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

[Zardnaar]

Well Tasha's is here and much like Xanathars Guide to Powercreep it's ramped up what one thinks of in terms of power. Also the Artificer got errata, buffed and put in a non Eberron book.

The Dungeon Dudes on youtube are doing this and overall I think they are doing a decent job. I disagree here and there. They tend to over rate heavy armor for example and consider level 10-15 more than I will.

The classes will be rated S to D roughly using these categories.

S. One of the best archetypes in the game. Usually changes the base class in profound ways or is just powerful.

A. Above average archetype that can easily be S tier with the right build or campaign.

B. Run if the mill archetype that might have a very narrow path to a higher tier ranking in the right campaign or very specific build.

C. Below average option that is weaker than other archetypes or doesn't play nice with the base class.

D. Trap option. Probably makes the base class worse and/or fails at what it's trying to do. Best avoided imho.


I've tried this before but will be tweaking the criteria the categories are judged on. Overall I'll be rating them how I suspect people actually play the game vs the designers intent.

1. I will look at mostly level 1-7, then up to ten. 11-14 will be considered a little bit level 15+ will mostly be ignored. Online 70% of games are level 1-7 only 10% reach 11 and 1% are epic levels.

2. Classes that are front loaded will likely score higher than late bloomers. See online stats about high level play. I suspect real life games mirror this and the sweet spot is still 3-7 or so.

3. Assuming point buy or default array. Some classes are more MAD vs SAD and I'll mention this if you roll well. Personally I roll but you need some sort of default.

4. Less encounters than 6-8 and two short rests. Probably more like 4-6 and1-2 short rests. Tasha's seems to realize this And I think the short rest concept is a bit if a failure.

5. Classes that are really good at one thing might be rated a tier higher if that one thing is really important. Eg damage, healing or whatever. If your class is really good at under water basket weaving......

So you may be in a higher level game and disagree that's perfectly for be. Just be aware high level games are probably a minority and I have specifically said I'm eating 1-10 more than 11-20. Feel free to comment if that's unfair, life's unfair.

 

[Zardnaar]

Artificer:

Overall I consider the Artificer to be one of the more complex classes that's easy to mess up if you don't know how to build it.

I'm assuming you know the basics and know what spells are good to pick. Tasha's overall buffed the artificer revamping it's spells and adding the SCAG cantrips to it's spell lists which helps out 2 of the 4 archetypes.

The big problem with the artificer imho is that overall it's a late bloomer. Which means for half of it's career your mostly better off playing a different class with one exception.

Alchemist.

The Alchemist is built around elixirs. Before level 10 you only get a grand total of 3 class abilities.

Experimental elixer looks decent but requires spell slots. And you're a half cast. Additionally most of the effects just duplicate a spell effect. So your major archetype feature is actually worse than just playing a primary caster several of which get more spells as an archetype feature.

The artificer dies lack those spell effects but imho the feature should be divorced from spell slots and one can compare with the other half casters.

Alchemical savant is kind if cute similar to potent cantrip irthe dragon sorcerer. Due to lack of spell slots it's mostly going to be applied to cantrips. Better than a pike in the eye with a sharp stick.

Restorative Regents.

At level 9 you grant temporary hit points with your infusions and can use lesser restoration a number of times equal to your intelligence modifier.

More or less a ribbon ability and even the temporary hit points is laughable compared to another subclass.

In general the Alchemist is supposed to be the support class artificer. The problem is imho it fails hard at it due to insufficient resources and one can easily compare it to a Paladin with its spell list, lay on hands and auras. If one compared it to other primary casters such as clerics and bards it looks even worse.

It's going to be short of resources, it's not going to be able to heal enough when it matters and it can't buff enough either at least compare to any other artificer.

The archetypes is bad and is a complete trap so it's getting a D rating. Avoid, go back to drawing board, do not pick.

 

[Zardnaar]

Artificer: Armorer

The armor is a fairly simple concept. Want to play Ironman from the MCU in D&D?

Unfortunately it's looks cool over effective doubling down on the Artificers late blooming tendencies.

For example Artificers can infuse a magic weapon fairly early on. So can the Armorer but it can't make it's special weapons magical until level 9.

Being the armorer kind of implies tank or some level of fighting ability. With its infusions you can kind if do this as well but once again you're level 9 before you can infuse extra infusions into your armor.

Put simply your archetype is heavily built around reaching level 9. Mechanically I like the way they have designed the class as you can offset the armors strength requirements and key your attacks off intelligence at least using your armors special weapons.

Overall it almost looks like fun and I suspect it's a lot of fun around level 9-11. Unfortunately a lot of games are likely finishing up around then or finished several levels ago.

Unfortunately until then your damage is sub par, you're not that foot at support, and your base class features are argueably inferior to other classes so you're not really good at anything and even as a potential 5th person there's better options.

In conclusion while I don't regard this archetype as a trap it's below par for most of it's likely career. Overall I would give it a C probably creeping up to a B at level 9 or a high B by level 12 or so. It's also outclassed by other Artificer archetypes.

 

[Ancalagon]

It really bothers me that the alchemist is so limited, because it's by far the most "medieval" artificer, i.e. it's the subclass that fits the best with a number of D&D setting (some of the others may be too "high tech").

Can it be rescued?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It really bothers me that the alchemist is so limited, because it's by far the most "medieval" artificer, i.e. it's the subclass that fits the best with a number of D&D setting (some of the others may be too "high tech").

Can it be rescued?

Consider the credentials of the person who wrote this - we already know they don't really know how to play artificers.

 

[GlassJaw]

Consider the credentials of the person who wrote this - we already know they don't really know how to play artificers.

That's a pretty sassy comment.

Z certainly focuses on combat for is reviews but I have no doubt he has a solid grasp of 5E balance and mechanics. I don't always agree with his assessment or even his review criteria but I always learn something from his posts.

I do agree with his take on the Artificer as a whole: cool concept, fun class with some cool mechanics but the subclasses are underwhelming when you peel back the layers of mechanics. Battle Smith is the clear winner, with Artillerist a respectable second place.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's a pretty sassy comment.

Z certainly focuses on combat for is reviews but I have no doubt he has a solid grasp of 5E balance and mechanics. I don't always agree with his assessment or even his review criteria but I always learn something from his posts.

I do agree with his take on the Artificer as a whole: cool concept, fun class with some cool mechanics but the subclasses are underwhelming when you peel back the layers of mechanics. Battle Smith is the clear winner, with Artillerist a respectable second place.

Unlike others, I don't pretend to expertise in combat mechanics, but I do know that the Artillerist is by far the best at doing what Artificers are intended for - support.

 

[dave2008]

S. One of the best archetypes in the game. Usually changes the base class in profound ways or is just powerful.

Best at what? Doing damage, affecting combat encounters, social encounters, exploration, fun to play? What precisely are you measuring, because my definition of best is: "most fun to play." I'm guessing your definition is different.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's a pretty sassy comment.

Z certainly focuses on combat for is reviews but I have no doubt he has a solid grasp of 5E balance and mechanics. I don't always agree with his assessment or even his review criteria but I always learn something from his posts.

I do agree with his take on the Artificer as a whole: cool concept, fun class with some cool mechanics but the subclasses are underwhelming when you peel back the layers of mechanics. Battle Smith is
That's how it's gonna play out. the clear winner, with Artillerist a respectable second place.

That's a pretty sassy comment.

Z certainly focuses on combat for is reviews but I have no doubt he has a solid grasp of 5E balance and mechanics. I don't always agree with his assessment or even his review criteria but I always learn something from his posts.

I do agree with his take on the Artificer as a whole: cool concept, fun class with some cool mechanics but the subclasses are underwhelming when you peel back the layers of mechanics. Battle Smith is the clear winner, with Artillerist a respectable second place.

That's how it's going to play out.

Alchemist needs a rewrite. It's main problem is it's gestures feed off spell slots and it's already a half caster.

The other subclasses tend to get a few extras layered on top of the Artificers spells.

 

[Zardnaar]

Best at what? Doing damage, affecting combat encounters, social encounters, exploration, fun to play? What precisely are you measuring, because my definition of best is: "most fun to play." I'm guessing your definition is different.

It's subjective but overall power is roughly the criteria.

Damage is one aspect but a few of my S tiers are beaten at damage easily.