Arguing that an Infiltrator is better because a Guardian wants to fight in melee is nonsensical.
No, it's not. In 5e, ranged combat is much better than melee combat. You're less likely to be attacked, as you aren't in the front lines
The problem with that reasoning is that you're only not in the front-lines if you actually have a front-line. In a party with nothing but ranged characters you won't stay ranged for long, at which point your ranged abilities suddenly become useless if you do end up as the front-line.
Melee and tank characters and classes don't exist without reason. Artificers have gained a good option for filling this role, which is a really cool thing for a class like Artificer to have; if your party needs a tank, or more front-line fighters, then you can be that, and Guardian armour is hands down better at that than Infiltrator, so why do people have such a hard time accepting that that's my argument?
I have literally never said that Infiltrator isn't better for ranged characters, it absolutely is, that's a no-brainer. But when talking about which armour model is superior (which I haven't), you can't ignore where you need or want your character to be and what each armour model is actually for.
Maybe I responded in a confusing way. I agree with you that the Guardian Armor is good, and really good. I agree that it is about equal with the Infiltrator Armor, and think both of them are good at doing what they're meant to do. I personally like the Guardian Armor Model much more than the Infiltrator Armor Model. I am not supporting Lostwhilefishing's opinion on the Guardian Armor, but I was merely pointing out an incorrect statement you made.
You said that arguing that an Infiltrator is better because they attack at range and a Guardian attacks at melee is "nonsensical". I pointed out that since Ranged Combat is much better mechanically than Melee Combat, it is not nonsensical to use that as a way to support the viewpoint that Infiltrator Armor is much better than Guardian Armor. I don't agree with that viewpoint, and laugh at the suggestion that an Infiltrator is better than an Armorer at everything it is good at, but I was just trying to point out a flaw in your argument.
Don't take it personally, I do this for everyone, even people I agree with. Pointing to the fact that an Infiltrator is ranged as a justification for preferring that Armor Model is a valid point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I would have to rate the armorer being better than alchemist but not quite as good as battlesmith or artillerist. The only thing that stands out is the expanded spell list combined with no subclass option to spend slots on.
That's a buff to the Armorer, IMO. They don't have anything they need to expend spell slots on, unlike Alchemists, Artillerists, and to an extent, Battle Smiths.
I personally would rate them as being above Artillerists and at least on par with Battle Smiths. Both ranged Battle Smiths and Infiltrator Armorers are very good at ranged weapon combat, and both Guardian Armorers and melee Battle Smiths are very good at tanking and melee combat.
I do think that melee Battle Smiths are a bit better than Guardian Armorers when it comes to damage, due to the Battle Smith being able to use heavy weapons with Great Weapon Master, but when it comes to tanking, the Guardian Armorer clearly beats the Battle Smith, granting disadvantage on all attacks not made against them to anyone they hit, while Steel Defenders have to use a reaction to give disadvantage to one attack against a creature within 5 feet of them.
Guardian Armorers are better at tanking, but melee Battle Smiths are better at damage. Infiltrator Armor is better at movement and stealth, while ranged Battle Smiths are better at tanking and making the most out of their whole turn, and can be better at damage with the right weapon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The idea of a "tank" in D&D is honestly misleading in the first place.
Any DM playing intelligent enemies and attempting to do so intelligently should be trying to avoid getting bogged down against the heavily armored melee bruisers and seeking to reach the vulnerable folks doing all the actual dangerous shit in the back. Nothing wants to sit in the front and trade blows with the d12 resistant-to-everything Bearbarian whose entire mission in life is taking punches when that warlock in the back is doing triple the Bearbarian's damage to whatever it feels like every turn. The standard, ordinary, traditional "This big thing is trying to eat you. Y'all should maybe do something about that" fight is the most boring use of D&D combat mechanics in the world. Unless the One Big Thing is waayyy bigger than it should be, the party is going to roll that fight without issue, and they'll do so largely the same way, every single time, from the same places. The team knows they've won basically after the first round, once they've ensured their positioning is good. That doesn't even really qualify as a game.
A few weeks ago, the DM for my own artificer put us through a siege. There was something like forty enemies on the map, with our five-man team and roughly half a dozen pre-battered NPCs behind Flotsam Fortifications on the beach. There was a line of nine skeletal archers in the back absolutely gobshyte mollycobbling anything that poked its noodle out from behind the Wall O Junk, there was a freaking slew of 'trooper/grunt'-level skellingbros gumming up the works, and there were four Miniboss-level enemies commanding the weenies. Our 'tank' was out in the front desperately trying to save our downed flier, taking ridiculous amounts of punishment. Our skirmishers were bouncing around the battlefield headhunting, trying to be everywhere at once as every turn, something new proved to be a bigger threat than we thought it was. The support caster behind the Flotsam Wall (i.e. me) had at least four things she absolutely needed to do on any given turn, and yet she could only pick one.
That fight ended with both the paladin and the fighter in single-digit HP, the fighter after getting up three separate times and burning a Superior Healing Potion to try and stay up, four of the six NPCs we'd been trying to save dead, and with every single spell slot I had above 1st level burnt (note: I am notoriously miserly with spells and end most of my Adventuring Days with almost all my slots uncast). Every single turn, each player had to freshly evaluate what the absolute most critical thing that needed doing was and whether going to do that was worth the half-dozen AoO's it'd take to get there and do it. It was ******* beautiful. No amount of Tanking Gud would've kept the backline from having to fend for itself, and every single action you got was absolutely priceless. We didn't know we were going to win until about seven or eight rounds into the combat, when Minibosses started dropping and taking their undead thralls with them.
That's the kind of fight one should be demanding from their DM, not fights where the Guardian can walk up to the one critter trying to mindlessly devour the party and punch it in the snoot till the artillery in the back does its job.
the disadvantage rider is nice but I fear the armorer(guardian) just doesn't have the staying power the battle smith has who now have a steel defender being able to grapple/shove giving the BS a solid control option on top of all the effects of having two bodies soaking up hits.
That is a benefit to the Battle Smith, but that isn't a bad thing about the Armorer. Their disadvantage effect is potent enough to account for that. Additionally, that takes the Battle Smith's bonus action, where the Armorer has theirs for free every round, possibly using it for Boots of the Winding Step or to command a Homunculus Servant, or to dual wield (must be level 14, takes the Arcane Propulsion Armor Infusion and Dual Wielder feat).
the best way i could see a armorer in play is grabbing mobile and using hit-n-run tactics which evolve later into hit-n-fly. if they try to face tank I think they will overwhelmed quickly.
If you mean the Guardian Armorer, you generally will want to stay near the monsters to make them attack you. You don't want hit and run tactics, you want them to target you, not the party's cleric or wizard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The idea of a "tank" in D&D is honestly misleading in the first place.
Any DM playing intelligent enemies and attempting to do so intelligently should be trying to avoid getting bogged down against the heavily armored melee bruisers and seeking to reach the vulnerable folks doing all the actual dangerous shit in the back. Nothing wants to sit in the front and trade blows with the d12 resistant-to-everything Bearbarian whose entire mission in life is taking punches when that warlock in the back is doing triple the Bearbarian's damage to whatever it feels like every turn. The standard, ordinary, traditional "This big thing is trying to eat you. Y'all should maybe do something about that" fight is the most boring use of D&D combat mechanics in the world. Unless the One Big Thing is waayyy bigger than it should be, the party is going to roll that fight without issue, and they'll do so largely the same way, every single time, from the same places. The team knows they've won basically after the first round, once they've ensured their positioning is good. That doesn't even really qualify as a game.
A few weeks ago, the DM for my own artificer put us through a siege. There was something like forty enemies on the map, with our five-man team and roughly half a dozen pre-battered NPCs behind Flotsam Fortifications on the beach. There was a line of nine skeletal archers in the back absolutely gobshyte mollycobbling anything that poked its noodle out from behind the Wall O Junk, there was a freaking slew of 'trooper/grunt'-level skellingbros gumming up the works, and there were four Miniboss-level enemies commanding the weenies. Our 'tank' was out in the front desperately trying to save our downed flier, taking ridiculous amounts of punishment. Our skirmishers were bouncing around the battlefield headhunting, trying to be everywhere at once as every turn, something new proved to be a bigger threat than we thought it was. The support caster behind the Flotsam Wall (i.e. me) had at least four things she absolutely needed to do on any given turn, and yet she could only pick one.
That fight ended with both the paladin and the fighter in single-digit HP, the fighter after getting up three separate times and burning a Superior Healing Potion to try and stay up, four of the six NPCs we'd been trying to save dead, and with every single spell slot I had above 1st level burnt (note: I am notoriously miserly with spells and end most of my Adventuring Days with almost all my slots uncast). Every single turn, each player had to freshly evaluate what the absolute most critical thing that needed doing was and whether going to do that was worth the half-dozen AoO's it'd take to get there and do it. It was ******* beautiful. No amount of Tanking Gud would've kept the backline from having to fend for itself, and every single action you got was absolutely priceless. We didn't know we were going to win until about seven or eight rounds into the combat, when Minibosses started dropping and taking their undead thralls with them.
That's the kind of fight one should be demanding from their DM, not fights where the Guardian can walk up to the one critter trying to mindlessly devour the party and punch it in the snoot till the artillery in the back does its job.
In my experience, "tanks" in D&D combat are most effective and useful in combats that are a mix of a horde of minions and the super powerful creature that will crush the wizard in one turn. If you have both of them at the same time, that's when the casters, healers, and the tanks shine the best. The tank stops the BBEG from squashing the Wizard, the Wizard stops the minions from overwhelming the tank {i.e. fireball, and the healer/support character can help the party stay alive. It's not a boring slog, like just one BBEG and no other enemies would be, and it's not just the same enemies that need destroying, over, and over, and over again like a massive horde, but if there is an army of minions and at least one BBEG, that's when combat is actually fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
so the armorer can match the efforts of the battlesmith if they spend twice as many infusions. I guess on level 9 it evens out but that's a long time to play behind the curve. Also the arcane propulsion armor is a pile of crap which exclusively does not work with guardian. it wouldn't be worth the infusion if it didn't have a level restriction.
No, they can choose either one. That's the point. Choice. A Battle Smith will almost always be using their bonus action to either command their Steel Defender or cast a smite spell. Like I said in an above post, if pure damage is what you want, you're probably better off taking the Battle Smith subclass. If you want to keep your enemies from squashing your friends, Guardian Armorer is the way to go.
Also, there is nothing about the Guardian Armor Model that excludes them from taking or gaining the benefits of Arcane Propulsion Armor. If you mean whether or not its gauntlets combine with the effects of the Thunder Gauntlets, that is a bit ambiguous.
you also seem to be missing my point when I say the guardian doesn't have staying power. they can draw all the attacks in the world but the battlesmith can survive twice as long and that's even before warding Bond cheese. For the guardian to stay upright they need to take advantage of avoidance more than mitigation because they ain't got none.
No, the Guardian Armorer will be able to stay alive longer than the Battle Smith in melee. Their temporary hit points will allow them to do that. Shield is a nice spell, but Armorers don't really need it (IMO, they should have it, but it's not necessary to them), and can get it from other means (Magic Initiate, Multiclassing to wizard, etc). They already have a great AC from their heavy armor, shield, and extra infusions that will allow their static AC be much higher than the Battle Smith's.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Do you have any numbers to back this up? So far I can see very few occasions where the armorer pulls ahead at any point and to do this takes mirror image and more infusions which might defeat the purpose if they're trying to draw attention.
Okay. Imagine a level 6 armorer in plate armor. They do enhanced defense on their plate armor, and repulsion shield on their shield. Their base AC at this level 22. That's an AC of 22 at level 5 with no multiclassing, no feats, no investment in Dexterity, and no shield. If they somehow get the shield spell, they can temporarily bump that AC up to 27. Even bladesingers can't get that high at this level. Then, they also get the mirror image spell, which will further the unlikelihood of you getting hit.
Compare this to the level 6 battle smith. They have half-plate with enhanced defense and do repulsion shield on their shield. Their base AC at this level is dependent on their Dexterity score. We'll assume a DEX of +2, which grants them a passive AC of 21. If they want the same AC as the Armorer, they have to either give up a feat for Medium Armor Master or Heavily Armored. If they do Medium Armor Master, they also have to get their Dexterity at least up to a 16 to have the same armor that the Armorer will automatically have with the same combination of AC-increasing infusions. If they take Heavily Armored, unless they want their speed reduced, they have to get their Strength up to a 15, and the Armorer automatically ignores this downside of heavy armor. And on top of all of this, Battle Smiths need their spell slots much more than an Armorer does, as they may need it to bring their Steel Defender back to life, which will make it so an Armorer with Shield will get more mileage out of it than a Battle Smith does.
The Armorer doesn't need a good Dexterity or Strength to be effective in their armor, they just automatically negate those restrictions. They can focus more on having a high Constitution score than the Battle Smith can, which will allow them to have higher hit points than the Battle Smith does (on average). Additionally, they get more infusions than the Battle Smith with their level 9 feature, so they can use their infusions to not only boost their armor's effectiveness through the roof, but also can more easily get the cloak of protection and ring of protection through infusions.
If they do this, at level 14, with a Ring and Cloak of Protection, Enhanced Plate Armor, and a Repulsion Shield, their base AC is 25, where the Battle Smith will literally have to give all but one infusion to get this AC, as well as a ton of other ASI points and feats.
Armorers (even Infiltrators) have better AC and stat array than Battle Smiths. They may not always deal quite as much damage as them, but they sure can take a hit.
(Also, in order for the Battle Smith to have a shield, that means they can't use most ranged weapons and can't use any heavy weapons. Both Infiltrators and Guardian Armorers can use both a shield and their weapon without giving up any kind of damage.)
Multi-classing is a whole other can of worms and probably won't work in the armorer's favor seeing how easy H armor is to grab.
I don't know what you're trying to say here. The Battle Smith will either have to multiclass or give up a feat to get Heavy Armor, while the Armorer automatically gets it.
I'm not saying the armorer is ineffective but I'm not sure if it's effective enough to demand the design space it takes up.
It is effective enough. IMO, it's more than effective enough. They do good damage, have great benefits for either tanking or stealth, and have more magic items than any other artificer.
(Also, "effectiveness" isn't how WotC judges whether or not a feature/subclass makes it into a book. The existence of witch bolt, true strike, mordenkainen's sword, and almost all of the SCAG proves this.)
Maybe if each armor style had different spell lists so they didn't try to cover so much ground and allow the defensive Field/lighting launcher to be amplified with the expenditure of a spell slot they would have a better feel
I would definitely prefer if they split up the spell list like they did for the Genie Warlock, so you have one "Armorer" category of spells and one for each of the armor models. However, that would require a redesign of the subclass, as that would force them to make Armor Models be unchangeable from when you pick the subclass until the character drops dead (which I honestly wouldn't mind at all. They could make it so you could switch it on a level up or at ASI levels, after all). Base Armorer could get shield for the 1st level spell while the Guardian Model would get thunderwave and the Infiltrator would get [/spell]magic missile[/spell].
Hmm. I'll need to think about that a bit more. That could be interesting and solve my only issue with this subclass. Anyone else on board with this idea?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
That's a real long-winded way of saying that the armorer has a single AC advantage over other artificers. Even with dumbed dex and maxed con the armorer only pulls ahead of thee BS if the still defender is attacked less than 10% of the time. This is before factoring in the shield spell or healing spells.
You asked for evidence. I was thorough. If you want, in the future, I can just make statements without support, if that would be better.
As for the Steel Defender, I don't know where you got 10%, but if that is true, that is with you assuming that the Battle Smith would be the one being attacked all the time. That's not the case (especially with ranged Battle Smiths). Also, the extra hit points are worth more on the Armorer than they are on the Steel Defender, as the Defender is easier to hit, and thus will normally be taking more damage than the Armorer.
I'm compiling a comparison against the artillerist as well once I get it all wrapped up and put together I'll post it.
It should be the exact same as my comparison with the Battle Smith, but they don't need to focus on any infused weapons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
You said that arguing that an Infiltrator is better because they attack at range and a Guardian attacks at melee is "nonsensical". I pointed out that since Ranged Combat is much better mechanically than Melee Combat, it is not nonsensical to use that as a way to support the viewpoint that Infiltrator Armor is much better than Guardian Armor. I don't agree with that viewpoint, and laugh at the suggestion that an Infiltrator is better than an Armorer at everything it is good at, but I was just trying to point out a flaw in your argument.
Sorry, in that case I think you quoted me out of context; I was talking specifically about the Guardian's ability to tank, against Lostwhilefishing who for some insane reason is determined to argue that Infiltrator is better at tanking, yet refuses to show how (considering Guardian has two tank-oriented features and Infiltrator has none). Saying that Infiltrator is better because it's ranged in that case is nonsensical because it's the exact opposite of what was being argued (tanking ability).
But I'm not wasting any more time on them, they seem to be another on these forums who's obsessed with the idea that every choice must have a "correct" or "superior" answer and keeps moving the goalposts when their statements of "fact" are challenged. Ultimately though I'm of the view that discussing whether anything is "best" is idiotic, as in D&D there's only what's right for your character, and it gets very frustrating, so sorry if any of that felt misdirected at you.
Both armour models are great at what they're for (guarding and infiltrating, respectively). Both can function reasonably well in a more mixed capacity, i.e- where you expect to do a mixture of melee and ranged, as Infiltrator has a very good basic ranged attack, and Guardian can still use their Defensive Field at range, both can use SCAGtrips with melee attacks (with or without Thunder Gauntlets) and so-on. Though I feel like it's a mistake to use either armour model in that kind of mixed capacity too much, as both are best IMO when you go all-in on the theme, especially since Artillerist is better overall as a ranged Artificer than an Infiltrator will be; where the Infiltrator excels is when you actually do some infiltrating from time to time.
Overall it's a really fun sub-class that gives some really interesting new options you don't really expect for an Artificer. Now the challenge for me is to see if I can convince that one player in one of my groups who only seems to want to play a Barbarian to give a Guardian Armorer a try (though I've tried and failed to get them to go Paladin in the past as well); as long as they're still having fun it doesn't matter, but man I wish they'd at least try something else, closest we've ever got was Fighter which they tried to just play as a Barbarian and got annoyed at.
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.
The artillerist is hard to nail down but even just using the cannon as THP springs and grabbing the updated homunculus allows for solid at-will damage and mitigation.
I think the armorer is trying to emulate this spread of flexibility but doesn't quite have the load out to pull it off.
Yeah. The main thing that the armorer has going for them is the fact that you can have your armour on you at all times and that you can add more infusions to it, which adds flexibility. And the weird restriction for the artillerist's cannon only being around for an hour at a time is just annoying. It's not bad, just weird. :P
You said that arguing that an Infiltrator is better because they attack at range and a Guardian attacks at melee is "nonsensical". I pointed out that since Ranged Combat is much better mechanically than Melee Combat, it is not nonsensical to use that as a way to support the viewpoint that Infiltrator Armor is much better than Guardian Armor. I don't agree with that viewpoint, and laugh at the suggestion that an Infiltrator is better than an Armorer at everything it is good at, but I was just trying to point out a flaw in your argument.
Sorry, in that case I think you quoted me out of context; I was talking specifically about the Guardian's ability to tank, against Lostwhilefishing who for some insane reason is determined to argue that Infiltrator is better at tanking, yet refuses to show how (considering Guardian has two tank-oriented features and Infiltrator has none). Saying that Infiltrator is better because it's ranged in that case is nonsensical because it's the exact opposite of what was being argued (tanking ability).
Again, could you please stop lying? It's rather rude to try to talk down people like that. I have explained to you numerous times why you, according to the rules, are wrong in your claims. It's fine if you don't accept that but there's no need for you to talk the way you do about other forum members.
Quote from Third_Sundering>>You asked for evidence. I was thorough. If you want, in the future, I can just make statements without support, if that would be better.
As for the Steel Defender, I don't know where you got 10%, but if that is true, that is with you assuming that the Battle Smith would be the one being attacked all the time. That's not the case (especially with ranged Battle Smiths). Also, the extra hit points are worth more on the Armorer than they are on the Steel Defender, as the Defender is easier to hit, and thus will normally be taking more damage than the Armorer.
the 10% is the number off attacks that need to target the steel defender for the battle smith to have equal or greater EHP than the armorer. for a super simplified example, ten goblins attack each artificer at level 3. the armorer will take ~12.8 damage and if all ten attacks target the battle smith they would take ~15.5. if deflect attack is applied to one of those attacks it drops to ~14.3. finally, if 1 of those 10 attacks target the steel defender instead of the Battle smith it becomes ~12.75. as more attacks move to the SD the gap grows. the ~12 EHP lead the armorer has is worth almost the same as two uses of the repair action on the SD.
This is white room mathematics that isn't quite as effective in actual reality. Even then It's also not taking certain factors into account. The Guardian Armorer is going to have 3 additional temporary hitpoints for 2 turns just at level 3 to soak up damage. Meaning for at least 2 turns your Steel Defender is going to have to take at least one more hit just to equal out or come ahead at level 3. And if the Armorer decides to do something like prep themselves with False life (which the BS can do as well but only on itself and not the Steel Defender). This delays the turns that they are going to need to use Defensive Field on.
That all of course is assuming that at least half or more of those goblins don't get within 15 feet of the Armorer who can just murder them all with good probability with thunderwave. Which is not only a valid option that the Armorer gets and the BS doesn't, which makes the tanking much easier when we are talking that level and a bunch of goblins, but the BS would also have to worry about injuring with perhaps a small chance of dealing a KO to their own Steel Defender.
The idea of a "tank" in D&D is honestly misleading in the first place.
Any DM playing intelligent enemies and attempting to do so intelligently should be trying to avoid getting bogged down against the heavily armored melee bruisers and seeking to reach the vulnerable folks doing all the actual dangerous shit in the back. Nothing wants to sit in the front and trade blows with the d12 resistant-to-everything Bearbarian whose entire mission in life is taking punches when that warlock in the back is doing triple the Bearbarian's damage to whatever it feels like every turn. The standard, ordinary, traditional "This big thing is trying to eat you. Y'all should maybe do something about that" fight is the most boring use of D&D combat mechanics in the world. Unless the One Big Thing is waayyy bigger than it should be, the party is going to roll that fight without issue, and they'll do so largely the same way, every single time, from the same places. The team knows they've won basically after the first round, once they've ensured their positioning is good. That doesn't even really qualify as a game.
A few weeks ago, the DM for my own artificer put us through a siege. There was something like forty enemies on the map, with our five-man team and roughly half a dozen pre-battered NPCs behind Flotsam Fortifications on the beach. There was a line of nine skeletal archers in the back absolutely gobshyte mollycobbling anything that poked its noodle out from behind the Wall O Junk, there was a freaking slew of 'trooper/grunt'-level skellingbros gumming up the works, and there were four Miniboss-level enemies commanding the weenies. Our 'tank' was out in the front desperately trying to save our downed flier, taking ridiculous amounts of punishment. Our skirmishers were bouncing around the battlefield headhunting, trying to be everywhere at once as every turn, something new proved to be a bigger threat than we thought it was. The support caster behind the Flotsam Wall (i.e. me) had at least four things she absolutely needed to do on any given turn, and yet she could only pick one.
That fight ended with both the paladin and the fighter in single-digit HP, the fighter after getting up three separate times and burning a Superior Healing Potion to try and stay up, four of the six NPCs we'd been trying to save dead, and with every single spell slot I had above 1st level burnt (note: I am notoriously miserly with spells and end most of my Adventuring Days with almost all my slots uncast). Every single turn, each player had to freshly evaluate what the absolute most critical thing that needed doing was and whether going to do that was worth the half-dozen AoO's it'd take to get there and do it. It was ****ing beautiful. No amount of Tanking Gud would've kept the backline from having to fend for itself, and every single action you got was absolutely priceless. We didn't know we were going to win until about seven or eight rounds into the combat, when Minibosses started dropping and taking their undead thralls with them.
That's the kind of fight one should be demanding from their DM, not fights where the Guardian can walk up to the one critter trying to mindlessly devour the party and punch it in the snoot till the artillery in the back does its job.
Whoops, missed this post, and that does sound awesome; that's the kind of thing D&D is about when it's at its best.
But to clarify; durability alone doesn't make a good tank, you also need to ensure that enemies target you so you can put that durability to best use and screen others from harm, though it sounds like in your example even the tankiest tank would have struggled to keep everything at bay!
Barbarian is the first thought many will have for a tank class; it has huge durability thanks to high base HP and further damage reduction due to Rage, and it has control abilities in the form of advantage on grappling (Strength checks, due to Rage) and Reckless Attack, which can make the Barbarian a more appealing target through a combination of high threat and being easier to hit (people forget that reckless isn't just about you hitting harder, you can use it to make enemies attack you). A lot of people forget these things and focus entirely on damage; you see a lot taking Great Weapon Master, but I'd argue that Sentinel is much more important on a tank character, as it keeps enemies from moving away.
Paladins can do a bit of this as well through a combination of solid HP, high AC, self-healing, plus maybe Compelled Duel to force enemies to come to you (or stay where they are). There are also sub-classes that can pull the same trick as a Guardian's Thunder Gauntlets; these include the Cavalier (Fighter) with its Unwavering Mark, and amusingly the Swashbuckler (Rogue) thanks to their 9th level Panache; of the two the Cavalier makes for the more obvious tank similarly to a Paladin (good HP, high AC) but Swashbuckler is a fun twist due to a Rogue's defensive abilities such as solid light armoured AC and Uncanny Dodge. Monks as always are a weird (and fun) mix of abilities, but their tanking comes from good inbuilt AC, Stunning Strike for control, Patient Defence to boost their AC's effectiveness, and also to a degree their mobility (can't get away from them, though it doesn't prevent an enemy from moving). Sentinel is a solid choice on all of these for enhancing tanking ability.
A Guardian Armorer in many ways is a very traditional tank up front; while their base HP is more in line with the Rogue or Monk, Artificers are normally a very SAD class so you can easily dump points into CON to compensate, plus the Guardian model adds a pretty heft chunk of temporary HP on top a high AC. The benefit of Thunder Gauntlets though isn't the damage they do (which any decent infused melee weapon can surpass) but in the disadvantage it imposes, as it forces the target to attack you instead of someone else. But they get even more fun as a tank with the bag of tricks you get as an Artificer, and Armorer in particular; Mirror Image makes you even more difficult to hit (and thus even more annoying for the enemies that are forced to target you), while Hypnotic Pattern (or maybe Web at lower levels) can control a bunch of enemies while you focus on those that make it through/past. So it's not just a case of wading in and casting "I punch everything in the face".
Infiltrator can pull a lot of the same tricks (they have the same spells after all) but they lack the additional durability and built in control of the Guardian. It's also important to remember that while the Guardian doesn't have a bonus ranged attack, they're not helpless at range as they still have the full Artificer spellcasting arsenal, plus their 15th level "get over here" reaction attack. There's a bunch of overlap in how you can use each armour model, but when it comes to tanking Guardian has the higher raw durability and a handy built in control feature, so they've got their key areas covered without any spell casting if they need to save the slots.
And with their ability to use a handful of Control spells it makes them a surprisingly effective tank, as it's not just the enemies that you punch that you can control; so to come back to your example battle, a Guardian Armorer could actually have been a very effective tank in your case (you didn't mention what your tank was actually playing as, was it the Fighter?).
Anyway, this wasn't really intended to turn into an essay on what makes a good tank, as there are a bunch of ways to build them (and you probably know by now my view is that there are very few "wrong" answers in D&D). Just wanted to make clear what I'm talking about re: tanking.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
So I was all gung-ho to start a new artificer going towards armorer as a big punchy guy (all my builds seem to end up that way, guess I like tanks). I was going to run around using thron whip to basically be Roadhog from overwatch, but then I realized that I could play an earth genasi artificer and get constant advantage on strength and pass without a trace once daily without multiclass. Which starts to get ridiculous, especially as I started with a 17 INT so I'm picking up skill expert at level 4.
So I guess Thwip is going a be a sneaky skirmisher (which works out well because our groups has a cleric, a barbarian, and an undecided so we didn't need a tank)
To that end I'm using chainshirt as my armor (same cost as scale mail so a straight trade from starting equipment). Chainshirt can explicitly be worn under outer layers so I can still wear it in under clothing in most settings. Should be a fun skirmisher/utility caster. I like the fact that you can basically go in any direction with the artificer and do well do to the guarantee of access to your choice of magic items. This holds true for the Armorer but expands the arenas you can excel in.
I think both make for very fun classes and As has been stated by others, if the loss of shield bothers you too much, a 1-2 level wizard dip (warmage/bladesinger/abjuration depending on your exact build) can improve your tanking ability immensely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Maybe I responded in a confusing way. I agree with you that the Guardian Armor is good, and really good. I agree that it is about equal with the Infiltrator Armor, and think both of them are good at doing what they're meant to do. I personally like the Guardian Armor Model much more than the Infiltrator Armor Model. I am not supporting Lostwhilefishing's opinion on the Guardian Armor, but I was merely pointing out an incorrect statement you made.
You said that arguing that an Infiltrator is better because they attack at range and a Guardian attacks at melee is "nonsensical". I pointed out that since Ranged Combat is much better mechanically than Melee Combat, it is not nonsensical to use that as a way to support the viewpoint that Infiltrator Armor is much better than Guardian Armor. I don't agree with that viewpoint, and laugh at the suggestion that an Infiltrator is better than an Armorer at everything it is good at, but I was just trying to point out a flaw in your argument.
Don't take it personally, I do this for everyone, even people I agree with. Pointing to the fact that an Infiltrator is ranged as a justification for preferring that Armor Model is a valid point.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That's a buff to the Armorer, IMO. They don't have anything they need to expend spell slots on, unlike Alchemists, Artillerists, and to an extent, Battle Smiths.
I personally would rate them as being above Artillerists and at least on par with Battle Smiths. Both ranged Battle Smiths and Infiltrator Armorers are very good at ranged weapon combat, and both Guardian Armorers and melee Battle Smiths are very good at tanking and melee combat.
I do think that melee Battle Smiths are a bit better than Guardian Armorers when it comes to damage, due to the Battle Smith being able to use heavy weapons with Great Weapon Master, but when it comes to tanking, the Guardian Armorer clearly beats the Battle Smith, granting disadvantage on all attacks not made against them to anyone they hit, while Steel Defenders have to use a reaction to give disadvantage to one attack against a creature within 5 feet of them.
Guardian Armorers are better at tanking, but melee Battle Smiths are better at damage. Infiltrator Armor is better at movement and stealth, while ranged Battle Smiths are better at tanking and making the most out of their whole turn, and can be better at damage with the right weapon.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The idea of a "tank" in D&D is honestly misleading in the first place.
Any DM playing intelligent enemies and attempting to do so intelligently should be trying to avoid getting bogged down against the heavily armored melee bruisers and seeking to reach the vulnerable folks doing all the actual dangerous shit in the back. Nothing wants to sit in the front and trade blows with the d12 resistant-to-everything Bearbarian whose entire mission in life is taking punches when that warlock in the back is doing triple the Bearbarian's damage to whatever it feels like every turn. The standard, ordinary, traditional "This big thing is trying to eat you. Y'all should maybe do something about that" fight is the most boring use of D&D combat mechanics in the world. Unless the One Big Thing is waayyy bigger than it should be, the party is going to roll that fight without issue, and they'll do so largely the same way, every single time, from the same places. The team knows they've won basically after the first round, once they've ensured their positioning is good. That doesn't even really qualify as a game.
A few weeks ago, the DM for my own artificer put us through a siege. There was something like forty enemies on the map, with our five-man team and roughly half a dozen pre-battered NPCs behind Flotsam Fortifications on the beach. There was a line of nine skeletal archers in the back absolutely gobshyte mollycobbling anything that poked its noodle out from behind the Wall O Junk, there was a freaking slew of 'trooper/grunt'-level skellingbros gumming up the works, and there were four Miniboss-level enemies commanding the weenies. Our 'tank' was out in the front desperately trying to save our downed flier, taking ridiculous amounts of punishment. Our skirmishers were bouncing around the battlefield headhunting, trying to be everywhere at once as every turn, something new proved to be a bigger threat than we thought it was. The support caster behind the Flotsam Wall (i.e. me) had at least four things she absolutely needed to do on any given turn, and yet she could only pick one.
That fight ended with both the paladin and the fighter in single-digit HP, the fighter after getting up three separate times and burning a Superior Healing Potion to try and stay up, four of the six NPCs we'd been trying to save dead, and with every single spell slot I had above 1st level burnt (note: I am notoriously miserly with spells and end most of my Adventuring Days with almost all my slots uncast). Every single turn, each player had to freshly evaluate what the absolute most critical thing that needed doing was and whether going to do that was worth the half-dozen AoO's it'd take to get there and do it. It was ******* beautiful. No amount of Tanking Gud would've kept the backline from having to fend for itself, and every single action you got was absolutely priceless. We didn't know we were going to win until about seven or eight rounds into the combat, when Minibosses started dropping and taking their undead thralls with them.
That's the kind of fight one should be demanding from their DM, not fights where the Guardian can walk up to the one critter trying to mindlessly devour the party and punch it in the snoot till the artillery in the back does its job.
Please do not contact or message me.
That is a benefit to the Battle Smith, but that isn't a bad thing about the Armorer. Their disadvantage effect is potent enough to account for that. Additionally, that takes the Battle Smith's bonus action, where the Armorer has theirs for free every round, possibly using it for Boots of the Winding Step or to command a Homunculus Servant, or to dual wield (must be level 14, takes the Arcane Propulsion Armor Infusion and Dual Wielder feat).
If you mean the Guardian Armorer, you generally will want to stay near the monsters to make them attack you. You don't want hit and run tactics, you want them to target you, not the party's cleric or wizard.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
In my experience, "tanks" in D&D combat are most effective and useful in combats that are a mix of a horde of minions and the super powerful creature that will crush the wizard in one turn. If you have both of them at the same time, that's when the casters, healers, and the tanks shine the best. The tank stops the BBEG from squashing the Wizard, the Wizard stops the minions from overwhelming the tank {i.e. fireball, and the healer/support character can help the party stay alive. It's not a boring slog, like just one BBEG and no other enemies would be, and it's not just the same enemies that need destroying, over, and over, and over again like a massive horde, but if there is an army of minions and at least one BBEG, that's when combat is actually fun.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
No, they can choose either one. That's the point. Choice. A Battle Smith will almost always be using their bonus action to either command their Steel Defender or cast a smite spell. Like I said in an above post, if pure damage is what you want, you're probably better off taking the Battle Smith subclass. If you want to keep your enemies from squashing your friends, Guardian Armorer is the way to go.
Also, there is nothing about the Guardian Armor Model that excludes them from taking or gaining the benefits of Arcane Propulsion Armor. If you mean whether or not its gauntlets combine with the effects of the Thunder Gauntlets, that is a bit ambiguous.
No, the Guardian Armorer will be able to stay alive longer than the Battle Smith in melee. Their temporary hit points will allow them to do that. Shield is a nice spell, but Armorers don't really need it (IMO, they should have it, but it's not necessary to them), and can get it from other means (Magic Initiate, Multiclassing to wizard, etc). They already have a great AC from their heavy armor, shield, and extra infusions that will allow their static AC be much higher than the Battle Smith's.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Okay. Imagine a level 6 armorer in plate armor. They do enhanced defense on their plate armor, and repulsion shield on their shield. Their base AC at this level 22. That's an AC of 22 at level 5 with no multiclassing, no feats, no investment in Dexterity, and no shield. If they somehow get the shield spell, they can temporarily bump that AC up to 27. Even bladesingers can't get that high at this level. Then, they also get the mirror image spell, which will further the unlikelihood of you getting hit.
Compare this to the level 6 battle smith. They have half-plate with enhanced defense and do repulsion shield on their shield. Their base AC at this level is dependent on their Dexterity score. We'll assume a DEX of +2, which grants them a passive AC of 21. If they want the same AC as the Armorer, they have to either give up a feat for Medium Armor Master or Heavily Armored. If they do Medium Armor Master, they also have to get their Dexterity at least up to a 16 to have the same armor that the Armorer will automatically have with the same combination of AC-increasing infusions. If they take Heavily Armored, unless they want their speed reduced, they have to get their Strength up to a 15, and the Armorer automatically ignores this downside of heavy armor. And on top of all of this, Battle Smiths need their spell slots much more than an Armorer does, as they may need it to bring their Steel Defender back to life, which will make it so an Armorer with Shield will get more mileage out of it than a Battle Smith does.
The Armorer doesn't need a good Dexterity or Strength to be effective in their armor, they just automatically negate those restrictions. They can focus more on having a high Constitution score than the Battle Smith can, which will allow them to have higher hit points than the Battle Smith does (on average). Additionally, they get more infusions than the Battle Smith with their level 9 feature, so they can use their infusions to not only boost their armor's effectiveness through the roof, but also can more easily get the cloak of protection and ring of protection through infusions.
If they do this, at level 14, with a Ring and Cloak of Protection, Enhanced Plate Armor, and a Repulsion Shield, their base AC is 25, where the Battle Smith will literally have to give all but one infusion to get this AC, as well as a ton of other ASI points and feats.
Armorers (even Infiltrators) have better AC and stat array than Battle Smiths. They may not always deal quite as much damage as them, but they sure can take a hit.
(Also, in order for the Battle Smith to have a shield, that means they can't use most ranged weapons and can't use any heavy weapons. Both Infiltrators and Guardian Armorers can use both a shield and their weapon without giving up any kind of damage.)
I don't know what you're trying to say here. The Battle Smith will either have to multiclass or give up a feat to get Heavy Armor, while the Armorer automatically gets it.
It is effective enough. IMO, it's more than effective enough. They do good damage, have great benefits for either tanking or stealth, and have more magic items than any other artificer.
(Also, "effectiveness" isn't how WotC judges whether or not a feature/subclass makes it into a book. The existence of witch bolt, true strike, mordenkainen's sword, and almost all of the SCAG proves this.)
I would definitely prefer if they split up the spell list like they did for the Genie Warlock, so you have one "Armorer" category of spells and one for each of the armor models. However, that would require a redesign of the subclass, as that would force them to make Armor Models be unchangeable from when you pick the subclass until the character drops dead (which I honestly wouldn't mind at all. They could make it so you could switch it on a level up or at ASI levels, after all). Base Armorer could get shield for the 1st level spell while the Guardian Model would get thunderwave and the Infiltrator would get [/spell]magic missile[/spell].
Hmm. I'll need to think about that a bit more. That could be interesting and solve my only issue with this subclass. Anyone else on board with this idea?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You asked for evidence. I was thorough. If you want, in the future, I can just make statements without support, if that would be better.
As for the Steel Defender, I don't know where you got 10%, but if that is true, that is with you assuming that the Battle Smith would be the one being attacked all the time. That's not the case (especially with ranged Battle Smiths). Also, the extra hit points are worth more on the Armorer than they are on the Steel Defender, as the Defender is easier to hit, and thus will normally be taking more damage than the Armorer.
It should be the exact same as my comparison with the Battle Smith, but they don't need to focus on any infused weapons.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Sorry, in that case I think you quoted me out of context; I was talking specifically about the Guardian's ability to tank, against Lostwhilefishing who for some insane reason is determined to argue that Infiltrator is better at tanking, yet refuses to show how (considering Guardian has two tank-oriented features and Infiltrator has none). Saying that Infiltrator is better because it's ranged in that case is nonsensical because it's the exact opposite of what was being argued (tanking ability).
But I'm not wasting any more time on them, they seem to be another on these forums who's obsessed with the idea that every choice must have a "correct" or "superior" answer and keeps moving the goalposts when their statements of "fact" are challenged. Ultimately though I'm of the view that discussing whether anything is "best" is idiotic, as in D&D there's only what's right for your character, and it gets very frustrating, so sorry if any of that felt misdirected at you.
Both armour models are great at what they're for (guarding and infiltrating, respectively). Both can function reasonably well in a more mixed capacity, i.e- where you expect to do a mixture of melee and ranged, as Infiltrator has a very good basic ranged attack, and Guardian can still use their Defensive Field at range, both can use SCAGtrips with melee attacks (with or without Thunder Gauntlets) and so-on. Though I feel like it's a mistake to use either armour model in that kind of mixed capacity too much, as both are best IMO when you go all-in on the theme, especially since Artillerist is better overall as a ranged Artificer than an Infiltrator will be; where the Infiltrator excels is when you actually do some infiltrating from time to time.
Overall it's a really fun sub-class that gives some really interesting new options you don't really expect for an Artificer. Now the challenge for me is to see if I can convince that one player in one of my groups who only seems to want to play a Barbarian to give a Guardian Armorer a try (though I've tried and failed to get them to go Paladin in the past as well); as long as they're still having fun it doesn't matter, but man I wish they'd at least try something else, closest we've ever got was Fighter which they tried to just play as a Barbarian and got annoyed at.
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.
Yeah. The main thing that the armorer has going for them is the fact that you can have your armour on you at all times and that you can add more infusions to it, which adds flexibility. And the weird restriction for the artillerist's cannon only being around for an hour at a time is just annoying. It's not bad, just weird. :P
Again, could you please stop lying? It's rather rude to try to talk down people like that. I have explained to you numerous times why you, according to the rules, are wrong in your claims. It's fine if you don't accept that but there's no need for you to talk the way you do about other forum members.
This is white room mathematics that isn't quite as effective in actual reality. Even then It's also not taking certain factors into account. The Guardian Armorer is going to have 3 additional temporary hitpoints for 2 turns just at level 3 to soak up damage. Meaning for at least 2 turns your Steel Defender is going to have to take at least one more hit just to equal out or come ahead at level 3. And if the Armorer decides to do something like prep themselves with False life (which the BS can do as well but only on itself and not the Steel Defender). This delays the turns that they are going to need to use Defensive Field on.
That all of course is assuming that at least half or more of those goblins don't get within 15 feet of the Armorer who can just murder them all with good probability with thunderwave. Which is not only a valid option that the Armorer gets and the BS doesn't, which makes the tanking much easier when we are talking that level and a bunch of goblins, but the BS would also have to worry about injuring with perhaps a small chance of dealing a KO to their own Steel Defender.
Whoops, missed this post, and that does sound awesome; that's the kind of thing D&D is about when it's at its best.
But to clarify; durability alone doesn't make a good tank, you also need to ensure that enemies target you so you can put that durability to best use and screen others from harm, though it sounds like in your example even the tankiest tank would have struggled to keep everything at bay!
Barbarian is the first thought many will have for a tank class; it has huge durability thanks to high base HP and further damage reduction due to Rage, and it has control abilities in the form of advantage on grappling (Strength checks, due to Rage) and Reckless Attack, which can make the Barbarian a more appealing target through a combination of high threat and being easier to hit (people forget that reckless isn't just about you hitting harder, you can use it to make enemies attack you). A lot of people forget these things and focus entirely on damage; you see a lot taking Great Weapon Master, but I'd argue that Sentinel is much more important on a tank character, as it keeps enemies from moving away.
Paladins can do a bit of this as well through a combination of solid HP, high AC, self-healing, plus maybe Compelled Duel to force enemies to come to you (or stay where they are). There are also sub-classes that can pull the same trick as a Guardian's Thunder Gauntlets; these include the Cavalier (Fighter) with its Unwavering Mark, and amusingly the Swashbuckler (Rogue) thanks to their 9th level Panache; of the two the Cavalier makes for the more obvious tank similarly to a Paladin (good HP, high AC) but Swashbuckler is a fun twist due to a Rogue's defensive abilities such as solid light armoured AC and Uncanny Dodge. Monks as always are a weird (and fun) mix of abilities, but their tanking comes from good inbuilt AC, Stunning Strike for control, Patient Defence to boost their AC's effectiveness, and also to a degree their mobility (can't get away from them, though it doesn't prevent an enemy from moving). Sentinel is a solid choice on all of these for enhancing tanking ability.
A Guardian Armorer in many ways is a very traditional tank up front; while their base HP is more in line with the Rogue or Monk, Artificers are normally a very SAD class so you can easily dump points into CON to compensate, plus the Guardian model adds a pretty heft chunk of temporary HP on top a high AC. The benefit of Thunder Gauntlets though isn't the damage they do (which any decent infused melee weapon can surpass) but in the disadvantage it imposes, as it forces the target to attack you instead of someone else. But they get even more fun as a tank with the bag of tricks you get as an Artificer, and Armorer in particular; Mirror Image makes you even more difficult to hit (and thus even more annoying for the enemies that are forced to target you), while Hypnotic Pattern (or maybe Web at lower levels) can control a bunch of enemies while you focus on those that make it through/past. So it's not just a case of wading in and casting "I punch everything in the face".
Infiltrator can pull a lot of the same tricks (they have the same spells after all) but they lack the additional durability and built in control of the Guardian. It's also important to remember that while the Guardian doesn't have a bonus ranged attack, they're not helpless at range as they still have the full Artificer spellcasting arsenal, plus their 15th level "get over here" reaction attack. There's a bunch of overlap in how you can use each armour model, but when it comes to tanking Guardian has the higher raw durability and a handy built in control feature, so they've got their key areas covered without any spell casting if they need to save the slots.
And with their ability to use a handful of Control spells it makes them a surprisingly effective tank, as it's not just the enemies that you punch that you can control; so to come back to your example battle, a Guardian Armorer could actually have been a very effective tank in your case (you didn't mention what your tank was actually playing as, was it the Fighter?).
Anyway, this wasn't really intended to turn into an essay on what makes a good tank, as there are a bunch of ways to build them (and you probably know by now my view is that there are very few "wrong" answers in D&D). Just wanted to make clear what I'm talking about re: tanking.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
So I was all gung-ho to start a new artificer going towards armorer as a big punchy guy (all my builds seem to end up that way, guess I like tanks). I was going to run around using thron whip to basically be Roadhog from overwatch, but then I realized that I could play an earth genasi artificer and get constant advantage on strength and pass without a trace once daily without multiclass. Which starts to get ridiculous, especially as I started with a 17 INT so I'm picking up skill expert at level 4.
So I guess Thwip is going a be a sneaky skirmisher (which works out well because our groups has a cleric, a barbarian, and an undecided so we didn't need a tank)
To that end I'm using chainshirt as my armor (same cost as scale mail so a straight trade from starting equipment). Chainshirt can explicitly be worn under outer layers so I can still wear it in under clothing in most settings. Should be a fun skirmisher/utility caster. I like the fact that you can basically go in any direction with the artificer and do well do to the guarantee of access to your choice of magic items. This holds true for the Armorer but expands the arenas you can excel in.
I think both make for very fun classes and As has been stated by others, if the loss of shield bothers you too much, a 1-2 level wizard dip (warmage/bladesinger/abjuration depending on your exact build) can improve your tanking ability immensely.