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?
Well, first of all, you have an extra 2 AC from, apparently, “heavy plating” that isn’t anywhere on your character sheet, so that’s one problem.
But as for your DM, it’s not really clear exactly what kind of “flak” you’re getting, but as long as they’re polite, it’s 100% fair for them to say “hey, you’ve made a character that makes the game experience worse, let’s make some different choices.” They shouldn’t get angry or upset, but they’re well within their rights to allow or disallow whatever they want to create the best experience they can.
Speaking as someone who is nearly always DMs, the burden is on the DM to design encounters for the party, not the party to design their characters for the DM. As the DM, they have myriad ways to get around 25 AC - they could attack you with spells requiring saves, rather than hits against AC. They could have their NPCs realise they are not punching through the wall of armour and begin trying to pick off your allies so they can focus you when there are fewer distractions. They could use environmental hazards to make tank positioning harder. They could throw higher level enemies at your party who focus the big scary one instead of the casters.
The DM has an infinite tool belt of ways to deal with strong character builds at their disposal - it seems like they need to better utilise the options available to them.
Heavy plating is the warforged racial feature. Heavy armor is 16 + proficiency + 1 (Integrated protection)
That’s incorrect. You’re combining the UA warforged with the official race in a way that’s incorrectly inflating your AC.
I see, I looked into it UA isn't considered official content then. DM received the same character sheet posted above I guess neither one of us realized this.
Even though it turned out that a small oversight is the cause for the high AC, your DM should take a moment to evaluate their behavior if you presented it accurately. I have only been DMing for 4 years, but I have never accused a player of bad form for building a total badass within the limitations of the rules, which is what they thought was happening when the subject was brought up for discussion.
The thing is, when you play D&D, we're all working together to make things fun for everyone. I understand why you've made such a build and it is an interesting one. However, let's look at it from the point of view of the person charged with providing a challenging and fun encounter, ie the DM.
Your AC is/was so high that enemies had to roll a 20 to hit them... that's a 5% chance of hitting in a game that is designed and built around the presumption that characters will be hit around 60% of the time. If you manage to do what you want to do (attract the hits as a tank and rarely take the damage so your party doesn't), the combat encounters are going to get boring very quickly. The enemies are going to be bashing against your armour doing nothing while the party leisurely picks them off.
That's boring because there is little threat. The game is designed around the idea that there is a certain hit ratio. There is definitely room for variance from that, but stray too far and the game becomes boring.
What can the DM do? They have a few options. They can:
Have the enemies ignore you and attack the party. That renders your role pointless, the investment into that AC meaningless and you have what is a weak contribution to the party. How would you feel after putting all that investment into a high AC and the DM just runs around it?
Have extra enemies so you're doing the same as the previous point, except the extra enemies attack you to pretend that your high AC is doing something for the party. I'm not a fan of the treadmill attitude personally, you're not really helping your party...but it seems the best option if you changing your build isn't on the table. Still, you're probably intelligent enough to notice the half dozen enemies running straight past you and realise that the DM is negating your investment. How would you feel about that?
Lean into your weaknesses and go for enemies that use saving throw based attacks, attacks that ignore your AC. Now, these naturally occur, but you'll most likely notice that they're occurring all the time. Again, how would you feel to have invested so much into your AC only to have it ignored like that? Be honest now, in a few sessions' time, would we be reading an upset post about how you built this amazing tank, only to be subjected to saving throws all the time? It wouldn't be the first such thread.
Use higher CR enemies or buffed ones. That handles you...but your party is presumably not quite so tanky and will go down too easily. The instant one gets past you, and they will...they're in deep trouble. That's kind of the opposite of what your build as a tank is meant to be doing. This isn't a bad option if everyone is also heavily optimised, but really screws things up if they're more into narrative driven decisions. How will your teammates feel about that?
Use selectively buffed enemies. They get an additional +X to hit rolls against you. That will become obvious quite quickly when you're getting it at the same rate as your AC15 teammate. Again, your investment into AC is being negated, how would that make you feel?
I could go on with solutions, but you get the idea. The solutions basically go in one of four ways - let encounters become boring, let the rest of the party suffer from the increased difficulty so you can still be challenged, neuter your AC investment or ask players to rebuild their characters.
Yeah, there are ways around your high AC, but doing so generally makes the game worse for someone, the DM just has the unenviable job of choosing who gets the brunt of it. That's why rebuilding your character is probably the best option. You can widen your character a bit so he can be good at other things too and not just have that investment neutered, and everyone can have appropriately built encounters that are challenging but also not going to slaughter them if they make a mistake.
The DM should have been kind about it. Ideally, he would have seen this problem in the character creation process and headed it off before you became attached to the idea, but we all make mistakes. Still, he should be kind and amicable about it - however, "flak" is often used for a range of behaviours, so I'm not sure how that actually went down. On the other hand, your build put him in a bind, and none of the solutions are ideal. Asking you to diversify your build is probably the best option.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I don't see an issue with enemies having a hard time hitting someone and that AC isn't even that high. (missing the shield spell) Then DMing I enjoy enemies missing the tank. I don't feel like they have to hit him.
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?
bad DM. You built a low hit point tank, you are weak in dex. One 1st level AOE would do a lot of damage to you. Sure the gobs with swords can't hit you, but the goblin shaman lobbing spells at you could be deadly. hell the Apprentice wizard could ruin your day. https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/2560723-apprentice-wizard and I consider that a throw away NPC.
"Tanking" in D&D isn't as simple as buffing yourself up and then Aggro-ing all the monsters. While it's fun to make a character build with as high an AC as possible at early levels, I imagine you'd go a long way with the DM by helping your fellow party members more. As an example, for Fighting Style you could pick Protection instead of Defense, and then use those Cleric spells to buff your allies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Everyone should build their character as they see fit, be it defense or protection, or something else. Trying to shove different character concepts onto people defeats the purpose of roleplaying.
Characters should not be built to work with the team in a certain way. Instead, the team should think about how the party works best together with what's on the table.
Yeah, there are ways around your high AC, but doing so generally makes the game worse for someone, the DM just has the unenviable job of choosing who gets the brunt of it. That's why rebuilding your character is probably the best option. You can widen your character a bit so he can be good at other things too and not just have that investment neutered, and everyone can have appropriately built encounters that are challenging but also not going to slaughter them if they make a mistake.
Your entire post rings of apologism for bad DMing, essentially concluding that a player who is acting within the DM’s rules should change their character design simply because their DM does not want to learn their role.
Your entire post is predicated on each DM-based solution having side effects , but ignores one somewhat obvious reality - you do not need to design every fight the same way. Even a novice DM should know you cannot just deploy “high accuracy monster that can punch through tank” in every fight, since that would make one of the players feel unfairly targeted; just as they shouldn’t also throw a bunch of low l accuracy enemies that ignore the tank, so they feel their investment is wasted.
It is the job of the DM to design dynamic encounters taking into account party strengths and weaknesses, and then both building encounters which ensure everyone feels both heroic or nearly dead at different points, all while employing tactics that make sense for the monster fought and add depth to the encounter itself.
Telling a player “I cannot handle both your playstyle and others, change what you want to play so I do not have to do my job’” is, ultimately, a confession of DM ineptitude. It really should not be used except as the absolute last resort of a completely floundering DM.
At present, even accepting there were errors in the building (unknown to DM at the time, so irrelevant to their decisions), the DM either used this as the first resort or did not give other options sufficient opportunity. Though we only have one side of the story, they are only at level 3, so how much of a chance could the DM have to explore and experiment with their toolset?
Besides, as anyone who has DMed knows, those first six or so levels are rough for balance - for example, players can stack AC higher than monsters can easily hit fairly easily if they optimise. But that problem ends up fixing itself - another reason why “change your character now” is bad advice, it will stop being a problem down the road as is.
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.
DM's can create encounters that vary in degree and challenge for your party and you at the same time, as well as encounters that may be a challenge for you and not so much for the party, or on the flip side, encounters that will be a challenge for the party but not for you. This is the job of the DM, and the more experience the DM has, the easier it is for them to navigate these hurdles, but for those DM's who lack experience in dealing with these particular mechanical gap hurdles, as I like to call them, the challenge in creating proper encounters becomes much more daunting. Just as not every encounter is a combat encounter, or social encounter, or puzzle encounter, or trap encounter, not every encounter has to be a challenge for every character or player. Some encounters are going to be easier for the wizard than the barbarian or fighter, some are going to be easier for the fighter than the bard, some easier for the bard than the ranger. This will never change as each class has their own strengths and weaknesses. The fighter in plate armor is going to have a much more difficult time, if not impossible time, sneaking into the guard bunkhouse to lift the key to the magical bindings his friend is confined in, as opposed to the stealth specialized rogue pickpocket and thief. The bard is going to have an easier time sweet-talking the lady aristocrat into becoming the party's patron than the orc barbarian. The high AC/HP fighter/barbarian is going to do better at holding the line at a doorway while the party deals with the puzzle/trap, than the wizard would... though at higher levels the wizard could most likely deal more damage, the situation is one where he is ill suited for the task.
I hope to have made clear that it is up to the DM to provide encounters suitable to the players and their characters, not the other way around.
That being said, if you have a DM that is less experienced with parties that have mechanical gaps, it would be nice for the DM and the player to have a discussion on how best to resolve the issue in a way that is suitable to both... maybe a build that isn't quite as high AC, but still impressive enough, and as the DM gains experience with mildly gapped party mechanics, you could start to increase the gap a little at a time to eventual have that "tank" that you were looking for and the DM can figure out how to create encounters and situations that are fun and challenging for each character individually, a portion of the group, or as the party whole, while providing fun for everyone.
My only concern here is seeking validation from us based on one side of the story.
We're not playing at your table. What we type here likely cannot sway your DM. Going to your DM and saying a bunch of people on a forum agree with you is not going to end well, especially when the DM has had no opportunity to present how the discussion went from the DM's perspective.
If you are 100% certain you are in the right, you know what your options are. If you are not certain you are in your right, we're not the ones to decide that and your table should be able to help you decide. Communicate with your table.
Feel free to tell us your opinion of the situation from your side, but I'm not a fan of asking for opinions based on merely one perspective alone behind the DM's back.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Are you in the wrong? Kinda. But some people really enjoy making super powerful builds and that's ok. Your DM is also in the wrong though. If your fantasy is to make a super high AC character that doesn't do a ton else, mission accomplished. Your DM can just throw spells and other effects with saving throws at you more often to compensate. It's not hard to do but does maybe create problems for newer DMs. They can and should throw monsters at you to attack your AC because that'll make you feel good to be so hard to hit. That's the fantasy you are looking for. It'd get boring for everyone though if that's all that was happening. Multiclassing can cause a lot of problems. It's too easy to make broken builds. Multiclassing for narrative reasons is cool with me, and even to make interesting/fun characters that don't otherwise couldn't exist. It can also create broken builds that otherwise couldn't exist though. This one is slightly broken for low levels of play. By level 5 though, it'll start to even out.
High AC builds at level 3 can be achieved by other means though even without multiclassing. 3 levels of Warforge Forge Cleric or Paladin is 20 AC. 22 With Shield of Faith. That's only 1 AC less and you're getting way more than the 1 level in fighter gets you. Personally I think 3 levels of cleric or 3 levels of fighter would be a more interesting character, but that's me. It gives you a lot, is less annoying, and is not a huge swing in AC. Warfordged Forge cleric feels great by itself to play and is also just a fun narrative character. Also, you don't HAVE to cast Shield of Faith on yourself. Maybe Bless your party instead. 3 levels of fighter is also just better then your 1/2 multiclass. I think a warforge Rune Knight is a cool concept. You're also basically making a holy fighter. Maybe just... play a paladin? 3 levels of paladin is only a 1 AC swing and gives you a lot more then what you're getting with your multiclass.
If this is the character you really want to play, and you have great reasons beyond just wanting the highest AC at level 3 possible, then I think go for it. Maybe just talk to your DM on how to make it better for everyone if it's perceived as a problem.
While I get a chuckle at a DM having issues with a character with lower AC than I've seen on a Lv3 bladesinger wizard, it boils down to "they're your DM and their ruling is final" unfortunately.
I see this character concept from outside the game as a Warforged who is getting in touch with what they believe is a higher power through this welding of heavy plates onto their form, almost as a religious ritual and I am HERE for it. But at the end of the day if your DM has issues you're gonna have issues. And this is right now, what happens when you get a suit of Plate and it goes up by 2? Or gods forbid a +1 shield? Or access to the shield spell? Or someone casts Haste on you?
As everyone else said there are dozens of ways a DM could work with/around your high AC character but I just don't see the issue... I mean sheesh even a goblin still has a 15% chance to hit you. And a character like yours should be able to wade through a mob of low CR creatures.
Bottom line though is if you're making your DM's life harder all the "suck it up DM" we shout is meaningless because they're the keeper of the game and you are the one who loses out by making their day at the table harder.
I hope you and your DM can come to some common ground and your fun isn't impacted by it, but adding a +1 to your validation I see nothing wrong with your character.
21 is the correct AC with your character. Yes it is high but not obscene at your level. You have many weaknesses that could be targeted. A decent dm could take you down very quickly with level appropriate enemies. I would also add that you are definitely not a tank. The idea of a tank is to make the enemy come at you instead of the rest of your party. If they can’t hit you they will simply ignore you, unless the dm is playing them stupidly.
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 "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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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?
Well, first of all, you have an extra 2 AC from, apparently, “heavy plating” that isn’t anywhere on your character sheet, so that’s one problem.
But as for your DM, it’s not really clear exactly what kind of “flak” you’re getting, but as long as they’re polite, it’s 100% fair for them to say “hey, you’ve made a character that makes the game experience worse, let’s make some different choices.” They shouldn’t get angry or upset, but they’re well within their rights to allow or disallow whatever they want to create the best experience they can.
Speaking as someone who is nearly always DMs, the burden is on the DM to design encounters for the party, not the party to design their characters for the DM. As the DM, they have myriad ways to get around 25 AC - they could attack you with spells requiring saves, rather than hits against AC. They could have their NPCs realise they are not punching through the wall of armour and begin trying to pick off your allies so they can focus you when there are fewer distractions. They could use environmental hazards to make tank positioning harder. They could throw higher level enemies at your party who focus the big scary one instead of the casters.
The DM has an infinite tool belt of ways to deal with strong character builds at their disposal - it seems like they need to better utilise the options available to them.
Heavy plating is the warforged racial feature. Heavy armor is 16 + proficiency + 1 (Integrated protection)
That’s incorrect. You’re combining the UA warforged with the official race in a way that’s incorrectly inflating your AC.
I see, I looked into it UA isn't considered official content then. DM received the same character sheet posted above I guess neither one of us realized this.
Even though it turned out that a small oversight is the cause for the high AC, your DM should take a moment to evaluate their behavior if you presented it accurately. I have only been DMing for 4 years, but I have never accused a player of bad form for building a total badass within the limitations of the rules, which is what they thought was happening when the subject was brought up for discussion.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
The thing is, when you play D&D, we're all working together to make things fun for everyone. I understand why you've made such a build and it is an interesting one. However, let's look at it from the point of view of the person charged with providing a challenging and fun encounter, ie the DM.
Your AC is/was so high that enemies had to roll a 20 to hit them... that's a 5% chance of hitting in a game that is designed and built around the presumption that characters will be hit around 60% of the time. If you manage to do what you want to do (attract the hits as a tank and rarely take the damage so your party doesn't), the combat encounters are going to get boring very quickly. The enemies are going to be bashing against your armour doing nothing while the party leisurely picks them off.
That's boring because there is little threat. The game is designed around the idea that there is a certain hit ratio. There is definitely room for variance from that, but stray too far and the game becomes boring.
What can the DM do? They have a few options. They can:
I could go on with solutions, but you get the idea. The solutions basically go in one of four ways - let encounters become boring, let the rest of the party suffer from the increased difficulty so you can still be challenged, neuter your AC investment or ask players to rebuild their characters.
Yeah, there are ways around your high AC, but doing so generally makes the game worse for someone, the DM just has the unenviable job of choosing who gets the brunt of it. That's why rebuilding your character is probably the best option. You can widen your character a bit so he can be good at other things too and not just have that investment neutered, and everyone can have appropriately built encounters that are challenging but also not going to slaughter them if they make a mistake.
The DM should have been kind about it. Ideally, he would have seen this problem in the character creation process and headed it off before you became attached to the idea, but we all make mistakes. Still, he should be kind and amicable about it - however, "flak" is often used for a range of behaviours, so I'm not sure how that actually went down. On the other hand, your build put him in a bind, and none of the solutions are ideal. Asking you to diversify your build is probably the best option.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I don't see an issue with enemies having a hard time hitting someone and that AC isn't even that high. (missing the shield spell)
Then DMing I enjoy enemies missing the tank. I don't feel like they have to hit him.
bad DM. You built a low hit point tank, you are weak in dex. One 1st level AOE would do a lot of damage to you. Sure the gobs with swords can't hit you, but the goblin shaman lobbing spells at you could be deadly. hell the Apprentice wizard could ruin your day. https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/2560723-apprentice-wizard and I consider that a throw away NPC.
"Tanking" in D&D isn't as simple as buffing yourself up and then Aggro-ing all the monsters. While it's fun to make a character build with as high an AC as possible at early levels, I imagine you'd go a long way with the DM by helping your fellow party members more. As an example, for Fighting Style you could pick Protection instead of Defense, and then use those Cleric spells to buff your allies.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Everyone should build their character as they see fit, be it defense or protection, or something else.
Trying to shove different character concepts onto people defeats the purpose of roleplaying.
Characters should not be built to work with the team in a certain way.
Instead, the team should think about how the party works best together with what's on the table.
Your entire post rings of apologism for bad DMing, essentially concluding that a player who is acting within the DM’s rules should change their character design simply because their DM does not want to learn their role.
Your entire post is predicated on each DM-based solution having side effects , but ignores one somewhat obvious reality - you do not need to design every fight the same way. Even a novice DM should know you cannot just deploy “high accuracy monster that can punch through tank” in every fight, since that would make one of the players feel unfairly targeted; just as they shouldn’t also throw a bunch of low l accuracy enemies that ignore the tank, so they feel their investment is wasted.
It is the job of the DM to design dynamic encounters taking into account party strengths and weaknesses, and then both building encounters which ensure everyone feels both heroic or nearly dead at different points, all while employing tactics that make sense for the monster fought and add depth to the encounter itself.
Telling a player “I cannot handle both your playstyle and others, change what you want to play so I do not have to do my job’” is, ultimately, a confession of DM ineptitude. It really should not be used except as the absolute last resort of a completely floundering DM.
At present, even accepting there were errors in the building (unknown to DM at the time, so irrelevant to their decisions), the DM either used this as the first resort or did not give other options sufficient opportunity. Though we only have one side of the story, they are only at level 3, so how much of a chance could the DM have to explore and experiment with their toolset?
Besides, as anyone who has DMed knows, those first six or so levels are rough for balance - for example, players can stack AC higher than monsters can easily hit fairly easily if they optimise. But that problem ends up fixing itself - another reason why “change your character now” is bad advice, it will stop being a problem down the road as is.
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.
DM's can create encounters that vary in degree and challenge for your party and you at the same time, as well as encounters that may be a challenge for you and not so much for the party, or on the flip side, encounters that will be a challenge for the party but not for you. This is the job of the DM, and the more experience the DM has, the easier it is for them to navigate these hurdles, but for those DM's who lack experience in dealing with these particular mechanical gap hurdles, as I like to call them, the challenge in creating proper encounters becomes much more daunting. Just as not every encounter is a combat encounter, or social encounter, or puzzle encounter, or trap encounter, not every encounter has to be a challenge for every character or player. Some encounters are going to be easier for the wizard than the barbarian or fighter, some are going to be easier for the fighter than the bard, some easier for the bard than the ranger. This will never change as each class has their own strengths and weaknesses. The fighter in plate armor is going to have a much more difficult time, if not impossible time, sneaking into the guard bunkhouse to lift the key to the magical bindings his friend is confined in, as opposed to the stealth specialized rogue pickpocket and thief. The bard is going to have an easier time sweet-talking the lady aristocrat into becoming the party's patron than the orc barbarian. The high AC/HP fighter/barbarian is going to do better at holding the line at a doorway while the party deals with the puzzle/trap, than the wizard would... though at higher levels the wizard could most likely deal more damage, the situation is one where he is ill suited for the task.
I hope to have made clear that it is up to the DM to provide encounters suitable to the players and their characters, not the other way around.
That being said, if you have a DM that is less experienced with parties that have mechanical gaps, it would be nice for the DM and the player to have a discussion on how best to resolve the issue in a way that is suitable to both... maybe a build that isn't quite as high AC, but still impressive enough, and as the DM gains experience with mildly gapped party mechanics, you could start to increase the gap a little at a time to eventual have that "tank" that you were looking for and the DM can figure out how to create encounters and situations that are fun and challenging for each character individually, a portion of the group, or as the party whole, while providing fun for everyone.
My only concern here is seeking validation from us based on one side of the story.
We're not playing at your table. What we type here likely cannot sway your DM. Going to your DM and saying a bunch of people on a forum agree with you is not going to end well, especially when the DM has had no opportunity to present how the discussion went from the DM's perspective.
If you are 100% certain you are in the right, you know what your options are. If you are not certain you are in your right, we're not the ones to decide that and your table should be able to help you decide. Communicate with your table.
Feel free to tell us your opinion of the situation from your side, but I'm not a fan of asking for opinions based on merely one perspective alone behind the DM's back.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Are you in the wrong? Kinda. But some people really enjoy making super powerful builds and that's ok. Your DM is also in the wrong though. If your fantasy is to make a super high AC character that doesn't do a ton else, mission accomplished. Your DM can just throw spells and other effects with saving throws at you more often to compensate. It's not hard to do but does maybe create problems for newer DMs. They can and should throw monsters at you to attack your AC because that'll make you feel good to be so hard to hit. That's the fantasy you are looking for. It'd get boring for everyone though if that's all that was happening. Multiclassing can cause a lot of problems. It's too easy to make broken builds. Multiclassing for narrative reasons is cool with me, and even to make interesting/fun characters that don't otherwise couldn't exist. It can also create broken builds that otherwise couldn't exist though. This one is slightly broken for low levels of play. By level 5 though, it'll start to even out.
High AC builds at level 3 can be achieved by other means though even without multiclassing. 3 levels of Warforge Forge Cleric or Paladin is 20 AC. 22 With Shield of Faith. That's only 1 AC less and you're getting way more than the 1 level in fighter gets you. Personally I think 3 levels of cleric or 3 levels of fighter would be a more interesting character, but that's me. It gives you a lot, is less annoying, and is not a huge swing in AC. Warfordged Forge cleric feels great by itself to play and is also just a fun narrative character. Also, you don't HAVE to cast Shield of Faith on yourself. Maybe Bless your party instead. 3 levels of fighter is also just better then your 1/2 multiclass. I think a warforge Rune Knight is a cool concept. You're also basically making a holy fighter. Maybe just... play a paladin? 3 levels of paladin is only a 1 AC swing and gives you a lot more then what you're getting with your multiclass.
If this is the character you really want to play, and you have great reasons beyond just wanting the highest AC at level 3 possible, then I think go for it. Maybe just talk to your DM on how to make it better for everyone if it's perceived as a problem.
While I get a chuckle at a DM having issues with a character with lower AC than I've seen on a Lv3 bladesinger wizard, it boils down to "they're your DM and their ruling is final" unfortunately.
I see this character concept from outside the game as a Warforged who is getting in touch with what they believe is a higher power through this welding of heavy plates onto their form, almost as a religious ritual and I am HERE for it. But at the end of the day if your DM has issues you're gonna have issues. And this is right now, what happens when you get a suit of Plate and it goes up by 2? Or gods forbid a +1 shield? Or access to the shield spell? Or someone casts Haste on you?
As everyone else said there are dozens of ways a DM could work with/around your high AC character but I just don't see the issue... I mean sheesh even a goblin still has a 15% chance to hit you. And a character like yours should be able to wade through a mob of low CR creatures.
Bottom line though is if you're making your DM's life harder all the "suck it up DM" we shout is meaningless because they're the keeper of the game and you are the one who loses out by making their day at the table harder.
I hope you and your DM can come to some common ground and your fun isn't impacted by it, but adding a +1 to your validation I see nothing wrong with your character.
21 is the correct AC with your character. Yes it is high but not obscene at your level. You have many weaknesses that could be targeted. A decent dm could take you down very quickly with level appropriate enemies. I would also add that you are definitely not a tank. The idea of a tank is to make the enemy come at you instead of the rest of your party. If they can’t hit you they will simply ignore you, unless the dm is playing them stupidly.
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.