I just don't see how failing a illegal option for an ability would somehow trigger another part of the same ability. That's kinda like saying a Raging Barbarian can try to cast attack spell to keep their Rage going. A Raging Barbarian cannot cast spells, the same way a Artificer cannot infuse a magical item. Trying and failing should not be able to trigger the requirements of the rest of the ability.
If it helps, you could think of losing your oldest infusion as a "punishment" for trying to exceed your infusion limit. (I don't think that's what the designers were going for...in fact I think it's a clever little way to swap out your infusions without extra equipment / an extra long rest... Seems very artificer-y.)
The earlier concentration analogy was pretty apt: you start to try to make a new one, and your oldest one breaks down because your artificer-will is no longer capable of maintaining it. At least, that's a way to think of it. (After all, your infusions also break down after you die.)
I think I am just going to agree to disagree with you on this topic and move on.
You don't have to succeed at making the new infusion.
You can try to infuse a pair of Elven Boots that you find, the infusion will just fail. However, you tried to infuse a new item so the first infusion you make drops off because the condition for it doing so would have been met. Trying to create a new infusion.
If you try to exceed your maximum number of infusions, the oldest infusion immediately ends, and then the new infusion applies.
It doesn't say "If you exceed" or "If you infuse" it specifically says "If you try..." meaning that the ending condition on an infusion is in the preparation for starting a new infusion.
So essentially if you try to infuse a magical item you own, two things will happen. The oldest infusion you have made drops, and secondly, the attempt at making a new infusion fails.
If you try to infuse an already infused item, one of two things will happen. The oldest infusion you have will drop, along with any item holding the infusion you are trying to currently use. Secondly, the infusion will take if you are infusing the item with the same infusion because in that instance the first iteration of that infusion will automatically drop as you are currently trying to use that infusion again and you can only have it active on one item at a time and you now have a free infusion slot available. It is the exact same course of action as would happen if you were to attempt to infuse a second set of armor with the resistance infusion, the first set would become mundane armor the moment you attempt to infuse the second set.
I think we understand the key is about trying. But what's not clear is whether trying to infuse a magic item is even allowed.
Nothing in the RAW allows an artificer to "try" to imbue an infusion into an already magical object. It states:
Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch a nonmagical object and imbue it with one of your artificer infusions, turning it into a magic item. An infusion works on only certain kinds of objects, as specified in the infusion's description.
There's no success or failure conditions listed, no dice rolls, nothing about attempting anything until we get to the section about infusing more than one nonmagical item at the end of a long rest. The only thing being tried there, is to infuse one nonmagical object too many.
Note there's also nothing that states attempting to infuse a nonmagical object with an infusion you already have active ends that specific infusion on the previous item instead of the oldest active infusion. Instead the rules only say "each of your infusions can be in only one object at a time" they do not specify whether or not this works by ending the previous infusion (rather than or even alongside your oldest infusion) or simply preventing the new infusion from taking place.
So attempting to infuse a second set of armor with the resistance infusion might simply not happen at all unless you're already at your limit and the resistance infusion is currently the oldest infusion you have running. It's up to a DM's interpretation in this case.
I see no problem with a DM allowing it though. Honestly, I feel like an Artificer should just be able to decide to end specific infusions at the end of a long rest instead of having to go round robin through them all. It's unnecessary jank on an already complicated class.
I think we understand the key is about trying. But what's not clear is whether trying to infuse a magic item is even allowed.
So, I will again raise the issue of trying to infuse an item that is magical, but you don't know that.
It would fail, right? I know there's "no success or failure conditions listed, no dice rolls, nothing about attempting anything" but I assume you don't mean it would work. Yet, the character tried.
As a result of that try, if they were also already at max infusions, their oldest infusion would end. Why? The direct answer is that the rules say it ends ("If you try to exceed your maximum number of infusions, the oldest infusion ends"). The in-character interpretation is probably something similar to spell concentration (but weirder and artificer-y-er).
I think we understand the key is about trying. But what's not clear is whether trying to infuse a magic item is even allowed.
So, I will again raise the issue of trying to infuse an item that is magical, but you don't know that.
It would fail, right? I know there's "no success or failure conditions listed, no dice rolls, nothing about attempting anything" but I assume you don't mean it would work. Yet, the character tried.
As a result of that try, if they were also already at max infusions, their oldest infusion would end. Why? The direct answer is that the rules say it ends ("If you try to exceed your maximum number of infusions, the oldest infusion ends"). The in-character interpretation is probably something similar to spell concentration (but weirder and artificer-y-er).
When it's your own infused item, you absolutely know it's magical. You were the one who made it magical in the first place.
The only way your character wouldn't know that fact is if they were suffering from retrograde amnesia. It shouldn't take a head injury in order exploit a specific and obscure yet still questionable loophole in the rules to avoid a problem that's mostly a non-issue unless your DM is being an absolute stickler to RAW.
If we're talking about infusing a different item that for some reason your character has never bothered to cast detect magic while looking at it or not bothered with identify, or failed your arcana check examining, etc, then okay sure, maybe? But that's also well beyond the scope of BKThomson's original question in this thread.
I think we understand the key is about trying. But what's not clear is whether trying to infuse a magic item is even allowed.
So, I will again raise the issue of trying to infuse an item that is magical, but you don't know that.
It would fail, right? I know there's "no success or failure conditions listed, no dice rolls, nothing about attempting anything" but I assume you don't mean it would work. Yet, the character tried.
As a result of that try, if they were also already at max infusions, their oldest infusion would end. Why? The direct answer is that the rules say it ends ("If you try to exceed your maximum number of infusions, the oldest infusion ends"). The in-character interpretation is probably something similar to spell concentration (but weirder and artificer-y-er).
When it's your own infused item, you absolutely know it's magical. You were the one who made it magical in the first place.
The only way your character wouldn't know that fact is if they were suffering from retrograde amnesia. It shouldn't take a head injury in order exploit a specific and obscure yet still questionable loophole in the rules to avoid a problem that's mostly a non-issue unless your DM is being an absolute stickler to RAW.
If we're talking about infusing a different item that for some reason your character has never bothered to cast detect magic while looking at it or not bothered with identify, or failed your arcana check examining, etc, then okay sure, maybe? But that's also well beyond the scope of BKThomson's original question in this thread.
Then what if an Artificer tries to infuse a cursed item?
Identify wouldn't reveal an item to be cursed, and could appear to be a mundane item as it has no beneficial property, yet is is afflicted with a magical curse and is thus a magical item. The artificer could attempt to infuse said item which would not have any effect as it is a magical item, which the Artificer wouldn't know about.
If it would work on such an item, it would work on an already infused item to, despite the character knowing the item is already infused.
Also "An infusion works on only certain kinds of objects, as specified in the infusion's description." the bold text confirms success/failure criteria when trying to infuse an item. It states they only work on certain items, so wouldn't work on items that don't fit the criteria.
Attempting to infuse an item that doesn't fit the criteria (an already infused item) would result in failure, but the process of trying to infuse the item would therefore trigger the "drop" criteria of the first infusion made, resulting in the success of infusing the item.
If you try to exceed your maximum number of infusions, the oldest infusion immediately ends, and then the new infusion applies.
This could also be interpreted as: if you try in exceed the maximum number of infusions on an item, the oldest infusion on the item ends and the new infusion applies, as it is falls under the "infusing an item" portion of the feature.
Again, this is getting well outside the scope of the original question.
A cursed magic item is still a magic item. And it will appear as such to things that can detect magic items unless somewhere in it's description it specifically says it bypasses that or appears as mundane. An exception for that is if Arcanist's Magic Aura had been cast on the item. That's a much simpler scenario.
You really don't need to throw 100 different what if scenarios at the problem in order to defend your interpretation of the rules or to keep looking for explicit loopholes to attain what you want to do. A much better strategy is to simply ask your DM* about the issue, there's a possibility they'll let you just swap out infusions on an item at the end of a long rest similar to how a wizard or artificer can swap out prepared spells. I don't think there are any adverse consequences to game balance for allowing that.
*Or if you are the DM then there is no issue. Do what you want.
Again, this is getting well outside the scope of the original question.
A cursed magic item is still a magic item. And it will appear as such to things that can detect magic items unless somewhere in it's description it specifically says it bypasses that or appears as mundane. An exception for that is if Arcanist's Magic Aura had been cast on the item. That's a much simpler scenario.
You really don't need to throw 100 different what if scenarios at the problem in order to defend your interpretation of the rules or to keep looking for explicit loopholes to attain what you want to do. A much better strategy is to simply ask your DM* about the issue, there's a possibility they'll let you just swap out infusions on an item at the end of a long rest similar to how a wizard or artificer can swap out prepared spells. I don't think there are any adverse consequences to game balance for allowing that.
*Or if you are the DM then there is no issue. Do what you want.
"If you try to exceed your maximum number of infusions, the oldest infusion ends" is pretty explicit and clear. You're the one claiming that there's no "failure conditions" so it would be impossible to "try" something that won't work. The actual "what if" scenario is just demonstrating that there are, indeed, failure conditions.
I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing with their DM. They're arguing with random people on the internet who have different interpretations of RAW.
EDIT: this is even weirder, in that it seems like everyone agrees that a reasonable DM would allow this thing (letting an artificer swap out a particular infusion on the same piece of armor, in one long rest). We just disagree about whether or not the rules actually say the reasonable thing. It's like people are hell-bent on "proving" that the rules are dumb.
Again, this is getting well outside the scope of the original question.
A cursed magic item is still a magic item. And it will appear as such to things that can detect magic items unless somewhere in it's description it specifically says it bypasses that or appears as mundane. An exception for that is if Arcanist's Magic Aura had been cast on the item. That's a much simpler scenario.
You really don't need to throw 100 different what if scenarios at the problem in order to defend your interpretation of the rules or to keep looking for explicit loopholes to attain what you want to do. A much better strategy is to simply ask your DM* about the issue, there's a possibility they'll let you just swap out infusions on an item at the end of a long rest similar to how a wizard or artificer can swap out prepared spells. I don't think there are any adverse consequences to game balance for allowing that.
*Or if you are the DM then there is no issue. Do what you want.
"If you try to exceed your maximum number of infusions, the oldest infusion ends" is pretty explicit and clear. You're the one claiming that there's no "failure conditions" so it would be impossible to "try" something that won't work. The actual "what if" scenario is just demonstrating that there are, indeed, failure conditions.
I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing with their DM. They're arguing with random people on the internet who have different interpretations of RAW.
EDIT: this is even weirder, in that it seems like everyone agrees that a reasonable DM would allow this thing (letting an artificer swap out a particular infusion on the same piece of armor, in one long rest). We just disagree about whether or not the rules actually say the reasonable thing. It's like people are hell-bent on "proving" that the rules are dumb.
I don't have any desire to prove the rules dumb (though sometimes the rules happen to be dumb) It's literally that I don't think it says the things you think it says. I feel you're reading more into it than what's intended. That line about "trying to exceed" to me is literally just telling you that you have a max number, and that it follows a first in, first out structure towards how you infuse things. I view the FIFO nature of infused items as completely unnecessary but that's just an opinion.
I guess one way to look at it (not one I agree as intended, mind) is that there's more than one maximum an artificer can try to exceed.
There's the global maximum of all your infused items. Then there's the local maximum for each individual infusion (only 1) applied to an item.
You could argue that "trying to exceed" applies to both maximums.
Now if I'm wrong and that is the intended functionality I feel like WOTC have worded the feature very poorly. The easiest way is to not rock the boat with unnecessary complications and just reuse some similar wording that they used for prepared spells. That's an established mechanic that has years of inertia. So there would be fewer chances for it to be confused and spawn online discussions like this one. (That is one of the ways in which the rules of D&D are often dumb)
However, I feel like that's a twisting of the words, and harping on "trying" feels like you're taking that word out of the context of the phrase it's in. It's not "trying to infuse" it's "trying to exceed."
But I can tell I'll never convince anyone of anything ever and I have limited patience for arguing with people online about things that I ultimately don't care that much about proving.
If it helps, you could think of losing your oldest infusion as a "punishment" for trying to exceed your infusion limit. (I don't think that's what the designers were going for...in fact I think it's a clever little way to swap out your infusions without extra equipment / an extra long rest... Seems very artificer-y.)
The earlier concentration analogy was pretty apt: you start to try to make a new one, and your oldest one breaks down because your artificer-will is no longer capable of maintaining it. At least, that's a way to think of it. (After all, your infusions also break down after you die.)
Fair enough. Salut.
The key word is "try"
You don't have to succeed at making the new infusion.
You can try to infuse a pair of Elven Boots that you find, the infusion will just fail. However, you tried to infuse a new item so the first infusion you make drops off because the condition for it doing so would have been met. Trying to create a new infusion.
It doesn't say "If you exceed" or "If you infuse" it specifically says "If you try..." meaning that the ending condition on an infusion is in the preparation for starting a new infusion.
So essentially if you try to infuse a magical item you own, two things will happen. The oldest infusion you have made drops, and secondly, the attempt at making a new infusion fails.
If you try to infuse an already infused item, one of two things will happen. The oldest infusion you have will drop, along with any item holding the infusion you are trying to currently use. Secondly, the infusion will take if you are infusing the item with the same infusion because in that instance the first iteration of that infusion will automatically drop as you are currently trying to use that infusion again and you can only have it active on one item at a time and you now have a free infusion slot available. It is the exact same course of action as would happen if you were to attempt to infuse a second set of armor with the resistance infusion, the first set would become mundane armor the moment you attempt to infuse the second set.
I think we understand the key is about trying. But what's not clear is whether trying to infuse a magic item is even allowed.
Nothing in the RAW allows an artificer to "try" to imbue an infusion into an already magical object. It states:
There's no success or failure conditions listed, no dice rolls, nothing about attempting anything until we get to the section about infusing more than one nonmagical item at the end of a long rest. The only thing being tried there, is to infuse one nonmagical object too many.
Note there's also nothing that states attempting to infuse a nonmagical object with an infusion you already have active ends that specific infusion on the previous item instead of the oldest active infusion. Instead the rules only say "each of your infusions can be in only one object at a time" they do not specify whether or not this works by ending the previous infusion (rather than or even alongside your oldest infusion) or simply preventing the new infusion from taking place.
So attempting to infuse a second set of armor with the resistance infusion might simply not happen at all unless you're already at your limit and the resistance infusion is currently the oldest infusion you have running. It's up to a DM's interpretation in this case.
I see no problem with a DM allowing it though. Honestly, I feel like an Artificer should just be able to decide to end specific infusions at the end of a long rest instead of having to go round robin through them all. It's unnecessary jank on an already complicated class.
So, I will again raise the issue of trying to infuse an item that is magical, but you don't know that.
It would fail, right? I know there's "no success or failure conditions listed, no dice rolls, nothing about attempting anything" but I assume you don't mean it would work. Yet, the character tried.
As a result of that try, if they were also already at max infusions, their oldest infusion would end. Why? The direct answer is that the rules say it ends ("If you try to exceed your maximum number of infusions, the oldest infusion ends"). The in-character interpretation is probably something similar to spell concentration (but weirder and artificer-y-er).
When it's your own infused item, you absolutely know it's magical. You were the one who made it magical in the first place.
The only way your character wouldn't know that fact is if they were suffering from retrograde amnesia. It shouldn't take a head injury in order exploit a specific and obscure yet still questionable loophole in the rules to avoid a problem that's mostly a non-issue unless your DM is being an absolute stickler to RAW.
If we're talking about infusing a different item that for some reason your character has never bothered to cast detect magic while looking at it or not bothered with identify, or failed your arcana check examining, etc, then okay sure, maybe? But that's also well beyond the scope of BKThomson's original question in this thread.
Then what if an Artificer tries to infuse a cursed item?
Identify wouldn't reveal an item to be cursed, and could appear to be a mundane item as it has no beneficial property, yet is is afflicted with a magical curse and is thus a magical item. The artificer could attempt to infuse said item which would not have any effect as it is a magical item, which the Artificer wouldn't know about.
If it would work on such an item, it would work on an already infused item to, despite the character knowing the item is already infused.
Also "An infusion works on only certain kinds of objects, as specified in the infusion's description." the bold text confirms success/failure criteria when trying to infuse an item. It states they only work on certain items, so wouldn't work on items that don't fit the criteria.
Attempting to infuse an item that doesn't fit the criteria (an already infused item) would result in failure, but the process of trying to infuse the item would therefore trigger the "drop" criteria of the first infusion made, resulting in the success of infusing the item.
This could also be interpreted as: if you try in exceed the maximum number of infusions on an item, the oldest infusion on the item ends and the new infusion applies, as it is falls under the "infusing an item" portion of the feature.
Again, this is getting well outside the scope of the original question.
A cursed magic item is still a magic item. And it will appear as such to things that can detect magic items unless somewhere in it's description it specifically says it bypasses that or appears as mundane. An exception for that is if Arcanist's Magic Aura had been cast on the item. That's a much simpler scenario.
You really don't need to throw 100 different what if scenarios at the problem in order to defend your interpretation of the rules or to keep looking for explicit loopholes to attain what you want to do. A much better strategy is to simply ask your DM* about the issue, there's a possibility they'll let you just swap out infusions on an item at the end of a long rest similar to how a wizard or artificer can swap out prepared spells. I don't think there are any adverse consequences to game balance for allowing that.
*Or if you are the DM then there is no issue. Do what you want.
"If you try to exceed your maximum number of infusions, the oldest infusion ends" is pretty explicit and clear. You're the one claiming that there's no "failure conditions" so it would be impossible to "try" something that won't work. The actual "what if" scenario is just demonstrating that there are, indeed, failure conditions.
I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing with their DM. They're arguing with random people on the internet who have different interpretations of RAW.
EDIT: this is even weirder, in that it seems like everyone agrees that a reasonable DM would allow this thing (letting an artificer swap out a particular infusion on the same piece of armor, in one long rest). We just disagree about whether or not the rules actually say the reasonable thing. It's like people are hell-bent on "proving" that the rules are dumb.
I don't have any desire to prove the rules dumb (though sometimes the rules happen to be dumb) It's literally that I don't think it says the things you think it says. I feel you're reading more into it than what's intended. That line about "trying to exceed" to me is literally just telling you that you have a max number, and that it follows a first in, first out structure towards how you infuse things. I view the FIFO nature of infused items as completely unnecessary but that's just an opinion.
I guess one way to look at it (not one I agree as intended, mind) is that there's more than one maximum an artificer can try to exceed.
There's the global maximum of all your infused items.
Then there's the local maximum for each individual infusion (only 1) applied to an item.
You could argue that "trying to exceed" applies to both maximums.
Now if I'm wrong and that is the intended functionality I feel like WOTC have worded the feature very poorly. The easiest way is to not rock the boat with unnecessary complications and just reuse some similar wording that they used for prepared spells. That's an established mechanic that has years of inertia. So there would be fewer chances for it to be confused and spawn online discussions like this one. (That is one of the ways in which the rules of D&D are often dumb)
However, I feel like that's a twisting of the words, and harping on "trying" feels like you're taking that word out of the context of the phrase it's in.
It's not "trying to infuse" it's "trying to exceed."
But I can tell I'll never convince anyone of anything ever and I have limited patience for arguing with people online about things that I ultimately don't care that much about proving.
So I'm done. Have a lovely day.