So, for example, a half plate gaining the properties of mithral, growing to encompass your entire body and potentially providing functional prosthetic limbs, becoming impossible to forcibly remove, and being able removed or equipped with a single action (normally a matter of minutes) is not magical? That's not even including most of the seemingly magical effects gained through the armor models nor the described "magical capabilities" of the armor that can be "refined."
Though to be fair on that last bit, I'm not sure how D&D handles fluff text as I am still learning. Is it just purely descriptive or mechanically relevant? The way I had read the armorer entry seemed to indicate that arcane armor is magical and does magical things. Then at level 9 and 15 it becomes even more magical.
So, for example, a half plate gaining the properties of mithral, growing to encompass your entire body and potentially providing functional prosthetic limbs, becoming impossible to forcibly remove, and being able removed or equipped with a single action (normally a matter of minutes) is not magical? That's not even including most of the seemingly magical effects gained through the armor models nor the described "magical capabilities" of the armor that can be "refined."
Though to be fair on that last bit, I'm not sure how D&D handles fluff text as I am still learning. Is it just purely descriptive or mechanically relevant? The way I had read the armorer entry seemed to indicate that arcane armor is magical and does magical things. Then at level 9 and 15 it becomes even more magical.
You can find the official guidance on what does and doesn't count as "magical" in response to the question "Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical?" in the Sage Advice Compendium here. As it pertains to the Arcane Armor feature, since it doesn't actually use the word "magical," it's not magical.
Armorer An artificer who specializes as an Armorer modifies armor to function almost like a second skin. The armor is enhanced to hone the artificer’s magic, unleash potent attacks, and generate a formidable defense. The artificer bonds with this armor, becoming one with it even as they experiment with it and refine its magical capabilities.
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.
Perfected Armor - 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 the creature to make a Strength saving throw against your spell save DC, pulling the creature up to 30 feet toward you 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.
Perfected Armor - 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.
Well, in that case, the description does say the armor is magical, so Arcane Armor is magical. If the Arcane Armor is always magical, then the level nine feat Armor Modifications has to allow Infusions to work on the always-magical Arcane Armor.
Determining whether a game feature is magical is straightforward. Ask yourself these questions about the feature:
Is it a magic item?
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
Is it a spell attack?
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
Does its description say it’s magical?
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, the feature is magical.
The official guidance linked above is precisely for disambiguating actual ducks from duck-like entities. “Looking like a duck” is a given. We know it looks like a duck, and we know that that’s not enough to determine that it really is a duck.
Disclaimer: my intent is not to be obtuse or combative, here. I am not tracking how an object (in this case armor) described as having "magical capabilities" is not magical. What am I missing? Help me understand what you're seeing.
Disclaimer: my intent is not to be obtuse or combative, here. I am not tracking how an object (in this case armor) described as having "magical capabilities" is not magical. What am I missing? Help me understand what you're seeing.
It's the capabilities that are magical, not the armor. As I brought up in another thread, the artificer has magical capabilities. They cast spells, use magic items, etc. But D&D's rules interact with magic in particular ways. If something is magical, it ceases to function in an antimagic field. If we don't acknowledge that there is, in fact, a real difference between "having magical capabilities" and "being magical," any spellcaster would... what, go comatose? (I'm playing a bit fast and loose with the actual text of the spell, it's just to illustrate a point, not to get into the mechanics of antimagic field).
The bottom line is this: An antimagic field, thankfully, does not completely nullify an entire subclass, because that would be incredibly poor game design. Rather, it's only particular parts (the parts that are actually described as being magical) that don't work: "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." That effect doesn't work in an antimagic field, but you can still attack with the thunder gauntlets, because the thunder gauntlets, while extraordinary, are not magical in a way the rules care about.
Again, the Sage Advice guidance is pretty clear. The only thing it feels like you aren't (or, hopefully, weren't) clear on is the difference between something being able to do magical things and actually being magical itself.
If I'm following your reasoning, the arcane armor is basically (for the sake of this thought experiment) a big wand? Not magical itself, but capable of channeling magic?
(Yes, before someone points it out, I do know the armor acts as an arcane focus, too).
If I'm following your reasoning, the arcane armor is basically (for the sake of this thought experiment) a big wand? Not magical itself, but capable of channeling magic?
(Yes, before someone points it out, I do know the armor acts as an arcane focus, too).
Exactly. A wand (from the PHB) can channel magic power, but is not by definition a "magic item".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I feel like it might follow the order of operations ruling. I came across this dilemma in a game once. If my tank is paralyzed and close to death saves, but I need to fireball (as a sorc) to kill all enemies, can I careful spell to make him pass the dex save?
According to sage advice, yes I can. While being paralyzed normally makes one auto fail dex saves, because the careful spell metamagic effect comes after, he does auto pass the save.
Counter to this is if an enemy were to hold an action to cast hold person on a teammate after you casted the spell carefully, while your metamagic would make him pass the save, since the hold person would take effect just before damage, he would fail it instead.
So the way I've interpreted the rules is that, normally yes, you cannot infuse magic armor. But that effect takes place at level 2, whereas the arcane armor splitting effect happens much later, thus overruling the previous effect.
Personally as RAW I believe it is ambiguous and requires clarification from the designers. Interpreting what they meant I think we need to understand their intention and how other classes operate with similar mechanics.
If we look at another class (paladin) and ask if they can don separate 1x full plate armor, 1x gauntlets, 1x boots, and 1x helm, we'd allow it. This is despite plate armor consisting all of those pieces and the ruling for Multiple Items of the Same Kind.
Plate
Plate consists of shaped, interlocking metal plates to cover the entire body. A suit of plate includes gauntlets, heavy leather boots, a visored helmet, and thick layers of padding underneath the armor. Buckles and straps distribute the weight over the body.
Multiple Items of the Same Kind
Use common sense to determine whether more than one of a given kind of magic item can be worn. A character can't normally wear more than one pair of footwear, one pair of gloves or gauntlets, one pair of bracers, one suit of armor, one item of headwear, and one cloak. You can make exceptions; a character might be able to wear a circlet under a helmet, for example, or to layer two cloaks.
So already I believe there is precedence that even if plate armor is described to cover an entire body, from the perspective of the game it is narrowed down to 1 armor/chest slot. Even if you were to interpret it strictly and allowed the replacement of say gauntlets of the magical plate armor for a different set of magical gauntlets instead, wouldn't you have then disrupted the integrity of the original magical armor consequently harming the original effect (Plate Armor of Etherealness > Plate Armor+Gauntlets of Ogre Strength)?
Therefore I believe that Armor Modifications operates under the same mechanics where even if the Plate Armor is magical, for the sake of this skill the item (and its magic) is narrowed to just the armor/chest slot. Again this is how "I'd" interpret the mechanics and would still prefer the designers to have an official ruling on this matter.
When first thinking about the question, my initial thoughts were "no, it wouldn't work"... But reading through the arguments I've been convinced otherwise.
I think Plucky54 makes an excellent point here... Raw is unclear, but if we consider the ability replace the gauntlets of a magical plate armor with seperate magical gauntlets... It's perfectly within reason to imagine that the arcane armor simply does a similar thing to generate the extra slots.
Thanks MamasToast. I do believe both interpretations of plate armor could be correct and it is a matter of DM's needing to be consistent in their rulings for this matter. Though I did want to mention further what both interpretations would mean with respect to the Artificer Armorer.
By my interpretation with isolating the magical armor to just the armor/chest slot, you've created a potentially stronger artificer. He'll be able to don on a legendary plate armor while still being able to cast infusions on the subsequent parts.
For the alternate interpretation where plate armor covers subsequent equipment slots, you've created a comparatively stronger artificer with respect to other classes. A paladin would not be able to wear "Plate, +2 Armor", "Boots of Speed", and "Gauntlets of Ogre Strength". However an Artificer can (and more). Instead the paladin would need to choose between the "Plate, +2 Armor" vs. "Boots of Speed" and "Gauntlets of Ogre Strength".
All in all, until there is an official ruling I believe we as DM's need to be consistent in how we handle these situations.
Most DM'S I've plated with tend to rule that the chest piece alone counts as magical and can't be infused. The base the argument on the fact that the rulebook still specifically calls the chest piece "armor."
I can see both sides of this, and asking around in other places I’ve been told both answers “No all the parts are still magical.” But also “Well the wording classes the armour as the chest…”.
Rather confused now I must say!
However, at the same time, I’ve never had a DM say someone can’t wear a magic item because of their armour. Would be nice to see something to clarify this one way or the other!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, for example, a half plate gaining the properties of mithral, growing to encompass your entire body and potentially providing functional prosthetic limbs, becoming impossible to forcibly remove, and being able removed or equipped with a single action (normally a matter of minutes) is not magical? That's not even including most of the seemingly magical effects gained through the armor models nor the described "magical capabilities" of the armor that can be "refined."
Though to be fair on that last bit, I'm not sure how D&D handles fluff text as I am still learning. Is it just purely descriptive or mechanically relevant? The way I had read the armorer entry seemed to indicate that arcane armor is magical and does magical things. Then at level 9 and 15 it becomes even more magical.
You can find the official guidance on what does and doesn't count as "magical" in response to the question "Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical?" in the Sage Advice Compendium here. As it pertains to the Arcane Armor feature, since it doesn't actually use the word "magical," it's not magical.
Well, in that case, the description does say the armor is magical, so Arcane Armor is magical. If the Arcane Armor is always magical, then the level nine feat Armor Modifications has to allow Infusions to work on the always-magical Arcane Armor.
No, the description doesn’t say the armor is magical. It says two very specific and optional effects are magical.
If it looks like a duck...
The official guidance linked above is precisely for disambiguating actual ducks from duck-like entities. “Looking like a duck” is a given. We know it looks like a duck, and we know that that’s not enough to determine that it really is a duck.
Disclaimer: my intent is not to be obtuse or combative, here. I am not tracking how an object (in this case armor) described as having "magical capabilities" is not magical. What am I missing? Help me understand what you're seeing.
It's the capabilities that are magical, not the armor. As I brought up in another thread, the artificer has magical capabilities. They cast spells, use magic items, etc. But D&D's rules interact with magic in particular ways. If something is magical, it ceases to function in an antimagic field. If we don't acknowledge that there is, in fact, a real difference between "having magical capabilities" and "being magical," any spellcaster would... what, go comatose? (I'm playing a bit fast and loose with the actual text of the spell, it's just to illustrate a point, not to get into the mechanics of antimagic field).
The bottom line is this: An antimagic field, thankfully, does not completely nullify an entire subclass, because that would be incredibly poor game design. Rather, it's only particular parts (the parts that are actually described as being magical) that don't work: "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." That effect doesn't work in an antimagic field, but you can still attack with the thunder gauntlets, because the thunder gauntlets, while extraordinary, are not magical in a way the rules care about.
Again, the Sage Advice guidance is pretty clear. The only thing it feels like you aren't (or, hopefully, weren't) clear on is the difference between something being able to do magical things and actually being magical itself.
If I'm following your reasoning, the arcane armor is basically (for the sake of this thought experiment) a big wand? Not magical itself, but capable of channeling magic?
(Yes, before someone points it out, I do know the armor acts as an arcane focus, too).
Exactly. A wand (from the PHB) can channel magic power, but is not by definition a "magic item".
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I feel like it might follow the order of operations ruling. I came across this dilemma in a game once. If my tank is paralyzed and close to death saves, but I need to fireball (as a sorc) to kill all enemies, can I careful spell to make him pass the dex save?
According to sage advice, yes I can. While being paralyzed normally makes one auto fail dex saves, because the careful spell metamagic effect comes after, he does auto pass the save.
Counter to this is if an enemy were to hold an action to cast hold person on a teammate after you casted the spell carefully, while your metamagic would make him pass the save, since the hold person would take effect just before damage, he would fail it instead.
So the way I've interpreted the rules is that, normally yes, you cannot infuse magic armor. But that effect takes place at level 2, whereas the arcane armor splitting effect happens much later, thus overruling the previous effect.
Personally as RAW I believe it is ambiguous and requires clarification from the designers. Interpreting what they meant I think we need to understand their intention and how other classes operate with similar mechanics.
If we look at another class (paladin) and ask if they can don separate 1x full plate armor, 1x gauntlets, 1x boots, and 1x helm, we'd allow it. This is despite plate armor consisting all of those pieces and the ruling for Multiple Items of the Same Kind.
So already I believe there is precedence that even if plate armor is described to cover an entire body, from the perspective of the game it is narrowed down to 1 armor/chest slot. Even if you were to interpret it strictly and allowed the replacement of say gauntlets of the magical plate armor for a different set of magical gauntlets instead, wouldn't you have then disrupted the integrity of the original magical armor consequently harming the original effect (
Plate Armor of Etherealness> Plate Armor+Gauntlets of Ogre Strength)?Therefore I believe that Armor Modifications operates under the same mechanics where even if the Plate Armor is magical, for the sake of this skill the item (and its magic) is narrowed to just the armor/chest slot. Again this is how "I'd" interpret the mechanics and would still prefer the designers to have an official ruling on this matter.
When first thinking about the question, my initial thoughts were "no, it wouldn't work"... But reading through the arguments I've been convinced otherwise.
I think Plucky54 makes an excellent point here... Raw is unclear, but if we consider the ability replace the gauntlets of a magical plate armor with seperate magical gauntlets... It's perfectly within reason to imagine that the arcane armor simply does a similar thing to generate the extra slots.
Thanks MamasToast. I do believe both interpretations of plate armor could be correct and it is a matter of DM's needing to be consistent in their rulings for this matter. Though I did want to mention further what both interpretations would mean with respect to the Artificer Armorer.
By my interpretation with isolating the magical armor to just the armor/chest slot, you've created a potentially stronger artificer. He'll be able to don on a legendary plate armor while still being able to cast infusions on the subsequent parts.
For the alternate interpretation where plate armor covers subsequent equipment slots, you've created a comparatively stronger artificer with respect to other classes. A paladin would not be able to wear "Plate, +2 Armor", "Boots of Speed", and "Gauntlets of Ogre Strength". However an Artificer can (and more). Instead the paladin would need to choose between the "Plate, +2 Armor" vs. "Boots of Speed" and "Gauntlets of Ogre Strength".
All in all, until there is an official ruling I believe we as DM's need to be consistent in how we handle these situations.
I'm genuinely surprised there hasn't been an errata or official ruling on this
Most DM'S I've plated with tend to rule that the chest piece alone counts as magical and can't be infused. The base the argument on the fact that the rulebook still specifically calls the chest piece "armor."
I can see both sides of this, and asking around in other places I’ve been told both answers “No all the parts are still magical.” But also “Well the wording classes the armour as the chest…”.
Rather confused now I must say!
However, at the same time, I’ve never had a DM say someone can’t wear a magic item because of their armour. Would be nice to see something to clarify this one way or the other!