Unsure about stacking for AC

[Troacctid]

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

Probably in the 10–12 range, since that's around when level-appropriate monsters start to get that kind of bonus, on average. Definitely not at level 20—attack bonuses are much higher there.

[vasilidor]

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

[CharonsHelper]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[vasilidor]

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

[Necroticplague]

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

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

[CharonsHelper]

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

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

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

[Necroticplague]

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

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

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

[CharonsHelper]

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

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

[rrwoods]

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

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

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

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

[CharonsHelper]

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

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

[lord_khaine]

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

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

[Necroticplague]

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

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

[CharonsHelper]

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

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

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

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

[DarkSonic1337]

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