According to RAW, Antimagic Field explicitly affects these categories: Targeted Effects, Areas of Magic, Spells, Magic Items, Magical Travel, Creatures and Objects. The class feature Arcane Armor allows an Armorer Artificer to ignore strength requirements on armor. Would an Armorer with low strength have trouble with their heavy armor if they ended up in an anti-magic field?
The first line of the ability contains a reference to magic:
Your metallurgical pursuits have led to you making armor a conduit for your magic.
The wording isn't entirely clear whether means that the ability itself is a magical ability or not, so it is up to the DM to decide if this really is a magical ability which will stop working in an anti-magic shell.
[edit] Although the introduction to Armorer says:
The artificer bonds with this armor, becoming one with it even as they experiment with it and refine its magical capabilities.
Which suggests that Arcane Armor IS a magical ability, and so will stop working within anti-magic field - meaning that the artificer has to deal with all the consequences of wearing a normal suit of armor.
Magical abilities aren't explicitly suppressed in an antimagic field, are they? Just like how moon-touched swords aren't suppressed by a Darkness spell because it isn't a spell, precedence is that spells do precisely what they say they do.
This is a DM call, it comes down to whether arcane armor is classed as a magical item. All we get from the text is it is "a conduit for your magic" and the name includes the word arcane.
If the dm decides it is a magic item then it loses all the features and if the wearer has insufficient strength their speed is reduced. If the dm decides it is not a magic item but is rather mechanical (think power armor in fallout) then it is not affected by an anti magic field.
A similar thing I had was I had a monk, fortunately we knew in advance would be dealing with an anti magic field so out of game I was able to agree with the dm what monk features I could use given they are built around the use of a magical energy called ki.
Magical abilities aren't explicitly suppressed in an antimagic field, are they? Just like how moon-touched swords aren't suppressed by a Darkness spell because it isn't a spell, precedence is that spells don't do precisely what they say they do.
I would use the same thinking as the SAC does about breath weapons of Dragons. And thus conclude that it isn't magic of the kind that can be affected by an Antimagic Field. I would do the same for most class feature tbh unless they explicitly says something becomes a magic item (like Artificers infusions) or lets you cast a spell or something like that. For example almost all base class Monk features would be unaffected by an Antimagic Field (casting Astral projection through Empty Body would not work).
One thing to consider is if you do decide to have Arcane Armor be affected by an Antimagic Field then you should also decide from the start how you would rule if the armor got hit by a casting of Dispel Magic as that triggers of much the same things.
I would use the same thinking as the SAC does about breath weapons of Dragons. And thus conclude that it isn't magic of the kind that can be affected by an Antimagic Field. I would do the same for most class feature tbh unless they explicitly says something becomes a magic item (like Artificers infusions) or lets you cast a spell or something like that. For example almost all base class Monk features would be unaffected by an Antimagic Field (casting Astral projection through Empty Body would not work).
One thing to consider is if you do decide to have Arcane Armor be affected by an Antimagic Field then you should also decide from the start how you would rule if the armor got hit by a casting of Dispel Magic as that triggers of much the same things.
But Dispel Magic specifically only works on spells, whereas Antimagic Field works on far more than just spells.
A clear example is the druid's Wild Shape, which says that you "magically assume the shape of a beast", so it would be suppressed in an antimagic field.
Certain specific aspects of the Arcane Armor feature are magical, like the thunder gauntlets’ “distracting pulse,” and those aspects would not function. But most of the features are not explicitly magical and will work just fine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
According to RAW, Antimagic Field explicitly affects these categories: Targeted Effects, Areas of Magic, Spells, Magic Items, Magical Travel, Creatures and Objects.
The class feature Arcane Armor allows an Armorer Artificer to ignore strength requirements on armor.
Would an Armorer with low strength have trouble with their heavy armor if they ended up in an anti-magic field?
The first line of the ability contains a reference to magic:
The wording isn't entirely clear whether means that the ability itself is a magical ability or not, so it is up to the DM to decide if this really is a magical ability which will stop working in an anti-magic shell.
[edit] Although the introduction to Armorer says:
Which suggests that Arcane Armor IS a magical ability, and so will stop working within anti-magic field - meaning that the artificer has to deal with all the consequences of wearing a normal suit of armor.
Magical abilities aren't explicitly suppressed in an antimagic field, are they? Just like how moon-touched swords aren't suppressed by a Darkness spell because it isn't a spell, precedence is that spells do precisely what they say they do.
This is a DM call, it comes down to whether arcane armor is classed as a magical item. All we get from the text is it is "a conduit for your magic" and the name includes the word arcane.
If the dm decides it is a magic item then it loses all the features and if the wearer has insufficient strength their speed is reduced. If the dm decides it is not a magic item but is rather mechanical (think power armor in fallout) then it is not affected by an anti magic field.
A similar thing I had was I had a monk, fortunately we knew in advance would be dealing with an anti magic field so out of game I was able to agree with the dm what monk features I could use given they are built around the use of a magical energy called ki.
Have a look at the sage advice here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA224
If an ability says that it is magical, then it is suppressed in an antimagic field.
The last one in the list being pertinent in this case. Note the wording of antimagic shell says that it suppresses more than just spells.
I would use the same thinking as the SAC does about breath weapons of Dragons. And thus conclude that it isn't magic of the kind that can be affected by an Antimagic Field.
I would do the same for most class feature tbh unless they explicitly says something becomes a magic item (like Artificers infusions) or lets you cast a spell or something like that. For example almost all base class Monk features would be unaffected by an Antimagic Field (casting Astral projection through Empty Body would not work).
One thing to consider is if you do decide to have Arcane Armor be affected by an Antimagic Field then you should also decide from the start how you would rule if the armor got hit by a casting of Dispel Magic as that triggers of much the same things.
But Dispel Magic specifically only works on spells, whereas Antimagic Field works on far more than just spells.
A clear example is the druid's Wild Shape, which says that you "magically assume the shape of a beast", so it would be suppressed in an antimagic field.
Certain specific aspects of the Arcane Armor feature are magical, like the thunder gauntlets’ “distracting pulse,” and those aspects would not function. But most of the features are not explicitly magical and will work just fine.