GameBanshee Forums

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2001 1:48 pm**

hey guys, i thought it was impossible to get below -10 armor class? Or so i have heard. But in my game, im in Ust'Natha and my main character has -11 and minsc has -12.. is that a glitch? or how low can you get a armor class?

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2001 1:50 pm**

It's not hard to get lower but the game doesn't act as if you are lower than -10

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2001 1:51 pm**

So... what you are saying is... it's best if i just spread my equipment out and get everyone to -10? and not get one or two guys to like -12?

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2001 1:53 pm**

Jep! There was a contest at one point on this forum though as to who could get lowest. I believe it was in the twenties!

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2001 3:27 pm**

twenty four was the lowest i ve seen on this board. and the guy was arguing about dual wielding vs use of shield.
and with the sentient he had 24,
other guys just said well why not dual wield crom faeyr with -20ac

tha topic was closed =]

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2001 3:31 pm**

Also, those -11's and above(below

) disappear in the sunlight. I have a Fighter with -12 above ground but that's the best I've been able to do (Armor of the Hart, Cloak of the Sewers, Shield +4, Zerkon Blade, and one of the 'control' rings.....

Interesting that the game 'stops' noticing at -10. Must be the same thing as 20 max reputation even though you can still gain reputation points.

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2001 3:32 pm**

i remember that topic, dont remember it being closed, why was it closed.

anyway i have a link that should be helpful 2 this question of how low u can go
[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000064"]http://www.gamebanshee.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000064[/url]

however Rodion Raskolnikov is right that the game will only calculate ac to -10 so it doesnt matter if your ac is -10 or -20, the game will only calculate to -10

[ 04-16-2001: Message edited by: Cloud ]

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2001 10:45 pm**

Hmmm. You guys must be playing a different BG2 than I am, cause my game certainly calculates past AC -10.

Just to make sure, I did a little experiment just now. I fired up my Final-Save, and dumped the Armor of the Hart +3, Helm of Glory, Gauntlets of Dex, ring of Earth Control, cloak of the Sewers, ring of Gaxx, and Sentinel +4 on Keldorn, for a total of AC -16. I then had Minsc--base THACO 3--attack Keldorn. At -16, Minsc should need a 19 or better to hit. If BG2 really didn't calculate AC past -10, Minsc should only need a 13 or better to hit. Sure enough, Minsc missed on rolls of 13, 15, 16, and 18. I never did roll up a 19, but I got a few 20s, 21s, and 22s, which were all hits.

I have no idea where this -10 AC rumor popped up, but it's just that: a rumor. If you don't believe me, try it out for yourselves. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

[ 04-17-2001: Message edited by: TheHellion ]

Posted: **Mon Apr 16, 2001 10:57 pm**

Originally posted by TheHellion:
<STRONG>Hmmm. You guys must be playing a different BG2 than I am, cause my game certainly calculates past AC -10. Just to make sure, I did a little experiment just now. I fired up my Final-Save, and dumped the Armor of the Hart +3, Helm of Glory, Gauntlets of Dex, ring of Earth Control, cloak of the Sewers, ring of Gaxx, and Sentinel +4 on Keldorn, for a total of AC -16. I then had Minsc--base THACO 3--attack Keldorn. At -16, Minsc should need a 19 or better to hit. If BG2 really didn't calculate AC past -10, Minsc should only need a 13 or better to hit. Sure enough, Minsc missed on rolls of 13, 15, 16, and 18. I never did roll up a 19, but I got a few 20s, 21s, and 22s, which were all hits.

I have no idea where this -10 AC rumor popped up, but it's just that: a rumor. If you don't believe me, try it out for yourselves. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

[ 04-17-2001: Message edited by: TheHellion ]</STRONG>

You are indeed correct, Hellion. Others have performed similar experiments and found the same result. AC beyond -10 does get taken into account by the game.

Posted: **Tue Apr 17, 2001 8:25 am**

Check out: [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=001942"]http://www.gamebanshee.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=001942[/url]

I belive AC -10 was the lowest it counted in BG1 and the manual may still say it's the lowest. Certainly the story has been going around a lot and at one point I bought into it. Actually the limit the game counts is EFFECTIVE AC -20 (including modifiers).

Posted: **Tue Apr 17, 2001 9:14 am**

This game counts AC as low as you can get which is -24, -26 with some spells. I think -24 whith a shield is better than -19 and dualwielding. To have -24 you need to use drow armour so -22 is the best using normal equipment. With modifiers you can get as low as -27 so that only dragons can hit you on something other than critical.

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2001 9:22 am**

Look at the link I put up. The to-hits quit going up when the target got past AC -20 (effective). Beyond AC -20 it doesn't matter what you do.

Course at AC -20 only Dragons, Drizzt, and a couple other creatures will hit you with anything besides a critical hit.

With spells you can get the numbers to read just about anything you want them too since Blur is cumulative...but it doesn't matter.

[ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: Nighthawk ]