What are people's thoughts of Identify being used on Infusion?
Any infusion, replicated item, enhance defense, etc. Here is Identify spell:
You choose one object that you must touch throughout the casting of the spell. If it is a magic item or some other magic-imbued object, you learn its properties and how to use them, whether it requires attunement to use, and how many charges it has, if any. You learn whether any spells are affecting the item and what they are. If the item was created by a spell, you learn which spell created it.
Should is auto state to any caster that uses it on an infused item that it is an infused item? I see the word infusion listed under "notes" in the inventory and action of the sheet, which also covers the properties of the item and other parts. So even assuming that section is identified as "properties", would knowing exactly it is an infusion and not simply a magical weapon be so easily identified by any caster? I would understand if some Gandolf level character did it, he would see the difference. I feel the "how to use them" part of the sentence makes it rather direct of which properties are referred to. So you know what the infusion property is, but maybe not that it is an infusion.
I've seen some posts saying simply the last two sentences catches the infusion, I feel that is incorrect. As no spell is cast to create the infusion in the first place. So in my opinion i feel it really boils down to simply does the phrase "you learn its properties and how to use them, whether it requires attunement to use, and how many charges it has, if any", reveal if an item is an infusion or not?
I did see something bring up that identify doesn't reveal if an item is cursed at not. Which I feel is rather odd and helpful at the same time.
Odd, because depending on how the curse was put onto it, if it was a spell, shouldn't the last part of the Identify spell then trigger? Are all curses only made by doing evil acts? or something else non-spell related?
Helpful, because it shows that curse is not a property, and yet is part of the item and affect the player in some way. Why can't infusion be the same?
Lastly, what is the definition of a magically imbued item? As the spell makes it seem a magic item and a magic imbued item are two different items or am I just overthinking here?
No one has a thought to this? OR better yet, know of a possible rule I've overlooked? Or some post by crawford? etc
I know I am not the only one who has had this thought, lol. As I am sure, every Artificer at once point or another, thought of simply running a scam once or twice, for once example.
At 2nd level, you gain the ability to imbue mundane items with certain magical infusions. The magic items you create with this feature are effectively prototypes of permanent items.
Given that they become magic items, my opinion is that, yes, Identify will work. I feel like any caster with Identify (meaning they have knowledge of the arcane) would be able to tell they are "prototypes" as well.
And I have been under the impression this whole time that Identify was the only way to spot curses before they took hold...
At 2nd level, you gain the ability to imbue mundane items with certain magical infusions. The magic items you create with this feature are effectively prototypes of permanent items.
Given that they become magic items, my opinion is that, yes, Identify will work. I feel like any caster with Identify (meaning they have knowledge of the arcane) would be able to tell they are "prototypes" as well.
And I have been under the impression this whole time that Identify was the only way to spot curses before they took hold...
The wrong impression, come to find out. DMG clearly states you cannot Identify curses. Shows ya how much I scroll through that particular book.
At 2nd level, you gain the ability to imbue mundane items with certain magical infusions. The magic items you create with this feature are effectively prototypes of permanent items.
Given that they become magic items, my opinion is that, yes, Identify will work. I feel like any caster with Identify (meaning they have knowledge of the arcane) would be able to tell they are "prototypes" as well.
And I have been under the impression this whole time that Identify was the only way to spot curses before they took hold...
The wrong impression, come to find out. DMG clearly states you cannot Identify curses. Shows ya how much I scroll through that particular book.
Yes, it does state that quick clearly with Identify. Which is really weird...as it made it seem like no cursed item was ever magically cursed via spell. Only by some horrible act that the item was apart of.
I am glad to be of assistance in being something new for you, really simply being kind, not sarcastic. I'm always happy to learn something new, even in something I thought I knew very well.
At 2nd level, you gain the ability to imbue mundane items with certain magical infusions. The magic items you create with this feature are effectively prototypes of permanent items.
Given that they become magic items, my opinion is that, yes, Identify will work. I feel like any caster with Identify (meaning they have knowledge of the arcane) would be able to tell they are "prototypes" as well.
And I have been under the impression this whole time that Identify was the only way to spot curses before they took hold...
Well, yes, Identify should be able to tell it is a magical weapon, of course. But, do you feel ANY caster, any noob who can simply cast Identify, should be able to tell it is a "prototype" or Infusion?
I would agree if some Dumbledore level dude was casting Identify on the item. Sure, they should be able to tell everything about it. But a lowly noob? I feel that makes Artificers seem a little cheap in their magic and their way of magic being extremely well known, to even the lowest barely wielding magic wielder. Be like saying fake money is impossible to do, because everyone can tell its fake.
I suppose that depends on how deep you wanna go with the "noob" idea.
As far as actual mechanics go, it's up to the DM.
As for RP, I would still argue a newer wizard is gonna know more about arcana than a cleric or druid. It is their thing, after all. Similarly for artificers, if they make items like that, surely they can spot "trademarks" or the nuances of other crafters. Not sure how to argue it for bards though. Did not know they have access to it.
Ruling on this is a little tricky since Identify was written before Infusions existed; infused items are definitely "magic imbued" items so you'll absolutely learn what they can do, how to use them and how many charges they have (if any). Beyond that it seems to be up to your DM what else counts as a "property" of the item; normally I'd assume this to be just what the item can do (i.e- is it a +1 weapon, can it cast a cantrip etc.).
But what you seem to be asking is whether, for example, a mage casting Identify could tell that a Bag of Holding is really a Bag of Holding, or if it was created via an infusion. I'd say it's for your DM to decide if the effect being ephemeral (can be ended) is enough of a property to justify the spell detecting it or not. I'm inclined to say yes personally because if an item gains its effects from a spell, then Identify will tell you exactly which spell, it doesn't matter if you know (or have even heard of) the spell, so I don't see why infusions should be any different and it keeps things simple.
Even if a DM disagrees on naming the infusion, I think it's reasonable at the very least that a mage using Identify would know that a mundane item was made temporarily magical, versus an item being created to be permanently magical. The reason being that you don't want to open up exploits in your game where player's can try to sell an infused magic item as the real thing then just end the infusion later for infinite free money; you'll get enough of that from a player with Creation paying for everything with 5 foot cubes of platinum that evaporates after a few hours, but unlike infusions Creation is at least a 5th level spell vs. a 2nd level feature of every Artificer.
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.
Even if a DM disagrees on naming the infusion, I think it's reasonable at the very least that a mage using Identify would know that a mundane item was made temporarily magical, versus an item being created to be permanently magical. The reason being that you don't want to open up exploits in your game where player's can try to sell an infused magic item as the real thing then just end the infusion later for infinite free money; you'll get enough of that from a player with Creation paying for everything with 5 foot cubes of platinum that evaporates after a few hours, but unlike infusions Creation is at least a 5th level spell vs. a 2nd level feature of every Artificer.
You're assuming that everyone has access to the Identify spell, which is a bit weird. Other than that I agree that the "properties" part of the Identify spell would be able to tell if it's an infusion or not. You'd still be able to pull of the scam as long as you don't run into someone who has identify and knows how infusions work...
You're assuming that everyone has access to the Identify spell, which is a bit weird.
Is it? I can't imagine anyone trading in magic items without access to Identify would stay in business for very long 😝 I wouldn't normally let a party sell a magic weapon to a common town blacksmith or such (they probably couldn't afford it for one thing).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
But what you seem to be asking is whether, for example, a mage casting Identify could tell that a Bag of Holding is really a Bag of Holding, or if it was created via an infusion. I'd say it's for your DM to decide if the effect being ephemeral (can be ended) is enough of a property to justify the spell detecting it or not. I'm inclined to say yes personally because if an item gains its effects from a spell, then Identify will tell you exactly which spell, it doesn't matter if you know (or have even heard of) the spell, so I don't see why infusions should be any different and it keeps things simple.
Infusing an item isn't a spell though. At best, it is simply an ability. Like rage on a barbarian with wild magic, just an ability. And my question is more towards any form of infusion, whether it is a replicated item or simply a sword with +1 infused onto it.
Even if a DM disagrees on naming the infusion, I think it's reasonable at the very least that a mage using Identify would know that a mundane item was made temporarily magical, versus an item being created to be permanently magical. The reason being that you don't want to open up exploits in your game where player's can try to sell an infused magic item as the real thing then just end the infusion later for infinite free money; you'll get enough of that from a player with Creation paying for everything with 5 foot cubes of platinum that evaporates after a few hours, but unlike infusions Creation is at least a 5th level spell vs. a 2nd level feature of every Artificer.
Sure, I completely agree with that, but cutting the root out takes out a possible rout for let's say a rogue-ish artificer Or artificer with rogue friends. I mean, if the DM is creative, you'd increase the difficulty over time, if they repeat the scam. Especially in the same town/area. If the group of people just do the same thing over and over, no real creativity or building of creativity, then it opens the door for the DM to hit them hard-ish for not thinking creatively. AND/OR, with increasing the difficulty, you can simply just make it where the gold they collect doesn't get anything they want. Oh, you are looking for a +1 weapon, sorry, nope, within reason of course. Make situations happen where they have to spend the gold on other things, unexpected situations that no one obviously plans for. Party member got arrested, bribe the guard to release them. Gang of ruffins hear of the sale, and a large group locate them and fight them to steal some of the gold.
I'm just always for improv DnD basically. They say they want to do something, unless it is truly game breaking or something that can't be truly done now or you just can't think of a way to twist it or what have you, then I feel the DM's answer should always be "sure!". You put in your request, the DM will work it in or whatever and will add their flavor to it.
You're assuming that everyone has access to the Identify spell, which is a bit weird.
Is it? I can't imagine anyone trading in magic items without access to Identify would stay in business for very long 😝
Yes, it is weird to assume that everyone who tradeshave access to magic. Unless it is a setting with way higher access to magic than your avergae D&D setting. Of course, you are also making a rather weird assumption that the PC would only ever want to trade or sell their magic items to professional who normally deal with such wares. Would you as a DM forbid your players from, for example, trying to bribe a bunch of goblins with an Alchemy Jug ("it has all the mayonnaise you could ever want!") in exchange for safe passage? What about selling "this really sharp sword" or "this magic crossbow that never runs out of arrows!" to someone or presenting it as a bribe to a corrupt official? Would you forbid that as well?
I wouldn't normally let a party sell a magic weapon to a common town blacksmith or such (they probably couldn't afford it for one thing).
Why do you assume that they would sell it to a person that couldn't afford it or at full price to someone they would want to rip off?
But what you seem to be asking is whether, for example, a mage casting Identify could tell that a Bag of Holding is really a Bag of Holding, or if it was created via an infusion. I'd say it's for your DM to decide if the effect being ephemeral (can be ended) is enough of a property to justify the spell detecting it or not. I'm inclined to say yes personally because if an item gains its effects from a spell, then Identify will tell you exactly which spell, it doesn't matter if you know (or have even heard of) the spell, so I don't see why infusions should be any different and it keeps things simple.
Infusing an item isn't a spell though. At best, it is simply an ability. Like rage on a barbarian with wild magic, just an ability. And my question is more towards any form of infusion, whether it is a replicated item or simply a sword with +1 infused onto it.
Sure, and in rules as written you're perfectly within your rights to run it that way; but Identify was also written before infusions existed. Unlike a Barbarian with Wild Magic infusions let you create multiple magic items on a whim, and in a setting that allows artificers I think it's reasonable to assume mages (and the spell) would have some awareness of them but it's a DM call mechanically.
If you compare with spell identification, Identify can tell you about spells that you have never encountered or heard of before. It could tell you an item allows the wearer to cast Halaster's Shaking Hand without you you even knowing who Halaster Blackcloak is, or what any of his spells do. While mechanically infusions technically aren't spells, I don't think thematically/narratively that it's a very strong distinction as really they are just a special type of spells for items.
Again, as with most edge cases it's ultimately up to the DM, and they may take into account what infusion you're using and what you're trying to achieve (and who you're trying to trick). But if a spell can identify spells you don't know it seems a bit weird that it couldn't inform you about infusions you may actually know about, or at the very least that the magical effect is temporary rather than permanent. Mages are typically not the easiest people to trick, and I wouldn't expect a DM to make it too easy for you.
Yes, it is weird to assume that everyone who tradeshave access to magic.
I never said everyone, you did, this is a thread about using the Identify spell; all I said is that it makes sense for identify to report whether an enchantment on an item is temporary or not, in the same way that it would if you cast it on a created object, and for the same reasons. It would absolutely make sense than people trading in high value items, including magical items, would either know identify themselves or have access to someone or something that can cast it (or give a similar effect).
On the other hand, people who are not used to dealing with such items would absolutely be wary about doing so if they lack the means to reliably verify it. The cantrip Light for example is a nice low level spell that many mages can and do take, and you can be pretty sure the players are not the first people to think of casting it on a sword and pretending it's magical. There's always room for someone extra gullible, but I generally prefer most NPCs to at least be wary, i.e- the fact that the sword glows should not be enough. It might be a bit easier to fool someone with artificer infusions (since they're the real deal for as long as they last) but I can't imagine a land full of magic wouldn't have cautionary tales about trusting things that seem too good to be true; magic staffs that suddenly stop working one day, a fantastical wizard's robe that turns out to just be a piece of sack cloth and so-on.
I didn't say to disallow tricking people completely; [REDACTED]. But it also shouldn't be easy or you risk giving a party access to infinite money if you don't clamp down on it, which is what I actually said.
Notes: Please keep all commentary on-topic and constructive.
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 did see something bring up that identify doesn't reveal if an item is cursed at not. Which I feel is rather odd and helpful at the same time.
Odd, because depending on how the curse was put onto it, if it was a spell, shouldn't the last part of the Identify spell then trigger? Are all curses only made by doing evil acts? or something else non-spell related?
Helpful, because it shows that curse is not a property, and yet is part of the item and affect the player in some way. Why can't infusion be the same?
Just realised I forgot to cover this part, but curses are a specific exception in the rules for cursed items themselves, which unhelpfully are in the Dungeon Master's Guide (p139) rather than being mentioned in the Identify spell itself.
The relevant section is:
Most methods of identifying items, including the identify spell, fail to reveal such a curse, although lore might hint at it. A curse should be a surprise to the item's user when the curse's effects are revealed.
While it specifically calls out the Identify spell as not detecting a curse, it doesn't mention any methods that can detect the curse, so this falls very much into DM territory. Really it just depends what they intend the curse to do narratively, as the whole point might be to present you with an item so tantalising someone will try to use it and become cursed. The easiest way to find out if an item is cursed being to fall under the curse yourself, heh.
There are some spells that a DM may or may not allow to detect it, like Augury (which could warn you not to wear it), Commune and so-on, but deities in D&D are not omniscient, so it's still up to your DM if they know an item is cursed or not. Lore can also reveal the curse, i.e- if you've heard stories of the legendary Sword of Gazpacho then you might have hints it's cursed, and if you don't know them then Legend Lore may work (DM call again).
This exception doesn't mean that Identify can't tell you anything about the item, it should still tell you what the item's normal magical effects are (if it has any); it just won't tell you about the curse-specific parts. For example if a weapon is a Flame Tongue but with an evil demon bound to it that will try and force you to use it on your allies, you'll learn about the light emitting and fire damage parts, but not the carving your allies to pieces bit 😉
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 see what you mean with Infusions coming after Identify was created. As much as your logic is sound and makes sense, wouldn't the opposite as well? A new form of controlling magic entered the realm of 5E. To the point of which Identify doesn't quite work on it. Sure a mage level awesome will be able to see the item for what it is or know something is off, but the lowly magic user may not be able to truly tell the difference. To assume all mages are treated equally and can just know everything related to magic, seems a bit much.
If you are going the rout of retcon, and installing Artificer, as if it was always there, then I would feel it would fall under the same realm as any other magic user. For instance, it is not like a Cleric knows full well how a Wizard operates or Sorc and vice versa. They can figure out what kind of magic sure, but they wont understand possibly the process of which it does some things. So knowing the what the infusion is doing (Ex. +1 to weapon) is one thing, but knowing the process is another thing (that it is an infusion). May be easier to figure it out, due to being retcon in, but I'd feel it would take someone not simply Lv1 to figure it out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What are people's thoughts of Identify being used on Infusion?
Any infusion, replicated item, enhance defense, etc. Here is Identify spell:
Should is auto state to any caster that uses it on an infused item that it is an infused item? I see the word infusion listed under "notes" in the inventory and action of the sheet, which also covers the properties of the item and other parts. So even assuming that section is identified as "properties", would knowing exactly it is an infusion and not simply a magical weapon be so easily identified by any caster? I would understand if some Gandolf level character did it, he would see the difference. I feel the "how to use them" part of the sentence makes it rather direct of which properties are referred to. So you know what the infusion property is, but maybe not that it is an infusion.
I've seen some posts saying simply the last two sentences catches the infusion, I feel that is incorrect. As no spell is cast to create the infusion in the first place. So in my opinion i feel it really boils down to simply does the phrase "you learn its properties and how to use them, whether it requires attunement to use, and how many charges it has, if any", reveal if an item is an infusion or not?
I did see something bring up that identify doesn't reveal if an item is cursed at not. Which I feel is rather odd and helpful at the same time.
Lastly, what is the definition of a magically imbued item? As the spell makes it seem a magic item and a magic imbued item are two different items or am I just overthinking here?
No one has a thought to this? OR better yet, know of a possible rule I've overlooked? Or some post by crawford? etc
I know I am not the only one who has had this thought, lol. As I am sure, every Artificer at once point or another, thought of simply running a scam once or twice, for once example.
Given that they become magic items, my opinion is that, yes, Identify will work. I feel like any caster with Identify (meaning they have knowledge of the arcane) would be able to tell they are "prototypes" as well.
And I have been under the impression this whole time that Identify was the only way to spot curses before they took hold...
The wrong impression, come to find out. DMG clearly states you cannot Identify curses. Shows ya how much I scroll through that particular book.
Yes, it does state that quick clearly with Identify. Which is really weird...as it made it seem like no cursed item was ever magically cursed via spell. Only by some horrible act that the item was apart of.
I am glad to be of assistance in being something new for you, really simply being kind, not sarcastic. I'm always happy to learn something new, even in something I thought I knew very well.
Well, yes, Identify should be able to tell it is a magical weapon, of course. But, do you feel ANY caster, any noob who can simply cast Identify, should be able to tell it is a "prototype" or Infusion?
I would agree if some Dumbledore level dude was casting Identify on the item. Sure, they should be able to tell everything about it. But a lowly noob? I feel that makes Artificers seem a little cheap in their magic and their way of magic being extremely well known, to even the lowest barely wielding magic wielder. Be like saying fake money is impossible to do, because everyone can tell its fake.
I suppose that depends on how deep you wanna go with the "noob" idea.
As far as actual mechanics go, it's up to the DM.
As for RP, I would still argue a newer wizard is gonna know more about arcana than a cleric or druid. It is their thing, after all. Similarly for artificers, if they make items like that, surely they can spot "trademarks" or the nuances of other crafters. Not sure how to argue it for bards though. Did not know they have access to it.
Ruling on this is a little tricky since Identify was written before Infusions existed; infused items are definitely "magic imbued" items so you'll absolutely learn what they can do, how to use them and how many charges they have (if any). Beyond that it seems to be up to your DM what else counts as a "property" of the item; normally I'd assume this to be just what the item can do (i.e- is it a +1 weapon, can it cast a cantrip etc.).
But what you seem to be asking is whether, for example, a mage casting Identify could tell that a Bag of Holding is really a Bag of Holding, or if it was created via an infusion. I'd say it's for your DM to decide if the effect being ephemeral (can be ended) is enough of a property to justify the spell detecting it or not. I'm inclined to say yes personally because if an item gains its effects from a spell, then Identify will tell you exactly which spell, it doesn't matter if you know (or have even heard of) the spell, so I don't see why infusions should be any different and it keeps things simple.
Even if a DM disagrees on naming the infusion, I think it's reasonable at the very least that a mage using Identify would know that a mundane item was made temporarily magical, versus an item being created to be permanently magical. The reason being that you don't want to open up exploits in your game where player's can try to sell an infused magic item as the real thing then just end the infusion later for infinite free money; you'll get enough of that from a player with Creation paying for everything with 5 foot cubes of platinum that evaporates after a few hours, but unlike infusions Creation is at least a 5th level spell vs. a 2nd level feature of every Artificer.
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.
You're assuming that everyone has access to the Identify spell, which is a bit weird. Other than that I agree that the "properties" part of the Identify spell would be able to tell if it's an infusion or not. You'd still be able to pull of the scam as long as you don't run into someone who has identify and knows how infusions work...
I wouldn't normally let a party sell a magic weapon to a common town blacksmith or such (they probably couldn't afford it for one thing).
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.
Infusing an item isn't a spell though. At best, it is simply an ability. Like rage on a barbarian with wild magic, just an ability. And my question is more towards any form of infusion, whether it is a replicated item or simply a sword with +1 infused onto it.
Sure, I completely agree with that, but cutting the root out takes out a possible rout for let's say a rogue-ish artificer Or artificer with rogue friends. I mean, if the DM is creative, you'd increase the difficulty over time, if they repeat the scam. Especially in the same town/area. If the group of people just do the same thing over and over, no real creativity or building of creativity, then it opens the door for the DM to hit them hard-ish for not thinking creatively. AND/OR, with increasing the difficulty, you can simply just make it where the gold they collect doesn't get anything they want. Oh, you are looking for a +1 weapon, sorry, nope, within reason of course. Make situations happen where they have to spend the gold on other things, unexpected situations that no one obviously plans for. Party member got arrested, bribe the guard to release them. Gang of ruffins hear of the sale, and a large group locate them and fight them to steal some of the gold.
I'm just always for improv DnD basically. They say they want to do something, unless it is truly game breaking or something that can't be truly done now or you just can't think of a way to twist it or what have you, then I feel the DM's answer should always be "sure!". You put in your request, the DM will work it in or whatever and will add their flavor to it.
Why do you assume that they would sell it to a person that couldn't afford it or at full price to someone they would want to rip off?
Sure, and in rules as written you're perfectly within your rights to run it that way; but Identify was also written before infusions existed. Unlike a Barbarian with Wild Magic infusions let you create multiple magic items on a whim, and in a setting that allows artificers I think it's reasonable to assume mages (and the spell) would have some awareness of them but it's a DM call mechanically.
If you compare with spell identification, Identify can tell you about spells that you have never encountered or heard of before. It could tell you an item allows the wearer to cast Halaster's Shaking Hand without you you even knowing who Halaster Blackcloak is, or what any of his spells do. While mechanically infusions technically aren't spells, I don't think thematically/narratively that it's a very strong distinction as really they are just a special type of spells for items.
Again, as with most edge cases it's ultimately up to the DM, and they may take into account what infusion you're using and what you're trying to achieve (and who you're trying to trick). But if a spell can identify spells you don't know it seems a bit weird that it couldn't inform you about infusions you may actually know about, or at the very least that the magical effect is temporary rather than permanent. Mages are typically not the easiest people to trick, and I wouldn't expect a DM to make it too easy for you.
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.
Just realised I forgot to cover this part, but curses are a specific exception in the rules for cursed items themselves, which unhelpfully are in the Dungeon Master's Guide (p139) rather than being mentioned in the Identify spell itself.
The relevant section is:
While it specifically calls out the Identify spell as not detecting a curse, it doesn't mention any methods that can detect the curse, so this falls very much into DM territory. Really it just depends what they intend the curse to do narratively, as the whole point might be to present you with an item so tantalising someone will try to use it and become cursed. The easiest way to find out if an item is cursed being to fall under the curse yourself, heh.
There are some spells that a DM may or may not allow to detect it, like Augury (which could warn you not to wear it), Commune and so-on, but deities in D&D are not omniscient, so it's still up to your DM if they know an item is cursed or not. Lore can also reveal the curse, i.e- if you've heard stories of the legendary Sword of Gazpacho then you might have hints it's cursed, and if you don't know them then Legend Lore may work (DM call again).
This exception doesn't mean that Identify can't tell you anything about the item, it should still tell you what the item's normal magical effects are (if it has any); it just won't tell you about the curse-specific parts. For example if a weapon is a Flame Tongue but with an evil demon bound to it that will try and force you to use it on your allies, you'll learn about the light emitting and fire damage parts, but not the carving your allies to pieces bit 😉
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.
Didn't want to make the post giant
I see what you mean with Infusions coming after Identify was created. As much as your logic is sound and makes sense, wouldn't the opposite as well? A new form of controlling magic entered the realm of 5E. To the point of which Identify doesn't quite work on it. Sure a mage level awesome will be able to see the item for what it is or know something is off, but the lowly magic user may not be able to truly tell the difference. To assume all mages are treated equally and can just know everything related to magic, seems a bit much.
If you are going the rout of retcon, and installing Artificer, as if it was always there, then I would feel it would fall under the same realm as any other magic user. For instance, it is not like a Cleric knows full well how a Wizard operates or Sorc and vice versa. They can figure out what kind of magic sure, but they wont understand possibly the process of which it does some things. So knowing the what the infusion is doing (Ex. +1 to weapon) is one thing, but knowing the process is another thing (that it is an infusion). May be easier to figure it out, due to being retcon in, but I'd feel it would take someone not simply Lv1 to figure it out.