I recently have gotten into a bit of a debate with my DM about what exactly constitutes Smith's Tools and the way that Artificers need to use artisan's tools for particular things.
I will lay out the scenario below, if you're not interested in the short background skip to the bolded section for the debate:
The party wakes up after being captured, with all of their items taken from them, and are in jail with nothing but the armor on their backs. That means that my Artificer is now stripped of the set of Smith's Tools that he carries in his backpack, however, he still had his infused armor that he could use to cast spells. So that was fine to me. We break out of jail, yadda yadda, going through this dungeon trying to escape while also trying to find out things.
We enter a room that was essentially a heater boiler room, and the map, there is a table with a hammer and some "tools" on it, along with a metal contraption in the middle (the boiler). I specifically asked if there were metal working tools on the table, trying to confirm that what is on the map art, is essentially what is in the room. The DM confirms.
Now half-way through our escape, we leveled up to level 3, where my Artificer became an artillerist, and now has the ability to create their cannon using an action
As soon as I confirmed that there were metal working tools on the table, I went straight for it and declared I was using these Smith's Tools to create an eldritch cannon. From what I understand, a set of Smith's Tools basically is just hammers and tongs, and a whetstone. then you also have materials to start a fire with like charcoal for a furnace if you need one. So I assumed that these "metal working tools, including a hammer" would be plenty o fulfill a set of Smith's Tools, since nothing about the description of the tools would make me think they have any particular properties that make them different, just cause they aren't bundled nicely in a set.
This is now where the debate began:
I assumed that these "metal working tools, including a hammer" would be plenty o fulfill a set of Smith's Tools, since nothing about the description of the tools would make me think they have any particular properties that make them different, just cause they aren't bundled nicely in a set. Not only would they not let me use these metal working tools on the table for the Eldritch cannon, they also said they would require that I take materials from the room to create the eldritch cannon if I were going to try, even though the ability states that it's created magically, and doesn't specify any kinds of materials needed. I pushed back hard on both things, was I wrong?
I asked to play out what would have happen if I just kept trying with the tools on the table, while ripping metal components from the boiler, while also using the cantrip mending to repair parts of the boiler that I was taking metal components from. The DM essentially walked me through an entire TPK where my mending didn't help at all with the boiler, the amount of materials needed was apparently going to do enough damage to the boiler to cause an explosion effectively killing anyone in the room.
How do other's interpret the scenario? Was I in the wrong? Am I not really understanding what Smith's Tools are? How would finding a pair of hammers and tongs, be different from having a set of hammers and tongs in my Smith's Tools, in the case of creating my Eldritch Cannon?
In either case, your DM is entitled to insist that you have a full set to make your Eldritch Cannon, because you "use" the tools to create the cannon, with no additional explanatory text. I did not follow from your story what you did and did not have available in the room, but:
Your DM was entitled to insist you have all of a hammer, tongs, charcoal, a rag, and a whetstone for you to make your Cannon using smith's tools by arguing that you need all 5 to qualify as possessing smith's tools.
Making your cannon never consumes the tool, so you would not consume any of the above (including the charcoal).
You could equally have made your cannon using a knife, a gouge, and a small saw; this would not have consumed any of those three items.
Wow okay, so it really does require every single part of the tool set to perform whatever magic it is that Artificer's use to create the cannon?
What I'm then understanding is that, if I consume the charcoal in my Smith's Tools at any given point, I'm essentially no longer in possession of smith's tools at all, for anything that requires Smith's Tools?
hm, I hate that, and think it's incredibly dumb. But rules are rules I guess. I might change my character class over this haha
Just buy smith's tools and never worry about what's in it. Think of it as an atomic, non-consumable item. If you need charcoal with the expectation that you won't have the charcoal anymore after you use it, just buy charcoal separately.
The rules don't think of tools as collections of items, they think of them as single items. If your DM is saying "since I let you use the charcoal on its own and you don't have it anymore, I'm ruling that you no longer have a set of smith's tools," the situation's not really playing out the way the rules expect it to. That's not to say your DM is incorrect, the rules aren't that granular (again, it's outside the game's expectations), but I would say they're being unnecessarily stringent.
Ah, it might have just been my DM is particularly stringent, they are a bit of a rules-stickler (Literally requires us to act out our somatic and verbal components to cast a spell lol), so that may be the case.
I typically do have a set of Smith's Tools on me, but we were in a scenario where we were stripped of all our equipment except our armor. I was trying to improvise in the situation to be able to use some Artificer abilities, but if it's best to think of Smith's Tools as a singular item, I guess it's hard to find an improvised version and it was still fair of the DM.
I still hate it, and think it's dumb that an artificer can't just use their magic through any tool that you would find in a set of artisans tools but again, rules are rules. Thanks for the input!
As a DM I would likely have had you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check with a reasonable DC (maybe 15ish) to determine if you could scrounge up sufficient supplies to cobble together a set of Smith’s Tools for yourself. But that’s me. Your DM is well within their rights to say that there were insufficient materials for your cannon’s construction, maybe there was an insufficient array of hammers to do all the various things you need. However, I agree with SagaTympana that they seem like they were being unnecessarily stringent.
Hmmm.......As soon as I confirmed that there were metal working tools on the table, I went straight for it and declared I was using these Smith's Tools to create an eldritch cannon. ......
Let repeat....As soon as I confirmed that there were metal working tools on the table, I went straight for it and declared I was using these Smith's Tools to create an eldritch cannon. ....
Let me bold the problem........ As soon as I confirmed that there were metal working tools on the table, I went straight for it and declared I was using these Smith's Tools to create an eldritch cannon. .....
You didn't ask. YOU DECLARED. You threw your DM a curve ball and maybe when they balked you threw an uppercut. IS your DM new? Or are artificers new to the table?
Also ...DM is particularly stringent, they are a bit of a rules-stickler (Literally requires us to act out our somatic and verbal components to cast a spell lol), .....OH BOY ok I am all for immersion but that is a bunch of VS. ....... Sounds like y'all need a session 0 again.
So as others have stated, this statement is the issue. There is no debate. You made an assumption, which is always risky. When the DM ruled your assumption was wrong you challenged them. This is a common, benign mistake for new players. For players that are not new, its a malign problem.
For both sets of players it is good to refer to the rules/guidance early in the players handbook on the bare basics of D&D on How to Play. Note the basic flow of 1) The DM describes the environment, 2) The players describe what they wantto do (emphasis on the 'want'), and 3) The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions. Note at no time does the players description of the desired action actually ever dictate what happens. It might be what happens, but the ultimate arbiter is the DM. For a new player, once they understand this they move forward and the problem is solved. For a player that is not new, this is probably a problem with how they want to play the game, not with the rules. For the latter type of player, a private chat with the DM on how the individual and group plan to run the game is a good idea to promote maximum fun for all (Yes the DM is fully entitled to fun too).
These rules are often overlooked for sheer mechanical rules for tools, spells, and class abilities. The rule that the DM is always right is often lost in these forums, where players try to 'prove' their DM is wrong.
Prior to length debate on rules on how any player is 'right' and any DM is 'wrong', one would be advised to also look at the official notes on Sage Advice from WotC, specifically on Official Rulings. Note the last sentence: A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
A good DM would be advised to rule wisely and for maximum fun (which is personal preference which may clash). A good DM will also take to heart the basic guidance in the Introduction of the DMG.
Note it is considered bad form to challenge and debate a DM during the game. Ask the rules question, that's fine. If there is debate, take it up after the game. Be rational, be reasonable. Try also to see the DM's side of things, not just justify the ruling you want.
Now, the main thrust. You wanted to immediately use a new class ability. Fair! Heck its fun. You also expected to use that convenient set of tools you 'hoped' were equivalent to smith's tools. Also fair. However your DM didn't agree. Also fair. Things... were debated. Feelings were hurt (probably on both sides). It happens. Now, how you move forward with your game is really what matters most here.
You still want to use your class ability. Absolutely. So before a game session talk to your DM. Ideally before the day of the game. Relate to them you really want to use your class's core ability for the Artillerist. Politely note to them that the rules as written, and apparently intended, do require a basic set of Smith's Tools. Ask how you can get them. Ideally its a quick trip to town and they should be readily available for some gold. If its going to be an extended trip away from civilization, note to your DM you are hoping for some story element to let you obtain the tools, so that you can use your class, otherwise its hindered, which is really no fun (in this brand new circumstance).
Also, politely note that the rules don't seem to indicate there are really and consumable effects for the turret. Its just technically window dressing for the class effect. Ask if they plan on ruling the class works different. If so, its fair for you to swap specialties. If they are imposing large class restrictions or modification not in the RAW, explain you weren't made aware and that it might not be as fun to play with all those changes. Try to work amical arrangement.
If you can politely come to an agreement, great. Just never go to forums to get 'proof' you were right, and then try to 'win' an augment, as you cannot. The rules are clearly there the DM is correct. There are better ways to work to resolve the issue, and ways that will yield far more fun that trying to win an unwinnable fight. I hope that helps.
(And if you take the advice we would love to know how the discussion went!)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
I asked to play out what would have happen if I just kept trying with the tools on the table, while ripping metal components from the boiler, while also using the cantrip mending to repair parts of the boiler that I was taking metal components from. The DM essentially walked me through an entire TPK where my mending didn't help at all with the boiler, the amount of materials needed was apparently going to do enough damage to the boiler to cause an explosion effectively killing anyone in the room.
How do other's interpret the scenario? Was I in the wrong? Am I not really understanding what Smith's Tools are? How would finding a pair of hammers and tongs, be different from having a set of hammers and tongs in my Smith's Tools, in the case of creating my Eldritch Cannon?
Smith’s tools include hammers, tongs, charcoal, rags, and a whetstone. Wether ""a hammer and some tools, along with a metal contraption"" constituted smith's tool or not wa entirely up to your DM. Personally if i were to drop hammer & tools in a mechanical room and a character had a cornerstone feature letting him magically create a small eldritch cannon as an action using smith's tools for which i didn't want to have it made yet, i would have not TPK the party for trying, i would have told him the tools are not appropriate or sufficient to make one.
I would more likely have taken the opportunity after the party was captured, stripped from their gear and manage to escape, to use these tools i dropped to allow one of the character to create an eldritch cannon and have a weapon. Such cannon can ordinarily be created seamlessly, this time it would have been more extraordinary and memorable - the cornerstone feature would have had it's shining moment, especially being a new feature.
This is an interesting scenario because neither of you were "wrong" necessarily. But ultimately it is the DM's decision whether or not the supplies present were sufficient to function as Smith's Tools. Personally, if I'm putting my players in a scenario where they're stripped of equipment, and especially if I have a player who has most of their class features tied to their equipment, I would deliberately "seed" some supplies somewhere in the encounter... or at the very least if a player were to find a creative way to use their environment I would want to reward that. But ultimately it's the DM's decision, and although I disagree with their decision, I can't say that they did anything wrong.
I recently have gotten into a bit of a debate with my DM about what exactly constitutes Smith's Tools and the way that Artificers need to use artisan's tools for particular things.
I will lay out the scenario below, if you're not interested in the short background skip to the bolded section for the debate:
The party wakes up after being captured, with all of their items taken from them, and are in jail with nothing but the armor on their backs. That means that my Artificer is now stripped of the set of Smith's Tools that he carries in his backpack, however, he still had his infused armor that he could use to cast spells. So that was fine to me. We break out of jail, yadda yadda, going through this dungeon trying to escape while also trying to find out things.
We enter a room that was essentially a heater boiler room, and the map, there is a table with a hammer and some "tools" on it, along with a metal contraption in the middle (the boiler). I specifically asked if there were metal working tools on the table, trying to confirm that what is on the map art, is essentially what is in the room. The DM confirms.
Now half-way through our escape, we leveled up to level 3, where my Artificer became an artillerist, and now has the ability to create their cannon using an action
As soon as I confirmed that there were metal working tools on the table, I went straight for it and declared I was using these Smith's Tools to create an eldritch cannon. From what I understand, a set of Smith's Tools basically is just hammers and tongs, and a whetstone. then you also have materials to start a fire with like charcoal for a furnace if you need one. So I assumed that these "metal working tools, including a hammer" would be plenty o fulfill a set of Smith's Tools, since nothing about the description of the tools would make me think they have any particular properties that make them different, just cause they aren't bundled nicely in a set.
This is now where the debate began:
I assumed that these "metal working tools, including a hammer" would be plenty o fulfill a set of Smith's Tools, since nothing about the description of the tools would make me think they have any particular properties that make them different, just cause they aren't bundled nicely in a set. Not only would they not let me use these metal working tools on the table for the Eldritch cannon, they also said they would require that I take materials from the room to create the eldritch cannon if I were going to try, even though the ability states that it's created magically, and doesn't specify any kinds of materials needed. I pushed back hard on both things, was I wrong?
I asked to play out what would have happen if I just kept trying with the tools on the table, while ripping metal components from the boiler, while also using the cantrip mending to repair parts of the boiler that I was taking metal components from. The DM essentially walked me through an entire TPK where my mending didn't help at all with the boiler, the amount of materials needed was apparently going to do enough damage to the boiler to cause an explosion effectively killing anyone in the room.
How do other's interpret the scenario? Was I in the wrong? Am I not really understanding what Smith's Tools are? How would finding a pair of hammers and tongs, be different from having a set of hammers and tongs in my Smith's Tools, in the case of creating my Eldritch Cannon?
Wow okay, so it really does require every single part of the tool set to perform whatever magic it is that Artificer's use to create the cannon?
What I'm then understanding is that, if I consume the charcoal in my Smith's Tools at any given point, I'm essentially no longer in possession of smith's tools at all, for anything that requires Smith's Tools?
hm, I hate that, and think it's incredibly dumb. But rules are rules I guess. I might change my character class over this haha
But thank you for clarifying, it was very helpful
Just buy smith's tools and never worry about what's in it. Think of it as an atomic, non-consumable item. If you need charcoal with the expectation that you won't have the charcoal anymore after you use it, just buy charcoal separately.
The rules don't think of tools as collections of items, they think of them as single items. If your DM is saying "since I let you use the charcoal on its own and you don't have it anymore, I'm ruling that you no longer have a set of smith's tools," the situation's not really playing out the way the rules expect it to. That's not to say your DM is incorrect, the rules aren't that granular (again, it's outside the game's expectations), but I would say they're being unnecessarily stringent.
As SagaTympana correctly stated, the RAW is silent on this question. Because it is silent, your DM can answer "yes" or "no" without violating the RAW.
Ah, it might have just been my DM is particularly stringent, they are a bit of a rules-stickler (Literally requires us to act out our somatic and verbal components to cast a spell lol), so that may be the case.
I typically do have a set of Smith's Tools on me, but we were in a scenario where we were stripped of all our equipment except our armor. I was trying to improvise in the situation to be able to use some Artificer abilities, but if it's best to think of Smith's Tools as a singular item, I guess it's hard to find an improvised version and it was still fair of the DM.
I still hate it, and think it's dumb that an artificer can't just use their magic through any tool that you would find in a set of artisans tools but again, rules are rules. Thanks for the input!
As a DM I would likely have had you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check with a reasonable DC (maybe 15ish) to determine if you could scrounge up sufficient supplies to cobble together a set of Smith’s Tools for yourself. But that’s me. Your DM is well within their rights to say that there were insufficient materials for your cannon’s construction, maybe there was an insufficient array of hammers to do all the various things you need. However, I agree with SagaTympana that they seem like they were being unnecessarily stringent.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Hmmm.......As soon as I confirmed that there were metal working tools on the table, I went straight for it and declared I was using these Smith's Tools to create an eldritch cannon. ......
Let repeat....As soon as I confirmed that there were metal working tools on the table, I went straight for it and declared I was using these Smith's Tools to create an eldritch cannon. ....
Let me bold the problem........ As soon as I confirmed that there were metal working tools on the table, I went straight for it and declared I was using these Smith's Tools to create an eldritch cannon. .....
You didn't ask. YOU DECLARED. You threw your DM a curve ball and maybe when they balked you threw an uppercut. IS your DM new? Or are artificers new to the table?
Also ...DM is particularly stringent, they are a bit of a rules-stickler (Literally requires us to act out our somatic and verbal components to cast a spell lol), .....OH BOY ok I am all for immersion but that is a bunch of VS. ....... Sounds like y'all need a session 0 again.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
So as others have stated, this statement is the issue. There is no debate. You made an assumption, which is always risky. When the DM ruled your assumption was wrong you challenged them. This is a common, benign mistake for new players. For players that are not new, its a malign problem.
For both sets of players it is good to refer to the rules/guidance early in the players handbook on the bare basics of D&D on How to Play. Note the basic flow of 1) The DM describes the environment, 2) The players describe what they want to do (emphasis on the 'want'), and 3) The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions. Note at no time does the players description of the desired action actually ever dictate what happens. It might be what happens, but the ultimate arbiter is the DM. For a new player, once they understand this they move forward and the problem is solved. For a player that is not new, this is probably a problem with how they want to play the game, not with the rules. For the latter type of player, a private chat with the DM on how the individual and group plan to run the game is a good idea to promote maximum fun for all (Yes the DM is fully entitled to fun too).
These rules are often overlooked for sheer mechanical rules for tools, spells, and class abilities. The rule that the DM is always right is often lost in these forums, where players try to 'prove' their DM is wrong.
Prior to length debate on rules on how any player is 'right' and any DM is 'wrong', one would be advised to also look at the official notes on Sage Advice from WotC, specifically on Official Rulings. Note the last sentence: A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
A good DM would be advised to rule wisely and for maximum fun (which is personal preference which may clash). A good DM will also take to heart the basic guidance in the Introduction of the DMG.
Note it is considered bad form to challenge and debate a DM during the game. Ask the rules question, that's fine. If there is debate, take it up after the game. Be rational, be reasonable. Try also to see the DM's side of things, not just justify the ruling you want.
Now, the main thrust. You wanted to immediately use a new class ability. Fair! Heck its fun. You also expected to use that convenient set of tools you 'hoped' were equivalent to smith's tools. Also fair. However your DM didn't agree. Also fair. Things... were debated. Feelings were hurt (probably on both sides). It happens. Now, how you move forward with your game is really what matters most here.
You still want to use your class ability. Absolutely. So before a game session talk to your DM. Ideally before the day of the game. Relate to them you really want to use your class's core ability for the Artillerist. Politely note to them that the rules as written, and apparently intended, do require a basic set of Smith's Tools. Ask how you can get them. Ideally its a quick trip to town and they should be readily available for some gold. If its going to be an extended trip away from civilization, note to your DM you are hoping for some story element to let you obtain the tools, so that you can use your class, otherwise its hindered, which is really no fun (in this brand new circumstance).
Also, politely note that the rules don't seem to indicate there are really and consumable effects for the turret. Its just technically window dressing for the class effect. Ask if they plan on ruling the class works different. If so, its fair for you to swap specialties. If they are imposing large class restrictions or modification not in the RAW, explain you weren't made aware and that it might not be as fun to play with all those changes. Try to work amical arrangement.
If you can politely come to an agreement, great. Just never go to forums to get 'proof' you were right, and then try to 'win' an augment, as you cannot. The rules are clearly there the DM is correct. There are better ways to work to resolve the issue, and ways that will yield far more fun that trying to win an unwinnable fight. I hope that helps.
(And if you take the advice we would love to know how the discussion went!)
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
Smith’s tools include hammers, tongs, charcoal, rags, and a whetstone. Wether ""a hammer and some tools, along with a metal contraption"" constituted smith's tool or not wa entirely up to your DM. Personally if i were to drop hammer & tools in a mechanical room and a character had a cornerstone feature letting him magically create a small eldritch cannon as an action using smith's tools for which i didn't want to have it made yet, i would have not TPK the party for trying, i would have told him the tools are not appropriate or sufficient to make one.
I would more likely have taken the opportunity after the party was captured, stripped from their gear and manage to escape, to use these tools i dropped to allow one of the character to create an eldritch cannon and have a weapon. Such cannon can ordinarily be created seamlessly, this time it would have been more extraordinary and memorable - the cornerstone feature would have had it's shining moment, especially being a new feature.
This is an interesting scenario because neither of you were "wrong" necessarily. But ultimately it is the DM's decision whether or not the supplies present were sufficient to function as Smith's Tools. Personally, if I'm putting my players in a scenario where they're stripped of equipment, and especially if I have a player who has most of their class features tied to their equipment, I would deliberately "seed" some supplies somewhere in the encounter... or at the very least if a player were to find a creative way to use their environment I would want to reward that. But ultimately it's the DM's decision, and although I disagree with their decision, I can't say that they did anything wrong.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
The mending spell also only repairs breaks and tears, it doesn't supply raw material to fill in holes.