm can happen where the GM feels like the players are winning to much. When you pass the GM's threshold of tolerance in any of these areas your risk backlash even if your character uses RAW. Same with archers, trip builds or any character concept that exploits some mechanic to be the best at it (AC, DPS, Control, etc). If the GM feels over taxed by your exploits you may end up fighting critters with psuedo-pod legs (untrippable), natural ranged touch attacks (to blast past AC) and DR (to reduce high DPR), or in my case, inadvertently create ill will.

The GM can always win. I once had a GM rule that all NPC's and monsters had 95% spell resistance.

It was a very short lived game.

The same thing happens if the GM compensates by making every monster able to easily hit the high AC character, or simply bypasses defenses. The second the front line character goes down, the rest of party is dead.

A defense focused player is frequently going to be playing a Paladin: high AC, high saves, immunities, self healing, spells, etc. By the time the GM takes him down, he's already TPK'd the rest of the group. Usually several times over.

Spoiler:
Been there, done this, been requested to stop playing paladins.

Sovereign Court

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

I disagree. As an iconic example, a CR 20 red dragon (a wyrm) has three attacks at +38 and three at +36. If you have AC 54, the red dragon needs to roll three sixteens and three eighteens to hit you.

Adding another two points of AC won't actually increase your survivability that much; if the dragon wants to take you, specifically, out, it will use something else -- like an antimagic field that will make all your toys useless anyway. If the dragon is just fighting the party, it will quickly realize that it will do better attacking someone else.

Adding an extra 4 points of AC at that point is a multiplier. You are ~4x as survivable.
Er, no. You are no more survivable, because the dragon goes from not being able to attack your AC effectively to not being able to attack your AC effectively. You're essentially going from a cheap window lock next to an unlocked door to an expensive window lock next to an unlocked door.

I will say - your dragon example also assumes that the dragon is too dumb to apply any self-buffs.

Even if you have your CR 20 dragons run into battle naked (silliness - but whatever) before they get there they're going to cast Bull's Strength and Heroism at the very least before any fight (offensively - also defensive buffs), giving them an extra +4 to hit - so that in your above example they hit on 12 & 14 respectively. (Again - that's a mimimum if they're not stupid with their spell choices.)


I once felt with an over compensating GM. Was so upset at the druid who managed to amass an ac over 40, and give damage because dice. We were level 10. The solution he came up with was to make everything hit really, really, really hard. Like, 3 attacks and your 100+ HP was almost all gone. My purely buffer bard got hit with 3 attacks and went from 96 HP (Gnome with toughness) to -32. It was the boss but still.

All the while the druid regularly had a sub 10 touch and nearly non existent reflex save. He was also commonly a plant so he had a fire weakness.

Moral of the story: build appropriately for the GM I guess. If you know they're good at what they do, make whatever character you want. They'll have your weakness challenged eventually. If you know they're not experienced... tone it down. Just have fun. No need for a manifesto of absolute DPR or AC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

I disagree. As an iconic example, a CR 20 red dragon (a wyrm) has three attacks at +38 and three at +36. If you have AC 54, the red dragon needs to roll three sixteens and three eighteens to hit you.

Adding another two points of AC won't actually increase your survivability that much; if the dragon wants to take you, specifically, out, it will use something else -- like an antimagic field that will make all your toys useless anyway. If the dragon is just fighting the party, it will quickly realize that it will do better attacking someone else.

Adding an extra 4 points of AC at that point is a multiplier. You are ~4x as survivable.
Er, no. You are no more survivable, because the dragon goes from not being able to attack your AC effectively to not being able to attack your AC effectively. You're essentially going from a cheap window lock next to an unlocked door to an expensive window lock next to an unlocked door.
You've gone from a 30% hit chance with your better attack to a 5% hit chance. The high AC character is reducing incoming damage by 83.33% with the extra 4 points of armor.

No, you've gone from a 95% chance of failing a Fort save to a 95% chance of failing a Fort save.

You're no more survivable than your weakest defense; once your AC is your strongest defense, adding more AC adds no more survivability.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
You're no more survivable than your weakest defense.

I like it...It is a True Sentence.

Sovereign Court

Orfamay Quest wrote:


You're no more survivable than your weakest defense; once your AC is your strongest defense, adding more AC adds no more survivability.

That's why I like my Dwarf Dex Monk with Steel Soul. :P


Charon's Little Helper wrote:


That's why I like my Dwarf Dex Monk with Steel Soul. :P

Blah blah no DPR blah blah.


Frosty Ace wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:


That's why I like my Dwarf Dex Monk with Steel Soul. :P
Blah blah no DPR blah blah.

Combat maneuver focused sensei drunken master qinggong monks can be quite fun. No DPR necessary.


Orfamay Quest wrote:


No, you've gone from a 95% chance of failing a Fort save to a 95% chance of failing a Fort save.

You're no more survivable than your weakest defense; once your AC is your strongest defense, adding more AC adds no more survivability.

If the fighter or paladin has a 95% fail rate on Fort saves, he's either dumped con & forgotten to buy a cloak (unlikely) or the GM's decided to end the campaign.

You don't need to be unassailable on everything, just make sure you're not the weakest.

Again, if the GM decides to self-destruct the game proving he can throw higher numbers, nothing can stop him. He'll be starting a new game after the TPK, if the players are willing.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Is it possible to have to much AC? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.