As a GM when I run up againt players who are STRONK my response is generally toss them some bones to see whether this is some players being clever and creative (which is good and should be lauded as long as they're not trying to be MacGyver all the time) or just "the tactic" and respond accordingly.
What is "the tactic" you ask? It's times when players just go all in on a single fool proof all purpose approach that requires no more thought then the initial conception of it and means that the players will approach and handle everything the exact same way. As someone who is big on having combat happen in furtherance of narrative as opposed to "you rolled a 37 on the percentile so now 2d6+2 wolves pop out of the ether" I find "the tactic" distasteful.
Thus my response to this is to just go ham on invalidating "the tactic" as much as possible so players have to stop and consider what else is in their kit and use their brain a little more so that the game can stay interesting.
So to bring this around to the OP: you have a character who is really good at not getting hit by things and that is great (particularly since it's been pointed out that your AC was higher then it should be and you've acknowledged this); maybe show that you can do other things as well or find ways to keep them dynamic for the GM?
You're blowing spell slots on more AC instead of healing allies or other utility
This would be fine in my game. Most enemies would see a toothless, turtled-up tin can and ignore it to go after your squishier allies. Except the kobold sorcerer who will cook you in your armor with burning hands. Your DM needs to play monsters smarter and maybe add more variety to encounters - AC is only one of seven PC defense values and a functional "tank" is only as good as its ability to draw enemy fire.
As a GM when I run up againt players who are STRONK my response is generally toss them some bones to see whether this is some players being clever and creative (which is good and should be lauded as long as they're not trying to be MacGyver all the time) or just "the tactic" and respond accordingly.
What is "the tactic" you ask? It's times when players just go all in on a single fool proof all purpose approach that requires no more thought then the initial conception of it and means that the players will approach and handle everything the exact same way. As someone who is big on having combat happen in furtherance of narrative as opposed to "you rolled a 37 on the percentile so now 2d6+2 wolves pop out of the ether" I find "the tactic" distasteful.
Thus my response to this is to just go ham on invalidating "the tactic" as much as possible so players have to stop and consider what else is in their kit and use their brain a little more so that the game can stay interesting.
So to bring this around to the OP: you have a character who is really good at not getting hit by things and that is great (particularly since it's been pointed out that your AC was higher then it should be and you've acknowledged this); maybe show that you can do other things as well or find ways to keep them dynamic for the GM?
I'm a little of column A and a little of Column B. And encourage my players to Think Outside the combat box. I reward defusing combat with RP and skill use, winning over an antagonist, avoiding combat, and being clever is more rewarding at times. Which is why I also toss in rando "wolves" to kill as well. Ironically they passed the animal handling checks, and avoided combat.
The "Tank" role is a video game based role, NOT a D&D TTRPG role... Enemies in D&D have intelligence and as a DM we are challenged to portray that in a more real and meaningful way, while providing encounters that are reasonably believable, exciting, fun, and at varying degrees of challenge. Not every encounter has to tax the party, so I disagree with Linklite's assertion above.
While all true... Tank & Spank was a TTRPG first. Of Corse the best AD&D tanks weren't the AC: -5 Full plate Fighter, but the Roguish Bard who sang and danced circles around the villain keeping them off balanced while the party burned them down. Seriously Mark with his Bard... hard eyeroll. No one should have that much dex, and ability to avoid being hit.
Hasn't really changed much as in my experience I've not seen anything harder to hit than a Bladesinger. A well built bladesinger that gets their defensives up is looking at a regular 23-30 AC and attacks against them being made at disadvantage if they hit them and not a mirror image.
That's pretty good, though my personal favorite tanks were a pair of barbarians I put together a while back.
First up was Bagonella; a hill dwarf bear totem barbarian with toughness and some other feat I can't remember ATM; at (I wanna say level 13?) she had a base of 149 HPs that effectively doubled while raging and the only piece of armor she had was a shield that raised her AC to 19 (she was also dex based) and while she couldn't relly dish damage out she could in point of fact take an absolutely absurd amount of it.
Second was a shadar-kai beast barbarian: for this guy I again went big on dex and con and with a shield and 18's in both dex and Con along with a shield I was rocking a 20 AC which isn't anything special... until you factor in that the Tail I got from raging allowed me to add an extra 1d8 to my AC. Also at one point I had a +2 helmet that raised my AC to 22.
As a GM when I run up againt players who are STRONK my response is generally toss them some bones to see whether this is some players being clever and creative (which is good and should be lauded as long as they're not trying to be MacGyver all the time) or just "the tactic" and respond accordingly.
What is "the tactic" you ask? It's times when players just go all in on a single fool proof all purpose approach that requires no more thought then the initial conception of it and means that the players will approach and handle everything the exact same way. As someone who is big on having combat happen in furtherance of narrative as opposed to "you rolled a 37 on the percentile so now 2d6+2 wolves pop out of the ether" I find "the tactic" distasteful.
Thus my response to this is to just go ham on invalidating "the tactic" as much as possible so players have to stop and consider what else is in their kit and use their brain a little more so that the game can stay interesting.
So to bring this around to the OP: you have a character who is really good at not getting hit by things and that is great (particularly since it's been pointed out that your AC was higher then it should be and you've acknowledged this); maybe show that you can do other things as well or find ways to keep them dynamic for the GM?
I'm a little of column A and a little of Column B. And encourage my players to Think Outside the combat box. I reward defusing combat with RP and skill use, winning over an antagonist, avoiding combat, and being clever is more rewarding at times. Which is why I also toss in rando "wolves" to kill as well. Ironically they passed the animal handling checks, and avoided combat.
I think one of my favorite stories about my players coming up with an alternative solution to combat was when I'd been running a Moonshae campaign and had put into play three accursed beasts that the players were supposed to defeat that took on the appearance of fairly common monsters but were elevated to a considerably more dangerous level.
One of these was "the lurker" a displacer beast that would stalk farms and villages, picking people off one at a time until there was no one left. I went to great pains to make it tougher and even give it an ability to teleport between it's 2 displaced images and it's base position so as to make it harder to actually hurt it. It was going to be a really cool fight!
And then after they did a thing for an archfey called The Lord of Bats that got them the services of two coteries of his servants they sent the one who was "good at finding things, killing things" to go and kill it and as a GM I was left in an awkward, salty moment where the players had found a really good way to deal with the situation that mde perfect sense and would work just fine and I just had to dump my cool boss fight in the dumpster :P
I think one of my favorite stories about my players coming up with an alternative solution to combat was when I'd been running a Moonshae campaign and had put into play three accursed beasts that the players were supposed to defeat that took on the appearance of fairly common monsters but were elevated to a considerably more dangerous level.
One of these was "the lurker" a displacer beast that would stalk farms and villages, picking people off one at a time until there was no one left. I went to great pains to make it tougher and even give it an ability to teleport between it's 2 displaced images and it's base position so as to make it harder to actually hurt it. It was going to be a really cool fight!
And then after they did a thing for an archfey called The Lord of Bats that got them the services of two coteries of his servants they sent the one who was "good at finding things, killing things" to go and kill it and as a GM I was left in an awkward, salty moment where the players had found a really good way to deal with the situation that mde perfect sense and would work just fine and I just had to dump my cool boss fight in the dumpster :P
lol... yeah, something similar happened to me just last month. I had this Modified Steampunk Beholder who had a castle/casino on a dam, and ruled a small agricultural nation with a Brass Eye (No fists on a beholder). Now the party is searching for this Topaz Dragon Bob, who has been on the run from the Beholder because of reasons. (The party doesn't know yet, so just in case any browse can't say). But the party should have tried to visit with the beholder (for the villain monologue, and a really challenging combat), instead they steal a vehicle and follow a map of the region following clues. Completely missing my Steam Beholder.
if a player introduces their character that's really good at jumping / climbing / swimming the response shouldn't be "remove all obstacles since they don't matter" and neither should it be "deadlier obstacles." put a trap disarm lever out of reach, stick an observation window up high, drop some tantalizing "golden glimmer" down a well. nothing game breaking but instead another option. this player came to play.
as such, if a player introduces their character that's really well armored? heck, why stress by trying to avoiding or punish the player when you can easily just give them what they want at no cost? give the player a doorway to stand in to hold back some extra wolves. but then give the wolves half-cover because there's a giant tin can in the way. yes, it's busy work in a sense but you're also giving the rogue traps and the wizard flammable things, right? it just seems like the path of least resistance (and not in a 'giving up' sort of way).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
I made the character following the rules, I normally don't play as a tank, but I stepped out of my comfort zone for this one. Now I am getting flak for creating a character that has too high of an AC? The DM is claiming I am making the encounters irrelevant because the creatures he is throwing at us need a nat 20 to hit. I used shield of faith once putting my AC at 25 at lvl 3 and was told I needed to switch characters. Does it look bad to create characters in this way?
Your DM is 100% wrong for getting upset with you. You did nothing wrong. You did not break any rules or house rules. There's no cheese here, just a straight forward tank build. He can add spell casters and such to force saves. By building for high AC you limited your damage potential, due to the sword and board instead of heavy weapons.
If he is having a hard time dealing with it, he has two options. Ask for advice from experienced dungeon masters on how do deal with high AC player characters, or politely talk to you about it and maybe negotiate a different build that makes you both happy.
Side note: Only 13 STR? Do you plan to dip into Hexblade?
The "Tank" role is a video game based role, NOT a D&D TTRPG role... Enemies in D&D have intelligence and as a DM we are challenged to portray that in a more real and meaningful way, while providing encounters that are reasonably believable, exciting, fun, and at varying degrees of challenge. Not every encounter has to tax the party, so I disagree with Linklite's assertion above.
While all true... Tank & Spank was a TTRPG first. Of Corse the best AD&D tanks weren't the AC: -5 Full plate Fighter, but the Roguish Bard who sang and danced circles around the villain keeping them off balanced while the party burned them down. Seriously Mark with his Bard... hard eyeroll. No one should have that much dex, and ability to avoid being hit.
The first "taunt" ability in D&D was from the 1st edition AD&D Dragonlance book and was the Kinder's taunt ability... though I would not call a kinder in those days a tank by ANY stretch of the imagination. The warrior classes were meant to be the damage sponge of the party, with high HP counts so they could survive longer while the rest of the party attacked from range or used hit and run tactics. Even the thief in those days didn't stay in melee, they would backstab and retreat for the most part, as they simply could not take sustained attacks. Parties had to use tactics to keep the wizard and cleric safe, an at the same time try to pin down the enemy to keep them from getting to the weaker opponents in order to reduce the party threat.
The term "tank" as a role was first use in a text based internet game that used game mechanics that allowed aggro or taunting, but the "tank" role did not come into being as we know it today until party based co-op video games implementing aggro mechanics, bringing the "tank" role its fame.
Although if your roguish bard was able to keep the enemy targeting him instead of going after soft targets, then that would be closer to a "tank", but I'm not sure how he would have done that in 1E AD&D... sounds more like enemies with low low intelligence or DM that just ran them that way. Nothing wrong with that as long as that isn't the norm, otherwise the party might as well be fighting all their enemies in an open flat combat arena with their AC, HP, and To Hit being the only things that matter. Enemies of intelligence will use tactics, environment, stealth, poison, magic, take out soft targets first and anything else in order to take out their enemy as quickly as possible with the least amount of harm to them.
There are a few "Tank" like abilities in 5E, "attack anyone but me and suffer for it" abilities, but I would like to see more of them, or improvements to them, to make "tanking" more doable in this game we love.
As a rule, you shouldn't be doing more than 3 times your level per turn in damage as an AC Tank. Choose to be an AC Tank, cool. Choose to Minmax so that you don't die and you deal a meagre 150 damage per turn if they succeed on all 5 saving throws, not cool. I played an Aasimar Battle Smith Artificer that can get up to 33 with SoF and Shield, but I wasn't doing more than 20 DPR at level 11, I just didn't die or do great damage to Tiamat or any other boss and instead acted as a shield so that others did the damage.
TL;DR: It's fine if you don't min-max to also deal damage greatly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helper of Create a World thread/Sedge is Chaotic Neutral/ Mega Yahtzee High: 34, Low: 14/I speak English, je me parle le Francais, agus Labhraim beagan Gaeilge
There's nothing wrong with min-maxing. There's nothing in the rules that requires you to have terrible offense if you have good defense, there are some subclasses that focus on one over the other but you're not required to play that way. In fact, it's encouraged to play a character who's good at both offense and defense because this is not BOFURI where you can triple down on one stat, going all-in on defense without any sort of offensive capability makes for a very boring and generally useless character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Although if your roguish bard was able to keep the enemy targeting him instead of going after soft targets, then that would be closer to a "tank", but I'm not sure how he would have done that in 1E AD&D...
it was around 1997 and it was AD&D ... not 1st ed.
And yes, Muds coined Tank as a term, but most mud players also played D&D... and the opposite. (Not admitting to DragonRealms ... because not admitting to AOL)
There's nothing wrong with min-maxing. There's nothing in the rules that requires you to have terrible offense if you have good defense, there are some subclasses that focus on one over the other but you're not required to play that way. In fact, it's encouraged to play a character who's good at both offense and defense because this is not BOFURI where you can triple down on one stat, going all-in on defense without any sort of offensive capability makes for a very boring and generally useless character.
I'm saying that in a casual campaign, choose one or the other. Do not choose both. A high AC, high Damage output character can make the entire group experience worse for the rest of the group, because you just become the one thing that your party needs, and you can just act as if you are the only one. The exemption to this is if the group builds around supporting one OP character who protects the rest of the group.
Helper of Create a World thread/Sedge is Chaotic Neutral/ Mega Yahtzee High: 34, Low: 14/I speak English, je me parle le Francais, agus Labhraim beagan Gaeilge
There's nothing wrong with min-maxing. There's nothing in the rules that requires you to have terrible offense if you have good defense, there are some subclasses that focus on one over the other but you're not required to play that way. In fact, it's encouraged to play a character who's good at both offense and defense because this is not BOFURI where you can triple down on one stat, going all-in on defense without any sort of offensive capability makes for a very boring and generally useless character.
I'm saying that in a casual campaign, choose one or the other. Do not choose both. A high AC, high Damage output character can make the entire group experience worse for the rest of the group, because you just become the one thing that your party needs, and you can just act as if you are the only one. The exemption to this is if the group builds around supporting one OP character who protects the rest of the group.
What exactly constitutes a "casual" campaign? If it's a game that doesn't focus on combat then it doesn't matter.
If the game is going to have the normal amount of combat but the other players are building characters who are incompetent at adventuring, why should I deliberately hobble my character? Having a character with high AC and high melee damage output does not make the character invincible. The fact that a character is really good at defending themselves does not mean that they shouldn't know which end of the sword to use. It does not mean that they can do everything and will always outshine everyone else. In fact, it probably means that they'll lag considerably in other ways.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
There's nothing wrong with min-maxing. There's nothing in the rules that requires you to have terrible offense if you have good defense, there are some subclasses that focus on one over the other but you're not required to play that way. In fact, it's encouraged to play a character who's good at both offense and defense because this is not BOFURI where you can triple down on one stat, going all-in on defense without any sort of offensive capability makes for a very boring and generally useless character.
I'm saying that in a casual campaign, choose one or the other. Do not choose both. A high AC, high Damage output character can make the entire group experience worse for the rest of the group, because you just become the one thing that your party needs, and you can just act as if you are the only one. The exemption to this is if the group builds around supporting one OP character who protects the rest of the group.
What exactly constitutes a "casual" campaign? If it's a game that doesn't focus on combat then it doesn't matter.
If the game is going to have the normal amount of combat but the other players are building characters who are incompetent at adventuring, why should I deliberately hobble my character? Having a character with high AC and high melee damage output does not make the character invincible. The fact that a character is really good at defending themselves does not mean that they shouldn't know which end of the sword to use. It does not mean that they can do everything and will always outshine everyone else. In fact, it probably means that they'll lag considerably in other ways.
1. A 'casual campaign' would be almost all campaigns that aren't recorded and people are able to cancel. A 'non-casual' campaign would be like Critical Role, where they're recorded and need to be there most of the time (admittedly, CR does have some exemptions to this rule because they are actors). Basically, if you are just having fun with your friends and aren't performing for an audience, it's casual.
2. Yes, it does make you invincible. I know from experience, and you can get up even higher than I did.
3. If the other people you consider incompetent a) The DM will probably make the encounters weaker and b) If you don't like it, just leave.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helper of Create a World thread/Sedge is Chaotic Neutral/ Mega Yahtzee High: 34, Low: 14/I speak English, je me parle le Francais, agus Labhraim beagan Gaeilge
There's nothing wrong with min-maxing. There's nothing in the rules that requires you to have terrible offense if you have good defense, there are some subclasses that focus on one over the other but you're not required to play that way. In fact, it's encouraged to play a character who's good at both offense and defense because this is not BOFURI where you can triple down on one stat, going all-in on defense without any sort of offensive capability makes for a very boring and generally useless character.
I'm saying that in a casual campaign, choose one or the other. Do not choose both. A high AC, high Damage output character can make the entire group experience worse for the rest of the group, because you just become the one thing that your party needs, and you can just act as if you are the only one. The exemption to this is if the group builds around supporting one OP character who protects the rest of the group.
What exactly constitutes a "casual" campaign? If it's a game that doesn't focus on combat then it doesn't matter.
If the game is going to have the normal amount of combat but the other players are building characters who are incompetent at adventuring, why should I deliberately hobble my character? Having a character with high AC and high melee damage output does not make the character invincible. The fact that a character is really good at defending themselves does not mean that they shouldn't know which end of the sword to use. It does not mean that they can do everything and will always outshine everyone else. In fact, it probably means that they'll lag considerably in other ways.
1. A 'casual campaign' would be almost all campaigns that aren't recorded and people are able to cancel. A 'non-casual' campaign would be like Critical Role, where they're recorded and need to be there most of the time (admittedly, CR does have some exemptions to this rule because they are actors). Basically, if you are just having fun with your friends and aren't performing for an audience, it's casual.
2. Yes, it does make you invincible. I know from experience, and you can get up even higher than I did.
3. If the other people you consider incompetent a) The DM will probably make the encounters weaker and b) If you don't like it, just leave.
1: Literally never heard anyone describe that as casual gaming or a casual campaign. Usually that's just called gaming.
2: ROTFLOL. I've been the player with jacked AC and I've been the GM with a player with jacked AC. It does not come anywhere close to making you invincible. For one thing, a nat 20 still hits anyway. For another, there are four words that every character who wears heavy armor fears: "make a dex save." Or any other kind of save. Even monks with proficiency in all saves still have saving throws that they're not so good against. There simply is not a way to make a character that has no weaknesses, no matter how hard you try.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
There's nothing wrong with min-maxing. There's nothing in the rules that requires you to have terrible offense if you have good defense, there are some subclasses that focus on one over the other but you're not required to play that way. In fact, it's encouraged to play a character who's good at both offense and defense because this is not BOFURI where you can triple down on one stat, going all-in on defense without any sort of offensive capability makes for a very boring and generally useless character.
I'm saying that in a casual campaign, choose one or the other. Do not choose both. A high AC, high Damage output character can make the entire group experience worse for the rest of the group, because you just become the one thing that your party needs, and you can just act as if you are the only one. The exemption to this is if the group builds around supporting one OP character who protects the rest of the group.
What exactly constitutes a "casual" campaign? If it's a game that doesn't focus on combat then it doesn't matter.
If the game is going to have the normal amount of combat but the other players are building characters who are incompetent at adventuring, why should I deliberately hobble my character? Having a character with high AC and high melee damage output does not make the character invincible. The fact that a character is really good at defending themselves does not mean that they shouldn't know which end of the sword to use. It does not mean that they can do everything and will always outshine everyone else. In fact, it probably means that they'll lag considerably in other ways.
1. A 'casual campaign' would be almost all campaigns that aren't recorded and people are able to cancel. A 'non-casual' campaign would be like Critical Role, where they're recorded and need to be there most of the time (admittedly, CR does have some exemptions to this rule because they are actors). Basically, if you are just having fun with your friends and aren't performing for an audience, it's casual.
2. Yes, it does make you invincible. I know from experience, and you can get up even higher than I did.
3. If the other people you consider incompetent a) The DM will probably make the encounters weaker and b) If you don't like it, just leave.
1: Literally never heard anyone describe that as casual gaming or a casual campaign. Usually that's just called gaming.
2: ROTFLOL. I've been the player with jacked AC and I've been the GM with a player with jacked AC. It does not come anywhere close to making you invincible. For one thing, a nat 20 still hits anyway. For another, there are four words that every character who wears heavy armor fears: "make a dex save." Or any other kind of save. Even monks with proficiency in all saves still have saving throws that they're not so good against. There simply is not a way to make a character that has no weaknesses, no matter how hard you try.
Yes, that is the POINT. You shouldn't create a jacked character, it sucks the fun out of the game. There are definitely ways to make near-invincible characters. If you can succeed INT/WIS/CHA saves regularly, then you can't be hit with most saves that don't deal damage. And are you forgetting disadvantage exists? Because it does. And realize that if you have any way to impose disadvantage, a) the dm must get a 1/400 chance to hit and b) hit you, not attack someone else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helper of Create a World thread/Sedge is Chaotic Neutral/ Mega Yahtzee High: 34, Low: 14/I speak English, je me parle le Francais, agus Labhraim beagan Gaeilge
As a rule, you shouldn't be doing more than 3 times your level per turn in damage as an AC Tank. Choose to be an AC Tank, cool. Choose to Minmax so that you don't die and you deal a meagre 150 damage per turn if they succeed on all 5 saving throws, not cool. I played an Aasimar Battle Smith Artificer that can get up to 33 with SoF and Shield, but I wasn't doing more than 20 DPR at level 11, I just didn't die or do great damage to Tiamat or any other boss and instead acted as a shield so that others did the damage.
TL;DR: It's fine if you don't min-max to also deal damage greatly.
Who's rule is that? If you build for high AC you're going to sacrifice in other areas. For example; by carrying a shield, GWM is out, and so is a longbow SS with the Archery Fighting Style. If I build a high AC character I'm still going to make it effective at dealing damage to the extent that I'm able. But it won't be as high as it could be if I wasn't focused on AC.
Yes, that is the POINT. You shouldn't create a jacked character, it sucks the fun out of the game. There are definitely ways to make near-invincible characters. If you can succeed INT/WIS/CHA saves regularly, then you can't be hit with most saves that don't deal damage. And are you forgetting disadvantage exists? Because it does. And realize that if you have any way to impose disadvantage, a) the dm must get a 1/400 chance to hit and b) hit you, not attack someone else.
Many saves do damage and others can be very debilitating. The DM should also use the same tactics players might use. Like why continue to swing away at what amounts to a walking plate suit and shield? Focus on the squishy spell casters first. An enemy mage should not be using attack spells against him, and instead hit him with spells like Hold Person.
As a rule, you shouldn't be doing more than 3 times your level per turn in damage as an AC Tank. Choose to be an AC Tank, cool. Choose to Minmax so that you don't die and you deal a meagre 150 damage per turn if they succeed on all 5 saving throws, not cool. I played an Aasimar Battle Smith Artificer that can get up to 33 with SoF and Shield, but I wasn't doing more than 20 DPR at level 11, I just didn't die or do great damage to Tiamat or any other boss and instead acted as a shield so that others did the damage.
TL;DR: It's fine if you don't min-max to also deal damage greatly.
Who’s rule is that? I have never hear of it in over 30 years of gaming. One of my characters has been holding the single round damage record for a couple years after doing 92 damage in a single round on a giant while playing Storm King. He was a 9th level paladin oath of the open sea / warlock fathomless pact. I did however retire him not long after as his damage output was so much greater than the rest of the party and with plate and shield the defensive style and shield of faith he had an ac of 23, 28 with the shield spell and uses the sea mist ability to give everyone disadvantage to hit him. Damn I miss that character. If you are a tank then you must have a high damage output to be a threat on the battlefield. If you can’t deal damage but your ac os so high they can’t hit you then the enemy will simply ignore you and go after weaker targets letting their casters bring you down with heat metal or something
As a GM when I run up againt players who are STRONK my response is generally toss them some bones to see whether this is some players being clever and creative (which is good and should be lauded as long as they're not trying to be MacGyver all the time) or just "the tactic" and respond accordingly.
What is "the tactic" you ask? It's times when players just go all in on a single fool proof all purpose approach that requires no more thought then the initial conception of it and means that the players will approach and handle everything the exact same way. As someone who is big on having combat happen in furtherance of narrative as opposed to "you rolled a 37 on the percentile so now 2d6+2 wolves pop out of the ether" I find "the tactic" distasteful.
Thus my response to this is to just go ham on invalidating "the tactic" as much as possible so players have to stop and consider what else is in their kit and use their brain a little more so that the game can stay interesting.
So to bring this around to the OP: you have a character who is really good at not getting hit by things and that is great (particularly since it's been pointed out that your AC was higher then it should be and you've acknowledged this); maybe show that you can do other things as well or find ways to keep them dynamic for the GM?
This would be fine in my game. Most enemies would see a toothless, turtled-up tin can and ignore it to go after your squishier allies. Except the kobold sorcerer who will cook you in your armor with burning hands. Your DM needs to play monsters smarter and maybe add more variety to encounters - AC is only one of seven PC defense values and a functional "tank" is only as good as its ability to draw enemy fire.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I'm a little of column A and a little of Column B. And encourage my players to Think Outside the combat box. I reward defusing combat with RP and skill use, winning over an antagonist, avoiding combat, and being clever is more rewarding at times. Which is why I also toss in rando "wolves" to kill as well. Ironically they passed the animal handling checks, and avoided combat.
That's pretty good, though my personal favorite tanks were a pair of barbarians I put together a while back.
First up was Bagonella; a hill dwarf bear totem barbarian with toughness and some other feat I can't remember ATM; at (I wanna say level 13?) she had a base of 149 HPs that effectively doubled while raging and the only piece of armor she had was a shield that raised her AC to 19 (she was also dex based) and while she couldn't relly dish damage out she could in point of fact take an absolutely absurd amount of it.
Second was a shadar-kai beast barbarian: for this guy I again went big on dex and con and with a shield and 18's in both dex and Con along with a shield I was rocking a 20 AC which isn't anything special... until you factor in that the Tail I got from raging allowed me to add an extra 1d8 to my AC. Also at one point I had a +2 helmet that raised my AC to 22.
I think one of my favorite stories about my players coming up with an alternative solution to combat was when I'd been running a Moonshae campaign and had put into play three accursed beasts that the players were supposed to defeat that took on the appearance of fairly common monsters but were elevated to a considerably more dangerous level.
One of these was "the lurker" a displacer beast that would stalk farms and villages, picking people off one at a time until there was no one left. I went to great pains to make it tougher and even give it an ability to teleport between it's 2 displaced images and it's base position so as to make it harder to actually hurt it. It was going to be a really cool fight!
And then after they did a thing for an archfey called The Lord of Bats that got them the services of two coteries of his servants they sent the one who was "good at finding things, killing things" to go and kill it and as a GM I was left in an awkward, salty moment where the players had found a really good way to deal with the situation that mde perfect sense and would work just fine and I just had to dump my cool boss fight in the dumpster :P
lol... yeah, something similar happened to me just last month. I had this Modified Steampunk Beholder who had a castle/casino on a dam, and ruled a small agricultural nation with a Brass Eye (No fists on a beholder). Now the party is searching for this Topaz Dragon Bob, who has been on the run from the Beholder because of reasons. (The party doesn't know yet, so just in case any browse can't say). But the party should have tried to visit with the beholder (for the villain monologue, and a really challenging combat), instead they steal a vehicle and follow a map of the region following clues. Completely missing my Steam Beholder.
*(He's homebrew, removed the mindcontrol eyebeam for a fear eyebeam, and added full time twin mage hands for constructing and tinker purposes. https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/wgGDfbn8wua_ )
if a player introduces their character that's really good at jumping / climbing / swimming the response shouldn't be "remove all obstacles since they don't matter" and neither should it be "deadlier obstacles." put a trap disarm lever out of reach, stick an observation window up high, drop some tantalizing "golden glimmer" down a well. nothing game breaking but instead another option. this player came to play.
as such, if a player introduces their character that's really well armored? heck, why stress by trying to avoiding or punish the player when you can easily just give them what they want at no cost? give the player a doorway to stand in to hold back some extra wolves. but then give the wolves half-cover because there's a giant tin can in the way. yes, it's busy work in a sense but you're also giving the rogue traps and the wizard flammable things, right? it just seems like the path of least resistance (and not in a 'giving up' sort of way).
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Your DM is 100% wrong for getting upset with you. You did nothing wrong. You did not break any rules or house rules. There's no cheese here, just a straight forward tank build. He can add spell casters and such to force saves. By building for high AC you limited your damage potential, due to the sword and board instead of heavy weapons.
If he is having a hard time dealing with it, he has two options. Ask for advice from experienced dungeon masters on how do deal with high AC player characters, or politely talk to you about it and maybe negotiate a different build that makes you both happy.
Side note: Only 13 STR? Do you plan to dip into Hexblade?
The first "taunt" ability in D&D was from the 1st edition AD&D Dragonlance book and was the Kinder's taunt ability... though I would not call a kinder in those days a tank by ANY stretch of the imagination. The warrior classes were meant to be the damage sponge of the party, with high HP counts so they could survive longer while the rest of the party attacked from range or used hit and run tactics. Even the thief in those days didn't stay in melee, they would backstab and retreat for the most part, as they simply could not take sustained attacks. Parties had to use tactics to keep the wizard and cleric safe, an at the same time try to pin down the enemy to keep them from getting to the weaker opponents in order to reduce the party threat.
The term "tank" as a role was first use in a text based internet game that used game mechanics that allowed aggro or taunting, but the "tank" role did not come into being as we know it today until party based co-op video games implementing aggro mechanics, bringing the "tank" role its fame.
Although if your roguish bard was able to keep the enemy targeting him instead of going after soft targets, then that would be closer to a "tank", but I'm not sure how he would have done that in 1E AD&D... sounds more like enemies with low low intelligence or DM that just ran them that way. Nothing wrong with that as long as that isn't the norm, otherwise the party might as well be fighting all their enemies in an open flat combat arena with their AC, HP, and To Hit being the only things that matter. Enemies of intelligence will use tactics, environment, stealth, poison, magic, take out soft targets first and anything else in order to take out their enemy as quickly as possible with the least amount of harm to them.
There are a few "Tank" like abilities in 5E, "attack anyone but me and suffer for it" abilities, but I would like to see more of them, or improvements to them, to make "tanking" more doable in this game we love.
As a rule, you shouldn't be doing more than 3 times your level per turn in damage as an AC Tank. Choose to be an AC Tank, cool. Choose to Minmax so that you don't die and you deal a meagre 150 damage per turn if they succeed on all 5 saving throws, not cool. I played an Aasimar Battle Smith Artificer that can get up to 33 with SoF and Shield, but I wasn't doing more than 20 DPR at level 11, I just didn't die or do great damage to Tiamat or any other boss and instead acted as a shield so that others did the damage.
TL;DR: It's fine if you don't min-max to also deal damage greatly.
Helper of Create a World thread/Sedge is Chaotic Neutral/ Mega Yahtzee High: 34, Low: 14/I speak English, je me parle le Francais, agus Labhraim beagan Gaeilge
Dream of Days Lore Bard 9/Wizard 4 Baulder's Gate: Descent to Avernus (In Person/Over Zoom)
Saleadon Morgul Battle Smith Artificer 11 Tyranny of Dragons (In Person/Over Zoom)
Hurtharn Serpti Ghostslayer Blood Hunter 7 Spelljammer (Over Zoom)
Ex Sig
There's nothing wrong with min-maxing. There's nothing in the rules that requires you to have terrible offense if you have good defense, there are some subclasses that focus on one over the other but you're not required to play that way. In fact, it's encouraged to play a character who's good at both offense and defense because this is not BOFURI where you can triple down on one stat, going all-in on defense without any sort of offensive capability makes for a very boring and generally useless character.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
it was around 1997 and it was AD&D ... not 1st ed.
And yes, Muds coined Tank as a term, but most mud players also played D&D... and the opposite. (Not admitting to DragonRealms ... because not admitting to AOL)
I'm saying that in a casual campaign, choose one or the other. Do not choose both. A high AC, high Damage output character can make the entire group experience worse for the rest of the group, because you just become the one thing that your party needs, and you can just act as if you are the only one. The exemption to this is if the group builds around supporting one OP character who protects the rest of the group.
Helper of Create a World thread/Sedge is Chaotic Neutral/ Mega Yahtzee High: 34, Low: 14/I speak English, je me parle le Francais, agus Labhraim beagan Gaeilge
Dream of Days Lore Bard 9/Wizard 4 Baulder's Gate: Descent to Avernus (In Person/Over Zoom)
Saleadon Morgul Battle Smith Artificer 11 Tyranny of Dragons (In Person/Over Zoom)
Hurtharn Serpti Ghostslayer Blood Hunter 7 Spelljammer (Over Zoom)
Ex Sig
What exactly constitutes a "casual" campaign? If it's a game that doesn't focus on combat then it doesn't matter.
If the game is going to have the normal amount of combat but the other players are building characters who are incompetent at adventuring, why should I deliberately hobble my character? Having a character with high AC and high melee damage output does not make the character invincible. The fact that a character is really good at defending themselves does not mean that they shouldn't know which end of the sword to use. It does not mean that they can do everything and will always outshine everyone else. In fact, it probably means that they'll lag considerably in other ways.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
1. A 'casual campaign' would be almost all campaigns that aren't recorded and people are able to cancel. A 'non-casual' campaign would be like Critical Role, where they're recorded and need to be there most of the time (admittedly, CR does have some exemptions to this rule because they are actors). Basically, if you are just having fun with your friends and aren't performing for an audience, it's casual.
2. Yes, it does make you invincible. I know from experience, and you can get up even higher than I did.
3. If the other people you consider incompetent a) The DM will probably make the encounters weaker and b) If you don't like it, just leave.
Helper of Create a World thread/Sedge is Chaotic Neutral/ Mega Yahtzee High: 34, Low: 14/I speak English, je me parle le Francais, agus Labhraim beagan Gaeilge
Dream of Days Lore Bard 9/Wizard 4 Baulder's Gate: Descent to Avernus (In Person/Over Zoom)
Saleadon Morgul Battle Smith Artificer 11 Tyranny of Dragons (In Person/Over Zoom)
Hurtharn Serpti Ghostslayer Blood Hunter 7 Spelljammer (Over Zoom)
Ex Sig
1: Literally never heard anyone describe that as casual gaming or a casual campaign. Usually that's just called gaming.
2: ROTFLOL. I've been the player with jacked AC and I've been the GM with a player with jacked AC. It does not come anywhere close to making you invincible. For one thing, a nat 20 still hits anyway. For another, there are four words that every character who wears heavy armor fears: "make a dex save." Or any other kind of save. Even monks with proficiency in all saves still have saving throws that they're not so good against. There simply is not a way to make a character that has no weaknesses, no matter how hard you try.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yes, that is the POINT. You shouldn't create a jacked character, it sucks the fun out of the game. There are definitely ways to make near-invincible characters. If you can succeed INT/WIS/CHA saves regularly, then you can't be hit with most saves that don't deal damage. And are you forgetting disadvantage exists? Because it does. And realize that if you have any way to impose disadvantage, a) the dm must get a 1/400 chance to hit and b) hit you, not attack someone else.
Helper of Create a World thread/Sedge is Chaotic Neutral/ Mega Yahtzee High: 34, Low: 14/I speak English, je me parle le Francais, agus Labhraim beagan Gaeilge
Dream of Days Lore Bard 9/Wizard 4 Baulder's Gate: Descent to Avernus (In Person/Over Zoom)
Saleadon Morgul Battle Smith Artificer 11 Tyranny of Dragons (In Person/Over Zoom)
Hurtharn Serpti Ghostslayer Blood Hunter 7 Spelljammer (Over Zoom)
Ex Sig
Who's rule is that? If you build for high AC you're going to sacrifice in other areas. For example; by carrying a shield, GWM is out, and so is a longbow SS with the Archery Fighting Style. If I build a high AC character I'm still going to make it effective at dealing damage to the extent that I'm able. But it won't be as high as it could be if I wasn't focused on AC.
Many saves do damage and others can be very debilitating. The DM should also use the same tactics players might use. Like why continue to swing away at what amounts to a walking plate suit and shield? Focus on the squishy spell casters first. An enemy mage should not be using attack spells against him, and instead hit him with spells like Hold Person.
Who’s rule is that? I have never hear of it in over 30 years of gaming. One of my characters has been holding the single round damage record for a couple years after doing 92 damage in a single round on a giant while playing Storm King. He was a 9th level paladin oath of the open sea / warlock fathomless pact. I did however retire him not long after as his damage output was so much greater than the rest of the party and with plate and shield the defensive style and shield of faith he had an ac of 23, 28 with the shield spell and uses the sea mist ability to give everyone disadvantage to hit him. Damn I miss that character. If you are a tank then you must have a high damage output to be a threat on the battlefield. If you can’t deal damage but your ac os so high they can’t hit you then the enemy will simply ignore you and go after weaker targets letting their casters bring you down with heat metal or something