Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 JohnnyBlaise Jul 07, 2015 0:05:10	Has someone developed a guide for this yet that addresses the issues of diminishing returns?   For example challenge 20 monsters have an attack bonus of +14.  Presumably, that is the highest level monster you are likely to face in an adventuring career (baring the campaign ending fights).  The nastiest of all creatures in the MM only has a +17.  So presumably, an AC of 37 (and a way to force disadvantage) makes you more or less unittable ever.  But, as noted, thats not even needed until the end tier of the game.  Challenge 15 monsters  are in the +12 to hit range, so you are looking for a 32 AC.   What is a reasonable trade off for an extra point of AC at each level?   RIght now (at level 9), I am rocking a 25 AC (30 if i use my reaction), but for that I am giving up two attunded item slots (Ring of Protection and Black Dragon Mask).  The mask is amazing all around, but the Ring seems sort of crappy - +1 AC and saves is good, but not as good as the legendary items that may come up later (robe of the archmagi etc).  Darkness/prot evil can do the job re: disadvantage on the enemies' attack.   Is it worth dumping two feats to go from 16 dex to 20 dex?     Is it worth seeking out a +3 shield instead of +1 shield?   Can anyone give some advice on how to get to that 32 number?  Even if I find a +3 shield and spend the dex bumps, thats only a 29 - three shy of my endgame goal.  Dump the ring for a staff of power, gets me to 30. Presumably tomes of Dex and Cha can get me to 32, but those are crazy unlikely.
#2 AaronOfBarbaria Jul 07, 2015 7:14:32	Here is how you "optimize" your AC:   Wear the best armor you can for your proficiency and ability score spread.   That's it.   It's not "worth it" to stress out about chasing down any particular bonus to AC because the game is designed so that no matter what you do, short of getting literally every possible benefit to AC, monsters are going to hit you - but your hit points scale fast enough that you aren't going to be taken out easily, even if you are 20th level and your AC is still 16.
#3 JohnnyBlaise Jul 07, 2015 9:18:03	Aaron that was kind of non-answer man.  The stated purpose of this forum is to discuss things like optimization.  Don't rude man.
#4 FrogReaver Jul 07, 2015 9:27:07	JohnnyBlaise wrote:
#5 Yunru Jul 07, 2015 9:37:41	Unarmoured Barbarian with max Dex and Con (lucky rolls), with a +3 shield would do it. Or a +2 shield and a misc item with +1 AC. Or Warforged and a +2 shield. But all of the above require at least one rare magical item so...
(Reply to #4) JohnnyBlaise	FrogReaver wrote:
#7 Yunru Jul 07, 2015 11:40:31	There we are. A legendary attuned item. That'd account for it.
#8 JohnnyBlaise Jul 07, 2015 11:54:39	Id be giving up Sheild Master and Resilient to make my Dex a 20 (doesnt seem like a good trade to me).
#9 awaken_D_M_golem Jul 07, 2015 12:47:25	Mediums trading the +1 AC for the disadvantage is mostly mitigated via Stealth proficiency.  Only for the non-stealthers, obviously.   Same idea for a class with a Familiar, don't take Perception assuming you and your Fam with advantage, is enough. You go get Acrobatics instead for defense.   Shield spell I hope does not get errata'd ... (given it's historical nature too) but it's worth a normal Shield +2 with the magic +3 and a free hand, at the expense of 1 spell known, 1 spell prepared, reaction used 1/round. Assumes backliner use and/or spellpoints.   I don't think Shield is so good on a frontliner but I haven't run numbers just yet.  You will take >1 hit per round sometimes.
#10 JohnnyBlaise Jul 07, 2015 14:32:21	Shield (the spell)  is sticky - it lasts until the start of your next turn
#11 Polaris Jul 07, 2015 15:45:11	If you are just concerned about all the time AC, I would say that a fighter with heavy armor (platemail), Shield, and the defensive fighting style is probably your best start since that gives AC 21 with no magic items or required attributes whatsoever.  A couple of +1 items can easily raise this to a 23 or even more, but it starts to get a lot more difficult after that.   IMHO and IMX any AC that's 18+ in 5e is quite good.
#12 Zardnaar Jul 07, 2015 15:57:34	I thnk I had a PC hit AC 23. A +2 shield was in a publishhed adventure and she had a ring of protection +1 as well so she switched from a great sword to a rapier. It helped there was a magial rapier in the party no one was using as well.
(Reply to #3) AaronOfBarbaria	JohnnyBlaise wrote:
#42 Danny_Montanny Jul 19, 2015 12:15:52	I would definitely say the Defense Fighting Style does not work if you're unarmored, but still wielding a shield. Not to mention that if you do consider a shield wearing armor, and thus granting the benefit of the Defense style, you wouldn't gain the benefit of Draconic Resiliance (since it stipulates that you can't be wearing armor and your shield is armor).
#43 Ghost_Gallus Jul 19, 2015 12:27:30	Or, more logically, shields are shields and count as shields, Nah, that would be simple and make sense. What actually makes sense is that shields have the same proficiency rules as armor, which is why the rules are listed un the heading of "Armor and Shields". It's really simple.   Also, also, shields are not an "exception" to Unarmored Defense. Unarmored Defense, as a class feature, tells you when you can and cannot not apply it. Barbarians get it with a shield, Monks do not and both are speciffically called out.
#44 Vulf Jul 20, 2015 0:47:16	Shields only work with Draconic Resilience because JC said they did in a tweet, in defiance of RAW. These Guys also routinely express how unimportant the rules are for playing the game, yet AL is very adamant about adhering to them!
#45 Yunru Jul 20, 2015 3:12:11	No, if JC says they work with it, it means that it's what RAW says. Mage Armor and dragon scales only say they don't work when wearing armor. Which leaves two options: Shields aren't worn. Or Shields aren't armour, they're shields. Which would explain why the entire section is called "armor and shield" rather than "armor".
#46 Vulf Jul 20, 2015 5:26:54	Yunru wrote:
#47 Dersu Jul 20, 2015 5:49:20	Shields are not armor, they are shields. They have their own proficiency category and are handled differently than armor but similar to weapons. If you are not proficienct with them, you don't get to use them. Which is the same for martial weapons. If you lack the proficiency you don't then get to use them at disadvantage you just don't even get to swing them.   Armor is the only equipment that can be equipped without proficiency, and it has a special rule about confering disadvantage and eliminating spell casting.   If someone really really really wanted to use a shield without proficiency I would say fine, but have it confer no ac bonus.
#48 ArialBlack Jul 20, 2015 7:16:32	Vulf wrote:
#49 Vulf Jul 20, 2015 8:28:24	Dersu wrote:
#50 Ghost_Gallus Jul 22, 2015 20:21:28	Vulf wrote:
(Reply to #49) FrogReaver	Vulf wrote:
(Reply to #50) FrogReaver	Ghost_Gallus wrote:
(Reply to #50) Rasufemagger	Ghost_Gallus wrote:
#54 Ghost_Gallus Jul 23, 2015 11:35:31	And? Since there is no specific rule saying that Barbarians add the shield bonus your statement is irrelevant. Once again, reading comprehension.  The book is a book, not a single paragraph.
(Reply to #54) rczarnec	Ghost_Gallus wrote:
(Reply to #55) Ghost_Gallus	Yeah, no duh. It doesn't say you gain the benefit of the Shield though does it? Which means, by "RAW", if shields are armor, they don't. Not to mention that it only works if you are not wearing any armor. Fortunately, shields are not armor. It's almost like the view that shields behave exactly like armor based on a single sentence that doesn't actually say that is stupid.    rczarnec wrote:
(Reply to #56) rczarnec	Ghost_Gallus wrote:
#58 Ghost_Gallus Jul 23, 2015 12:51:52	Actually, no, all it would allow, if shields were armor, would be to allow the player to choose which way they wanted to calculate thier AC, with Unarmored Defense or with the shield. Just like if some one cast Mage Armor on them. Armor AC substitutes normal AC calculation just like Unarmores Defense, Mage Armor etc.. Of course, shields don't actually work like that, becuase that would be redundant and stupid. Shields grant a bonus of +2 to AC. Like exactly none of  armor in the game does.   Furthermore, why does the Monk Unarmored Defense specifically exclude use of armor and shields? If shields were armor they woul dnot have wasted the word count. It is because shields are not armor.
#59 Danny_Montanny Jul 23, 2015 12:59:49	I just don't get the problem. You don't "wear" a shield, you "wield" (or use) a shield. It's an active thing and you must be actively doing it, and be proficient in doing it, to increase your AC by 2. If you're not, you don't get squat from it. Even if you do consider it "armor", it doesn't make a difference. Anything that interacts with the general rule has specifics on how it does. So, to one of the main points, the Defense fighting style... you aren't wearing the stupid shield, so you don't get the +1 AC because you must be "wearing" armor to get the bonus. And don't feed me that "it has to be donned" crap either.   If people would just stop trying to squeeze some sort of advantage from everything and just look at things rationally, this stuff wouldn't be such a big deal.
(Reply to #58) rczarnec	Ghost_Gallus wrote:
#61 Ghost_Gallus Jul 23, 2015 14:59:15	rczarnec wrote:
(Reply to #61) rczarnec	Ghost_Gallus wrote:
#63 Ghost_Gallus Jul 23, 2015 17:33:39	1) There was no logical fallacy.        2) You invented a new clause to reference for argument.   What you claim is "obvious" only works that way because shields are not armor. You ignorance of who the rules regarding AC calculations is not my problem.    If shields were armor, the rules as they are would not function correctly. Which is the entire point I am making.
#64 Verdandy Jul 23, 2015 17:55:39	I love the tables and charts - it's good to know I can get an Armor Class better than 20! =D Thx!
#65 Knight_Marshal Jul 25, 2015 6:34:06	For the new AL campaign coming up. I am thinking about a variant Human paladin with shield and plate when I can get it. What is the best way to build it to get the max benefits for AC? I am looking at either defense or protection style and either devotion or vengeance oath with shield mastery most likely as my Human feat.
(Reply to #65) JohnnyBlaise	Knight_Marshal wrote:
(Reply to #65) Danny_Montanny	Knight_Marshal wrote:
#68 FunkySpunk Jul 27, 2015 17:16:20	JohnnyBlaise wrote:
#69 Knight_Marshal Jul 27, 2015 19:36:26	I kind of hate the idea that to get the best AC I can, I would need to use medium armor which for a paladin kind of negates the whole 'Knight in Shining Armor' ideal. However I also realize that in the AL, the chance of me ever wearing plate is slim. I have a better chance of getting half plate, but I can't really count on that either.
#70 Danny_Montanny Jul 27, 2015 20:27:36	AL is usually pretty low level play. 19 AC at level 2 with Smites isn't anything to sneeze at.
#71 FunkySpunk Jul 27, 2015 20:53:48	Knight_Marshal wrote:
(Reply to #61) rczarnec	Ghost_Gallus wrote:
#73 Knight_Marshal Jul 28, 2015 14:36:39	FunkySpunk wrote:
#74 Lilika Jul 28, 2015 20:02:57	I think plate is completely viable in AL, just you need to wait till you can afford it.  If you spend a feat you can match plate for AC, and not have any drawbacks to stealth, but you are spending a feat for that.  For example if you are playing a human paladin, you could take Medium Armor Mastery and medium armor, or you could take something else such as Heavy Armor Mastery and by the time you get plate armor have the same AC and have damage reduction as well, just disadvantage on stealth checks.     If your a non variant human Medium Armor Mastery is even more of a drawback, because as a paladin you will probably want to spend your feats on your primary attacking attribute (str or dex) and cha.  When you finally get plate armor you will have the same AC as the character who took Medium Armor Mastery, yet still have a feat slot to spend.     Medium Armor Mastery is good for a certain type of character, but it does cost a feat, and in terms of AC is no better than plate.
#75 rczarnec Jul 30, 2015 8:26:37	Ghost_Gallus wrote:
#76 Ghost_Gallus Jul 30, 2015 15:46:08	rczarnec wrote:
(Reply to #76) rczarnec	Ghost_Gallus wrote:
(Reply to #77) Ghost_Gallus	rczarnec wrote:
#79 FunkySpunk Jul 30, 2015 19:13:52	Lilika wrote:
#80 Ravix Jul 30, 2015 20:09:19	Shields do not count as armor...
#81 Knight_Marshal Jul 31, 2015 13:17:15	FunkySpunk wrote:
#82 FunkySpunk Aug 05, 2015 0:17:28	Knight_Marshal wrote:
#83 bid Aug 05, 2015 12:30:17	FunkySpunk wrote:
(Reply to #83) Danny_Montanny	bid wrote: