Hey, so I'm running an Armorer Artificer and was lucky enough to get some Adamantine Chain Mail.
I have asked the question to my DM whether or not I would be able to infuse adamantine armor with Enhanced Defense, giving me a +1 to AC, he said hell think about it and will get back to me.
I know that on paper, the armor is classed as a Magical Item and as such wouldn't be viable for infusions, however Adamantine Armor doesn't functionally have any magical properties and is just really strong and dense armor.
Would you allow or disallow this at your table and why?
Hey, so I'm running an Armorer Artificer and was lucky enough to get some Adamantine Chain Mail.
I have asked the question to my DM whether or not I would be able to infuse adamantine armor with Enhanced Defense, giving me a +1 to AC, he said hell think about it and will get back to me.
I know that on paper, the armor is classed as a Magical Item and as such wouldn't be viable for infusions, however Adamantine Armor doesn't functionally have any magical properties and is just really strong and dense armor.
Would you allow or disallow this at your table and why?
I wouldn't allow it. Adamantine Armor's uncrittable attribute is very strong as it is. Most of the time when characters go down in combat at my tables is because they got smack by a crit or 2. The safety net Adamantine Armor provides makes surviving combat encounters a lot easier. That is why the player should choose between more AC (from +armor) or being uncrittable. Having both seems a tad too strong in my humble opinion.
Hey, so I'm running an Armorer Artificer and was lucky enough to get some Adamantine Chain Mail.
I have asked the question to my DM whether or not I would be able to infuse adamantine armor with Enhanced Defense, giving me a +1 to AC, he said hell think about it and will get back to me.
I know that on paper, the armor is classed as a Magical Item and as such wouldn't be viable for infusions, however Adamantine Armor doesn't functionally have any magical properties and is just really strong and dense armor.
Would you allow or disallow this at your table and why?
I wouldn't allow it. Adamantine Armor's uncrittable attribute is very strong as it is. Most of the time when characters go down in combat at my tables is because they got smack by a crit or 2. The safety net Adamantine Armor provides makes surviving combat encounters a lot easier. That is why the player should choose between more AC (from +armor) or being uncrittable. Having both seems a tad too strong in my humble opinion.
It's not just +AC you can infuse armor with though.
This, Enhanced Defence is the only applicable infusion i have right now because a slot opened up with a player leaving the table.
I have already said if the DM rule "no" it wont be an issue as i am immune to crits.
When other options become available at level 10 it would be nice to be able to add a few extra things to the armor but I am also willing to just find new armor to use if it is necessary
My view is that adamantine and Mithral armor shouldn’t be treated as magical for purposes of infusions, though RAW they are.
However, if your DM decides against an infusion on the armor, why not just use downtime to enchant it with a +1? That’s likely allowed, though at some higher cost in time and materials.
Keep in mind that the specific magic item adamantine armor is different from a suit of armor that happens to be made of adamantine. The first is a magic item according to Jeremy Crawford and the second is not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
It feels like RAW adamantine armour is always magical; literally every instance of the word "adamantine" in the Basic Rules and Dungeon Master's Guide is under some kind of magical item section, with the exception of Statistics for Objects (which is just giving sample AC values by material). The same is true of mithral armour and weapons.
Ultimately it would be up to your DM though, as strictly speaking both are just fancy materials that are not themselves magical, but it might be reasonable to assume that they can only be worked into usable items with the aid of magic that may make the resulting items magical.
Personally I would allow it as a DM, but not at too low a level, and I would maybe require the player to obtain adamantine smith's tools for working it with first, as if the armour is resistant to damage then it's also resistant to being worked.
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 would allow infusions to armor made of mithral and/or adamantine at my table in certain situations. Since both mithral and adamantine are not considered magical until "made" into something magical, I would allow an artificer to add infusions to any armor they craft themselves. If they take the time to find the materials and spend the gold and time crafting, they could add their infusions. If it is premade armor with magical properties, they could not add infusions... This seems consistent with RAW and other discussions concerning the materials.
I would allow infusions to armor made of mithral and/or adamantine at my table in certain situations. Since both mithral and adamantine are not considered magical until "made" into something magical, I would allow an artificer to add infusions to any armor they craft themselves. If they take the time to find the materials and spend the gold and time crafting, they could add their infusions. If it is premade armor with magical properties, they could not add infusions... This seems consistent with RAW and other discussions concerning the materials.
But there is a big contradiction in your logic. A Artificer cannot infuse armor unless it is completed. And once it is completed, adamantine armor is considered magical and is therefore a invalid choice for infusions. Unless you are arguing there is somehow a "sweet spot" right before the armor is completed where a Artificer can somehow sneak in an infusion. But if you allow that kind of shenanigans in your games, what is to stop other Artificers from just working with a Blacksmith and waiting for that "sweet spot" to sneak in infusions of their own?
There is a difference between mithral or adamantine metals and the "magical" gear that is made from them. There is mithral armor that is provided in the rules; however, it references a specific item, made a specific way. It does not preclude the production of other things, even different armor made a different way. I take this philosophy from the following twitter thread:
The artificer class should have the experience and tool skills available to produce high quality gear, including magical versions, on their own. And, it would be required that they be a part of the entire process. As such they should be able to develop a recipe or plan that allows them to make armor of mithral, or any other metals, that can be infused. I am inclined to include changing infusions would require remaking the armor.
There is a difference between mithral or adamantine metals and the "magical" gear that is made from them. There is mithral armor that is provided in the rules; however, it references a specific item, made a specific way. It does not preclude the production of other things, even different armor made a different way. I take this philosophy from the following twitter thread:
The artificer class should have the experience and tool skills available to produce high quality gear, including magical versions, on their own. And, it would be required that they be a part of the entire process. As such they should be able to develop a recipe or plan that allows them to make armor of mithral, or any other metals, that can be infused. I am inclined to include changing infusions would require remaking the armor.
And that is all fine as Homebrew. Your table, your rules. But by RAW you cannot infuse a magical item and Adamantine Armor with its crit blocking ability is a magical item.
Isn't it all about homebrew....every DM should tweak the game to make it make sense to their world and the collaborative story they are making with their players.
As to RAW, we will have to agree to disagree. There are too many conflicting references to claim a clear RAW where the use of adamantine is concerned. At my table it is just a metal that is incredibly hard allowing it to be used in armor and weapons to make them incredibly hard and able to withstand critical damage. If this is magical in your world...so be it. We are also using the XGtE crafting outline to allow players to craft existing or attempt to design/build variants. It takes time and money...if they have either.
What's the RAW about turning adamantine armor into arcane armor? I think (don't know) that's legal, assuming it is
Lightning Launcher. A gemlike node appears on one of your armored fists or on the chest (your choice). It counts as a simple ranged weapon, with a normal range of 90 feet and a long range of 300 feet, and it deals 1d6 lightning damage on a hit. Once on each of your turns when you hit a creature with it, you can deal an extra 1d6 lightning damage to that target.
9th-level Armorer feature
You learn how to use your artificer infusions to specially modify your Arcane Armor. That armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your Infuse Item feature: armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor’s special weapon. Each of those items can bear one of your infusions, and the infusions transfer over if you change your armor’s model with the Armor Model feature. In addition, the maximum number of items you can infuse at once increases by 2, but those extra items must be part of your Arcane Armor.
So this question focuses on the armor's special weapon which was a gemlike noded added to the armor rather a part of it. Since the parts are split for the purpose of infusions.... everything except the special weapon obviously can't be infused because they're part of the original adamantine armor and retain the no infusions bit. But the special weapon, in the case of the infiltrator armor is a gem like node that was effectively bolted on.
The level 9 ability specifically calls out the special weapon as being infusible (normally). And the level 9 ability also splits its infusability away from that of the rest of the armor. Since it's separately infusable add on, not part of the original armor, wouldn't that mean the special weapon that Arcane Armor adds to adamantine armor would still be infusible at artificer 9 and beyond? I.e. could you infuse the special weapon with enhanced weapon OR radiant weapon? And at that point you'd get 4 other infusions (the normal ones) (I'm actually looking at a level 11 artificer, which is where I'm getting 4 active infusions at a time)
What's the RAW about turning adamantine armor into arcane armor? I think (don't know) that's legal, assuming it is
Lightning Launcher. A gemlike node appears on one of your armored fists or on the chest (your choice). It counts as a simple ranged weapon, with a normal range of 90 feet and a long range of 300 feet, and it deals 1d6 lightning damage on a hit. Once on each of your turns when you hit a creature with it, you can deal an extra 1d6 lightning damage to that target.
9th-level Armorer feature
You learn how to use your artificer infusions to specially modify your Arcane Armor. That armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your Infuse Item feature: armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor’s special weapon. Each of those items can bear one of your infusions, and the infusions transfer over if you change your armor’s model with the Armor Model feature. In addition, the maximum number of items you can infuse at once increases by 2, but those extra items must be part of your Arcane Armor.
So this question focuses on the armor's special weapon which was a gemlike noded added to the armor rather a part of it. Since the parts are split for the purpose of infusions.... everything except the special weapon obviously can't be infused because they're part of the original adamantine armor and retain the no infusions bit. But the special weapon, in the case of the infiltrator armor is a gem like node that was effectively bolted on.
The level 9 ability specifically calls out the special weapon as being infusible (normally). And the level 9 ability also splits its infusability away from that of the rest of the armor. Since it's separately infusable add on, not part of the original armor, wouldn't that mean the special weapon that Arcane Armor adds to adamantine armor would still be infusible at artificer 9 and beyond? I.e. could you infuse the special weapon with enhanced weapon OR radiant weapon? And at that point you'd get 4 other infusions (the normal ones) (I'm actually looking at a level 11 artificer, which is where I'm getting 4 active infusions at a time)
RAW, any suit of armor (magical or not) can be made into your Arcane Armor. And if you make magical armor into your Arcane Armor, you cannot infuse it (at least, not until level 9).
As far as infusing the armor past 9, there really isn't a RAW except for the weapons (as these create basically new items that are not magical). Most DMs (YMMV) would allow you to place infusions on the different pieces (helmet, boots, gloves/gauntlets, weapon), but not on the main body of the armor itself if it is already magical. So if you made Armor of Invulnerability into your Arcane Armor, you could not infuse it with Enhanced Defense, but you could potentially still infuse the boots with Boots of the Winding Path, and infuse the helmet with Helm of Awareness.
But your DM might also rule that the entire armor set counts as magical and put the kibosh on all of that. At that point, it gets really hairy, because the Arcane Armor covers your whole body, so you wouldn't really be able to wear a mundane helmet/boots that you infused. That is why my personal belief is that the RAI would let you infuse the other parts.
I believe you should be able to infuse all the parts. The feature description and name of "Arcane Armor" implies that it makes your armor magical, so of course it must bypass the normal nonmagical restriction when it explicitly tells you that you can infuse parts of this armor in the level 9 feature, overruling the general base Artificer infusion feature restrictions.
I would instead argue that you cannot Infuse a nonmagical armor while it has been converted into your Arcane Armor (Although you could infuse an Armor and then turn it into your Arcane Armor).
I believe you should be able to infuse all the parts. The feature description and name of "Arcane Armor" implies that it makes your armor magical, so of course it must bypass the normal nonmagical restriction when it explicitly tells you that you can infuse parts of this armor in the level 9 feature, overruling the general base Artificer infusion feature restrictions.
Can you give a reference to saying the Arcane Armor makes it magical? The only reference in Arcane Armor to magic is that it makes your "armor a conduit for your magic". The very specific rules of Infusing say that you cannot infuse an already magic item.
There is no direct line that says that the armor becomes magical, but it is heavily implied.
- The armor is called "Arcane Armor"
- "Your metallurgical pursuits have led to you making armor a conduit for your magic" - "Thunder Gauntlets. Each of the armor’s gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon while you aren’t holding anything in it, and it deals 1d8 thunder damage on a hit. A creature hit by the gauntlet has disadvantage on attack rolls against targets other than you until the start of your next turn, as the armor magically emits a distracting pulse when the creature attacks someone else."
-"Guardian. When a Huge or smaller creature you can see ends its turn within 30 feet of you, you can use your reaction to magically force it to make a Strength saving throw against your spell save DC. On a failed save, you pull the creature up to 25 feet directly to an unoccupied space. If you pull the target to a space within 5 feet of you, you can make a melee weapon attack against it as part of this reaction."
You can use this reaction a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses of it when you finish a long rest.
-"Infiltrator. Any creature that takes lightning damage from your Lightning Launcher glimmers with magical light until the start of your next turn. The glimmering creature sheds dim light in a 5-foot radius, and it has disadvantage on attack rolls against you, as the light jolts it if it attacks you. In addition, the next attack roll against it has advantage, and if that attack hits, the target takes an extra 1d6 lightning damage."
The Level 9 feature says that you can enchant the pieces of your Arcane Armor. The bolded section can be read to imply that it is overruling the base infusion rules by saying these pieces are valid infusion targets, and if not interpreted this way would otherwise be redundant with the previous sentence.
You learn how to use your artificer infusions to specially modify your Arcane Armor. That armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your Infuse Item feature: armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor’s special weapon. Each of those items can bear one of your infusions, and the infusions transfer over if you change your armor’s model with the Armor Model feature. In addition, the maximum number of items you can infuse at once increases by 2, but those extra items must be part of your Arcane Armor.
I believe you should be able to infuse all the parts. The feature description and name of "Arcane Armor" implies that it makes your armor magical, so of course it must bypass the normal nonmagical restriction when it explicitly tells you that you can infuse parts of this armor in the level 9 feature, overruling the general base Artificer infusion feature restrictions.
Can you give a reference to saying the Arcane Armor makes it magical? The only reference in Arcane Armor to magic is that it makes your "armor a conduit for your magic". The very specific rules of Infusing say that you cannot infuse an already magic item.
There is no direct line that says that the armor becomes magical, but it is heavily implied.
- The armor is called "Arcane Armor"
- "Your metallurgical pursuits have led to you making armor a conduit for your magic" - "Thunder Gauntlets. Each of the armor’s gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon while you aren’t holding anything in it, and it deals 1d8 thunder damage on a hit. A creature hit by the gauntlet has disadvantage on attack rolls against targets other than you until the start of your next turn, as the armor magically emits a distracting pulse when the creature attacks someone else."
-"Guardian. When a Huge or smaller creature you can see ends its turn within 30 feet of you, you can use your reaction to magically force it to make a Strength saving throw against your spell save DC. On a failed save, you pull the creature up to 25 feet directly to an unoccupied space. If you pull the target to a space within 5 feet of you, you can make a melee weapon attack against it as part of this reaction."
You can use this reaction a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses of it when you finish a long rest.
-"Infiltrator. Any creature that takes lightning damage from your Lightning Launcher glimmers with magical light until the start of your next turn. The glimmering creature sheds dim light in a 5-foot radius, and it has disadvantage on attack rolls against you, as the light jolts it if it attacks you. In addition, the next attack roll against it has advantage, and if that attack hits, the target takes an extra 1d6 lightning damage."
The Level 9 feature says that you can enchant the pieces of your Arcane Armor. The bolded section can be read to imply that it is overruling the base infusion rules by saying these pieces are valid infusion targets, and if not interpreted this way would otherwise be redundant with the previous sentence.
You learn how to use your artificer infusions to specially modify your Arcane Armor. That armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your Infuse Item feature: armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor’s special weapon. Each of those items can bear one of your infusions, and the infusions transfer over if you change your armor’s model with the Armor Model feature. In addition, the maximum number of items you can infuse at once increases by 2, but those extra items must be part of your Arcane Armor.
All it does is treat the different pieces of the armor set as different items, instead of one big item that can only hold one infusion. It doesn't overrule the inability to infuse an already magic item.
You cannot infuse a magic item. Point blank.
No it doesn't. It sets each of the pieces as separate pieces which it says you can add an infusion to.
The core logic for my ruling stems from the question, is a piece of a magical item a magical item? I believe it isn't. You cannot just wear a piece of a magical item to gain its affect. Because of this when the lvl 9 feature breaks up the item into four pieces and says you can infuse them, it doesn't matter if the base armor is magical or not.
I think highlighting that the Arcane Armor has magical properties and should be considered a magical item because of this, yet can be still infused helps illuminate this point, but is not necessary for this point of view.
I don't think we are actually too far off in what we are saying or at least what you are saying should be RAI, except that I think the clause makes all of the pieces Infusible because none of the pieces identified by this feature are the original item, whereas you believe that the original item is the piece labeled in the "Armor" slot.
Hey, so I'm running an Armorer Artificer and was lucky enough to get some Adamantine Chain Mail.
I have asked the question to my DM whether or not I would be able to infuse adamantine armor with Enhanced Defense, giving me a +1 to AC, he said hell think about it and will get back to me.
I know that on paper, the armor is classed as a Magical Item and as such wouldn't be viable for infusions, however Adamantine Armor doesn't functionally have any magical properties and is just really strong and dense armor.
Would you allow or disallow this at your table and why?
I wouldn't allow it. Adamantine Armor's uncrittable attribute is very strong as it is. Most of the time when characters go down in combat at my tables is because they got smack by a crit or 2. The safety net Adamantine Armor provides makes surviving combat encounters a lot easier. That is why the player should choose between more AC (from +armor) or being uncrittable. Having both seems a tad too strong in my humble opinion.
This, Enhanced Defence is the only applicable infusion i have right now because a slot opened up with a player leaving the table.
I have already said if the DM rule "no" it wont be an issue as i am immune to crits.
When other options become available at level 10 it would be nice to be able to add a few extra things to the armor but I am also willing to just find new armor to use if it is necessary
My view is that adamantine and Mithral armor shouldn’t be treated as magical for purposes of infusions, though RAW they are.
However, if your DM decides against an infusion on the armor, why not just use downtime to enchant it with a +1? That’s likely allowed, though at some higher cost in time and materials.
Keep in mind that the specific magic item adamantine armor is different from a suit of armor that happens to be made of adamantine. The first is a magic item according to Jeremy Crawford and the second is not.
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPPmyTI0tZ6nM-bzY0IG3ww
It feels like RAW adamantine armour is always magical; literally every instance of the word "adamantine" in the Basic Rules and Dungeon Master's Guide is under some kind of magical item section, with the exception of Statistics for Objects (which is just giving sample AC values by material). The same is true of mithral armour and weapons.
Ultimately it would be up to your DM though, as strictly speaking both are just fancy materials that are not themselves magical, but it might be reasonable to assume that they can only be worked into usable items with the aid of magic that may make the resulting items magical.
Personally I would allow it as a DM, but not at too low a level, and I would maybe require the player to obtain adamantine smith's tools for working it with first, as if the armour is resistant to damage then it's also resistant to being worked.
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 would allow infusions to armor made of mithral and/or adamantine at my table in certain situations. Since both mithral and adamantine are not considered magical until "made" into something magical, I would allow an artificer to add infusions to any armor they craft themselves. If they take the time to find the materials and spend the gold and time crafting, they could add their infusions. If it is premade armor with magical properties, they could not add infusions... This seems consistent with RAW and other discussions concerning the materials.
But there is a big contradiction in your logic. A Artificer cannot infuse armor unless it is completed. And once it is completed, adamantine armor is considered magical and is therefore a invalid choice for infusions. Unless you are arguing there is somehow a "sweet spot" right before the armor is completed where a Artificer can somehow sneak in an infusion. But if you allow that kind of shenanigans in your games, what is to stop other Artificers from just working with a Blacksmith and waiting for that "sweet spot" to sneak in infusions of their own?
There is a difference between mithral or adamantine metals and the "magical" gear that is made from them. There is mithral armor that is provided in the rules; however, it references a specific item, made a specific way. It does not preclude the production of other things, even different armor made a different way. I take this philosophy from the following twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/958826892869578752?lang=en&fbclid=IwAR1Nshy-MmdSMuuNo6BFSrMr-0gVJrBO1wh1HVmdtBL_EjE3Pm3elZ8KEWU
The artificer class should have the experience and tool skills available to produce high quality gear, including magical versions, on their own. And, it would be required that they be a part of the entire process. As such they should be able to develop a recipe or plan that allows them to make armor of mithral, or any other metals, that can be infused. I am inclined to include changing infusions would require remaking the armor.
And that is all fine as Homebrew. Your table, your rules. But by RAW you cannot infuse a magical item and Adamantine Armor with its crit blocking ability is a magical item.
Isn't it all about homebrew....every DM should tweak the game to make it make sense to their world and the collaborative story they are making with their players.
As to RAW, we will have to agree to disagree. There are too many conflicting references to claim a clear RAW where the use of adamantine is concerned. At my table it is just a metal that is incredibly hard allowing it to be used in armor and weapons to make them incredibly hard and able to withstand critical damage. If this is magical in your world...so be it. We are also using the XGtE crafting outline to allow players to craft existing or attempt to design/build variants. It takes time and money...if they have either.
So a few questions
RAW is you can’t infuse adamantine armor
What's the RAW about turning adamantine armor into arcane armor? I think (don't know) that's legal, assuming it is
Lightning Launcher. A gemlike node appears on one of your armored fists or on the chest (your choice). It counts as a simple ranged weapon, with a normal range of 90 feet and a long range of 300 feet, and it deals 1d6 lightning damage on a hit. Once on each of your turns when you hit a creature with it, you can deal an extra 1d6 lightning damage to that target.
9th-level Armorer feature
You learn how to use your artificer infusions to specially modify your Arcane Armor. That armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your Infuse Item feature: armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor’s special weapon. Each of those items can bear one of your infusions, and the infusions transfer over if you change your armor’s model with the Armor Model feature. In addition, the maximum number of items you can infuse at once increases by 2, but those extra items must be part of your Arcane Armor.
So this question focuses on the armor's special weapon which was a gemlike noded added to the armor rather a part of it. Since the parts are split for the purpose of infusions.... everything except the special weapon obviously can't be infused because they're part of the original adamantine armor and retain the no infusions bit. But the special weapon, in the case of the infiltrator armor is a gem like node that was effectively bolted on.
The level 9 ability specifically calls out the special weapon as being infusible (normally). And the level 9 ability also splits its infusability away from that of the rest of the armor. Since it's separately infusable add on, not part of the original armor, wouldn't that mean the special weapon that Arcane Armor adds to adamantine armor would still be infusible at artificer 9 and beyond? I.e. could you infuse the special weapon with enhanced weapon OR radiant weapon? And at that point you'd get 4 other infusions (the normal ones) (I'm actually looking at a level 11 artificer, which is where I'm getting 4 active infusions at a time)
I believe you should be able to infuse all the parts. The feature description and name of "Arcane Armor" implies that it makes your armor magical, so of course it must bypass the normal nonmagical restriction when it explicitly tells you that you can infuse parts of this armor in the level 9 feature, overruling the general base Artificer infusion feature restrictions.
I would instead argue that you cannot Infuse a nonmagical armor while it has been converted into your Arcane Armor (Although you could infuse an Armor and then turn it into your Arcane Armor).
There is no direct line that says that the armor becomes magical, but it is heavily implied.
![]()
thunder damage on a hit. A creature hit by the gauntlet has disadvantage on attack rolls against targets other than you until the start of your next turn, as the armor magically emits a distracting pulse when the creature attacks someone else."
- The armor is called "Arcane Armor"
- "Your metallurgical pursuits have led to you making armor a conduit for your magic"
- "Thunder Gauntlets. Each of the armor’s gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon while you aren’t holding anything in it, and it deals 1d8
-"Guardian. When a Huge or smaller creature you can see ends its turn within 30 feet of you, you can use your reaction to magically force it to make a Strength saving throw against your spell save DC. On a failed save, you pull the creature up to 25 feet directly to an unoccupied space. If you pull the target to a space within 5 feet of you, you can make a melee weapon attack against it as part of this reaction."
You can use this reaction a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses of it when you finish a long rest.
![]()
lightning damage."
-"Infiltrator. Any creature that takes lightning damage from your Lightning Launcher glimmers with magical light until the start of your next turn. The glimmering creature sheds dim light in a 5-foot radius, and it has disadvantage on attack rolls against you, as the light jolts it if it attacks you. In addition, the next attack roll against it has advantage, and if that attack hits, the target takes an extra 1d6
The Level 9 feature says that you can enchant the pieces of your Arcane Armor. The bolded section can be read to imply that it is overruling the base infusion rules by saying these pieces are valid infusion targets, and if not interpreted this way would otherwise be redundant with the previous sentence.
You learn how to use your artificer infusions to specially modify your Arcane Armor. That armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your Infuse Item feature: armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor’s special weapon. Each of those items can bear one of your infusions, and the infusions transfer over if you change your armor’s model with the Armor Model feature. In addition, the maximum number of items you can infuse at once increases by 2, but those extra items must be part of your Arcane Armor.
No it doesn't. It sets each of the pieces as separate pieces which it says you can add an infusion to.
The core logic for my ruling stems from the question, is a piece of a magical item a magical item? I believe it isn't. You cannot just wear a piece of a magical item to gain its affect. Because of this when the lvl 9 feature breaks up the item into four pieces and says you can infuse them, it doesn't matter if the base armor is magical or not.
I think highlighting that the Arcane Armor has magical properties and should be considered a magical item because of this, yet can be still infused helps illuminate this point, but is not necessary for this point of view.
I don't think we are actually too far off in what we are saying or at least what you are saying should be RAI, except that I think the clause makes all of the pieces Infusible because none of the pieces identified by this feature are the original item, whereas you believe that the original item is the piece labeled in the "Armor" slot.