D&D 5E 5th Edition Armor Class 20 Max

[ren1999]

In summary, AC should max at 20 for all natural armor and beast hide.
Magical armor and beast AC should max at 30

 

[Fifth Element]

Don't take this the wrong way, man, but did we really need a thread about this? You provide essentially zero content in the OP and no starting point for a discussion.

Not every thought about 5E needs its own thread.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I'm not ready to all out state that it needs to be capped at 20, but I do think it's a solid target for design purposes. And there is symmetry with ability scores. If I were the design team, it's where I'd start, and then adjust from there until the math works.

 

[ren1999]

I was running the math on the implied limited bonuses at different levels and determined that if we limit the AC in the exact same way we limit all ability scores, everything works out nicely.

 

[Stormonu]

If you were to look at older editions of D&D, AC should be capped at 30 (AC 10 base, downward to -10), with perhaps god-like beings able to hit AC 40.

Plate Mail and Heavy Shield would give you about AC 20. Plate Mail +5, Heavy Shield +5 should garner you about AC 30 (assuming heavy armor retains the penalty of no Dex bonus to AC).

 

[Campbell]

If you were to look at older editions of D&D, AC should be capped at 30 (AC 10 base, downward to -10), with perhaps god-like beings able to hit AC 40.

Plate Mail and Heavy Shield would give you about AC 20. Plate Mail +5, Heavy Shield +5 should garner you about AC 30 (assuming heavy armor retains the penalty of no Dex bonus to AC).

Having 27-30 be the high end for AC actually lines up pretty well with the DC guidance outlined in the DM Guidelines document. I like it.

 

[jadrax]

So non-magical AC cap is 20?
With magic items cap is 30?
With god-like powers cap is 40?

Shame we cant really make much of a guess at Attack Roll bonuses to compare yet.

 

[ren1999]

So non-magical AC cap is 20?
With magic items cap is 30?
With god-like powers cap is 40?

Shame we cant really make much of a guess at Attack Roll bonuses to compare yet.

Too bad. We'll have to wait for the details on attack roll bonuses to see.

A humanoid with a natural maxed out strength roll of 1d20(+5) versus a humanoid with a natural maxed out armor class of 20 would hit on a 15 to 20 roll.

Add a +5 modifier for a magic weapon and add 5 for magic armor and you need a 15 to 20 to hit.

with max magic
1d20+10 versus AC25
Ah, that would change things.

I don't see why we couldn't add immortals rules here.

Ah, yes. Correction
natural AC20
with magic AC25
immortals AC30

 

[Stormonu]

Too bad. We'll have to wait for the details on attack roll bonuses to see.

A humanoid with a natural maxed out strength roll of 1d20(+5) versus a humanoid with a natural maxed out armor class of 20 would hit on a 15 to 20 roll.

Add a +5 modifier for a magic weapon and add 5 for magic armor and you need a 15 to 20 to hit.

with max magic
1d20+10 versus AC25
Ah, that would change things.

I don't see why we couldn't add immortals rules here.

Ah, yes. Correction
natural AC20
with magic AC25
immortals AC30

You're forgetting you could have magic armor + magic shield, which would give a magic bonus of +10 alone (not including the +5 for Str), unless the game to somehow limits you so you can only get +5 from all magic bonuses (say +3 from armor, +2 from shield, +1 from armor, +4 from shield or some combination inbetween). Wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but might offend some of the (other) long-time gamers.

 

[BobTheNob]

You're forgetting you could have magic armor + magic shield, which would give a magic bonus of +10 alone (not including the +5 for Str), unless the game to somehow limits you so you can only get +5 from all magic bonuses (say +3 from armor, +2 from shield, +1 from armor, +4 from shield or some combination inbetween). Wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but might offend some of the (other) long-time gamers.

COULD have yes. Do we know at this stage whether they will even be supporting the old +X on armor and shields? It would be fairly counter productive to the prerogative to flatten the probability math to keep those bonus's on armor and shields.

In the absence of any solid proof to the contrary (and if you know something, please give me a link) Im actually guessing that +X on armor and shields will be a real bad fit for the direction they are aiming for, an the concept of enchanted armor and shields will have to follow a different model for implementation.