And the issue with integrate weapons and armor is not in how clean or messy the language is but is rooted primarily in the fact that it's making mention of items that are not referenced anywhere else
If you're referring to Thunder Gauntlets here; Thunder Gauntlets are not an item, your armour is, Thunder Gauntlets are just a part of the Arcane Armor feature, nothing more. When you attack with Thunder Gauntlets you are attacking with your armour as if it were a weapon, the Thunder Gauntlets feature simply lets you do that when you meet the other requirements (have an empty hand).
The only time that parts of your armour are considered separate items is when you can infuse them separately, and this is only for that purpose. For all other purposes your armour continues to be a single item that has different infusions applied to different (but not separate) parts of it.
While the wording could maybe be tightened up to clarify this, I find it really weird that people keep adding additional steps that aren't there (parts of your armour becoming new items).
I was speaking in terms of a lot of people complaining and arguing over whether certain cantrips actually work with them now that they have Item values attached to being able to cast it. In which terms that is information about items, whether created purely by class feature and primarily meant to only interact with other class features or not. In which case your Gauntlet's are considered a non-defined value item classified as a simple weapon that does not appear in the books. Your stipulation that it is only Armor and only a class feature doesn't actually change this issue. And for further Clarification you are not attacking with your armor as a weapon. Your attacking with a specified Piece of that Armor as your weapon. Which is what causes the argument. It could have been made a whole lot simpler if they said something like "your armored fists count as a simple weapon." But they chose to specifically use the word Gauntlets.
Edit:For Clarification. I actually agree with your stance. I'm just fully aware that there are several places that your stance doesn't work. like the AL and DM's that are sticklers for what's in the books. Keep in mind that even much of Sage Advice from Jeremy is not accepted in places like AL as strange as that sounds, but it's because it's not official rulings handed down in things like errata.
the Lightning launcher is okay damage. before bringing in feats into the puzzle they can start out dealing slightly less damage than the bog standard rogue using CA to generate advantage and pinking with a short bow. not a bad place to be but it scales slow, only getting a slight upgrade at 10 with +2 infusion and then 15 with perfected armor. even with advantage they can't seem to keep up. they can pick up the homunculus which helps in the lower levels but eating a second infusion for another attack that scales slow has its own issues.
It scales no slower than the bow for that rogue does. And the Rogue is only doing slightly more damage because of a combination of hitting slightly more often AND applying a second abiity in the form of Sneak Attack. Where the Sneak attack is what is actually making the difference since the short bow is only a 1d6 weapon and stays that way for the entirety of the game. If that rogue however does not get to use it's sneak attack it's damage is going to be far lower than that of the Artificer (such as against a high perception target or situations where hiding doesn't cause the enemy to lose track of them.)
Also Technically the damage is upgraded at level 5 as well simply for getting the second attack that the Rogue doesn't get. And by the time your at level 10 to 15. An Artificer is not meant to keep up with a Rogue's Sneak Attack damage. There is nothing really outside of high level spells that keeps up with Rogues Sneak attack damage. You can see little splashes from other martial classes that might seem to match it for a turn or two but that's not sustainable despite how much some Paladins might try through smiting or others might try through other means.
What I wonder is whether your attacks simultaneously count as unarmed strikes and simple weapons. This is not obviously the case, but I think it could be a defensible ruling, and it would allow Monk/Armorer multiclassing to make sense. It would also allow Armorers to get past the +2 Enhanced Weapon cap (which seems arbitrarily low) using Insignia of Claws and/or Eldritch Claw Tattoo.
A DM could certainly rule how they want on it, but I think RAW it's not the case; Thunder Gauntlets let you treat the gauntlets of your armour as simple melee weapons, unarmed strikes are specifically made without weapons. There are some exceptions, but these are explicit, such as an Aarakocra's Talons or Minotaur's Horns, which state that they deal alternate damage as part of an unarmed strike, despite being (natural) weapons.
While the possibility of a Monk/Armorer fusion would be sweet, I think it's unviable; you can't use the Martial Arts feature at all while armoured, which is a pretty big loss. You could still use some Ki abilities through multi-classing, but I think you'd lose more than you gained doing that. As much as I love Monks, when multi-classing you're often Monk first, or at least building around it.
If you wanted to go all-in on the brawling element it might make more sense just to take the Grappler feat, or see if your DM might rule that Tavern Brawler's bonus action grapple should work for gauntlet weapons (as RAW it currently only works for unarmed or improvised weapons, but gauntlet attacks are literally hands-based so should really count). With that ruling Tavern Brawler plus one level in Barbarian would give you a lot of value I think (bonus action grapple with advantage while raging, plus the damage resistance).
To touch on this. Monk Weapons include all simple weapons. That's not the problem.
The problem is as Haravikk stated in that monks cannot wear armor to do any of their monk stuff. So even though they could wield the gauntlets, the part of wearing armor that it takes to wear the gauntlets is what actually stops you and makes the combination unviable as far as the system is concerned. So his suggestion of mixing in Barbarian is going to be the course to explore since their only real limitation that I can think of at the moment is that they can't wear heavy armor.
And the issue with integrate weapons and armor is not in how clean or messy the language is but is rooted primarily in the fact that it's making mention of items that are not referenced anywhere else
If you're referring to Thunder Gauntlets here; Thunder Gauntlets are not an item, your armour is, Thunder Gauntlets are just a part of the Arcane Armor feature, nothing more. When you attack with Thunder Gauntlets you are attacking with your armour as if it were a weapon, the Thunder Gauntlets feature simply lets you do that when you meet the other requirements (have an empty hand).
The only time that parts of your armour are considered separate items is when you can infuse them separately, and this is only for that purpose. For all other purposes your armour continues to be a single item that has different infusions applied to different (but not separate) parts of it.
While the wording could maybe be tightened up to clarify this, I find it really weird that people keep adding additional steps that aren't there (parts of your armour becoming new items).
I was speaking in terms of a lot of people complaining and arguing over whether certain cantrips actually work with them now that they have Item values attached to being able to cast it. In which terms that is information about items, whether created purely by class feature and primarily meant to only interact with other class features or not. In which case your Gauntlet's are considered a non-defined value item classified as a simple weapon that does not appear in the books. Your stipulation that it is only Armor and only a class feature doesn't actually change this issue. And for further Clarification you are not attacking with your armor as a weapon. Your attacking with a specified Piece of that Armor as your weapon. Which is what causes the argument. It could have been made a whole lot simpler if they said something like "your armored fists count as a simple weapon." But they chose to specifically use the word Gauntlets.
Edit:For Clarification. I actually agree with your stance. I'm just fully aware that there are several places that your stance doesn't work. like the AL and DM's that are sticklers for what's in the books. Keep in mind that even much of Sage Advice from Jeremy is not accepted in places like AL as strange as that sounds, but it's because it's not official rulings handed down in things like errata.
Anyone who is a true stickler for what’s in the books can clearly see that Thunder Gauntlets are not an item. Defensive Field is also not an item. They are both features that are applied to your armor, which is an item with a defined value. Moreover, BB and GFB do not require a fully defined value, only a value over 1sp. Hence even if one were to insist on using the fractional value of the gauntlets instead of the full value of the armor, that value is without question defined as some number greater than 1sp.
And the issue with integrate weapons and armor is not in how clean or messy the language is but is rooted primarily in the fact that it's making mention of items that are not referenced anywhere else
If you're referring to Thunder Gauntlets here; Thunder Gauntlets are not an item, your armour is, Thunder Gauntlets are just a part of the Arcane Armor feature, nothing more. When you attack with Thunder Gauntlets you are attacking with your armour as if it were a weapon, the Thunder Gauntlets feature simply lets you do that when you meet the other requirements (have an empty hand).
The only time that parts of your armour are considered separate items is when you can infuse them separately, and this is only for that purpose. For all other purposes your armour continues to be a single item that has different infusions applied to different (but not separate) parts of it.
While the wording could maybe be tightened up to clarify this, I find it really weird that people keep adding additional steps that aren't there (parts of your armour becoming new items).
I was speaking in terms of a lot of people complaining and arguing over whether certain cantrips actually work with them now that they have Item values attached to being able to cast it. In which terms that is information about items, whether created purely by class feature and primarily meant to only interact with other class features or not. In which case your Gauntlet's are considered a non-defined value item classified as a simple weapon that does not appear in the books. Your stipulation that it is only Armor and only a class feature doesn't actually change this issue. And for further Clarification you are not attacking with your armor as a weapon. Your attacking with a specified Piece of that Armor as your weapon. Which is what causes the argument. It could have been made a whole lot simpler if they said something like "your armored fists count as a simple weapon." But they chose to specifically use the word Gauntlets.
Edit:For Clarification. I actually agree with your stance. I'm just fully aware that there are several places that your stance doesn't work. like the AL and DM's that are sticklers for what's in the books. Keep in mind that even much of Sage Advice from Jeremy is not accepted in places like AL as strange as that sounds, but it's because it's not official rulings handed down in things like errata.
Anyone who is a true stickler for what’s in the books can clearly see that Thunder Gauntlets are not an item. Defensive Field is also not an item. They are both features that are applied to your armor, which is an item with a defined value. Moreover, BB and GFB do not require a fully defined value, only a value over 1sp. Hence even if one were to insist on using the fractional value of the gauntlets instead of the full value of the armor, that value is without question defined as some number greater than 1sp.
That's the problem. Places like AL and stickler DM's aren't actually going to care. All they are going to do is open the book to the equipment section and say "show me gauntlets and their price." We both know they exist. We both know that they have a price. We both know that logically they are part of the armor your wearing and there is a basic logic chain to it all. But that doesn't matter to them.
And I would point them to the section on armor and rattle off the price.
The specific overrides the general. It’s the job of the DM to understand the rules as written. The Armorer rules include a feature named Arcane Armor that modifies your armor. The Arcane Armor contains a further feature named Thunder Gauntlets that also modifies the armor. The armor (an item in the PHB) now counts as a weapon. The end. Any DM, AL or otherwise, who doesn’t follow that chain of RAW is not doing their job.
Denying BB for the armorer’s arcane armor: guardian would be like denying BB for the artillerist’s arcane firearm. And it hinges on understanding the difference between a class feature with an item-like name and the actual item to which the feature applies.
That's the problem. Places like AL and stickler DM's aren't actually going to care. All they are going to do is open the book to the equipment section and say "show me gauntlets and their price." We both know they exist. We both know that they have a price. We both know that logically they are part of the armor your wearing and there is a basic logic chain to it all. But that doesn't matter to them.
Your correct response in such a case is "I don't need to as I'm not attacking using separate gauntlets, I'm attacking with a feature of my armour" and point to the cost of your armour. If they don't accept that, tell them to learn to read because they're not operating within RAW. 😝
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.
That's the problem. Places like AL and stickler DM's aren't actually going to care. All they are going to do is open the book to the equipment section and say "show me gauntlets and their price." We both know they exist. We both know that they have a price. We both know that logically they are part of the armor your wearing and there is a basic logic chain to it all. But that doesn't matter to them.
Your correct response in such a case is "I don't need to as I'm not attacking using separate gauntlets, I'm attacking with a feature of my armour" and point to the cost of your armour. If they don't accept that, tell them to learn to read because they're not operating within RAW. 😝
Their immediate response to this is "It doesn't work that way and you can't do that.
And their immediate response to pointing to the armor is going to be "That's not Gauntlet's or That's not a weapon."
Here's the thing about following the books. Just because there is a chain of logic that makes sense. They really do not have to follow it just because it fits the RaW based upon RaI. They label it RaI because RaI is based upon that logic. RaW is only based upon what is actually written down in the books. And they tend to take the stance that if it was meant to work that way by RaW than the required details for the interaction would have been supplied and not have to come from drawing a logical conclusion.
We may not like it. But that's just the reality of things. And since they are running the games. And they will tell you to simply go find someplace else to play.
I don’t accept that a DM can selectively waive the need for basic logical reasoning. It’s applied all the time for fiendish multiclass combos and tricky ideas players come up with. If I were committed to the notion of AL, I would convince them of their error or leave the session and run it up the chain. But I have no intention of playing in AL either way so it doesn’t really matter to me if they’re wrong. RAW is very clear about how these features synergize.
Anyway — back to thoughts about the Armorer, I’ve reluctantly concluded that it is a little underpowered in combat compared to Artillerist and Battle Smith. I think that’s actually okay, because where the Armorer is supposed to shine is versatility. Stealth mode to combat mode on a short test, plus 2 infusions, etc. But I think they should have leaned into that a bit more. Don’t tweak the damage etc (although a bit more THP would be nice), but:
- Eventually decrease armor mode switch time to 1 minute (level 9). This way the party’s face can run a short distraction con to let you change to infiltrator and sneak in somewhere, or parties can try to stall a fight until you can switch to guardian. Maybe even advance this again to 1 action 1/day although that might be a bit much. Could gate this with a spell slot exchange mechanic that’s noticeably absent from the Armorer.
- Make it 3 bonus armor infusions at level 9 instead of 2. This is the unique Armorer feature that really is supposed to make it more versatile than the other subclasses, but when you think about the other subclasses’ pets and potions, the Armorer is really only 1 ahead (and is actually running 1 behind before level 9). I would also think about raising this to 4 bonus armor infusions at level 15 (basically you get your whole armor for free). This might seem strong but it encourages the Armorer to rely on infusions for itself instead of searching for magic items — and help craft more permanent weapons and armor for allies.
- One final thought is that burning a spell slot as an action or bonus action to switch off an active infusion and turn on another known infusion would be really cool and super on theme. Go from gauntlets of strength to gloves of swimming at the cost of a spell slot, etc. I would consider whether this has to be limited to the same infused item or even limited to your Arcane Armor. If so maybe give 1/day for free and then burn slots, which mimics other subclass mechanics.
I wouldn’t necessarily advocate for all of these at once, but these little changes would differentiate the Armorer more by making it more flexible rather than by boosting DPR.
That's the problem. Places like AL and stickler DM's aren't actually going to care. All they are going to do is open the book to the equipment section and say "show me gauntlets and their price." We both know they exist. We both know that they have a price. We both know that logically they are part of the armor your wearing and there is a basic logic chain to it all. But that doesn't matter to them.
Your correct response in such a case is "I don't need to as I'm not attacking using separate gauntlets, I'm attacking with a feature of my armour" and point to the cost of your armour. If they don't accept that, tell them to learn to read because they're not operating within RAW. 😝
Their immediate response to this is "It doesn't work that way and you can't do that.
And their immediate response to pointing to the armor is going to be "That's not Gauntlet's or That's not a weapon."
To which you respond by pointing them to the Arcane Armour rule which very clearly says otherwise; the kind of person you are describing here isn't someone playing by RAW, but someone who doesn't want to play D&D at all.
Anyway — back to thoughts about the Armorer, I’ve reluctantly concluded that it is a little underpowered in combat compared to Artillerist and Battle Smith. I think that’s actually okay, because where the Armorer is supposed to shine is versatility. Stealth mode to combat mode on a short test, plus 2 infusions, etc. But I think they should have leaned into that a bit more. Don’t tweak the damage etc (although a bit more THP would be nice), but:
I guess it kind of depends on whether you lean into it more yourself; those extra infusions when you get them can give you a pretty hefty mix of damage, defence and/or flexibility, while still having an infusion or two free to buff your party as well.
In that regard it's an Artificer that's encouraged to dump at least two infusions into themselves, probably more. If you're going Guardian then maximum defensive infusions (e.g- on shield and armour) can give you an AC that will make your average paladin say "woah, isn't that a bit much?", while an Infiltrator might lean more towards the flexibility and team buffing infusions since they should have less need of raw AC.
- Eventually decrease armor mode switch time to 1 minute (level 9). This way the party’s face can run a short distraction con to let you change to infiltrator and sneak in somewhere, or parties can try to stall a fight until you can switch to guardian. Maybe even advance this again to 1 action 1/day although that might be a bit much. Could gate this with a spell slot exchange mechanic that’s noticeably absent from the Armorer.
A quick re-spec feature could be interesting, though in terms of armour model switching, I actually kind of like that they dropped the armour being hidden under clothes feature, as it forces more planning for social stealth. IMO your bard or rogue, or a character with Disguise Self are the ones for ad-hoc changes, the rest should be planning their social stealth.
Personally I think it would be good just to be able to switch out your armour infusions as part of changing armour model, as you may prefer different infusions for each model depending upon how you use them. More armour infusions I'm a little mixed on; the arcane armour itself and the upgrades it gets later are kind of like bonus infusions already?
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.
That's the problem. Places like AL and stickler DM's aren't actually going to care. All they are going to do is open the book to the equipment section and say "show me gauntlets and their price." We both know they exist. We both know that they have a price. We both know that logically they are part of the armor your wearing and there is a basic logic chain to it all. But that doesn't matter to them.
Your correct response in such a case is "I don't need to as I'm not attacking using separate gauntlets, I'm attacking with a feature of my armour" and point to the cost of your armour. If they don't accept that, tell them to learn to read because they're not operating within RAW. 😝
Their immediate response to this is "It doesn't work that way and you can't do that.
And their immediate response to pointing to the armor is going to be "That's not Gauntlet's or That's not a weapon."
Here's the thing about following the books. Just because there is a chain of logic that makes sense. They really do not have to follow it just because it fits the RaW based upon RaI. They label it RaI because RaI is based upon that logic. RaW is only based upon what is actually written down in the books. And they tend to take the stance that if it was meant to work that way by RaW than the required details for the interaction would have been supplied and not have to come from drawing a logical conclusion.
We may not like it. But that's just the reality of things. And since they are running the games. And they will tell you to simply go find someplace else to play.
And that's why AL sucks so much. They claim to be RAW but they too are only interpreting rules the way they understand them but unlike other DMs they act like they are above the players and that their interpretation is the only correct one so there's no chance of talking things through properly with them. Honestly, unless a topic is specifically AL related we shouldn't even consider them. It's an extremely unhealthy DM/Players relationship that doesn't apply to most of us anyway.
it's not that thy interpret the rules the way they understand them. It's that they don't interpret rules. While Interpretation can be the mark of a good DM, even if you don't always agree with it, that leads to inconsistancies that something like AL is under equipped to deal with so they choose not to interpret at all.
The Armorer strikes me as an artificer built specifically for players who love the Item Infusion feature and want more of it, as well as for players who have trouble telling their group that infusions are for the artificer first, and other characters as the needs of the situation dictate. To this day I still see people who are not artificer players telling artificer players "Don't be greedy with your infusions! You're an A+ support class, hand out those magical lewts to your team and be an awesome Team Player! You can keep one or maybe two for yourself if you have to, but that's not in the SPIRIT of the artificer - give your team the boost they need to win!"
Rei: "Mother****er, the boost my team needs to win is ME. I am the best user of the vast majority of my Infusions; I am not here to be your candy dispenser for when the DM is feeling stingy with treasure. You want a bunch of cool magic items you don't have to cajole the DM into letting you have? Play an artificer, like I did. I pay for these infusions by not having any other class features unrelated to magical gear - you don't get to keep all the dungeon loot AND all my Infusions to boot, you grasping Scrooge McLoot quackhole."
The Armor's Armor Modifications feature ensures that an absolute bare minimum of two of the artificer's infusions are always reserved for the artificer herself, as they physically cannot be 'given away' to party members who want your stuff. Those two bonus infusions belong to the armorer, end sentence. For players who love the customization and kitbashing thing the artificer has going on, the armorer is a dream. For players looking to squeeze every last joule of mojo out of their artificer, looking to maximize deepz or any of that other junk, the Smith or artillerist is probably more their jam.
But man...if this had been available when I'd built Star, I don't think she'd've bothered with Battlesmithery. Gawd I love the idea of the mind-reading jet-bootsing Infiltrator artificer pulling ridiculous shounen shit every other fight.
Anyway — back to thoughts about the Armorer, I’ve reluctantly concluded that it is a little underpowered in combat compared to Artillerist and Battle Smith. I think that’s actually okay, because where the Armorer is supposed to shine is versatility. Stealth mode to combat mode on a short test, plus 2 infusions, etc. But I think they should have leaned into that a bit more. Don’t tweak the damage etc (although a bit more THP would be nice), but:
- Eventually decrease armor mode switch time to 1 minute (level 9). This way the party’s face can run a short distraction con to let you change to infiltrator and sneak in somewhere, or parties can try to stall a fight until you can switch to guardian. Maybe even advance this again to 1 action 1/day although that might be a bit much. Could gate this with a spell slot exchange mechanic that’s noticeably absent from the Armorer.
- Make it 3 bonus armor infusions at level 9 instead of 2. This is the unique Armorer feature that really is supposed to make it more versatile than the other subclasses, but when you think about the other subclasses’ pets and potions, the Armorer is really only 1 ahead (and is actually running 1 behind before level 9). I would also think about raising this to 4 bonus armor infusions at level 15 (basically you get your whole armor for free). This might seem strong but it encourages the Armorer to rely on infusions for itself instead of searching for magic items — and help craft more permanent weapons and armor for allies.
- One final thought is that burning a spell slot as an action or bonus action to switch off an active infusion and turn on another known infusion would be really cool and super on theme. Go from gauntlets of strength to gloves of swimming at the cost of a spell slot, etc. I would consider whether this has to be limited to the same infused item or even limited to your Arcane Armor. If so maybe give 1/day for free and then burn slots, which mimics other subclass mechanics.
I wouldn’t necessarily advocate for all of these at once, but these little changes would differentiate the Armorer more by making it more flexible rather than by boosting DPR.
It's not that the armorer is under powered. It's that they are differently powered. the Armorer can do most of the things that the other two do and with the overall same efficiency. They are just focused a little different. White Room situations do not truly show the power of most things. Specially if what your testing in the white room scenario doesn't actually work well for the thing your testing but there may be plenty of other ways you can test them that will excel. A Battle Smiths companion has to take multiple hits that the battlesmith does not to equal the same durability that the Armorer can have from Guardian Armor for example. This is feasibly easily doable in actual game play scenarios at the lowest levels but by the time you hit tier 2 where aoe is increasingly a thing this starts to become somewhat problematic. And the Artillerist being driven in large part by spells doesn't even start really coming into it's own niche of true power until the mid-levels because to do some of it's best stuff it needs time to mature and things like it's cantrips to improve and affects that modify those things to come online.
The Armorer isn't behind on infusions before level 9 or behind on their stated infusions after that point. First of all it's hard to be behind considering they get the same amount before level 9. They get to do the same exact infusions in the same ways that other Artificers get to do up to this point. There is nothing to say they even have to focus on armor infusions before level 9. And The Two More actually gives them much more that they can do and have turned on at once than other Artificers. Other Artificers after level 9 are always going to be behind in the infusions department. Because of the way infusions are written. It's the Armorer that is most consistantly going to have the most active infusions going, including ones that can fill out all of it's attunement slots without involving outside magical items if they don't want to. And if they do want to that means yet another non-attuned thing they can carry around. Like that bag of holding where they are going to be the least likely to go "I really need that bag of holding but I really feel like I'm not hitting hard enough or I need a little AC. This is really tough." A third bonus armor infusion really isn't going to serve them because it's not really going to be a third bonus armor infusion. It's going to be a third bonus low level item infusion that doesn't take attunement. It's very easy as it is now to infuse all 4 pieces plus get All of the item duplications ones your going to need to flesh out the rest of your build.
Changing the time it takes you to switch your armor also isn't thematic of the Artificer overall. The Theme of the artificer is the tinkerer that takes time to alter or build crazy half-magical inventions. The only thing something like Shortening the time to switch it or Allowing you to switch infusions on the fly is the overly magical and somewhat disconnected mechanics which already fly pretty heavily in the face of the theme. We don't really need more of that in the Artificer. What we need is less of the "poof it's magic" and something that a little more fits what the Theme of them is. And that is ignoring the fact that when your going to sneak into things your often going to know well ahead of time or have a long wait for things to better facilitate the sneaking. So you often have plenty of time to change your armor over even on a long rest. The only thing that shortening the change over time does is facilitate a "have your cake and eat it too" mentality towards being stealthy just because stealth is called for but ready for combat at any and all times there is combat without having to pick or choose between them. And when you do that you might as well get rid of the different types of armor because the conscious thought of why you want to use a particular type of armor is completely nullified. Which I think there should be more types of armor and not less. We really should have a few more options than what we're given and what they are boiled down to.
Whatever your opinion on the specifics, it seems to me that the Armorer, though flexible, isn’t quite flexible enough. I’d happily take more armor models, faster switches for a spell slot, or another bonus infusion. But whatever it is, it feels like it needs just a little something.
While you do gain some more infusion-like armor features, battle smith is getting life drain, etc, and artillerist can multi-tank (regenerating THP and half cover for all!) and blast simultaneously at high levels (which is incredible action economy at the cost of one spell slot for an entire combat, maybe two combats depending on how your DM spaces them out).
Like many of us, I envision the Armorer as fantasy iron man. Its spells all come from magic gizmos popping out of its armor, a trick for every occasion. Also, the artificer is specifically a magitek class. Flavoring it as purely mechanical is possible, but ultimately it’s a spellcaster that fuses magic with MacGuyver style on-the-fly tinkering. Burning a slot to make your armor go all Transformers on you doesn’t seem off theme at all. And it’s weird that the Armorer doesn’t have a slot burning feature.
Off the top of my head, two cool additional models might be Spellslinger, which could have some mechanics to boost spell effectiveness (reroll 1s and 2s? launch touch spell grenades?), and Magebuster, which could add +1 to saving throws versus spells, a weapon that silences for one round (leveled spells only? Save-gated?), and some kind of damage resistance that you choose when you switch into it—any choice other than basic bludgeoning/piercing/slashing on a short rest. (To encourage forward thinking and preparation, which I agree are big parts of the class.)
Whatever your opinion on the specifics, it seems to me that ghe Armorer, though flexible, isn’t quite flexible enough. I’d happily take more armor models, faster switches for a spell slot, or another bonus infusion. But whatever it is, it feels like it needs just a little something.
While you do gain some more infusion-like armor features, battle smith is getting life drain, etc, and artillerist can multi-tank (regenerating THP and half cover for all!) and blast simultaneously at high levels (which is incredible action economy at the cost of one spell slot for an entire combat, maybe two combats depending on how your DM spaces them out).
Like many of us, I envision the Armorer as fantasy iron man. Its spells all come from magic gizmos popping out of its armor, a trick for every occasion. Also, the artificer is specifically a magitek class. Flavoring it as purely mechanical is possible, but ultimately it’s a spellcaster that fuses magic with MacGuyver style on-the-fly tinkering. Burning a slot to make your armor go all Transformers on you doesn’t seem off theme at all. And it’s weird that the Armorer doesn’t have a slot burning feature.
There is no life drain going on. You may picture it that way in your head. But it's just not happening. Your just getting a little residual extra damage or healing out of a handful of hits. The amount healed isn't even in any way tied to the damage that you deal when you choose to heal somebody.
And the Artillerist isn't getting the ability you mentioned until level 15. If your comparing a level 15 artillerist against a level 9 armorer your already doing it wrong. All the artillerist gets at level 9 is to blow up his Turret and he can't even choose who that does or doesn't hit. So it's usage is situational at best and it's damage isn't anything more than what some first level spells can do regardless of what level spell slot you used on the turret So they don't exactly make the best remote bombs.
The Power of the Armorer is that at level 9. they aren't sacrificing spell slots to make their class features work. They are the only artificer that doesn't and this is actually a powerful thing in their favor. Particularly considering they actually have one of the most attack based spell list. So For those spells that your sacrificing on the other two to get a new cannon or to bring back your steel defender. The Armorer is casting Magic Missile or Thunder wave, or if your forced to sacrifice a spell slot higher than first for them for some reason. Then the Armorer is casting Shatter, Mirror Image, or perhaps even Lightning Bolt or Hypnotic Pattern.
Mirror Image is a fairly powerful but often overlooked defensive spell. Particularly on melee characters. Considering it gives between a 50% and 75% chance of entirely being missed despite the attack being successful for 3 whole attacks. And that's just assuming that all hits happen. it's actually possible to target one of them and actually get a miss on the duplicate which just increases it's value.
Your only not seeing Ironman in all of that because your looking at the features and going "where is my rocket launcher power" without realizing your rocket launcher is your spell list and your chest beam is spells like Lightning Bolt. Iron Man only has the ability to change into suits with different specs because he spends most of his time outside of his iron man suit building alternate suits for other situations. That's the only thing the armorer is really missing. The Ability to have other suits on standby. But what they do get in return is the ability through a few hours rest and tinkering to turn that suit into another suit. That's still very fitting and that's how Iron Man would do it if he didn't have access to others already built in his spare time.
MacGuyver wasn't building things as complicated as something like an iron man suit or a Steel Defender. He was always building small gadgets with rather singular purposes. At least half of them was to explode but most often they were to open something, to get through something or to get around something and they burned themselves out in the process of doing it. They were never reusable. If your looking for that kind of one use and it's gone and it's a bit unpredictable in what it will do. Your looking for the Alchemist that specializes in that kind of tinkering Because If you want MacGuyver. You don't actually want most of the subclasses of Artificer. They don't actually work the way that he worked. His style was very unique, very experimental and really only fitting of one of the subclasses.
“Life drain” was shorthand. The point is that they gain a neat feature that enhances both damage and support simultaneously (I’d say it’s better than life drain because of how you can divert the healing), and it scales well.
Also I do agree the Armorer has a great spell list to flavor as rockets or gadgets or whatever. Hypnotic Pattern is in the running for best spell on any of the subclass lists, and any Armorer will probably want to dedicate an infusion slot to spell refueling ring by level 9.
I still think the subclass needs at least one nudge toward more versatility. WotC will probably never get back to it, but it could be worthwhile for a DM to consider.
I was speaking in terms of a lot of people complaining and arguing over whether certain cantrips actually work with them now that they have Item values attached to being able to cast it. In which terms that is information about items, whether created purely by class feature and primarily meant to only interact with other class features or not. In which case your Gauntlet's are considered a non-defined value item classified as a simple weapon that does not appear in the books. Your stipulation that it is only Armor and only a class feature doesn't actually change this issue. And for further Clarification you are not attacking with your armor as a weapon. Your attacking with a specified Piece of that Armor as your weapon. Which is what causes the argument. It could have been made a whole lot simpler if they said something like "your armored fists count as a simple weapon." But they chose to specifically use the word Gauntlets.
Edit:For Clarification. I actually agree with your stance. I'm just fully aware that there are several places that your stance doesn't work. like the AL and DM's that are sticklers for what's in the books. Keep in mind that even much of Sage Advice from Jeremy is not accepted in places like AL as strange as that sounds, but it's because it's not official rulings handed down in things like errata.
It scales no slower than the bow for that rogue does. And the Rogue is only doing slightly more damage because of a combination of hitting slightly more often AND applying a second abiity in the form of Sneak Attack. Where the Sneak attack is what is actually making the difference since the short bow is only a 1d6 weapon and stays that way for the entirety of the game. If that rogue however does not get to use it's sneak attack it's damage is going to be far lower than that of the Artificer (such as against a high perception target or situations where hiding doesn't cause the enemy to lose track of them.)
Also Technically the damage is upgraded at level 5 as well simply for getting the second attack that the Rogue doesn't get. And by the time your at level 10 to 15. An Artificer is not meant to keep up with a Rogue's Sneak Attack damage. There is nothing really outside of high level spells that keeps up with Rogues Sneak attack damage. You can see little splashes from other martial classes that might seem to match it for a turn or two but that's not sustainable despite how much some Paladins might try through smiting or others might try through other means.
To touch on this. Monk Weapons include all simple weapons. That's not the problem.
The problem is as Haravikk stated in that monks cannot wear armor to do any of their monk stuff. So even though they could wield the gauntlets, the part of wearing armor that it takes to wear the gauntlets is what actually stops you and makes the combination unviable as far as the system is concerned. So his suggestion of mixing in Barbarian is going to be the course to explore since their only real limitation that I can think of at the moment is that they can't wear heavy armor.
Anyone who is a true stickler for what’s in the books can clearly see that Thunder Gauntlets are not an item. Defensive Field is also not an item. They are both features that are applied to your armor, which is an item with a defined value. Moreover, BB and GFB do not require a fully defined value, only a value over 1sp. Hence even if one were to insist on using the fractional value of the gauntlets instead of the full value of the armor, that value is without question defined as some number greater than 1sp.
That's the problem. Places like AL and stickler DM's aren't actually going to care. All they are going to do is open the book to the equipment section and say "show me gauntlets and their price." We both know they exist. We both know that they have a price. We both know that logically they are part of the armor your wearing and there is a basic logic chain to it all. But that doesn't matter to them.
And I would point them to the section on armor and rattle off the price.
The specific overrides the general. It’s the job of the DM to understand the rules as written. The Armorer rules include a feature named Arcane Armor that modifies your armor. The Arcane Armor contains a further feature named Thunder Gauntlets that also modifies the armor. The armor (an item in the PHB) now counts as a weapon. The end. Any DM, AL or otherwise, who doesn’t follow that chain of RAW is not doing their job.
Denying BB for the armorer’s arcane armor: guardian would be like denying BB for the artillerist’s arcane firearm. And it hinges on understanding the difference between a class feature with an item-like name and the actual item to which the feature applies.
Your correct response in such a case is "I don't need to as I'm not attacking using separate gauntlets, I'm attacking with a feature of my armour" and point to the cost of your armour. If they don't accept that, tell them to learn to read because they're not operating within RAW. 😝
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.
Their immediate response to this is "It doesn't work that way and you can't do that.
And their immediate response to pointing to the armor is going to be "That's not Gauntlet's or That's not a weapon."
Here's the thing about following the books. Just because there is a chain of logic that makes sense. They really do not have to follow it just because it fits the RaW based upon RaI. They label it RaI because RaI is based upon that logic. RaW is only based upon what is actually written down in the books. And they tend to take the stance that if it was meant to work that way by RaW than the required details for the interaction would have been supplied and not have to come from drawing a logical conclusion.
We may not like it. But that's just the reality of things. And since they are running the games. And they will tell you to simply go find someplace else to play.
I don’t accept that a DM can selectively waive the need for basic logical reasoning. It’s applied all the time for fiendish multiclass combos and tricky ideas players come up with. If I were committed to the notion of AL, I would convince them of their error or leave the session and run it up the chain. But I have no intention of playing in AL either way so it doesn’t really matter to me if they’re wrong. RAW is very clear about how these features synergize.
Anyway — back to thoughts about the Armorer, I’ve reluctantly concluded that it is a little underpowered in combat compared to Artillerist and Battle Smith. I think that’s actually okay, because where the Armorer is supposed to shine is versatility. Stealth mode to combat mode on a short test, plus 2 infusions, etc. But I think they should have leaned into that a bit more. Don’t tweak the damage etc (although a bit more THP would be nice), but:
- Eventually decrease armor mode switch time to 1 minute (level 9). This way the party’s face can run a short distraction con to let you change to infiltrator and sneak in somewhere, or parties can try to stall a fight until you can switch to guardian. Maybe even advance this again to 1 action 1/day although that might be a bit much. Could gate this with a spell slot exchange mechanic that’s noticeably absent from the Armorer.
- Make it 3 bonus armor infusions at level 9 instead of 2. This is the unique Armorer feature that really is supposed to make it more versatile than the other subclasses, but when you think about the other subclasses’ pets and potions, the Armorer is really only 1 ahead (and is actually running 1 behind before level 9). I would also think about raising this to 4 bonus armor infusions at level 15 (basically you get your whole armor for free). This might seem strong but it encourages the Armorer to rely on infusions for itself instead of searching for magic items — and help craft more permanent weapons and armor for allies.
- One final thought is that burning a spell slot as an action or bonus action to switch off an active infusion and turn on another known infusion would be really cool and super on theme. Go from gauntlets of strength to gloves of swimming at the cost of a spell slot, etc. I would consider whether this has to be limited to the same infused item or even limited to your Arcane Armor. If so maybe give 1/day for free and then burn slots, which mimics other subclass mechanics.
I wouldn’t necessarily advocate for all of these at once, but these little changes would differentiate the Armorer more by making it more flexible rather than by boosting DPR.
To which you respond by pointing them to the Arcane Armour rule which very clearly says otherwise; the kind of person you are describing here isn't someone playing by RAW, but someone who doesn't want to play D&D at all.
I guess it kind of depends on whether you lean into it more yourself; those extra infusions when you get them can give you a pretty hefty mix of damage, defence and/or flexibility, while still having an infusion or two free to buff your party as well.
In that regard it's an Artificer that's encouraged to dump at least two infusions into themselves, probably more. If you're going Guardian then maximum defensive infusions (e.g- on shield and armour) can give you an AC that will make your average paladin say "woah, isn't that a bit much?", while an Infiltrator might lean more towards the flexibility and team buffing infusions since they should have less need of raw AC.
A quick re-spec feature could be interesting, though in terms of armour model switching, I actually kind of like that they dropped the armour being hidden under clothes feature, as it forces more planning for social stealth. IMO your bard or rogue, or a character with Disguise Self are the ones for ad-hoc changes, the rest should be planning their social stealth.
Personally I think it would be good just to be able to switch out your armour infusions as part of changing armour model, as you may prefer different infusions for each model depending upon how you use them. More armour infusions I'm a little mixed on; the arcane armour itself and the upgrades it gets later are kind of like bonus infusions already?
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.
it's not that thy interpret the rules the way they understand them. It's that they don't interpret rules. While Interpretation can be the mark of a good DM, even if you don't always agree with it, that leads to inconsistancies that something like AL is under equipped to deal with so they choose not to interpret at all.
The Armorer strikes me as an artificer built specifically for players who love the Item Infusion feature and want more of it, as well as for players who have trouble telling their group that infusions are for the artificer first, and other characters as the needs of the situation dictate. To this day I still see people who are not artificer players telling artificer players "Don't be greedy with your infusions! You're an A+ support class, hand out those magical lewts to your team and be an awesome Team Player! You can keep one or maybe two for yourself if you have to, but that's not in the SPIRIT of the artificer - give your team the boost they need to win!"
Rei: "Mother****er, the boost my team needs to win is ME. I am the best user of the vast majority of my Infusions; I am not here to be your candy dispenser for when the DM is feeling stingy with treasure. You want a bunch of cool magic items you don't have to cajole the DM into letting you have? Play an artificer, like I did. I pay for these infusions by not having any other class features unrelated to magical gear - you don't get to keep all the dungeon loot AND all my Infusions to boot, you grasping Scrooge McLoot quackhole."
The Armor's Armor Modifications feature ensures that an absolute bare minimum of two of the artificer's infusions are always reserved for the artificer herself, as they physically cannot be 'given away' to party members who want your stuff. Those two bonus infusions belong to the armorer, end sentence. For players who love the customization and kitbashing thing the artificer has going on, the armorer is a dream. For players looking to squeeze every last joule of mojo out of their artificer, looking to maximize deepz or any of that other junk, the Smith or artillerist is probably more their jam.
But man...if this had been available when I'd built Star, I don't think she'd've bothered with Battlesmithery. Gawd I love the idea of the mind-reading jet-bootsing Infiltrator artificer pulling ridiculous shounen shit every other fight.
Please do not contact or message me.
It's not that the armorer is under powered. It's that they are differently powered. the Armorer can do most of the things that the other two do and with the overall same efficiency. They are just focused a little different. White Room situations do not truly show the power of most things. Specially if what your testing in the white room scenario doesn't actually work well for the thing your testing but there may be plenty of other ways you can test them that will excel. A Battle Smiths companion has to take multiple hits that the battlesmith does not to equal the same durability that the Armorer can have from Guardian Armor for example. This is feasibly easily doable in actual game play scenarios at the lowest levels but by the time you hit tier 2 where aoe is increasingly a thing this starts to become somewhat problematic. And the Artillerist being driven in large part by spells doesn't even start really coming into it's own niche of true power until the mid-levels because to do some of it's best stuff it needs time to mature and things like it's cantrips to improve and affects that modify those things to come online.
The Armorer isn't behind on infusions before level 9 or behind on their stated infusions after that point. First of all it's hard to be behind considering they get the same amount before level 9. They get to do the same exact infusions in the same ways that other Artificers get to do up to this point. There is nothing to say they even have to focus on armor infusions before level 9. And The Two More actually gives them much more that they can do and have turned on at once than other Artificers. Other Artificers after level 9 are always going to be behind in the infusions department. Because of the way infusions are written. It's the Armorer that is most consistantly going to have the most active infusions going, including ones that can fill out all of it's attunement slots without involving outside magical items if they don't want to. And if they do want to that means yet another non-attuned thing they can carry around. Like that bag of holding where they are going to be the least likely to go "I really need that bag of holding but I really feel like I'm not hitting hard enough or I need a little AC. This is really tough." A third bonus armor infusion really isn't going to serve them because it's not really going to be a third bonus armor infusion. It's going to be a third bonus low level item infusion that doesn't take attunement. It's very easy as it is now to infuse all 4 pieces plus get All of the item duplications ones your going to need to flesh out the rest of your build.
Changing the time it takes you to switch your armor also isn't thematic of the Artificer overall. The Theme of the artificer is the tinkerer that takes time to alter or build crazy half-magical inventions. The only thing something like Shortening the time to switch it or Allowing you to switch infusions on the fly is the overly magical and somewhat disconnected mechanics which already fly pretty heavily in the face of the theme. We don't really need more of that in the Artificer. What we need is less of the "poof it's magic" and something that a little more fits what the Theme of them is. And that is ignoring the fact that when your going to sneak into things your often going to know well ahead of time or have a long wait for things to better facilitate the sneaking. So you often have plenty of time to change your armor over even on a long rest. The only thing that shortening the change over time does is facilitate a "have your cake and eat it too" mentality towards being stealthy just because stealth is called for but ready for combat at any and all times there is combat without having to pick or choose between them. And when you do that you might as well get rid of the different types of armor because the conscious thought of why you want to use a particular type of armor is completely nullified. Which I think there should be more types of armor and not less. We really should have a few more options than what we're given and what they are boiled down to.
Whatever your opinion on the specifics, it seems to me that the Armorer, though flexible, isn’t quite flexible enough. I’d happily take more armor models, faster switches for a spell slot, or another bonus infusion. But whatever it is, it feels like it needs just a little something.
While you do gain some more infusion-like armor features, battle smith is getting life drain, etc, and artillerist can multi-tank (regenerating THP and half cover for all!) and blast simultaneously at high levels (which is incredible action economy at the cost of one spell slot for an entire combat, maybe two combats depending on how your DM spaces them out).
Like many of us, I envision the Armorer as fantasy iron man. Its spells all come from magic gizmos popping out of its armor, a trick for every occasion. Also, the artificer is specifically a magitek class. Flavoring it as purely mechanical is possible, but ultimately it’s a spellcaster that fuses magic with MacGuyver style on-the-fly tinkering. Burning a slot to make your armor go all Transformers on you doesn’t seem off theme at all. And it’s weird that the Armorer doesn’t have a slot burning feature.
Off the top of my head, two cool additional models might be Spellslinger, which could have some mechanics to boost spell effectiveness (reroll 1s and 2s? launch touch spell grenades?), and Magebuster, which could add +1 to saving throws versus spells, a weapon that silences for one round (leveled spells only? Save-gated?), and some kind of damage resistance that you choose when you switch into it—any choice other than basic bludgeoning/piercing/slashing on a short rest. (To encourage forward thinking and preparation, which I agree are big parts of the class.)
There is no life drain going on. You may picture it that way in your head. But it's just not happening. Your just getting a little residual extra damage or healing out of a handful of hits. The amount healed isn't even in any way tied to the damage that you deal when you choose to heal somebody.
And the Artillerist isn't getting the ability you mentioned until level 15. If your comparing a level 15 artillerist against a level 9 armorer your already doing it wrong. All the artillerist gets at level 9 is to blow up his Turret and he can't even choose who that does or doesn't hit. So it's usage is situational at best and it's damage isn't anything more than what some first level spells can do regardless of what level spell slot you used on the turret So they don't exactly make the best remote bombs.
The Power of the Armorer is that at level 9. they aren't sacrificing spell slots to make their class features work. They are the only artificer that doesn't and this is actually a powerful thing in their favor. Particularly considering they actually have one of the most attack based spell list. So For those spells that your sacrificing on the other two to get a new cannon or to bring back your steel defender. The Armorer is casting Magic Missile or Thunder wave, or if your forced to sacrifice a spell slot higher than first for them for some reason. Then the Armorer is casting Shatter, Mirror Image, or perhaps even Lightning Bolt or Hypnotic Pattern.
Mirror Image is a fairly powerful but often overlooked defensive spell. Particularly on melee characters. Considering it gives between a 50% and 75% chance of entirely being missed despite the attack being successful for 3 whole attacks. And that's just assuming that all hits happen. it's actually possible to target one of them and actually get a miss on the duplicate which just increases it's value.
Your only not seeing Ironman in all of that because your looking at the features and going "where is my rocket launcher power" without realizing your rocket launcher is your spell list and your chest beam is spells like Lightning Bolt. Iron Man only has the ability to change into suits with different specs because he spends most of his time outside of his iron man suit building alternate suits for other situations. That's the only thing the armorer is really missing. The Ability to have other suits on standby. But what they do get in return is the ability through a few hours rest and tinkering to turn that suit into another suit. That's still very fitting and that's how Iron Man would do it if he didn't have access to others already built in his spare time.
MacGuyver wasn't building things as complicated as something like an iron man suit or a Steel Defender. He was always building small gadgets with rather singular purposes. At least half of them was to explode but most often they were to open something, to get through something or to get around something and they burned themselves out in the process of doing it. They were never reusable. If your looking for that kind of one use and it's gone and it's a bit unpredictable in what it will do. Your looking for the Alchemist that specializes in that kind of tinkering Because If you want MacGuyver. You don't actually want most of the subclasses of Artificer. They don't actually work the way that he worked. His style was very unique, very experimental and really only fitting of one of the subclasses.
“Life drain” was shorthand. The point is that they gain a neat feature that enhances both damage and support simultaneously (I’d say it’s better than life drain because of how you can divert the healing), and it scales well.
Also I do agree the Armorer has a great spell list to flavor as rockets or gadgets or whatever. Hypnotic Pattern is in the running for best spell on any of the subclass lists, and any Armorer will probably want to dedicate an infusion slot to spell refueling ring by level 9.
I still think the subclass needs at least one nudge toward more versatility. WotC will probably never get back to it, but it could be worthwhile for a DM to consider.