Shield AC

[AxelMcT]

Should magic shields not boost AC than more than +2

Or is this something that has changed in 5th Ed?

[AnonymousWizard]

Originally posted by JF:

That changed. 5e has a design philosophy named bounded accuracy, meaning the AC and attack bonus are spread over a much smaller range. It makes it possible for lower level monsters/npcs to still be a treath (in larger numbers) when you level up.

It's also scaled weirdly, in RAW 5e you cab get +1 or +2 AC by level 2, and then it's entirely based on when magic armour drops. Meanwhile attack bonuses don't increase until you find a magic weapon or hit level 5, but are designed to regularly increase. BG3 fixes this by limiting the purchase of the best mundane armours by map, but AC really should have had 8+Proficiency Bonus as it's baseline instead of 10,

[Iso Koala]

There are +3 shields but not many. And often some +2 shields with better extra atrributes, are better.

Besides some extreme builds, all your characters will be around 20 AC +-3 (thus 17-23). Its possible to get higher yes, but generally around 20AC is mid game AC and at the very end you might have 2 more. But not ACs like in Neverwinter Nights where you could reach like 60+.

[Cartesian Duelist]

Originally posted by AxelMcT:

Should magic shields not boost AC than more than +2

Or is this something that has changed in 5th Ed?

It depends on the magic on the shield. A shield +1 should give you a +3 AC bonus. However, there are quite a few magic shields in BG3 that just give you some other bonus/ability/defense than additional AC bonus.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Some do.

[Moonbane]

There is +1 shields later on with 3AC
2AC is the baseline.

[Metallicus]

The limits on magical bonuses are very unsatisfying in 5e. I blame the ‘bounded accuracy’ garbage that WotC seem so proud of as if it is a good thing.

[wendigo211]

It seems to be tied to level, although there are a couple of fixed drops like a +1 banded shield in Moonrise Towers. Around level 11 or 12 vendors start selling +1 shields. Just like how you have to wait until level 8 for them to start selling full plate.

[MattStriker]

Originally posted by Metallicus:

The limits on magical bonuses are very unsatisfying in 5e. I blame the ‘bounded accuracy’ garbage that WotC seem so proud of as if it is a good thing.

3.5's stacking bonuses allowed for (and required planning around) ludicrous cheese but they definitely overcompensated with 5th.

[Moonbane]

bg3 allows for cloak and ring of protection to stack, which definitely seems like an oversight. They did not stack in the older games.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

Bounded Accuracy is the best thing to ever happen to D&D.

[butbka]

Originally posted by Iso Koala:

Besides some extreme builds, all your characters will be around 20 AC +-3 (thus 17-23). Its possible to get higher yes, but generally around 20AC is mid game AC and at the very end you might have 2 more. But not ACs like in Neverwinter Nights where you could reach like 60+.

Act 1. Adamantite heave armor (18) + shield (2) + ring of protection (1) + bard gloves (1) = 22. Nothing extreme, just usual stuff from basic passthrough. Midgame is not near.

[AnonymousWizard]

Originally posted by MattStriker:

Originally posted by Metallicus:

The limits on magical bonuses are very unsatisfying in 5e. I blame the ‘bounded accuracy’ garbage that WotC seem so proud of as if it is a good thing.

3.5's stacking bonuses allowed for (and required planning around) ludicrous cheese but they definitely overcompensated with 5th.

They compensated twice, folding most numerical bonuses into Advantage/Disadvantage would have been fine, Bounded Accuracy would have been fine, together it's easy to end up with characters feeling vaguely competent.

Originally posted by Pan Darius Loveless:

Bounded Accuracy is the best thing to ever happen to D&D.

Arguably, and if I wanted the end goal of bounded accuracy I've got other systems on my shelf that handle it far better. It's not inherently bad, it just lends itself to a certain style of game that high level D&D tends not to present itself as.

Personally I prefer how Pathfinder 2e handles proficiency, but it also seems to have intentionally gone the other way to D&D 5e (lots of choice in character building, characters are generally narrowly focused but scale a lot).

[pascal.difolco]

Yeah it's a BIG change from 3rd-3.5-PF rulesets
No more +75BAB with 6 attacks and 80AC !!
Armor (+DEX or other attributes) is 12-20AC, Shield 2-3AC, class/feat can give +1/+2, items say +2/+3, so base AC won't often be more than 25, with buffs you can reach around 30/32, but as Attack bonuses are also way more reasonable (my best fighters have +20 at level 12 with tons of buffs)

[gungadin22000]

It was pretty powergamey, but I sorta miss the extremely buffcentric gameplay of Pathfinder. Gear and buff tweaking allowed you to become nearly invulnerable with 5000 attacks per round in that game. Did take ages to rebuff for every damn fight though.

[MattStriker]

Originally posted by gungadin22000:

It was pretty powergamey, but I sorta miss the extremely buffcentric gameplay of Pathfinder. Gear and buff tweaking allowed you to become nearly invulnerable with 5000 attacks per round in that game. Did take ages to rebuff for every damn fight though.

The Pathfinder games are damn near unplayable at higher levels without autobuff mods, yeah. Still fun but unmodded they make you jump through a lot of hoops composed of pure tedium to get to the good bits.