Armorer vs. Battle-Smith

 With Tasha's Cauldron of Everything arriving in about two weeks, not only is the Artificer getting its campaign-setting-agnostic release (once being able to be around other people becomes a thing, I've got to play one in AL!) but we're also getting a new subclass in the Armorer.

As it stands, there are three existing subclasses for the Artificer, with the Armorer making a fourth. All three are getting reprinted along with the class. The Artificer, like the Paladin and Ranger, is a half-caster, but while the latter two place more emphasis on their martial side, using spells to back up what is largely a weapon-based class, the Artificer is a little different. Artificers get Cantrips and they get their spells starting at level 1 - in fact, a level 1 Artificer is a lot more like an armored Wizard than a Paladin.

It isn't really until level 3 that the class decides what it's going to be. While you never get access to high-level spells, the Alchemist and the Artillerist still focus on casting. I have an Artillerist in my Ravnica game, and their damage routine, while mostly built around just firing an eldritch cannon and using Firebolt, is still pretty intense - with firebolt at this level doing 3d10+1d8 (so an average of 21) and the cannon dealing 3d8 13.5 average damage, for a total of 34.5 average damage per round.)

But the Battle-Smith is a weapon-based subclass, sacrificing none of its casting ability thanks to the fact that you get to use Intelligence to attack with magic weapons (and as an artificer, your weapons are almost always going to be magical.)

So here comes the Armorer. This is also a weapon-based subclass, and again, you get to use Intelligence to make your attacks. But there are differences.

First off, the Battle-Smith has a pet. The Steel Defender obviously adds damage, but can also keep you safe and repair itself. You can also use it to scout or keep watch, which is pretty cool. Just having one more thing on the battlefield for you is nice, even if it's just to draw fire from foes.

The armorer, then, is sort of more internal.

The first obvious bonus is you get to wear heavy armor but don't need any particular strength score to wear it without lowering your speed, which means that this is essentially the only subclass in the game that does not need to put any thought into Strength or Dexterity when thinking about their AC.

Now, we don't actually have the official version of the subclass yet, but we know that you'll be able to use two different modes for your armor. The Guardian is built for tanking, allowing you to gain Temp HP regularly and giving you a melee attack that deals Thunder damage and encourages foes to attack you instead of your allies. The Infiltrator removes the stealth penalty from heavy armor and gives you a ranged lightning attack that you can boost for additional damage.

I think one of the most exciting prospects for the armorer is that you actually get to put more infusions on items, as long as your bonus infusions go onto your suit (which can carry multiple infusions based on what part of the armor gets them.)

So where do I see upsides and downsides?

First, point in favor of the Armorer - with the heavy armor, you can be very tough to hit. And depending on how well the Temp HP option for the Guardian suit works, you might actually wind up being one of the harder-to-kill tanks in the game.

Also, the fact that you can rest in your armor and it can fit beneath your clothes means that night time ambushes on your party will not leave you unprepared.

On the other side, though: the battle-smith gets to use any magical weapon, while an armorer only gets to use Intelligence to attack with the armor's built-in weapons. In most cases, this won't be a big deal, as it's pretty rare in a campaign to see magic weapons that go beyond a +1 or something else you can pretty easily infuse (and the armorer can infuse those built-in weapons.) However, if you get something like a Flametongue or other weapon that does additional dice of damage, that can be a really major factor in pushing weapon-based classes higher in damage output.

I also think the Battle Smith get a little off-the-cuff versatility. They might have a Repeating Heavy Crossbow that they primarily use, but if something closes in melee, they swap to their infused +2 Maul. Given that the armorer can only swap between Guardian and Infiltrator during a rest, you're going to be committing to a ranged or melee style.

Still, I also think that while a Battle Smith is going to be more of an idiosyncratic support-damage-dealer, the Armorer can potentially stand with the rest of the true tanks, even with only a d8 hit die.

I am somewhat torn on which I'd want to play, but I'm very eager to see how the finalized version of the Armorer turns out.