So back to a more intresting discussion that is not totally blown out and without any more arguments: What do you guys think, is it plausible to have a build that regularly switches between both armor versions or are they to different so builds will focus on one or the other?
So back to a more intresting discussion that is not totally blown out and without any more arguments: What do you guys think, is it plausible to have a build that regularly switches between both armor versions or are they to different so builds will focus on one or the other?
That could be useful, but generally you want to keep the same armor model. If there were more options to choose from for armor models it would be more useful, but as there are only two options, both very much set in their own niche, switching armor models generally not a great idea. However, it all depends on the situation. If you have a Guardian Armorer in a party that is going to break into a guarded facility, it would definitely be very useful changing into Infiltrator Armor.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It has been stated multiple times, but we can repeat it again. Thunder Gauntlets are created by the Arcane Armor, and there is no language that says that the armor ceases to be a part of the armor, therefore the Thunder Gauntlets are a part of the armor. This makes it so the gauntlets have the same shared price as the armor set they are a part of. Therefore, the gauntlets have a listed price, it just varies from armor to armor.
If you don't believe me, go sign up for an AL game and give it a shot, using the same arguments I am using, see what happens.
I played an Armorer in an AL game on Sunday, guess what happened when I brought up BB and Thunder Gauntlets. Yup, DM looked at both and said, "Nope. Doesn't work." She was correct in this, and if she had hand waved it away and the next DM I had ruled differently the play experience would be inconsistent and bad as my armorer would have been stuck with cantrips that did not work. If this is going to work in AL it needs errata and the RAW, especially in regards to basic items and values, needs an update. Artificer is already broken enough in the RAW due to the lack of rules involving mundane items.
To make this even easier to understand, we can just look at spell's description where it clearly states the requirement: A melee weapon worth at least 1sp. Armor may have value, but it is not a melee weapon and cannot be substituted for this requirement. If it could it would have ramifications outside of this debate. The RAW is unambiguous on this, you do not get to rewrite it because you want to be right.
I do not really understand the Infiltrator Armorer, it doesn't do anything particularly good other than have a good AC as a somewhat stealthy character. The problem lies in what stealthy characters want to do, be sneaky, but there is no real benefit in the class and no supporting mechanics to help with this beyond advantage on stealth checks. Plus a stealthy character is going to want to have a high dexterity which is counterproductive to wearing good armor.
The ranged attack is nice, but nowhere near as good as a Rogue or Warlock which would fill the same ranged damage role. So I'm not really sure what an Infiltrator is supposed to be doing as an Armorer. I think I would have prefered Infiltrator to be its own Artificer subclass with a more bespoke group of abilities.
It has been stated multiple times, but we can repeat it again. Thunder Gauntlets are created by the Arcane Armor, and there is no language that says that the armor ceases to be a part of the armor, therefore the Thunder Gauntlets are a part of the armor. This makes it so the gauntlets have the same shared price as the armor set they are a part of. Therefore, the gauntlets have a listed price, it just varies from armor to armor.
If you don't believe me, go sign up for an AL game and give it a shot, using the same arguments I am using, see what happens.
I played an Armorer in an AL game on Sunday, guess what happened when I brought up BB and Thunder Gauntlets. Yup, DM looked at both and said, "Nope. Doesn't work." She was correct in this, and if she had hand waved it away and the next DM I had ruled differently the play experience would be inconsistent and bad as my armorer would have been stuck with cantrips that did not work. If this is going to work in AL it needs errata and the RAW, especially in regards to basic items and values, needs an update. Artificer is already broken enough in the RAW due to the lack of rules involving mundane items.
To make this even easier to understand, we can just look at spell's description where it clearly states the requirement: A melee weapon worth at least 1sp. Armor may have value, but it is not a melee weapon and cannot be substituted for this requirement. If it could it would have ramifications outside of this debate. The RAW is unambiguous on this, you do not get to rewrite it because you want to be right.
Confirmation bias. If you thought that it should work, you would have argued further with the arguments my side of this debate has been using. One DM from AL doesn't adjudicate the RAW for the rest of the hobby.
To make this easier to understand, we can just look at the Arcane Armor's description where it clearly states that the armor produces the special weapons. The armor isn't a weapon, but the part of the armor used as a weapon shares the cost of the whole set of armor. There's even a later feature for the Armorer that lets them infuse multiple different "parts of their armor", meaning that the Thunder Gauntlets are a part of the armor that produced them. Thus, the RAW is unambiguous on this, and you do not get to ignore/rewrite the rules because you want to be right.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The armor isn't a weapon, but the part of the armor used as a weapon shares the cost of the whole set of armor.
Where is this written in the rules? Where does it say created weapons, as any armor can be used as Arcane Armor to create Thunder Gauntlets and most armor types do not come with gauntlets, share the value of an armor set for the purpose of spell casting.
You are trying to read between the lines to find rules where none exist, RAW is intentionally restrictive.
Until you can provide evidence, explicitly written in a rulebook, that armor counts as a "weapon worth at least 1sp" then it doesn't.
You get the most bang for your buck if you go with medium armour and 14 Dex. That way you can still have very good AC and points better spent on other abilities. You use Int for your attacks and spells anyway.
With what goals? If you want to be able to pick locks, leap buildings, sneak etc. then higher Dexterity is better for all of these things; the armour is called Infiltrator for a reason, think about what the role of an Infiltrator is. It's not to stand around with a high AC, it's to get places, that's what the armour is suited to. And the best medium armour options impose disadvantage like heavy armour, only the Breastplate doesn't, but you have to pay for that privilege (and it's arguably an odd choice for an Armorer since it specifically is not a suit of armour at all, it's just a chest piece).
There's also the difference in what infusions you might take; like you say, an Infiltrator being at range means you shouldn't need high AC as much, so you've less need to infuse your armour for higher AC and can go for something else initially (when you can only do the one armour infusion), and can go for more varied infusions once it opens up, while a Guardian will probably be all about defence.
Haven't said anything about that but you are actually making my argument for me. Since the guardian have to focus on defence, it loses out on battlefield utility which, again, is weird for something that is supposed to be a battlefield armor.
Except that I haven't; if the Guardian boosts their AC and an Infiltrator doesn't then you have two characters with different AC's wearing the same armour, which is the exact opposite of what your point was supposed to be. And the Guardian isn't losing out by boosting their AC; if it helps them to tank better then that's exactly what they should be doing. They don't have to focus on defence, the entire point of going Guardian is defence, because it's intended for front-line melee fighting.
Arguing that an Infiltrator is better because a Guardian wants to fight in melee is nonsensical.
between levels 3 and 12 the Infiltrator is in some ways more tanky than the guardian. The temporary hit points are to few and and can be used to seldom to make much of a difference (or at least to outweigh the benefits of the infiltrator) up until around level 13
No it isn't; at best the Infiltrator has the same AC as the Guardian, that's it. The Infiltrator has no further benefits that make them better at front-line tanking; a ranged attack is no use in melee, and advantage on stealth is no use against someone who already knows you're there.
The temporary HP may start relatively low, but as I've pointed out it's equivalent to getting a free 1st level spell; are free spells valueless in D&D now? And it scales up rapidly, as each level you gain increases the hit-points of each use and when your proficiency bonus goes up you gain additional uses. More hit points are more hit points plain and simple; if they keep you up and taking hits one round longer then they've done exactly what they were supposed to, because every hit your take is a hit someone else doesn't have to take.
There really is no need for Artificers (especially not armorers with their two extra infusions) to pump too many points into Con since at level 14 you get Con 19 for free. Sure, it's useful for concentration checks but you have flash of genius for that.
Firstly, many campaigns will never make it to level 14. Secondly, you're not going to be much of a tank from levels 3-13 if you ignore CON. Third, every magic item you don't have to take is a different magic item you can take instead.
If your aim is to play a Guardian, who is specifically geared towards tanking, then you absolutely should take high CON, especially since the only other stat you really need is INT, as it not only lets you hit harder, but also powers all of your caster abilities. Compare this to an Eldritch Knight who really wants STR/CON and may have to neglect INT for a while (limiting spell choice).
Also, do you realise that your attempt to argue against infusing for defence earlier was the exact opposite of this right? By your own logic the Infiltrator is rubbish because it has to take a magic item to compete on CON, while the Guardian can take whatever they want. It cuts both ways 😝
Infiltrators can make really good use of heavy armor as well. :)
Not without limiting the effectiveness of a unique ability (advantage on stealth). If all you want to do is be ordinary at stealth, then great, go ahead and do that, but you're not really being much of an infiltrator in that case, unless you use magic to push through, but then the "proper" infiltrator doesn't have to, meaning more magic for other things.
This is basically my whole point; you can mix Infiltrator into different roles, and it'll be perfectly good, so in that respect it's more flexible. But if your goal is to tank then Guardian is built for that, and it's actually very good.
*Also, I lost it in the mess of quotes, but Infiltrators do not gain the same ability as Guardians on imposing disadvantage. Guardians can force a target to suffer disadvantage against everyone except themselves (force the enemy to fight you), Infiltrators impose disadvantage only against themselves (force the enemy to fight someone else), it's basically the opposite. Tanking is about keeping enemies in place, this is what the Guardian's abilities are good for.
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.
So back to a more intresting discussion that is not totally blown out and without any more arguments: What do you guys think, is it plausible to have a build that regularly switches between both armor versions or are they to different so builds will focus on one or the other?
I'd say it's very plausible. Perhaps not switching back and forth all the time but let's say you have to infiltrate a castle through some tunnels and you need to be very sneaky. Then you can just prepare an Infiltrator full plate armour for breakfast and still not have disadvantage on sneaking. Or the other way around, someone challenges you to a duel, bring on the guardian! All in all, the Artificer's ability to prepare for pretty much every situation is one of its main advantages.
You get the most bang for your buck if you go with medium armour and 14 Dex. That way you can still have very good AC and points better spent on other abilities. You use Int for your attacks and spells anyway.
With what goals?
The goals you mentioned. High AC, mostly.
If you want to be able to pick locks, leap buildings, sneak etc. then higher Dexterity is better for all of these things;
Well, that is just plain wrong. Dex has nothing to do with leaping, you use Strength and Atheltics for that. As for picking locks, you already have expertise when using thieves' tools (besides, you usually have a Rogue to take care of the locks). Also, with a breastplate you already gain advantage so the few extra points you get from having a high Dex can, again, be used better elsewhere.
the armour is called Infiltrator for a reason, think about what the role of an Infiltrator is. It's not to stand around with a high AC, it's to get places, that's what the armour is suited to. And the best medium armour options impose disadvantage like heavy armour, only the Breastplate doesn't, but you have to pay for that privilege (and it's arguably an odd choice for an Armorer since it specifically is not a suit of armour at all, it's just a chest piece).
You answer your own quesion really well. Yes, the breastplate is the best medium armour option. Not sure what you mean with having to pay for it, yes, it costs money but it also gives you the equivalent of having a Dex of 18 when it comes to pure AC calcuations compared to Studded leather. And if you read the description of the Breastplate it says that it's "a fitted metal chest piece worn with supple leather" which means that the rest of your body could be covered in leather (for comparison, leather armour doesn't say that the whole body is covered either, so no difference there).
There's also the difference in what infusions you might take; like you say, an Infiltrator being at range means you shouldn't need high AC as much, so you've less need to infuse your armour for higher AC and can go for something else initially (when you can only do the one armour infusion), and can go for more varied infusions once it opens up, while a Guardian will probably be all about defence.
Haven't said anything about that but you are actually making my argument for me. Since the guardian have to focus on defence, it loses out on battlefield utility which, again, is weird for something that is supposed to be a battlefield armor.
Except that I haven't; if the Guardian boosts their AC and an Infiltrator doesn't then you have two characters with different AC's wearing the same armour, which is the exact opposite of what your point was supposed to be.
Well, duh. Again, the point is that both of them can have the exact same AC with the exact same infusions.
And the Guardian isn't losing out by boosting their AC; if it helps them to tank better then that's exactly what they should be doing. They don't have to focus on defence, the entire point of going Guardian is defence, because it's intended for front-line melee fighting.
You're contradicting yourself. We've already gone through the fact that for a very long time the Infiltrator is actually better as a front-line fighter than the guardian.
Arguing that an Infiltrator is better because a Guardian wants to fight in melee is nonsensical.
Please read what I actually write instead of you making things up and turning this into a strawman argument. I never said that "an Infiltrator is better because a Guardian wants to fight in melee". I've pointed out the fact that for quite a few levels the Infiltrator is actually better as a front-line fighter than the guardian.
between levels 3 and 12 the Infiltrator is in some ways more tanky than the guardian. The temporary hit points are to few and and can be used to seldom to make much of a difference (or at least to outweigh the benefits of the infiltrator) up until around level 13
No it isn't; at best the Infiltrator has the same AC as the Guardian, that's it. The Infiltrator has no further benefits that make them better at front-line tanking; a ranged attack is no use in melee, and advantage on stealth is no use against someone who already knows you're there.
Well, sure. If you are going to ignore the increased speed and the range advantage of the infiltrator then I guess the guardian is slightly better. But if you actually care to read the rules and apply them, not so much. And being able to sneak up on a foe can be very useless for a front-line fighter. Just as an Assassin Rogue or melee Gloom Stalker.
The temporary HP may start relatively low, but as I've pointed out it's equivalent to getting a free 1st level spell; are free spells valueless in D&D now?
Once again I have to ask you to stop making things up. I've never said that anything was "valueless", it's just that it's not as good as the things the infiltrator brings, at early levels.
And it scales up rapidly, as each level you gain increases the hit-points of each use and when your proficiency bonus goes up you gain additional uses. More hit points are more hit points plain and simple; if they keep you up and taking hits one round longer then they've done exactly what they were supposed to, because every hit your take is a hit someone else doesn't have to take.
And not being hit at all is better than having to spend your bonus action hoping that it will be enough to keep you standing for one more round.
There really is no need for Artificers (especially not armorers with their two extra infusions) to pump too many points into Con since at level 14 you get Con 19 for free. Sure, it's useful for concentration checks but you have flash of genius for that.
Firstly, many campaigns will never make it to level 14. Secondly, you're not going to be much of a tank from levels 3-13 if you ignore CON. Third, every magic item you don't have to take is a different magic item you can take instead.
So you are going to put three to four ASIs into Con just so that you don't have to take a single infusion (that you can change each morning should you not need it that day)? You're better of taking the Tough feat.
If your aim is to play a Guardian, who is specifically geared towards tanking, then you absolutely should take high CON.
Well, my aim is to play an Armorer, which means I can use both a guardian armour and an infilitrator armour.
Do you also realise that your attempt to argue against infusing for defence earlier was the exact opposite of this right? By your own logic the Infiltrator is rubbish because it has to take a magic item to compete on CON, while the Guardian can take whatever they want. It cuts both ways 😝
Not really, no. My argument is that Artificers, no matter the subclass or what arcane armour they use, need to spend too many points on CON.
Infiltrators can make really good use of heavy armor as well. :)
Not without limiting the effectiveness of their unique abilities (advantage on stealth).
Being able to sneak in full plate is not really a limit, but sure. Ignore that part if you'd like.
If all you want to do is be ordinary at stealth, then great, go ahead and do that, but you're not really being much of an infiltrator in that case, unless you use magic to push through, but then the "proper" infiltrator doesn't have to.
There is nothing ordinary about being able to sneak without disadvantage in a full plate armour. Not sure what you mean about a "proper" infiltrator. Do you think that there is only on way that is correct to play infiltrators?
This is basically my whole point; you can mix Infiltrator into different roles, and it'll be perfectly good, so in that respect it's more flexible. But if your goal is to tank then Guardian is built for that, and it's actually very good.
As already shown numerous times, for quite a large part of the game, the Infiltrator is equally good. That is not a flaw on the guardian, though. It just shows that the infiltrator is better, in some regards.
*Also, I lost it in the mess of quotes, but Infiltrators do not gain the same ability as Guardians on imposing disadvantage. Guardians can force a target to suffer disadvantage against everyone except themselves (force the enemy to fight you), Infiltrators impose disadvantage only against themselves (force the enemy to fight someone else), it's basically the opposite. Tanking is about keeping enemies in place, this is what the Guardian's abilities are good for.
Again, please read what I actually write instead of making things up. Your claim was that guardians were the only one that could impose disadvantage. I showed you that you were wrong. And again, there is not just one way of tanking that is the only correct way. If you are that much easier to hit, you will go down faster and a dead tank is a pretty useless tank. A tank that stands in the middle of the fight, being not only hard to hit but making it easier for your friends to hit the enemy, can be very good.
I mean if in AL the Thunder Gauntlets stop being part of the armor you are also free to infuse them on top of already infusing your armor I guess. AL is dumb and should be left out of discussions that aren't specifically about AL. ^^
The power that redefines the armor into multiple parts already does this and takes care of the issue. Because one of the 4 infusable parts of the armor is actually the weapon itself. Which AL will allow you to do because it's clearly stated and doesn't deal with the wierd restrictions the certain cantrips involve require.
So back to a more intresting discussion that is not totally blown out and without any more arguments: What do you guys think, is it plausible to have a build that regularly switches between both armor versions or are they to different so builds will focus on one or the other?
Yes, but you need to also make sure the DM is onboard with achieving that being part of your quest/story. There is one type of armor that offhand could be used as the basis for such a build, and you'd have to work with the DM to make sure that you can somehow obtain it. Mithral Armor will need to be the basis of such an Armorer's Arcane Armor, simply because it does not give disadvantage on Stealth checks. Being an Armorer already brings the removal of Strength requirements for the armor, so we have to base this on the lack of a disadvantage roll.
I'm not in the mood right now to quote and try to seperate out everything going on in the last page or two. I'll just point some things out.
It's not necessarily 3 to 4 ASI's to get that Guardian Armorer up to 18-19 Con. It can be as little as 2. Assuming you don't simply have a race that makes it less than that. It could easily be as little as 1 with a number of the races that do +2 to con. This is one of the ways that the Guardian armorer is often going to be a better tank. Where as the Infiltrator is going to want those same ASI's in something like Dexterity instead. This is basically a wash out argument and depends entirely on what you building for.
The Ranged Argument over the Melee argument is also largely a washout argument. That's building for two different roles and places in the party. Melee party members have their own advantages over range. Such as not going into immediate disadvantage simply because somebody gets up into their face.
There's a factor to Medium armor that is being ignored. Medium Armor Master on an infiltrator can be highly useful because it removes the disadvantage on the better Medium Armors and allows for 1 additional point of Dexterity to count for your AC on something like Half-plate. This may put the AC the same as full plate but at the same time allows you to use it even more differently than full plate would be despite having the same AC because while just removing disadvantage is strong you would now be able to use the full advantage.
A strong Dexterity is always going to be useful on a straight roll if you have proficiency and there are ways to actually pick up Expertise which is more how rogue's really shine but sometimes they'd rather have the advantage instead. The Infiltrator can have both if you really want to build with it. Either as yet another feat you could take or an entirely different option to Medium Armor Master (assuming you don't multi-class to do it).
So it's not the AC that makes these two different styles given by these two different options their full flavor. It's the other choices that you make around them. The AC and the nature that they focus primarily around their armor is more one of the few unifying features about them. Though in Practice the reality is that through infusions and the like the Guardian being built towards all his defensive options is likely to end up with higher armor than the Infiltrator assuming that they don't decide to sacrifice some of it for other utility.
The armor isn't a weapon, but the part of the armor used as a weapon shares the cost of the whole set of armor.
Where is this written in the rules? Where does it say created weapons, as any armor can be used as Arcane Armor to create Thunder Gauntlets and most armor types do not come with gauntlets, share the value of an armor set for the purpose of spell casting.
You are trying to read between the lines to find rules where none exist, RAW is intentionally restrictive.
Until you can provide evidence, explicitly written in a rulebook, that armor counts as a "weapon worth at least 1sp" then it doesn't.
(I'm not going to blame you for not knowing how the quote system works on this website, as it is quite difficult to master. However, could you please not cookie cut my posts to argue with the one statement I made with evidence to support it to just repeat the question I already answered? I would really appreciate it.)
You want evidence? Here:
Each model includes a special weapon.
Include means that it automatically has that weapon. It grows it if the armor doesn't have it, just like it grows limbs for you if you lose them. Also, not only does "include" show that the weapons are automatic, it also shows that they are part of the armor. How can an armor set include weapons without those weapons being a part of the armor? To argue against this is clearly illogical and not following RAW.
Want more? This is from the Armor Modifications feature:
Each of those items can bear one of your infusions, and the infusions transfer over if you change your armor’s model with the Armor Model feature. In addition, the maximum number of items you can infuse at once increases by 2, but those extra items must be part of your Arcane Armor.
If the gauntlets counted as a separate item from the armor it is made of, then you would be able to infuse them before you gain this feature. The fact that you have to wait until you get this feature to infuse your gauntlets and your armor proves that the gauntlets and the armor are the same item. The only items you cannot infuse are ones that don't fit the Item requirement of an infusion (which the gauntlets definitely do, as they are weapons, allowing Enhanced or Radiant Weapon to be infused on them) and ones that are magical. Arcane Armor doesn't say that your armor becomes magical, so the only conceivable reason why you couldn't have already infused individually both your armor and gauntlets is because making one of them magical would make the other one magical. Thus, the armor and the gauntlets are the same item. And, RAW, any single item's components shares the whole price of the item.
Done. Just proved it. RAW, the gauntlets and the armor are the same item, and if they're the same item, they share the price of the whole item. Therefore, Thunder Gauntlets count as "a weapon with a price of one silver piece or higher", and Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade can both be used with the Thunder Gauntlets according to the Rules as Written.
Now, I really do not like repeating myself, so have we finally finished this stupid argument or do you want me to drill it into your brain even more?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Arguing that an Infiltrator is better because a Guardian wants to fight in melee is nonsensical.
No, it's not. In 5e, ranged combat is much better than melee combat. You are less likely to be attacked, as you aren't in the front lines, and most monsters have melee attacks, so ranged characters don't need to focus on HP or AC as much as a melee character would.
One major buff of the Infiltrator Model is that it fights at range. That means that an Infiltrator Armorer can focus more on party support for their infusions than a Guardian Armorer can.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
As already shown numerous times, for quite a large part of the game, the Infiltrator is equally good. That is not a flaw on the guardian, though. It just shows that the infiltrator is better, in some regards.
You keep claiming this and yet you keep refusing to actually show it.
The Guardian is better at tanking, no question, no contest, hands down and I have explained endlessly and repeatedly now why this is the case. You keep coming back and effectively saying that Infiltrator can do everything Guardian can do (when it can't) and refuse to actually prove your case.
Guardian armour is for tanking. It's better at tanking than Infiltrator. Therefore if tanking is what you want to do then Guardian is the model you want. I have shown why now multiple times, and yet you just keep dismissing arguments with what amounts to "la la I'm not listening".
Literally at no point have I argued that Infiltrator isn't better for a generalist, but I'm also not going to shy around from pointing out that it offers nothing for melee combat; Guardian has specific melee bonuses (Thunder Guantlets and Defensive Field, the latter of which can also be used at ranged) and you can still use the normal ranged abilities of an Artificer. Infiltrator in melee meanwhile literally cannot use any of its unique features, and Artificers aren't exactly overflowing with melee spells to compensate.
Infiltrator's abilities are most useful when ranged is where you want to be most of the time, or when you want to Infiltrate (a role you don't seem to want Infiltrators to actually ever do).
Guardian's abilities are most useful when you want to be in melee and/or tanking. They are two different armour models with two very different sets of abilities, and they both excel in totally different roles
I've no idea why you were so determined to keep insisting that Infiltrator can beat Guardian in the areas that Guardian is provably better at, but I'm not going around in circles with you anymore.
Arguing that an Infiltrator is better because a Guardian wants to fight in melee is nonsensical.
No, it's not. In 5e, ranged combat is much better than melee combat. You're less likely to be attacked, as you aren't in the front lines
The problem with that reasoning is that you're only not in the front-lines if you actually have a front-line. In a party with nothing but ranged characters you won't stay ranged for long, at which point your ranged abilities suddenly become useless if you do end up as the front-line.
Melee and tank characters and classes don't exist without reason. Artificers have gained a good option for filling this role, which is a really cool thing for a class like Artificer to have; if your party needs a tank, or more front-line fighters, then you can be that, and Guardian armour is hands down better at that than Infiltrator, so why do people have such a hard time accepting that that's my argument?
I have literally never said that Infiltrator isn't better for ranged characters, it absolutely is, that's a no-brainer. But when talking about which armour model is superior (which I haven't), you can't ignore where you need or want your character to be and what each armour model is actually for.
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.
As already shown numerous times, for quite a large part of the game, the Infiltrator is equally good. That is not a flaw on the guardian, though. It just shows that the infiltrator is better, in some regards.
You keep claiming this and yet you keep refusing to actually show it.
This is simply not true. It might be that I assume that you are actually familiar with the rules that we are discussing but maybe that was wrong of me. Please tell us what rules you don't understand and I'll explain them to you.
The Guardian is better at tanking, no question, no contest, hands down and I have explained endlessly and repeatedly now why this is the case. You keep coming back and effectively saying that Infiltrator can do everything Guardian can do (when it can't) and refuse to actually prove your case.
Why are you so caught up on this whole "tanking" strawman? Again, please stay on topic and reply to what I actually write instead of you going of on a tangent. There is more to being a succesful frontline fighter than just your own particular definition of "tanking".
Guardian armour is for tanking. It's better at tanking than Infiltrator. Therefore if tanking is what you want to do then Guardian is the model you want. I have shown why now multiple times, and yet you just keep dismissing arguments with what amounts to "la la I'm not listening".
No, I've told you multiple times why speed, mobility, versatility and being harder to hit are good things for a frontline fighter. But sure, if you choose to ignore those abilities, I guess that makes a difference. My point is that you shouldn't ignore them.
Literally at no point have I argued that Infiltrator isn't better for a generalist, but I'm also not going to shy around from pointing out that it offers nothing for melee combat; Guardian has specific melee bonuses (Thunder Guantlets and Defensive Field, the latter of which can also be used at ranged) and you can still use the normal ranged abilities of an Artificer. Infiltrator in melee meanwhile literally cannot use any of its unique features, and Artificers aren't exactly overflowing with melee spells to compensate.
Well, that simply is not true. Why wouldn't the infiltrator be able to use its speed, for example, in melee? That makes no sense. And not sure what you call Shocking Grasp, Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade, Sword Burst, Thunderclap, Blur, Magic Weapon, Elemental Weapon, Blink or Thunderwave, but according to the rules, those are all Melee range spells.
Infiltrator's abilities are most useful when ranged is where you want to be most of the time, or when you want to Infiltrate (a role you don't seem to want Infiltrators to actually ever do).
Seriously, could you please stop lying? I've never once said that infiltrators shouldn't infiltrate or use range, I'm just pointing out that the infiltrator is sometimes better at frontline fighting than the guardian is. Do you honestly not know the difference between "A is good at both X and Y" and "A is good at X, therefor it must be bad at Y"? Becuase now you're just stacking the logical fallacies.
Guardian's abilities are most useful when you want to be in melee and/or tanking. They are two different armour models with two very different sets of abilities, and they both excel in totally different roles
Like I've pointed out numerous times and what any Rogue or Monk player will tell you, there is more to melee/front-line fighting than just tanking. Please stop making strawman arguments.
I've no idea why you were so determined to keep insisting that Infiltrator can beat Guardian in the areas that Guardian is provably better at, but I'm not going around in circles with you anymore.
Well, if you're going to keep ignoring what I've actually written then I agree, there is no point in you keeping going around in circles anymore.
Arguing that an Infiltrator is better because a Guardian wants to fight in melee is nonsensical.
No, it's not. In 5e, ranged combat is much better than melee combat. You're less likely to be attacked, as you aren't in the front lines
The problem with that reasoning is that you're only not in the front-lines if you actually have a front-line. In a party with nothing but ranged characters you won't stay ranged for long, at which point your ranged abilities suddenly become useless if you do end up as the front-line.
There are countless scenarios where you don't need a frontline. Like an ambush for example. And yes, Third_Sundering is completely right when they say that range dis better than melee. If you can kill your opponent before they can even reach you, that is something good. There's a reason why guns and artillery is a thing.
Melee and tank characters and classes don't exist without reason. Artificers have gained a good option for filling this role, which is a really cool thing for a class like Artificer to have; if your party needs a tank, or more front-line fighters, then you can be that, and Guardian armour is hands down better at that than Infiltrator, so why do people have such a hard time accepting that that's my argument?
No-one is really disputing what your argument is. We just point out that, according to the actual game, your arguments don't hold water.
I have literally never said that Infiltrator isn't better for ranged characters, it absolutely is, that's a no-brainer. But when talking about which armour model is superior (which I haven't), you can't ignore where you need or want your character to be and what each armour model is actually for.
Well, purpose is kind of irrelevant when it comes to quality. The pre-Tasha's Beastmaster Ranger was supposed to be good in both combat and exploration, but it's neither, really.
I would have to rate the armorer being better than alchemist but not quite as good as battlesmith or artillerist. The only thing that stands out is the expanded spell list combined with no subclass option to spend slots on.
That's a fair assessment. I'd probably rate it as equal to the Artillerist but that depends on the kind of game you're playing and other situational needs. The main advantage that the Armorer has over the Artillerist is that the armor doesn't go away after an hour.
So back to a more intresting discussion that is not totally blown out and without any more arguments: What do you guys think, is it plausible to have a build that regularly switches between both armor versions or are they to different so builds will focus on one or the other?
That could be useful, but generally you want to keep the same armor model. If there were more options to choose from for armor models it would be more useful, but as there are only two options, both very much set in their own niche, switching armor models generally not a great idea. However, it all depends on the situation. If you have a Guardian Armorer in a party that is going to break into a guarded facility, it would definitely be very useful changing into Infiltrator Armor.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I played an Armorer in an AL game on Sunday, guess what happened when I brought up BB and Thunder Gauntlets. Yup, DM looked at both and said, "Nope. Doesn't work." She was correct in this, and if she had hand waved it away and the next DM I had ruled differently the play experience would be inconsistent and bad as my armorer would have been stuck with cantrips that did not work. If this is going to work in AL it needs errata and the RAW, especially in regards to basic items and values, needs an update. Artificer is already broken enough in the RAW due to the lack of rules involving mundane items.
To make this even easier to understand, we can just look at spell's description where it clearly states the requirement: A melee weapon worth at least 1sp.
Armor may have value, but it is not a melee weapon and cannot be substituted for this requirement. If it could it would have ramifications outside of this debate. The RAW is unambiguous on this, you do not get to rewrite it because you want to be right.
I do not really understand the Infiltrator Armorer, it doesn't do anything particularly good other than have a good AC as a somewhat stealthy character. The problem lies in what stealthy characters want to do, be sneaky, but there is no real benefit in the class and no supporting mechanics to help with this beyond advantage on stealth checks. Plus a stealthy character is going to want to have a high dexterity which is counterproductive to wearing good armor.
The ranged attack is nice, but nowhere near as good as a Rogue or Warlock which would fill the same ranged damage role. So I'm not really sure what an Infiltrator is supposed to be doing as an Armorer. I think I would have prefered Infiltrator to be its own Artificer subclass with a more bespoke group of abilities.
Confirmation bias. If you thought that it should work, you would have argued further with the arguments my side of this debate has been using. One DM from AL doesn't adjudicate the RAW for the rest of the hobby.
To make this easier to understand, we can just look at the Arcane Armor's description where it clearly states that the armor produces the special weapons. The armor isn't a weapon, but the part of the armor used as a weapon shares the cost of the whole set of armor. There's even a later feature for the Armorer that lets them infuse multiple different "parts of their armor", meaning that the Thunder Gauntlets are a part of the armor that produced them. Thus, the RAW is unambiguous on this, and you do not get to ignore/rewrite the rules because you want to be right.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Where is this written in the rules? Where does it say created weapons, as any armor can be used as Arcane Armor to create Thunder Gauntlets and most armor types do not come with gauntlets, share the value of an armor set for the purpose of spell casting.
You are trying to read between the lines to find rules where none exist, RAW is intentionally restrictive.
Until you can provide evidence, explicitly written in a rulebook, that armor counts as a "weapon worth at least 1sp" then it doesn't.
Except that I haven't; if the Guardian boosts their AC and an Infiltrator doesn't then you have two characters with different AC's wearing the same armour, which is the exact opposite of what your point was supposed to be. And the Guardian isn't losing out by boosting their AC; if it helps them to tank better then that's exactly what they should be doing. They don't have to focus on defence, the entire point of going Guardian is defence, because it's intended for front-line melee fighting.
Arguing that an Infiltrator is better because a Guardian wants to fight in melee is nonsensical.
No it isn't; at best the Infiltrator has the same AC as the Guardian, that's it. The Infiltrator has no further benefits that make them better at front-line tanking; a ranged attack is no use in melee, and advantage on stealth is no use against someone who already knows you're there.
The temporary HP may start relatively low, but as I've pointed out it's equivalent to getting a free 1st level spell; are free spells valueless in D&D now? And it scales up rapidly, as each level you gain increases the hit-points of each use and when your proficiency bonus goes up you gain additional uses. More hit points are more hit points plain and simple; if they keep you up and taking hits one round longer then they've done exactly what they were supposed to, because every hit your take is a hit someone else doesn't have to take.
Firstly, many campaigns will never make it to level 14. Secondly, you're not going to be much of a tank from levels 3-13 if you ignore CON. Third, every magic item you don't have to take is a different magic item you can take instead.
If your aim is to play a Guardian, who is specifically geared towards tanking, then you absolutely should take high CON, especially since the only other stat you really need is INT, as it not only lets you hit harder, but also powers all of your caster abilities. Compare this to an Eldritch Knight who really wants STR/CON and may have to neglect INT for a while (limiting spell choice).
Also, do you realise that your attempt to argue against infusing for defence earlier was the exact opposite of this right? By your own logic the Infiltrator is rubbish because it has to take a magic item to compete on CON, while the Guardian can take whatever they want. It cuts both ways 😝
Not without limiting the effectiveness of a unique ability (advantage on stealth). If all you want to do is be ordinary at stealth, then great, go ahead and do that, but you're not really being much of an infiltrator in that case, unless you use magic to push through, but then the "proper" infiltrator doesn't have to, meaning more magic for other things.
This is basically my whole point; you can mix Infiltrator into different roles, and it'll be perfectly good, so in that respect it's more flexible. But if your goal is to tank then Guardian is built for that, and it's actually very good.
*Also, I lost it in the mess of quotes, but Infiltrators do not gain the same ability as Guardians on imposing disadvantage. Guardians can force a target to suffer disadvantage against everyone except themselves (force the enemy to fight you), Infiltrators impose disadvantage only against themselves (force the enemy to fight someone else), it's basically the opposite. Tanking is about keeping enemies in place, this is what the Guardian's abilities are good for.
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'd say it's very plausible. Perhaps not switching back and forth all the time but let's say you have to infiltrate a castle through some tunnels and you need to be very sneaky. Then you can just prepare an Infiltrator full plate armour for breakfast and still not have disadvantage on sneaking. Or the other way around, someone challenges you to a duel, bring on the guardian! All in all, the Artificer's ability to prepare for pretty much every situation is one of its main advantages.
Well, duh. Again, the point is that both of them can have the exact same AC with the exact same infusions.
You're contradicting yourself. We've already gone through the fact that for a very long time the Infiltrator is actually better as a front-line fighter than the guardian.
Please read what I actually write instead of you making things up and turning this into a strawman argument. I never said that "an Infiltrator is better because a Guardian wants to fight in melee". I've pointed out the fact that for quite a few levels the Infiltrator is actually better as a front-line fighter than the guardian.
Well, sure. If you are going to ignore the increased speed and the range advantage of the infiltrator then I guess the guardian is slightly better. But if you actually care to read the rules and apply them, not so much. And being able to sneak up on a foe can be very useless for a front-line fighter. Just as an Assassin Rogue or melee Gloom Stalker.
Once again I have to ask you to stop making things up. I've never said that anything was "valueless", it's just that it's not as good as the things the infiltrator brings, at early levels.
And not being hit at all is better than having to spend your bonus action hoping that it will be enough to keep you standing for one more round.
So you are going to put three to four ASIs into Con just so that you don't have to take a single infusion (that you can change each morning should you not need it that day)? You're better of taking the Tough feat.
Well, my aim is to play an Armorer, which means I can use both a guardian armour and an infilitrator armour.
Not really, no. My argument is that Artificers, no matter the subclass or what arcane armour they use, need to spend too many points on CON.
Being able to sneak in full plate is not really a limit, but sure. Ignore that part if you'd like.
There is nothing ordinary about being able to sneak without disadvantage in a full plate armour. Not sure what you mean about a "proper" infiltrator. Do you think that there is only on way that is correct to play infiltrators?
As already shown numerous times, for quite a large part of the game, the Infiltrator is equally good. That is not a flaw on the guardian, though. It just shows that the infiltrator is better, in some regards.
Again, please read what I actually write instead of making things up. Your claim was that guardians were the only one that could impose disadvantage. I showed you that you were wrong. And again, there is not just one way of tanking that is the only correct way. If you are that much easier to hit, you will go down faster and a dead tank is a pretty useless tank. A tank that stands in the middle of the fight, being not only hard to hit but making it easier for your friends to hit the enemy, can be very good.
The power that redefines the armor into multiple parts already does this and takes care of the issue. Because one of the 4 infusable parts of the armor is actually the weapon itself. Which AL will allow you to do because it's clearly stated and doesn't deal with the wierd restrictions the certain cantrips involve require.
Yes, but you need to also make sure the DM is onboard with achieving that being part of your quest/story. There is one type of armor that offhand could be used as the basis for such a build, and you'd have to work with the DM to make sure that you can somehow obtain it. Mithral Armor will need to be the basis of such an Armorer's Arcane Armor, simply because it does not give disadvantage on Stealth checks. Being an Armorer already brings the removal of Strength requirements for the armor, so we have to base this on the lack of a disadvantage roll.
I'm not in the mood right now to quote and try to seperate out everything going on in the last page or two. I'll just point some things out.
It's not necessarily 3 to 4 ASI's to get that Guardian Armorer up to 18-19 Con. It can be as little as 2. Assuming you don't simply have a race that makes it less than that. It could easily be as little as 1 with a number of the races that do +2 to con. This is one of the ways that the Guardian armorer is often going to be a better tank. Where as the Infiltrator is going to want those same ASI's in something like Dexterity instead. This is basically a wash out argument and depends entirely on what you building for.
The Ranged Argument over the Melee argument is also largely a washout argument. That's building for two different roles and places in the party. Melee party members have their own advantages over range. Such as not going into immediate disadvantage simply because somebody gets up into their face.
There's a factor to Medium armor that is being ignored. Medium Armor Master on an infiltrator can be highly useful because it removes the disadvantage on the better Medium Armors and allows for 1 additional point of Dexterity to count for your AC on something like Half-plate. This may put the AC the same as full plate but at the same time allows you to use it even more differently than full plate would be despite having the same AC because while just removing disadvantage is strong you would now be able to use the full advantage.
A strong Dexterity is always going to be useful on a straight roll if you have proficiency and there are ways to actually pick up Expertise which is more how rogue's really shine but sometimes they'd rather have the advantage instead. The Infiltrator can have both if you really want to build with it. Either as yet another feat you could take or an entirely different option to Medium Armor Master (assuming you don't multi-class to do it).
So it's not the AC that makes these two different styles given by these two different options their full flavor. It's the other choices that you make around them. The AC and the nature that they focus primarily around their armor is more one of the few unifying features about them. Though in Practice the reality is that through infusions and the like the Guardian being built towards all his defensive options is likely to end up with higher armor than the Infiltrator assuming that they don't decide to sacrifice some of it for other utility.
(I'm not going to blame you for not knowing how the quote system works on this website, as it is quite difficult to master. However, could you please not cookie cut my posts to argue with the one statement I made with evidence to support it to just repeat the question I already answered? I would really appreciate it.)
You want evidence? Here:
Include means that it automatically has that weapon. It grows it if the armor doesn't have it, just like it grows limbs for you if you lose them. Also, not only does "include" show that the weapons are automatic, it also shows that they are part of the armor. How can an armor set include weapons without those weapons being a part of the armor? To argue against this is clearly illogical and not following RAW.
Want more? This is from the Armor Modifications feature:
If the gauntlets counted as a separate item from the armor it is made of, then you would be able to infuse them before you gain this feature. The fact that you have to wait until you get this feature to infuse your gauntlets and your armor proves that the gauntlets and the armor are the same item. The only items you cannot infuse are ones that don't fit the Item requirement of an infusion (which the gauntlets definitely do, as they are weapons, allowing Enhanced or Radiant Weapon to be infused on them) and ones that are magical. Arcane Armor doesn't say that your armor becomes magical, so the only conceivable reason why you couldn't have already infused individually both your armor and gauntlets is because making one of them magical would make the other one magical. Thus, the armor and the gauntlets are the same item. And, RAW, any single item's components shares the whole price of the item.
Done. Just proved it. RAW, the gauntlets and the armor are the same item, and if they're the same item, they share the price of the whole item. Therefore, Thunder Gauntlets count as "a weapon with a price of one silver piece or higher", and Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade can both be used with the Thunder Gauntlets according to the Rules as Written.
Now, I really do not like repeating myself, so have we finally finished this stupid argument or do you want me to drill it into your brain even more?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
No, it's not. In 5e, ranged combat is much better than melee combat. You are less likely to be attacked, as you aren't in the front lines, and most monsters have melee attacks, so ranged characters don't need to focus on HP or AC as much as a melee character would.
One major buff of the Infiltrator Model is that it fights at range. That means that an Infiltrator Armorer can focus more on party support for their infusions than a Guardian Armorer can.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You keep claiming this and yet you keep refusing to actually show it.
The Guardian is better at tanking, no question, no contest, hands down and I have explained endlessly and repeatedly now why this is the case. You keep coming back and effectively saying that Infiltrator can do everything Guardian can do (when it can't) and refuse to actually prove your case.
Guardian armour is for tanking. It's better at tanking than Infiltrator. Therefore if tanking is what you want to do then Guardian is the model you want. I have shown why now multiple times, and yet you just keep dismissing arguments with what amounts to "la la I'm not listening".
Literally at no point have I argued that Infiltrator isn't better for a generalist, but I'm also not going to shy around from pointing out that it offers nothing for melee combat; Guardian has specific melee bonuses (Thunder Guantlets and Defensive Field, the latter of which can also be used at ranged) and you can still use the normal ranged abilities of an Artificer. Infiltrator in melee meanwhile literally cannot use any of its unique features, and Artificers aren't exactly overflowing with melee spells to compensate.
Infiltrator's abilities are most useful when ranged is where you want to be most of the time, or when you want to Infiltrate (a role you don't seem to want Infiltrators to actually ever do).
Guardian's abilities are most useful when you want to be in melee and/or tanking. They are two different armour models with two very different sets of abilities, and they both excel in totally different roles
I've no idea why you were so determined to keep insisting that Infiltrator can beat Guardian in the areas that Guardian is provably better at, but I'm not going around in circles with you anymore.
The problem with that reasoning is that you're only not in the front-lines if you actually have a front-line. In a party with nothing but ranged characters you won't stay ranged for long, at which point your ranged abilities suddenly become useless if you do end up as the front-line.
Melee and tank characters and classes don't exist without reason. Artificers have gained a good option for filling this role, which is a really cool thing for a class like Artificer to have; if your party needs a tank, or more front-line fighters, then you can be that, and Guardian armour is hands down better at that than Infiltrator, so why do people have such a hard time accepting that that's my argument?
I have literally never said that Infiltrator isn't better for ranged characters, it absolutely is, that's a no-brainer. But when talking about which armour model is superior (which I haven't), you can't ignore where you need or want your character to be and what each armour model is actually for.
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 is simply not true. It might be that I assume that you are actually familiar with the rules that we are discussing but maybe that was wrong of me. Please tell us what rules you don't understand and I'll explain them to you.
Why are you so caught up on this whole "tanking" strawman? Again, please stay on topic and reply to what I actually write instead of you going of on a tangent. There is more to being a succesful frontline fighter than just your own particular definition of "tanking".
No, I've told you multiple times why speed, mobility, versatility and being harder to hit are good things for a frontline fighter. But sure, if you choose to ignore those abilities, I guess that makes a difference. My point is that you shouldn't ignore them.
Well, that simply is not true. Why wouldn't the infiltrator be able to use its speed, for example, in melee? That makes no sense. And not sure what you call Shocking Grasp, Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade, Sword Burst, Thunderclap, Blur, Magic Weapon, Elemental Weapon, Blink or Thunderwave, but according to the rules, those are all Melee range spells.
Seriously, could you please stop lying? I've never once said that infiltrators shouldn't infiltrate or use range, I'm just pointing out that the infiltrator is sometimes better at frontline fighting than the guardian is. Do you honestly not know the difference between "A is good at both X and Y" and "A is good at X, therefor it must be bad at Y"? Becuase now you're just stacking the logical fallacies.
Like I've pointed out numerous times and what any Rogue or Monk player will tell you, there is more to melee/front-line fighting than just tanking. Please stop making strawman arguments.
Well, if you're going to keep ignoring what I've actually written then I agree, there is no point in you keeping going around in circles anymore.
There are countless scenarios where you don't need a frontline. Like an ambush for example. And yes, Third_Sundering is completely right when they say that range dis better than melee. If you can kill your opponent before they can even reach you, that is something good. There's a reason why guns and artillery is a thing.
No-one is really disputing what your argument is. We just point out that, according to the actual game, your arguments don't hold water.
Well, purpose is kind of irrelevant when it comes to quality. The pre-Tasha's Beastmaster Ranger was supposed to be good in both combat and exploration, but it's neither, really.
That's a fair assessment. I'd probably rate it as equal to the Artillerist but that depends on the kind of game you're playing and other situational needs. The main advantage that the Armorer has over the Artillerist is that the armor doesn't go away after an hour.