Armorer Artificer wearing arcane armor. OK So let me give you a bit more detail. I had a plus 1 ring of protection that had my family's royal crest on it. . I used to for sealing letter as well as the additional ac. I failed a riddle and fell unconscious. The ring and my items was then removed from my inventory except my armor itself. This happened several sessions ago so no big deal but I want to know what y'all think or if any specific rules cover this. Could my ring be removed while I was wearing my armor that can not be removed?
The Arcane Armor Feature doesn't do anything special to any rings that you may or may not be wearing. It affects a "suit of armor" such as one of the entries listed in the Armor table in the Equipment chapter (not including Shields).
Arcane armor says it can not be removed while the wearer is still alive. SOOOOOO No my armor can't be taken away from me. I am trying to figure out if rings go inside of gloves or outside of gloves in the DND world.
Using a magic item's properties might mean wearing or wielding it. 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.
and this, from "Magic Item Categories":
RINGS
Magic rings offer an amazing array of powers to those lucky enough to find them. Unless a ring's description says otherwise, a ring must be worn on a finger, or asimilar digit, for the ring's magic to function.
So, from that perspective, considering the Arcane Armor "expands to cover your entire body", I change my mind. I can't think of any reasonable way that your ring could be removed from your person while you are unconscious.
The same is likely true of other items such as amulets, necklaces, bracelets and so on. The Wonderous Items category mentions "worn items such as boots, belts, capes, gloves, and various pieces of jewelry and decoration, such as amulets, brooches, and circlets" but the rules don't explicitly mention how all of these are worn. There is mention of "boots go on the feet" and "a cloak fastened about the shoulders" but the rest of these probably fall closer to the "ask your DM" category.
Arcane armor says it can not be removed while the wearer is still alive. SOOOOOO No my armor can't be taken away from me. I am trying to figure out if rings go inside of gloves or outside of gloves in the DND world.
That's not only what Arcane Armor says, it also can’t be removed against your will, which is questionable when unconscious but not sure it's intended. But the Artificer could turn another suit of armor worn into Arcane Armor with smith's tools.
But Ring of Protection and other items in your inventory can without question be removed.
Arcane Armor: The armor attaches to you and can’t be removed against your will.
To me an Arcane Armor expands to cover your entire body, not worn items. Allowing the armor to cover stuff would open a whole can of worn IMHO.
The ring could exceptionally be worn over the finger's armor.
Multiple Items of the Same Kind: Use common sense to determine whether more than one of a given kind of magic item can be worn. A character can’t normally wear more than one pair of footwear, one pair of gloves or gauntlets, one pair of bracers, one suit of armor, one item of headwear, and one cloak. You can make exceptions; a character might be able to wear a circlet under a helmet, for example, or be able to layer two cloaks.
See that is what I was thinking. Wearing the ring over the plate male gauntlet seems a bit odd in my mind. sure rings could be worn over the gauntleted finger, but would they? (How dare you bring reality into my fantasy!) But really. I think the ring should be under the glove and hence not be able to be removed. The DM recently ok'd me keeping a letter in my armor in like a pants pocket to ensure it was stolen or released into the wrong hands without killing me.
To me an Arcane Armor expands to cover your entire body, not worn items. Allowing the armor to cover stuff would open a whole can of worn IMHO.
The ring could exceptionally be worn over the finger's armor.
The rules do seem to offer some wiggle room for the DM to make "exceptions" for exactly how items are worn, so this interpretation is reasonable. I also agree that storing items that are not meant to be worn inside the armor shouldn't be allowed (perhaps a good ruling for this would be that it interferes with your Armor proficiency or something).
However, when we are talking about items that are explicitly meant to be worn "on" the body, in my opinion, I think that that takes priority over a suit of armor which is said to "cover" the body. Meaning, "on" the body is closer to the body than "covering" the body. This would apply to most of the items mentioned earlier. But if the DM wants everything to be worn on the outside of the armor then that's not too unreasonable since exceptions can be made.
EDIT: I do think that the question of whether or not the unconscious status conflicts with the concept of something being "against your will" is a good one. I think that "willing creature" or "willing movement" or "willing something to happen" or an event being "against your will" probably implies that the creature in question has to ability to make some sort of choice about the event in question. Being unaware of your surroundings might interfere with the ability to make a choice about something that you can do or something in the nearby environment that you can influence. I'm not sure yet how I would rule on that interaction.
I read against your will as, without express content. Using the magic side of things while also treating this kinda like Ironman armor. I would think that unless I Intentionally remove it OR am mentally manipulated with something like Command "Strip" then being unconscious just ain't it. If this conversation changed anyone mind, give that poll question a swap over to No. LOL Thanks Y'all
However, when we are talking about items that are explicitly meant to be worn "on" the body, in my opinion, I think that that takes priority over a suit of armor which is said to "cover" the body. Meaning, "on" the body is closer to the body than "covering" the body. This would apply to most of the items mentioned earlier. But if the DM wants everything to be worn on the outside of the armor then that's not too unreasonable since exceptions can be made.
Of course DM can rule however it wants. It's purely RAW analysis here for which i come to different conclusion than you. If a feature says it cover your entire body, then ring, clothing etc is not part of of your body, they're objects.
For a pop-culture example, don't they show the one ring being cut from Sauron's gauntleted hand and stuffed over Isildur's gloved finger in the movies?
For a pop-culture example, don't they show the one ring being cut from Sauron's gauntleted hand and stuffed over Isildur's gloved finger in the movies?
Even full plate armor have orifice in their helmet to allow you to see and breath from which liquid could be poured.
I am very specifically talking about arcane armor here. The rules state it covers your entire body and acts as a second skin. So like an Iron man suit that seals you in.
Arcane Armor
3rd-level Armorer feature
Your metallurgical pursuits have led to you making armor a conduit for your magic. As an action, you can turn a suit of armor you are wearing into Arcane Armor, provided you have smith’s tools in hand.
You gain the following benefits while wearing this armor:
If the armor normally has a Strength requirement, the arcane armor lacks this requirement for you.
You can use the arcane armor as a spellcasting focus for your artificer spells.
The armor attaches to you and can’t be removed against your will. It also expands to cover your entire body, although you can retract or deploy the helmet as a bonus action. The armor replaces any missing limbs, functioning identically to a limb it replaces.
You can doff or don the armor as an action.
The armor continues to be Arcane Armor until you don another suit of armor or you die.
Even full plate armor have orifice in their helmet to allow you to see and breath from which liquid could be poured.
I am very specifically talking about arcane armor here. The rules state it covers your entire body and acts as a second skin. So like an Iron man suit that seals you in.
I know, i don't think you need to retract the helmet as a bonus action to be able to see or breath, otherwise,an artificers would never deploy it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Armorer Artificer wearing arcane armor. OK So let me give you a bit more detail. I had a plus 1 ring of protection that had my family's royal crest on it. . I used to for sealing letter as well as the additional ac. I failed a riddle and fell unconscious. The ring and my items was then removed from my inventory except my armor itself. This happened several sessions ago so no big deal but I want to know what y'all think or if any specific rules cover this. Could my ring be removed while I was wearing my armor that can not be removed?
The Arcane Armor Feature doesn't do anything special to any rings that you may or may not be wearing. It affects a "suit of armor" such as one of the entries listed in the Armor table in the Equipment chapter (not including Shields).
But aren't rings worn on your finger inside of your armor? I wear my ring inside of my gloves IRL.
All your equipment can be taken from you while unconscious and thus unaware of your surroundings or anything normally against your will.
Arcane armor says it can not be removed while the wearer is still alive. SOOOOOO No my armor can't be taken away from me. I am trying to figure out if rings go inside of gloves or outside of gloves in the DND world.
Ah, I see what you are asking now.
Here are two rules from the DMG which might help:
and this, from "Magic Item Categories":
So, from that perspective, considering the Arcane Armor "expands to cover your entire body", I change my mind. I can't think of any reasonable way that your ring could be removed from your person while you are unconscious.
The same is likely true of other items such as amulets, necklaces, bracelets and so on. The Wonderous Items category mentions "worn items such as boots, belts, capes, gloves, and various pieces of jewelry and decoration, such as amulets, brooches, and circlets" but the rules don't explicitly mention how all of these are worn. There is mention of "boots go on the feet" and "a cloak fastened about the shoulders" but the rest of these probably fall closer to the "ask your DM" category.
That's not only what Arcane Armor says, it also can’t be removed against your will, which is questionable when unconscious but not sure it's intended. But the Artificer could turn another suit of armor worn into Arcane Armor with smith's tools.
But Ring of Protection and other items in your inventory can without question be removed.
To me an Arcane Armor expands to cover your entire body, not worn items. Allowing the armor to cover stuff would open a whole can of worn IMHO.
The ring could exceptionally be worn over the finger's armor.
See that is what I was thinking. Wearing the ring over the plate male gauntlet seems a bit odd in my mind. sure rings could be worn over the gauntleted finger, but would they? (How dare you bring reality into my fantasy!) But really. I think the ring should be under the glove and hence not be able to be removed. The DM recently ok'd me keeping a letter in my armor in like a pants pocket to ensure it was stolen or released into the wrong hands without killing me.
The rules do seem to offer some wiggle room for the DM to make "exceptions" for exactly how items are worn, so this interpretation is reasonable. I also agree that storing items that are not meant to be worn inside the armor shouldn't be allowed (perhaps a good ruling for this would be that it interferes with your Armor proficiency or something).
However, when we are talking about items that are explicitly meant to be worn "on" the body, in my opinion, I think that that takes priority over a suit of armor which is said to "cover" the body. Meaning, "on" the body is closer to the body than "covering" the body. This would apply to most of the items mentioned earlier. But if the DM wants everything to be worn on the outside of the armor then that's not too unreasonable since exceptions can be made.
EDIT: I do think that the question of whether or not the unconscious status conflicts with the concept of something being "against your will" is a good one. I think that "willing creature" or "willing movement" or "willing something to happen" or an event being "against your will" probably implies that the creature in question has to ability to make some sort of choice about the event in question. Being unaware of your surroundings might interfere with the ability to make a choice about something that you can do or something in the nearby environment that you can influence. I'm not sure yet how I would rule on that interaction.
I read against your will as, without express content. Using the magic side of things while also treating this kinda like Ironman armor. I would think that unless I Intentionally remove it OR am mentally manipulated with something like Command "Strip" then being unconscious just ain't it. If this conversation changed anyone mind, give that poll question a swap over to No. LOL Thanks Y'all
Of course DM can rule however it wants. It's purely RAW analysis here for which i come to different conclusion than you. If a feature says it cover your entire body, then ring, clothing etc is not part of of your body, they're objects.
For a pop-culture example, don't they show the one ring being cut from Sauron's gauntleted hand and stuffed over Isildur's gloved finger in the movies?
Yup epic scene moment!
This is my interpretation: if you're unconscious, some of the alterations are:
So, you don't have the willpower required to prevent the Armor from being removed (or the gauntlet), and then the ring you're wearing.
This is in some way equivalent to administering a potion to an unconscious characters against their will (even if it's beneficial for that character). Similarly, you could also administer poison to an enemy xD
To be fair, we have deemed that I can not receive potions while downed because my armor can't be opened until I am dead dead.
Even full plate armor have orifice in their helmet to allow you to see and breath from which liquid could be poured.
I am very specifically talking about arcane armor here. The rules state it covers your entire body and acts as a second skin. So like an Iron man suit that seals you in.
Arcane Armor
3rd-level Armorer feature
Your metallurgical pursuits have led to you making armor a conduit for your magic. As an action, you can turn a suit of armor you are wearing into Arcane Armor, provided you have smith’s tools in hand.
You gain the following benefits while wearing this armor:
The armor continues to be Arcane Armor until you don another suit of armor or you die.
So does that mean at your table you have to use a bonus action and an action to drink a potion on your turn?
I know, i don't think you need to retract the helmet as a bonus action to be able to see or breath, otherwise,an artificers would never deploy it.