# AC 56 at level 6! You too can do it!



## moritheil (Dec 15, 2006)

There was a surprising amount of furor over this very simple statement, so I'm branching this off into another thread.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Ok, so you still have to back up this claim.




I've shown more than I care to show.  I broke the AC down source by source, points by points.  That's sufficient for anyone familiar with the books to identify everything.  You have yet to sit down with the books and figure it out, which is a laughably simple task, but I won't be blamed for that.  Nor do I intend to spoonfeed people who happen to randomly stop by the boards and just want a min/max build without properly understanding how it works.  I want to encourage people to be able to min/max themselves, not to rely on other people posting every little detail.  It's feed a man a fish versus teach a man to fish. 



> Your claim is that AC increase is astronomically higher than to-hit increase from levels 1 to 10.




I claim that the OP's statement that to-hit far outstrips AC is spurious at lower levels, and if anything, it's the other way around.  I just happened to throw out some plausible numbers to illustrate my point.



> Alter Self has a 5 HD limit. In your other post, you appear to be claiming a 5 or less HD creature with Natural Armor +20 and has the same creature type as the Elven Artificer.
> 
> This is suspect.




No, it's really not.  You certainly know that the effective use of alter self hinges upon having a type other than humanoid.  You also know how to get another creature type at first level.  I've seen you do it before on these boards.  Please don't conveniently forget how to min-max just to make me look bad.      Come on, play fair.  You know how to get the optimum AC from alter self.  Why would you assume that I did anything else?



> And, you did not illustrate the other side of the equation. You have yet to illustrate that a optimized to-hit same level character is *astronomically* lower than the optimized AC same level character. In fact, you only posted some vague numbers and didn't even attempt to post both characters.




You're still fixating on a single word I happened to use.  As I said before, that's just semantics and has no real bearing on the issue at hand.  If you want my reasoning, it's because some of the AC stuff isn't possible due to lack of resources/feats, etc. before 6th level.  What's the fastest to-hit increase over one or two levels?  I imagine the fastest it could increase would be around 5 or 6.  I'd call an increase of 10-20 much higher than an increase of 5-6 (let me guess, one of your replies is going to take me to task for using "astronomically" when I really just mean "much.")  However, I don't know that 5 is the biggest increase possible.  Also note that I am ONLY considering literal to-hit increases, because that's what the OP I responded to discussed.  I am not interested, for example, in how wraithstrike makes a mockery of high ACs; that issue is well known (and is part of why I wouldn't bother building such a high AC in a character I was running.)  It is an effective AC decrease rather than a to-hit increase, and as such has no bearing on the discussion as framed by the OP.



> Without real support to back up the claim, it sounds totally spurious and dismissable.




Maybe to you, because for some reason you continually question my motives.  It's simple, though.  I don't do to-hit optimization.  I left it open for someone who really knows their stuff to come in and show how they get more than +56 to hit at 6th level (which is necessary to prove the OP's point - or have you conveniently forgotten that this is a RESPONSE to someone else's assertion and can only be properly understood in that context?)  

Furthermore, no one else has attempted that pure to-hit build either.  Not you, not Nail, not any of the other respondents.  So you might say I've only shown half the argument, but I note that you didn't come right out and show how to do it yourself - instead you relied on a debuff, which is a known and acknowledged weakness of the build.  That doesn't prove anything about the rate of increase of AC and to hit bonuses themselves.

I never said, "This character is invincible."  I said that I wouldn't build a character like this myself, but _it can be done_.  Furthermore - and this is important, for people like Nail who totally misrepresent what I'm saying - _if I can do it, anyone can do it.  DnD rules do not change depending on who is playing the game._  Nail keeps yammering on about how most "characters" can't do it - despite the fact that I corrected him.  I don't care about characters.  I said that most PLAYERS can do it (the ones who can't are those who are incapable of either reading splatbooks or correctly performing math.)

The only reasons players don't do it are because either they don't realize they can do it, or they are too lazy to do it.  I posted up here to address that first issue.   You can address the latter issue yourself.


----------



## IanB (Dec 15, 2006)

My response would simply be that if you want me to take your position seriously, you should show your math, rather than expecting people to spend hours trying to figure out exactly what you're talking about.


----------



## moritheil (Dec 15, 2006)

IanB said:
			
		

> My response would simply be that if you want me to take your position seriously, you should show your math, rather than expecting people to spend hours trying to figure out exactly what you're talking about.




Hours are hardly necessary.  Both Nail and KD admit that they know how to get AC ~60 at that level.  So for learned respondents, it isn't a question of whether it is possible.


----------



## IcyCool (Dec 15, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Nor do I intend to spoonfeed people who happen to randomly stop by the boards and just want a min/max build without properly understanding how it works.  I want to encourage people to be able to min/max themselves, not to rely on other people posting every little detail.  It's feed a man a fish versus teach a man to fish.




You're kidding, right?  This is your response when someone asks you to back up your claims?

Wow.  Just ... wow.

If it upsets you so much, why bother even creating this thread?  How can it end in any other way than flames?


----------



## Crothian (Dec 15, 2006)

Okay, so let's see it.  I don't care how many people say they can do it.  I can claim to fly and have people back me on that, doesn't make it true.


----------



## Vuron (Dec 15, 2006)

Several people indicated that while 56 ac is possible at that level it requires very specialized builds and combos that are in no way easy to replicate.

A specific build + spell combo that the average game or player can't replicate is in fact anything but easy. It requires that someone build thier character with the express goal of having a high AC for a small number of encounters each day.

Further what cause such derision without some idea of what books you are using it's an unverifiable claim. The claim that such builds are "secret" and that if you don't already know about them you aren't going to enlighten people is a dubious debate tactic and people justifiably called you on it.

Finally you generate an entire new thread to repeat your claims without providing any proof other than a "well poster x and poster y have admitted it can be done" thus it can be done. You actually expect people to view such a statement favorably?


----------



## pogre (Dec 15, 2006)

and this thread is why the Rules Forum has its reputation.

I open it expecting someone to show me their build to make an incredible AC character, instead I get snarky comments about rules knowledge from the OP.  

Silly, just silly.


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 15, 2006)

Agreed...this is pathetic. You are not the first person on the rules forum asked to back up their claim, and you certainly won't be the last. Either show your work, or let it go.


----------



## moritheil (Dec 15, 2006)

Vuron said:
			
		

> Several people indicated that while 56 ac is possible at that level it requires very specialized builds and combos that are in no way easy to replicate.




See my post regarding "easy" in the context of powergaming. 



> A specific build + spell combo that the average game or player can't replicate is in fact anything but easy. It requires that someone build thier character with the express goal of having a high AC for a small number of encounters each day.




No, that's par for the course.  All characters in 3.5 (well, all efficiently designed or "powergamed" characters, which is effectively the same thing on boards such as these) are designed to do something and do it well.



> Further what cause such derision without some idea of what books you are using it's an unverifiable claim.




Nice to meet you.  You obviously haven't seen my prior posts on this board.  I use all books, all the time, with the occasional exception of Incarnum.



> The claim that such builds are "secret" and that if you don't already know about them you aren't going to enlighten people is a dubious debate tactic and people justifiably called you on it.
> 
> Finally you generate an entire new thread to repeat your claims without providing any proof other than a "well poster x and poster y have admitted it can be done" thus it can be done. You actually expect people to view such a statement favorably?




What do you think I am aiming at?  Victory of some sort?  Is this a debate with points being scored and medals on the line?  I just want awareness of the issue to increase.  View it favorably or unfavorably as you like - some small portion of the readers of this thread will sit down and attempt it, and they will become better at powergaming.

If I deride anything, it's that people would ignore the facts and twist the truth just to win an argument.

Thanks for responding and helping my cause!


----------



## moritheil (Dec 15, 2006)

pogre said:
			
		

> and this thread is why the Rules Forum has its reputation.
> 
> I open it expecting someone to show me their build to make an incredible AC character, instead I get snarky comments about rules knowledge from the OP.
> 
> Silly, just silly.




You seem to be misunderstanding - I've already shown it.  It's in the other thread.

That fact aside, do I owe you something?  My only point is that it can be done and I want to raise awareness of that fact.  You seem to accuse me of looking for the fawning adoration of the masses.


----------



## Moonstone Spider (Dec 15, 2006)

I agree, please show more of what the bonuses are.  Your post just says "spells/abilities/feats" but I can't tell how that's supposed to give us useful information.  Pretty much everything in DnD is a mix of those plus equipment.  Here's how I can see getting a high AC:
Full Plate (+8)
Tower Shield (+4)
Enhancement bonus of +2 to each (+4)
Dex Modifier +1
Barkskin spell (+2 at level 6)
Dodge (+1)
Full Defense + Combat Expertise (+5)

That gives a total of 35 at the cost of never being able to attack worth a hill of beans.  You could Mithril the armor and shield and go Cat's Grace for another +2 but the cost of Mithril would be prohibitive at level 6.  I'm probably missing a few things but are there really 30 more points of AC to add?  What more bonuses do you have up your sleeve moritheil?
Barkskin


----------



## Crothian (Dec 15, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> You seem to be misunderstanding - I've already shown it.  It's in the other thread.




Showing what the AC is through the different bonuses is not showing the build.


----------



## moritheil (Dec 15, 2006)

Moonstone Spider said:
			
		

> I agree, please show more of what the bonuses are.  Your post just says "spells/abilities/feats" but I can't tell how that's supposed to give us useful information.  Pretty much everything in DnD is a mix of those plus equipment.  Here's how I can see getting a high AC:
> Full Plate (+8)
> Tower Shield (+4)
> Enhancement bonus of +2 to each (+4)
> ...




Okay, this request shows effort and is more to my liking.

You missed my statement in the other thread, but the way to powergame is not to go with conventional methods.  It makes sense: those are the ways WOTC has put the most effort into balancing, and consequently they are of little use if one wants to get anything really high.

Armor: no one has broken down the force armor bonus.  There are only two well-known spells for getting force armor: mage armor and greater mage armor.  Mage armor is AC 4, and I have AC 6 force armor listed, so by simple process of elimination it must be the other one.  I've already said that 22 natural armor is from barkskin (2) and alter self, so by process of elimination the rest (20) belongs to alter self.  Yes, there is an alter self form with 5 or less HD that gives 20 natural AC.  It's actually very commonly known, and I had originally assumed that that would be the bonus everyone would identify instantly.

You're absolutely right to say that there's no way that this character can do anything but tank.  I admitted as much earlier and stated that I would have cut the AC stacking at 30 to devote more resources to being useful in other ways.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 15, 2006)

Folks, let's not get a furor going here, please.  

I will point out that the existence of one build that is particularly powerful in this regard does not to me seem to refute the original argument, which seems to me to be more about general behavior of the ruleset.


----------



## moritheil (Dec 15, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Showing what the AC is through the different bonuses is not showing the build.




But it is not different from showing that the build is plausible.    

As I said at the time, I just put those together in my head without even having the books at hand.  I haven't done the elaborate contortions of fitting a rigorous build together.  Heck, only two of the feats are determined (you must have Otherworldly and Combat Expertise.)

There is one error that I caught reviewing it - dodge bonus should be 3, not 2.  This is why I titled this thread AC 56 instead of AC 57. (I wonder if anyone recognizes the source of the error.)


----------



## Bacris (Dec 15, 2006)

But you're not, in fact, showing that the build is possible.

You're saying the build is possible, but not proving it.

Now, as to whether it is or is not possible, I honestly don't care, as I've seen Otto's builds on the highest AC record, so high AC really doesn't mean much to me, but claiming it can be done at 6th level and then refusing to give out the specifics because of some elitist mentality typically means that you can't actually validate what you're saying.  While I'm not saying that's what's happening here, I can see why folks would be leary of believing you when you're not willing to prove it.

Sort of like an elementary school child claiming he can beat anyone at a foot race and then when he's challenged, him saying "I don't need to prove anything, I know I can do it."  It gives the impression of a whole lot of hot air.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 15, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> But it is not different from showing that the build is possible.




Until such time as you provide the details, it is different, because the audience does not accept at face value that you actually managed it without errors.

If you want to make an arguemnt to prove a point, the burden of proof is upon you, not upon the audience you wish to accept the point.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 15, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> But it is not different from showing that the build is plausible.




Actually, I think it is.  You make claims that people should no what you are doing by seeing the answer.  That is not the case.  All you have is a list of bonuses and claim you can get them by 6th level all with one character.


----------



## moritheil (Dec 15, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Folks, let's not get a furor going here, please.
> 
> I will point out that the existence of one build that is particularly powerful in this regard does not to me seem to refute the original argument, which seems to me to be more about general behavior of the ruleset.




Thanks for stopping by!  Your assertion interests me.  My reasoning is that if someone can do something advantageous, you should expect it to be done in a competitive setting.  For example, no one compares their builds vs. a commoner 20 with all feats in Toughness, right?  It is only by comparing optimized builds with optimized builds that one achieves any understanding of what is possible.  Furthermore, the rules are generally no different when you play the game than when I play the game.  So if I build something with 56 AC, logic dictates that anyone can copy that and have 56 AC (especially in point buy games where you are sure of your stats.)

I was originally hoping that someone would respond with a high to-hit build, but alas, no one has.


----------



## moritheil (Dec 15, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> You make claims that people should no what you are doing by seeing the answer.




Correct.  This is because there are only so many things that are good enough to make it into a powergaming build.  The list is quite limited.  Wasn't there a thread recently that pointed out that only about 1/4 of sorc/wiz spells generally see use?  The rest are just not above average spells and thus may as well not exist where powergamers are concerned.



> All you have is a list of bonuses and claim you can get them by 6th level all with one character.




No, I claim that it should be possible.  Subtly but importantly different.


----------



## Sejs (Dec 15, 2006)

from the other thread said:
			
		

> 10(base) + 22(nat) + 6(force) + 4(shield) + 2(deflect) + 4(CE) + 3(dodge) + 6(dex) = 57 AC.



 Polished the notation a bit.  Okay, and this was mentioned being from an elven artificer, and it uses spells.  Let's see what we can break down.

Natural +22: no friggin' idea.  Probably gained from polymorph or similar I'm guessing.

Force +6: improved mage armor? bracers of armor?

Shield +4: tower shield, heavy shield +2, or the shield spell.

Deflect +2: ring of protection +2, shield of faith, protection from evil or similar.

CE +4: Combat Expertise for full all you've got.

Dodge +3: fight defensivly and have 5 ranks of tumble?

Dex +6: have a dexterity of 22, so whatever it is that's giving that cherry natural armor bonus is pretty light on its feet, too.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 15, 2006)

Throw me on the list of: "Put Up or Shut Up."  Either show your build or stop yammerin' about it.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 15, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Correct.  This is because there are only so many things that are good enough to make it into a powergaming build.




Not everyone is a powergamer and restricts their resources like that.  I'm not, I don't look at the game like that.  So, that is why I am asking to see how it is done.


----------



## IanB (Dec 15, 2006)

The point you seem to be missing is that what you're doing is bad form in an argument. If you are trying to prove a point, and you cite some data in support of this point, the obligation is on you to provide that data to the people you are trying to convince.

The reason people are objecting in the other thread, I think, is not because they want to know your build so they can use it in play, it is because you're not doing what is expected of someone in a debate.

For someone who doesn't know these little tricks, as I do not, it would indeed take me hours to scour through every book to make sure I was finding the optimal choice in every case, because I don't really know where to start. To be met with "you're too lazy to understand my argument" is just a reason for me to dismiss your points. 

This isn't a school exam; nobody is trying to crib notes from you. If you want to convince people of your proposition that AC increases faster than attack bonus, or anything else, you need to share your data.


----------



## Delta (Dec 15, 2006)

Never seen anyone claim AC > 50 without a math error in the details. So I'll assume you've made an error until proof to the contrary is presented.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 15, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Dodge +3: fight defensivly and have 5 ranks of tumble?




Nah, I'm guessing Dodge feat and Fighting Defensively.  You can't get 5 ranks in Tumble as an Artificer 6.


----------



## Vuron (Dec 15, 2006)

The only thing I'm slightly curious about is what book allowed a 5HD monster to have a +20 Natural Armor bonus as that seems to clearly violate accepted standards for natural AC bonus to HD.

I'm not saying there isn't one but that if there is one it pretty clearly slipped by the developers


----------



## werk (Dec 15, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Throw me on the list of: "Put Up or Shut Up."  Either show your build or stop yammerin' about it.




Put me in the 'all hat, no horse' camp.  

It's easy to make claims, challenges, and various stupid remarks..money talks, BS walks.

EDIT: ...and don't forget the original claim was easily and legally.  <-that's the hard part.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Dec 15, 2006)

*Whoops, I misspoke*

Edited.


----------



## Iku Rex (Dec 15, 2006)

Of course "I too can do it".   

I don't see how you're getting yours though, but that could be because you're using some fancy artificer trick. Are you sure you don't have more than 13000 gp worth of equipment? 

As for the alter self, I know of no +20 natural armor form. (It must be fairly new?) I'm using a +18 one in my build below. (Quick work, may have bugs.) It can only pull off the listed AC once/day, but then again you don't really _need_ AC 63 most of the time...

Sun Elf Monk1/Wizard5*
*Focused Transmutation Specialist (CMag), Necromancy, Illusion and Evocation (Or Enchantment) Banned

Otherworldly (PGtF), Carmendine Monk (CoV), Practiced Spellcaster (CDiv), Extend Spell

Base ability scores: 

Dex 16
Int 20

Spells:

Level 3 (2+2): Greater Mage Armor (SC), Dragonskin (SC), 2 more 
Level 2 (3+2): Fox's Cunning, Cat's Grace, Alter Self, 2x Heroics (SC)
Level 1 (5+2): Shield, Protection from Evil, 5 more


Alter self into dwarf ancestor from MMIV: https://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060704a&page=3 . Use Ring of Shrinking. Heroics for Dodge and Combat Expertise. (Could add more +AC feats by extending 2nd level spells into third level slots.)

AC: 
10

+18 natural armor (dwarf ancestor)
+3 enhancement natural armor (dragonskin)
+6 Dex (16 + 4 cat's grace + 2 ring of shrinking)
+7 Int (20 + 4 fox's cunning)
+6 armor (greater mage armor)
(50)
+4 shield (shield)
+3 dodge (fight defensively, 5 ranks tumble)
+2 dodge (Combat Expertise)
+1 dodge (Dodge)
(60)
+1 insight (ioun stone)
+2 deflection (protection from evil)
= AC 63

You could add more under special circumstances, using cover, aid another or the Mobility feat. No ring means -2 AC. No protection from evil is -1 (since he could afford a Ring of Protection +1.)

Gear (13000 gp max)
5000 Dusty Rose Ioun Stone 
3600 Ring of Shrinking (Savage Species) 
Spells
"Other"



(Tricksy stuff not included: Using scintillating scales to turn natural armor into a deflection bonus, then changing into new form with natural armor. Or spending 1200 gp to have a high level wizard cast polymorph any object on you.)


----------



## Sejs (Dec 15, 2006)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Nah, I'm guessing Dodge feat and Fighting Defensively.  You can't get 5 ranks in Tumble as an Artificer 6.




Ah good point.

I'm still trying to figure out what that 'super obvious omg why don't you get it yet' 5 hd humanoid is that has +20 natural armor, though.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Dec 15, 2006)

Sounds like someone is doing some serious slacking and wanting other folk to crunch the numbers for them! Aww how sweet...NOT!    

Now go and play with your books or something! We're timing you Mr. Oh-it-is-pretty-simple-to-do lol. Oh and thanks for the funny.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 15, 2006)

Iku Rex said:
			
		

> Of course "I too can do it".



 Goodness gracious, I'm not gonna even try to double check your numbers, but I'll just point out that this 'build' (and Heironeous know how much I personally hate builds) is *far from easy*.


----------



## Meowzebub (Dec 15, 2006)

We have all seen these arguments before is why there is such pessimism to your quasi- argument.

Just recently there was one that hindged on polymorphing into some obscure demon and another on polymorphng into a dwarf ancestor.  I do not remember the demon details, but the dwarf ancester supposed to provide +18 natural AC at 5HD, until you realize that it is an incorpreal spirit inhabiting a large stone statue, so if you are carrying around the large statue from fight to fight inbetween your polymorphs- more power to you.  But what ever the case, your secret is tied to the natural armor -which means some obscure monster reference. And this argument bores me too much to search all the monster sources for your gratification.

EDIT: I see above that the dwarf ancestor has risen again.


----------



## Iku Rex (Dec 15, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Goodness gracious, I'm not gonna even try to double check your numbers, but I'll just point out that this 'build' (and Heironeous know how much I personally hate builds) is *far from easy*.



Never said it was. 



			
				Meowzebub said:
			
		

> I do not remember the demon details, but the dwarf ancester supposed to provide +18 natural AC at 5HD, until you realize that it is an incorpreal spirit inhabiting a large stone statue, so if you are carrying around the large statue from fight to fight inbetween your polymorphs- more power to you.  But what ever the case, your secret is tied to the natural armor -which means some obscure monster reference. And this argument bores me too much to search all the monster sources for your gratification.



You don't need to carry around the statue used in the ritual to summon a dwarf ancestor in order to change into one. "Dwarf ancestor" is a corporeal outsider and a valid form for alter self. (_"Always LG Large outsider (native)"_.)


----------



## IanB (Dec 15, 2006)

I think you missed -1 AC for size on the dwarf ancestor.


----------



## Vuron (Dec 15, 2006)

Iku Rex said:
			
		

> Of course "I too can do it".





Interesting if convoluted build ( I assume one of the feats allows you add int as a bonus to AC?) however I think we can agree that it's great a AC for 1 hr a day but you've taken a massive hit to damage potential on this type of build. Other than 2 3rd level spells and 5 1st level spells almost all the spellcasting power is tied up in one effect that is vulnerable to a dispel magic.

I think the AC bonus for the Dwarven Ancestor is a bit ridiculous considering that a Stone Golem gets a +18 natural bonus at 14HD


----------



## Iku Rex (Dec 15, 2006)

IanB said:
			
		

> I think you missed -1 AC for size on the dwarf ancestor.



Nope, Ring of Shrinking from Savage Species.

Edit: 


			
				Vuron said:
			
		

> Interesting if convoluted build ( I assume one of the feats allows you add int as a bonus to AC?) however I think we can agree that it's great a AC for 1 hr a day but you've taken a massive hit to damage potential on this type of build. Other than 2 3rd level spells and 5 1st level spells almost all the spellcasting power is tied up in one effect that is vulnerable to a dispel magic.



Oh, I agree. It is strictly a "lab experiment". But you can use the same basic techniques to create a high-AC melee mage. Drop most of the short duration spells and the twinky dwarf ancestor trick, and you'll still be practically unhittable in a straight fight against level 6 appropriate monsters. (Until they get ... difficult ... with the grappling and the area spells and the dispels and  ... but you can't have everything, right. )


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 15, 2006)

How do you Alter Self ("You assume the form of a creature of the same type as your normal form.") from an Elf (Humanoid (Elf)) into a dwarven ancestor (Outsider (Native))?


----------



## Vuron (Dec 15, 2006)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> How do you Alter Self ("You assume the form of a creature of the same type as your normal form.") from an Elf (Humanoid (Elf)) into a dwarven ancestor (Outsider (Native))?




Otherworldly I believe changes your type to Outsider.


----------



## Iku Rex (Dec 15, 2006)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> How do you Alter Self ("You assume the form of a creature of the same type as your normal form.") from an Elf (Humanoid (Elf)) into a dwarven ancestor (Outsider (Native))?



"Otherworldly" feat from Player's Guide to Faerun. Makes the elf an outsider. 

For an even more obsucre "trick", use a neraph. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20040613a&page=2 . (Planar Handbook preview?)


----------



## Nail (Dec 15, 2006)

Fun thread, moritheil!


			
				moritheil said:
			
		

> Both Nail and KD admit that they know how to get AC ~60 at that level.  So for learned respondents, it isn't a question of whether it is possible.



And we could find more high AC builds on the WotC optimization board.

....but that's not what caught my interest in your original statement on the other thread.  The bit that caught my eye was the word "easy".  (Call it semantics if you'd like - you'll get no argument from me on that point.)  Writing the word "easy" implies many things: widely known, simply reached, broadly accepted.

Your example, OTOH, relies on a specific build that is none of those things.  Hence, it is not "easy".  

Fun?  Sure, why not.    

BTW, if you had started this thread as a form of interesting guessing-game, you might have gotten less acrimonious replies.     .....and, just as assuredly, fewer replies.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 15, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> Never seen anyone claim AC > 50 without a math error in the details. So I'll assume you've made an error until proof to the contrary is presented.



Well, there WAS a duelist or so level 20 build with AC > 200 IIRC.


----------



## Rhun (Dec 15, 2006)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Well, there WAS a duelist or so level 20 build with AC > 200 IIRC.




I'm pretty sure I saw that same build over on the Wizard's Character Optimization board.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 15, 2006)

Probably. I'm not sure though if it wasn't 3.0.


----------



## Vuron (Dec 15, 2006)

Rhun said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure I saw that same build over on the Wizard's Character Optimization board.




I am reminded again why I avoid that forum like the plague...


----------



## Rhun (Dec 15, 2006)

Vuron said:
			
		

> I am reminded again why I avoid that forum like the plague...





I always like to say: Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.


----------



## two (Dec 15, 2006)

*pathetic*

This is, indeed, the most pathetic thread I have ever seen in my entire life.  

That's not saying a huge amount -- I don't spend 100 hours a week on the boards -- but it is saying, well, something.

To restate the glaringly obvious:  my god man, put up or shut up!


----------



## Darklone (Dec 15, 2006)

two said:
			
		

> To restate the glaringly obvious:  my god man, put up or shut up!



Ya know... D&D is about giving everyone at the table his 15 minutes to shine per evening.

Please be generous to him


----------



## Legildur (Dec 16, 2006)

Wow!  Two and a half hours and already 50 posts - most of them negative.

Maybe we should start a poll to determine whether the OP is a Troll or a time-waster?

Like many others who read these forums, I enjoy reading threads where someone has put in a great deal of thought to a build and is willing to share it, and have it validated or improved upon with suggestions from other posters.  This dangling of an idea with no willingness to share is not in the spirit of this community and shows poor form.

And I scoff at any build that depends on polymorph into a creature with +20 natural armor by 6th level...... obviously broken and obviously not "easy".  Typically, standard creatures with that sort of natural armor are in the CR12+ bracket, and certainly have a large number of hit die.  So anything introduced in a supplement that moves substantially away from that benchmark is pretty clearly a bit of joke.


----------



## Vuron (Dec 16, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> And I scoff at any build that depends on polymorph into a creature with +20 natural armor by 6th level...... obviously broken and obviously not "easy".  Typically, standard creatures with that sort of natural armor are in the CR12+ bracket, and certainly have a large number of hit die.  So anything introduced in a supplement that moves substantially away from that benchmark is pretty clearly a bit of joke.




Heh it's worse than that, the spell being used is the 2nd level alter self   

I guess it merely add ammo for those people that want the polymorph subschool severely modified.


----------



## Bad Paper (Dec 16, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> The only reasons players don't do it are because either they don't realize they can do it, or they are too lazy to do it.  I posted up here to address that first issue.   You can address the latter issue yourself.



Clearly, moritheil is a better player than I.


----------



## SlagMortar (Dec 16, 2006)

Umbra said:
			
		

> I will point out that the existence of one build that is particularly powerful in this regard does not to me seem to refute the original argument, which seems to me to be more about general behavior of the ruleset.



I'd like to expand on this point a bit.  The original assertion that attack bonuses outstrip AC was meant for character that you would find in a game.  The OP said that he would not play a character optimized for AC like this in a game because it can't do anything else.  Since even in the most optimized/powergamer style games this character would not be found, the existance of this build does nothing to disprove the original assertion.  The way to examine the original assertion would be to make some optimized builds that would actually see time in a real game and comparing their attack bonus versus AC in order to examine the original assertion.

Showing what can happen on the extreme ends of the scale does nothing to prove the characteristics of attack bonus versus AC in an actual game.


----------



## Nail (Dec 16, 2006)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> Showing what can happen on the extreme ends of the scale does nothing to prove the characteristics of attack bonus versus AC in an actual game.



Yup.





			
				Bad Paper said:
			
		

> Clearly, moritheil is a better player than I.



Sorry, Bad Paper, but before I'll agree with that assertion, I'll have to see your build.


----------



## kerbarian (Dec 16, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Goodness gracious, I'm not gonna even try to double check your numbers, but I'll just point out that this 'build' (and Heironeous know how much I personally hate builds) is *far from easy*.



One thing to note is that you can still use most of that build in something that I'd consider easy.  Take a halfling monk 1 / wizard 5, no items or feats needed, and the rest is just spell selection.

You'd lose 12 AC by going with a troglodyte instead of a dwarf ancestor, 1 for the lower caster level on dragonskin, and 1 for no ioun stone.  The ring of shrinking can be replaced by reduce person.  You'd get a couple points back for the smaller size (tiny instead of medium), for a total of AC 51.


----------



## Obrysii (Dec 16, 2006)

Moritheil, I suggest that in the future, when you are riding on your overinflated ego, that you back up your own claims.

From the tone of your posts, it seems to be filled with elitism and a "holy than thou" attitude. You really should not be so disrespectful, and inconsiderate, to others on the forum.

While I am new here, I am not new to DnD forums, and at least in the others (namely the CharOpt board on WoTC), making such a claim with such an attitude would only gain distain from the contributors to those forums.

Without proof, your claim is of absolutely no value to anyone.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 16, 2006)

kerbarian said:
			
		

> Take a halfling monk 1 / wizard 5...



 Do you know anyone who would even _remotely_ entertain the idea of playing a halfling monk / wizard beyond monk 1 / wizard 2?

Wait a minute, there must be some feat to negate that XP penalty . . .

Nope, not easy.  I'm just surprised no one's using gestalt yet.  Surely, a monk / wizard gestalt would be better than just monk 1 / wizard 5?  How about a halfling monk / wizard gestalt?  Please don't rebut with something like "Gestalt would be cheating" because I'll just come back with "And PgtF and SS aren't?!"


----------



## kerbarian (Dec 16, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Do you know anyone who would even _remotely_ entertain the idea of playing a halfling monk / wizard beyond monk 1 / wizard 2?
> 
> Wait a minute, there must be some feat to negate that XP penalty . . .



Heh, true.  I always forget about the multiclassing penalties when playing with hypothetical builds.  Elf is almost as good, though (1 less AC), and has no issues with the multiclassing.

Or you can go straight wizard and just buy a monk's belt a little later on.


----------



## Sejs (Dec 16, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Please don't rebut with something like "Gestalt would be cheating" because I'll just come back with "And PgtF and SS aren't?!"




Heh, the sticking point for me lies more in the using of a regional feat speciffic to one setting, combined with a class speciffic to another.  I'm just waiting for warforged characters with Initiate of Mystra, now.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 16, 2006)

I am going to stick with Carl Sagan's assertion on this one  - he tidily summarized the central challenge scientists face when they try to formulate grand new theories with “Remarkable claims require remarkable proof.” 

Here is a remarkable claim, but no sign of said remarkable proof. I call shenanigans.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Legildur (Dec 16, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Please don't rebut with something like "Gestalt would be cheating" because I'll just come back with "And PgtF and SS aren't?!"



 So true.


----------



## hanniball (Dec 16, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> I want to encourage people to be able to min/max themselves, not to rely on other people posting every little detail. It's feed a man a fish versus teach a man to fish.




While a noble and respectable notion, the rhetoric with which you present such a premise is rather disparaging.  However, I will attempt a _fairly_ "easy" method of obtaining a similar armor class to stave off the naysayers.  Keep in mind, this is all off the top of my head so it will, perhaps, contain mistakes.

Human Agnostic Cleric 6 
Domains: Spell, Plant
Feats: Combat Expertise (1), Divine Spell Power (Human), Dodge (3), Divine Shield (6)
Relevant Ability Scores: Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 22 (18 base, +3 venerable, +1 level)
Relevant Items: +1 Defending Morningstar (8,308 gp), Scroll of Greater Magic Weapon (CL 16, 1,600 gp)

Preparation:  
-Using Divine spell Power, get your caster level to 9 (10 or higher on a D20) when casting Barkskin and Magic Vestment.  
-Use scroll of Greater Magic Weapon to make your morningstar +4.  
-Cast Eagle's Splendor to adjust your Charisma to 26.

AC Calculation:
10 Base
+8 [armor] Full Plate Mail
+2 [enhancement] _Magic Vestment_
+10 [shield] Heavy Steel Shield + Divine Shield feat
+2 [enhancement] _Magic Vestment_
+6 [natural] _Alter Self_ into a Troglodyt (cast via Anyspell)
+4 [enhancement] _Barkskin_ Domain spell
+3 [deflection] _Shield of Faith_
+1 [dodge] Dodge feat
+4 [unamed] Defending weapon quality
+4 [dodge] Combat Expertise
+1 [unamed] Dexterity
= 55, 23 touch, 33 flat-footed

Spells used:
3 3rd lvl
2 2nd lvl
1 1st lvl

Damn, I'm one point off.  Now, if only I knew of this mythical +20 nat armor race...



			
				Vuron said:
			
		

> ( I assume one of the feats allows you add int as a bonus to AC?)




I believe that is the benefit of Carmendine Monk.


----------



## geosapient (Dec 16, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> I said that most PLAYERS can do it (the ones who can't are those who are incapable of either reading splatbooks or correctly performing math.)
> 
> The only reasons players don't do it are because either they don't realize they can do it, or they are too lazy to do it.  I posted up here to address that first issue.   You can address the latter issue yourself.




I like this statement. I like it because now I'm just a person who's incapable of reading, performing basic math skills, lazy or some combonation of the three.

And I'm not a single income person with a mortgage, bills to pay, car to pay off, food to buy or any other expenses.

I guess if I wasn't a lazy, illiterate bastard with the mental ability of a retard I'd be able to build a non-optimal high AC character with books that I can't afford.

I don't really care that you yourself are too lazy or god-like to be bothered with proving yourself. But don't think for even one second that anyone who doesn't do it is because they lack ability or motivation and not resources.

This thread should have been shut down before it got off the first page.


----------



## Quartz (Dec 16, 2006)

I don't know about the Dwarf Ancestor build, but people seem to forget that the Ancestor is only the occupying spirit: you need a handy statue available.


----------



## Iku Rex (Dec 16, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> I don't know about the Dwarf Ancestor build, but people seem to forget that the Ancestor is only the occupying spirit: you need a handy statue available.



You seem to forget that I already replied to this objection: 

You don't need to carry around the statue used in the ritual to summon a dwarf ancestor in order to change into one. "Dwarf ancestor" is a corporeal outsider and a valid form for alter self. (_"Always LG Large outsider (native)"_.)


----------



## Particle_Man (Dec 16, 2006)

This thread is making me see the value of using Core Rules Only.  I imagine that the maximum AC at 6th level would be considerably lower, then.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 16, 2006)

Let's see....

Wild assertions unbacked by evidence, chained to statements that insinuate that you're stupid or lazy if you can't figure it out- yep, someone is playing for attention.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 16, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Nor do I intend to spoonfeed people who happen to randomly stop by the boards and just want a min/max build without properly understanding how it works.  I want to encourage people to be able to min/max themselves, not to rely on other people posting every little detail.  It's feed a man a fish versus teach a man to fish.




Thanks for helping everyone out!!1!!


----------



## fusangite (Dec 16, 2006)

Wow! This thread reminds me of just how much unbalancing crap has been published for D&D.


----------



## pogre (Dec 16, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> You seem to be misunderstanding - I've already shown it.  It's in the other thread.
> 
> That fact aside, do I owe you something?  My only point is that it can be done and I want to raise awareness of that fact.  You seem to accuse me of looking for the fawning adoration of the masses.




Gosh, what could have led me astray? Perhaps the title to this thread?


> Characters - AC 56 at level 6! You too can do it!




It's kind of weird like that. When I label my thread painted miniatures I don't tell people how great I am at painting miniatures. I show them pictures and let them judge for themselves. Kind of the whole point of a thread title.

So yeah, you do owe me something.


----------



## Beckett (Dec 16, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> This thread is making me see the value of using Core Rules Only.  I imagine that the maximum AC at 6th level would be considerably lower, then.




This thread is making me see the value of having a firm hand when DMing.

"And then I Alter Self into a Dwarf Ancestor for the +18..."
*Smack*

Or, to quote from one of my friends on an unrelated, but appropriate matter, "Yes, but how would we carry that massive wheel of cheese?"


----------



## Psion (Dec 16, 2006)

Beckett said:
			
		

> This thread is making me see the value of having a firm hand when DMing.




Yup.

When compared to pun-pun, getting 56 AC is not especially impressive. Given the great variety of books out there, some power-gamey combos are possible. That some power gamers feel the need to abuse that is regretable, but mostly correctable.

There is a reason RPGs have a GM. And a reason DMs should not be afraid to take charge of their game.


----------



## Sejs (Dec 16, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> This thread is making me see the value of using Core Rules Only.  I imagine that the maximum AC at 6th level would be considerably lower, then.




Hmm.  For a one-shot, using higher CL scrolls of Magic Vestment you could get it up reasonably high.  Assuming no use of polymorph or alter self.

Full Plate (+4, via CL 16 Magic Vestment): +12 armor
Heavy Shield (+4, via CL 16 Magic Vestment): +6 shield
Dex of 13: +1 dex mod
Dodge feat: +1 dodge
Combat Expertise for full: +4 dodge
Shield of Faith or Protection from Evil: +2 deflection
Barkskin (plant domain): +3 natural
+1 defending weapon (+4, via CL 16 GMW): +4 unnamed

That gets you upwards of 43 AC, but it requires several rounds of preperation and a number of one-shot, high CL items to pull off.  Alter Self would net you an additional +6 natural armor by turning into a troglodite.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 16, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Alter Self would net you an additional +6 natural armor by turning into a troglodite.




But you'd smell!!


----------



## Quartz (Dec 16, 2006)

Iku Rex said:
			
		

> You seem to forget that I already replied to this objection:



Perhaps you'd care to read the creature description, then? Specifically



> A dwarf ancestor is the spirit of an ancient dwarf hero brought back from the afterlife to serve by the will and prayers of a dwarf cleric. It comes to those who plead to Moradin the Soul Forger for aid. When first summoned, a dwarf ancestor takes up residence within a *statue of a dwarf hero*, animating it.




Please note that last line, 'statue of a dwarven hero'.

Please also note the first line too: 'A dwarf ancestor is the *spirit of*'. Last time I checked, Alter Self and Change Self couldn't make you incorporeal.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 16, 2006)

Hannibal, I like your cleric6 stuff.... it's nearly all PHB right?

It's expensive to pull off... but looks cool. Even if something might be wrong, that turtle deserves the name.


----------



## Iku Rex (Dec 16, 2006)

Quartz said:
			
		

> Perhaps you'd care to read the creature description, then?.



I have. Perhaps you would care to read the actual game mechanical categorization of the creature? I've posted it twice already: "Always LG Large outsider (native)".



			
				Quartz said:
			
		

> Please note that last line, 'statue of a dwarven hero'.
> 
> Please also note the first line too: 'A dwarf ancestor is the *spirit of*'. Last time I checked, Alter Self and Change Self couldn't make you incorporeal.



The part about "animating spirit" is just flavor text. The dwarf ancestor is not incorporeal. It is a native outsider. It needs to eat. It bleeds. It has vital organs. Keep it up all night with rowdy drinking songs and it gets sluggish. 

Since you're so hung up on the flavor text:_ "[A dwarf ancestor] defends dwarven halls with grim determination, and it does not retreat or give quarter. It fights until destroyed or until those dwarves it is protecting are safe."_

What is "defending dwarven halls"? What "fights until destroyed"? A corporeal native outsider or a bodiless spirit? 

Would you allow someone to change shape into a demon? After all, demons are basically the bodiless souls of dead mortals given physical shape? Golems? Golems are animated by bodiless spirits from the elemental planes. What about creatures that are dead bodies animated by a spirit/soul?


----------



## Sejs (Dec 17, 2006)

Iku Rex said:
			
		

> I have. Perhaps you would care to read the actual game mechanical categorization of the creature? I've posted it twice already: "Always LG Large outsider (native)".
> 
> The part about "animating spirit" is just flavor text. The dwarf ancestor is not incorporeal. It is a native outsider. It needs to eat. It bleeds. It has vital organs. Keep it up all night with rowdy drinking songs and it gets sluggish.




*blink.. blink*

You know, you're right.

And the creature description doesn't say anything about being immune to the more fleshy concerns that you would expect to be included with being a possessed stone statue.

Dear god this is a poorly thought out creature.  It's an animated statue... but it's an outsider, it has no crit immunity, thus (for example) it's vulnerable to Wounding weapons.  What in the sam hell does a statue bleed?  It needs to breathe for crap's sake.  You can drown a statue.  Aargh!  >_<


----------



## Rhun (Dec 17, 2006)

I have to agree with Iku Rex that flavor text does not override game mechanics.

That said, though, I would never allow it in a game I was DMing.


----------



## Squire James (Dec 17, 2006)

Frankly, I think 99% of this high-AC nonesense happens because Polymorph effects can grant huge chunks of natural AC.  Fortunately, my players show no interest in Polymorph abuse, and if they did I'd have to take measures.  Like declaring all magical items are absorbed into the new form whether it happens to be humanoid or not.

Actually, I think WotC should nix Polymorph as a spell and keep it as a sub-type.  Then all they need to do is make sure the ridiculous forms are sufficiently high-level spells.  In exchange, make some weaker forms that can be used by low-level casters.


----------



## IanB (Dec 17, 2006)

The dwarf ancestor comes first from the miniatures game, so I think maybe it didn't go through exactly the normal vetting that a monster would receive? Dunno.

It obviously has some problems, and I would disallow that form in my game based on the flavor text for sure.


----------



## Deset Gled (Dec 17, 2006)

AC easily rises faster that to-hit bonuses at low levels you say?  Let's see...

Level 5 Elven Wizard:
BAB: +2
Dex: +5
Point Blank Shot: +1
Weapon Focus (Crossbow): +1
Greater Magic Weapon: +2
Cat's Grace: +2
Invisibility: +2
Heroism: +2
True Strike: +20

Total to-hit bonus: 37

This puts me within striking range of your AC 56 character using no items other than a mundane crossbow, using only spells that the character can cast themselves, and using only the core books.  It is also about a hundred times "easier" than any of the min-maxed AC builds I've seen posted in this thread.  I'm sure it can be optimized to give a much higher to-hit bonus than shown here using supplemental magic items and spells.  Finally, note that using Invisivibility means that the target will be denied their Dex bonus to AC, so the true AC will not be 56 (you can also substitute a ray spell to make the attack a touch attack and deny the target an even larger chunk of AC, but you would lose the bonus from GMW.  WF (crossbow) could be replaced with WF (ray).)

Honestly, though, min-maxing a character to hit another min-maxed character means nothing in regard to the original statement that to-hit bonuses outstrip AC bonuses in general play.  Looking at outliers is generally the worst way possible to get an idea of a numeric trend.


----------



## Rhun (Dec 17, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> True Strike: +20





Ah yes...good old True Strike. The great equalizer. Too bad it only last for a single attack.


----------



## Sejs (Dec 17, 2006)

Rhun said:
			
		

> Ah yes...good old True Strike. The great equalizer. Too bad it only last for a single attack.



Granted, but it may be all you need.  Likewise, as with most super-ac builds, a single dispel magic brings the whole thing crashing down.

Acymandias: Look on my armor class, ye mighty, and despair!
Badguy: *dispel*
Acymandias: ...aww.


----------



## starwed (Dec 17, 2006)

Or as Terry Pratchett said:


			
				Interesting Times said:
			
		

> Magic armor ... had never been very popular in Ankh-Morpork.  Of course, it was light.  You could make it as thin as cloth.  But it tended to lose its magic without warning.  Many an ancient lord's last words have been, "You can't kill me because I've got magic aaargh."


----------



## Deset Gled (Dec 17, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Likewise, as with most super-ac builds, a single dispel magic brings the whole thing crashing down.




Or a Magic Missle.


----------



## Endur (Dec 17, 2006)

It requires effort, but it is not hard to get an AC from the 30's to the 50's.  Even at the relatively low level the other player is talking about.

The trick is to maintain your character's playability and offense.

High defense while lacking offense and other playability out of combat is a waste of time.

Alter Form and Polymorph, while good for silly builds, are almost never used in real D&D combat situations.  Because it isn't fun to be polymorphed into another race, unless you are a Druid or a shapechanging wizard or some class that treats shapechanging as normal.


----------



## Endur (Dec 17, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Or a Magic Missle.




Or worse yet, several sorcerors with wands of magic missile.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 17, 2006)

Endur said:
			
		

> It requires effort, but it is *not hard* to get an AC from the 30's to the 50's.  Even at the relatively low level the other player is talking about.



 There it is again.  :\ 

Once again, we ask you to show us the _easy_ (not hard) way.  I'm positive I'm not alone when I say that no one has yet given an easy way to AC 50-something.  On the other hand, I'd say that Deset Gled offered an easy way to +37 attack bonus.


----------



## Brace Cormaeril (Dec 17, 2006)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Wow! This thread reminds me of just how much unbalancing crap has been published for D&D.




It's not the "unbalancing crap".  I also don't think 3.0 was broke.  Players choose to break the game.  Besides, "stunting" a 50+ AC at 6th lvl is neat-o, mathamatically, but if a player chooses to do  this, the DM can just hit him with everything but straight attacks.  A character this dedicated would be hard pressed in my game; but then all the PC's are.  There is nothing a PC can do, in my opinion, that can unbalance a game, if the DM chooses.  If the other PC's are somehow not having as much fun because (they see) another player dealing out more "whoop-up", well, the NPC's see this too...
Anyway, I think that it shows a great deal of enjoyment for the game to dutifully study the myriad books and supplements to construct these "optimized builds".  However. the OP seems to be dismissing the enjoyment inherent in fulfilling the point of a discussion forum.

Allow me to metagame:
DM:  The slavering maw of the Budonka-donk roars agape, assaulting your nose eyes and throat with the fell stench of death; bursting forth with unholy speed, the Budonka-donk attempts to bite, thick bilous sours line the creatures lips... What's your AC?
PC w/AC50+ @6th lvl:  My AC is 63.
DM: Show me.

But, that's just my game.


----------



## Cabral (Dec 17, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> AC easily rises faster that to-hit bonuses at low levels you say?  Let's see...
> 
> Level 5 Elven Wizard:
> BAB: +2
> ...



Make it better: Pull out the Expanded Psionic Handbook for Deep Impact, Fell Shot, or Unavoidable Strike. A Psychic Warrior can do it by 7th or one of the ECL 0 Psionic races, such as Elans, fighters can do it by 5, though the Concentration check will be more difficult. A non-psionic race can just Wild Talent. Psionic Meditation will allow a Wiz 1/Ftr 5 (concentration max ranks of 9) to attack with deep impact every round, though he won't have room for it `till character level 9.

That will strip away natural armor, armor, and shield bonuses. Make it an Elf Wizard 1/Fighter 5, and you get: 
+5 BAB
+32 Deep Impact (by negating your +22 natural armor bonus and +6 greater Mage armor and +4 shield bonus)
+1 Weapon Focus
+20 True Strike
+4 Strength (assuming Max strength)

That's an effective bonus of more than +62 to hit (+42 when not using true strike) without taking into account strength enhancing magic items or even a masterwork weapon. With True Strike, it's an autohit against your "nigh untouchable AC."

A wild elf could replace Wizard with Sorcerer for extra spells and an effective +1 to concentration checks from the higher con bonus. Alternatively, you could skip the fighter/caster combo and use the Duskblade from the PHB2.

Your 56 AC seems far from untouchable at level 6, not only can the above "build" hit an AC of 56, it has retained more flexability than your "turtle".


----------



## Darklone (Dec 17, 2006)

I wouldn't go so far. Why magic missile? Why not simply scorching ray? The touch AC of the high AC build wasn't too hard to hit. 

But something to the whole topic:
The POV was: AC rises faster than to hit bonus.

AC increasing things: 
- spells (here mostly some buff spells are considered for the big bonuses)
- abilities (feats: some puny +1 bonuses, C-Expertise: has a cap and use costs offensive, same for fighting defensively)
- items (some not necessary but they shorten the preparation time needed for the build, others like defending: same as abilities)
- armour: Increase over levels is pretty low... even considering better magic items/armours.

Now let's see to hit bonuses:
- level increase: BAB gets better. The attribute (strength/dex) gets better. 
- spells/abilities/items/weapons: None of them is worse than the bonus to AC, it only depends on the preference of the PC whether he prefers offensive or defensive.

Summed up: To hit bonuses increase with level. Defense bonuses have to be paid for. If the enemy pays the same amount for offensive, he can beat your high AC.


----------



## Legildur (Dec 17, 2006)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Summed up: To hit bonuses increase with level. Defense bonuses have to be paid for. If the enemy pays the same amount for offensive, he can beat your high AC.



That's what I've always assumed to be the case.  Still, a high AC is something to value where it can be achieved as it will still be of significant benefit in many cases. But I agree with your summary.


----------



## Goolpsy (Dec 17, 2006)

Actually there is a mistake in original "i can do this, here's a hint" post

10/base 22/nat 6/force 4/shield 2/deflect 4/CE 3/dodge 6/dex = 57 AC. 

So 6 armor from Force ey? Since you're so godlike you should know that Mage armor provides an ARMOR bonus... not a Force bonus...

"An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC. "

the same bonus as a normal armor, and thats why you can't use it together with a normal armor, cause they kinda of negate eachother (don't stack whatever)

it dosn't change anything however, since you didn't already have the armor bonus used to something else. I does however free the Force bonus to add in some Force giving spell, hence increasing the AC


----------



## Cabral (Dec 17, 2006)

Goolpsy said:
			
		

> So 6 armor from Force ey? Since you're so godlike you should know that Mage armor provides an ARMOR bonus... not a Force bonus...



While he said force bonus, I'm sure he meant an armor bonus that was a force effect. The shorthand distinction was only so that incorpreal attacks would not bypass it (though they still bypass a hefty chunk of his AC).


----------



## Goolpsy (Dec 17, 2006)

i dont really care what he meant, when counting AC finiding out what stacks and what does not, you have to be precise,  small errors like that changes everything

lets take his proposal for an example:  so the 6 is force armor, then there's room for usual armor,  6 dex  or a fullplate + 1-2 enchantment bonus (magic vestment)
= increase in AC about 3-4 ...


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 17, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> From 1-10, AC increase is astronomically higher than to-hit increase (assuming you optimize AC via spells/abilities/feats and there are no items of permanent True Strike or the like. Making a 1st-level character with AC 40 is pretty tough, but a 6th-level character can easily have AC 60+ for four combats/day.)
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Moritheil, your big claim is in two threads now. One thread you even started yourself on the topic.

But, we're all still waiting for your 4 combats per day AC 57 Elven Artificer. You already disappointed us by dropping it from 60+ to 57. Don't tell me that you are going to disappoint us again.  

Tick, tick, tick, ..., zzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Endur (Dec 17, 2006)

A very simple build.  Dwarven Fighter + Dwarven Cleric with plant domain = Much Buffing, Very High AC.  That's with two characters.  Add in an arcane caster with additonal buff spells for even more ac.  Add in Bead of Karma for higher level buffs.  Rinse and Repeat.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 17, 2006)

One similar thing not really to the topic of minmaxxing a high AC but it may give people the impression that a high AC is easier to achieve than a high to hit bonus:

If you have a barbarian in your group who's used to chop everything to pieces with rage... and you wonder why fighters and warriors are still around... do this:

IMC the barbarian (the first one, I did it twice) was level 5 with good stats. I took a warrior who was level 6 with average stats (Point buy 25) who happened to be the right hand of a local crimelord. Human sword and board fighter with Banded Mail IIRC and a large shield and some tumble skill for fighting defensively... so not even Tower Shield. Give him Weapon Focus and C-Expertise.

That did boost the warriors AC high enough that the raging barbarian only hit him with a 19 or 20 while the warrior had two attacks with a better chance to hit (First hit on a 16+, second on a 20 IIRC). 

So if you're a barbarian in loinclothes, make sure they have a huge enhancement bonus to AC.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 17, 2006)

Endur said:
			
		

> A very simple build.  Dwarven Fighter + Dwarven Cleric with plant domain = Much Buffing, Very High AC.  That's with two characters.  Add in an arcane caster with additonal buff spells for even more ac.  Add in Bead of Karma for higher level buffs.  Rinse and Repeat.




We are talking a single PC.

With an entire army including Archmages, I could take over the world.


----------



## The Blue Elf (Dec 17, 2006)

I remember creating a Female Halfing Rogue I gave her Dexterity a 17 plus Dexterity bonus +2 giving her a 19.By the time she hit 4th level with Ability score increase, and then added Dex too giveing here Ability score a total of 20 dex Her AC total adding here AC bonus was 17+ Size bonus making it 18 total. It doesn't mean I took advantage of anything It sure help me avoid being hit at times but still get hit. The one thing I can do hit at long range at someone, can't fight in Melee.


If you think you can take advantage of that then your sadly mistaken a DM can find more possible ways too kill you through magical means if you are depending on AC too protect you from Melee battles.Because DM would may send a Balisk or a Drangon too Finish you off.


----------



## Seeten (Dec 17, 2006)

Wow, an 18 ac? For Realz?


----------



## Darklone (Dec 17, 2006)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Wow, an 18 ac? For Realz?



Powergamermunchkin


----------



## hanniball (Dec 17, 2006)

*Warning*:  Somewhat long post   



			
				Particle_Man said:
			
		

> This thread is making me see the value of using Core Rules Only. I imagine that the maximum AC at 6th level would be considerably lower, then.




If by "considerably" you mean 6 points lower, then you are correct.  Everything in my 55 AC build was core-only save for the Alter Self cast via Anyspell (PGtF).  Edit:  Divine Spell Power and Divine Shield are also non-core.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> When compared to pun-pun, getting 56 AC is not especially impressive. Given the great variety of books out there, some power-gamey combos are possible. That some power gamers feel the need to abuse that is regretable, but mostly correctable.




Dude, what *is* impressive when compared to pun-pun?  Also, it doesn't take a "great variety of books" to generate an optimized character, or "power-gamey" as you put it, as the core rules can provide significantly powerful characters and builds.  Utilizing most of these rules to create an effective character is not regretable, but encouragable in my opinion.  Obviously, with great power comes even greater responsibility as a role-player, however.



			
				Darklone said:
			
		

> Hannibal, I like your cleric6 stuff.... it's nearly all PHB right?
> 
> It's expensive to pull off... but looks cool. Even if something might be wrong, that turtle deserves the name.




Thanks.  Honestly, I just threw every AC boosting effect I could think of off the top of my head and it turned out decent and playable.  The only thing non-Phb is the Anyspell spell from the Player's Guide to Faerun.  That's how I get the +6 natural armor bonus to enhance with Barkskin.  Helpful, but far from necessary.



			
				Rhun said:
			
		

> I have to agree with Iku Rex that flavor text does not override game mechanics




While I agree, how does one specifically differentiate "flavor text" from "game mechanics?"  I can think of a few Prc requirements that appear to be nothing but flavor text.



			
				Squire James said:
			
		

> Frankly, I think 99% of this high-AC nonesense happens because Polymorph effects can grant huge chunks of natural AC. Fortunately, my players show no interest in Polymorph abuse, and if they did I'd have to take measures. Like declaring all magical items are absorbed into the new form whether it happens to be humanoid or not.
> 
> Actually, I think WotC should nix Polymorph as a spell and keep it as a sub-type. Then all they need to do is make sure the ridiculous forms are sufficiently high-level spells. In exchange, make some weaker forms that can be used by low-level casters.




Have you read the PhBII's description of the polymorph subschool?  As per this rules change, all gear worn or carried melds into the new form.  Also, you lose all class features and special abilities.  If this doesn't balance Polymorph, I don't know what will.  WotC's feeble attempts are the Trollshape and Dragonshape spells (PhBII again) which are powerful in their own right, but simply pale in comparison to Polymorph and Shapechange, respectively.




			
				Deset Gled said:
			
		

> This puts me within striking range of your AC 56 character using no items other than a mundane crossbow, using only spells that the character can cast themselves, and using only the core books. It is also about a hundred times "easier" than any of the min-maxed AC builds I've seen posted in this thread




Ok, so you get one attack, every other round, and you need a 18-20 to hit the ACs presented...doesn't make for a very sound argument, considering the minimal use of non-core material used to generate a high AC.



			
				Sejs said:
			
		

> Granted, but it may be all you need. Likewise, as with most super-ac builds, a single dispel magic brings the whole thing crashing down.




Note that in any spellcasting-based high AC build, caster level modification is essential and, therefore, makes dispelling much more difficult in an appropriate CR encounter.  Also note that Dispel Magic actually only dispels one spell at a time.



			
				Endur said:
			
		

> High defense while lacking offense and other playability out of combat is a waste of time.
> 
> Alter Form and Polymorph, while good for silly builds, are almost never used in real D&D combat situations. Because it isn't fun to be polymorphed into another race, unless you are a Druid or a shapechanging wizard or some class that treats shapechanging as normal.




The best offense is a good defense.  At least there are many that adhere to this particular doctrine.

I'm not sure what you mean by "real D&D," but in the campaigns I've played in Polymorph and Alter Self have seen extensive use.  It is extremely entertaining to play a frail wizard type that, when required to participate in melee combat, can become an effective combatant through the use of such spells.  It also makes for a great escape plan and situational problem solver, as it can grant flight capabilities, reach, specific damage types (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning), swim/burrow/climb speed, and an effective disguise.

Your statement is not only generalized, but just plain wrong.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Once again, we ask you to show us the easy (not hard) way. I'm positive I'm not alone when I say that no one has yet given an easy way to AC 50-something. On the other hand, I'd say that Deset Gled offered an easy way to +37 attack bonus




What constitutes "easy" in your opinion?  Casting a few spells is pretty damn easy for any cleric and, as Deset Gled has shown, any wizard as well.  If boosting one's attack bonus through the use of magic is "easy" then so, too, is enhancing one's armor class.



			
				Cabral said:
			
		

> That's an effective bonus of more than +62 to hit (+42 when not using true strike) without taking into account strength enhancing magic items or even a masterwork weapon. With True Strike, it's an autohit against your "nigh untouchable AC."




Spells and powers that allow a character to bypass specific aspects of another's AC is not a bonus to hit and should, therefore, not be included in this particular discussion, IMO.  Otherwise one word destroys a massive amount of AC potential:  Wraithstrike.

*whew* Finally, where did the OP go?  S/he hasn't posted since the first page.


----------



## Cabral (Dec 17, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Moritheil, your big claim is in two threads now. One thread you even started yourself on the topic.
> 
> But, we're all still waiting for your 4 combats per day AC 57 Elven Artificer. You already disappointed us by dropping it from 60+ to 57. Don't tell me that you are going to disappoint us again.
> 
> Tick, tick, tick, ..., zzzzzzzzzz



He's not going to. Maybe he doesn't want anyone exposing any flaws in the build. Or maybe he's moping because "it's easy" to bypass or ignore his AC 57+ while maintaining more of the versatility his build gives up. Or maybe he doesn't want to return to the thread only to admit that his original assertion is false.

Or maybe he was just trolling. He began the thread with what I thought was an arrogant air, though it may have been due the anonymity of the internet. Once requests for proof came in, he stopped posting. If I still posted as frequently I used to, I'd be tempted to put him on my ignore list. Okay, even I'm not cranky these days enough to _do it_, but I'd still consider it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 17, 2006)

hanniball said:
			
		

> Have you read the PhBII's description of the polymorph subschool? As per this rules change, all gear worn or carried melds into the new form. Also, you lose all class features and special abilities.




I'm away from my PHBII, but doesn't the subschool description specify that all the subschool rules only apply unless the spell text states otherwise?

Alter Self (which Polymorph references) states "When the change occurs, your equipment, if any, either remains worn or held by the new form (if it is capable of wearing or holding the item), or melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional" and "You keep all extraordinary special attacks and qualities derived from class levels, but you lose any from your normal form that are not derived from class levels".

So the losing class features and losing equipment clauses of the subschool don't apply to Alter Self (and thus Polymorph), due to the precedence clause... unless I'm misremembering.

Edit - Here we go:
_For the purpose of adjudicating effects that apply to polymorph spells, any spell whose effect is based on either alter self or polymorph should be considered to have the polymorph subschool. *However, note that the spells' existing rules text takes priority over that of the subschool.*_

-Hyp.


----------



## hanniball (Dec 17, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm away from my PHBII, but doesn't the subschool description specify that all the subschool rules only apply unless the spell text states otherwise?




Why yes, it does.  3rd sentance into the description...I totally overlooked it.  Nice catch.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 17, 2006)

Well. I like the cleric build. Remove Anyspell and he still needs a scroll for the maximum effect and some rounds to prepare. That's ok, given that many encounters will nonetheless have no problem to kill the cleric. Or all his buddies.


----------



## Nail (Dec 17, 2006)

hanniball said:
			
		

> ... it doesn't take a "great variety of books" to generate an optimized character, or "power-gamey" as you put it, as the core rules can provide significantly powerful characters and builds.  Utilizing most of these rules to create an effective character is not regretable, but encouragable in my opinion.



Agreed.  Making an effective PC is a great idea!

For a spell caster (and especially for a cleric), getting a good AC _while being effective in other ways_ is do-able, even at 6th level.  Concider that the "average" Attack mod such a spell-caster will run into at that level is ~+12.  So even having a 28 AC means most things will "have trouble" hitting.

But what we've seen in this thread is that in order to pull off an impressive AC above 50, you must:
Spend several rounds with prep spells (your "off-the-cuff" build requires 6 spells),
Several feats or one-of-a-kind bonuses (like being of Venerable age for the Chr bonus!),
Using scrolls with a CL higher than your own CL,
Use Alter Self (or some simliar spell) to grab a poorly thought thru monster form, and
Fight defensively or Combat Expertise.

All of which together add up to: Not Easy.

...or, at the very least: Not an effective PC.



			
				hanniball said:
			
		

> Also note that Dispel Magic actually only dispels one spell at a time.



You sure 'bout that?


----------



## SlagMortar (Dec 17, 2006)

Hanniball said:
			
		

> Feats: Combat Expertise (1), Divine Spell Power (Human), Dodge (3), Divine Shield (6)





			
				Hanniball said:
			
		

> If by "considerably" you mean 6 points lower, then you are correct. Everything in my 55 AC build was core-only save for the Alter Self cast via Anyspell (PGtF).



I don't think Divine Spell Power and Divine Shield are core.  Crystal Keep says they are from Complete Divine and Complete Warrior respectively.

Edit:  I believe that takes away about 10 AC (in addition to 6 from Anyspell) leaving the core part of your build at 39, though I'm sure you could do a little better if you replaced that part of your strategy with core available resources.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 17, 2006)

Nail said:
			
		

> You sure 'bout that?




Well, as long as it's an Area Dispel!  

Get that cleric an Improved Invisibility somehow, and that might be the only sort that can be used...

-Hyp.


----------



## hanniball (Dec 17, 2006)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> I don't think Divine Spell Power and Divine Shield are core. Crystal Keep says they are from Complete Divine and Complete Warrior respectively.




You are correct, my bad.  Edited.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> You sure 'bout that?




While I do seem to have been recalling only the area dispel version, the Targeted dispel option seems to have something of a contradiction:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Targeted Dispel
> 
> *One* object, creature, or *spell* is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make a dispel check (1d20 + your caster level, maximum +10) against the spell *or against each ongoing spell currently in effect on the object or creature.* The DC for this dispel check is 11 + the spell’s caster level. If you succeed on a particular check, that spell is dispelled; if you fail, that spell remains in effect.




(Emphasis mine)

Thoughts?




			
				Nail said:
			
		

> All of which together add up to: Not Easy.
> 
> ...or, at the very least: Not an effective PC.




Again, what constitutes "easy?"  Perhaps with specific parameters I can prove otherwise.

Also, I disagree.  IMO, this indeed represents a PC that _effectively_ remains unharmed in melee combat, is still capable of healing/buffing/summoning, can perform this routine multiple times a day (albeit, not to the same extent) and remains an entirely role-playable character.


----------



## SlagMortar (Dec 17, 2006)

There is no contradiction.  You can target the dispel against a specific spell in which case you make a dispel check against the spell, or you can target the dispel against a creature/object in which case you make a dispel check against every spell affecting the creature/object.  

This allows you to target just a Dominate spell on your warrior friend without also targeting the various buff spells on her.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 17, 2006)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> This allows you to target just a Dominate spell on your warrior friend...




... assuming you can see or touch the Dominate spell...

_*Target or Targets*: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. *You must be able to see or touch the target*, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell._

-Hyp.


----------



## SlagMortar (Dec 17, 2006)

Ah, cool.  Thanks for the correction.


----------



## hanniball (Dec 17, 2006)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> This allows you to target just a Dominate spell on your warrior friend without also targeting the various buff spells on her.




Couldn't the caster willingly fail the caster level check to protect the buff spells?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 18, 2006)

hanniball said:
			
		

> Couldn't the caster willingly fail the caster level check to protect the buff spells?




If he cast them himself, then no; in fact, he doesn't even roll, with a Targeted Dispel:
_You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself._

If he's using an Area Dispel, he can choose to roll instead of automatically succeeding:
_You may choose to automatically succeed on dispel checks against any spell that you have cast._

If the buff spells aren't spells he cast himself, he doesn't automatically succeed (or have the option of automatically succeeding)... but neither is there provision in the rules for electing to fail a caster level check.

If he wishes to minimise the chance of dispelling the buffs, he might elect to cast the Dispel Magic at minimum caster level (5 for a wizard or cleric, 6 for a sorcerer)... but that, naturally, minimises the chance of dispelling the Dominate spell at the same time.

-Hyp.


----------



## Cabral (Dec 18, 2006)

Note the difference between the Targeted and Area Dispel options.

Targeted: "*You automatically succeed* on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself"

Area: "*You may choose to automatically succeed* on dispel checks against any spell that you have cast."

So, I guess, cast _detect magic_ before _dispel magic_ for friends and _see invisibility_ for annoying invisible buffaholics.

Btw, if buffing is a big problem in your games, take a look at reciprical gyre and reaving dispel from Complete Arcane.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 18, 2006)

Cabral said:
			
		

> Note the difference between the Targeted and Area Dispel options.




I did, in the post just before yours 

-Hyp.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 18, 2006)

hanniball said:
			
		

> What constitutes "easy" in your opinion?  Casting a few spells is pretty damn easy for any cleric and, as Deset Gled has shown, any wizard as well.  If boosting one's attack bonus through the use of magic is "easy" then so, too, is enhancing one's armor class.



 IMO (and make no mistake, 'easy' is quite subjective), 'easy' would not be requiring 10+ sourcebooks for the same build (especially across different campaign settings--that's extremely bad form), spells/effects granted by someone else, using items beyond your expected power level (e.g. a scroll of miracle at 6th level, why not just ask for the miracle of AC 56?), etc.


			
				hanniball said:
			
		

> (Emphasis mine)
> 
> Thoughts?



 Yeah, wrong emphasis.  When you cast a targeted (greater) dispel magic, you target a *creature*, not a spell.  So, change your emphasis appropriately and the meaning should become clear.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 18, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> When you cast a targeted (greater) dispel magic, you target a *creature*, not a spell.




As opposed to where it states that "One object, creature, or spell is the target"?

-Hyp.


----------



## Cabral (Dec 18, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I did, in the post just before yours
> 
> -Hyp.



Uhm ...   ... whoops.


----------



## Sithobi1 (Dec 18, 2006)

I think he means the most effective way to dispel many buffs on a person is to target the person, not the individual spells.


----------



## Sejs (Dec 18, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ... assuming you can see or touch the Dominate spell...




Presumably that would be where Detect Magic or Arcane Sight would come into play.


----------



## Vague Jayhawk (Dec 18, 2006)

How permissive is this guys DM?

With a permissive DM I can get MUCH higher than AC 56!

Polymorph into a gold dragon while wearing bracers of armor +8 AND full plate +5 and a shiled +5 AND and dancing shield +5 with barkskin and magical vestment and the +8 dex bonus I have after reading the book that permanently raised my dex 6 points and ......................................................


----------



## hanniball (Dec 18, 2006)

^ Level 6, dude.




			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> IMO (and make no mistake, 'easy' is quite subjective), 'easy' would not be requiring 10+ sourcebooks for the same build (especially across different campaign settings--that's extremely bad form), spells/effects granted by someone else, using items beyond your expected power level (e.g. a scroll of miracle at 6th level, why not just ask for the miracle of AC 56?), etc.




'Easy' is entirely subjective, hence why I asked what your definition is.  Thank you.  Perhaps now, the OP will return from his hiatus and show us his supposed optimization-fu.


----------



## Sejs (Dec 18, 2006)

Vague Jayhawk said:
			
		

> Polymorph into a gold dragon ... bracers of armor +8 AND full plate +5 ... shield +5 AND and dancing shield +5 ... magical vestment ... and the +8 dex bonus



Polymorph into a Gold Dragon:  a Young or smaller one, due to the HD limitation on Polymorph.  And you'd have to be of equivalent level yourself.  8th for wyrmling (+7 nat), 11th for very young (+10 nat), 14th for young (+13 nat).  

Bracers of Armor/Fullplate: Doesn't stack.  Both provide armor bonuses.

Shield/Dancing Shield: Doesn't stack.  Both provide shield bonuses. 

Magic Vestment: Doesn't help - armor and shield are already +5, MV can't push that any higher.

Dex Bonus: Limited to +1 due to that snazzy gold dragon-shaped fullplate +5.


----------



## Vague Jayhawk (Dec 18, 2006)

Getting your AC above 56 is EASY!


Yeah I know they don't all stack.  I was just being a little flippant and snarky.  

If you are getting an AC of 56 as a sixth level character your DM is letting you get away with some nasty stuff.  All depends on how competent your DM is.  If the DM is not competent, you can convince them of anything.


----------



## Justin Cray (Dec 18, 2006)

AC 56 combined with a -1 meeelion to hit doesn't concern me.

What's the highest sum of AC and to hit a level 6 Character can have, both values must be positive?

Also: Hypersmurf for president. Seriously.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 18, 2006)

Justin Cray said:
			
		

> Also: Hypersmurf for president. Seriously.



No way. He's too serious and telling too much true things for any politician. 

Highest sum of AC and to hit a level 6 dude can have? I bet it's (Corebooks only) a cleric with Divine Favor or Prayer, bulls strength etc, and Magic Vestment. Scroll of GMW. Plant domain for barkskin. I'd add one level of barbarian for Rage though that decreases AC again... Whirling Frenzy 

Add one level of bard instead.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 18, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> As opposed to where it states that "One object, creature, or spell is the target"?



 Huh? How's that opposed to what I said?  One creature.  A targeted dispel magic against a *creature*, not a spell (note the emphasis in this sentence).  Are you saying that a targeted dispel magic against a creature removes only 1 spell?


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 18, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Huh? How's that opposed to what I said?  One creature.  A targeted dispel magic against a *creature*, not a spell (note the emphasis in this sentence).




Maybe where you explicitly stated that it does *not* target a spell and Hyp pointed out that it can?



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> When you cast a targeted (greater) dispel magic, you target a creature, *not* a spell.






			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> As opposed to where it states that "One object, creature, *or spell* is the target"?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Dec 18, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Maybe where you explicitly stated that it does *not* target a spell and Hyp pointed out that it can?



 I did not state that as you are taking my statement out of context.  Nevertheless, if that's the miscommunication, I can understand the confusion.  If it helps, to put it in context, change my statement to this:

When you cast a targeted (greater) dispel magic against a creature, you target a creature, not a spell.

The context is that we were discussing targeting a creature.  Maybe it was just an assumption and it was missed.  No big deal.  Move along, people.


----------



## werk (Dec 18, 2006)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Wow! This thread reminds me of just how much unbalancing crap has been published for D&D.




It reminds me that people actually use (or hope to use) it in play.

I'd chalk this up to an exercise in printed rule gymnastics rather than a suitable player character.

Done with this thread, have fun.


----------



## satori01 (Dec 18, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You know, you're right.
> 
> ...




I find it a rather interesting creature myself, one that has a magic greater than it's statistics.  literally it brings life to stone, it returns what could be the spirit of a Dwarven Hero to life again in a representative statue.  Imagine being a Dwarf and going through a tomb for a much needed Mcguffin, and encountering one of these things.  Pretty moving wouldn't it be?

For Americans it would be like going to the Lincoln memorial and actually being able to speak to a Living Lincoln made out of marble!
Altering shape into a Dwarven Ancestor might be technically valid under the rules, but I would say it cheapens the magic inherent to the creature.  As a DM, as an arbiter of the mind of the designers, and a fully vested participant in a shared world of myth and magic, I would probably vote no.

Which brings me to my final point on these super duper High AC or High damage builds.  Most players also feel they are fully vested participants in a shared world.  Most players want to play their characters, not just collect leet powers.  

On paper it seems fine to grab any magic items you want, and make a Outsider Sun Elf Wizard/Monk that transforms into a statue of the Dwarven Lincoln anytime he wants........but how would you actually play that?  You are not talking defaming a culture here, you are not talking flag burning here, you are talking about transforming into another culture's symbol just for the cool Natural Armor bonus....that is some pretty heavy stuff, if you put thought into it.

Of course if you are just a human in a funny suit, and all powers are equal.............


----------



## pallandrome (Dec 18, 2006)

I gotta be honest, If I wanted to powergame, I'd just build a Pun-Pun. Realistically, no DM worth his salt is ever going to allow such silliness in a game.


----------



## Goblyn (Dec 18, 2006)

I'm starting to think that a bigger challenge would be to get a character to level 6 with AC 10. Not 10+; just 10.


----------



## Cabral (Dec 18, 2006)

satori01 said:
			
		

> On paper it seems fine to grab any magic items you want, and make a Outsider Sun Elf Wizard/Monk that transforms into a statue of the Dwarven Lincoln anytime he wants........but how would you actually play that?  You are not talking defaming a culture here, you are not talking flag burning here, you are talking about transforming into another culture's symbol just for the cool Natural Armor bonus....that is some pretty heavy stuff, if you put thought into it.



It's okay, really. He's a quarter dwarf on his mother's side ...


----------



## Darklone (Dec 18, 2006)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> I'm starting to think that a bigger challenge would be to get a character to level 6 with AC 10. Not 10+; just 10.



Not difficult. We had such a sorcerer... he used that Sonic Orb thingie. Simply blasted everything away.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 18, 2006)

*pokes head in*

Still no put up, but at least he's shut up.

*shrug*


----------



## Deset Gled (Dec 18, 2006)

pallandrome said:
			
		

> I gotta be honest, If I wanted to powergame, I'd just build a Pun-Pun. Realistically, no DM worth his salt is ever going to allow such silliness in a game.




Exactly.  This is why I think it's so silly to be talking about ridiculously high AC power builds when the original arguement that started this thread was about whether AC or hit bonuses grew faster.  It doesn't matter who can build the most uber build for AC or for attack bonuses (Pun-Pun can do an infinite amount of both, IIRC).  It does matter what the average character will have.

At level 6, I would expect a well equiped fighter (or cleric, etc) to have full plate armor, and a heavy sheild, for an AC bonus of +10.  They might have another +1 from Dex, and +4 from buffs.  This is about a 25 AC.  It is certainly possible to get much higher, but only when you make a build specifially for it, or spend a lot of time and resources buffing.

A level 6 warrior should have a +6 BAB, at least +3 from an ability score, a +1 weapon enhancement bonus, and about +4 from various feats or buffs.  This is a total to hit of +14, which lets him hit AC 25 about half the time.  Seems to me that these numbers are pretty balanced at low levels.


----------



## Lamoni (Dec 18, 2006)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Not difficult. We had such a sorcerer... he used that Sonic Orb thingie. Simply blasted everything away.



I played a sorcerer with AC 12 up to level 17 (that is when our campaign ended).  I would have volunteered to have it lower, but with my 12 Dex and small size it was a 12.  To survive, he usually relied on his HP (18 Con) and used fly or spells that added a miss chance when he felt threatened.

One of the more entertaining parts of that game was how often the bad guys missed my character (before I used any spells).  It doesn't matter how high the BAB is when you roll a 1.  Just like it doesn't matter how high the AC is when a 20 is rolled.


----------



## Nail (Dec 18, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter who can build the most uber build for AC or for attack bonuses (Pun-Pun can do an infinite amount of both, IIRC).  It does matter what the average character will have.



True.

For the most part I've found that well-played PCs have Atk bonuses that rise faster than either PC or NPC ACs.  That's with buffs and magic items all-round....and a few "optimizer"-type players.

I've yet to see any PCs with an AC out of reach.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 18, 2006)

Lamoni said:
			
		

> I played a sorcerer with AC 12 up to level 17 (that is when our campaign ended).  I would have volunteered to have it lower, but with my 12 Dex and small size it was a 12.  To survive, he usually relied on his HP (18 Con) and used fly or spells that added a miss chance when he felt threatened.
> 
> One of the more entertaining parts of that game was how often the bad guys missed my character (before I used any spells).  It doesn't matter how high the BAB is when you roll a 1.  Just like it doesn't matter how high the AC is when a 20 is rolled.



Good point, one we forgot here.

I've had two PCs with high AC (fighting defensively+C-Expertise) go down after several rounds between hordes of mooks who rolled the 20 (or perhaps a 19) often enough. Aid another shouldn't be underestimated if used by 6 or more level 4-6 warriors or fighters surrounding a level 10 PC.


----------



## Slaved (Dec 18, 2006)

I like my old warforged monk in a now defunct game. At level 6 he would normally be sporting a sub 10 AC in combat but if there was trouble he would shoot up to nearly 30. The first time I made the shift the dm nearly choked, he had expected me to die to the horde on me that turn.


----------



## pallandrome (Dec 18, 2006)

This would be why my wizards always have chain contengency on me to activate buffs when I cast Tensors on myself (assuming, yanno, that they are high enough to do so). I've really REALLY surprised a few fighter classes that way.


----------



## hanniball (Dec 18, 2006)

Nail said:
			
		

> I've yet to see any PCs with an AC out of reach.




Have you seen this?



			
				pallandrome said:
			
		

> I gotta be honest, If I wanted to powergame, I'd just build a Pun-Pun. Realistically, no DM worth his salt is ever going to allow such silliness in a game.




Pun-Pun is *not* meant to be played.  It is an entirely theoretical exercise and, you're right, no DM should allow it.  However, this is not a powergaming exercise.  If you wanted to _optimize_ AC what would you play?



			
				Deset Gled said:
			
		

> This is why I think it's so silly to be talking about ridiculously high AC power builds when the original arguement that started this thread was about whether AC or hit bonuses grew faster. It doesn't matter who can build the most uber build for AC or for attack bonuses (Pun-Pun can do an infinite amount of both, IIRC). It does matter what the average character will have.




While fairly true, you must also consider that when determining which game mechanic can generate higher numbers, it is important to include maximums.  Your definition of 'average' may vary significantly from that of another player.  Therefore, using the rules laid before us, determining which ability more 'easily' produces higher values is the purpose of the thread and high-AC builds should be taken into account.

Either way...just my 2 cp


----------



## DungeonMaester (Dec 18, 2006)

Ive seen a monk with 30 ac at first level uysing the Sacred Vows for BoED. 

Of course, with 8 hp, if some one hits with a Crit (the one way to hit him) He is dead. DEAD DEAD.

--Rusty


----------



## Nail (Dec 18, 2006)

hanniball said:
			
		

> Have you seen this?



When those become PCs in my game or another game I read about, I'll change my original statement.

Until then, I've yet to see a Player Character with that kind of AC.


----------



## hanniball (Dec 18, 2006)

Nail said:
			
		

> When those become PCs in my game or another game I read about, I'll change my original statement.
> 
> Until then, I've yet to see a Player Character with that kind of AC.




Ah, I see...stupid semantics


----------



## pallandrome (Dec 18, 2006)

hanniball said:
			
		

> Pun-Pun is *not* meant to be played.  It is an entirely theoretical exercise and, you're right, no DM should allow it.  However, this is not a powergaming exercise.  If you wanted to _optimize_ AC what would you play?




Pun-Pun is just as legal a build as some of the optimized builds I've seen here. And I'd allow these builds just as much as I'd allow pun-pun. Just because something is legal according to the rules, does NOT mean a GM should allow it in their campaign.


----------



## Grog (Dec 19, 2006)

Justin Cray said:
			
		

> AC 56 combined with a -1 meeelion to hit doesn't concern me.




True. The enemies will just ignore that character and kill the rest of the party.


----------



## The Blue Elf (Dec 19, 2006)

pallandrome said:
			
		

> Pun-Pun is just as legal a build as some of the optimized builds I've seen here. And I'd allow these builds just as much as I'd allow pun-pun. Just because something is legal according to the rules, does NOT mean a GM should allow it in their campaign.





Lets just say someone attemped too use If a Wizard Cat's Grace + Mage Armor+Sheild+ Protection With just Magical itmes and casting which would stack?

Many ways too stacking spells, but the problem Is which spells would stack.On page 171 of the Players Handbook paragraph Titile *Special Spells and Effects * under *Bonus types * says somewhere Two Bonus types of the same type don't generlly stack, for example if you cast the spell *Bless * and try too cast it twice on the same target It won't work if you try too use Mage Armor casting it Twice It won't stack.If you cast Magic Weapon on a Masterworks Longsword It may or may not stack.


----------



## Vuron (Dec 19, 2006)

pallandrome said:
			
		

> Pun-Pun is just as legal a build as some of the optimized builds I've seen here. And I'd allow these builds just as much as I'd allow pun-pun. Just because something is legal according to the rules, does NOT mean a GM should allow it in their campaign.




Meh, Pun Pun relies on the ability to transform into a specific monster from one setting that was a) poorly thought out b) arguably not playtested and c) assumes a very liberal rules interpretation about iterative transformations that might no longer be valid with the substantial changes to polymorph style effects.

In contrast most of the builds merely require an exhaustive library of 3.5 material and the ability to look for areas of synergy.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 19, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> When you cast a targeted (greater) dispel magic against a creature, you target a creature, not a spell.




Now that statement, I have no problem with 

-Hyp.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Dec 19, 2006)

hanniball said:
			
		

> While a noble and respectable notion, the rhetoric with which you present such a premise is rather disparaging.  However, I will attempt a _fairly_ "easy" method of obtaining a similar armor class to stave off the naysayers.  Keep in mind, this is all off the top of my head so it will, perhaps, contain mistakes.
> 
> Human Agnostic Cleric 6
> Domains: Spell, Plant
> ...




If you were +3 venerable to your CHA, then your DEX would be -6, which means at most you would have a 12 DEX with a human.

DS


----------



## epochrpg (Dec 19, 2006)

I think I will start a new thread as an homage/parody of this one, entitled, "How to get a +60 bonus to unarmed damage at level 6".  In the thread, I will say, _"So you get +4 for Strength, +2 for weapon specialization (unarmed strike), +48 from miscalaneous bonuses that don't bear repeating here that any idiot should know, and +6 from power attack. _"

Then, when the troll-thread begins attracting bait, I start teasing the prey, jibing _"what, you haven't GUESSED how I've done it yet?  You all must be retarded.  What did you think this was, some thread where I actually EXPLAINED how to gain this unbelievable bonus?  Why would I just GIVE that info away?  I might actually have to open a book to do that-- I could get a paper cut!  You'll just have to guess, but I will give hints by answering yes or no questions.  Fair enough, or are you too stupid to figure it out?"_


----------



## Cabral (Dec 19, 2006)

Slaved said:
			
		

> I like my old warforged monk in a now defunct game. At level 6 he would normally be sporting a sub 10 AC in combat but if there was trouble he would shoot up to nearly 30. The first time I made the shift the dm nearly choked, he had expected me to die to the horde on me that turn.



Just out of curiosity, how did you manage that and how quick was the shift?


----------



## Iku Rex (Dec 19, 2006)

Justin Cray said:
			
		

> AC 56 combined with a -1 meeelion to hit doesn't concern me.
> 
> What's the highest sum of AC and to hit a level 6 Character can have, both values must be positive?



In my number-crunching experience, the main factors are AC, AB and damage. As a _rule of thumb_, 1 AC = 1 AB = 2 damage for a "tank". Min-max to optimize the total value of those three factors you'll get a solid, effective character. 

Hit points also enter into it of course, but I'm not sure exactly how. It may be highly level-dependant, like "1 AC = [level] hit points".


----------



## Iku Rex (Dec 19, 2006)

satori01 said:
			
		

> Which brings me to my final point on these super duper High AC or High damage builds.  Most players also feel they are fully vested participants in a shared world.  Most players want to play their characters, not just collect leet powers.



 Some players like to role-play. Some even like to role-play characters who are genuinely concerned about _avoiding pain and bodily harm_. Now I realize that this concept will seem alien to miniature/wargaming type gamers and there's nothing wrong with that. In some games having a balanced and proper "playing piece" is more important than role-playing a realistic character. But in other campaigns the player _characters_, who have often seen enough horrors and evil to give a person nightmares for the rest of his life, will be obsessing about defeating their enemies quickly and protecting themselves from harm. Both for their own sake and for the sake of the people who depend on them. 


			
				satori01 said:
			
		

> On paper it seems fine to grab any magic items you want, and make a Outsider Sun Elf Wizard/Monk that transforms into a statue of the Dwarven Lincoln anytime he wants........but how would you actually play that?  You are not talking defaming a culture here, you are not talking flag burning here, you are talking about transforming into another culture's symbol just for the cool Natural Armor bonus....that is some pretty heavy stuff, if you put thought into it.



A legendary champion of good - an _elf_ none the less! - enters every battle acknowledging the power and greatness of the dwarven people and its heroes. How flattering! 

Even if the DM announces that dwarves _are_ offended by it, how is a character going to respond to that? It's an extremely powerful tool after all. 

How many people will your Good character allow the bad guys to torture and kill before he risks offending the irrational religious sensibilities of some dwarves? Will _your_ character enter into the final battle to prevent Hell from invading the campaign world without bringing every weapon at his disposal?

Is a selfish, Neutral mercenary character going to value polite behavior towards nearby dwarves over his own survival? 

Evil character? "I'm sorry, I don't get this 'offended dwarves' thing. Maybe you can explain it again once the twelve year old sacrificial virgin stops screaming."

Of course, if you're just pushing a playing piece around the table as part of a wargame, balance is _paramount_... 

(Ok, I don't think the dwarven ancestor should be a legal form for alter self, and I'd probably never play a character using it myself even if the DM allowed it. It's too unbalanced. Takes the fun out of overcoming "challenges". I _like_ to have some wargaming aspects to DnD.)


----------



## hanniball (Dec 21, 2006)

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> If you were +3 venerable to your CHA, then your DEX would be -6, which means at most you would have a 12 DEX with a human.
> 
> DS




Meh.  As I said, that was all off the top of my head and it would probably have mistakes.  I also forgot to include a required 13 int and the fact that a Cleric only has a +3 BAB at 6th level, so she may only benefit from a +3 dodge bonus from the Combat Expertise feat.  Replace the dodge feat with a EWP: broadblade shortsword and the total is back to 55.

However, with the OP gone this thread should really just die already...


----------



## DungeonMaester (Dec 22, 2006)

Not to bring this up again (although it looks like that is what im doing) I would like to correct a small mistake I made. 

I had said a little while ago that there is a monk that has 30+ ac. To cerify:

 Githerzia Monk 3 (Cr 5)
Base: 10
Dex: 20+5
Wis: 20+5
Vow of Poverty +4 Sacred
Vow of Peace: +2 Def
Vow of Peace: +2 Nat
Vow of Peace: +2 sacred (not counted/not stacked)
Psionic Force armor: +4
------------------------------
Total: 32
FF: 27
Touch: 17?

---Rusty

P.S.: Yes, Vow of Non Violence was taken too.

P.S.S: The higest Nat armor I could find was +16, in the Monster Manual. I dont know if there is a +20 nat armor creature, but if their is, I dont think a character would have the HD to polymorph into it.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 23, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> I've shown more than I care to show.  I broke the AC down source by source, points by points.  That's sufficient for anyone familiar with the books to identify everything.  You have yet to sit down with the books and figure it out, which is a laughably simple task, but I won't be blamed for that.  Nor do I intend to spoonfeed people who happen to randomly stop by the boards and just want a min/max build without properly understanding how it works.  I want to encourage people to be able to min/max themselves, not to rely on other people posting every little detail.  It's feed a man a fish versus teach a man to fish.




You are cordially invited to join 

http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/

This is a real invitation.  Your name was specifically brought up in a thread:

http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/showthread.php?t=4441&page=10

In the context of "Someone invite him over!"

So, I'm someone, and I am inviting you.


----------



## saucercrab (Dec 23, 2006)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> Githerzia Monk 3 (Cr 5)
> Base: 10
> Dex: 20+5
> Wis: 20+5
> ...



The Poverty bonus should be a +5 exalted bonus, which doesn't stack with the armor bonus (page 30). The third Peace bonus should also be an exalted bonus, that will stack with the Poverty's bonus (page 48).

So you're looking at 10 Base +5 (Dex) +5 (Wis) +5 (Poverty) +2+2+2 (Peace) = 31 total, 26 FF, 22 Touch.

But...
How does a 3HD githzerai have enough feat slots to cover Sacred Vow, Vow of Poverty, Vow of Peace, & Vow of Nonviolence? 

(And yeah, sorry also for not letting the thread die; wish I could sage it, etc.)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 23, 2006)

saucercrab said:
			
		

> But...
> How does a 3HD githzerai have enough feat slots to cover Sacred Vow, Vow of Poverty, Vow of Peace, & Vow of Nonviolence?




I'm guessing he's retroactively including the two bonus Exalted feats a character with Vow of Poverty gains at 1st and 2nd level, but which explicitly cannot be gained retroactively if Vow of Poverty is taken at a higher level 

-Hyp.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Dec 24, 2006)

saucercrab said:
			
		

> The Poverty bonus should be a +5 exalted bonus, which doesn't stack with the armor bonus (page 30). The third Peace bonus should also be an exalted bonus, that will stack with the Poverty's bonus (page 48).
> 
> So you're looking at 10 Base +5 (Dex) +5 (Wis) +5 (Poverty) +2+2+2 (Peace) = 31 total, 26 FF, 22 Touch.
> 
> ...





Thanks. One of my players stole my Book of Exatled Deeds, and I am Tracking him down as we speak.   This was off the top of my head.

As for the question, Well..Flaws..(UA)

Also, Stats are speced. The Dex is 20, but Wis is a bit higher so its still un there.

---Rusty


----------



## saucercrab (Dec 24, 2006)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> Thanks. One of my players stole my Book of Exatled Deeds, and I am Tracking him down as we speak.   This was off the top of my head.
> 
> As for the question, Well..Flaws..(UA)



Wow, stealing the _BoED_? Isn't that, whatayacallit', irony? 

Better add a PSSS (or PPPS) for the flaws then.
(My group never uses them, so they would never have occurred to me.)



> Also, Stats are speced. The Dex is 20, but Wis is a bit higher so its still un there.
> 
> ---Rusty



Not sure what you mean here.  "Speced" & "un"? (Looks like typos, but I can't figure out what they should be.) Wisdom is already maxed out, but Dexterity could be four points higher. That would raise the ACs to 33 Total & 24 Touch; still not bad at all.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Dec 24, 2006)

saucercrab said:
			
		

> Wow, stealing the _BoED_? Isn't that, whatayacallit', irony?
> 
> Better add a PSSS (or PPPS) for the flaws then.
> (My group never uses them, so they would never have occurred to me.)




1) Yeah..it is..I found book, now I just have to track down his house. And Track is a cross class skil...

2) They are very useful, but most Dms in this area only let players who can role play flaws very well can use them.



> Not sure what you mean here.  "Speced" & "un"? (Looks like typos, but I can't figure out what they should be.) Wisdom is already maxed out, but Dexterity could be four points higher. That would raise the ACs to 33 Total & 24 Touch; still not bad at all.




Speced is speculated. Last I checked Githzerai get a +7 or something to their wisdom score, so it is a bit higher then that.

Un is a typo..I have no idea what I wa tihnking.

---Rusty


----------



## saucercrab (Dec 24, 2006)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> 1) Yeah..it is..I found book, now I just have to track down his house. And Track is a cross class skil...







> Speced is speculated. Last I checked Githzerai get a +7 or something to their wisdom score, so it is a bit higher then that.



Nope: +6 Dexterity, +2 Wisdom, -2 Intelligence.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Dec 25, 2006)

saucercrab said:
			
		

> Nope: +6 Dexterity, +2 Wisdom, -2 Intelligence.





So I was off by one.....  

I spec that the AC is some where near 35. I'll do the math when I get my book back. But both Dex and Wis started on a 18 on the dice.

---Rusty


----------



## Canaan (Dec 25, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> There was a surprising amount of furor over this very simple statement, so I'm branching this off into another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Is this guy a _religious comment removed by admin_)?


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 27, 2006)

A quick reminder (and my apologies for the non-intuitive way I "fixed" the problem earlier) -- please avoid real-world religious references here. Thanks.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Jan 4, 2007)

Sorry for such a late post back, and a touch of thread Necromancy, but I was with out internet for the last 3 or so weeks.

I got my BoED back,  and Rebuilt the Gith to have close to  38 Ac now.  However, there is only one thing I want to adress.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm guessing he's retroactively including the two bonus Exalted feats a character with Vow of Poverty gains at 1st and 2nd level, but which explicitly cannot be gained retroactively if Vow of Poverty is taken at a higher level
> 
> -Hyp.




Inncorrect.  It says In the BoED thats no matter what level you take the feat at, you get all the benifiets up to that level. If I had the book on me, I would quote the page number and exact text.


---Rusty


----------



## Darklone (Jan 4, 2007)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> Inncorrect.  It says In the BoED thats no matter what level you take the feat at, you get all the benifiets up to that level. If I had the book on me, I would quote the page number and exact text.
> 
> ---Rusty



A CHALLENGE TO THE SMURFMASTA!

*Darklone pulls up his seat*


----------



## Sound of Azure (Jan 4, 2007)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> Sorry for such a late post back, and a touch of thread Necromancy, but I was with out internet for the last 3 or so weeks.
> 
> I got my BoED back,  and Rebuilt the Gith to have close to  38 Ac now.  However, there is only one thing I want to adress.
> 
> ...




Nah, it specifically excludes bonus exalted feats. See Page 30, under *Bonus Exalted Feats*.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Jan 4, 2007)

Sound of Azure said:
			
		

> Nah, it specifically excludes bonus exalted feats. See Page 30, under *Bonus Exalted Feats*.




I'll check next time I crack open the book.

---Rusty


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 4, 2007)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> I'll check next time I crack open the book.




No need. Hyp and SoA are correct. I've hit upon this rule quite a few times designing characters. VOP Bonus Exalted Feats are an exception to the normal gain all lower level abilities rule there.

Btw, it often doesn't matter. There are so few BEFs that are actually usable by most character concepts that designing a character often results in no BEFs remaining that actually are usable. For example, if one does not have Smite, one cannot take a BEF that requires Smite. There are a boatload of BEFs like this.


----------



## Nail (Jan 4, 2007)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> I'll check next time I crack open the book.
> 
> ---Rusty



FWIW, I just checked page 30 of the BoED.  You do not get the Bonus Exalted feats retroactively --> Hyp is right.

"_Unlike the other benefits of a vow of poverty, a character does not gain these bonus feats retroactively when he takes the Vow of Poverty feat; he only gains those bonus feats that apply for the levels he gains after swearing his vow_."

Sorry, DungeonMaester.


----------

