Talk:Epic Path: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
as a note, by getting rid of 'shield enhancement bonus', we've effectively cut up to 9 points of AC out of the top end of possible ACs (formerly, +9 tower shield and +9 ring of prot = 22 AC)... we /could/ put some of this back into shields by letting the magic deflection bonus range go above +9 (say, up to +14? that would make a +14 tower shield = 18 AC). A +14 heavy shield would cap at 16 AC, while a ring of protection would cap at +9. Regardless of whether we do this, we'll still probably need to review monster to-hits against our projected best AC. | as a note, by getting rid of 'shield enhancement bonus', we've effectively cut up to 9 points of AC out of the top end of possible ACs (formerly, +9 tower shield and +9 ring of prot = 22 AC)... we /could/ put some of this back into shields by letting the magic deflection bonus range go above +9 (say, up to +14? that would make a +14 tower shield = 18 AC). A +14 heavy shield would cap at 16 AC, while a ring of protection would cap at +9. Regardless of whether we do this, we'll still probably need to review monster to-hits against our projected best AC. | ||
yes, this is true. however, we should use this design space as part of the 'Base AC' class redesign pass. if that doesn't use it up, we could put some more AC into the base armor and shield numbers. plate mail and a tower shield should be BEASTLY, magic or not. but that's after the magic items pass. :) | |||
* the SSL cert expires May 5, 2019, so we should get that fixed. | * the SSL cert expires May 5, 2019, so we should get that fixed. | ||