I think I would even argue that such a big multiclass(at least 6 and 3) for this interaction is a big enough investment that it would both require and absolutely deserve a big coat of flavor. What if the character is a Goliath or other half giant that is a part of the Izzet league in Ravnica (I know you hate that book Yurey, but hear me out! ;) ) - his ancestral call leads him to a more barbarian-like interpretation of the Izzets "let's blow stuff up in a funny way!" - which is represented in the artificer part. Flavor wise you could just make it like a lightning chain or whatever flavor you want to use. That would both be a character rooted in story and IMO could be a way for a non idiot barb tank that should work.
As a DM, my first instinct when someone proposes an outlandish multiclass for the sole purpose of utilizing a single ability from each of two subclasses to achieve an extremely narrow, extremely specific interaction is to ask "why?" not in an adversarial way, but in an attempt to understand the goal driving the player so we can work together to perhaps find some less clunky and obnoxious way of accomplishing that goal.
In this case, the goal seems twofold: "I want to tank effectively, even outside melee range", and "I want to feel like I'm finding clever loopholes in the rules". Nothing can help the second objective, 'clever loophole' people are going to drive their DM to drink kinda no matter what because the whole idea is proving that they're smarter/better at D&D than the DM. The relationship is adversarial from the start, with the Clever Loophole player wanting to 'win' by forcing the DM to accept increasingly bizarre and nonsensical loopholes in the rules until up is down, north is south, red is blue, the world has completely stopped making sense ans the DM quits in frustration before banning the Clever Loophole guy from any future games.
Do I think this is the case for Mr. Hamster? No. But it is something I've dealt with in the past, and it makes me incredibly leery of Clever Loophole people. Powergamers are no problem - give them power and the chance to use it in Epic Battles against Legendary Foes, they're happy. Thespians are no problem - give them a little bit of time each session to get on stage and Thesp, they're happy. Lots of so-called "problem players" aren't really a problem at all once you realize that just understanding what they're hoping to get from the game and then giving them that thing will make them happy. But the Clever Loophole guy can't get what he wants unless he's outsmarting, bamboozling, and/or upstaging the DM and generally making the DM's life way more difficult than it needs to be. It's closely related to Rules Lawyering, in that the Clever Loophole guy insists on a specific read of RAW over and above the DM's control of the game in order to fuel their Loophole hunting.
Anyways. That aside as that goal is untentable and requires a rethink of the entire table etiquette, the first goal seems more in play here: 'tank effectively, even from long range." This goal runs afoul of the fact that "tanking" in D&D 5e doesn't exist. Not the way MMO players understand the term. There is no world in which thinking, reacting enemies who are as intelligent and well-trained as the PCs will be compelled to constantly attack the target they are least capable of defeating while the targets who are the greatest threat to their continued survival go completely unhindered behind the huge guy in platemail.
If someone wants to "tank", I ask them what they're hoping to do. Usually, the answer is "I want to protect my friends", and I ask in turn if they're wanting to shield their allies from harm or if they're wanting to distract and harry enemies to prevent attacks. Because an MMO tank does not, in fact, "protect their allies" - they generally have no 'protection' abilities whatsoever. What an MMO tank does is control the enemy. The MMO tank dictates what the target enemy does and forces that enemy to behave in a manner actively detrimental to its interests and well-being. In D&D? You do that by playing a wizard, not a barbarian. Invest in control and coercion spells and stop your target from being able to effectively attack your party, and you're a better tank than any martial character can really hope to be. No thinking, reacting enemy invested in their own victory/survival is going to attack the 25+AC block of iron with a loudspeaker that's booping them for 2d8+6 or so damage a turn when the 13AC sorcerer behind the block of iron is unleashing the fury of the cosmos on them for 50+ damage a turn - any DM worth their salt will eat the disadvantage without blinking and jump on that sorcerer like a trampoline until he's reduced to the consistency of porridge.
Stuff like this is why I strongly encourage people to think below the surface on their goals. Somebody who wants to "tank" in 5e needs to think like a bodyguard, not like an MMO player - how do you make it physically impossible for someone to get to your principal and do them harm? The answer is control - grappling builds, control-focused spellcasters, hard disables rather than soft effects like Distracting Pulse. After all, remember - Reckless Attack on the barbarian is way better than Distracting Pulse at incentivizing the DM to target the "tank" instead of the mage in need of geeking. Barbs have dramatically lower AC than artificers (typically), and Reckless also spikes the barbarian's damage output and makes them more of a threat. Has that ever stopped a decent DM from having intelligent enemies bypass the barbarian and go for the jackass in the back casting Finger of Death every turn? Nah.
Funnily enough it would actually be Rev. Hamster and I certainly can be a bit of a power gamer and even at times a rule lawyer (though normally, I like to think I’m being helpful as I play with some people who have never read the rules but rather are invested in the story and their characters).
I have played multiple ‘tank’ characters in 5e as I like to be a shield for the less optimised characters to let them shine and it a way for me to powergame in a way that I don’t just end encounters or outshine anyone (I currently play a tanky Moon Druid with great grappling and Sentinel for an otherwise all wizard party. It’s been nice to take a break from DMing).
I do actually think a Giant Barb 6 Armourer Art 3 would be a more than functional character for this aim.
-Hand out magic items, with also some out of combat, or pre-cast spell utility
-Approx 20ac but with reckless attack to make the ‘tank’ an attractive target whilst mitigating the damage somewhat (whilst also making it harder to hit allies)
-large size with both reach and thrown to really increase the space that is controlled by the ‘tank’ especially if they pick up the sentinel feat
-actually having a ranged option, which is a rarity for Barbarians
-but most importantly a really interesting visual, to have a barbarian that is punching enemies whilst still being effective
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D&D, Youth Work and the Priesthood sadly do not typically interact... I do what I can!
I would also argue there are quite some tools for "classical" tanking, mainly the "Sentinel" feat. What you're describing Yurei is a "Crowd Control" character in MMORPG terms. A "tank" relies more on defense and binding the enemy to themself. And while there is no "Aggro System" in DnD there are quite some tools to control who the enemy can hit at any given time. Sentinel works great for keeping the enemy wherer you want them (and away from where you don't want them) and "soft" tools like distracting pulse can protect your melee focused rogues etc. quite effectively (and if the enemy decides to go for the disadvantage every single turn I would absolutely call that a win!).
So while there is no "aggro system", I would argue "tanking" is a thing in dnd 5e.
artificers are weird. they aren't in the srd, the armor thing makes no sense, and they don't have many subclasses that aren't "inventors". still love 'em as a class.
I would also argue there are quite some tools for "classical" tanking, mainly the "Sentinel" feat. What you're describing Yurei is a "Crowd Control" character in MMORPG terms. A "tank" relies more on defense and binding the enemy to themself. And while there is no "Aggro System" in DnD there are quite some tools to control who the enemy can hit at any given time. Sentinel works great for keeping the enemy wherer you want them (and away from where you don't want them) and "soft" tools like distracting pulse can protect your melee focused rogues etc. quite effectively (and if the enemy decides to go for the disadvantage every single turn I would absolutely call that a win!).
So while there is no "aggro system", I would argue "tanking" is a thing in dnd 5e.
DUDE. the barbarian is a thing. the ''rage" ability IS the aggro system of dnd.
Well just because youre an angry fellow doesn't make you a tank.
Sure rage lets you get angry and shrug of a bunch of damage, but an "agrro system" is about giving the ability to force your enemy to attack you instead of the squishy guy with the fireballs in the back. And rage adds nothing to that.
DUDE. the barbarian is a thing. the ''rage" ability IS the aggro system of dnd.
Actually it'd be more accurate to say that Reckless Attack is the "aggro" feature for the Barbarian, since it gives enemies advantage to hit them (i.e- encourages them to choose the Barbarian as the target). Rage is the ability that enables a Barbarian to actually survive those extra attacks.
The main problem is that it's entirely optional whether a creature will take that bait or not; sure advantage means they're more likely to hit (and Barbarians typically don't have huge AC anyway) but if they'd be hitting a damage sponge that will shrug it off they could still reasonably choose another target.
Thunder gauntlets are good because they actually impose disadvantage for other targets, so there's a major penalty for choosing anyone else. It kind of comes down to your DM though; some will factor in the baiting element of Reckless Attacks, while others won't. Just as some DMs will listen to a player's intent, e.g- "I move to block the corridor" resulting in engaging the "blocking" character even though that isn't really a thing in D&D, while others will just ignore them and move past if they can, since they can only get one attack of opportunity.
D&D really doesn't have the concept of a zone of control or anything along these lines which is unfortunate, as the options for non-casters to actually prevent enemies moving past them to do whatever they want are actually pretty limited.
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 would like to add: There is much discussion about whether you can really combine Thunder Gauntlets and Arcane Propulsion Arm (see here and some other places, please don't start again: 'click me I'm a link') - and how and which effect and damage works out, so even with that solution you should speak to your DM to make a ruling before doing something like that.
Also, some DMs might argue as soon as you use a weapon for an attack other than its usual uses (throwing a melee weapon without thrown property, hitting something with your bow etc.) it ceases to have the properties it usualy has (you don't need ammo for hitting things with a longbow - but the damage won't be 1d10 etc.). So even if you throw the thunder gauntlets (without them coming back) the distracting pulse might not work as advertised because instead of hitting somone in the face with an armored and charged up fist you're now just throwing a gauntlet with no "punch" behind it.
I know there is a significant argument about this in certain quarters so I won't go there :)
However, I find it worth pointing out that all the Arcane propulsion armor does is add 1d8 damage and the thrown property to the gloves if allowed. (they also get +5' of movement which is fun but mostly not relevant). This occurs at level 14.
For comparison, a paladin adds Improved Divine Smite which is 1d8 radiant damage to all weapon attacks at level 11.
If an artificer wants to use this infusion then it costs one of their infusions. The DM may or may not allow the Armorer to separately infuse the gauntlets with the enhanced weapon infusion. However, even if allowed, this limits the artificer to a +2 weapon while the paladin has access to any weapons they like including +3 and other legendary weapons.
So a +2 weapon with 2d8 damage vs a paladin with weapon damage + d8 + smite + possibility of bonus action attack (PAM or GWM) + GWM damage if they take the feat. Basically, even allowing the combination, the Armorer artificer is a half caster with mostly utility spells that falls far behind the paladin in damage. From a balance perspective, combining these infusions is a feature that the Armorer needs.
Artificers do get to equip and attune more magic items but only non-magical items can be infused. I've also found that they often end up loaning items to the party rather than making use of them.
So, personally, I think the combination works from a RAW perspective, but more important in my opinion, it also works from a balance perspective giving the Armorer artificer a boost of +4.5 damage on average/attack ... which by late tier 3 isn't very much. If someone is playing in a game where the characters actually get to level 14 where this might become a possibility, it is worth mentioning to the DM that even if they do allow it, the Armorer is still underpowered - especially compared to the Sharpshooter Battle Smith which also has the Shield spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think I would even argue that such a big multiclass(at least 6 and 3) for this interaction is a big enough investment that it would both require and absolutely deserve a big coat of flavor. What if the character is a Goliath or other half giant that is a part of the Izzet league in Ravnica (I know you hate that book Yurey, but hear me out! ;) ) - his ancestral call leads him to a more barbarian-like interpretation of the Izzets "let's blow stuff up in a funny way!" - which is represented in the artificer part. Flavor wise you could just make it like a lightning chain or whatever flavor you want to use. That would both be a character rooted in story and IMO could be a way for a non idiot barb tank that should work.
As a DM, my first instinct when someone proposes an outlandish multiclass for the sole purpose of utilizing a single ability from each of two subclasses to achieve an extremely narrow, extremely specific interaction is to ask "why?" not in an adversarial way, but in an attempt to understand the goal driving the player so we can work together to perhaps find some less clunky and obnoxious way of accomplishing that goal.
In this case, the goal seems twofold: "I want to tank effectively, even outside melee range", and "I want to feel like I'm finding clever loopholes in the rules". Nothing can help the second objective, 'clever loophole' people are going to drive their DM to drink kinda no matter what because the whole idea is proving that they're smarter/better at D&D than the DM. The relationship is adversarial from the start, with the Clever Loophole player wanting to 'win' by forcing the DM to accept increasingly bizarre and nonsensical loopholes in the rules until up is down, north is south, red is blue, the world has completely stopped making sense ans the DM quits in frustration before banning the Clever Loophole guy from any future games.
Do I think this is the case for Mr. Hamster? No. But it is something I've dealt with in the past, and it makes me incredibly leery of Clever Loophole people. Powergamers are no problem - give them power and the chance to use it in Epic Battles against Legendary Foes, they're happy. Thespians are no problem - give them a little bit of time each session to get on stage and Thesp, they're happy. Lots of so-called "problem players" aren't really a problem at all once you realize that just understanding what they're hoping to get from the game and then giving them that thing will make them happy. But the Clever Loophole guy can't get what he wants unless he's outsmarting, bamboozling, and/or upstaging the DM and generally making the DM's life way more difficult than it needs to be. It's closely related to Rules Lawyering, in that the Clever Loophole guy insists on a specific read of RAW over and above the DM's control of the game in order to fuel their Loophole hunting.
Anyways. That aside as that goal is untentable and requires a rethink of the entire table etiquette, the first goal seems more in play here: 'tank effectively, even from long range." This goal runs afoul of the fact that "tanking" in D&D 5e doesn't exist. Not the way MMO players understand the term. There is no world in which thinking, reacting enemies who are as intelligent and well-trained as the PCs will be compelled to constantly attack the target they are least capable of defeating while the targets who are the greatest threat to their continued survival go completely unhindered behind the huge guy in platemail.
If someone wants to "tank", I ask them what they're hoping to do. Usually, the answer is "I want to protect my friends", and I ask in turn if they're wanting to shield their allies from harm or if they're wanting to distract and harry enemies to prevent attacks. Because an MMO tank does not, in fact, "protect their allies" - they generally have no 'protection' abilities whatsoever. What an MMO tank does is control the enemy. The MMO tank dictates what the target enemy does and forces that enemy to behave in a manner actively detrimental to its interests and well-being. In D&D? You do that by playing a wizard, not a barbarian. Invest in control and coercion spells and stop your target from being able to effectively attack your party, and you're a better tank than any martial character can really hope to be. No thinking, reacting enemy invested in their own victory/survival is going to attack the 25+AC block of iron with a loudspeaker that's booping them for 2d8+6 or so damage a turn when the 13AC sorcerer behind the block of iron is unleashing the fury of the cosmos on them for 50+ damage a turn - any DM worth their salt will eat the disadvantage without blinking and jump on that sorcerer like a trampoline until he's reduced to the consistency of porridge.
Stuff like this is why I strongly encourage people to think below the surface on their goals. Somebody who wants to "tank" in 5e needs to think like a bodyguard, not like an MMO player - how do you make it physically impossible for someone to get to your principal and do them harm? The answer is control - grappling builds, control-focused spellcasters, hard disables rather than soft effects like Distracting Pulse. After all, remember - Reckless Attack on the barbarian is way better than Distracting Pulse at incentivizing the DM to target the "tank" instead of the mage in need of geeking. Barbs have dramatically lower AC than artificers (typically), and Reckless also spikes the barbarian's damage output and makes them more of a threat. Has that ever stopped a decent DM from having intelligent enemies bypass the barbarian and go for the jackass in the back casting Finger of Death every turn? Nah.
Please do not contact or message me.
Funnily enough it would actually be Rev. Hamster and I certainly can be a bit of a power gamer and even at times a rule lawyer (though normally, I like to think I’m being helpful as I play with some people who have never read the rules but rather are invested in the story and their characters).
I have played multiple ‘tank’ characters in 5e as I like to be a shield for the less optimised characters to let them shine and it a way for me to powergame in a way that I don’t just end encounters or outshine anyone (I currently play a tanky Moon Druid with great grappling and Sentinel for an otherwise all wizard party. It’s been nice to take a break from DMing).
I do actually think a Giant Barb 6 Armourer Art 3 would be a more than functional character for this aim.
-Hand out magic items, with also some out of combat, or pre-cast spell utility
-Approx 20ac but with reckless attack to make the ‘tank’ an attractive target whilst mitigating the damage somewhat (whilst also making it harder to hit allies)
-large size with both reach and thrown to really increase the space that is controlled by the ‘tank’ especially if they pick up the sentinel feat
-actually having a ranged option, which is a rarity for Barbarians
-but most importantly a really interesting visual, to have a barbarian that is punching enemies whilst still being effective
I would also argue there are quite some tools for "classical" tanking, mainly the "Sentinel" feat. What you're describing Yurei is a "Crowd Control" character in MMORPG terms. A "tank" relies more on defense and binding the enemy to themself. And while there is no "Aggro System" in DnD there are quite some tools to control who the enemy can hit at any given time. Sentinel works great for keeping the enemy wherer you want them (and away from where you don't want them) and "soft" tools like distracting pulse can protect your melee focused rogues etc. quite effectively (and if the enemy decides to go for the disadvantage every single turn I would absolutely call that a win!).
So while there is no "aggro system", I would argue "tanking" is a thing in dnd 5e.
artificers are weird. they aren't in the srd, the armor thing makes no sense, and they don't have many subclasses that aren't "inventors". still love 'em as a class.
what about throwing robots at people?
DUDE. the barbarian is a thing. the ''rage" ability IS the aggro system of dnd.
Well just because youre an angry fellow doesn't make you a tank.
Sure rage lets you get angry and shrug of a bunch of damage, but an "agrro system" is about giving the ability to force your enemy to attack you instead of the squishy guy with the fireballs in the back. And rage adds nothing to that.
easy, add a taunt move.
Actually it'd be more accurate to say that Reckless Attack is the "aggro" feature for the Barbarian, since it gives enemies advantage to hit them (i.e- encourages them to choose the Barbarian as the target). Rage is the ability that enables a Barbarian to actually survive those extra attacks.
The main problem is that it's entirely optional whether a creature will take that bait or not; sure advantage means they're more likely to hit (and Barbarians typically don't have huge AC anyway) but if they'd be hitting a damage sponge that will shrug it off they could still reasonably choose another target.
Thunder gauntlets are good because they actually impose disadvantage for other targets, so there's a major penalty for choosing anyone else. It kind of comes down to your DM though; some will factor in the baiting element of Reckless Attacks, while others won't. Just as some DMs will listen to a player's intent, e.g- "I move to block the corridor" resulting in engaging the "blocking" character even though that isn't really a thing in D&D, while others will just ignore them and move past if they can, since they can only get one attack of opportunity.
D&D really doesn't have the concept of a zone of control or anything along these lines which is unfortunate, as the options for non-casters to actually prevent enemies moving past them to do whatever they want are actually pretty limited.
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 know there is a significant argument about this in certain quarters so I won't go there :)
However, I find it worth pointing out that all the Arcane propulsion armor does is add 1d8 damage and the thrown property to the gloves if allowed. (they also get +5' of movement which is fun but mostly not relevant). This occurs at level 14.
For comparison, a paladin adds Improved Divine Smite which is 1d8 radiant damage to all weapon attacks at level 11.
If an artificer wants to use this infusion then it costs one of their infusions. The DM may or may not allow the Armorer to separately infuse the gauntlets with the enhanced weapon infusion. However, even if allowed, this limits the artificer to a +2 weapon while the paladin has access to any weapons they like including +3 and other legendary weapons.
So a +2 weapon with 2d8 damage vs a paladin with weapon damage + d8 + smite + possibility of bonus action attack (PAM or GWM) + GWM damage if they take the feat. Basically, even allowing the combination, the Armorer artificer is a half caster with mostly utility spells that falls far behind the paladin in damage. From a balance perspective, combining these infusions is a feature that the Armorer needs.
Artificers do get to equip and attune more magic items but only non-magical items can be infused. I've also found that they often end up loaning items to the party rather than making use of them.
So, personally, I think the combination works from a RAW perspective, but more important in my opinion, it also works from a balance perspective giving the Armorer artificer a boost of +4.5 damage on average/attack ... which by late tier 3 isn't very much. If someone is playing in a game where the characters actually get to level 14 where this might become a possibility, it is worth mentioning to the DM that even if they do allow it, the Armorer is still underpowered - especially compared to the Sharpshooter Battle Smith which also has the Shield spell.