For Armorer you can't use INT for ALL magic weapons was my point. So you can be versatile and be equally as good in melee and range. Granted it means you would have to find a magic weapon likely but still a bit plus for Battlesmith.
Not if you're focused on which is a better tank; while there are some magic weapons that may be useful alternatives (can't remember them off hand though) you'd be talking specific picks that you'd need to get. Overall weapon flexibility doesn't matter; while a tank dealing damage is no bad thing, it doesn't really add to their tankiness, and the guardian wants to be using their Thunder Guantlets as much as possible.
What you want are magic items that boost your tankiness, ideally amulets, rings etc., shield is also acceptable though it means one fewer infusable item (though that also means one extra infusion elsewhere 😉). Magic armour (or even armour pieces) may be out, though it depends what you get and how lenient your DM is with how they interact with arcane armour; I think most will just let magic boots replace the boots only etc. but it's worth checking in advance as the magic item mixing and matching rules are super vague.
For mirror image my point is why would they want to hit you if they would have trouble doing so?
That's why you don't really want to use it first round when enemies are already within range; you either want to use it before the fight, or first round when enemies aren't in range yet, or during the fight once enemies are already focused upon you (i.e- take a round with temp HP then do it). Once it's active you use the thunder gauntlets to keep them attacking you, as hitting a mirror image is better than hitting nothing at all, as it least reduces your mirror images.
I also forgot a point; Armorer is the only Artificer sub-class normally able to wear heavy armour. Since you don't really need your Dexterity for a tanky guardian build this gives you access to good AC, and stacks nicely with the shield and defensive infusions (enhanced defence shield and maybe armour of might, with a view towards having both on the armour plus a repulsion shield for the full +3 AC at level 10). While it's true there are some ways to get heavy armour proficiency on a Battle Smith (feat being the main one) an Armorer doesn't need to.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
For Armorer you can't use INT for ALL magic weapons was my point. So you can be versatile and be equally as good in melee and range. Granted it means you would have to find a magic weapon likely but still a bit plus for Battlesmith.
Not if you're focused on which is a better tank; while there are some magic weapons that may be useful alternatives (can't remember them off hand though) you'd be talking specific picks that you'd need to get. Overall weapon flexibility doesn't matter; while a tank dealing damage is no bad thing, it doesn't really add to their tankiness, and the guardian wants to be using their Thunder Guantlets as much as possible.
What you want are magic items that boost your tankiness, ideally amulets, rings etc., shield is also acceptable though it means one fewer infusable item (though that also means one extra infusion elsewhere 😉). Magic armour (or even armour pieces) may be out, though it depends what you get and how lenient your DM is with how they interact with arcane armour; I think most will just let magic boots replace the boots only etc. but it's worth checking in advance as the magic item mixing and matching rules are super vague.
For mirror image my point is why would they want to hit you if they would have trouble doing so?
That's why you don't really want to use it first round when enemies are already within range; you either want to use it before the fight, or first round when enemies aren't in range yet, or during the fight once enemies are already focused upon you (i.e- take a round with temp HP then do it). Once it's active you use the thunder gauntlets to keep them attacking you, as hitting a mirror image is better than hitting nothing at all, as it least reduces your mirror images.
I also forgot a point; Armorer is the only Artificer sub-class normally able to wear heavy armour. Since you don't really need your Dexterity for a tanky guardian build this gives you access to good AC, and stacks nicely with the shield and defensive infusions (enhanced defence shield and maybe armour of might, with a view towards having both on the armour plus a repulsion shield for the full +3 AC at level 10). While it's true there are some ways to get heavy armour proficiency on a Battle Smith (feat being the main one) an Armorer doesn't need to.
Heavy armor is a good point and since it affords a higher AC without needing a shield you do have some versatility there so that is fair.
I see your point on mirror image and hopefully you could pop it out before a fight....but honestly I still see it more as a demotivator to attack you which is opposite of what you want for a tank.
The weapon perspective is the case if you find yourself far away from the squishie you are trying to protect and would need to be versatile to hit the creature attacking them. Granted it might not draw them closer but sometimes becoming the bigger offense threat is one way to tank.
Of course as always your DMs style and how they run creatures would heavily influence how playstyles work too so YMMV either way I suppose.
Overall thanks for sharing your perspective though!
I particularly haven't thought about "demotivators" contributing to tanking or at least not too heavily only because it sort of feels like an endless loop in logic. Take the example of AC, that alone is a demotivator based on my understanding of our definition.
"You need to be able to take a hit. But if you are able to take a hit too well no one is gonna hit you so you won't be tanking. But if you can't take a hit than you aren't tanking."
Not to say that these aren't valid points, I'm more questioning how much weight we should place on these points.
For me, primarily as a tank you need to increase your ability to take a hit. Secondary is "crowd control" in which case this is where we talk about drawing aggro. So maybe what we are really talking about is striking a balance between these 2 points which is more of a finesse situation so hard to debate. But at the end of the day I would say anything that can help you take a hit as a tank is in a large majority of situations a good thing because that is your priority over more utility based effects. I'd say leave those effects primarily to your support characters whose primary goal is everything else outside of taking or dishing out damage.
Moreover, I'd say in this situation the biggest motivator/demotivator for this tank will be opportunity attacks. They may not want to hit you but if they run away then they'd take an extra attack they otherwise would've avoided. The armorer plays into this more by being able to apply the debuff onto this attack. Also if we are looking at a perfectly tactical team, arguably the backliners should be kiting the targets to maintain this distance or finding choke points where they can't attack you without getting past your tank. This way you will be triggering more opportunity attacks therefore demotivating your enemies from hitting your backline. Which leaves you to focusing on what you need to be focusing on as a tank, taking a hit.
I'd say Battle Smith takes the prize. It has a better spell list. Battle Ready is similar to the Hexblade ability, which is to say, awesome. Steel Defender provides a good bonus action outlet for the Battle Smith. It’s durable, easy to resurrect, and can impose disadvantage on people trying to murder one of its friends. Extra attack is terrific. Arcane Jolt can mean up to five casts of Healing Word that don’t cost a bonus action. It's probably the best subclass for Artificer overall.
I particularly haven't thought about "demotivators" contributing to tanking or at least not too heavily only because it sort of feels like an endless loop in logic. Take the example of AC, that alone is a demotivator based on my understanding of our definition.
"You need to be able to take a hit. But if you are able to take a hit too well no one is gonna hit you so you won't be tanking. But if you can't take a hit than you aren't tanking."
Not to say that these aren't valid points, I'm more questioning how much weight we should place on these points.
For me, primarily as a tank you need to increase your ability to take a hit. Secondary is "crowd control" in which case this is where we talk about drawing aggro. So maybe what we are really talking about is striking a balance between these 2 points which is more of a finesse situation so hard to debate. But at the end of the day I would say anything that can help you take a hit as a tank is in a large majority of situations a good thing because that is your priority over more utility based effects. I'd say leave those effects primarily to your support characters whose primary goal is everything else outside of taking or dishing out damage.
Moreover, I'd say in this situation the biggest motivator/demotivator for this tank will be opportunity attacks. They may not want to hit you but if they run away then they'd take an extra attack they otherwise would've avoided. The armorer plays into this more by being able to apply the debuff onto this attack. Also if we are looking at a perfectly tactical team, arguably the backliners should be kiting the targets to maintain this distance or finding choke points where they can't attack you without getting past your tank. This way you will be triggering more opportunity attacks therefore demotivating your enemies from hitting your backline. Which leaves you to focusing on what you need to be focusing on as a tank, taking a hit.
I think the Battlesmith does the Opportunity Attack game better as you still DIS to attack with the defender but have better situational AC with shield spell if they do stay and attack you.
And yes AC is a factor for any intelligent enemy... As this isn't a video game where there's things like Aggro they will not just sit there and be killed to death by the guy in heavy armor when they can go attack a squishy.
AoO dissuade this but I'd your damage is low (which it's lower by a magnitude with Armorer) then they will not care too much to potentially take a hit to get away.
Seriously I have a hard time imaging the seasoned bandit trying to take on the guy with the giant suit of armor and instead going to kill the caster.
It's why barbs make such good tanks.... You encourage people to hit you with reckless as they get ADV to do so.
They are also scared to move away because your hits are HARD.
In mind you do want good AC as a tank but it's behind the ability to encourage people to try and hit you.
A battlesmith with a handcrossbow and a lower AC just within their range may provide a juicier target... Until your defender pops DIS and you cast shield.
AoO dissuade this but I'd your damage is low (which it's lower by a magnitude with Armorer) then they will not care too much to potentially take a hit to get away.
Seriously I have a hard time imaging the seasoned bandit trying to take on the guy with the giant suit of armor and instead going to kill the caster.
You're forgetting the effect on the Thunder Gauntlets again; an attack of opportunity means a potential third enemy with disadvantage against other targets (or another chance at one you didn't get the penalty onto during your turn), so going after that mage can suddenly become the worse option (especially since said mage has their own reaction for Shield etc. so the chances of hitting them becomes basically non-existent).
For tanking though, what you really want to do is leave them no choice but to fight you; e.g- block a doorway or other choke point, or combo with a control caster in your party so that there's a bigger cost to going around you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
AoO dissuade this but I'd your damage is low (which it's lower by a magnitude with Armorer) then they will not care too much to potentially take a hit to get away.
Seriously I have a hard time imaging the seasoned bandit trying to take on the guy with the giant suit of armor and instead going to kill the caster.
You're forgetting the effect on the Thunder Gauntlets again; an attack of opportunity means a potential third enemy with disadvantage against other targets (or another chance at one you didn't get the penalty onto during your turn), so going after that mage can suddenly become the worse option (especially since said mage has their own reaction for Shield etc. so the chances of hitting them becomes basically non-existent).
This assumes that the bandit knows what an armorer's armour actually does and what spells the spellcaster has, which is quite unlikely in many scenarios.
AoO dissuade this but I'd your damage is low (which it's lower by a magnitude with Armorer) then they will not care too much to potentially take a hit to get away.
Seriously I have a hard time imaging the seasoned bandit trying to take on the guy with the giant suit of armor and instead going to kill the caster.
You're forgetting the effect on the Thunder Gauntlets again; an attack of opportunity means a potential third enemy with disadvantage against other targets (or another chance at one you didn't get the penalty onto during your turn), so going after that mage can suddenly become the worse option (especially since said mage has their own reaction for Shield etc. so the chances of hitting them becomes basically non-existent).
For tanking though, what you really want to do is leave them no choice but to fight you; e.g- block a doorway or other choke point, or combo with a control caster in your party so that there's a bigger cost to going around you.
Fair points.
I think both strays work well. Honestly probably just comes down to preference then.
Lol, I hope you don't take what I say offensively. If I come off that way I am sorry. I just like debates where either of us could be right or wrong or even both at the same time. It helps expand or solidify what we know =)
In mind you do want good AC as a tank but it's behind the ability to encourage people to try and hit you.
This is the point I disagree with. Earlier my opinion on the priorities of a tank is 1st your ability to take a hit (survivability, etc) and then 2nd is Crowd Control (drawing aggro). By your definition this almost seems flipped which would mean the pure Wizard would make the better/best tank because they are screaming "hit me hit me, I'm unarmored."
This is why I think reducing a tank's ability to take a hit in order to draw aggro ends up in a bit of a circle in logic. If all other variables are equal, you'll always want to hit the less tanky target. It's the other variables that skew your decision despite the tankiness like with the Battle Smith you can body block with the SD or with the Armorer applying TG debuff. But the Barb using RA directly downgrades their ability to take a hit in order to draw aggro which falls under the same vein as a Wizard being unarmored saying "hit me, it's easier."
As I said earlier it isn't that semi-taunts like this aren't effective and perhaps what we are really talking about is having just the right chemistry of these 2 priorities. When it comes to finding the right chemistry this becomes highly debatable because it depends on a lot of different variables such as team comp (expanding on what Soulstein was saying) or encounters.
Also since we are debating mechanics we need to make wildly large generalizations and assumptions because if anything we learned anything about D&D, every situation is different and unique and there's a lot of them.
So in general I don't think a tank should ever be ashamed to have an ability that allows them to survive better such as Mirror Image because effects like drawing aggro can be mitigated by other consistent aspects such as positioning which is generally available in a large amount of encounters. I do agree the best tank is able to draw aggro themselves but I don't think that takes priority over survivability since directing aggro may be better suited for other roles (like the Battlefield Controller) or is simply a group effort (positioning).
In mind you do want good AC as a tank but it's behind the ability to encourage people to try and hit you.
This is the point I disagree with. Earlier my opinion on the priorities of a tank is 1st your ability to take a hit (survivability, etc) and then 2nd is Crowd Control (drawing aggro). By your definition this almost seems flipped which would mean the pure Wizard would make the better/best tank because they are screaming "hit me hit me, I'm unarmored."
I tend to agree with Optimus that encouraging the enemy to hit you is the key feature of a tank; being able to take a hit is just durability, which any class can benefit from.
However, just because encouraging things to attack you is the first priority, doesn't mean that durability isn't important; you absolutely want both because you want as many enemies to attack you for as long as possible, if you can't take the hits directed at you then you're not going to be able to tank for long. But conversely, you're not tanking at all if you're super durable and everything just walks right past you to attack your weaker team mates.
I think both strays work well. Honestly probably just comes down to preference then.
Both sub-classes will definitely work, and to be clear, I love the Battle Smith, I just think Guardian Armorer slightly edges it out for pure tanking. Both can be quite versatile, Infiltrator and Battle Smith more so, I mean Artificer in general is a very versatile class to begin with, but both sub-classes add some neat stuff (so does Artillerist for a more ranged blaster build, and Alchemist for ranged support, Artificer is just a great class).
Barbarian is definitely the best tank hands-down, which is why any Artificer tank probably want two or three levels in Barbarian if you're really serious about tanking, but that will depend on the rest of your party, e.g- if you have other frontline fighters then you're probably splitting the tanking duty anyway.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
In mind you do want good AC as a tank but it's behind the ability to encourage people to try and hit you.
This is the point I disagree with. Earlier my opinion on the priorities of a tank is 1st your ability to take a hit (survivability, etc) and then 2nd is Crowd Control (drawing aggro). By your definition this almost seems flipped which would mean the pure Wizard would make the better/best tank because they are screaming "hit me hit me, I'm unarmored."
I tend to agree with Optimus that encouraging the enemy to hit you is the key feature of a tank; being able to take a hit is just durability, which any class can benefit from.
However, just because encouraging things to attack you is the first priority, doesn't mean that durability isn't important; you absolutely want both because you want as many enemies to attack you for as long as possible, if you can't take the hits directed at you then you're not going to be able to tank for long. But conversely, you're not tanking at all if you're super durable and everything just walks right past you to attack your weaker team mates.
I think both strays work well. Honestly probably just comes down to preference then.
Both sub-classes will definitely work, and to be clear, I love the Battle Smith, I just think Guardian Armorer slightly edges it out for pure tanking. Both can be quite versatile, Infiltrator and Battle Smith more so, I mean Artificer in general is a very versatile class to begin with, but both sub-classes add some neat stuff (so does Artillerist for a more ranged blaster build, and Alchemist for ranged support, Artificer is just a great class).
Barbarian is definitely the best tank hands-down, which is why any Artificer tank probably want two or three levels in Barbarian if you're really serious about tanking, but that will depend on whether the rest of your party, e.g- if you have other frontline fighters then you're probably splitting the tanking duty anyway.
Good points.
I tend to forget how much you get from a few levels of barbarian.
One thing to note about Barbs and Tanking. AC is not a significant portion of their tanking Ability for a good portion of their career. So using Reckless Attack is not a downgrade to their tanking ability. Their AC tends to be middling until they get to very high level unless they take real steps to boost it. Which most often actually means not using Unarmored Defense much if at all in the lower tiers of play at least.
But for Most Barbarians They actually want to get hit. Their Durability instead of coming from their armor comes from their resistances from their Rage and Their literally massive amount of hp. They tank by being a damage sink and being one of the easier to hit targets while being Threatening. Helping to show that Tanking really is about getting them to hit you first. Either because your an Easy target to hit. Or they are too afraid to ignore you. Barbarians are some of the best tanks because they do well at accomplishing both. The Durability is a close second in the priority of tanking because once you can get them to attack you over another you need to be able to survive the hits that are going to come your way.
Armorer's style of Tanking works under similar mentality of the second part. Their Debuff helps to fill in the "to afraid to ignore you" part by making it hard to hit anything other than the the Armorer because of the debuff. So out of Frustration and Need and sunken cost if they don't. You get them to turn on the Artificer under most circumstances. Their Survivability is largely in avoidance through the use of heavy Armors.
The Battle Smith works more under the First Principle of Tanking. They aren't the hardest thing to hit in the world so them and their Steel Defender Pets make good targets because they are easier to hit due to factors like being casters, even with medium armor, being likely to be on or near the front lines and the STeel Defender's AC being locked at 15 (until you get to 15th level and then it gets a measly +2 to AC for 17 for tier 4) and not being able to use it's reaction on attacks against itself. Not to mention that while Physical attributes are helpful. the Battle Master has a general lack of reliance on physical attributes once they get a magical weapon. Their survivability is more in the mass of hp they represent between the twin targets of the battle master and the steel defender (which represents almost another character in hp depending on the level) as well as healing that can be provided to them or to some extent too each other deepening their reserves in that regard.
Reckless Attack also grants the Barbarian advantage, so they can use that to help them damage and pick off weaker enemies faster (better chance to hit, better chance to crit, which in turn combos with brutal criticals and other abilities). Barbarians also have advantage on grappling and shoving, both of which are useful tanking abilities for enemies that don't want to stay and fight you (just don't give them the choice to leave 😉) and still count as an attack to keep rage going. Armor of Strength can allow an artificer to do a bit of the grappling/shoving, and would probably be one of my picks for an armorer.
Barbarian is a whole toolbox of tanking abilities, and works super well as a lone tank, ideally with a support character or general mage throwing a buff or heal their way now and then (Shield of Faith from a cleric for example), and they also put out solid damage which the pure Armorer/Battle Smith can only just about compete with. This is why they're so good, they've got it all built into the class, and only get better and better at it (though they're also a great multi-class dip).
Armorer/Battle Smith want good AC to avoid taking the damage in the first place, supplemented by Shield and/or Mirror Image, but they're also not as good at keeping enemies on themselves, so on their own (no multi-classing) they're more like speed-bump tanks that can keep a few enemies at bay and slow others down, you probably want another martial working together to really get the best effect, but that could be a Monk, Rogue, Swords Bard etc. (i.e- another mixed martial). With a dip into Barbarian they get a lot of the best features and can have not only an huge AC but also damage resistance, boosted damage, reckless and maybe a sub-class ability or two, it's a really good mix if you've got the levels to do it (depends on your campaign or if you're willing to delay extra attack).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I tend to agree with Optimus that encouraging the enemy to hit you is the key feature of a tank; being able to take a hit is just durability, which any class can benefit from.
lol, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Which is cool, the world is a better place for having a broader perspective.
All in all I think we just have an inflated view on the role of a tank. Personally I try to keep these roles simple and I'll use the "Holy Trinity" to demonstrate (or my version of it).
Tanking - the ability to take damage
DPS - the ability to deal damage
Support - the ability to manipulate damage
So effects such as drawing aggro IMO falls under support because you are trying to manipulate the direction of that damage. If you direct it to the tank then you could be mitigating the overall damage your team receives because the damage is siphoned through the tank's AC (which we will assume it is higher than your teammates focusing on other roles). Even things such as Heals I consider a manipulation of damage (heals on your tank has greater effective hp for your team or heals on your DPS improves the overall damage on your team). Typically characters don't play a single role and are usually a mix between these roles. So suggesting a Barb is a better tank because of Reckless Attack is doing so because they are trying to be more like a DPS character rather than tanking because innately, if you deal more damage while being more vulnerable to damage you will draw more aggro.
However assuming you and your teammates start off with a similar amount of resources and you are splitting your resources in your ability to Tank and DPS vs. your teammate who is focusing only on DPS, arguably you should not out DPS your teammate nor should they out tank you. Which by the earlier point it means innately the aggro will always be drawn to your teammate rather than you outside of "other" factors that would come into play. If your teammate is a ranged Rogue or Ranger that decides to run up to the front lines right next to you to shoot targets in the face, even if you did Reckless Attack your enemies will still want to attack the visibly squishier and more dangerous Rogue/Ranger (since you spent resources to be tankier like Constitution).
But "other" factors do come into play and I'd argue those factors are more important to tanking than being a better DPS character such as positioning and/or crowd control. We've talked about positioning and AoO helping you tank better (which everyone should be contributing to positioning and not have a suicidal Ranged Rogue/Ranger entering the fray). The point about being able to hit harder making your AoO more frightening therefore discouraging them from moving away to target your allies is a completely valid point. That's where the Battle Smith gets a leg up on the Armorer. However the Armorer applying TG debuff is also discouraging by reducing the potential damage targets can do to your allies, or redirecting the damage to you which will reduce the target's potential damage because it needs to get past your higher AC. This debuff may be even more relevant if say you have melee DPS allies with close to but lower AC than you. Then there are other CC effects like Faerie Fire allowing your team to hit harder and if the enemies want it to stop they need to get rid of your concentration. Or perhaps Battlefield Control like Grease or Web where if they try to run to your backliners, they may end up stuck and vulnerable instead. Personally I think these effects contribute more directly to tanking than being more like a DPS character.
So the specific mechanic in Reckless Attack where enemies have advantage to hit you, I don't think directly contributes to your ability to tank better and is more situationally advantageous due to team comp or encounters. But in general, enemies having advantage to hit you does not help you tank better like a wizard not wearing armor.
One thing to note about Barbs and Tanking. AC is not a significant portion of their tanking Ability for a good portion of their career. So using Reckless Attack is not a downgrade to their tanking ability. Their AC tends to be middling until they get to very high level unless they take real steps to boost it. Which most often actually means not using Unarmored Defense much if at all in the lower tiers of play at least.
But for Most Barbarians They actually want to get hit. Their Durability instead of coming from their armor comes from their resistances from their Rage and Their literally massive amount of hp. They tank by being a damage sink and being one of the easier to hit targets while being Threatening. Helping to show that Tanking really is about getting them to hit you first. Either because your an Easy target to hit. Or they are too afraid to ignore you. Barbarians are some of the best tanks because they do well at accomplishing both. The Durability is a close second in the priority of tanking because once you can get them to attack you over another you need to be able to survive the hits that are going to come your way.
Armorer's style of Tanking works under similar mentality of the second part. Their Debuff helps to fill in the "to afraid to ignore you" part by making it hard to hit anything other than the the Armorer because of the debuff. So out of Frustration and Need and sunken cost if they don't. You get them to turn on the Artificer under most circumstances. Their Survivability is largely in avoidance through the use of heavy Armors.
The Battle Smith works more under the First Principle of Tanking. They aren't the hardest thing to hit in the world so them and their Steel Defender Pets make good targets because they are easier to hit due to factors like being casters, even with medium armor, being likely to be on or near the front lines and the STeel Defender's AC being locked at 15 (until you get to 15th level and then it gets a measly +2 to AC for 17 for tier 4) and not being able to use it's reaction on attacks against itself. Not to mention that while Physical attributes are helpful. the Battle Master has a general lack of reliance on physical attributes once they get a magical weapon. Their survivability is more in the mass of hp they represent between the twin targets of the battle master and the steel defender (which represents almost another character in hp depending on the level) as well as healing that can be provided to them or to some extent too each other deepening their reserves in that regard.
To be honest most of this is horrible advice. Damage resistance work better the more AC you have not less. The whole idea that a barbarian needs to be taken damage to be be functional is one big logical fallacy. Not to mention the more often you use reckless attack the less reliable the mitigation from resistance becomes. Resistance softens the damage curve but advantage on incoming attacks introduces spikes thanks to increasing hit and critical chance. Why would anyone want to get hit? That's like saying a fire extinguisher is only a good investment in the kitchen if you have a fire so you better torch the stovetop every once in a while to make sure you got your money's worth.
The real kicker is that the reckless barbarian isn't really that tough. Most of the time they just eat more recovery resources and run out of rages before they can eliminate enough enemies to make up the hole they dig by trying to tank this way. If focused on your average barbarian isn't staying around long.
Ok. You started off with an outright lie. Damage resistance does nothing and means nothing if you are not taking damage. Better AC does not make Damage Resistance work better or more useful. It actually diminishes it's importance. If you have AC so high you can't be hit. Investing in Damage resistance for that 1 hit in a 100 that is going to hit you is basically worthless. it means nothing. however damage resistance becomes vastly more important the more your actually getting hit and the more it comes into play because it's reducing what you actually take.
It's not a logical fallacy that They actually do want to be taking damage. Not only are they built heavily specifically for taking damage. But getting people to hit you is one of the most effective ways to keep your rage up. The other is Hitting another enemy. However hitting another enemy is problematic if you either can't reach them because they are in some way ranged or flying, or you need to do something else like use your healing potion to save your companion. Rage being the cornerstone of a lot of other abilities you want to keep rage going to keep those abilities going. Including the Damage Resistance your mischaracterizing. Their abilities are designed around getting hit because of this. Half of Reckless Attack's function is to get peopel to hit you. And your REsistance comes into play by reducing the damage you take when they do hit you. And the massive hp pool beyond that is the third line of wanting to get hit because the more resistance comes into play the large your effective health pool actually is. Potentially soaking up much as twice the damage as the static hp value on your sheet says. And considering barbarians can easily hit 250 hp at level 20. Doubling that is indeed large. The Value of not getting hit only really drops off in the 4th tier when you get relentless rage and thus your rage is a lot harder to lose in general. The other side effect of getting resistance to work often for you... which takes getting hit. Is not only do you effectively up to double your HP potentially but you actually double any healing you receive. Making the Barbarian less of a healing resource draw overall in many cases because lesser heals tend to go farther on the barbarian and it can take longer even when they are getting hit to get into area's where it is a real concern in most instances.
And the Best thing of all about Reckless attack for all of this? You can just not use it on any turn you don't want to once you have their attention and they have trouble getting away from you. Which means instant defensive improvement without spending a resource.
I've played with plenty of Barbarians that use these kinds of tactics. And putting at least a little thought into when they use Reckless attack to facilitate the draw and get themselves hit more. They are not usually the drain on my resources as a healer. It's the idiot skirmishers that don't know how to run away and think they should face tank like a Barbarian or a Paladin that eat up all my healing resources. Which is part of the reason I don't play a Shepard Druid more often. I don't want to encourage that behavior. So I either avoid the subclass or i stick to groups that are tactically more sound.
Oh I forgot to mention this earlier, but you aren't a lone wolf defending a bunch of NPC's. If you are then I agree you need to be able to do a bit more of everything to effectively defend them. But the reality is you are likely part of a team with competent allies and each of you are meant to fulfill a role.
So the point about Tanks needing to prioritize drawing aggro over their durability, personally I don't think is nearly as valid because everybody should be contributing to directing enemy damage to the tank while a tank needs to be able to survive that aggro. If you can't survive that aggro then what is the point? You might as well be a NPC meat-shield that spawns a new character after every encounter. Why all in all I still believe the priority of a tank should be their ability to take a hit more than drawing aggro.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not if you're focused on which is a better tank; while there are some magic weapons that may be useful alternatives (can't remember them off hand though) you'd be talking specific picks that you'd need to get. Overall weapon flexibility doesn't matter; while a tank dealing damage is no bad thing, it doesn't really add to their tankiness, and the guardian wants to be using their Thunder Guantlets as much as possible.
What you want are magic items that boost your tankiness, ideally amulets, rings etc., shield is also acceptable though it means one fewer infusable item (though that also means one extra infusion elsewhere 😉). Magic armour (or even armour pieces) may be out, though it depends what you get and how lenient your DM is with how they interact with arcane armour; I think most will just let magic boots replace the boots only etc. but it's worth checking in advance as the magic item mixing and matching rules are super vague.
That's why you don't really want to use it first round when enemies are already within range; you either want to use it before the fight, or first round when enemies aren't in range yet, or during the fight once enemies are already focused upon you (i.e- take a round with temp HP then do it). Once it's active you use the thunder gauntlets to keep them attacking you, as hitting a mirror image is better than hitting nothing at all, as it least reduces your mirror images.
I also forgot a point; Armorer is the only Artificer sub-class normally able to wear heavy armour. Since you don't really need your Dexterity for a tanky guardian build this gives you access to good AC, and stacks nicely with the shield and defensive infusions (enhanced defence shield and maybe armour of might, with a view towards having both on the armour plus a repulsion shield for the full +3 AC at level 10). While it's true there are some ways to get heavy armour proficiency on a Battle Smith (feat being the main one) an Armorer doesn't need to.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Heavy armor is a good point and since it affords a higher AC without needing a shield you do have some versatility there so that is fair.
I see your point on mirror image and hopefully you could pop it out before a fight....but honestly I still see it more as a demotivator to attack you which is opposite of what you want for a tank.
The weapon perspective is the case if you find yourself far away from the squishie you are trying to protect and would need to be versatile to hit the creature attacking them. Granted it might not draw them closer but sometimes becoming the bigger offense threat is one way to tank.
Of course as always your DMs style and how they run creatures would heavily influence how playstyles work too so YMMV either way I suppose.
Overall thanks for sharing your perspective though!
One doesn't need heavy armour to be an effective tank.
I particularly haven't thought about "demotivators" contributing to tanking or at least not too heavily only because it sort of feels like an endless loop in logic. Take the example of AC, that alone is a demotivator based on my understanding of our definition.
"You need to be able to take a hit. But if you are able to take a hit too well no one is gonna hit you so you won't be tanking. But if you can't take a hit than you aren't tanking."
Not to say that these aren't valid points, I'm more questioning how much weight we should place on these points.
For me, primarily as a tank you need to increase your ability to take a hit. Secondary is "crowd control" in which case this is where we talk about drawing aggro. So maybe what we are really talking about is striking a balance between these 2 points which is more of a finesse situation so hard to debate. But at the end of the day I would say anything that can help you take a hit as a tank is in a large majority of situations a good thing because that is your priority over more utility based effects. I'd say leave those effects primarily to your support characters whose primary goal is everything else outside of taking or dishing out damage.
Moreover, I'd say in this situation the biggest motivator/demotivator for this tank will be opportunity attacks. They may not want to hit you but if they run away then they'd take an extra attack they otherwise would've avoided. The armorer plays into this more by being able to apply the debuff onto this attack. Also if we are looking at a perfectly tactical team, arguably the backliners should be kiting the targets to maintain this distance or finding choke points where they can't attack you without getting past your tank. This way you will be triggering more opportunity attacks therefore demotivating your enemies from hitting your backline. Which leaves you to focusing on what you need to be focusing on as a tank, taking a hit.
I'd say Battle Smith takes the prize. It has a better spell list. Battle Ready is similar to the Hexblade ability, which is to say, awesome. Steel Defender provides a good bonus action outlet for the Battle Smith. It’s durable, easy to resurrect, and can impose disadvantage on people trying to murder one of its friends. Extra attack is terrific. Arcane Jolt can mean up to five casts of Healing Word that don’t cost a bonus action. It's probably the best subclass for Artificer overall.
J
I think the Battlesmith does the Opportunity Attack game better as you still DIS to attack with the defender but have better situational AC with shield spell if they do stay and attack you.
And yes AC is a factor for any intelligent enemy... As this isn't a video game where there's things like Aggro they will not just sit there and be killed to death by the guy in heavy armor when they can go attack a squishy.
AoO dissuade this but I'd your damage is low (which it's lower by a magnitude with Armorer) then they will not care too much to potentially take a hit to get away.
Seriously I have a hard time imaging the seasoned bandit trying to take on the guy with the giant suit of armor and instead going to kill the caster.
It's why barbs make such good tanks.... You encourage people to hit you with reckless as they get ADV to do so.
They are also scared to move away because your hits are HARD.
In mind you do want good AC as a tank but it's behind the ability to encourage people to try and hit you.
A battlesmith with a handcrossbow and a lower AC just within their range may provide a juicier target... Until your defender pops DIS and you cast shield.
You're forgetting the effect on the Thunder Gauntlets again; an attack of opportunity means a potential third enemy with disadvantage against other targets (or another chance at one you didn't get the penalty onto during your turn), so going after that mage can suddenly become the worse option (especially since said mage has their own reaction for Shield etc. so the chances of hitting them becomes basically non-existent).
For tanking though, what you really want to do is leave them no choice but to fight you; e.g- block a doorway or other choke point, or combo with a control caster in your party so that there's a bigger cost to going around you.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
This assumes that the bandit knows what an armorer's armour actually does and what spells the spellcaster has, which is quite unlikely in many scenarios.
Fair points.
I think both strays work well. Honestly probably just comes down to preference then.
Lol, I hope you don't take what I say offensively. If I come off that way I am sorry. I just like debates where either of us could be right or wrong or even both at the same time. It helps expand or solidify what we know =)
This is the point I disagree with. Earlier my opinion on the priorities of a tank is 1st your ability to take a hit (survivability, etc) and then 2nd is Crowd Control (drawing aggro). By your definition this almost seems flipped which would mean the pure Wizard would make the better/best tank because they are screaming "hit me hit me, I'm unarmored."
This is why I think reducing a tank's ability to take a hit in order to draw aggro ends up in a bit of a circle in logic. If all other variables are equal, you'll always want to hit the less tanky target. It's the other variables that skew your decision despite the tankiness like with the Battle Smith you can body block with the SD or with the Armorer applying TG debuff. But the Barb using RA directly downgrades their ability to take a hit in order to draw aggro which falls under the same vein as a Wizard being unarmored saying "hit me, it's easier."
As I said earlier it isn't that semi-taunts like this aren't effective and perhaps what we are really talking about is having just the right chemistry of these 2 priorities. When it comes to finding the right chemistry this becomes highly debatable because it depends on a lot of different variables such as team comp (expanding on what Soulstein was saying) or encounters.
Also since we are debating mechanics we need to make wildly large generalizations and assumptions because if anything we learned anything about D&D, every situation is different and unique and there's a lot of them.
So in general I don't think a tank should ever be ashamed to have an ability that allows them to survive better such as Mirror Image because effects like drawing aggro can be mitigated by other consistent aspects such as positioning which is generally available in a large amount of encounters. I do agree the best tank is able to draw aggro themselves but I don't think that takes priority over survivability since directing aggro may be better suited for other roles (like the Battlefield Controller) or is simply a group effort (positioning).
I tend to agree with Optimus that encouraging the enemy to hit you is the key feature of a tank; being able to take a hit is just durability, which any class can benefit from.
However, just because encouraging things to attack you is the first priority, doesn't mean that durability isn't important; you absolutely want both because you want as many enemies to attack you for as long as possible, if you can't take the hits directed at you then you're not going to be able to tank for long. But conversely, you're not tanking at all if you're super durable and everything just walks right past you to attack your weaker team mates.
Both sub-classes will definitely work, and to be clear, I love the Battle Smith, I just think Guardian Armorer slightly edges it out for pure tanking. Both can be quite versatile, Infiltrator and Battle Smith more so, I mean Artificer in general is a very versatile class to begin with, but both sub-classes add some neat stuff (so does Artillerist for a more ranged blaster build, and Alchemist for ranged support, Artificer is just a great class).
Barbarian is definitely the best tank hands-down, which is why any Artificer tank probably want two or three levels in Barbarian if you're really serious about tanking, but that will depend on the rest of your party, e.g- if you have other frontline fighters then you're probably splitting the tanking duty anyway.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Good points.
I tend to forget how much you get from a few levels of barbarian.
Rage is such a valuable resource for martials
One thing to note about Barbs and Tanking. AC is not a significant portion of their tanking Ability for a good portion of their career. So using Reckless Attack is not a downgrade to their tanking ability. Their AC tends to be middling until they get to very high level unless they take real steps to boost it. Which most often actually means not using Unarmored Defense much if at all in the lower tiers of play at least.
But for Most Barbarians They actually want to get hit. Their Durability instead of coming from their armor comes from their resistances from their Rage and Their literally massive amount of hp. They tank by being a damage sink and being one of the easier to hit targets while being Threatening. Helping to show that Tanking really is about getting them to hit you first. Either because your an Easy target to hit. Or they are too afraid to ignore you. Barbarians are some of the best tanks because they do well at accomplishing both. The Durability is a close second in the priority of tanking because once you can get them to attack you over another you need to be able to survive the hits that are going to come your way.
Armorer's style of Tanking works under similar mentality of the second part. Their Debuff helps to fill in the "to afraid to ignore you" part by making it hard to hit anything other than the the Armorer because of the debuff. So out of Frustration and Need and sunken cost if they don't. You get them to turn on the Artificer under most circumstances. Their Survivability is largely in avoidance through the use of heavy Armors.
The Battle Smith works more under the First Principle of Tanking. They aren't the hardest thing to hit in the world so them and their Steel Defender Pets make good targets because they are easier to hit due to factors like being casters, even with medium armor, being likely to be on or near the front lines and the STeel Defender's AC being locked at 15 (until you get to 15th level and then it gets a measly +2 to AC for 17 for tier 4) and not being able to use it's reaction on attacks against itself. Not to mention that while Physical attributes are helpful. the Battle Master has a general lack of reliance on physical attributes once they get a magical weapon. Their survivability is more in the mass of hp they represent between the twin targets of the battle master and the steel defender (which represents almost another character in hp depending on the level) as well as healing that can be provided to them or to some extent too each other deepening their reserves in that regard.
Battlesmith has arguably better situational AC thanks to access to shield spell.
If you want you can get half-plate (17 AC with +2 DEX) and then 19 AC with a physical shield.
With the shield spell you can get 24 AC.
Also your steel defender taking hits for you is kinda expected.
Barbarians do not always reckless but do when they want to be focused for a round.
Makes you the bigger target thanks to increased damage output and lower defense.
You draw attacks which is what a tank does
Reckless Attack also grants the Barbarian advantage, so they can use that to help them damage and pick off weaker enemies faster (better chance to hit, better chance to crit, which in turn combos with brutal criticals and other abilities). Barbarians also have advantage on grappling and shoving, both of which are useful tanking abilities for enemies that don't want to stay and fight you (just don't give them the choice to leave 😉) and still count as an attack to keep rage going. Armor of Strength can allow an artificer to do a bit of the grappling/shoving, and would probably be one of my picks for an armorer.
Barbarian is a whole toolbox of tanking abilities, and works super well as a lone tank, ideally with a support character or general mage throwing a buff or heal their way now and then (Shield of Faith from a cleric for example), and they also put out solid damage which the pure Armorer/Battle Smith can only just about compete with. This is why they're so good, they've got it all built into the class, and only get better and better at it (though they're also a great multi-class dip).
Armorer/Battle Smith want good AC to avoid taking the damage in the first place, supplemented by Shield and/or Mirror Image, but they're also not as good at keeping enemies on themselves, so on their own (no multi-classing) they're more like speed-bump tanks that can keep a few enemies at bay and slow others down, you probably want another martial working together to really get the best effect, but that could be a Monk, Rogue, Swords Bard etc. (i.e- another mixed martial). With a dip into Barbarian they get a lot of the best features and can have not only an huge AC but also damage resistance, boosted damage, reckless and maybe a sub-class ability or two, it's a really good mix if you've got the levels to do it (depends on your campaign or if you're willing to delay extra attack).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
lol, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Which is cool, the world is a better place for having a broader perspective.
All in all I think we just have an inflated view on the role of a tank. Personally I try to keep these roles simple and I'll use the "Holy Trinity" to demonstrate (or my version of it).
So effects such as drawing aggro IMO falls under support because you are trying to manipulate the direction of that damage. If you direct it to the tank then you could be mitigating the overall damage your team receives because the damage is siphoned through the tank's AC (which we will assume it is higher than your teammates focusing on other roles). Even things such as Heals I consider a manipulation of damage (heals on your tank has greater effective hp for your team or heals on your DPS improves the overall damage on your team). Typically characters don't play a single role and are usually a mix between these roles. So suggesting a Barb is a better tank because of Reckless Attack is doing so because they are trying to be more like a DPS character rather than tanking because innately, if you deal more damage while being more vulnerable to damage you will draw more aggro.
However assuming you and your teammates start off with a similar amount of resources and you are splitting your resources in your ability to Tank and DPS vs. your teammate who is focusing only on DPS, arguably you should not out DPS your teammate nor should they out tank you. Which by the earlier point it means innately the aggro will always be drawn to your teammate rather than you outside of "other" factors that would come into play. If your teammate is a ranged Rogue or Ranger that decides to run up to the front lines right next to you to shoot targets in the face, even if you did Reckless Attack your enemies will still want to attack the visibly squishier and more dangerous Rogue/Ranger (since you spent resources to be tankier like Constitution).
But "other" factors do come into play and I'd argue those factors are more important to tanking than being a better DPS character such as positioning and/or crowd control. We've talked about positioning and AoO helping you tank better (which everyone should be contributing to positioning and not have a suicidal Ranged Rogue/Ranger entering the fray). The point about being able to hit harder making your AoO more frightening therefore discouraging them from moving away to target your allies is a completely valid point. That's where the Battle Smith gets a leg up on the Armorer. However the Armorer applying TG debuff is also discouraging by reducing the potential damage targets can do to your allies, or redirecting the damage to you which will reduce the target's potential damage because it needs to get past your higher AC. This debuff may be even more relevant if say you have melee DPS allies with close to but lower AC than you. Then there are other CC effects like Faerie Fire allowing your team to hit harder and if the enemies want it to stop they need to get rid of your concentration. Or perhaps Battlefield Control like Grease or Web where if they try to run to your backliners, they may end up stuck and vulnerable instead. Personally I think these effects contribute more directly to tanking than being more like a DPS character.
So the specific mechanic in Reckless Attack where enemies have advantage to hit you, I don't think directly contributes to your ability to tank better and is more situationally advantageous due to team comp or encounters. But in general, enemies having advantage to hit you does not help you tank better like a wizard not wearing armor.
Ok. You started off with an outright lie. Damage resistance does nothing and means nothing if you are not taking damage. Better AC does not make Damage Resistance work better or more useful. It actually diminishes it's importance. If you have AC so high you can't be hit. Investing in Damage resistance for that 1 hit in a 100 that is going to hit you is basically worthless. it means nothing. however damage resistance becomes vastly more important the more your actually getting hit and the more it comes into play because it's reducing what you actually take.
It's not a logical fallacy that They actually do want to be taking damage. Not only are they built heavily specifically for taking damage. But getting people to hit you is one of the most effective ways to keep your rage up. The other is Hitting another enemy. However hitting another enemy is problematic if you either can't reach them because they are in some way ranged or flying, or you need to do something else like use your healing potion to save your companion. Rage being the cornerstone of a lot of other abilities you want to keep rage going to keep those abilities going. Including the Damage Resistance your mischaracterizing. Their abilities are designed around getting hit because of this. Half of Reckless Attack's function is to get peopel to hit you. And your REsistance comes into play by reducing the damage you take when they do hit you. And the massive hp pool beyond that is the third line of wanting to get hit because the more resistance comes into play the large your effective health pool actually is. Potentially soaking up much as twice the damage as the static hp value on your sheet says. And considering barbarians can easily hit 250 hp at level 20. Doubling that is indeed large. The Value of not getting hit only really drops off in the 4th tier when you get relentless rage and thus your rage is a lot harder to lose in general. The other side effect of getting resistance to work often for you... which takes getting hit. Is not only do you effectively up to double your HP potentially but you actually double any healing you receive. Making the Barbarian less of a healing resource draw overall in many cases because lesser heals tend to go farther on the barbarian and it can take longer even when they are getting hit to get into area's where it is a real concern in most instances.
And the Best thing of all about Reckless attack for all of this? You can just not use it on any turn you don't want to once you have their attention and they have trouble getting away from you. Which means instant defensive improvement without spending a resource.
I've played with plenty of Barbarians that use these kinds of tactics. And putting at least a little thought into when they use Reckless attack to facilitate the draw and get themselves hit more. They are not usually the drain on my resources as a healer. It's the idiot skirmishers that don't know how to run away and think they should face tank like a Barbarian or a Paladin that eat up all my healing resources. Which is part of the reason I don't play a Shepard Druid more often. I don't want to encourage that behavior. So I either avoid the subclass or i stick to groups that are tactically more sound.
Oh I forgot to mention this earlier, but you aren't a lone wolf defending a bunch of NPC's. If you are then I agree you need to be able to do a bit more of everything to effectively defend them. But the reality is you are likely part of a team with competent allies and each of you are meant to fulfill a role.
So the point about Tanks needing to prioritize drawing aggro over their durability, personally I don't think is nearly as valid because everybody should be contributing to directing enemy damage to the tank while a tank needs to be able to survive that aggro. If you can't survive that aggro then what is the point? You might as well be a NPC meat-shield that spawns a new character after every encounter. Why all in all I still believe the priority of a tank should be their ability to take a hit more than drawing aggro.