Min-Maxing (lvl1 25AC Fighter) - How to deal with OP Chars as a DM?

[jiriku]

The general question seems to be "how do you as DM deal with character designs that are balance problems?"

I interpret the question this way because the chief interesting thing about the example build is that it has an AC 10 points higher than what most 1st level characters can manage. In a party of 10th level characters, AC 25 is nothing special. In a party of 1st level characters, AC 25 is a balance problem (although not an extremely bad one) because any monster balanced for the party can't hit the tank and any monster balanced for the tank can't miss the party. I have seen a variety of characters like this in my DMing experience. In one especially bad case, a character had initiative, AC, and saving throw scores that were all 15-20 points above the rest of the party. Building encounters that could challenge him and the rest of the party at the same time was ridiculously difficult -- far more trouble for me than it was worth.

My solution is to ban balance problems by borrowing the Power Level concept from the Mutants and Masterminds game. This allows for considerable variation between characters without permitting any character to move so far out of the d20's RNG that I can't easily challenge him.

Spoiler: Power Level

Show

POWER LEVEL
Power level (PL) is a means of describing how good a character is at something relative to his peers. PL is based on ECL for player characters and on CR for non-player characters and monsters.

The table below shows formulas describing the Expected Power Level (EPL) for an nth level character. In general, a character whose ability is within three points of EPL is good at what he does. Abilities four or more points below the EPL are poor, perhaps because they are not important for a character or because the character’s abilities are not balanced. Abilities four or more points above the EPL are exceptional.

The table also shows formulas describing Maximum Power Level (MPL). MPL is a hard cap on the performance of PC and NPCs alike. It assists game balance. No combination of features, bonuses, or benefits can allow a character to exceed the MPL.

Category	EPL	MPL
Attack Bonus	(ECL * 1.5) + 2	(ECL * 1.5) + 12
Saving Throws	ECL * 1.5	(ECL * 1.5) + 10
Armor Class	ECL+13	ECL +23
Skill Checks	(ECL * 2) + 3	(ECL * 2) + 23
Ability Checks	ECL * 0.5	(ECL * 0.5) + 10
Saving Throw DCs	ECL + 10	ECL + 20

[Segev]

Yeah, one way to balance your game is to tell people, flat-out, "I want you to have X statistic between Y and Z; make sure you meet this, as I'll make you rebuild if you're below Y and cap you at Z if you exceed it."

Your powergamers will have as many X at Z as they can get, but you'll at least have things in a manageable range. Just make sure you really do calibrate your foes to have Z and Y both be reasonable values wrt theirs.

[eggynack]

Snip

That build doesn't seem all that great by my reckoning. It's running six fighter levels, which is just way too much if you don't have dungeon crasher and/or zhentarim soldier, it has both cleave and great cleave, the former being only decent and the latter just being pretty bad, it's using a spiked chain without improved trip or even combat reflexes, and it doesn't even have whirling frenzy. Could also use a racial choice. That's a lot of problems, to my mind.

My preferred build template for this sort of thing looks more like barbarian 2/fighter 2/X 3/prestige classes 13. The essential plan is to have the barbarian take spirit lion totem, as was noted, as well as wolf totem and whirling frenzy, as weren't noted, and then you typically go to town with a guisarme, because who has time to invest in a spiked chain any more. Best race tends to be water orc.

For the sake of argument, let's assume the counter-build is something like a barbarian 2/fighter 4, where the last two levels would probably be warblade if I cared more, and the race is water orc (maybe dragonborn), cause that gets you great stats. Feats are power attack at first, improved bull rush at third, improved trip from wolf totem, combat reflexes at fighter 1, trade away the second feat for dungeoncrasher, and at 6th we'll pick up shock trooper, and to really match up with your base build, the other feat will be leap attack. He shall wield a guisarme.

First thing to note, look at how much more versatile that build is. He can trip, he can push folks through walls, he can control the battlefield with AoO's, and of course, he can do damage. Strength from race and leveling is 23 before you do anything else, and then you can toss on, say, a +2 strength item for a 25. The attack routine here is +13/+13/+8, with the second +13 coming from whirling frenzy, and everything goes up by a +2 on a charge. Assuming full power attack, and the extra strength from frenzy, you're getting 2d4+25 per attack. Factor in leap attack, and that goes up to 2d4+31, and if we're copying the original build with valorous, then that goes up to 4d4+64 (cause it's a +1 weapon).

Seemingly less, but in reality way more when you consider the fact that you're attacking three times instead of two, and even more than that when you note that there's a level I haven't even used. And, again, this is without sacrificing much in the way of other forms of combat potential, and there's even room for improvement. Ditch leap attack, and you lose some damage but increase your tripping ability by a bunch by picking up knock-down, and lose those two fighter levels for warblade levels, and you get piles of other cool stuff. Just a way better way to build, by my reckoning.

[dascarletm]

Yeah, one way to balance your game is to tell people, flat-out, "I want you to have X statistic between Y and Z; make sure you meet this, as I'll make you rebuild if you're below Y and cap you at Z if you exceed it."

Your powergamers will have as many X at Z as they can get, but you'll at least have things in a manageable range. Just make sure you really do calibrate your foes to have Z and Y both be reasonable values wrt theirs.

I'm not sure this would work very well with casual players, or anyone who doesn't want to spend more than a modicum of effort/time on their characters.

[Mexikorn]

Dance-off, bro! Me and you!



Seriously, though, OP, Jormy may be blunt, and more harsh than necessary, but his point was sound. A lot of fairly simple builds can do what you were trying to do, and then some, better than yours. But that's what we're here for (or some of us, anyway); to help you better design ideas like this.

That said, lashing out at a poster - even one who was admittedly harsh - doesn't win you any friends. We have a language filter, but that doesn't mean it needs testing. Please keep that in mind when responding to people here.

To be fair, the forums I use to frequent don't have a language filter. It's not like everyone's BM because of that but no one really cares either, like me. I might not have understood Jormy's "joke" but I didn't hate on him either. Let's just say he was harsh to me, I was harsh back at him and we're even.

On another note, there's a misunderstanding. I'm not DM'ing with such a Tank Char in my party, this is a build I came up with while experimenting on "min-maxing". (not that it matters much, I was just curious how OP chars are handled by experienced players and the scenario is pretty much the same) At the time I didn't really know the weaknesses and couldn't answer them to myself, so I thought I'd ask. I'm not yet at a point that I can come up with builds like Jorman spontaneously... besides most of stuff like that wouldn't work in our super-low-magic low-level houserule campaigns, that's why I'm personally more interested in, what can you do with fighter and hybrid classes, and less mages and sorcerers. And we can't just shop for magic enchantments or magic items either since they're rare as dance. Basically, Fighters yay, Hybrid ok, Arcane Casters meh. Imagine it like GoT with multiple races and more combat, played from a single perspective. (just wanted to put that out there since you said something about Tiers and Wizards and stuff)

@Swamp: And I don't like resorting to builds like the Axe-Jumper-Charger-Barbarian either. I'm familiar with abusing the system to extents that are borderline cheating. (like BoBo the Kobold or what was his name, with infinite stats) Me and my m8's are only going to rely on the CRB and maybe the APG. I'm never going to play a build like that. (nor allow it, just say "I'm DM, other build or dance off") But personally I'm interested in stuff like that so yeah, if you got more things like that you wanna show me go ahead.

I'm not sure this would work very well with casual players, or anyone who doesn't want to spend more than a modicum of effort/time on their characters.

Yeah, that thing Vegev said sounds complicated/complex, I agree. Tho I wouldn't worry to much about that since half the players doesn't know how to abuse stuff and the other half prefers authentic characters with personalities anyways.

P.S.: I'm using the term either a lot. I think that's all I wanted to say/reply at this point.

[ComaVision]

Yeah, that thing Vegev said sounds complicated/complex, I agree. Tho I wouldn't worry to much about that since half the players doesn't know how to abuse stuff and the other half prefers authentic characters with personalities anyways.

P.S.: I'm using the term either a lot. I think that's all I wanted to say/reply at this point.

And here we go. So you can't optimize and have "authentic characters with personalities" huh?

[Karl Aegis]

And here we go. So you can't optimize and have "authentic characters with personalities" huh?

To be fair, it's not that expensive to buy a hollow block of wood that replaces the character entirely. The block of wood has the added benefit of providing total cover against targeted spells, which a tower shield doesn't do, and the wooden block is easier to carry around with you. It doesn't have any of that meat weight PCs normally have. When Shrink Item becomes available there really isn't a reason to keep this guy around.

[Jormengand]

To be fair, it's not that expensive to buy a hollow block of wood that replaces the character entirely. The block of wood has the added benefit of providing total cover against targeted spells, which a tower shield doesn't do, and the wooden block is easier to carry around with you. It doesn't have any of that meat weight PCs normally have. When Shrink Item becomes available there really isn't a reason to keep this guy around.

Yes, but the fighter can quite easily have 25 AC at level 1 and a personality, and the wooden block cannot. There is nothing preventing optimised (even badly-optimised) characters from possessing personality traits.

---

Re: Everyone referring to me in the third person in this thread: The purple text in my sig exists for a reason.

[Elricaltovilla]

On another note, there's a misunderstanding. I'm not DM'ing with such a Tank Char in my party, this is a build I came up with while experimenting on "min-maxing". (not that it matters much, I was just curious how OP chars are handled by experienced players and the scenario is pretty much the same) At the time I didn't really know the weaknesses and couldn't answer them to myself, so I thought I'd ask. I'm not yet at a point that I can come up with builds like Jorman spontaneously... besides most of stuff like that wouldn't work in our super-low-magic low-level houserule campaigns, that's why I'm personally more interested in, what can you do with fighter and hybrid classes, and less mages and sorcerers. And we can't just shop for magic enchantments or magic items either since they're rare as dance. Basically, Fighters yay, Hybrid ok, Arcane Casters meh. Imagine it like GoT with multiple races and more combat, played from a single perspective. (just wanted to put that out there since you said something about Tiers and Wizards and stuff)

First of all, can you define "hybrid" characters for me? There are so called "Hybrid classes" in Pathfinder, which are really just a bunch of new base classes with some editing issues because of the books they came in, they range from the fairly mediocre Swashbuckler and Brawler to the Outright better than the Wizard Arcanist (well, arguably better, there's some contention). If you're referring to characters that mix spells and melee, those are generally referred to as "gish(es)" which is a fluff term from way back in the day for characters like that.

As far as an optimized fighter in Pathfinder, the best archetypes for that I've found are the Martial Master and Lore Warden, which can be taken together to give a decent boost to the class's in and out of combat utility.

@Swamp: And I don't like resorting to builds like the Axe-Jumper-Charger-Barbarian either. I'm familiar with abusing the system to extents that are borderline cheating. (like BoBo the Kobold or what was his name, with infinite stats) Me and my m8's are only going to rely on the CRB and maybe the APG. I'm never going to play a build like that. (nor allow it, just say "I'm DM, other build or dance off") But personally I'm interested in stuff like that so yeah, if you got more things like that you wanna show me go ahead.

Yeah, that thing Vegev said sounds complicated/complex, I agree. Tho I wouldn't worry to much about that since half the players doesn't know how to abuse stuff and the other half prefers authentic characters with personalities anyways.

P.S.: I'm using the term either a lot. I think that's all I wanted to say/reply at this point.

This is called the Stormwind Fallacy. There is no correlation between an optimized build and the quality of roleplaying that can be gotten out of the character.

[Mexikorn]

And here we go. So you can't optimize and have "authentic characters with personalities" huh?

Now that's quite an assumption to make. Optimization and outright Abuse of the System are two different things in my mind. Optimization for me is having a solid character that can handle most situations because he's got good stats and knows what he's doing, but leaves space for personal interpretation and maybe feats or stats that are just there for the dance of it. Abuse in my mind is if you first calculate everything in your build, make stats, feats and weapons accordingly, then build a character around it, with the personality and background of a wooden block.

To be fair, it's not that expensive to buy a hollow block of wood that replaces the character entirely. The block of wood has the added benefit of providing total cover against targeted spells, which a tower shield doesn't do, and the wooden block is easier to carry around with you. It doesn't have any of that meat weight PCs normally have. When Shrink Item becomes available there really isn't a reason to keep this guy around.

Now you're just making fun of my me

First of all, can you define "hybrid" characters for me? There are so called "Hybrid classes" in Pathfinder, which are really just a bunch of new base classes with some editing issues because of the books they came in, they range from the fairly mediocre Swashbuckler and Brawler to the Outright better than the Wizard Arcanist (well, arguably better, there's some contention). If you're referring to characters that mix spells and melee, those are generally referred to as "gish(es)" which is a fluff term from way back in the day for characters like that.

I'm sorry if I caused confusion here, for me a hybrid class is something like a druid, bard or cleric (or more far fetched, a ranger, paladin or rogue) who can bash, as well as cast and has more variety in his play. Not JUST bashing or JUST casting. (like fighters, barbarians, mages and sorcerers) But for me, the Hybrid classes you called probably qualify for the same thing I had in mind.

Stormwind Fallacy. There is no correlation between an optimized build and the quality of roleplaying that can be gotten out of the character.

Never heard of it, I'll read into it at some point in time.

[Keltest]

Re: Everyone referring to me in the third person in this thread: The purple text in my sig exists for a reason.

Its my understanding that a good number of people have sigs turned off entirely for one reason or another.

[Sian]

Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Spiked Chain (PHB). The Spiked Chain is easily the best weapon in the game, barring exceptional circumstances. You have 10-foot reach and still threaten adjacent squares. This increases your threatened spaces on the grid from a 3x3 shape to a 5x5 shape, a 300% increase in Cleaving Potential. This is worth a feat!

Or, argubly even better Duom from Dragon Compendium ... Martial Profiency reach weapon that can attack adjacent opponents, for the price of a -2 ToHit if you attack more than one adjacent opponent

[Segev]

I'm not sure this would work very well with casual players, or anyone who doesn't want to spend more than a modicum of effort/time on their characters.

Yeah, that thing Vegev said sounds complicated/complex, I agree.

Nah, the only "complicated" part would be if they were having trouble meeting the minimum "Y" values. If you choose your Y and Z values correctly, most naturally-occurring builds will fall in those ranges without too much effort. Only serious optimization (whether min/maxing something they consider "unimportant" below Y in order to maximize something else, or pushing for really high over Z) is likely to overcome it, at which point they're demonstrating system mastery sufficient to willfully obey the limits.

The only person who needs to be non-casual for this to work is the DM; he needs to know what the ranges should be. If a casual player finds themselves outside the Y-to-Z boundary, then it shouldn't be too hard to trim something back or find an obvious boost they'd neglected...or the Y-value is too high or the Z-value too low.

[TheIronGolem]

Abuse in my mind is if you first calculate everything in your build, make stats, feats and weapons accordingly, then build a character around it, with the personality and background of a wooden block.

There's nothing "abusive" about taking a stats-first approach to building a character, and whether or not the character gets a personality is an entirely separate matter from whether the rules were abused to create that character.

[Segev]

I'd argue that, if your PC has the personality of a wooden block, you've not actually built a character around the stats. If you've built a character, whether you started with stats or something else, it won't be a "wooden block" in personality. Not unless you deliberately went for that, in which case it STILL probably is more interesting, because characters designed with that personality often have something interesting going on beneath the surface.

At the risk of being accused of puns, consider Groot.

[Threadnaught]

Just fighting that guy?

The same thing that almost killed that ******* Druid's current character, liberal use of Magic Missile.


Fighting that guy in a group? Prioritize his more threatening team mates.

[Red Fel]

Now that's quite an assumption to make. Optimization and outright Abuse of the System are two different things in my mind. Optimization for me is having a solid character that can handle most situations because he's got good stats and knows what he's doing, but leaves space for personal interpretation and maybe feats or stats that are just there for the dance of it. Abuse in my mind is if you first calculate everything in your build, make stats, feats and weapons accordingly, then build a character around it, with the personality and background of a wooden block.

See, there's where you diverge from a lot of people in this forum. For many of us, myself included, optimization means "designing a character to be good at something." Abuse, by contrast, is finding a dysfunctional rule (such as the use of drowning to become immortal) and exploiting it.

A lot of us design builds from floor to ceiling, in part because you kind of have to. D&D requires a certain degree of foresight when planning out feat progressions, prestige classes, and various prerequisites. A player who wants his character to be good at his job should try to find the best means to do that job. There's nothing -

There's nothing "abusive" about taking a stats-first approach to building a character, and whether or not the character gets a personality is an entirely separate matter from whether the rules were abused to create that character.

Dangit, Golem, swordsage'd. But yeah. The point is that the optimization process is used to ensure that whatever you want your character to do - whether it's tanking, ubercharging, sniping, throwing fireballs, or being a bear riding a bear whilst summoning bears - he can do well. And there's nothing abusive about that.

At the risk of being accused of puns, consider Groot.

What have I has science done?!

[Mexikorn]

See, there's where you diverge from a lot of people in this forum. For many of us, myself included, optimization means "designing a character to be good at something." Abuse, by contrast, is finding a dysfunctional rule (such as the use of drowning to become immortal) and exploiting it

I'd just say I'm a moron at expressing myself. (in english) It seems I kinda often feel different about terminology than even my friends, had a discussion recently on what grinding really means... I still can't help the feeling that there's something tryhardish about "optimizing" characters. (as you put it, not my interpretation) Not that it's a bad thing, I do that too, with the CRB and APG that is... but I don't know as many "loopholes" as you guys and I'm not as experienced... but who cares really what I think.

Fun Fact: Vin Diesel also plays/used to play DnD

[eggynack]

I'd just say I'm a moron at expressing myself. (in english) It seems I kinda often feel different about terminology than even my friends, had a discussion recently on what grinding really means... I still can't help the feeling that there's something tryhardish about "optimizing" characters. (as you put it, not my interpretation) Not that it's a bad thing, I do that too, with the CRB and APG that is... but I don't know as many "loopholes" as you guys and I'm not as experienced... but who cares really what I think.

Fun Fact: Vin Diesel also plays/used to play DnD

Its not necessarily an English thing so much as the weird sub-cultural language D&D high optimization communities have. The problem you're having right now is that you actually are asserting something that's worth arguing against, rather than accidentally putting forth an opinion that you don't really mean. Cause the thing is, whether a given character has the personality of a wooden block is basically unrelated to whether that character is optimized, or hell, even abusive.

That character I presented before, the relatively high optimization melee damage build, could easily have an interesting personality and back story if I wanted. I could even design a significantly more abusive character that has a personality, or one that uses weird rules interpretation. I don't really see anything wrong with using the first variety of character either, while rules screwery could cause problems. Personality and power just aren't all that related.

[Mexikorn]

Its not necessarily an English thing so much as the weird sub-cultural language D&D high optimization communities have. The problem you're having right now is that you actually are asserting something that's worth arguing against, rather than accidentally putting forth an opinion that you don't really mean. Cause the thing is, whether a given character has the personality of a wooden block is basically unrelated to whether that character is optimized, or hell, even abusive.

That character I presented before, the relatively high optimization melee damage build, could easily have an interesting personality and back story if I wanted. I could even design a significantly more abusive character that has a personality, or one that uses weird rules interpretation. I don't really see anything wrong with using the first variety of character either, while rules screwery could cause problems. Personality and power just aren't all that related.

I wanna see what lore reason one could come up with to justify a character dealing 200 damage on lvl 7. "Oh, as a kid I really liked charging downhill and then pouncing at my enemies like a furious animal. One day, I was running down a hill and saw a greater elemental wreaking havoc on my village. I was scared, but it was right in my running path and my momentum was to big, so the only thing I could do was, summon a totem, go mad, leap at it and hit it with a stick. All of a sudden it died and I was pronounced the hero of my village."

[danzibr]

Re: Everyone referring to me in the third person in this thread: The purple text in my sig exists for a reason.

Shall we use your full name? Or, not to be rude, ``it?''

[eggynack]

I wanna see what lore reason one could come up with to justify a character dealing 200 damage on lvl 7. "Oh, as a kid I really liked charging downhill and then pouncing at my enemies like a furious animal. One day, I was running down a hill and saw a greater elemental wreaking havoc on my village. I was scared, but it was right in my running path and my momentum was to big, so the only thing I could do was, summon a totem, go mad, leap at it and hit it with a stick. All of a sudden it died and I was pronounced the hero of my village."

Well, you have yourself a pretty standard barbarian type backstory there, rather than, like, a "barbarian who kills everything always" backstory. So, as long as you have a barbarian backstory, presumably with some minor aspect involving devotion to the relevant totems, you're relatively solid. Maybe the character became lost in the woods, and lost himself to savagery in order to keep alive and strong against the wild strength. Then, when he later escaped the woods, he found a more civilized way to apply his strength. Still, he's often lost to the person he had to become in his past life. Involve lions and wolves in the backstory, and you have something relatively solid.

[Jormengand]

Shall we use your full name? Or, not to be rude, ``it?''

"It" is preferable, "They" is acceptable for those who find calling someone "It" to be somehow beneath them.

[Mexikorn]

"It" is preferable, "They" is acceptable for those who find calling someone "It" to be somehow beneath them.

I'll call you Jormy Dude until you tell me what's so special about your name :P

[TheIronGolem]

I wanna see what lore reason one could come up with to justify a character dealing 200 damage on lvl 7. "Oh, as a kid I really liked charging downhill and then pouncing at my enemies like a furious animal. One day, I was running down a hill and saw a greater elemental wreaking havoc on my village. I was scared, but it was right in my running path and my momentum was to big, so the only thing I could do was, summon a totem, go mad, leap at it and hit it with a stick. All of a sudden it died and I was pronounced the hero of my village."

It seems like you are assuming that a more optimized character needs to be somehow "more justified", backstory-wise, than a less optimized one. That is not the case.

Certainly, a character's backstory and mechanical abilities should roughly correspond, but that doesn't mean that every single feat, skill, or class feature needs its own discrete story to justify its place on the character sheet. Nor does it mean that the bar needs to be raised on the basis that the character is more mechanically effective at whatever it is they're designed to do.

[Threadnaught]

"It" is preferable, "They" is acceptable for those who find calling someone "It" to be somehow beneath them.

Non-gender, referring to someone as "they" doesn't have dehumanizing/objectifying implications.
Referring to someone as "it", could be used to dehumanize and/or objectify.

It isn't about referring to others as "it", being "beneath" the speaker, it's almost entirely about recognizing a person as just that. Human.
Granted, I've heard babies be referred to as "it", but they're level with animals in terms of their speech and agency, and animals are constantly referred to as "it"

All that said, it is interesting that you would prefer "it".

I'll call you Jormy Dude until you tell me what's so special about your name :P

One of two things come to my mind.

The first I'll share, but the second chronologically is, a mutation of "Ohmergahd".


The second, and the one I constantly think about whenever I read this lovely person's name, is Jormungand. The Midgard Serpent.
A snake so massive it circled the ocean around the world and bit its own tail. Whose venom was so deadly, it brought the gods to their knees. The birth of Jormungand and it's siblings was a sign of the apocalypse.

Yeah, I think it's the more badass one.
I'd lie and say I named myself after a sibling (Fenrir, the great wolf), but that's far too transparent.

[Jormengand]

I'll call you Jormy Dude until you tell me what's so special about your name :P

My name isn't that special. It's the name of a Norse demigod. It means "Mighty wand" in old Norse.

Non-gender, referring to someone as "they" doesn't have dehumanizing/objectifying implications.
Referring to someone as "it", could be used to dehumanize and/or objectify.

We've had this conversation before, and my response is this: What is more dehumanising, referring to someone by a word which they prefer but which has historically sometimes been used both for young humans and for some things which are not humans, or, denying someone a courtesy to which you would extend any other human because it makes you, personally, uncomfortable?

Anyway. Thread. Topic. Fighter with 25 AC. Optimisation. Go.

[Threadnaught]

We've had this conversation before,

Ack, my memory has uncharacteristically failed me here.

G'day noble Viking mythological thing.

[Jormengand]

Ack, my memory has uncharacteristically failed me here.

G'day noble Viking mythological thing.

That was meant to be an exclusive first person plural. We, that is I and some others, have had this conversation before. This conversation has been had before.

[LudicSavant]

So I love theory crafting/character creating in Pathfinder and yesterday I experimented on a Tank build (AC and HP focused) and came up with this:

This Build only utilizes the CRB, with average stats and barely costs 200 gold to start with.
Now I'm not saying that I need help with my party, me and my mates aren't powergamers and we don't abuse the system overly much, but I'm curious how experienced DM's deal with such pest's. The way I see it this character build is practically invincible to everything but critical strikes and magic missiles, with maybe the exception of the occasional Combat Maneuver. (which will always result in AoO on the opponent on low levels) Only weakness I see, is that the characters is slow in medium armor, but give him a crossbow and that problem is solved also. (for running away opponents)

I wouldn't worry about this character being overpowered. So it has a strong AC. So what? You need a diversified defense to ensure iterative survivability in a challenging campaign, and AC will only be strong against certain attacks. Look at the +0 will save, for instance. Look at the low battlefield control. Look at the weak offense. Look at the low mobility potential.

You see one strength, I see many weaknesses that common enemies and obstacles would exploit.

Think of it like a player having Fire Resistance. Okay, yeah, fire attacks probably aren't going to work very well, but it's not like those are the only options.