Here’s a fun trick. At level 14, craft yourself an instrument of the bards (lute, bandore, and cittern are all uncommon so it’ll take you 20 hours of work) and attune to cast hypnotic pattern with disadvantage to enemy saves.
Also the more I think about it, the more I like elven artificers for the long haul of racking up magic items. Up to 4 bonus tool proficiencies (swap out weapons training, per Tasha’s) and 2 extra hours per long rest for crafting (4 hours trance plus 4 hours light work, versus 6 hours sleep plus 2 hours light work for most races).
Wood elf is especially synergistic with Armorer: Infiltrator for 40 speed and hiding in lightly obscuring natural phenomena while observed.
Here’s a fun trick. At level 14, craft yourself an instrument of the bards (lute, bandore, and cittern are all uncommon so it’ll take you 20 hours of work) and attune to cast hypnotic pattern with disadvantage to enemy saves.
Also the more I think about it, the more I like elven artificers for the long haul of racking up magic items. Up to 4 bonus tool proficiencies (swap out weapons training, per Tasha’s) and 2 extra hours per long rest for crafting (4 hours trance plus 4 hours light work, versus 6 hours sleep plus 2 hours light work for most races).
Wood elf is especially synergistic with Armorer: Infiltrator for 40 speed and hiding in lightly obscuring natural phenomena while observed.
I was about to mention the problem with the wood elf stats but then I remembered that Tasha's cauldron has liberated us from the tyranny of race stat rigidity so the +2 wis can go to intelligence
Booming Blade should definitelywork with Thunder Gauntlets. Booming Blade requires a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp. The Guardian armor model makes each of the armor's gauntlets count as a simple melee weapon. Nowhere does it state that they are not part of the armor anymore (or even detachable). You cannot even use the Thunder Gauntlets without the entire armor if you go by RAW. Therefore, the price of the Thunder Gauntlets is equivalent to the listed price of the armor, because they are the same. In fact, it becomes even more clear they are considered the same item when you look at the 9th level class feature that specifically splits the armor into four separate components which includes the weapon part for the purpose of applying infusions.
I don't understand how this is not perfectly obvious.
Here’s a fun trick. At level 14, craft yourself an instrument of the bards (lute, bandore, and cittern are all uncommon so it’ll take you 20 hours of work) and attune to cast hypnotic pattern with disadvantage to enemy saves.
Also the more I think about it, the more I like elven artificers for the long haul of racking up magic items. Up to 4 bonus tool proficiencies (swap out weapons training, per Tasha’s) and 2 extra hours per long rest for crafting (4 hours trance plus 4 hours light work, versus 6 hours sleep plus 2 hours light work for most races).
Wood elf is especially synergistic with Armorer: Infiltrator for 40 speed and hiding in lightly obscuring natural phenomena while observed.
That sounds pretty illegal, since none of the instruments of the bards are on the the replicate list.
Here’s a fun trick. At level 14, craft yourself an instrument of the bards (lute, bandore, and cittern are all uncommon so it’ll take you 20 hours of work) and attune to cast hypnotic pattern with disadvantage to enemy saves.
Also the more I think about it, the more I like elven artificers for the long haul of racking up magic items. Up to 4 bonus tool proficiencies (swap out weapons training, per Tasha’s) and 2 extra hours per long rest for crafting (4 hours trance plus 4 hours light work, versus 6 hours sleep plus 2 hours light work for most races).
Wood elf is especially synergistic with Armorer: Infiltrator for 40 speed and hiding in lightly obscuring natural phenomena while observed.
That sounds pretty illegal, since none of the instruments of the bards are on the the replicate list.
They aren't referring to using the Replicate Magic Item infusion.
Artificers get a feature at 10th level called Magic Item Adept which on top of increasing your attunement limit, states "If you craft a magic item with a rarity of common or uncommon, it takes you a quarter of the normal time, and it costs you half as much of the usual gold."
Then at 14th level, they get the Magic Item Savant feature which states "You ignore all class, race, spell, and level requirements on attuning to or using a magic item."
So if magic item crafting is on the table, a 14th level Artificer can do something like what Quaryon suggested.
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.
That's wrong. Everybody interprets everything they read, hear or see. That's basic communication. Some rules are better worded than others so they allow less interpretation but others are badly written because important things are left out or are too vague like in this case with the armorer. That's why laws are so annoyingly written so there's as little room for interpretation as possible and even then lawyers more often than not find ways to do so. AL DMs are no exception there. They just aren't willed to compromise on their interpretation one way or another because of their special position.
That's because of the necessities of organized play. If the interpretations varied from table to table, then it breaks down once you move from one table to the next. It's deliberately set up so that, regardless of who is the DM, the rulings will be consistent.
That's not a mark against AL. The DMs aren't the ones making the interpretation.
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.
That's wrong. Everybody interprets everything they read, hear or see. That's basic communication. Some rules are better worded than others so they allow less interpretation but others are badly written because important things are left out or are too vague like in this case with the armorer. That's why laws are so annoyingly written so there's as little room for interpretation as possible and even then lawyers more often than not find ways to do so. AL DMs are no exception there. They just aren't willed to compromise on their interpretation one way or another because of their special position.
That's because of the necessities of organized play. If the interpretations varied from table to table, then it breaks down once you move from one table to the next. It's deliberately set up so that, regardless of who is the DM, the rulings will be consistent.
That's not a mark against AL. The DMs aren't the ones making the interpretation.
I'm not going to rehash a more than 2 months old argument so let's just say I disagree with your last sentence.
disagree all you want. We've been telling you the facts about how AL is told to function no matter how much you want to see things differently.
Separating the Thunder Gauntlets from the armor is such a far-fetched interpretation (especially with how the Armorer is written) that no DM should hold this interpretation if they claim any understand of the rules. To me the rules are very straight-forward on this point, and most of those claiming otherwise seem to do so only as an additional argument for why the Armorer supposedly sucks now after the nerfs.
I'll come out and say it: The armorer is a well-balanced subclass. If you ignore its UA origins, the nerfs are not noticeable. If I understand it correctly, the major gripes are removal of the Shield spell from the spell list, and reducing the number of uses of Defensive Field.
First and foremost, it is incredibly easy (no min/maxing required) to reach a fantastic AC. Building your AC is a slow progression, from Enhanced Defense at level 3, to adding repulsion shield at level 6. At 10th level Enhanced Defense improves, and you can now craft a Cloak of Protection, with finally at 14th level adding a Ring of Protection. This gives you 25 AC at 14th level that only uses 4 out of 7 infusions and 3 out of 5 attunement slots, with no need for magical items (that are not obtained through class features). The average CR 14 hit bonus is +10.41, with a median of +11, minimum of +5, and maximum of +14. With a +11 bonus a roll of 14 or higher is required to hit you, which results in only a 30% chance to hit. Add Shield on top of that, and that hit chance evaporates to 5% (the absolute minimum). Since you already won't be hit often, Shield allows you to block the few lucky hits that pass through and there is hardly any risk to using it. That's not very balanced, so removing Shield only makes sense. If you really like Shield that much, then Magic Initiate is the feat for you. The Armorer has enough room for feats even, because they only really depend on a high intelligence score.
Secondly, Defensive Field is not a key feature of the Guardian armor. You pick it because of the Thunder Gauntlets as they are an excellent means to get enemies to hit you despite your high AC. If you look at the UA version you'll think it a major loss (because relative to that it is a major loss). If you don't know of the UA version, Defensive Field feels like a small and flavorful bonus to an already decent class. I understand that this ability doesn't compare to Second Wind or Halo of Spores, but the artificer has access to cure wounds, and from 11th level you have access to 2xINT uses of cure wounds on top of that from your spell storing item.
This does not make it a perfectly designed subclass, though. It has clear power spikes, particularly at level 10 (although this is not necessarily rare among classes) and its abilities strongly discourage multiclassing.
If you completely ignore Infiltrator, Armorer seems like a lackluster subclass. If you include Infiltrator, Armorer is a fantastic range/support hybrid.
I look at it like this: they're basically rangers, with a better spell list, SAD instead of MAD, and their spell foci, armor, and weapons can *never be removed against their will.* Even if captured, your enemies cannot disarm you, and if the situation calls for it, you can swap to a melee build almost on demand. You can use offensive spells and healing spells more effectively than a ranger (because your spell modifier increases with your attack modifier), and you have what might be the single best expanded spell list in the game.
Magic Missile is a reliable damage spell for evasive enemies who are weak or close to death, and must be finished off (without leaving it to chance), and Thunderwave is a perfectly passable knockback for either Guardian or Infiltrator.
Mirror Image is a fantastic defensive spell (though Blur would be stronger, given that Armorers can use Splint/Plate), and Shatter is a nice, consistent source of AOE to blow up minions/weaker units.
Lightning Bolt is a bread and butter nuke with more limited application than fireball (but just as much damage), and Hypnotic Pattern is one of the best CC spells in the game.
Greater Invisibility is a fantastic spell for virtually any character, and allows Sharpshooter Armorers to have effectively permanent advantage on their power attacks during boss fights.
Wall of Force is one of the best combat utility spells in the entire game, and access to it as a nonwizard, even at level 17, is practically worthy of a subclass feature by itself. Passwall is quite useful, too.
So we've essentially got an expanded spell list with either one, or ZERO dead spells - how many caster/half-caster subclasses get that kind of value?
Overall, Armorer is way more powerful and efficient than (most) people are giving it credit for, especially if you treat it as a ranger-substitute with additional combat utility (and all the other artificer features that make the base class so appealing) in place of the usual high-wis scouting package that rangers normally get. Frankly, I think Armorer w/ Sharpshooter can give Battlemaster or Gloomstalker a real run for their money, especially if you take a 1-level fighter dip for that fighting style and/or infuse yourself some bracers of archery.
@SurterImmortal, I agree most of your post. In fact, the only thing I really disagree with is the insinuation that the Guardian Model is lackluster. IMO, they're perfectly capable tanks and consistently good damage dealers.
That’s valid. The guardian model is fine, too. I think the Infiltrator model is a bit stronger, and the fact that people were ignoring it was strange, but if someone wanted to play as just a guardian, they’d be a solid tank with great utility and on demand area damage/cc.
That’s valid. The guardian model is fine, too. I think the Infiltrator model is a bit stronger, and the fact that people were ignoring it was strange, but if someone wanted to play as just a guardian, they’d be a solid tank with great utility and on demand area damage/cc.
I think it's hard to argue that one armour model is stronger than the other as such; they fulfil very different roles. The main difference is that to get the most out of the Guardian model you pretty much have to tank at short range with it, whereas the Infiltrator model supports more mobility and flexibility, so it will probably appeal to more armourer builds overall.
Put another way, if you want to go Guardian then you're probably picking infusions and spells that fully support tanking as much as possible. Whereas as an Infiltrator you can take a mix and still make good use of your armour's features, e.g- you can go jack of all trades, specialise in physical stealth, etc.
That's not to say you have to go all-in on tanking as a Guardian; you can definitely mix and match, since simply picking that armour gives you some tankiness if that's all you need, it's just that I think when you're only expecting to take hits some of the time then casting Mirror Image on an Infiltrator will suit a lot of people just fine.
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.
@SurterImmortal, I agree most of your post. In fact, the only thing I really disagree with is the insinuation that the Guardian Model is lackluster. IMO, they're perfectly capable tanks and consistently good damage dealers.
I've been struggling between picking Battle Smith and Armorer, but the Armorer DPR is really what's stopping me. Right now, our party consists of a Grave Cleric, Lore Bard, Ancestral Barbarian, and a Beast Master Ranger. So, first, I figure we have enough ranged. I want to be up close and personal. Now, I know the Armorer is meant for tanking, but I have a hard time believing that the Thunder Gauntlets will be enough to pull enemies away (since they technically don't know they have the debuff) from a guy wearing no armor. So you said they're good damage dealers, can you elaborate?
I've been struggling between picking Battle Smith and Armorer, but the Armorer DPR is really what's stopping me. Right now, our party consists of a Grave Cleric, Lore Bard, Ancestral Barbarian, and a Beast Master Ranger. So, first, I figure we have enough ranged. I want to be up close and personal. Now, I know the Armorer is meant for tanking, but I have a hard time believing that the Thunder Gauntlets will be enough to pull enemies away (since they technically don't know they have the debuff) from a guy wearing no armor. So you said they're good damage dealers, can you elaborate?
You're correct about not knowing about the debuff - in fact, they don't have the debuff until they attack and the distracting pulse goes off. I agree with you, the Defender armor seems clearly written to be about effective tanking, not effective damage. That said, if you want to protect the Lore Bard, remember, the Thunder Gauntlets debuff works just fine with Attacks of Opportunity. You'll need a ruling (more than one, actually) from your GM if you want to assess the viability of carrying a sack of Thunderer Gauntlets and throwing them at the enemy, to more easily get the debuff onto two targets (three with the Dual Wielder feat), as Thunderer Gauntlets are missing certain rules many people assume are present, like an upper limit of 2 gauntlets per suit, or a rule that you have to be wearing them for them to deal damage or debuff.
I've been struggling between picking Battle Smith and Armorer, but the Armorer DPR is really what's stopping me. Right now, our party consists of a Grave Cleric, Lore Bard, Ancestral Barbarian, and a Beast Master Ranger. So, first, I figure we have enough ranged. I want to be up close and personal. Now, I know the Armorer is meant for tanking, but I have a hard time believing that the Thunder Gauntlets will be enough to pull enemies away (since they technically don't know they have the debuff) from a guy wearing no armor. So you said they're good damage dealers, can you elaborate?
You're correct about not knowing about the debuff - in fact, they don't have the debuff until they attack and the distracting pulse goes off. I agree with you, the Defender armor seems clearly written to be about effective tanking, not effective damage. That said, if you want to protect the Lore Bard, remember, the Thunder Gauntlets debuff works just fine with Attacks of Opportunity. You'll need a ruling (more than one, actually) from your GM if you want to assess the viability of carrying a sack of Thunderer Gauntlets and throwing them at the enemy, to more easily get the debuff onto two targets (three with the Dual Wielder feat), as Thunderer Gauntlets are missing certain rules many people assume are present, like an upper limit of 2 gauntlets per suit, or a rule that you have to be wearing them for them to deal damage or debuff.
While that would be hilarious to throw gauntlets around the battlefield, I don't think it's my style. I've pretty much decided to go Battle Smith with a Greataxe most likely and Scale Mail. I really like the Steel Defender in conjunction with the Arcane Jolt. I really, really wanted to like the Armorer, but I just can't see the usefulness of it when really putting the abilities into context at least within my group. While the Thunder Gauntlets are good, I can't grasp how to make an enemy want to attack the guy with high AC and low damage over the half naked guy dishing out a ton of damage. So, if I can't take the damage, I might as well dish it out to kill the enemies faster.
And that's fair. The Way of the Ancestra Guardian is already pretty "tanky" in its own right, but it does so by protecting someone else. What you'd bring to the table (heh) with Guardian Armor is debuffs that protect the other members of the party. It's control. If you're trying to think in MMO terms, it's not really going to work.
Is Thunder Gauntlet a valid weapon with which to use Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade? Relevant rules, bolded emphasis mine:
Booming Blade & Green Flame Blade: Components: S, M (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp)
Plate Armor 1,500 gp
Guardian Armor, Thunder Gauntlets, Armorer Feature Thunder Gauntlets. Each of the armor's gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon while you aren't holding anything in it, and it deals 1d8 thunder damage on a hit.
Armor Modifications, Armorer Feature That armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your Infuse Items feature.
Something which "counts as" something else has not lost any of its original characteristics. Instead, it is treated as though it had gained additional characteristics. Armor sets are indivisible. That is to say, no piece, or pieces, of an armor set can be construed as a divisible, separate, item, for the purposes of the rules. Armor sets can only be counted as having divisible pieces, and only in explicit cases where rule elements specifically allow for it. Does the Thunder Gauntlet become a separate item? No. Does the Armor Modifications actually divide a set of armor into separate items? No. They are only counted as such, for the purposes of the Feature.
Thunder Gauntlets are indivisible from the armor set they are part of. In fact, they are never construed as a separate item, in any case. Therefore, they have the value of the armor set, and satisfy the component requirement of the cantrips in question.
Is Thunder Gauntlet a valid weapon with which to use Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade? Relevant rules, bolded emphasis mine:
Booming Blade & Green Flame Blade: Components: S, M (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp)
Plate Armor 1,500 gp
Guardian Armor, Thunder Gauntlets, Armorer Feature Thunder Gauntlets. Each of the armor's gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon while you aren't holding anything in it, and it deals 1d8 thunder damage on a hit.
Armor Modifications, Armorer Feature That armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your Infuse Items feature.
Something which "counts as" something else has not lost any of its original characteristics. Instead, it is treated as though it had gained additional characteristics. Armor sets are indivisible. That is to say, no piece, or pieces, of an armor set can be construed as a divisible, separate, item, for the purposes of the rules. Armor sets can only be counted as having divisible pieces, and only in explicit cases where rule elements specifically allow for it. Does the Thunder Gauntlet become a separate item? No. Does the Armor Modifications actually divide a set of armor into separate items? No. They are only counted as such, for the purposes of the Feature.
Thunder Gauntlets are indivisible from the armor set they are part of. In fact, they are never construed as a separate item, in any case. Therefore, they have the value of the armor set, and satisfy the component requirement of the cantrips in question.
Except Pieces of them are divisible and some of them are not listed seperately with prices in the books.
Otherwise you would never be able to use any kind of boots or gloves/gauntlets or helmets with Armor, Particularly magical armor because they in fact replace parts of various armors. Yet we know these things function together. And the magical armor will continue working.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Here’s a fun trick. At level 14, craft yourself an instrument of the bards (lute, bandore, and cittern are all uncommon so it’ll take you 20 hours of work) and attune to cast hypnotic pattern with disadvantage to enemy saves.
Also the more I think about it, the more I like elven artificers for the long haul of racking up magic items. Up to 4 bonus tool proficiencies (swap out weapons training, per Tasha’s) and 2 extra hours per long rest for crafting (4 hours trance plus 4 hours light work, versus 6 hours sleep plus 2 hours light work for most races).
Wood elf is especially synergistic with Armorer: Infiltrator for 40 speed and hiding in lightly obscuring natural phenomena while observed.
I was about to mention the problem with the wood elf stats but then I remembered that Tasha's cauldron has liberated us from the tyranny of race stat rigidity so the +2 wis can go to intelligence
Booming Blade should definitely work with Thunder Gauntlets. Booming Blade requires a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp. The Guardian armor model makes each of the armor's gauntlets count as a simple melee weapon. Nowhere does it state that they are not part of the armor anymore (or even detachable). You cannot even use the Thunder Gauntlets without the entire armor if you go by RAW. Therefore, the price of the Thunder Gauntlets is equivalent to the listed price of the armor, because they are the same. In fact, it becomes even more clear they are considered the same item when you look at the 9th level class feature that specifically splits the armor into four separate components which includes the weapon part for the purpose of applying infusions.
I don't understand how this is not perfectly obvious.
That sounds pretty illegal, since none of the instruments of the bards are on the the replicate list.
They aren't referring to using the Replicate Magic Item infusion.
Artificers get a feature at 10th level called Magic Item Adept which on top of increasing your attunement limit, states "If you craft a magic item with a rarity of common or uncommon, it takes you a quarter of the normal time, and it costs you half as much of the usual gold."
Then at 14th level, they get the Magic Item Savant feature which states "You ignore all class, race, spell, and level requirements on attuning to or using a magic item."
So if magic item crafting is on the table, a 14th level Artificer can do something like what Quaryon suggested.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
That's because of the necessities of organized play. If the interpretations varied from table to table, then it breaks down once you move from one table to the next. It's deliberately set up so that, regardless of who is the DM, the rulings will be consistent.
That's not a mark against AL. The DMs aren't the ones making the interpretation.
disagree all you want. We've been telling you the facts about how AL is told to function no matter how much you want to see things differently.
Separating the Thunder Gauntlets from the armor is such a far-fetched interpretation (especially with how the Armorer is written) that no DM should hold this interpretation if they claim any understand of the rules. To me the rules are very straight-forward on this point, and most of those claiming otherwise seem to do so only as an additional argument for why the Armorer supposedly sucks now after the nerfs.
I'll come out and say it: The armorer is a well-balanced subclass. If you ignore its UA origins, the nerfs are not noticeable. If I understand it correctly, the major gripes are removal of the Shield spell from the spell list, and reducing the number of uses of Defensive Field.
First and foremost, it is incredibly easy (no min/maxing required) to reach a fantastic AC. Building your AC is a slow progression, from Enhanced Defense at level 3, to adding repulsion shield at level 6. At 10th level Enhanced Defense improves, and you can now craft a Cloak of Protection, with finally at 14th level adding a Ring of Protection. This gives you 25 AC at 14th level that only uses 4 out of 7 infusions and 3 out of 5 attunement slots, with no need for magical items (that are not obtained through class features). The average CR 14 hit bonus is +10.41, with a median of +11, minimum of +5, and maximum of +14. With a +11 bonus a roll of 14 or higher is required to hit you, which results in only a 30% chance to hit. Add Shield on top of that, and that hit chance evaporates to 5% (the absolute minimum). Since you already won't be hit often, Shield allows you to block the few lucky hits that pass through and there is hardly any risk to using it. That's not very balanced, so removing Shield only makes sense. If you really like Shield that much, then Magic Initiate is the feat for you. The Armorer has enough room for feats even, because they only really depend on a high intelligence score.
Secondly, Defensive Field is not a key feature of the Guardian armor. You pick it because of the Thunder Gauntlets as they are an excellent means to get enemies to hit you despite your high AC. If you look at the UA version you'll think it a major loss (because relative to that it is a major loss). If you don't know of the UA version, Defensive Field feels like a small and flavorful bonus to an already decent class. I understand that this ability doesn't compare to Second Wind or Halo of Spores, but the artificer has access to cure wounds, and from 11th level you have access to 2xINT uses of cure wounds on top of that from your spell storing item.
This does not make it a perfectly designed subclass, though. It has clear power spikes, particularly at level 10 (although this is not necessarily rare among classes) and its abilities strongly discourage multiclassing.
If you completely ignore Infiltrator, Armorer seems like a lackluster subclass. If you include Infiltrator, Armorer is a fantastic range/support hybrid.
I look at it like this: they're basically rangers, with a better spell list, SAD instead of MAD, and their spell foci, armor, and weapons can *never be removed against their will.* Even if captured, your enemies cannot disarm you, and if the situation calls for it, you can swap to a melee build almost on demand. You can use offensive spells and healing spells more effectively than a ranger (because your spell modifier increases with your attack modifier), and you have what might be the single best expanded spell list in the game.
Magic Missile is a reliable damage spell for evasive enemies who are weak or close to death, and must be finished off (without leaving it to chance), and Thunderwave is a perfectly passable knockback for either Guardian or Infiltrator.
Mirror Image is a fantastic defensive spell (though Blur would be stronger, given that Armorers can use Splint/Plate), and Shatter is a nice, consistent source of AOE to blow up minions/weaker units.
Lightning Bolt is a bread and butter nuke with more limited application than fireball (but just as much damage), and Hypnotic Pattern is one of the best CC spells in the game.
Greater Invisibility is a fantastic spell for virtually any character, and allows Sharpshooter Armorers to have effectively permanent advantage on their power attacks during boss fights.
Wall of Force is one of the best combat utility spells in the entire game, and access to it as a nonwizard, even at level 17, is practically worthy of a subclass feature by itself. Passwall is quite useful, too.
So we've essentially got an expanded spell list with either one, or ZERO dead spells - how many caster/half-caster subclasses get that kind of value?
Overall, Armorer is way more powerful and efficient than (most) people are giving it credit for, especially if you treat it as a ranger-substitute with additional combat utility (and all the other artificer features that make the base class so appealing) in place of the usual high-wis scouting package that rangers normally get. Frankly, I think Armorer w/ Sharpshooter can give Battlemaster or Gloomstalker a real run for their money, especially if you take a 1-level fighter dip for that fighting style and/or infuse yourself some bracers of archery.
@SurterImmortal, I agree most of your post. In fact, the only thing I really disagree with is the insinuation that the Guardian Model is lackluster. IMO, they're perfectly capable tanks and consistently good damage dealers.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That’s valid. The guardian model is fine, too. I think the Infiltrator model is a bit stronger, and the fact that people were ignoring it was strange, but if someone wanted to play as just a guardian, they’d be a solid tank with great utility and on demand area damage/cc.
I think it's hard to argue that one armour model is stronger than the other as such; they fulfil very different roles. The main difference is that to get the most out of the Guardian model you pretty much have to tank at short range with it, whereas the Infiltrator model supports more mobility and flexibility, so it will probably appeal to more armourer builds overall.
Put another way, if you want to go Guardian then you're probably picking infusions and spells that fully support tanking as much as possible. Whereas as an Infiltrator you can take a mix and still make good use of your armour's features, e.g- you can go jack of all trades, specialise in physical stealth, etc.
That's not to say you have to go all-in on tanking as a Guardian; you can definitely mix and match, since simply picking that armour gives you some tankiness if that's all you need, it's just that I think when you're only expecting to take hits some of the time then casting Mirror Image on an Infiltrator will suit a lot of people just fine.
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've been struggling between picking Battle Smith and Armorer, but the Armorer DPR is really what's stopping me. Right now, our party consists of a Grave Cleric, Lore Bard, Ancestral Barbarian, and a Beast Master Ranger. So, first, I figure we have enough ranged. I want to be up close and personal. Now, I know the Armorer is meant for tanking, but I have a hard time believing that the Thunder Gauntlets will be enough to pull enemies away (since they technically don't know they have the debuff) from a guy wearing no armor. So you said they're good damage dealers, can you elaborate?
You're correct about not knowing about the debuff - in fact, they don't have the debuff until they attack and the distracting pulse goes off. I agree with you, the Defender armor seems clearly written to be about effective tanking, not effective damage. That said, if you want to protect the Lore Bard, remember, the Thunder Gauntlets debuff works just fine with Attacks of Opportunity. You'll need a ruling (more than one, actually) from your GM if you want to assess the viability of carrying a sack of Thunderer Gauntlets and throwing them at the enemy, to more easily get the debuff onto two targets (three with the Dual Wielder feat), as Thunderer Gauntlets are missing certain rules many people assume are present, like an upper limit of 2 gauntlets per suit, or a rule that you have to be wearing them for them to deal damage or debuff.
While that would be hilarious to throw gauntlets around the battlefield, I don't think it's my style. I've pretty much decided to go Battle Smith with a Greataxe most likely and Scale Mail. I really like the Steel Defender in conjunction with the Arcane Jolt. I really, really wanted to like the Armorer, but I just can't see the usefulness of it when really putting the abilities into context at least within my group. While the Thunder Gauntlets are good, I can't grasp how to make an enemy want to attack the guy with high AC and low damage over the half naked guy dishing out a ton of damage. So, if I can't take the damage, I might as well dish it out to kill the enemies faster.
And that's fair. The Way of the Ancestra Guardian is already pretty "tanky" in its own right, but it does so by protecting someone else. What you'd bring to the table (heh) with Guardian Armor is debuffs that protect the other members of the party. It's control. If you're trying to think in MMO terms, it's not really going to work.
Is Thunder Gauntlet a valid weapon with which to use Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade?
Relevant rules, bolded emphasis mine:
Something which "counts as" something else has not lost any of its original characteristics. Instead, it is treated as though it had gained additional characteristics.
Armor sets are indivisible. That is to say, no piece, or pieces, of an armor set can be construed as a divisible, separate, item, for the purposes of the rules.
Armor sets can only be counted as having divisible pieces, and only in explicit cases where rule elements specifically allow for it.
Does the Thunder Gauntlet become a separate item? No.
Does the Armor Modifications actually divide a set of armor into separate items? No. They are only counted as such, for the purposes of the Feature.
Thunder Gauntlets are indivisible from the armor set they are part of. In fact, they are never construed as a separate item, in any case. Therefore, they have the value of the armor set, and satisfy the component requirement of the cantrips in question.
Except Pieces of them are divisible and some of them are not listed seperately with prices in the books.
Otherwise you would never be able to use any kind of boots or gloves/gauntlets or helmets with Armor, Particularly magical armor because they in fact replace parts of various armors. Yet we know these things function together. And the magical armor will continue working.