The way I view it, the question of whenever the parts counts as magical or not (or any other attributes for that sake) is kind of irrelevant when it comes to the armorer feature. But nevertheless I believe can safely say that all of them are not magical.
The description of the armorer 9th-level feature clearly states that you can infuse each part of the arcane armor. The direct quote from the feature is "Each of those items can bear one of your infusions,".
There is no mention of any exceptions, so that leads to the following conclusion: Each part of the arcane armor does not count as magical, even if the total arcane armor itself is magical. The reason for this is because they can each bear an infusion.
If you want a more detailed reasoning, the following is what I have.
Things to note of the 9th-level feature description:
The feature say nothing directly about whenever each part holds the same attributes as the original armor.
The feature specifies that the armor item parts are for the purpose of infusion. There is no info on stats of each part or if each part serves any other role other than infusions.
The feature clearly states that each part can bear an infusion.
From that I get the following reasonings:
Since the feature description downright say each item part can bear one infusion, they can therefore bear an infusion each... (Five equals five after all.) If you are still locked on what the infusion description say about only being allowed to infuse non-magical items, then the next reasoning is as follow.
Since the feature say nothing directly about whenever the attributes of the original armor applies for each part, we should not assume that it does. Since each part can bear an infusion, then the logical conclusion is that each part does in fact not hold the same attributes as the armor used. In other words the parts are not magical, even if the armor itself is magical.
Summary:
Infusions only work on non-magical items, and turn them into magical items.
Each item part of the arcane armor can bear an infusion.
Conclusion:
The item parts that the armorer 9th-level feature "creates" are not magical, even if the arcane armor itself is magical, because they can each bear an infusion.
The way I view it, the question of whenever the parts counts as magical or not (or any other attributes for that sake) is kind of irrelevant when it comes to the armorer feature. But nevertheless I believe can safely say that all of them are not magical.
The description of the armorer 9th-level feature clearly states that you can infuse each part of the arcane armor. The direct quote from the feature is "Each of those items can bear one of your infusions,".
There is no mention of any exceptions, so that leads to the following conclusion: Each part of the arcane armor does not count as magical, even if the total arcane armor itself is magical. The reason for this is because they can each bear an infusion.
If you want a more detailed reasoning, the following is what I have.
Things to note of the 9th-level feature description:
The feature say nothing directly about whenever each part holds the same attributes as the original armor.
The feature specifies that the armor item parts are for the purpose of infusion. There is no info on stats of each part or if each part serves any other role other than infusions.
The feature clearly states that each part can bear an infusion.
From that I get the following reasonings:
Since the feature description downright say each item part can bear one infusion, they can therefore bear an infusion each... (Five equals five after all.) If you are still locked on what the infusion description say about only being allowed to infuse non-magical items, then the next reasoning is as follow.
Since the feature say nothing directly about whenever the attributes of the original armor applies for each part, we should not assume that it does. Since each part can bear an infusion, then the logical conclusion is that each part does in fact not hold the same attributes as the armor used. In other words the parts are not magical, even if the armor itself is magical.
Summary:
Infusions only work on non-magical items, and turn them into magical items.
Each item part of the arcane armor can bear an infusion.
Conclusion:
The item parts that the armorer 9th-level feature "creates" are not magical, even if the arcane armor itself is magical, because they can each bear an infusion.
All of this is nice. But it's based upon a faulty starting conclusion.
Your taking the absence of the armor saying nothing about the issue of magical armor being made into arcane armor to give it this forced magical but non-magical state. This does not work because the Arcane Armor ability would have to specifically state this is the case otherwise it is not the case because the Arcane Armor Feature does not in any way take away or over write the magical nature of the armor. Since it does not over-write the magical nature of the armor to create this quasi-non-magical state for the rest of your premise.
This means that at least some part of the armor cannot be infused because it does count as magical because this was not changed in specificity by Arcane Armor.
Which leads us right back to the issue of just how much is strictly represented for the Armor as being that magical armor and how much can bare infusions through the level 9 Armorer ability.
Indeed this is the big issue behind it all, as Arcane Armour itself is not magical (it has magical abilities but of itself it is not magical) if you've done it to Plate for example.
I am...more inclined (I guess would be correct to say) to go with this interpretation:
Magic Armour, and whatever features it has, apply to the Chest (Or as the description of the level 9 ability calls it) the Armour section so you cannot infuse that part of the armour (Where you would put your +1/+2 AC infusion, leaving your Gauntlets as your Special Weapon section, and the Helm and Boots as their own Non-Magical sections, capable of taking your infusions (As the Thunder Gauntlets call themselves a Simple Martial Weapon in their own description I believe).
It seems this is a RAW-RAI situation which can easily be interpreted either way (and I must say, I see the points behind both viewpoints), however I believe the intention was to allow you to at least infuse the helm, boots and gauntlets still, even if you're wearing Magic Armour. Of course I may be wrong, but I see it as this, if this ability could never work on Magic Armour, that is a whole Sub-Class Feature gone, if the character has magic armour, and I just think they wouldn't intend for you to potentially lose a whole class feature on your choice of armour, especially as that same feature gives you two more Infusion Slots that can only be used on your Armour.
Your taking the absence of the armor saying nothing about the issue of magical armor being made into arcane armor to give it this forced magical but non-magical state. This does not work because the Arcane Armor ability would have to specifically state this is the case otherwise it is not the case because the Arcane Armor Feature does not in any way take away or over write the magical nature of the armor. Since it does not over-write the magical nature of the armor to create this quasi-non-magical state for the rest of your premise.
The absence of any description of the armor parts is not my starting conclusion though (sorry if I made that unclear).
To clarify though, my starting conclusion (the core of my arguments) is the feature's description specifically stating that each parts can bear an infusion. "Each of those items can bear one of your infusions" I form my conclusions based mostly of that specific description, and my conclusions are also based on the description from the infusion feature. "you can touch a non-magical object and imbue it with one of your artificer infusions"
What I do is simply putting these two descriptions together to conclude that each of the item parts of the arcane armor is non-magical, regardless of the armor itself.
(Each piece can bear one of your infusions) + (Infusions only on non-magical) = (Each piece are non-magical)
The absence of any description of the armor parts is more of a minor confirmation to my conclusion, or more accurately that there is nothing in the descriptions that goes against the conclusion I formed.
I probably did a poor job on getting some of the details across properly, and this next detail in particular due to how I thought it sounded natural with the use of "count as" and "for the purposes of". To directly quote the second sentence of the armorer feature: "That armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your Infuse Items feature: armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor’s special weapon."
In my understanding of the words "counts as", this mean the four pieces are not actually created in any way at all, but is to be only thought of instead. And since it say that the armor counts as separate items for the purposes of infusing items, then the four pieces are only to be though of for the purposes of infusing items. So it is the only purpose the four pieces have. The four pieces aren't to be count as for anything else or for any other purposes. This includes them not to be counted as either magical or non-magical. The four pieces are not to change the nature of the armor either.
This is why I started of by saying that whenever them being magical or not is kind of irrelevant; since they only count as separate items for the purpose of infusing items and doesn't actually has any other meaning in any regard. This is also why I never saw an issue that a magical armor is being turned into an arcane armor with four separate pieces for infusions.
Regardless of anything though, it would be nice with some form of errata to clarify this from the developers perspective, and to get whatever RAI are into RAW. I can't seem to find J.C. answering this anywhere either...
Each part able to have an infusion at level 9 in no way effects the restriction on infusions themselves about not being able to be put onto magical armor to begin with. And Arcane armor does not change this restriction about infusions either. Which is the standing rule that has to be followed without a more specific rule altering it.
Which is where the rub is. By Strictest sense Magical Armor becomes almost useless to the Armorer because it blocks all 4 slots. But that doesn't seem to be the intent so most logically try to justify reducing that to just the chest piece slot if you use magical armor. which is what this discussion revolves around.
The Feature 3rd level feature of Arcane Armor alone almost breaks the rules for using Infusions just by the extra abilities that the Arcane Armor ability adds to magical Armor. But that is skirted around by the feature adding them not in any way being an infusion. Skirting them by not quite making the armor magic but clearly giving it magic like abilities that can be piled on top of magical armor and allow for Infusions to be placed on normally non-magical armor. But thankfully it gives us just enough wiggle room not to cause it's own problems. But the interaction of the general infusion rules and what are effectively extra special pieces of equipment as part of a suit of armor is our problem and it's easy to try and handwave this away and just go "Infusions for All!" but that is not what any of the powers actually tell us. If anything They are what's getting in the way of that very idea though many would like it to work that way ultimately.
Though with all that being said. The truth of the matter is that your average magical armor isn't worth the hassle. It needs to be some pretty dang good magical armor with some pretty unique special abilities. otherwise your just better suited not bothering with magical armor and just using non-magical armor and infusing all of the parts the way you want them to be without worry anyway without the conflict. Since it's easy to pick up +2 armor. It's easy to pick up some unique abilities to different pieces and all of that. Which on a general level is just as good if not better because it's much easier to accomplish.
if u can equip a magic armor, boots, gauntlets and helmets being a non armorer why would that stop you from doing so as one?
i mean before lvl 9 if you turn a non magical or magical armor into arcane armor and if by chance u get a roll for magic boots, does that mean i cant equip the boots? all other classes can so why i cannot? i just cant infuse it, arcane armor is like skin and stretch out to cover your body so u can make it not cover your feet?
The whole body armor is flavor and function to allow u later on (lvl 9) infuse those part of your body to replace a magic item or u gonna tell me the arcane armor will not let u wield any?
if u can equip a magic armor, boots, gauntlets and helmets being a non armorer why would that stop you from doing so as one?
i mean before lvl 9 if you turn a non magical or magical armor into arcane armor and if by chance u get a roll for magic boots, does that mean i cant equip the boots? all other classes can so why i cannot? i just cant infuse it, arcane armor is like skin and stretch out to cover your body so u can make it not cover your feet?
The whole body armor is flavor and function to allow u later on (lvl 9) infuse those part of your body to replace a magic item or u gonna tell me the arcane armor will not let u wield any?
I am not. But some are interpreting it that way. And that is basically the two sides of the issue that have been getting discussed. many of us are saying it should only apply to the chest piece section when you turn magic armor into your Arcane Armor for those very reasons. And that you should still be able to infuse the helmet, the boots, and the gauntlets.
The part that specifically contradicts the general rule is "You learn how to use your artificer infusions to specially modify your Arcane Armor.". This allows the Artificer to infuse his Arcane Armor, it does not exclude magical Arcane Armor as you would have normally been able to infuse non-magical Arcane Armor without this feature anyway. If you read it that the 2nd Level ability cannot infuse magical Arcane Armor then you would not be able to add the 2nd and 3rd infusions because the first infusion makes the armor magical.
The part that specifically contradicts the general rule is "You learn how to use your artificer infusions to specially modify your Arcane Armor.". This allows the Artificer to infuse his Arcane Armor, it does not exclude magical Arcane Armor as you would have normally been able to infuse non-magical Arcane Armor without this feature anyway. If you read it that the 2nd Level ability cannot infuse magical Arcane Armor then you would not be able to add the 2nd and 3rd infusions because the first infusion makes the armor magical.
That's not correct at all. Read the next sentence too, rather than just providing the one quote that you think supports your idea: "That armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your Infuse Items feature: armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor’s special weapon." Infusing the chest doesn't make the boots magical, because the chest and boots count as separate items. You cannot infuse the chest twice (for a number of reasons).
The part that specifically contradicts the general rule is "You learn how to use your artificer infusions to specially modify your Arcane Armor.". This allows the Artificer to infuse his Arcane Armor, it does not exclude magical Arcane Armor as you would have normally been able to infuse non-magical Arcane Armor without this feature anyway. If you read it that the 2nd Level ability cannot infuse magical Arcane Armor then you would not be able to add the 2nd and 3rd infusions because the first infusion makes the armor magical.
That's not correct at all. Read the next sentence too, rather than just providing the one quote that you think supports your idea: "That armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your Infuse Items feature: armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor’s special weapon." Infusing the chest doesn't make the boots magical, because the chest and boots count as separate items. You cannot infuse the chest twice (for a number of reasons).
To Add to what Saga is saying on why it's completely wrong. It was never The Arcane Armor ability that was making the stipulation about magical things being infused anyway. It is not contradicting the Infusions section which is what actually applies that restriction. All it's doing is altering what counts as gear you can Infuse when it comes to what is also covered by Arcane Armor and how many Infusions you have to do so. The Infusions Restriction against putting infusions on already Magical Equipment is untouched and still intact and still stopping such infusions.
Without that particular ability for the Armorer. Their Arcane armor is taking up all of those slots at once and can only have one infusion that covers all of them, And only of certain kinds based on it's primary slot. That of your Armor.
Reading the second and following sentences does not impact my "idea" that the "part" of the feature that applies contradicts the general rule in the 2nd level feature, it just clarifies how to apply the infusions. I completely understand the interpretations you present, they are valid. I just disagree.
I do have a question, in your interpretation, does the separation for purpose of infusions also remove the "magical" property of the armor for the seperate items in the Arcane armor or does that carry through.
How I interpreted it and the way that the Armorer subclass differs from other Artificers:
1) My Steel Defender can turn his mundane armor into a magic item by using an Infusion on it (Defense being normal so we'll go with that). In the case of Heavy Armor the PHB states "These suits of armor cover the entire body and are designed to stop a wide range of attacks." I would take this to mean that if I use a Defense Infusion on my Heavy Armor, then I cannot use a second Infusion to give myself Boots of Elven Kind or whatever because the boots are considered PART of the armor (which I have turned into a magic item via the Defense Infusion).
2) The first point is NOT invalidated by the addition of say an Arm Blade because "An armblade is a magic weapon that attaches to your arm, becoming inseparable from you as long as you're attuned to it. To attune to this item, you must hold it against your forearm for the entire attunement period.
As a bonus action, you can retract the armblade into your forearm or extend it from there. While it is extended, you can use the weapon as if you were holding it, and you can't use that hand for other purposes."
Thus RAW the armblade is a weapon that attaches to your arm and NOT a part of the armor itself.
3) The whole point of being an Armorer is that you get to apply the Armor Modifications 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 Items 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 other words, you now CAN apply Infusions to your armor, treating the listed parts as SEPARATE items. So now you CAN make your Guardian armor with the Defense Infusion, your Elven Boots Infusion, etc.
I'm leaning in favor of allowing everything but the chestplate to be infused with the following rules: The arcane armor comes with boots and a helm and gauntlets. BUT Normal armor doesn't seem to do this, at least it isn't mandatory. i.e. wearing Armor +3 does not prevent you from donning a Helmet of Teleportation for example. It can be assumed that regular (not arcane) armor either does have a helmet or doesn't and if it does and removing it does not have any negative impact on the armor itself. i.e. Armor +3 is +3 with or without a different helmet equipped. This is also true with Boots and Gauntlets.
What can be assumed is that armor as listed in items is really referring to the body (chest and legs) and the Arcane Armor ADDs Helmet, Boots and Gloves to the armor. In this regard, those items added are NON-Magical items.
This is also important in reverse. If the Armor when the artificer wears it is required to have a helmet boots and gloves. That means those equipment types are forever blocked from the armorer ever using them, with no benefit for it. i.e. the Armor +3 does not get a bonus for not wearing boots, gauntlets or a helmet.
If the Helm, boots and gauntlets are considered magical it would make the Armorer WORSE at armor infusing than others subclasses in Artificer because they have the ability to wear Magic armor but regular boots or helmet or gauntlets and thus infuse them. While still retaining the full magical benefits of the armor. This seems counter to what the Armorer is.
From a DM perspective it could be interesting to modify the rule a little bit, like if the player puts on a different set of gauntlets, i.e. Missile Snaring, the gauntlet weapon aspects may not longer be applicable. Alternative those gauntlets may just fit under the weapon gauntlets.
This is such a weird discussion when it should be obvious that Armorers are not intended to be somehow worse at having armour than other classes.
For adding infusions at all, the crux for me is that the Arcane Armor feature does not once mention the armour being magical, what it does say is this:
Your metallurgical pursuits have led to you making armor a conduit for your magic.
In other words you, the Artificer, are the magical component, the armour is merely somehow adapted to be compatible. While the armour extending to cover your body is a bit weird conceptually, your Arcane Armor is interestingly not magical on its own (unless it already was). So you can definitely infuse it.
Once you get Armor Modifications, you're explicitly allowed to infuse the armour as separate pieces. Again this should be unambiguous (if you infuse the boots, then the boots are magical, but the helmet is not so you can also infuse that).
For swapping for magic items, the biggest issue around that actually has nothing to do with Armorer at all, but the fact that the rules around wearing armour plus magic boots/helms etc. are terrible, it basically boils down to this one single line:
A magic item meant to be worn must be donned in the intended fashion: boots go on the feet, gloves on the hands, hats and helmets on the head, and rings on the finger.
So yeah, thanks Wizards of the Coast; how exactly does this help me if I'm wearing plate (which is a full suit of armour with a helmet, boots, gauntlets etc.) and want to put on some magic boots? It provides precisely zero help.
That means that this is up to your DM; if they wouldn't allow you to swap mundane armour boots for magical ones, then they're probably not going to allow an Armorer to do it either, but if they do allow it, then the Armorer must be able to. While the armour extending to cover your body is a weird feature conceptually, it doesn't say what form that actually takes; it could just be an undersuit like padded fabric, or chainmail or whatever, so wouldn't necessarily prevent wearing boots/gauntlets over the top.
For me the only edge case is the Guardian's Thunder Guantlets, as it specifically refers to "each of your armor's gauntlets" which seems to rule out separate magical gauntlets as they're not a part of your Arcane Armor. As a DM I would waive this, and let the player justify how the armour empowers any suitable gauntlets (e.g- magic conducting wiring along the vambraces) but RAW it seems like you probably can't use gauntlets you find. On the other hand, it doesn't matter much as I can't think of many (any) gauntlets that an Artificer can't just replicate once after you hit 9th level.
Update: Forgot the actual replications you need for the good gauntlets don't come in till 10th, thanks Homnommunch for the clarification!
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.
Unfortunately, it is until level 10 of which you can make some good gauntlets and 14 for some more. At 9, all you can make are Gloves of Thievery.
How I'd argue that standpoint is that the armor melds with whatever you have on. So, doesn't matter what you have or take off or put on, the Arcane Armor just melds with it. The point of the armor is to incase you into a single piece more or less, but not entomb you forever. The worse I would say a DM could really do, logically and fairly, is simply say, if you wish to put on "X" magical item, you must take off/deactivate the Arcane Armor, put on the "X" magical item and then, put back on/activate Arcane Armor. With the argument being, you are already melded together, you can't just rip a piece off and put a piece on and it just works. Unless you want to throw in nanobot magic into the defense.
At the end of the day, the feature clearly states the Arcane Armor has "X", nothing can take that away. So, even if you have Bracers of Defense on, the class feature doesn't go away because of it.
Unfortunately, it is until level 10 of which you can make some good gauntlets and 14 for some more. At 9, all you can make are Gloves of Thievery.
How I'd argue that standpoint is that the armor melds with whatever you have on. So, doesn't matter what you have or take off or put on, the Arcane Armor just melds with it. The point of the armor is to incase you into a single piece more or less, but not entomb you forever. The worse I would say a DM could really do, logically and fairly, is simply say, if you wish to put on "X" magical item, you must take off/deactivate the Arcane Armor, put on the "X" magical item and then, put back on/activate Arcane Armor. With the argument being, you are already melded together, you can't just rip a piece off and put a piece on and it just works. Unless you want to throw in nanobot magic into the defense.
At the end of the day, the feature clearly states the Arcane Armor has "X", nothing can take that away. So, even if you have Bracers of Defense on, the class feature doesn't go away because of it.
I think the issue is more on the idea that Players don't "equip" non magic helms, boots or gloves, yet the Arcane Armor says its has those simply by having armor. The question is Are those considered magic, for the sake of infusing, if the armor they are supposed to be a part of (base armor, not Arcane Armor) is also magic. Putting on or taking off isn't that big of an issue. Most Magic boots or gauntlets need attunement anyways so that would be a part of that process. The underlying issue is the Arcane Armor says it has things that other characters wouldn't assume to exist. The "take off and put on" situation doesn't really apply, since the whole process is done as an action. and states it ends when you remove it. So the time it takes to take off or put on armor would only apply if you're (for some crazy reason) changing armor mid fight. Even then the act of using Arcane Armor is only an action which is far less than the time it takes to don or doff armor.
I'm genuinely surprised there hasn't been an errata or official ruling on this
Same here it looks, from the peanut gallery, like the errata should be on the L2 infusion ability:
”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.” if they had worded the second sentence “ The arcane items …” none of this discussion would be occurring. The arcane items an artificer creates die with him (ok they fade away 5 days later but …) they are not permanent magic items like a wizard creates. If they had followed through in the rest and not trapped themselves by trying to vary their terms and called it arcane all the way through. Instead they interchanged the term magic item and have screwed everyone up in the process. So in my game the answers are going to be: 1) can an artificer wear magical armor? Of course anyone can. 2) Can an artificer add infusions to magical armor? NO, infusions can ONLY be added to mundane or arcane items. 3) What about splitting armors into parts and infusing them? This the result of the armorer refining his infusion ability so that he can treat the in individual pieces somewhat separately rather than as a unit. The artificer has the option of acquiring a complete set of armor (helmet, body, gauntlets & boots) and infusing them separately or of getting individual pieces and infusing them and then wearing the pieces as a full set. They could even mix and match somewhat with magical and arcane items (so they have acquired a set of magical boots of elvenkind and have learned the boots of elvenkind infusion, they can either wear the original (magical) pair or the infused (arcane) pair as a part of their equipment) . They are basically limited to 6 infusions being active that would typically be the 4 on their set of armor, a melee weapon and a ranged weapon.
If you treat them as being able to create 4-6 items each day they become the party’s magic factory at level 2 disrupting game balance horribly. They are basically only able to supply themselves and only up to a +2.
Unfortunately, it is until level 10 of which you can make some good gauntlets and 14 for some more. At 9, all you can make are Gloves of Thievery.
How I'd argue that standpoint is that the armor melds with whatever you have on. So, doesn't matter what you have or take off or put on, the Arcane Armor just melds with it. The point of the armor is to incase you into a single piece more or less, but not entomb you forever. The worse I would say a DM could really do, logically and fairly, is simply say, if you wish to put on "X" magical item, you must take off/deactivate the Arcane Armor, put on the "X" magical item and then, put back on/activate Arcane Armor. With the argument being, you are already melded together, you can't just rip a piece off and put a piece on and it just works. Unless you want to throw in nanobot magic into the defense.
At the end of the day, the feature clearly states the Arcane Armor has "X", nothing can take that away. So, even if you have Bracers of Defense on, the class feature doesn't go away because of it.
I think the issue is more on the idea that Players don't "equip" non magic helms, boots or gloves, yet the Arcane Armor says its has those simply by having armor. The question is Are those considered magic, for the sake of infusing, if the armor they are supposed to be a part of (base armor, not Arcane Armor) is also magic. Putting on or taking off isn't that big of an issue. Most Magic boots or gauntlets need attunement anyways so that would be a part of that process. The underlying issue is the Arcane Armor says it has things that other characters wouldn't assume to exist. The "take off and put on" situation doesn't really apply, since the whole process is done as an action. and states it ends when you remove it. So the time it takes to take off or put on armor would only apply if you're (for some crazy reason) changing armor mid fight. Even then the act of using Arcane Armor is only an action which is far less than the time it takes to don or doff armor.
I think is more on the line as u just mention and add to that we just providing u with boots helm and glove u don't have to acquire to infuse, I think this is the simple reason of the sentence.
Unfortunately, it is until level 10 of which you can make some good gauntlets and 14 for some more. At 9, all you can make are Gloves of Thievery.
How I'd argue that standpoint is that the armor melds with whatever you have on. So, doesn't matter what you have or take off or put on, the Arcane Armor just melds with it. The point of the armor is to incase you into a single piece more or less, but not entomb you forever. The worse I would say a DM could really do, logically and fairly, is simply say, if you wish to put on "X" magical item, you must take off/deactivate the Arcane Armor, put on the "X" magical item and then, put back on/activate Arcane Armor. With the argument being, you are already melded together, you can't just rip a piece off and put a piece on and it just works. Unless you want to throw in nanobot magic into the defense.
At the end of the day, the feature clearly states the Arcane Armor has "X", nothing can take that away. So, even if you have Bracers of Defense on, the class feature doesn't go away because of it.
I think the issue is more on the idea that Players don't "equip" non magic helms, boots or gloves, yet the Arcane Armor says its has those simply by having armor. The question is Are those considered magic, for the sake of infusing, if the armor they are supposed to be a part of (base armor, not Arcane Armor) is also magic. Putting on or taking off isn't that big of an issue. Most Magic boots or gauntlets need attunement anyways so that would be a part of that process. The underlying issue is the Arcane Armor says it has things that other characters wouldn't assume to exist. The "take off and put on" situation doesn't really apply, since the whole process is done as an action. and states it ends when you remove it. So the time it takes to take off or put on armor would only apply if you're (for some crazy reason) changing armor mid fight. Even then the act of using Arcane Armor is only an action which is far less than the time it takes to don or doff armor.
I would say no, only the main part of the armor, chest, is actually magical and it extends it properties all over your body through there. Removing the helm from the plate armor collection does not deactivate the magicalness of the +1 plate. If you took the chest off and left everything else on, I would say it does remove the +1 AC that plate provided. As armor is generally referred to the chest of the collection of pieces. If it doesn't, then how does breastplate and other armors work, when all they cover is chest and nothing more?
So even if you had +1 plate armor, you could take off the helm and put on a magical helm. You could take off the gauntlets and put on magical gauntlets, etc. Your +1 plate armor wont change.
Now, the question is, why can't you just infuse the parts before this level then, if I can take off the helm provided by the plate armor and put on a magical helm and have magical plate and helm. With infusions, it is considered one piece associated together and isn't identified differently until you reach this level. So, if you had the actual Bracers of Defense, you could do the swap before this level, BUT if you had to wait until level 14 to replicate a set of Bracers of Defense, then you need the level first.
One loop hole to this logic I suppose is, well why not just rip off the plate armor gauntlets and put on other gauntlets and then infuse those.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The way I view it, the question of whenever the parts counts as magical or not (or any other attributes for that sake) is kind of irrelevant when it comes to the armorer feature. But nevertheless I believe can safely say that all of them are not magical.
The description of the armorer 9th-level feature clearly states that you can infuse each part of the arcane armor.
The direct quote from the feature is "Each of those items can bear one of your infusions,".
There is no mention of any exceptions, so that leads to the following conclusion:
Each part of the arcane armor does not count as magical, even if the total arcane armor itself is magical.
The reason for this is because they can each bear an infusion.
If you want a more detailed reasoning, the following is what I have.
Things to note of the 9th-level feature description:
From that I get the following reasonings:
If you are still locked on what the infusion description say about only being allowed to infuse non-magical items, then the next reasoning is as follow.
Since each part can bear an infusion, then the logical conclusion is that each part does in fact not hold the same attributes as the armor used.
In other words the parts are not magical, even if the armor itself is magical.
Summary:
Conclusion:
All of this is nice. But it's based upon a faulty starting conclusion.
Your taking the absence of the armor saying nothing about the issue of magical armor being made into arcane armor to give it this forced magical but non-magical state. This does not work because the Arcane Armor ability would have to specifically state this is the case otherwise it is not the case because the Arcane Armor Feature does not in any way take away or over write the magical nature of the armor. Since it does not over-write the magical nature of the armor to create this quasi-non-magical state for the rest of your premise.
This means that at least some part of the armor cannot be infused because it does count as magical because this was not changed in specificity by Arcane Armor.
Which leads us right back to the issue of just how much is strictly represented for the Armor as being that magical armor and how much can bare infusions through the level 9 Armorer ability.
Indeed this is the big issue behind it all, as Arcane Armour itself is not magical (it has magical abilities but of itself it is not magical) if you've done it to Plate for example.
I am...more inclined (I guess would be correct to say) to go with this interpretation:
Magic Armour, and whatever features it has, apply to the Chest (Or as the description of the level 9 ability calls it) the Armour section so you cannot infuse that part of the armour (Where you would put your +1/+2 AC infusion, leaving your Gauntlets as your Special Weapon section, and the Helm and Boots as their own Non-Magical sections, capable of taking your infusions (As the Thunder Gauntlets call themselves a Simple Martial Weapon in their own description I believe).
It seems this is a RAW-RAI situation which can easily be interpreted either way (and I must say, I see the points behind both viewpoints), however I believe the intention was to allow you to at least infuse the helm, boots and gauntlets still, even if you're wearing Magic Armour. Of course I may be wrong, but I see it as this, if this ability could never work on Magic Armour, that is a whole Sub-Class Feature gone, if the character has magic armour, and I just think they wouldn't intend for you to potentially lose a whole class feature on your choice of armour, especially as that same feature gives you two more Infusion Slots that can only be used on your Armour.
The absence of any description of the armor parts is not my starting conclusion though (sorry if I made that unclear).
To clarify though, my starting conclusion (the core of my arguments) is the feature's description specifically stating that each parts can bear an infusion.
"Each of those items can bear one of your infusions"
I form my conclusions based mostly of that specific description, and my conclusions are also based on the description from the infusion feature.
"you can touch a non-magical object and imbue it with one of your artificer infusions"
What I do is simply putting these two descriptions together to conclude that each of the item parts of the arcane armor is non-magical, regardless of the armor itself.
(Each piece can bear one of your infusions) + (Infusions only on non-magical) = (Each piece are non-magical)
The absence of any description of the armor parts is more of a minor confirmation to my conclusion, or more accurately that there is nothing in the descriptions that goes against the conclusion I formed.
I probably did a poor job on getting some of the details across properly, and this next detail in particular due to how I thought it sounded natural with the use of "count as" and "for the purposes of".
To directly quote the second sentence of the armorer feature:
"That armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your Infuse Items feature: armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor’s special weapon."
In my understanding of the words "counts as", this mean the four pieces are not actually created in any way at all, but is to be only thought of instead.
And since it say that the armor counts as separate items for the purposes of infusing items, then the four pieces are only to be though of for the purposes of infusing items.
So it is the only purpose the four pieces have.
The four pieces aren't to be count as for anything else or for any other purposes. This includes them not to be counted as either magical or non-magical.
The four pieces are not to change the nature of the armor either.
This is why I started of by saying that whenever them being magical or not is kind of irrelevant; since they only count as separate items for the purpose of infusing items and doesn't actually has any other meaning in any regard. This is also why I never saw an issue that a magical armor is being turned into an arcane armor with four separate pieces for infusions.
Regardless of anything though, it would be nice with some form of errata to clarify this from the developers perspective, and to get whatever RAI are into RAW.
I can't seem to find J.C. answering this anywhere either...
Each part able to have an infusion at level 9 in no way effects the restriction on infusions themselves about not being able to be put onto magical armor to begin with. And Arcane armor does not change this restriction about infusions either. Which is the standing rule that has to be followed without a more specific rule altering it.
Which is where the rub is. By Strictest sense Magical Armor becomes almost useless to the Armorer because it blocks all 4 slots. But that doesn't seem to be the intent so most logically try to justify reducing that to just the chest piece slot if you use magical armor. which is what this discussion revolves around.
The Feature 3rd level feature of Arcane Armor alone almost breaks the rules for using Infusions just by the extra abilities that the Arcane Armor ability adds to magical Armor. But that is skirted around by the feature adding them not in any way being an infusion. Skirting them by not quite making the armor magic but clearly giving it magic like abilities that can be piled on top of magical armor and allow for Infusions to be placed on normally non-magical armor. But thankfully it gives us just enough wiggle room not to cause it's own problems. But the interaction of the general infusion rules and what are effectively extra special pieces of equipment as part of a suit of armor is our problem and it's easy to try and handwave this away and just go "Infusions for All!" but that is not what any of the powers actually tell us. If anything They are what's getting in the way of that very idea though many would like it to work that way ultimately.
Though with all that being said. The truth of the matter is that your average magical armor isn't worth the hassle. It needs to be some pretty dang good magical armor with some pretty unique special abilities. otherwise your just better suited not bothering with magical armor and just using non-magical armor and infusing all of the parts the way you want them to be without worry anyway without the conflict. Since it's easy to pick up +2 armor. It's easy to pick up some unique abilities to different pieces and all of that. Which on a general level is just as good if not better because it's much easier to accomplish.
if u can equip a magic armor, boots, gauntlets and helmets being a non armorer why would that stop you from doing so as one?
i mean before lvl 9 if you turn a non magical or magical armor into arcane armor and if by chance u get a roll for magic boots, does that mean i cant equip the boots? all other classes can so why i cannot? i just cant infuse it, arcane armor is like skin and stretch out to cover your body so u can make it not cover your feet?
The whole body armor is flavor and function to allow u later on (lvl 9) infuse those part of your body to replace a magic item or u gonna tell me the arcane armor will not let u wield any?
I am not. But some are interpreting it that way. And that is basically the two sides of the issue that have been getting discussed. many of us are saying it should only apply to the chest piece section when you turn magic armor into your Arcane Armor for those very reasons. And that you should still be able to infuse the helmet, the boots, and the gauntlets.
The part that specifically contradicts the general rule is "You learn how to use your artificer infusions to specially modify your Arcane Armor.". This allows the Artificer to infuse his Arcane Armor, it does not exclude magical Arcane Armor as you would have normally been able to infuse non-magical Arcane Armor without this feature anyway. If you read it that the 2nd Level ability cannot infuse magical Arcane Armor then you would not be able to add the 2nd and 3rd infusions because the first infusion makes the armor magical.
That's not correct at all. Read the next sentence too, rather than just providing the one quote that you think supports your idea: "That armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your Infuse Items feature: armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor’s special weapon." Infusing the chest doesn't make the boots magical, because the chest and boots count as separate items. You cannot infuse the chest twice (for a number of reasons).
To Add to what Saga is saying on why it's completely wrong. It was never The Arcane Armor ability that was making the stipulation about magical things being infused anyway. It is not contradicting the Infusions section which is what actually applies that restriction. All it's doing is altering what counts as gear you can Infuse when it comes to what is also covered by Arcane Armor and how many Infusions you have to do so. The Infusions Restriction against putting infusions on already Magical Equipment is untouched and still intact and still stopping such infusions.
Without that particular ability for the Armorer. Their Arcane armor is taking up all of those slots at once and can only have one infusion that covers all of them, And only of certain kinds based on it's primary slot. That of your Armor.
Reading the second and following sentences does not impact my "idea" that the "part" of the feature that applies contradicts the general rule in the 2nd level feature, it just clarifies how to apply the infusions. I completely understand the interpretations you present, they are valid. I just disagree.
I do have a question, in your interpretation, does the separation for purpose of infusions also remove the "magical" property of the armor for the seperate items in the Arcane armor or does that carry through.
You are making an interpretation as am I and they are not the same.
How I interpreted it and the way that the Armorer subclass differs from other Artificers:
1) My Steel Defender can turn his mundane armor into a magic item by using an Infusion on it (Defense being normal so we'll go with that). In the case of Heavy Armor the PHB states "These suits of armor cover the entire body and are designed to stop a wide range of attacks." I would take this to mean that if I use a Defense Infusion on my Heavy Armor, then I cannot use a second Infusion to give myself Boots of Elven Kind or whatever because the boots are considered PART of the armor (which I have turned into a magic item via the Defense Infusion).
2) The first point is NOT invalidated by the addition of say an Arm Blade because "An armblade is a magic weapon that attaches to your arm, becoming inseparable from you as long as you're attuned to it. To attune to this item, you must hold it against your forearm for the entire attunement period.
As a bonus action, you can retract the armblade into your forearm or extend it from there. While it is extended, you can use the weapon as if you were holding it, and you can't use that hand for other purposes."
Thus RAW the armblade is a weapon that attaches to your arm and NOT a part of the armor itself.
3) The whole point of being an Armorer is that you get to apply the Armor Modifications 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 Items 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 other words, you now CAN apply Infusions to your armor, treating the listed parts as SEPARATE items. So now you CAN make your Guardian armor with the Defense Infusion, your Elven Boots Infusion, etc.
I'm leaning in favor of allowing everything but the chestplate to be infused with the following rules:
The arcane armor comes with boots and a helm and gauntlets.
BUT
Normal armor doesn't seem to do this, at least it isn't mandatory.
i.e. wearing Armor +3 does not prevent you from donning a Helmet of Teleportation for example.
It can be assumed that regular (not arcane) armor either does have a helmet or doesn't and if it does and removing it does not have any negative impact on the armor itself. i.e. Armor +3 is +3 with or without a different helmet equipped.
This is also true with Boots and Gauntlets.
What can be assumed is that armor as listed in items is really referring to the body (chest and legs) and the Arcane Armor ADDs Helmet, Boots and Gloves to the armor.
In this regard, those items added are NON-Magical items.
This is also important in reverse. If the Armor when the artificer wears it is required to have a helmet boots and gloves. That means those equipment types are forever blocked from the armorer ever using them, with no benefit for it. i.e. the Armor +3 does not get a bonus for not wearing boots, gauntlets or a helmet.
If the Helm, boots and gauntlets are considered magical it would make the Armorer WORSE at armor infusing than others subclasses in Artificer because they have the ability to wear Magic armor but regular boots or helmet or gauntlets and thus infuse them. While still retaining the full magical benefits of the armor. This seems counter to what the Armorer is.
From a DM perspective it could be interesting to modify the rule a little bit, like if the player puts on a different set of gauntlets, i.e. Missile Snaring, the gauntlet weapon aspects may not longer be applicable. Alternative those gauntlets may just fit under the weapon gauntlets.
This is such a weird discussion when it should be obvious that Armorers are not intended to be somehow worse at having armour than other classes.
For adding infusions at all, the crux for me is that the Arcane Armor feature does not once mention the armour being magical, what it does say is this:
In other words you, the Artificer, are the magical component, the armour is merely somehow adapted to be compatible. While the armour extending to cover your body is a bit weird conceptually, your Arcane Armor is interestingly not magical on its own (unless it already was). So you can definitely infuse it.
Once you get Armor Modifications, you're explicitly allowed to infuse the armour as separate pieces. Again this should be unambiguous (if you infuse the boots, then the boots are magical, but the helmet is not so you can also infuse that).
For swapping for magic items, the biggest issue around that actually has nothing to do with Armorer at all, but the fact that the rules around wearing armour plus magic boots/helms etc. are terrible, it basically boils down to this one single line:
So yeah, thanks Wizards of the Coast; how exactly does this help me if I'm wearing plate (which is a full suit of armour with a helmet, boots, gauntlets etc.) and want to put on some magic boots? It provides precisely zero help.
That means that this is up to your DM; if they wouldn't allow you to swap mundane armour boots for magical ones, then they're probably not going to allow an Armorer to do it either, but if they do allow it, then the Armorer must be able to. While the armour extending to cover your body is a weird feature conceptually, it doesn't say what form that actually takes; it could just be an undersuit like padded fabric, or chainmail or whatever, so wouldn't necessarily prevent wearing boots/gauntlets over the top.
For me the only edge case is the Guardian's Thunder Guantlets, as it specifically refers to "each of your armor's gauntlets" which seems to rule out separate magical gauntlets as they're not a part of your Arcane Armor. As a DM I would waive this, and let the player justify how the armour empowers any suitable gauntlets (e.g- magic conducting wiring along the vambraces) but RAW it seems like you probably can't use gauntlets you find. On the other hand, it doesn't matter much as I can't think of many (any) gauntlets that an Artificer can't just replicate
onceafter you hit 9th level.Update: Forgot the actual replications you need for the good gauntlets don't come in till 10th, thanks Homnommunch for the clarification!
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.
Unfortunately, it is until level 10 of which you can make some good gauntlets and 14 for some more. At 9, all you can make are Gloves of Thievery.
How I'd argue that standpoint is that the armor melds with whatever you have on. So, doesn't matter what you have or take off or put on, the Arcane Armor just melds with it. The point of the armor is to incase you into a single piece more or less, but not entomb you forever. The worse I would say a DM could really do, logically and fairly, is simply say, if you wish to put on "X" magical item, you must take off/deactivate the Arcane Armor, put on the "X" magical item and then, put back on/activate Arcane Armor. With the argument being, you are already melded together, you can't just rip a piece off and put a piece on and it just works. Unless you want to throw in nanobot magic into the defense.
At the end of the day, the feature clearly states the Arcane Armor has "X", nothing can take that away. So, even if you have Bracers of Defense on, the class feature doesn't go away because of it.
I think the issue is more on the idea that Players don't "equip" non magic helms, boots or gloves, yet the Arcane Armor says its has those simply by having armor. The question is Are those considered magic, for the sake of infusing, if the armor they are supposed to be a part of (base armor, not Arcane Armor) is also magic.
Putting on or taking off isn't that big of an issue. Most Magic boots or gauntlets need attunement anyways so that would be a part of that process.
The underlying issue is the Arcane Armor says it has things that other characters wouldn't assume to exist.
The "take off and put on" situation doesn't really apply, since the whole process is done as an action. and states it ends when you remove it. So the time it takes to take off or put on armor would only apply if you're (for some crazy reason) changing armor mid fight. Even then the act of using Arcane Armor is only an action which is far less than the time it takes to don or doff armor.
Same here it looks, from the peanut gallery, like the errata should be on the L2 infusion ability:
”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.” if they had worded the second sentence “ The arcane items …” none of this discussion would be occurring. The arcane items an artificer creates die with him (ok they fade away 5 days later but …) they are not permanent magic items like a wizard creates. If they had followed through in the rest and not trapped themselves by trying to vary their terms and called it arcane all the way through. Instead they interchanged the term magic item and have screwed everyone up in the process. So in my game the answers are going to be:
1) can an artificer wear magical armor? Of course anyone can.
2) Can an artificer add infusions to magical armor? NO, infusions can ONLY be added to mundane or arcane items.
3) What about splitting armors into parts and infusing them? This the result of the armorer refining his infusion ability so that he can treat the in individual pieces somewhat separately rather than as a unit. The artificer has the option of acquiring a complete set of armor (helmet, body, gauntlets & boots) and infusing them separately or of getting individual pieces and infusing them and then wearing the pieces as a full set. They could even mix and match somewhat with magical and arcane items (so they have acquired a set of magical boots of elvenkind and have learned the boots of elvenkind infusion, they can either wear the original (magical) pair or the infused (arcane) pair as a part of their equipment) . They are basically limited to 6 infusions being active that would typically be the 4 on their set of armor, a melee weapon and a ranged weapon.
If you treat them as being able to create 4-6 items each day they become the party’s magic factory at level 2 disrupting game balance horribly. They are basically only able to supply themselves and only up to a +2.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I think is more on the line as u just mention and add to that we just providing u with boots helm and glove u don't have to acquire to infuse, I think this is the simple reason of the sentence.
I would say no, only the main part of the armor, chest, is actually magical and it extends it properties all over your body through there. Removing the helm from the plate armor collection does not deactivate the magicalness of the +1 plate. If you took the chest off and left everything else on, I would say it does remove the +1 AC that plate provided. As armor is generally referred to the chest of the collection of pieces. If it doesn't, then how does breastplate and other armors work, when all they cover is chest and nothing more?
So even if you had +1 plate armor, you could take off the helm and put on a magical helm. You could take off the gauntlets and put on magical gauntlets, etc. Your +1 plate armor wont change.
Now, the question is, why can't you just infuse the parts before this level then, if I can take off the helm provided by the plate armor and put on a magical helm and have magical plate and helm. With infusions, it is considered one piece associated together and isn't identified differently until you reach this level. So, if you had the actual Bracers of Defense, you could do the swap before this level, BUT if you had to wait until level 14 to replicate a set of Bracers of Defense, then you need the level first.
One loop hole to this logic I suppose is, well why not just rip off the plate armor gauntlets and put on other gauntlets and then infuse those.