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.
Steel Defender taking hits is expected. I just want ways to give it resistances. Not more AC. Actual resistances. An Array of them. Because between the Battle Smith and the Steel Defender you have an amount of Hp that's getting up towards the barbarian in total pool. So any way to make that total effectively larger would be vastly useful to the Battle Smith. Resistance armor does it a little bit but not nearly enough and it can't be put on the Steel Defender... but I'll come back to that....
As for the Armor. you can spike it up. But I was speaking in general. you can bolster it a bit by getting into Half Plate. But that may not happen until at least Tier 2... And I'm Aware that all Artificers can get a pretty damned good AC if they want to. But that is far more useful for the Armorer who has extra infusions to spare to really take full advantage of it. Since they have a much easier time piling in a defensive armor infusion, Defensive boots, A shield, Gloves, weapons and all that than the others do.
And speaking of Infusions. The longer time goes on the more I think that the Battle Smith is missing a single trick that it really probably should have gotten. The ability to infuse the Steel Defender even just one time. With all the effort and work they put into their Steel Defender and as much as the Subclass revolves around it. You'd think they'd figure out how to put a little extra experimental magic that infusions are into it. it would set it apart a bit more from other pet subclasses But it also just seems very Artificer. Though I wouldn't expect any kind of Battle Smith Specific infusions for such a slot. I'd expect just a single armor infusion slot or something like that. Probably shared with the Artificers natural number but I'd find sacrificing one of my few slots for my Steel Defender worth it to give it a resistence or something.
Lol, if you want a "higher" level trick you can have your SD use a spell-storing item with Warding Bond.
The hp in SD is near infinite with Mending out of combat. So during combat just have SD cast it on whoever you want to get a bit more survivability (including yourself giving "you" that "resistance")
Lol, if you want a "higher" level trick you can have your SD use a spell-storing item with Warding Bond.
The hp in SD is near infinite with Mending out of combat. So during combat just have SD cast it on whoever you want to get a bit more survivability (including yourself giving "you" that "resistance")
Yeah the fact it's likely to start every battle with full health the SD is pretty good for taking hits.
9th level is where you get the extra infusions with Armorer and I do agree this is where they even out with the Armorer pulling ahead after that.
I also know 90% of campaigns end by 10th level so I also suggest you look into how long you expect the campaign to go to help your decision.
Lol, if you want a "higher" level trick you can have your SD use a spell-storing item with Warding Bond.
The hp in SD is near infinite with Mending out of combat. So during combat just have SD cast it on whoever you want to get a bit more survivability (including yourself giving "you" that "resistance")
That doesn't in any way solve the problem.
And Warding Bond is not resistance. It's mostly a trap. It's only real use is primarily on those NPC's that die easily by shifting part of the damage to hardier people. Such as the PC's in the party. There is also the fact that Warding Bond requires two rings to be worn by the two that are bonded together. Which the Steel Defender can't wear. it looks nice if you don't read it well but that's basically it. What I'm talking about wanting more of is true Resistance. Actual halved damage and not some pretend version through shared damage. It would beef up the Steel Defender by an incredible amount. Giving it defensive abilities more akin to the Barbarian but without the rage or the offensive damage components attached.
Lol, if you want a "higher" level trick you can have your SD use a spell-storing item with Warding Bond.
The hp in SD is near infinite with Mending out of combat. So during combat just have SD cast it on whoever you want to get a bit more survivability (including yourself giving "you" that "resistance")
That doesn't in any way solve the problem.
And Warding Bond is not resistance. It's mostly a trap. It's only real use is primarily on those NPC's that die easily by shifting part of the damage to hardier people. Such as the PC's in the party. There is also the fact that Warding Bond requires two rings to be worn by the two that are bonded together. Which the Steel Defender can't wear. it looks nice if you don't read it well but that's basically it. What I'm talking about wanting more of is true Resistance. Actual halved damage and not some pretend version through shared damage. It would beef up the Steel Defender by an incredible amount. Giving it defensive abilities more akin to the Barbarian but without the rage or the offensive damage components attached.
The SS can use WB via the SSI and bypass the material component needs and active it on a bonus action of you get caught with it down.
Nothing about Spell Storing Item says anything at all about bypassing material component needs. They may not technically be needed to produce the spell from the ring But that does not mean they are not needed to put the spell into the ring which still makes them part of the spell despite the semi-reusable nature of the SSI.
Lol, if you want a "higher" level trick you can have your SD use a spell-storing item with Warding Bond.
The hp in SD is near infinite with Mending out of combat. So during combat just have SD cast it on whoever you want to get a bit more survivability (including yourself giving "you" that "resistance")
That doesn't in any way solve the problem.
And Warding Bond is not resistance. It's mostly a trap. It's only real use is primarily on those NPC's that die easily by shifting part of the damage to hardier people. Such as the PC's in the party. There is also the fact that Warding Bond requires two rings to be worn by the two that are bonded together. Which the Steel Defender can't wear. it looks nice if you don't read it well but that's basically it. What I'm talking about wanting more of is true Resistance. Actual halved damage and not some pretend version through shared damage. It would beef up the Steel Defender by an incredible amount. Giving it defensive abilities more akin to the Barbarian but without the rage or the offensive damage components attached.
The SS can use WB via the SSI and bypass the material component needs and active it on a bonus action of you get caught with it down.
Nothing about Spell Storing Item says anything at all about bypassing material component needs. They may not technically be needed to produce the spell from the ring But that does not mean they are not needed to put the spell into the ring which still makes them part of the spell despite the semi-reusable nature of the SSI.
Page 141 in the DMG
Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise.
So in this case SSI does not specifically say anything about needing components therefore will not need these rings.
Lol, if you want a "higher" level trick you can have your SD use a spell-storing item with Warding Bond.
The hp in SD is near infinite with Mending out of combat. So during combat just have SD cast it on whoever you want to get a bit more survivability (including yourself giving "you" that "resistance")
That doesn't in any way solve the problem.
And Warding Bond is not resistance. It's mostly a trap. It's only real use is primarily on those NPC's that die easily by shifting part of the damage to hardier people. Such as the PC's in the party. There is also the fact that Warding Bond requires two rings to be worn by the two that are bonded together. Which the Steel Defender can't wear. it looks nice if you don't read it well but that's basically it. What I'm talking about wanting more of is true Resistance. Actual halved damage and not some pretend version through shared damage. It would beef up the Steel Defender by an incredible amount. Giving it defensive abilities more akin to the Barbarian but without the rage or the offensive damage components attached.
The SS can use WB via the SSI and bypass the material component needs and active it on a bonus action of you get caught with it down.
Nothing about Spell Storing Item says anything at all about bypassing material component needs. They may not technically be needed to produce the spell from the ring But that does not mean they are not needed to put the spell into the ring which still makes them part of the spell despite the semi-reusable nature of the SSI.
Page 141 in the DMG
Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise.
So in this case SSI does not specifically say anything about needing components therefore will not need these rings.
yes. However. What you have quoted also does not actually have to do with putting spells into magical items. Just spells that are cast out of them. There is a difference. Also it's not an ability like SSI that would mention needing components. it' the spell that would mention such. Unless the item has a special exception where it still requires the item just to get the effect after it's been put into a magical item such as the SSI for it to cast it. If it did not need components it would make the specification that it does not need components just like so many other abilities. The only exception that Spell Storing Item actually makes is that you do not need to have the spell on your spells known list currently to be able to put it into the SSI to have it's effect available. And that the effect you put into it be on the Artificer's spell list.
Also. The Last Sage Advice Compendium I find on WotC's site is October of 2020 and it does not in any way say that putting spells into spell storing items is not casting a spell. the only thing it says about spell storing items is that to use a spell storing item to release it's effect is the Use an Item.
Lol, if you want a "higher" level trick you can have your SD use a spell-storing item with Warding Bond.
The hp in SD is near infinite with Mending out of combat. So during combat just have SD cast it on whoever you want to get a bit more survivability (including yourself giving "you" that "resistance")
That doesn't in any way solve the problem.
And Warding Bond is not resistance. It's mostly a trap. It's only real use is primarily on those NPC's that die easily by shifting part of the damage to hardier people. Such as the PC's in the party. There is also the fact that Warding Bond requires two rings to be worn by the two that are bonded together. Which the Steel Defender can't wear. it looks nice if you don't read it well but that's basically it. What I'm talking about wanting more of is true Resistance. Actual halved damage and not some pretend version through shared damage. It would beef up the Steel Defender by an incredible amount. Giving it defensive abilities more akin to the Barbarian but without the rage or the offensive damage components attached.
The SS can use WB via the SSI and bypass the material component needs and active it on a bonus action of you get caught with it down.
Nothing about Spell Storing Item says anything at all about bypassing material component needs. They may not technically be needed to produce the spell from the ring But that does not mean they are not needed to put the spell into the ring which still makes them part of the spell despite the semi-reusable nature of the SSI.
Page 141 in the DMG
Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components, unless the item's description says otherwise.
So in this case SSI does not specifically say anything about needing components therefore will not need these rings.
yes. However. What you have quoted also does not actually have to do with putting spells into magical items. Just spells that are cast out of them. There is a difference. Also it's not an ability like SSI that would mention needing components. it' the spell that would mention such. Unless the item has a special exception where it still requires the item just to get the effect after it's been put into a magical item such as the SSI for it to cast it. If it did not need components it would make the specification that it does not need components just like so many other abilities. The only exception that Spell Storing Item actually makes is that you do not need to have the spell on your spells known list currently to be able to put it into the SSI to have it's effect available. And that the effect you put into it be on the Artificer's spell list.
Also. The Last Sage Advice Compendium I find on WotC's site is October of 2020 and it does not in any way say that putting spells into spell storing items is not casting a spell. the only thing it says about spell storing items is that to use a spell storing item to release it's effect is the Use an Item.
I think there is enough precedent indicating that while you are reproducing the spell, that is not the same as casting a spell so it doesn't follow the need of components to store or produce the spell.
Even if you find those sources unreliable we can do your route and still there is nothing saying that a SD can't wear an item. It is widely accepted that SD can use magical items barring only there anatomy not allowing them to.
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.
You're only "agreeing to disagree" because you utterly ignored what I said immediately afterwards. Neither myself or Optimus said that you don't want durability as well, but if enemies are just ignoring and walking past you then you're not tanking at all. To tank effectively, you want a mix of both, but you need to be able to control enemies to at least some degree.
Someone who can aggro really well but not take any hits can tank, just not for very long, whereas someone who can take a bunch of hits but can't aggro at all is useless as a tank without help, but you don't really want your party having to do all the legwork for you, as that means they're doing less of what they need to be doing (usually damage).
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.
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.
You're only "agreeing to disagree" because you utterly ignored what I said immediately afterwards. Neither myself or Optimus said that you don't want durability as well, but if enemies are just ignoring and walking past you then you're not tanking at all. To tank effectively, you want a mix of both, but you need to be able to control enemies to at least some degree.
Someone who can aggro really well but not take any hits can tank, just not for very long, whereas someone who can take a bunch of hits but can't aggro at all is useless as a tank without help, but you don't really want your party having to do all the legwork for you, as that means they're doing less of what they need to be doing (usually damage).
Woah woah woah. I didn't ignore what you said. This is a debate over priority and I said directing enemy damage is NOT only the tank's job which is why I believe it is a lower priority. It is a group effort through abilities everybody has like positioning (which you can't tell me no one should be contributing leaving only the tank to care) or through particular abilities that different classes may have.
Take the example if you and 1 other party member while you are a tank and your ally is an Arcane Trickster that cast Greater Invisibility on himself. By casting that he helped direct the aggro to you because he is no longer an easy target to hit which did not require the tank to necessarily draw that aggro himself. Battlefield Controllers specifically try to manipulate everybody so they can direct the damage where it needs to go which is something you could do with say a Wizard. I agree that the best tank can do draw aggro themselves as well but again that job does not belong ONLY to the tank.
However, no one else can take damage for you. If someone else is taking damage for you then they are tanking instead. There're no (or at most much less) substitutes for durability compared to directing enemy damage which is why personally I think durability is a higher priority for a tank than aggro. So if you can't handle the damage coming your way, you have no business tanking, which is again why I used the example of an unarmored wizard capable of drawing aggro. And perhaps that example is too jarring but that is to demonstrate the point that sure you can draw aggro but dying every encounter to take the role of tank is silly. However the example i presented earlier with the Arcane Trickster is the opposite extreme showing a much more feasible way to build your comp when we are comparing extreme ends of the spectrum.
However if you think that Arcane Trickster is already too much legwork what about positioning? Are your allies just standing around not giving a care in the world where they are in the battlefield? I'd like to think not so simple positioning like the tank being the first one to open the door to a dangerous room is already a simple way to draw aggro. But again if they aren't building to be able to take a hit, there is no substitute for the durability they need while walking through the door. They need to have the HP and AC/Saving Throws or otherwise use other player's spell slots for cure wounds, shield of faiths (which needs concentration), or worse Revivifies. And the tank drawing aggro this way required minimal effort besides placing their feet in front of the party's.
But I will say this again, the BEST tanks do both and that is something we both agree.
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.
You're only "agreeing to disagree" because you utterly ignored what I said immediately afterwards. Neither myself or Optimus said that you don't want durability as well, but if enemies are just ignoring and walking past you then you're not tanking at all. To tank effectively, you want a mix of both, but you need to be able to control enemies to at least some degree.
Someone who can aggro really well but not take any hits can tank, just not for very long, whereas someone who can take a bunch of hits but can't aggro at all is useless as a tank without help, but you don't really want your party having to do all the legwork for you, as that means they're doing less of what they need to be doing (usually damage).
Take the example if you and 1 other party member while you are a tank and your ally is an Arcane Trickster that cast Greater Invisibility on himself. By casting that he helped direct the aggro to you because he is no longer an easy target to hit which did not require the tank to necessarily draw that aggro himself. Battlefield Controllers specifically try to manipulate everybody so they can direct the damage where it needs to go which is something you could do with say a Wizard. I agree that the best tank can do draw aggro themselves as well but again that job does not belong ONLY to the tank.
In a perfect white room scenerio where your controlling all the variables all the time. The Arcane Trickster casting Greater Invisibility has directed the attacks at the tank rather than the AT. However. We rarely play in a perfect world. Just as often considering that Greater Invisibility is Level 4 which means the Arcane Trickster is Level 19 (ignoring they can only do it once) just to pull this trick off on their own. That's either not as affecting the battle as much or just prompting the enemies to adopt a fire bombing tactic so they can hit the AT without having to see it and that just ruins the Tanks ability to direct Aggro at all just by being visible. Even if we drop this down by assuming the AT is pulling off this trick through a full caster putting the spell into an item for them to use. Again it's still a level 4 spell. It may work often enough at level 7. But it's going to work less and less as the levels go up. The monsters can hit more things and/or there are more of them. Greater Invisibility is good as a Defense. But the defense of it is not the only thing that is going to make the tank effective.
Not even Battlefield Control Spells are going to make a tank effective if they don't have some way to make the enemy want to hit them. You can put the tankiest person you've got in a 5' doorway to block up a doorway. If they don't have some reason more to attack that target other than the DM playing everything as the dumbest video Game AI's on the planet that would mindlessly attack walls just as long as they trickered their aggro script. This is still not an effective tank. Enemies will find a way to either move this individual, bypass this individual, Or do the same exact thing to you by planting their biggest and Burliest in front of this human wall so you can't move past your own tank to adequately threaten them while healing and supporting their own burly tank and just pepper your party from the back row and with AOE's where your likely all bunched up from being in a hallway or something while they've got furniture to hide behind and a room to spread out in and everything else. Even with Battlefield control some enemies might decide it's better to rush the control spell area rather than deal with the tank. Specially if they are big and burly and the type of control effect is much easier for them to bypass.
And for Tanking. No tank is going to have The HP, The AC, and The Saving Throws. that they are going to need to take on everything. They are always going to need resources from others. This is why adventurer's tend to work in groups. Nobody has it all. Not even the much Lauded and often considered OP Paladin with their Plate Mail and Aura of Protection. It is only the dumb nature in which many a DM treats the enemies that gives the Paladin this perceived OP'ness. They are the epitome of Durability First. yes They have a lot of Nice HP and that Shiny Platemail Armor, and shore things up with things like the Aura of Protection. But they are rediculously easy to range (any creature with 40 or higher movement speed, a bonus action dash, a short range teleport or many others). Almost all of their Offensive Power vanishes if they can't get things right up into their face. And they have no real way to draw most enemies to them. The few things that they do have are all pretty limited in usage and scope. You can often watch Paladin Players get annoyed when the game doesn't play right into all of their strengths because they don't have much tools to deal with things when it doesn't. And many a Paladin Multi-class build is all about dropping some of that defensive capability to get more versatility and ranged options or ways to draw the enemy to them so that they can put in that work because they have deemed that the Pure Defense Class needs a bunch of help and it's actually superior to cut into that to have more options in other tanking areas.
The Shining Example of Durability itself actually shows that either you need a party working together towards several tasks. or that there is a lot more to tanking than just Durability. And that sometimes even Durability is perhaps not primary to doing the job. Sometimes what you need to do is to be the thing that Everybody else is going to want to attack and then get a some help with durability in other ways or from your allies instead. Durability is far more boostable and replacable than people act like. They get so caught up in offensive spells they forget there is a wide array of Defensive Spells like Armor of Faith, Bless, and Shield are just a few examples of Boostable Durability. And Heal spells are fine example of replacing durability on your tanks. But when it comes to heal spells. People need to stop thinking. Oh just a little level 1 healing word to get them back on their feet is all that's needed most of the time. No Sometimes you have to throw in big heals to boost that durability and basically erase turns of hard work by the enemy to crack down on that tank. This is why Many healers come with ways to either maximise the numbers rolled on healing or Boost healing in various ways. not to just make that piddly, why isn't this a cantrip (i know why I'm being hyperbolic), healing word stronger. But to slap on top of things like Level 3 or Level 4 Cure Wounds as well.
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.
You're only "agreeing to disagree" because you utterly ignored what I said immediately afterwards. Neither myself or Optimus said that you don't want durability as well, but if enemies are just ignoring and walking past you then you're not tanking at all. To tank effectively, you want a mix of both, but you need to be able to control enemies to at least some degree.
Someone who can aggro really well but not take any hits can tank, just not for very long, whereas someone who can take a bunch of hits but can't aggro at all is useless as a tank without help, but you don't really want your party having to do all the legwork for you, as that means they're doing less of what they need to be doing (usually damage).
Take the example if you and 1 other party member while you are a tank and your ally is an Arcane Trickster that cast Greater Invisibility on himself. By casting that he helped direct the aggro to you because he is no longer an easy target to hit which did not require the tank to necessarily draw that aggro himself. Battlefield Controllers specifically try to manipulate everybody so they can direct the damage where it needs to go which is something you could do with say a Wizard. I agree that the best tank can do draw aggro themselves as well but again that job does not belong ONLY to the tank.
In a perfect white room scenerio where your controlling all the variables all the time. The Arcane Trickster casting Greater Invisibility has directed the attacks at the tank rather than the AT. However. We rarely play in a perfect world. Just as often considering that Greater Invisibility is Level 4 which means the Arcane Trickster is Level 19 (ignoring they can only do it once) just to pull this trick off on their own. That's either not as affecting the battle as much or just prompting the enemies to adopt a fire bombing tactic so they can hit the AT without having to see it and that just ruins the Tanks ability to direct Aggro at all just by being visible. Even if we drop this down by assuming the AT is pulling off this trick through a full caster putting the spell into an item for them to use. Again it's still a level 4 spell. It may work often enough at level 7. But it's going to work less and less as the levels go up. The monsters can hit more things and/or there are more of them. Greater Invisibility is good as a Defense. But the defense of it is not the only thing that is going to make the tank effective.
Not even Battlefield Control Spells are going to make a tank effective if they don't have some way to make the enemy want to hit them. You can put the tankiest person you've got in a 5' doorway to block up a doorway. If they don't have some reason more to attack that target other than the DM playing everything as the dumbest video Game AI's on the planet that would mindlessly attack walls just as long as they trickered their aggro script. This is still not an effective tank. Enemies will find a way to either move this individual, bypass this individual, Or do the same exact thing to you by planting their biggest and Burliest in front of this human wall so you can't move past your own tank to adequately threaten them while healing and supporting their own burly tank and just pepper your party from the back row and with AOE's where your likely all bunched up from being in a hallway or something while they've got furniture to hide behind and a room to spread out in and everything else. Even with Battlefield control some enemies might decide it's better to rush the control spell area rather than deal with the tank. Specially if they are big and burly and the type of control effect is much easier for them to bypass.
And for Tanking. No tank is going to have The HP, The AC, and The Saving Throws. that they are going to need to take on everything. They are always going to need resources from others. This is why adventurer's tend to work in groups. Nobody has it all. Not even the much Lauded and often considered OP Paladin with their Plate Mail and Aura of Protection. It is only the dumb nature in which many a DM treats the enemies that gives the Paladin this perceived OP'ness. They are the epitome of Durability First. yes They have a lot of Nice HP and that Shiny Platemail Armor, and shore things up with things like the Aura of Protection. But they are rediculously easy to range (any creature with 40 or higher movement speed, a bonus action dash, a short range teleport or many others). Almost all of their Offensive Power vanishes if they can't get things right up into their face. And they have no real way to draw most enemies to them. The few things that they do have are all pretty limited in usage and scope. You can often watch Paladin Players get annoyed when the game doesn't play right into all of their strengths because they don't have much tools to deal with things when it doesn't. And many a Paladin Multi-class build is all about dropping some of that defensive capability to get more versatility and ranged options or ways to draw the enemy to them so that they can put in that work because they have deemed that the Pure Defense Class needs a bunch of help and it's actually superior to cut into that to have more options in other tanking areas.
The Shining Example of Durability itself actually shows that either you need a party working together towards several tasks. or that there is a lot more to tanking than just Durability. And that sometimes even Durability is perhaps not primary to doing the job. Sometimes what you need to do is to be the thing that Everybody else is going to want to attack and then get a some help with durability in other ways or from your allies instead. Durability is far more boostable and replacable than people act like. They get so caught up in offensive spells they forget there is a wide array of Defensive Spells like Armor of Faith, Bless, and Shield are just a few examples of Boostable Durability. And Heal spells are fine example of replacing durability on your tanks. But when it comes to heal spells. People need to stop thinking. Oh just a little level 1 healing word to get them back on their feet is all that's needed most of the time. No Sometimes you have to throw in big heals to boost that durability and basically erase turns of hard work by the enemy to crack down on that tank. This is why Many healers come with ways to either maximise the numbers rolled on healing or Boost healing in various ways. not to just make that piddly, why isn't this a cantrip (i know why I'm being hyperbolic), healing word stronger. But to slap on top of things like Level 3 or Level 4 Cure Wounds as well.
Lol we all keep saying similar things.
First, I said this in an earlier post but since we are debating mechanics we need to make wild generalizations and assumptions because for every example we come up with there will almost ALWAYS be an exception. So debating specific details of specific cases rather than the nature of the case is excessive. So thank you for dropping the Lvl Req for Greater Invisibility. Let's instead say it was an Evocation Wizard if we need to debate details. In the case I was presenting the nature of the argument is that the tank didn't need to do anything but exist to have aggro drawn to himself. The assumption that enemies would have firebombing tactics is definitely possible, but I'm not quite sure we can say generally they have such tactics. Moreover diverting to such tactics may reduce the optimal damage they intend to do which is already helpful and if firebombing was their primary way to deal damage then everyone is getting hurt anyways. But either way the ability to manipulate enemies is something your allies can help with even if you don't is the nature of this example, not talking about if this is what an ideal tank does.
Second I agree with you, there is no such thing that one answer solves everything. No battlefield controller can perfectly direct enemies nor can anybody have all the stats required to survive everything. Just like being a threat on the battlefield doesn't automatically make you the prime target for your enemies (because your allies are also threats and are likely to be more dangerous threats since they didn't spend as many resources in durability such as which class they chose). But that wasn't the point. The point was that there are more options to direct enemy aggro that your teammates can share then there are substitutes for your own durability. You are not wrong there are ways allies can help you be durable but that generally comes at a cost (gold, spells, etc). But something like positioning and kiting (while not a perfect solution like we all already agreed on there isn't any) is already a free way to help with aggro despite team comp, level, wealth, etc. This at least "suggests" that there are more options available in terms of methods for directing aggro that a whole team can contribute to. So because of this availability I think it is better to spend more resources into durability (such as which class to choose and what stat points to spend on).
Third, I will reiterate again what we all agree, the best tank is capable of being durable and drawing aggro. So the question is which one takes priority or more accurately should you expend more resources on. And one resource i'm suggesting that we need to bear in mind is which class you choose. Like you said, the Paladin is a defense first class. You would choose that to tank because of this. You'd also be right that a lot of times you will need to sacrifice some of your defense in order to gain better utility elsewhere. But, I'd argue that has less to do with the importance of drawing aggro and more to do with diminishing returns. Someone at 30 AC probably doesn't need an extra point in it compared to other utilities that they are lacking. This falls back into our agreement the best tank arguably isn't a purest so getting just a little bit more utility to draw aggro is extremely valuable due to what resources you already have available. I am suggesting that largely already from class decision alone your resources are spent more into durability to be a better tank than other aspects. Otherwise you may play a Sorcerer to tank instead who is typically not defense first but is largely capable in other fields. However I think in general we are more inclined to believe the Paladin makes a better tank than a Sorcerer and I believe that is largely due to what their priorities are.
All in all again I'm suggesting that the better tank spent more resources on their durability than on other aspects. If I had to put a number to this (%Tank/%DPS/%Support) then I'd say the ideal tank falls somewhere between 34%/33%/33% -> 100%/0%/0% where if you ask me between which of these 2 extremes is the better tank then hands down the 34%/33%/33% is the better tank.
I dropped the level requirement because Tier of play can have an effect. But also because it showed that there are a lot of "Needed Generalizations" as your calling them that actually say that the Tank can't actually just stand there and draw Aggro. That this ability is actually more potentially the exception than the Greater Invisibility turning things towards the tank.
And there is reason for this. There are several ways to get through invisibility and several of them are low level and not all of them are magical. firebombing tactics is just one of them. So if you want to make generalizations. Perhaps Mark them as such, Or present both sides of the Generalization instead of just assuming that the side your stating is all that matters.
Let's talk a little about generalizations of Firebombing tactics. As levels increase and dangers increase. We can actually say these tactics are more common. For players and for Enemies. But we cannot say with any general certainty that using such tactics is really lessening damage in a major capacity. Or that they are just automatically using them just because they have them. The Evocation wizard is nice because it makes them easier to use. But is more of a specific than a generality. The generality is a non-evocation wizard that just as easily was using non-firebombing tactics to help protect it's allies until the Rogue went invisible and the group was forced to find it and decided to just use area damage to do the deed.
An Invisible Rogue is a threat of a level that is hard to ignore. This is part of the double edged sword that is the typical rogue tactic of trying to attack from being unseen. It's going to effectively draw attention away from a tank in any real play just in general. It's actually going to diminish the Tanks ability to draw aggro "just by existing" in general. Because smart enemies are going to want to find that threat and not allow it to backstab them repeatedly with impunity. The Rogue is now effectively making itself the tanking threat relying solely on the invisibility to do the job of durability because if it gets through it or loses it or gets hit through it, then the Rogue does not usually have the health to keep going. It's potentially in general doing the primary job of the tank without the backup secondary need of survivability. It could even be doing this to the point that the Durability Tank just standing there and existing is actually worth ignoring. A Rogue that can be seen on the other hand. Is often less of a threat. yes they can deal damage. But you know where they are. You can control what they do to an extent. You can take opportunities to strike if they give them. This in general can make a juicy easy to hit and/or heavy hitting tank target more of a threat in general.
I dropped the level requirement because Tier of play can have an effect. But also because it showed that there are a lot of "Needed Generalizations" as your calling them that actually say that the Tank can't actually just stand there and draw Aggro. That this ability is actually more potentially the exception than the Greater Invisibility turning things towards the tank.
And there is reason for this. There are several ways to get through invisibility and several of them are low level and not all of them are magical. firebombing tactics is just one of them. So if you want to make generalizations. Perhaps Mark them as such, Or present both sides of the Generalization instead of just assuming that the side your stating is all that matters.
Let's talk a little about generalizations of Firebombing tactics. As levels increase and dangers increase. We can actually say these tactics are more common. For players and for Enemies. But we cannot say with any general certainty that using such tactics is really lessening damage in a major capacity. Or that they are just automatically using them just because they have them. The Evocation wizard is nice because it makes them easier to use. But is more of a specific than a generality. The generality is a non-evocation wizard that just as easily was using non-firebombing tactics to help protect it's allies until the Rogue went invisible and the group was forced to find it and decided to just use area damage to do the deed.
An Invisible Rogue is a threat of a level that is hard to ignore. This is part of the double edged sword that is the typical rogue tactic of trying to attack from being unseen. It's going to effectively draw attention away from a tank in any real play just in general. It's actually going to diminish the Tanks ability to draw aggro "just by existing" in general. Because smart enemies are going to want to find that threat and not allow it to backstab them repeatedly with impunity. The Rogue is now effectively making itself the tanking threat relying solely on the invisibility to do the job of durability because if it gets through it or loses it or gets hit through it, then the Rogue does not usually have the health to keep going. It's potentially in general doing the primary job of the tank without the backup secondary need of survivability. It could even be doing this to the point that the Durability Tank just standing there and existing is actually worth ignoring. A Rogue that can be seen on the other hand. Is often less of a threat. yes they can deal damage. But you know where they are. You can control what they do to an extent. You can take opportunities to strike if they give them. This in general can make a juicy easy to hit and/or heavy hitting tank target more of a threat in general.
Alright, I think you missed what I started with in the 1st paragraph which is self evident in how you only responded to the 1st paragraph and nitpick an example. I talked about discussing specifics while trying to draw broader conclusions on mechanics is a fruitless endeavor because of course you will find exceptions to every scenario. So we need to make these broad generalizations and grasp at stereotypical signposts because otherwise you'll need something like the "time infinity stone" to see every scenario and tally up all the situations against a perfect grading system...And even then you didn't get the details right when you were nitpicking, which is more self evident when you took the bait to talk about the Evocation Wizard.
But fine, I'll humor you at least a little.
I agree there are a numerous ways to get past invisibility. However when trying to test out ideas and theories that have a near infinite amount of variables, you need to make all other variables constant/equal and try your best to test 1 variable at a time in order to understand what this variable does and then what it means for the broader theory before we introduce more variables. Like you said earlier in the white room scenario Greater Invisibility will divert aggro onto the tank because he is the only other viable target. That alone is the nature of the point I was trying to make. Even if we changed it to other examples like casting webs or walls or even the positioning in the door or perhaps you are sniping at 400 feet away. The fact of the matter is there are numerous ways to put aggro onto your tank that didn't require the tank to do anything extraordinary outside of existing. (or if you are seriously nitpicking being a baseline threat like perform an unarmed strike... because everyone can do that)
Now into greater details...
I did generalize firebombing and said if the primary way to deal damage was not firebombing, then it is likely firebombing is not the most effective method of damage. Whether it is that it does less damage or it does a lot of damage but uses up precious resources there is generally a reason why it wasn't their primary mode of attack. If firebombing is their primary mode of attack then aggro is a moot point because everyone is getting hit anyways. So regardless which route you go down you fall into 2 results, Greater Invisibility caused the enemy to be a less effective damage dealer or Aggro didn't make a difference.
Now the Evocation Wizard...
You're right! Evocation Wizard is more specific... which I talked earlier about the lack of a need to discuss this specificity unless we truly want an endless discussion. Moreover the example wasn't even demonstrated right where I said "Let's say instead it was an Evocation Wizard..." to talk about the example of a 2 party member group where 1 is a tank and 1 is the DPS casting Greater Invisibility which you commented in great detail with your white room scenario. So why is this wizard looking for an invisible rogue...
Oh wait there is the invisible rogue...
You are right, an invisible rogue is a dangerous threat indeed. But we talked about this before, if the enemy is presented 2 targets they can equally hit and 1 is more dangerous to them than the other, they will always target the more dangerous character. So regardless if the rogue is invisible, the enemy wants the rogue dead. To your point, why bother hitting this wall when we've got a deliciously squishy meal over there? However if the Rogue is invisible, the opportunity to attack either target is no longer equal therefore will skew their decision and change tactics (which we talked about earlier with firebombing).
Moreover to your point, by being more of a DPS you are being more of "your" definition of a tank and drawing aggro. This we both agree is counterintuitive if you don't have durability (which you call secondary I get it). However you are arguing that the best way to divert this aggro is by the tank being a bigger threat. The only way the tank will reach the same threat level as the rogue is if they spent just as many resources in being a threat rather than durability (so the tank picks the rogue class to match the threat level). This line of logic is nonsensical and only works if you started off with more resources than your DPS did (like rolling higher stats). So if you say you started off with equal resources and insist that you need some durability in order to tank, then you will never reach the same threat level as the DPS whose main focus doesn't involve durability. Therefore the enemies will STILL want to hit your DPS rather than your tank which is why I said these types of arguments can "work" but are more situational based on team comp and encounter rather then in general.
This is why I keep insisting that the job to direct aggro does not belong only to the tank and is in fact a team effort. There is no saving the suicidal ranged ranger that decides to enter the fray. Tank aggro alone can only help so much if your team isn't helping. But like "we" said numerous times, at the bare minimum you will always need to be durable as a tank or you have no business tanking (like the invisible rogue example you talked about).
All in all, because durability is a necessity for tanking is another reason why I believe durability takes priority as a tank. There are plenty of methods everyone can do to divert aggro like AoO, Positioning, Spells, Abilities, etc. but trying to divert aggro by being a bigger threat at the cost of your durability is only viable situationally. So to demonstrate more clearly what I mean using the the number system I used earlier (%Tank/%DPS/%Support), PC1 rated at 60%/20%/20% vs. PC2 rated at 20%/60%/20%, PC1 is who I consider the better tank. Talking about exactly the right combination of Tankines vs. DPS. vs. Support is also endless discussion because at the end of the day it ends up being very situational.
Take the example if you and 1 other party member while you are a tank and your ally is an Arcane Trickster that cast Greater Invisibility on himself. By casting that he helped direct the aggro to you because he is no longer an easy target to hit which did not require the tank to necessarily draw that aggro himself. Battlefield Controllers specifically try to manipulate everybody so they can direct the damage where it needs to go which is something you could do with say a Wizard. I agree that the best tank can do draw aggro themselves as well but again that job does not belong ONLY to the tank.
What you're describing isn't aggro being less important, you're describing offloading that duty onto someone else (at a cost of an action and one of their limited spell slots). Without them doing that enemies are free to just walk past you like they would any other character, risking just the one attack of opportunity in order to get to an easier/juicier target.
All you're doing is spreading the tanking duty between more characters, because your "tank" character is only fulfilling part of the duty (being able to take the hits directed at them, but with no ability to draw them in themselves).
There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't prove that aggro is less important, in fact it proves the opposite, because if your aggro buddy isn't around then what do you do? Again, being able to take huge amounts of punishment isn't tanking if the enemy just ignores you and attacks the rest of your party instead. A good tank shouldn't need others to cover for their deficiencies all the time.
But this is getting off topic. Neither Armorer or Battle Smith has this problem, as both have ways to aggro enemies on their own (guardian armorer most of all, though the steel defender being its own creature means you can block more space); not quite as well as a Barbarian (but we don't expect them to), but they can also burn their own resources to compensate for this as Artificers do have a smattering of control spell options, as a well as a few other tricks at their disposal, no help required (doesn't mean heals/buffs are unwelcome though).
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.
What you're describing isn't aggro being less important, you're describing offloading that duty onto someone else (at a cost of an action and one of their limited spell slots). Without them doing that enemies are free to just walk past you like they would any other character, risking just the one attack of opportunity in order to get to an easier/juicier target.
All you're doing is spreading the tanking duty between more characters, because your "tank" character is only fulfilling part of the duty (being able to take the hits directed at them, but with no ability to draw them in themselves).
There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't prove that aggro is less important, in fact it proves the opposite, because if your aggro buddy isn't around then what do you do? Again, being able to take huge amounts of punishment isn't tanking if the enemy just ignores you and attacks the rest of your party instead. A good tank shouldn't need others to cover for their deficiencies all the time.
But this is getting off topic. Neither Armorer or Battle Smith has this problem, as both have ways to aggro enemies on their own (guardian armorer most of all, though the steel defender being its own creature means you can block more space); not quite as well as a Barbarian (but we don't expect them to), but they can also burn their own resources to compensate for this as Artificers do have a smattering of control spell options, as a well as a few other tricks at their disposal, no help required (doesn't mean heals/buffs are unwelcome though).
This example actually is showing that backliners can control aggro by repelling it which I argued in other examples is something they need to do, like how a ranged ranger entering the fray is typically a bad idea. Aggro control isn't just the tank's job to attract but a backliner's job to repel which is why I kept saying it is a group effort and not solely the tank's job. You are right I am not describing aggro as less important but it is important in terms of what a team needs to do. If you were a lone wolf defending a bunch of NPCs then I agree you will need to spend more resources to drawing aggro because at that point you need to do everything. But you aren't and your teammates are meant to help toward the group's objectives.
I already said this earlier but we will agree to disagree because the debatable topic is if the responsibility of aggro-control is spread amongst a team, how much resources should a tank be spending toward this goal? Arguably, the right answer is a case by case basis.
But you are right we have deviated from the topic so apologies to the OP and anybody else looking for more Artificer-based discussions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Steel Defender taking hits is expected. I just want ways to give it resistances. Not more AC. Actual resistances. An Array of them. Because between the Battle Smith and the Steel Defender you have an amount of Hp that's getting up towards the barbarian in total pool. So any way to make that total effectively larger would be vastly useful to the Battle Smith. Resistance armor does it a little bit but not nearly enough and it can't be put on the Steel Defender... but I'll come back to that....
As for the Armor. you can spike it up. But I was speaking in general. you can bolster it a bit by getting into Half Plate. But that may not happen until at least Tier 2... And I'm Aware that all Artificers can get a pretty damned good AC if they want to. But that is far more useful for the Armorer who has extra infusions to spare to really take full advantage of it. Since they have a much easier time piling in a defensive armor infusion, Defensive boots, A shield, Gloves, weapons and all that than the others do.
And speaking of Infusions. The longer time goes on the more I think that the Battle Smith is missing a single trick that it really probably should have gotten. The ability to infuse the Steel Defender even just one time. With all the effort and work they put into their Steel Defender and as much as the Subclass revolves around it. You'd think they'd figure out how to put a little extra experimental magic that infusions are into it. it would set it apart a bit more from other pet subclasses But it also just seems very Artificer. Though I wouldn't expect any kind of Battle Smith Specific infusions for such a slot. I'd expect just a single armor infusion slot or something like that. Probably shared with the Artificers natural number but I'd find sacrificing one of my few slots for my Steel Defender worth it to give it a resistence or something.
Lol, if you want a "higher" level trick you can have your SD use a spell-storing item with Warding Bond.
The hp in SD is near infinite with Mending out of combat. So during combat just have SD cast it on whoever you want to get a bit more survivability (including yourself giving "you" that "resistance")
Yeah the fact it's likely to start every battle with full health the SD is pretty good for taking hits.
9th level is where you get the extra infusions with Armorer and I do agree this is where they even out with the Armorer pulling ahead after that.
I also know 90% of campaigns end by 10th level so I also suggest you look into how long you expect the campaign to go to help your decision.
That doesn't in any way solve the problem.
And Warding Bond is not resistance. It's mostly a trap. It's only real use is primarily on those NPC's that die easily by shifting part of the damage to hardier people. Such as the PC's in the party. There is also the fact that Warding Bond requires two rings to be worn by the two that are bonded together. Which the Steel Defender can't wear. it looks nice if you don't read it well but that's basically it. What I'm talking about wanting more of is true Resistance. Actual halved damage and not some pretend version through shared damage. It would beef up the Steel Defender by an incredible amount. Giving it defensive abilities more akin to the Barbarian but without the rage or the offensive damage components attached.
I retract my statement
What Stoutstein said xP
Nothing about Spell Storing Item says anything at all about bypassing material component needs. They may not technically be needed to produce the spell from the ring But that does not mean they are not needed to put the spell into the ring which still makes them part of the spell despite the semi-reusable nature of the SSI.
Page 141 in the DMG
So in this case SSI does not specifically say anything about needing components therefore will not need these rings.
yes. However. What you have quoted also does not actually have to do with putting spells into magical items. Just spells that are cast out of them. There is a difference. Also it's not an ability like SSI that would mention needing components. it' the spell that would mention such. Unless the item has a special exception where it still requires the item just to get the effect after it's been put into a magical item such as the SSI for it to cast it. If it did not need components it would make the specification that it does not need components just like so many other abilities. The only exception that Spell Storing Item actually makes is that you do not need to have the spell on your spells known list currently to be able to put it into the SSI to have it's effect available. And that the effect you put into it be on the Artificer's spell list.
Also. The Last Sage Advice Compendium I find on WotC's site is October of 2020 and it does not in any way say that putting spells into spell storing items is not casting a spell. the only thing it says about spell storing items is that to use a spell storing item to release it's effect is the Use an Item.
I think there is enough precedent indicating that while you are reproducing the spell, that is not the same as casting a spell so it doesn't follow the need of components to store or produce the spell.
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/169477/do-class-or-subclass-features-that-relate-to-spellcasting-apply-when-producing-a/169478#169478
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/174416/does-an-artificers-spell-storing-item-bypass-the-need-for-costly-consumed-mater
Even if you find those sources unreliable we can do your route and still there is nothing saying that a SD can't wear an item. It is widely accepted that SD can use magical items barring only there anatomy not allowing them to.
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1207428655401488384?lang=en
So I'd argue it isn't a stretch if a SD can use Gauntlets of Ogre Power so long as there anatomy allows it, they can feasibly wear a Ring.
You're only "agreeing to disagree" because you utterly ignored what I said immediately afterwards. Neither myself or Optimus said that you don't want durability as well, but if enemies are just ignoring and walking past you then you're not tanking at all. To tank effectively, you want a mix of both, but you need to be able to control enemies to at least some degree.
Someone who can aggro really well but not take any hits can tank, just not for very long, whereas someone who can take a bunch of hits but can't aggro at all is useless as a tank without help, but you don't really want your party having to do all the legwork for you, as that means they're doing less of what they need to be doing (usually damage).
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.
Woah woah woah. I didn't ignore what you said. This is a debate over priority and I said directing enemy damage is NOT only the tank's job which is why I believe it is a lower priority. It is a group effort through abilities everybody has like positioning (which you can't tell me no one should be contributing leaving only the tank to care) or through particular abilities that different classes may have.
Take the example if you and 1 other party member while you are a tank and your ally is an Arcane Trickster that cast Greater Invisibility on himself. By casting that he helped direct the aggro to you because he is no longer an easy target to hit which did not require the tank to necessarily draw that aggro himself. Battlefield Controllers specifically try to manipulate everybody so they can direct the damage where it needs to go which is something you could do with say a Wizard. I agree that the best tank can do draw aggro themselves as well but again that job does not belong ONLY to the tank.
However, no one else can take damage for you. If someone else is taking damage for you then they are tanking instead. There're no (or at most much less) substitutes for durability compared to directing enemy damage which is why personally I think durability is a higher priority for a tank than aggro. So if you can't handle the damage coming your way, you have no business tanking, which is again why I used the example of an unarmored wizard capable of drawing aggro. And perhaps that example is too jarring but that is to demonstrate the point that sure you can draw aggro but dying every encounter to take the role of tank is silly. However the example i presented earlier with the Arcane Trickster is the opposite extreme showing a much more feasible way to build your comp when we are comparing extreme ends of the spectrum.
However if you think that Arcane Trickster is already too much legwork what about positioning? Are your allies just standing around not giving a care in the world where they are in the battlefield? I'd like to think not so simple positioning like the tank being the first one to open the door to a dangerous room is already a simple way to draw aggro. But again if they aren't building to be able to take a hit, there is no substitute for the durability they need while walking through the door. They need to have the HP and AC/Saving Throws or otherwise use other player's spell slots for cure wounds, shield of faiths (which needs concentration), or worse Revivifies. And the tank drawing aggro this way required minimal effort besides placing their feet in front of the party's.
But I will say this again, the BEST tanks do both and that is something we both agree.
In a perfect white room scenerio where your controlling all the variables all the time. The Arcane Trickster casting Greater Invisibility has directed the attacks at the tank rather than the AT. However. We rarely play in a perfect world. Just as often considering that Greater Invisibility is Level 4 which means the Arcane Trickster is Level 19 (ignoring they can only do it once) just to pull this trick off on their own. That's either not as affecting the battle as much or just prompting the enemies to adopt a fire bombing tactic so they can hit the AT without having to see it and that just ruins the Tanks ability to direct Aggro at all just by being visible. Even if we drop this down by assuming the AT is pulling off this trick through a full caster putting the spell into an item for them to use. Again it's still a level 4 spell. It may work often enough at level 7. But it's going to work less and less as the levels go up. The monsters can hit more things and/or there are more of them. Greater Invisibility is good as a Defense. But the defense of it is not the only thing that is going to make the tank effective.
Not even Battlefield Control Spells are going to make a tank effective if they don't have some way to make the enemy want to hit them. You can put the tankiest person you've got in a 5' doorway to block up a doorway. If they don't have some reason more to attack that target other than the DM playing everything as the dumbest video Game AI's on the planet that would mindlessly attack walls just as long as they trickered their aggro script. This is still not an effective tank. Enemies will find a way to either move this individual, bypass this individual, Or do the same exact thing to you by planting their biggest and Burliest in front of this human wall so you can't move past your own tank to adequately threaten them while healing and supporting their own burly tank and just pepper your party from the back row and with AOE's where your likely all bunched up from being in a hallway or something while they've got furniture to hide behind and a room to spread out in and everything else. Even with Battlefield control some enemies might decide it's better to rush the control spell area rather than deal with the tank. Specially if they are big and burly and the type of control effect is much easier for them to bypass.
And for Tanking. No tank is going to have The HP, The AC, and The Saving Throws. that they are going to need to take on everything. They are always going to need resources from others. This is why adventurer's tend to work in groups. Nobody has it all. Not even the much Lauded and often considered OP Paladin with their Plate Mail and Aura of Protection. It is only the dumb nature in which many a DM treats the enemies that gives the Paladin this perceived OP'ness. They are the epitome of Durability First. yes They have a lot of Nice HP and that Shiny Platemail Armor, and shore things up with things like the Aura of Protection. But they are rediculously easy to range (any creature with 40 or higher movement speed, a bonus action dash, a short range teleport or many others). Almost all of their Offensive Power vanishes if they can't get things right up into their face. And they have no real way to draw most enemies to them. The few things that they do have are all pretty limited in usage and scope. You can often watch Paladin Players get annoyed when the game doesn't play right into all of their strengths because they don't have much tools to deal with things when it doesn't. And many a Paladin Multi-class build is all about dropping some of that defensive capability to get more versatility and ranged options or ways to draw the enemy to them so that they can put in that work because they have deemed that the Pure Defense Class needs a bunch of help and it's actually superior to cut into that to have more options in other tanking areas.
The Shining Example of Durability itself actually shows that either you need a party working together towards several tasks. or that there is a lot more to tanking than just Durability. And that sometimes even Durability is perhaps not primary to doing the job. Sometimes what you need to do is to be the thing that Everybody else is going to want to attack and then get a some help with durability in other ways or from your allies instead. Durability is far more boostable and replacable than people act like. They get so caught up in offensive spells they forget there is a wide array of Defensive Spells like Armor of Faith, Bless, and Shield are just a few examples of Boostable Durability. And Heal spells are fine example of replacing durability on your tanks. But when it comes to heal spells. People need to stop thinking. Oh just a little level 1 healing word to get them back on their feet is all that's needed most of the time. No Sometimes you have to throw in big heals to boost that durability and basically erase turns of hard work by the enemy to crack down on that tank. This is why Many healers come with ways to either maximise the numbers rolled on healing or Boost healing in various ways. not to just make that piddly, why isn't this a cantrip (i know why I'm being hyperbolic), healing word stronger. But to slap on top of things like Level 3 or Level 4 Cure Wounds as well.
Lol we all keep saying similar things.
First, I said this in an earlier post but since we are debating mechanics we need to make wild generalizations and assumptions because for every example we come up with there will almost ALWAYS be an exception. So debating specific details of specific cases rather than the nature of the case is excessive. So thank you for dropping the Lvl Req for Greater Invisibility. Let's instead say it was an Evocation Wizard if we need to debate details. In the case I was presenting the nature of the argument is that the tank didn't need to do anything but exist to have aggro drawn to himself. The assumption that enemies would have firebombing tactics is definitely possible, but I'm not quite sure we can say generally they have such tactics. Moreover diverting to such tactics may reduce the optimal damage they intend to do which is already helpful and if firebombing was their primary way to deal damage then everyone is getting hurt anyways. But either way the ability to manipulate enemies is something your allies can help with even if you don't is the nature of this example, not talking about if this is what an ideal tank does.
Second I agree with you, there is no such thing that one answer solves everything. No battlefield controller can perfectly direct enemies nor can anybody have all the stats required to survive everything. Just like being a threat on the battlefield doesn't automatically make you the prime target for your enemies (because your allies are also threats and are likely to be more dangerous threats since they didn't spend as many resources in durability such as which class they chose). But that wasn't the point. The point was that there are more options to direct enemy aggro that your teammates can share then there are substitutes for your own durability. You are not wrong there are ways allies can help you be durable but that generally comes at a cost (gold, spells, etc). But something like positioning and kiting (while not a perfect solution like we all already agreed on there isn't any) is already a free way to help with aggro despite team comp, level, wealth, etc. This at least "suggests" that there are more options available in terms of methods for directing aggro that a whole team can contribute to. So because of this availability I think it is better to spend more resources into durability (such as which class to choose and what stat points to spend on).
Third, I will reiterate again what we all agree, the best tank is capable of being durable and drawing aggro. So the question is which one takes priority or more accurately should you expend more resources on. And one resource i'm suggesting that we need to bear in mind is which class you choose. Like you said, the Paladin is a defense first class. You would choose that to tank because of this. You'd also be right that a lot of times you will need to sacrifice some of your defense in order to gain better utility elsewhere. But, I'd argue that has less to do with the importance of drawing aggro and more to do with diminishing returns. Someone at 30 AC probably doesn't need an extra point in it compared to other utilities that they are lacking. This falls back into our agreement the best tank arguably isn't a purest so getting just a little bit more utility to draw aggro is extremely valuable due to what resources you already have available. I am suggesting that largely already from class decision alone your resources are spent more into durability to be a better tank than other aspects. Otherwise you may play a Sorcerer to tank instead who is typically not defense first but is largely capable in other fields. However I think in general we are more inclined to believe the Paladin makes a better tank than a Sorcerer and I believe that is largely due to what their priorities are.
All in all again I'm suggesting that the better tank spent more resources on their durability than on other aspects. If I had to put a number to this (%Tank/%DPS/%Support) then I'd say the ideal tank falls somewhere between 34%/33%/33% -> 100%/0%/0% where if you ask me between which of these 2 extremes is the better tank then hands down the 34%/33%/33% is the better tank.
I dropped the level requirement because Tier of play can have an effect. But also because it showed that there are a lot of "Needed Generalizations" as your calling them that actually say that the Tank can't actually just stand there and draw Aggro. That this ability is actually more potentially the exception than the Greater Invisibility turning things towards the tank.
And there is reason for this. There are several ways to get through invisibility and several of them are low level and not all of them are magical. firebombing tactics is just one of them. So if you want to make generalizations. Perhaps Mark them as such, Or present both sides of the Generalization instead of just assuming that the side your stating is all that matters.
Let's talk a little about generalizations of Firebombing tactics. As levels increase and dangers increase. We can actually say these tactics are more common. For players and for Enemies. But we cannot say with any general certainty that using such tactics is really lessening damage in a major capacity. Or that they are just automatically using them just because they have them. The Evocation wizard is nice because it makes them easier to use. But is more of a specific than a generality. The generality is a non-evocation wizard that just as easily was using non-firebombing tactics to help protect it's allies until the Rogue went invisible and the group was forced to find it and decided to just use area damage to do the deed.
An Invisible Rogue is a threat of a level that is hard to ignore. This is part of the double edged sword that is the typical rogue tactic of trying to attack from being unseen. It's going to effectively draw attention away from a tank in any real play just in general. It's actually going to diminish the Tanks ability to draw aggro "just by existing" in general. Because smart enemies are going to want to find that threat and not allow it to backstab them repeatedly with impunity. The Rogue is now effectively making itself the tanking threat relying solely on the invisibility to do the job of durability because if it gets through it or loses it or gets hit through it, then the Rogue does not usually have the health to keep going. It's potentially in general doing the primary job of the tank without the backup secondary need of survivability. It could even be doing this to the point that the Durability Tank just standing there and existing is actually worth ignoring. A Rogue that can be seen on the other hand. Is often less of a threat. yes they can deal damage. But you know where they are. You can control what they do to an extent. You can take opportunities to strike if they give them. This in general can make a juicy easy to hit and/or heavy hitting tank target more of a threat in general.
Alright, I think you missed what I started with in the 1st paragraph which is self evident in how you only responded to the 1st paragraph and nitpick an example. I talked about discussing specifics while trying to draw broader conclusions on mechanics is a fruitless endeavor because of course you will find exceptions to every scenario. So we need to make these broad generalizations and grasp at stereotypical signposts because otherwise you'll need something like the "time infinity stone" to see every scenario and tally up all the situations against a perfect grading system... And even then you didn't get the details right when you were nitpicking, which is more self evident when you took the bait to talk about the Evocation Wizard.
But fine, I'll humor you at least a little.
I agree there are a numerous ways to get past invisibility. However when trying to test out ideas and theories that have a near infinite amount of variables, you need to make all other variables constant/equal and try your best to test 1 variable at a time in order to understand what this variable does and then what it means for the broader theory before we introduce more variables. Like you said earlier in the white room scenario Greater Invisibility will divert aggro onto the tank because he is the only other viable target. That alone is the nature of the point I was trying to make. Even if we changed it to other examples like casting webs or walls or even the positioning in the door or perhaps you are sniping at 400 feet away. The fact of the matter is there are numerous ways to put aggro onto your tank that didn't require the tank to do anything extraordinary outside of existing. (or if you are seriously nitpicking being a baseline threat like perform an unarmed strike... because everyone can do that)
Now into greater details...
I did generalize firebombing and said if the primary way to deal damage was not firebombing, then it is likely firebombing is not the most effective method of damage. Whether it is that it does less damage or it does a lot of damage but uses up precious resources there is generally a reason why it wasn't their primary mode of attack. If firebombing is their primary mode of attack then aggro is a moot point because everyone is getting hit anyways. So regardless which route you go down you fall into 2 results, Greater Invisibility caused the enemy to be a less effective damage dealer or Aggro didn't make a difference.
Now the Evocation Wizard...
You're right! Evocation Wizard is more specific... which I talked earlier about the lack of a need to discuss this specificity unless we truly want an endless discussion. Moreover the example wasn't even demonstrated right where I said "Let's say instead it was an Evocation Wizard..." to talk about the example of a 2 party member group where 1 is a tank and 1 is the DPS casting Greater Invisibility which you commented in great detail with your white room scenario. So why is this wizard looking for an invisible rogue...
Oh wait there is the invisible rogue...
You are right, an invisible rogue is a dangerous threat indeed. But we talked about this before, if the enemy is presented 2 targets they can equally hit and 1 is more dangerous to them than the other, they will always target the more dangerous character. So regardless if the rogue is invisible, the enemy wants the rogue dead. To your point, why bother hitting this wall when we've got a deliciously squishy meal over there? However if the Rogue is invisible, the opportunity to attack either target is no longer equal therefore will skew their decision and change tactics (which we talked about earlier with firebombing).
Moreover to your point, by being more of a DPS you are being more of "your" definition of a tank and drawing aggro. This we both agree is counterintuitive if you don't have durability (which you call secondary I get it). However you are arguing that the best way to divert this aggro is by the tank being a bigger threat. The only way the tank will reach the same threat level as the rogue is if they spent just as many resources in being a threat rather than durability (so the tank picks the rogue class to match the threat level). This line of logic is nonsensical and only works if you started off with more resources than your DPS did (like rolling higher stats). So if you say you started off with equal resources and insist that you need some durability in order to tank, then you will never reach the same threat level as the DPS whose main focus doesn't involve durability. Therefore the enemies will STILL want to hit your DPS rather than your tank which is why I said these types of arguments can "work" but are more situational based on team comp and encounter rather then in general.
This is why I keep insisting that the job to direct aggro does not belong only to the tank and is in fact a team effort. There is no saving the suicidal ranged ranger that decides to enter the fray. Tank aggro alone can only help so much if your team isn't helping. But like "we" said numerous times, at the bare minimum you will always need to be durable as a tank or you have no business tanking (like the invisible rogue example you talked about).
All in all, because durability is a necessity for tanking is another reason why I believe durability takes priority as a tank. There are plenty of methods everyone can do to divert aggro like AoO, Positioning, Spells, Abilities, etc. but trying to divert aggro by being a bigger threat at the cost of your durability is only viable situationally. So to demonstrate more clearly what I mean using the the number system I used earlier (%Tank/%DPS/%Support), PC1 rated at 60%/20%/20% vs. PC2 rated at 20%/60%/20%, PC1 is who I consider the better tank. Talking about exactly the right combination of Tankines vs. DPS. vs. Support is also endless discussion because at the end of the day it ends up being very situational.
What you're describing isn't aggro being less important, you're describing offloading that duty onto someone else (at a cost of an action and one of their limited spell slots). Without them doing that enemies are free to just walk past you like they would any other character, risking just the one attack of opportunity in order to get to an easier/juicier target.
All you're doing is spreading the tanking duty between more characters, because your "tank" character is only fulfilling part of the duty (being able to take the hits directed at them, but with no ability to draw them in themselves).
There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't prove that aggro is less important, in fact it proves the opposite, because if your aggro buddy isn't around then what do you do? Again, being able to take huge amounts of punishment isn't tanking if the enemy just ignores you and attacks the rest of your party instead. A good tank shouldn't need others to cover for their deficiencies all the time.
But this is getting off topic. Neither Armorer or Battle Smith has this problem, as both have ways to aggro enemies on their own (guardian armorer most of all, though the steel defender being its own creature means you can block more space); not quite as well as a Barbarian (but we don't expect them to), but they can also burn their own resources to compensate for this as Artificers do have a smattering of control spell options, as a well as a few other tricks at their disposal, no help required (doesn't mean heals/buffs are unwelcome though).
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 example actually is showing that backliners can control aggro by repelling it which I argued in other examples is something they need to do, like how a ranged ranger entering the fray is typically a bad idea. Aggro control isn't just the tank's job to attract but a backliner's job to repel which is why I kept saying it is a group effort and not solely the tank's job. You are right I am not describing aggro as less important but it is important in terms of what a team needs to do. If you were a lone wolf defending a bunch of NPCs then I agree you will need to spend more resources to drawing aggro because at that point you need to do everything. But you aren't and your teammates are meant to help toward the group's objectives.
I already said this earlier but we will agree to disagree because the debatable topic is if the responsibility of aggro-control is spread amongst a team, how much resources should a tank be spending toward this goal? Arguably, the right answer is a case by case basis.
But you are right we have deviated from the topic so apologies to the OP and anybody else looking for more Artificer-based discussions.