I'm getting ready to start a campaign where the BBEG is going to be an ancient Beholder, one of my players is playing an Artificer (Armorer) and another is planning on multiclassing to do the same. This got me to thinking as to whether or not a antimagic field would affect a Artificer's Arcane Armor as I know that this will eventually come up in game.
Jeremy Crawford stated that a Battlesmiths Steel Defender isn't affected by antimagic fields because there is no rule that specifically states the Steel Defender is magical. With that train of thought that means a antimagic field wouldn't affect Arcane Armor because there is nothing rule wise that specifically states the armor is magical. Personally this idea doesn't sit well with me since the Arcane Armor is OBVIOUSLY magical (IT'S IN THE NAME) and to me shows a disassociation between the rules and the story, so at my table I would rule that it Arcane Armor would be affected by a AMF.
Here lies the "crux" of my issue, the second player who is going to multiclass is a power gamer and a rules lawyer. I've played with him long enough to know what type of gamer he is and have come to expect it, and to be honest I really have no issue with his play style on the whole. However if the party where in a situation that brought together Arcane Armor and a AMF I know it would become an issue, so it will be easier for me in the long run if there is a solid rules backing for my ruling (if there is one).
Now I know that if an infusion is placed into an item then the item becomes magical (as specifically stated in the Artificer Infusions section) and since Armorer Artificers can infuse their armor (and eventually infuse separate parts of their armor) then that would specifically make Infused Arcane Armor a magic item. However that leads to the question of whether or not only the Infusion would be negated or if the Armors suite of abilities would be negated as well? The same question can be posed for an Infused Spellcasting Focus, technically they are not magic items only conduits for magic (another idea that doesn't sit very well with me)
The fact that Arcane Armor is a valid target for infusions, which require a nonmagical object, indicates that by default Arcane Armor is not technically magical.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
RAW is clear: it’s not magical for the purposes of spells like Antimagic Field.
If you want to rule otherwise, you should absolutely feel empowered to do so, but make sure you let the player know that’s how you’re going to be playing it. Tell them you understand the rules as written, but that you’ve decided to house rule it.
Hm, perhaps clarify with your group that you consider Artificer's items as magical, without any rhyme or reason as to why you're pointing it out, but just so you all agree which rules those items are affected by before you get to deep in the game.
Hmmm, as much as you know my position in general about powergamers and the effect that they have on the game, technically and as pointed out by all contributors and the player, the arcane armor is not considered magical, my interpretation is that it is arcane in the sense that it is a focus for the magic of the artificer, considering the basic properties of the arcane armor.
And honestly, against the beholder, and in an antimagic field, the arcane armor will be nothing more than a normal suit of armor that the artificer might be wearing (except for the strength requirement), the other properties are mostly irrelevant.
Can I ask what it is in the arcane armor that makes you want, as a DM, to have it "not function" in the antimagic field ? Because in any case it would still be armor worn by the artificer.
Otherwise, the other contributors' answers are the right ones, homebrew it and inform the players in advance.
It's not that I don't want the armor to function in a AMF it's more that I don't think that it should if that makes sense? As a player and DM I'm more story driven than anything but I also try to make efficient use of the rules and even when I am playing I try to optimize my character builds even if the overall build isn't the most optimal to begin with. He is definitely more driven by the mechanical aspects of the game to the point that at times he has completely disregarded story in order to make his character more powerful, again I've known this about him for years and now that I'm the primary DM of our group I've come to expect it and for the most part we get along pretty well.
But as happens there are times when our ways of interacting with the game clash, to me Arcane Armor is magical even though I'm aware that RAW it isn't (at least until the player puts an infusion into the armor OR turns a suit of magic armor into their Arcane Armor), and even though I could easily say "I've decided it's magical and I'm the DM so that's the end of it" I'm trying to find a middle ground that satisfies what I think and what he thinks...if that makes sense?
RAW is clear: it’s not magical for the purposes of spells like Antimagic Field.
If you want to rule otherwise, you should absolutely feel empowered to do so, but make sure you let the player know that’s how you’re going to be playing it. Tell them you understand the rules as written, but that you’ve decided to house rule it.
See I was aware of this but it just brought up another question, per the wording an Artificer can turn a suit of armor that they are wearing into Arcane Armor (Using an action with smiths tools etc etc). That means that they could be wearing Molten Bronze Armor from Theros (as an example) and turn it into their Arcane Armor, now since Molten Bronze Armor is a magic item that means they wouldn't be able to put infusions into the armor correct? (negating the Armor Modifications feature)
RAW is clear: it’s not magical for the purposes of spells like Antimagic Field.
If you want to rule otherwise, you should absolutely feel empowered to do so, but make sure you let the player know that’s how you’re going to be playing it. Tell them you understand the rules as written, but that you’ve decided to house rule it.
See I was aware of this but it just brought up another question, per the wording an Artificer can turn a suit of armor that they are wearing into Arcane Armor (Using an action with smiths tools etc etc). That means that they could be wearing Molten Bronze Armor from Theros (as an example) and turn it into their Arcane Armor, now since Molten Bronze Armor is a magic item that means they wouldn't be able to put infusions into the armor correct? (negating the Armor Modifications feature)
The armor modifications thing sort of implies that the magic that affects the armor itself is considered the "chest" component. As a DM I would rule the other components could be infused as normal because it would be really odd to have your class abilities removed by finding magic armor.
Also it would be worth considering: " 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. " very specifically allows those components to bear infusions, and could be considered a specific overriding general rule.
I would say the features granted by arcane armor would not work but it would still be the suit of armor they turned into arcane armor and provides that protection. It “expands” to cover your entire body. If it want magical I don’t think it could do that. Or waive the STR requirement of the armor if it was mundane. So if they turned a set of plate into their arcane armor they now just have a set of plate until they are out of the field
I would rule that Artificer can turn a magical item into an arcane armor, but the chest piece can not be infused.
Infusions, Arcane Armor, Arcane Firearm, Eldritch Canon and even Steel Defender would be considered magical in my game
i would make them encounter a AMF way before they face the BBEG, ideally even before your power player multi classes
if they complain, tell them that they can play a monk and fight a flying boss instead or a barbarian who needs to heal his companions
While I don't dispute preferences, how do you treat golems in an antimagic field ? Because, in a sense, this is exactly what Artificers constructs are (not infusions, of course)...
I think I once read that creations made by magic aren't destroyed or inactive in an anti-magic field, since they are not being sustained by magic, magic created them, but after creation they're kinda just working as any normal living being is. I think even undead are still undead in an anti-magic field, even though magic created them, they're not sustained by magic, so when they go to a spot where the weave is nullified, they are still very much operational.
Perhaps it's the same with this artificer business.
I think this is a similar situation to a monk's ki.
Jeramy Crawford has said monk feature that rely on ki are not suppressed by an anti magic field but that is sage advice not RAW.
I once had a monk that faced an anti magic field, we knew it was coming in advance soI discussed it with the DM and he said that as "Ki is a magical energy" it is supressed by an anti magic field. His initial stand was that all monk are powered by ki so I would not have any of them, I said that it is OK removing some features but everything would be too much, we agreed that I would not be able to use ki in the magic field and I would not be able to use features that have ki in the description (e.g. purity of body) but I would keep other features, like unarmored movement, unarmored defence, extra attack, evasion etc.
This is a gray area and you are DM are entirely at liberty to do what you want. The arcane armor is still armor so if you rule it loses all arcane properties in a an anti-magic field
The armor may have a strength requirement reducing his movement by 10ft if the player doesn't meet it
You cant use the armor as a spell casting focus, but you can't cast spells anyway
The armor can be removed against your will but this is unlikely to come up
The armor can not replace missing limbs , only an issue of the PC has missing limbs
The armor takes the normal time to don and doff but again umlikely to come up
You lose the Guardian or infiltrator features
Unless the PC has missing limbs the only real restrictions are the loss of speed if that applies and the loss of the model features.
One option is to get the players to realise the BBEG is a beholder before they meet him that way you can discuss the impact on the artificer out of game before it happens. This would also give him the opportunity to get armor without a strength requirement and make sure he has some weapons to replace thunder gaunlets / lightning launcher.
I absolutely would not hobble a PC class or subclass ability unless it was very clear in the rules that was the intention. The game designers balance the game that way. Remember that the Armorer will have no access to their spells in the AMF, nor any infusions (whether part of the armor or not). In fact, they would be limited to the punch/launcher ability for normal attacks, unless they have an artifact weapon or another non-magical melee weapon.
Also remember that armor is effectively useless against a beholder, as all of its most effective abilities are saving throw based. Likewise, the disadvantage on attacks and other effects on attack rolls are useless for the same reason (unless your beholder is very bitey for some reason)
And, unless they know the beholder in advance, there is a 50% chance the armor would be configured for melee, which would be highly ineffective against a creature that can fly.
You are asking about hobbling a PC that is already pretty hobbled just by the natural monster abilities a beholder has.
I absolutely would not hobble a PC class or subclass ability unless it was very clear in the rules that was the intention. The game designers balance the game that way. Remember that the Armorer will have no access to their spells in the AMF, nor any infusions (whether part of the armor or not). In fact, they would be limited to the punch/launcher ability for normal attacks, unless they have an artifact weapon or another non-magical melee weapon.
Also remember that armor is effectively useless against a beholder, as all of its most effective abilities are saving throw based. Likewise, the disadvantage on attacks and other effects on attack rolls are useless for the same reason (unless your beholder is very bitey for some reason)
And, unless they know the beholder in advance, there is a 50% chance the armor would be configured for melee, which would be highly ineffective against a creature that can fly.
You are asking about hobbling a PC that is already pretty hobbled just by the natural monster abilities a beholder has.
The design of a beholder is to hobble PCs in the anti magic area. It is up to the DM to decide what is classed as "other magical effects". Yes determining that inside the anti magic field means that the arcane armor acts like mundane armor does hobble the plater but so does determining the wizard can not cast spells. An armorer equiped for melee should always be prepared to make ranged attacks in the same way that a melee fighter should. Beholders are not the only flying enemies and then there are enemies shooting at you from 2nds or 3rd story windows etc. The key to defeating a beholder is the party positioning themselves so most of them are outide the anti-magic field, this would be where wearing armor that suddenly has a strength requirement that is not met would be crippling, that is why I would strongly hint the the party that the BBEG has an anti magic ability so the artificer buys some half plate tio infuse before encountering him (it wont help much against the beholder but will against most fo the minions)
I absolutely would not hobble a PC class or subclass ability unless it was very clear in the rules that was the intention. The game designers balance the game that way. Remember that the Armorer will have no access to their spells in the AMF, nor any infusions (whether part of the armor or not). In fact, they would be limited to the punch/launcher ability for normal attacks, unless they have an artifact weapon or another non-magical melee weapon.
Also remember that armor is effectively useless against a beholder, as all of its most effective abilities are saving throw based. Likewise, the disadvantage on attacks and other effects on attack rolls are useless for the same reason (unless your beholder is very bitey for some reason)
And, unless they know the beholder in advance, there is a 50% chance the armor would be configured for melee, which would be highly ineffective against a creature that can fly.
You are asking about hobbling a PC that is already pretty hobbled just by the natural monster abilities a beholder has.
The design of a beholder is to hobble PCs in the anti magic area. It is up to the DM to decide what is classed as "other magical effects". Yes determining that inside the anti magic field means that the arcane armor acts like mundane armor does hobble the plater but so does determining the wizard can not cast spells. An armorer equiped for melee should always be prepared to make ranged attacks in the same way that a melee fighter should. Beholders are not the only flying enemies and then there are enemies shooting at you from 2nds or 3rd story windows etc. The key to defeating a beholder is the party positioning themselves so most of them are outide the anti-magic field, this would be where wearing armor that suddenly has a strength requirement that is not met would be crippling, that is why I would strongly hint the the party that the BBEG has an anti magic ability so the artificer buys some half plate tio infuse before encountering him (it wont help much against the beholder but will against most fo the minions)
The SAC give rulings as to what is "magical" and what isn't. While yes, a DM can consider otherwise changing these, it affects the balance of the game when they do and they should be aware of it. Per those rulings, the Arcane Armor is not by default "magical" since it clearly doesn't meet any of those criteria to my knowledge. My point was to say that just by fighting a beholder most of the artificers abilities are already thrown out when in AMF, so the additional ruling of making the arcane armor "magical" and therefore suppressed by an AMF is both excessive and against the designers intent.
I'm well aware of how to run and defeat a beholder; I've run several as a DM, including as a BBEG, and with artificers in the party (though not the armorer subclass), as well as faced them as a PC. My examples were other ways in which the Armorer Artificer is at a disadvantage in this encounter, even without the additional treatment of the Arcane Armor as "Magical"
I would rule that Artificer can turn a magical item into an arcane armor, but the chest piece can not be infused.
Infusions, Arcane Armor, Arcane Firearm, Eldritch Canon and even Steel Defender would be considered magical in my game
i would make them encounter a AMF way before they face the BBEG, ideally even before your power player multi classes
if they complain, tell them that they can play a monk and fight a flying boss instead or a barbarian who needs to heal his companions
I belive that's the route that I will go
to point 2 I believe Infusions are already stated to be magic items and honestly I tend to agree that they should be considered magical in nature though this may stem from my experience in Warhammer Fantasy where the death of a Necromancer results in the death of the creatures they've animated
I will more than likely have them encounter a AMF before they face the BBEG however I require my players to be at least level 3 before they multiclass and this player specifically is starting out as a Twilight Cleric and then will be multiclassing into artificer so won't be an armorer until level 6 at the earliest
I try not to tell my players no (at least not outright) unless what they're wanting is either absolutly impossible or unreasonable, if they want to try something I know will not work I let them try it anyway or allow them to work towards it and if they want to play a specific type of character I'll do my best to accomidate them but they are aware that there will be tweaks and limits
I think this is a similar situation to a monk's ki.
Jeramy Crawford has said monk feature that rely on ki are not suppressed by an anti magic field but that is sage advice not RAW.
I once had a monk that faced an anti magic field, we knew it was coming in advance soI discussed it with the DM and he said that as "Ki is a magical energy" it is supressed by an anti magic field. His initial stand was that all monk are powered by ki so I would not have any of them, I said that it is OK removing some features but everything would be too much, we agreed that I would not be able to use ki in the magic field and I would not be able to use features that have ki in the description (e.g. purity of body) but I would keep other features, like unarmored movement, unarmored defence, extra attack, evasion etc.
This is a gray area and you are DM are entirely at liberty to do what you want. The arcane armor is still armor so if you rule it loses all arcane properties in a an anti-magic field
The armor may have a strength requirement reducing his movement by 10ft if the player doesn't meet it
You cant use the armor as a spell casting focus, but you can't cast spells anyway
The armor can be removed against your will but this is unlikely to come up
The armor can not replace missing limbs , only an issue of the PC has missing limbs
The armor takes the normal time to don and doff but again umlikely to come up
You lose the Guardian or infiltrator features
Unless the PC has missing limbs the only real restrictions are the loss of speed if that applies and the loss of the model features.
One option is to get the players to realise the BBEG is a beholder before they meet him that way you can discuss the impact on the artificer out of game before it happens. This would also give him the opportunity to get armor without a strength requirement and make sure he has some weapons to replace thunder gaunlets / lightning launcher.
Missing limbs is absolutly a possibility as I use the optional wounds rules from the DMG in my campaigns so he may very well be missing a limb by that point. Unfortunatly with my overall plan for the campaign they won't be able to know for sure that they'll be fighting a Beholder at the conclusion. The overall gist is I have broken up The Crown of Belashyrra into 10 gemstones, each individually can be attuned to as a magic item giving the user the ability of the specific eye. However if all of the eyes are brought together into a crown of bone the spirit of the eyes original owner (An ancient dead Beholder) is summoned into the wearer and their body will mutate and twist into a Beholder like being (see image below) who has the power to free The Old Gods (my campaign is 1920s+Eberron+Ravnica+Lovecraft). There are multiple factions after these eyes in order to use their power for various reasons, I may have the players eventually learn that the Eyes were once actual Beholder eyes that have been enchanted into gemstones and they'll know that collecting all of the eyes will give the user great power BUT I'd like for the cost of that power to be a surprise.
I absolutely would not hobble a PC class or subclass ability unless it was very clear in the rules that was the intention. The game designers balance the game that way. Remember that the Armorer will have no access to their spells in the AMF, nor any infusions (whether part of the armor or not). In fact, they would be limited to the punch/launcher ability for normal attacks, unless they have an artifact weapon or another non-magical melee weapon.
Also remember that armor is effectively useless against a beholder, as all of its most effective abilities are saving throw based. Likewise, the disadvantage on attacks and other effects on attack rolls are useless for the same reason (unless your beholder is very bitey for some reason)
And, unless they know the beholder in advance, there is a 50% chance the armor would be configured for melee, which would be highly ineffective against a creature that can fly.
You are asking about hobbling a PC that is already pretty hobbled just by the natural monster abilities a beholder has.
I'm not going to lie, I didn't even think of that. While I still think that the armor should be affected by an AMF I don't want to enforce it to the point that the player is literally useless especially given that this will probably be the climax battle of the campaign. Plus this player is going to be multiclassing cleric and artificer and they're stats are focused around that build (boosted WIS and INT followed by CON with STR, DEX and CHA dumped) so once their magic is gone they'll be pretty hindered even if they had the stats to fight in melee or ranged. Thank you for bringing that up I hadn't even thought of it
Another thing to remember about beholders is that if you're in its AMF, it can't use its eye rays against you.
Very True. Beholders are smart, so they would use their AMF tactically. When I DM a beholder, I usually give a scenario where the beholder can 'behold' (observe) the party in action, so it can determine what kind of threat each PC is. Then the AMF goes on the most potent spellcasters/magic item users, while the eye rays focus on melee PCs (either to incapacitate or kill, whatever comes up on the d10). I usually only have them bite as a coup-de-grace, usually on a downed character (to eat them...snacks are good!)
"The BBEG has a powerful ability that nullifies all magic, not just magical effects. It dissipates the very weave itself. But there is an artifact that stops this! (Contact lens made of lead? Lead powder that can mechanically be blown into its eye? A lead pickax? ) Go get it and your boss fight will be easier." And then getting the item will involve a fight that's equivalent in difficulty to a boss fight, but maybe it doesn't implement an AMF. If they succeed and get the item, then the AMF isn't an issue with the BBEG either. They still get a boss fight, it's just not the last fight. That might feel a little sour at a more story-driven table though.
If the DM actually allows Artificers in a non-Eberron setting, that is on them. But if this particular DM has a question with Arcane Armour losing its magical abilities inside an AMF, the DM simply wave his god-like hand and says "yup, that armour does not work beyond its mundane properties".
And if this power-gamer complains, say "How do you know how the abilities work for ANY monster I have created or modified?" DM's are allowed to modify stat blocks in any way they see fit for encounters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm getting ready to start a campaign where the BBEG is going to be an ancient Beholder, one of my players is playing an Artificer (Armorer) and another is planning on multiclassing to do the same. This got me to thinking as to whether or not a antimagic field would affect a Artificer's Arcane Armor as I know that this will eventually come up in game.
Jeremy Crawford stated that a Battlesmiths Steel Defender isn't affected by antimagic fields because there is no rule that specifically states the Steel Defender is magical. With that train of thought that means a antimagic field wouldn't affect Arcane Armor because there is nothing rule wise that specifically states the armor is magical. Personally this idea doesn't sit well with me since the Arcane Armor is OBVIOUSLY magical (IT'S IN THE NAME) and to me shows a disassociation between the rules and the story, so at my table I would rule that it Arcane Armor would be affected by a AMF.
Here lies the "crux" of my issue, the second player who is going to multiclass is a power gamer and a rules lawyer. I've played with him long enough to know what type of gamer he is and have come to expect it, and to be honest I really have no issue with his play style on the whole. However if the party where in a situation that brought together Arcane Armor and a AMF I know it would become an issue, so it will be easier for me in the long run if there is a solid rules backing for my ruling (if there is one).
Now I know that if an infusion is placed into an item then the item becomes magical (as specifically stated in the Artificer Infusions section) and since Armorer Artificers can infuse their armor (and eventually infuse separate parts of their armor) then that would specifically make Infused Arcane Armor a magic item. However that leads to the question of whether or not only the Infusion would be negated or if the Armors suite of abilities would be negated as well? The same question can be posed for an Infused Spellcasting Focus, technically they are not magic items only conduits for magic (another idea that doesn't sit very well with me)
How would you rule this at your table?
GM always supersedes RAW, and RAW even specifically says so and subservients itself to the GM. If you feel like Arcane Armor should be affected by antimagic field, then just say that Arcane Armor is magical because it has magic in its name. From the Basic Rules: "Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world."
While nothing explicitly says Arcane Armor is magical, the very first paragraph describing armorers from TCOE says that their armor has magical capabilities.
"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."
It does not specify which capability is magical though, so it is arguable that magical capabilities only refer to infusions.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
The fact that Arcane Armor is a valid target for infusions, which require a nonmagical object, indicates that by default Arcane Armor is not technically magical.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
RAW is clear: it’s not magical for the purposes of spells like Antimagic Field.
If you want to rule otherwise, you should absolutely feel empowered to do so, but make sure you let the player know that’s how you’re going to be playing it. Tell them you understand the rules as written, but that you’ve decided to house rule it.
Hm, perhaps clarify with your group that you consider Artificer's items as magical, without any rhyme or reason as to why you're pointing it out, but just so you all agree which rules those items are affected by before you get to deep in the game.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
It's not that I don't want the armor to function in a AMF it's more that I don't think that it should if that makes sense? As a player and DM I'm more story driven than anything but I also try to make efficient use of the rules and even when I am playing I try to optimize my character builds even if the overall build isn't the most optimal to begin with. He is definitely more driven by the mechanical aspects of the game to the point that at times he has completely disregarded story in order to make his character more powerful, again I've known this about him for years and now that I'm the primary DM of our group I've come to expect it and for the most part we get along pretty well.
But as happens there are times when our ways of interacting with the game clash, to me Arcane Armor is magical even though I'm aware that RAW it isn't (at least until the player puts an infusion into the armor OR turns a suit of magic armor into their Arcane Armor), and even though I could easily say "I've decided it's magical and I'm the DM so that's the end of it" I'm trying to find a middle ground that satisfies what I think and what he thinks...if that makes sense?
See I was aware of this but it just brought up another question, per the wording an Artificer can turn a suit of armor that they are wearing into Arcane Armor (Using an action with smiths tools etc etc). That means that they could be wearing Molten Bronze Armor from Theros (as an example) and turn it into their Arcane Armor, now since Molten Bronze Armor is a magic item that means they wouldn't be able to put infusions into the armor correct? (negating the Armor Modifications feature)
The armor modifications thing sort of implies that the magic that affects the armor itself is considered the "chest" component. As a DM I would rule the other components could be infused as normal because it would be really odd to have your class abilities removed by finding magic armor.
Also it would be worth considering: " 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. " very specifically allows those components to bear infusions, and could be considered a specific overriding general rule.
I would say the features granted by arcane armor would not work but it would still be the suit of armor they turned into arcane armor and provides that protection. It “expands” to cover your entire body. If it want magical I don’t think it could do that. Or waive the STR requirement of the armor if it was mundane. So if they turned a set of plate into their arcane armor they now just have a set of plate until they are out of the field
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Attack: [roll]3d20dl2+6[/roll] Damage: [roll](if([roll:-1:critical], =0, 1d8, 2{1d8}.expand()))+4[/roll] Sneakattack: [roll](if([roll:-2:critical], =0, 2d6, 2{2d6}.expand()))[/roll]I think I once read that creations made by magic aren't destroyed or inactive in an anti-magic field, since they are not being sustained by magic, magic created them, but after creation they're kinda just working as any normal living being is. I think even undead are still undead in an anti-magic field, even though magic created them, they're not sustained by magic, so when they go to a spot where the weave is nullified, they are still very much operational.
Perhaps it's the same with this artificer business.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
I think this is a similar situation to a monk's ki.
Jeramy Crawford has said monk feature that rely on ki are not suppressed by an anti magic field but that is sage advice not RAW.
I once had a monk that faced an anti magic field, we knew it was coming in advance soI discussed it with the DM and he said that as "Ki is a magical energy" it is supressed by an anti magic field. His initial stand was that all monk are powered by ki so I would not have any of them, I said that it is OK removing some features but everything would be too much, we agreed that I would not be able to use ki in the magic field and I would not be able to use features that have ki in the description (e.g. purity of body) but I would keep other features, like unarmored movement, unarmored defence, extra attack, evasion etc.
This is a gray area and you are DM are entirely at liberty to do what you want. The arcane armor is still armor so if you rule it loses all arcane properties in a an anti-magic field
Unless the PC has missing limbs the only real restrictions are the loss of speed if that applies and the loss of the model features.
One option is to get the players to realise the BBEG is a beholder before they meet him that way you can discuss the impact on the artificer out of game before it happens. This would also give him the opportunity to get armor without a strength requirement and make sure he has some weapons to replace thunder gaunlets / lightning launcher.
I absolutely would not hobble a PC class or subclass ability unless it was very clear in the rules that was the intention. The game designers balance the game that way. Remember that the Armorer will have no access to their spells in the AMF, nor any infusions (whether part of the armor or not). In fact, they would be limited to the punch/launcher ability for normal attacks, unless they have an artifact weapon or another non-magical melee weapon.
Also remember that armor is effectively useless against a beholder, as all of its most effective abilities are saving throw based. Likewise, the disadvantage on attacks and other effects on attack rolls are useless for the same reason (unless your beholder is very bitey for some reason)
And, unless they know the beholder in advance, there is a 50% chance the armor would be configured for melee, which would be highly ineffective against a creature that can fly.
You are asking about hobbling a PC that is already pretty hobbled just by the natural monster abilities a beholder has.
The design of a beholder is to hobble PCs in the anti magic area. It is up to the DM to decide what is classed as "other magical effects". Yes determining that inside the anti magic field means that the arcane armor acts like mundane armor does hobble the plater but so does determining the wizard can not cast spells. An armorer equiped for melee should always be prepared to make ranged attacks in the same way that a melee fighter should. Beholders are not the only flying enemies and then there are enemies shooting at you from 2nds or 3rd story windows etc. The key to defeating a beholder is the party positioning themselves so most of them are outide the anti-magic field, this would be where wearing armor that suddenly has a strength requirement that is not met would be crippling, that is why I would strongly hint the the party that the BBEG has an anti magic ability so the artificer buys some half plate tio infuse before encountering him (it wont help much against the beholder but will against most fo the minions)
The SAC give rulings as to what is "magical" and what isn't. While yes, a DM can consider otherwise changing these, it affects the balance of the game when they do and they should be aware of it. Per those rulings, the Arcane Armor is not by default "magical" since it clearly doesn't meet any of those criteria to my knowledge. My point was to say that just by fighting a beholder most of the artificers abilities are already thrown out when in AMF, so the additional ruling of making the arcane armor "magical" and therefore suppressed by an AMF is both excessive and against the designers intent.
I'm well aware of how to run and defeat a beholder; I've run several as a DM, including as a BBEG, and with artificers in the party (though not the armorer subclass), as well as faced them as a PC. My examples were other ways in which the Armorer Artificer is at a disadvantage in this encounter, even without the additional treatment of the Arcane Armor as "Magical"
I belive that's the route that I will go
to point 2 I believe Infusions are already stated to be magic items and honestly I tend to agree that they should be considered magical in nature though this may stem from my experience in Warhammer Fantasy where the death of a Necromancer results in the death of the creatures they've animated
I will more than likely have them encounter a AMF before they face the BBEG however I require my players to be at least level 3 before they multiclass and this player specifically is starting out as a Twilight Cleric and then will be multiclassing into artificer so won't be an armorer until level 6 at the earliest
I try not to tell my players no (at least not outright) unless what they're wanting is either absolutly impossible or unreasonable, if they want to try something I know will not work I let them try it anyway or allow them to work towards it and if they want to play a specific type of character I'll do my best to accomidate them but they are aware that there will be tweaks and limits
Missing limbs is absolutly a possibility as I use the optional wounds rules from the DMG in my campaigns so he may very well be missing a limb by that point. Unfortunatly with my overall plan for the campaign they won't be able to know for sure that they'll be fighting a Beholder at the conclusion. The overall gist is I have broken up The Crown of Belashyrra into 10 gemstones, each individually can be attuned to as a magic item giving the user the ability of the specific eye. However if all of the eyes are brought together into a crown of bone the spirit of the eyes original owner (An ancient dead Beholder) is summoned into the wearer and their body will mutate and twist into a Beholder like being (see image below) who has the power to free The Old Gods (my campaign is 1920s+Eberron+Ravnica+Lovecraft). There are multiple factions after these eyes in order to use their power for various reasons, I may have the players eventually learn that the Eyes were once actual Beholder eyes that have been enchanted into gemstones and they'll know that collecting all of the eyes will give the user great power BUT I'd like for the cost of that power to be a surprise.
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/5e/ca/d3/5ecad310aaaeb1ce9ec0738c15d0e033.jpg
I'm not going to lie, I didn't even think of that. While I still think that the armor should be affected by an AMF I don't want to enforce it to the point that the player is literally useless especially given that this will probably be the climax battle of the campaign. Plus this player is going to be multiclassing cleric and artificer and they're stats are focused around that build (boosted WIS and INT followed by CON with STR, DEX and CHA dumped) so once their magic is gone they'll be pretty hindered even if they had the stats to fight in melee or ranged. Thank you for bringing that up I hadn't even thought of it
Another thing to remember about beholders is that if you're in its AMF, it can't use its eye rays against you.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Very True. Beholders are smart, so they would use their AMF tactically. When I DM a beholder, I usually give a scenario where the beholder can 'behold' (observe) the party in action, so it can determine what kind of threat each PC is. Then the AMF goes on the most potent spellcasters/magic item users, while the eye rays focus on melee PCs (either to incapacitate or kill, whatever comes up on the d10). I usually only have them bite as a coup-de-grace, usually on a downed character (to eat them...snacks are good!)
Sometimes it's better to go around than through.
"The BBEG has a powerful ability that nullifies all magic, not just magical effects. It dissipates the very weave itself. But there is an artifact that stops this! (Contact lens made of lead? Lead powder that can mechanically be blown into its eye? A lead pickax? ) Go get it and your boss fight will be easier." And then getting the item will involve a fight that's equivalent in difficulty to a boss fight, but maybe it doesn't implement an AMF. If they succeed and get the item, then the AMF isn't an issue with the BBEG either. They still get a boss fight, it's just not the last fight. That might feel a little sour at a more story-driven table though.
Options. You'll be fine.
If the DM actually allows Artificers in a non-Eberron setting, that is on them. But if this particular DM has a question with Arcane Armour losing its magical abilities inside an AMF, the DM simply wave his god-like hand and says "yup, that armour does not work beyond its mundane properties".
And if this power-gamer complains, say "How do you know how the abilities work for ANY monster I have created or modified?" DM's are allowed to modify stat blocks in any way they see fit for encounters.