I got the sense that WOTC was intentionally not giving Armorer Shield in the published version. I believe it was in UA. It does potentially make Armorer extremely difficult to hit. But that’s kind of the point, right?
Heroism isn’t a big deal because Defensive Field’s temp HP won’t stack. Though it’s still a good buff for others, it’s not great in Guardian mode.
Building an Armorer artificer for an upcoming game, would it break anything to swap the Armorer's always prepared spells for the Battle Smiths?
It would break the balance that WotC decided on when they designed the Armourer. You can basically get silly levels of AC on a fairly low level which in and of itself isn't neccesarily game breaking but on an artificer is really unbalanced.
Heroism and Shield are more in line with the character than Magic Missile and Thunderwave.
Npt really. As mentioned, heroism competes with Defensive Field and MM is basically Iron Man's missile spam and Thunderwave is pretty much a beefed-up repulsor blast. WotC knew what they were going for. :)
The armorer has Blur, Mirror image and Sanctuary... two of them don't require concentration.
If you can bottle neck your enemies in a door way and use the three of them along with the dodge action you can have your team pick them off with ranges attacks and AoEs...
A combination of those spells and Dodge really helped my team out in a recent fight.
Using Shield would make you harder to hit but with those 3 spells at once and the didge action, you're probably not going to get hit a lot anyway.
I think y'all are given too much weight to subclass spells when it comes to balance.
As mentioned it's not the AC in and of itself, it the combination with everything else of the, arguably, strongest class and subclass of the game.
The EK also have H armor, the defense FS, and shield. The armorer doesn't pull ahead until lv 6 and that is assuming 2/3 of your infusions are being used that way. It's fun to theorize max AC but the opportunity costs just makes it impractical. Is +1AC really worth the same as the doom flute or giving the full caster a way to bullet proof Con checks?
Int for Artificers is the main ability and really the only one needed. Intelligence for EK are, at best, third but more likely 4th. This brings along some positive benefits when it comes to the stuff the character can do. Granted, the best builds for EKs use spells that aren't reliant on spell attacks or spell save DCs.
Casting stat is irrelevant with shield. armorer bring mostly SaD is a perk but isn't impactful here.
Again, read the whole post. Being SAD brings alongs perks that the EK misses out on. A high int does the same. It's all about context.
Also I like artificerto the point is is probably my favorite class but it's in no way in the running for best class.
Of course it is. Whether or not the BS is better than Iron Man is mostly about priorities but having access to free magic items, extra attunement slots and infusions (the two extra for armourer is just the cherry on top) is enough in and of itself to get the Artificer in the running for the top spot. That said it's hard to pick a "best" class since it all depends on what you want and need.
The entire context is about switching two subclass spell options. The term broken balance was used as a reasoning behind not doing so.even, if as I pointed out, the spell that supposably breaks it is already easily picked up at low costs.
A low cost is still a cost.
If the only support for this argument is that WoTC didn't do it then it's not really a strong stance.
So you are disregarding all of the playtesting that WotC did? Why? What makes you say their conclusion is wrong?
They openly stated most spell places on list is mostly flavor driven with little concern past that. Why did they say shield didn't match armorer is anyone's guess but balance wasn't it.
Got any evidence to back up this claim?
Maybe it was caused by UA feed back by those who had sticker shock of shield on a half caster but if that's the case I really have no belief the balance argument has and away.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
We have 2 subclasses with shield and assuming everything else is equal the armorer can have +1 AC advantage.
Except that everything else is not equal. The Armorer also doesn't have disadvantage on stealth and can have more AC boosting infusions.
Not enough to make them much harder to hit especially when you look at the fact both the other options can dodge and maintain an output. Could take a tad further and grab medium armor expert and ~18 dex gain 2 of the Armorer's big draws with good AC and no disadvantage on stealth. Easy entry for artificers who want a more martial feeling.
So basically what you are saying is that you need to make your artificer MAD A *and* pay a feat tax to make the character only slightly worse than then Armourer? Doesn't sound like an "easy entry" to me...
Building an Armorer artificer for an upcoming game, would it break anything to swap the Armorer's always prepared spells for the Battle Smiths?
Heroism and Shield are more in line with the character than Magic Missile and Thunderwave.
Those two spells might be more in line with what you want, but that doesn't mean they're better for the subclass.
Armorers can go in one of two different ways. Guardians who cannot close the gap would benefit from a reliable ranged option like magic missile. Conversely, Infiltrators are primarily ranged attackers who can push back enemies who close the gap with thunderwave. And since armor models can be changed with every short or long rest, the spell list needs to be dynamic and fit both models.
A spell like heroism would run afoul of the Guardian's Defensive Field. And while both could benefit from something like shield, the Guardian doesn't actually want that. They want to be an attractive target. That's the entire point of their Thunder Gauntlets. Giving them shield means enemies aren't going to want to hit them, either. If the choice is target with already high AC and +5 from a spell or disadvantage against someone else, they're better off with the disadvantage. You've made a "tanky" artificer who can't actually "tank" by protecting the party effectively.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Building an Armorer artificer for an upcoming game, would it break anything to swap the Armorer's always prepared spells for the Battle Smiths?
Heroism and Shield are more in line with the character than Magic Missile and Thunderwave.
I got the sense that WOTC was intentionally not giving Armorer Shield in the published version. I believe it was in UA. It does potentially make Armorer extremely difficult to hit. But that’s kind of the point, right?
Heroism isn’t a big deal because Defensive Field’s temp HP won’t stack. Though it’s still a good buff for others, it’s not great in Guardian mode.
It would break the balance that WotC decided on when they designed the Armourer. You can basically get silly levels of AC on a fairly low level which in and of itself isn't neccesarily game breaking but on an artificer is really unbalanced.
Npt really. As mentioned, heroism competes with Defensive Field and MM is basically Iron Man's missile spam and Thunderwave is pretty much a beefed-up repulsor blast. WotC knew what they were going for. :)
The armorer has Blur, Mirror image and Sanctuary... two of them don't require concentration.
If you can bottle neck your enemies in a door way and use the three of them along with the dodge action you can have your team pick them off with ranges attacks and AoEs...
A combination of those spells and Dodge really helped my team out in a recent fight.
Using Shield would make you harder to hit but with those 3 spells at once and the didge action, you're probably not going to get hit a lot anyway.
As mentioned it's not the AC in and of itself, it the combination with everything else of the, arguably, strongest class and subclass of the game.
Int for Artificers is the main ability and really the only one needed. Intelligence for EK are, at best, third but more likely 4th. This brings along some positive benefits when it comes to the stuff the character can do. Granted, the best builds for EKs use spells that aren't reliant on spell attacks or spell save DCs.
Again, read the whole post. Being SAD brings alongs perks that the EK misses out on. A high int does the same. It's all about context.
Of course it is. Whether or not the BS is better than Iron Man is mostly about priorities but having access to free magic items, extra attunement slots and infusions (the two extra for armourer is just the cherry on top) is enough in and of itself to get the Artificer in the running for the top spot. That said it's hard to pick a "best" class since it all depends on what you want and need.
A low cost is still a cost.
So you are disregarding all of the playtesting that WotC did? Why? What makes you say their conclusion is wrong?
Got any evidence to back up this claim?
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Except that everything else is not equal. The Armorer also doesn't have disadvantage on stealth and can have more AC boosting infusions.
So basically what you are saying is that you need to make your artificer MAD A *and* pay a feat tax to make the character only slightly worse than then Armourer? Doesn't sound like an "easy entry" to me...
Those two spells might be more in line with what you want, but that doesn't mean they're better for the subclass.
Armorers can go in one of two different ways. Guardians who cannot close the gap would benefit from a reliable ranged option like magic missile. Conversely, Infiltrators are primarily ranged attackers who can push back enemies who close the gap with thunderwave. And since armor models can be changed with every short or long rest, the spell list needs to be dynamic and fit both models.
A spell like heroism would run afoul of the Guardian's Defensive Field. And while both could benefit from something like shield, the Guardian doesn't actually want that. They want to be an attractive target. That's the entire point of their Thunder Gauntlets. Giving them shield means enemies aren't going to want to hit them, either. If the choice is target with already high AC and +5 from a spell or disadvantage against someone else, they're better off with the disadvantage. You've made a "tanky" artificer who can't actually "tank" by protecting the party effectively.