D&D 5E Zard's Post Tasha's Archetype Tier List

So an Armorer can jump in heavy armor, have the full speed without 15 strength but yeah trip up on weight.
As long as your strength is more than 5 you can carry full plate and a shield. You don't need to carry a weapon and your homunculus can carry 30 lb of stuff. Plus Bag of Holding.

If you are really worried about carrying your stuff choose a race with the Powerful Build trait.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Zardnaar

Legend
As long as your strength is more than 5 you can carry full plate and a shield. You don't need to carry a weapon and your homunculus can carry 30 lb of stuff. Plus Bag of Holding.

If you are really worried about carrying your stuff choose a race with the Powerful Build trait.

Point I've only really crunched it out at 8 and 10 strength for some different classes.

Idk what's missing from armorer it's so close.
 



Got any data to back up that most tables claim?
No, but it's also impossible with every method other than rolled. And with 4d6 rolled, the odds of rolling four stats (because you can dump wisdom, charisma and dexterity before strength) below 9 are less than 1 in a thousand*.

*It's actually 3/4096 for 4 stats 9 or less.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
No, but it's also impossible with every method other than rolled. And with 4d6 rolled, the odds of rolling four stats (because you can dump wisdom, charisma and dexterity before strength) below 9 are less than 1 in a thousand*.

*It's actually 3/4096 for 4 stats 9 or less.

Don't have to wear heavy armor.

I've started to lean more towards medium for a few classes at least the sad ones.

Under default array 16, 14, 14 isn't hard do usually go 14 dex/con 16 primary.

One less AC, better initiative, skills etc.
Armorer might skip that depends.
 


evilbob

Explorer
Hello! I skipped most of this thread, but just wanted to say I generally agree with the OP's conclusion that the class is basically "ok." It seemed really great when I first read it, but upon closer examination I agree it suffers hard from being a late bloomer - which also makes it harder to multiclass. It also makes the spellcasting progression even worse - you are clearly not meant to sling spells around the battlefield in an offensive way. The SAD thing seems cool - and if you roll for stats and get only one good stat, then it's great - but it does mean you will be quite awful at combat for at least two levels. Granted, those are supposed to go by quickly, but it's sort of crazy how much difference there is between a level 1 artificer and a level 3 one, and it made me not want to play one. I get the feeling that WotC was extremely wary of people taking a level 1 or 2 dip into this class just so they could abuse magic item creation or elixirs, so they made it awful long enough to scare those folks away. They may have also been worried about dips from artificers into other classes, which is why it takes so long to get your good stuff. And when you're writing gimpy classes because you're worried about multiclass abuse, we're getting back into 3.5's problems.

Also agree with the sentiment that an artificer is there to be a support character, which makes some of their subclasses a little weird. If you wanted to get into melee or be a blaster, you will do a lot better as other classes. Ironically the temp HP is probably the best thing about the artillerist for that reason. Also, because of the versatility, this is NOT a class for beginners. To maximize your efficiency you will need to have a strong command of all sorts of magical items and effects, keep track of pets and bonus actions, and you're making big decisions about all these things every short rest. I feel like this hurts the class, because it's absolutely built for people with specific non-D&D fantasy tropes in mind - like Ironman, or someone who just wants to have a flamethrower. Beginners could have had a great time with the archetype, but no beginner should play this class.

Overall, I'd put them in the same sort of category as a trickery cleric or a forge cleric. But it's hard to recommend being an artificer over one of those. Or a bard. I agree with others in this thread that an artificer would shine best in a game with less combat, lots of exploration, and low magic. They would also work well in a game with only 2 or 3 characters, as they can fill many non-combat roles. And these are great features! Because there are games that need a role like that.

But for your more "standard" D&D campaign: just play a bard.

Sidebar: I think if a class really starts to shine around level 9 you can call that a "late bloomer" because I remember reading somewhere that most games end by 12 or 13 or so. I know I've literally never played or been in a campaign with a level 14 D&D character in my entire life. So I also tend to think of level 12 as your "capstone" and give little credit to abilities past that point.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Hello! I skipped most of this thread, but just wanted to say I generally agree with the OP's conclusion that the class is basically "ok." It seemed really great when I first read it, but upon closer examination I agree it suffers hard from being a late bloomer - which also makes it harder to multiclass. It also makes the spellcasting progression even worse - you are clearly not meant to sling spells around the battlefield in an offensive way. The SAD thing seems cool - and if you roll for stats and get only one good stat, then it's great - but it does mean you will be quite awful at combat for at least two levels. Granted, those are supposed to go by quickly, but it's sort of crazy how much difference there is between a level 1 artificer and a level 3 one, and it made me not want to play one. I get the feeling that WotC was extremely wary of people taking a level 1 or 2 dip into this class just so they could abuse magic item creation or elixirs, so they made it awful long enough to scare those folks away. They may have also been worried about dips from artificers into other classes, which is why it takes so long to get your good stuff. And when you're writing gimpy classes because you're worried about multiclass abuse, we're getting back into 3.5's problems.

Also agree with the sentiment that an artificer is there to be a support character, which makes some of their subclasses a little weird. If you wanted to get into melee or be a blaster, you will do a lot better as other classes. Ironically the temp HP is probably the best thing about the artillerist for that reason. Also, because of the versatility, this is NOT a class for beginners. To maximize your efficiency you will need to have a strong command of all sorts of magical items and effects, keep track of pets and bonus actions, and you're making big decisions about all these things every short rest. I feel like this hurts the class, because it's absolutely built for people with specific non-D&D fantasy tropes in mind - like Ironman, or someone who just wants to have a flamethrower. Beginners could have had a great time with the archetype, but no beginner should play this class.

Overall, I'd put them in the same sort of category as a trickery cleric or a forge cleric. But it's hard to recommend being an artificer over one of those. Or a bard. I agree with others in this thread that an artificer would shine best in a game with less combat, lots of exploration, and low magic. They would also work well in a game with only 2 or 3 characters, as they can fill many non-combat roles. And these are great features! Because there are games that need a role like that.

But for your more "standard" D&D campaign: just play a bard.

Sidebar: I think if a class really starts to shine around level 9 you can call that a "late bloomer" because I remember reading somewhere that most games end by 12 or 13 or so. I know I've literally never played or been in a campaign with a level 14 D&D character in my entire life. So I also tend to think of level 12 as your "capstone" and give little credit to abilities past that point.

I put some numbers from online tables.

70% lvl 1-7
10% lvl 11
1% epic levels.

And yeah the class looks not bad around 9-11 but that's to late.

It's not the only class with this problem but suffers the most perhaps.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Barbarian Zealot.

Missed one. The Zealot is a fairly simple barbarian. Hot stuff even harder relative to the other barbarians.

This is because while you are raging you get the Divine Fury ability at level 3. First opponent you hit each turn takes extra 1d6+ half you Barbarian level.

You also get Warrior of the Gods ability. Basically you can be raised without material components. This is mostly a ribbon ability saving you 500gp when you get raised. Death isn't that common and will you have access to raise dead anyway?

At level 6 you get fanatical focus. This let's you reroll a failed save once per rage. Very nice ability.

Zealous Presence.

Oh my. This is a massive once per long rest buff. As a bonus action up to ten allies gain advantage on attacks and saves. Great ability.

Overall the Zealot offer a good package for potential barbarian players. Every ability is above average but mostly boils down to moar damage. It's very good but not great which leaves it in A tier.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top