In every game I played, if the description says "counts as", then that means it is not what it counts as.
If the apparatus "counts as" a weapon, then it not legally a weapon by definition. If it was defined as a weapon, then there is no need to state "counts".
So if you're not treating it as what it "counts as" why does it "count as" that? They could have very easily written these Special Weapons, and anything else like them, as "You make a melee spell attack that deals 1d10+MOD damage. You can make two attacks when you reach level 5 in this class." That didn't do that. They made them weapons. When they said they count as weapons. There was no reason to make them count as weapons, if we weren't meant to treat them as weapons.
If you replace the word treat as use, you would be correct. This apparatus is not a weapon. Period.
However, this non weapon can be used like a simple weapon to damage an opponent.
In every game I played, if the description says "counts as", then that means it is not what it counts as.
If the apparatus "counts as" a weapon, then it not legally a weapon by definition. If it was defined as a weapon, then there is no need to state "counts".
So if you're not treating it as what it "counts as" why does it "count as" that? They could have very easily written these Special Weapons, and anything else like them, as "You make a melee spell attack that deals 1d10+MOD damage. You can make two attacks when you reach level 5 in this class." That didn't do that. They made them weapons. When they said they count as weapons. There was no reason to make them count as weapons, if we weren't meant to treat them as weapons.
If you replace the word treat as use, you would be correct. This apparatus is not a weapon. Period.
However, this non weapon can be used like a simple weapon to damage an opponent.
I'll point out again, clear, indisputable text from the Armor Model section:
Each model includes a special weapon. When you attack with that weapon, you can add your Intelligence modifier, instead of your Strength or Dexterity modifier, to the attack and damage rolls.
They ARE weapons. The text of the overall ability leaves no room to debate against this.
We can agree to disagree that the demolisher isn't part of the armor and hence not a weapon. However there's many other things that invalidate what you're trying to do, i.e. cast Magic Weapon spell on the weapon-like projection that emerges from the artificer armor. Ya'll keep throwing RAW in my face...lets dig in to that.
1. RAW says: "An arcane wrecking ball or sledgehammer projects from your armor." Arcane/Arcana in the rules always means magical/magic in nature. An Arcane Focus for example, is an object (that you focus on) to perform the Arcane (magic). An Arcana skill check is recalling "lore about spells and magic items". Just because this sentence is getting in the way of what you want to do (cast Magic Weapon on the arcane demolisher), does not mean that this sentence is just "fluff" as the op wrote. If the demolisher was non-magical then RAW would simply be written as: "A wrecking ball or sledgehammer projects from your armor." You can't ignore the word arcane, simply because it's inconvenient for you. Both RAW and RAI seem to be on the side of calling the demolisher magical. Conclusion: One cannot cast Magic Weapon on the demolisher (or any other projection from the artificer armor, because it's magical).
2. RAW also says: "The demolisher counts as a Simple Melee weapon with the Reach property, and it deals 1d10 Force damage on a hit." I am in 100% agreement with post # 9 from Character77006, in which they say:
In every game I played, if the description says "counts as", then that means it is not what it counts as.If the apparatus "counts as" a weapon, then it not legally a weapon by definition. If it was defined as a weapon, then there is no need to state "counts".
I've been regularly DMing for 20 years and playing for longer. Similarly, to Character77006, in every game I've played the phrase "counts as" means it "functions like" or is "accounted for" something that it is NOT. If the demolisher really was a true weapon (on which a casting of Magic Weapon would be legal) then RAW would read "The demolisher isa Simple Melee weapon with the Reach property, and it deals 1d10 Force damage on a hit." Since it does not say "is" and instead say "counts as," the obvious interpretation is that both RAW and RAI, are in agreement that this demolisher/projection is NOT a weapon, it just acts like a weapon, but still not a weapon notwithstanding the damage it does in melee. You folks can't just ignore "counts as" Conclusion: One cannot cast Magic Weapon on the demolisher (or any other projection from the artificer armor).
What explanation could there be if it's not a weapon; one could rationalize that because it's part of the armor....but you all don't like that explanation so feel free to ignore this sentence. That being said, take your pick of #1 or #2 above; You can't cast Magic Weapon spell on the demolisher/projection from the armor. Both #1 and #2 stand on their own...so take your pick.
Well, the problem with #2 is that it does say, multiple times, that they are weapons. People have pointed this out to you in this very thread multiple times.
Well, the problem with #2 is that it does say, multiple times, that they are weapons. People have pointed this out to you in this very thread multiple times.
No problem. Just use #1 then! Reasons #1 and #2 stand alone, they are not dependent on each other in any way. You still can't use Magic Weapon on the projection thingy on the artificer armor.
Well, the problem with #2 is that it does say, multiple times, that they are weapons. People have pointed this out to you in this very thread multiple times.
No problem. Just use #1 then! Reasons #1 and #2 stand alone, they are not dependent on each other in any way. You still can't use Magic Weapon on the projection thingy on the artificer armor.
Right. So we're back to where we were in the very first post of this thread, before you went off on this tangent about weapons that count as weapons not actually being weapons.
The question that this thread is actually about is: does the fact that these weapons are described as "arcane" mean that they count as magic weapons?
The RAW answer is not super clear, since neither "arcane" nor "magic weapon" is ever actually given a formal definition in the rules. However, in most cases when the rules want a weapon to be considered magical, they use that specific word, "magical", rather than something else. Personally I think it's reasonable to rule it either way, and neither option has a game-breaking impact.
Well, the problem with #2 is that it does say, multiple times, that they are weapons. People have pointed this out to you in this very thread multiple times.
No problem. Just use #1 then! Reasons #1 and #2 stand alone, they are not dependent on each other in any way. You still can't use Magic Weapon on the projection thingy on the artificer armor.
Right. So we're back to where we were in the very first post of this thread, before you went off on this tangent about weapons that count as weapons not actually being weapons.
The question that this thread is actually about is: does the fact that these weapons are described as "arcane" mean that they count as magic weapons?
The RAW answer is not super clear, since neither "arcane" nor "magic weapon" is ever actually given a formal definition in the rules. However, in most cases when the rules want a weapon to be considered magical, they use that specific word, "magical", rather than something else. Personally I think it's reasonable to rule it either way, and neither option has a game-breaking impact.
Totally reasonable response. This issue now is dependent on how your DM interprets the RAW. In my opinion, neither interpretation should be considered a "house rule" i.e. something that is changing the rule as written. Though I think the evidence is slightly in favor of my interpretation because the author went out of their way to insert the word arcane in the description.
1. RAW says: "An arcane wrecking ball or sledgehammer projects from your armor." Arcane/Arcana in the rules always means magical/magic in nature. An Arcane Focus for example, is an object (that you focus on) to perform the Arcane (magic). An Arcana skill check is recalling "lore about spells and magic items". Just because this sentence is getting in the way of what you want to do (cast Magic Weapon on the arcane demolisher), does not mean that this sentence is just "fluff" as the op wrote. If the demolisher was non-magical then RAW would simply be written as: "A wrecking ball or sledgehammer projects from your armor." You can't ignore the word arcane, simply because it's inconvenient for you. Both RAW and RAI seem to be on the side of calling the demolisher magical. Conclusion: One cannot cast Magic Weapon on the demolisher (or any other projection from the artificer armor, because it's magical).
We've already ruled out 2. Take 1 relies on the definition of Magical Effect.
The special weapons are not created by a spell.
The class ability never calls the items magic weapons (by contrast, look at the Psychic Blade created by a Soul Knife Rogue: "The magic blade has the following traits"). Replicate Magic Items says that you create Magic Items. While the Lightning Launcher at level 15 can cause a creature to glow with magical light, it itself and none of the special weapons or even the Arcane Armor are ever identified as magic weapons. If you select Adamantine Armor as your Arcane Armor, you don't get Adamantine Special Weapons and they aren't magic by association.
The special weapons are not created by a phenomenon labeled as magical.
Conclusion: One can cast Magic Weapon on the demolisher (or any other projection from the arcane armor) because it's not magical.
1. RAW says: "An arcane wrecking ball or sledgehammer projects from your armor." Arcane/Arcana in the rules always means magical/magic in nature. An Arcane Focus for example, is an object (that you focus on) to perform the Arcane (magic). An Arcana skill check is recalling "lore about spells and magic items". Just because this sentence is getting in the way of what you want to do (cast Magic Weapon on the arcane demolisher), does not mean that this sentence is just "fluff" as the op wrote. If the demolisher was non-magical then RAW would simply be written as: "A wrecking ball or sledgehammer projects from your armor." You can't ignore the word arcane, simply because it's inconvenient for you. Both RAW and RAI seem to be on the side of calling the demolisher magical. Conclusion: One cannot cast Magic Weapon on the demolisher (or any other projection from the artificer armor, because it's magical).
We've already ruled out 2. Take 1 relies on the definition of Magical Effect.
The special weapons are not created by a spell.
The class ability never calls the items magic weapons (by contrast, look at the Psychic Blade created by a Soul Knife Rogue: "The magic blade has the following traits"). Replicate Magic Items says that you create Magic Items. While the Lightning Launcher at level 15 can cause a creature to glow with magical light, it itself and none of the special weapons or even the Arcane Armor are ever identified as magic weapons. If you select Adamantine Armor as your Arcane Armor, you don't get Adamantine Special Weapons and they aren't magic by association.
The special weapons are not created by a phenomenon labeled as magical.
Conclusion: One can cast Magic Weapon on the demolisher (or any other projection from the arcane armor) because it's not magical.
Nah, sorry, your argument is faulty. Magical things aren't always created by a spell. Arcane = magical. It's black and white.
Conclusion: One can CAN"T cast Magic Weapon on the demolisher (or any other projection from the arcane armor) because it's not magical. (Fixed it for ya!)
Game text explicitly states if an effect is magical. Effects created by spells and magic items are always magical. See “Magical Effect” in appendix C of the Player’s Handbook.
Game text explicitly states if an effect is magical. Effects created by spells and magic items are always magical. See “Magical Effect” in appendix C of the Player’s Handbook.
The problem with what you said is that the demolisher/projection is not a magical "effect." Rather it's a physical object. Therefore neither the SAC note, nor definition of "Magical Effect" in the PHB apply to this situation.
Game text explicitly states if an effect is magical. Effects created by spells and magic items are always magical. See “Magical Effect” in appendix C of the Player’s Handbook.
The problem with what you said is that the demolisher/projection is not a magical "effect." Rather it's a physical object. Therefore neither the SAC note, nor definition of "Magical Effect" in the PHB apply to this situation.
It's an effect of the class feature. The SAC and the Rules Glossary apply. The SAC is even answering "How do I tell if something in the game is magical?" The Special Weapons are Weapons and they are not magical because nothing ever says that they are. It needs to say the word "magic" or "magical" if it does not originate from a spell or a magic item. These weapons originate from class features. That is all there is to it. It does not matter if a thesaurus lists a word as a synonym for magic, if it's not a product of a spell or magic item and doesn't explicitly say "magic" or "magical", it's not magic in D&D.
While Force Demolisher counting as a Simple Melee weapon doesn't say it's magical per se, the description of Armorer Subclass refers to you craft magic armor so it's unclear, especially since you turn it into Arcane Armor. as Magic action.
Armorer
Craft Magic Armor to Enhance Your Abilities
An Armorer modifies armor to function almost like a second skin. The armor is enhanced to hone the Armorer’s magic, unleash potent attacks, and generate a formidable defense.
While Force Demolisher counting as a Simple Melee weapon doesn't say it's magical per se, the description of Armorer Subclass refers to you craft magic armor so it's unclear, especially since you turn it into Arcane Armor. as Magic action.
Those are both irrelevant. You create mundane objects as a Magic action with Tinker's Magic and the Armorer has class features specifically related to creating or crafting magic armor: Tools of the Trade and Armor Replication of Improved Armorer. Those two are the only features of the subclass dealing with magic armor. Nothing else does. The Arcane Armor acts as a Spellcasting Focus, but Spellcasting Foci are not magical unless stated to be so, just like any other item.
Game text explicitly states if an effect is magical. Effects created by spells and magic items are always magical. See “Magical Effect” in appendix C of the Player’s Handbook.
The problem with what you said is that the demolisher/projection is not a magical "effect." Rather it's a physical object. Therefore neither the SAC note, nor definition of "Magical Effect" in the PHB apply to this situation.
Nah, in this context, the sentence "Game text explicitly states if an effect is magical" includes class features, feats, weapon properties, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like.
While Force Demolisher counting as a Simple Melee weapon doesn't say it's magical per se, the description of Armorer Subclass refers to you craft magic armor so it's unclear, especially since you turn it into Arcane Armor. as Magic action.
Those are both irrelevant. You create mundane objects as a Magic action with Tinker's Magic and the Armorer has class features specifically related to creating or crafting magic armor: Tools of the Trade and Armor Replication of Improved Armorer. Those two are the only features of the subclass dealing with magic armor. Nothing else does. The Arcane Armor acts as a Spellcasting Focus, but Spellcasting Foci are not magical unless stated to be so, just like any other item.
I'll concede to you, not because you turn it into an Arcane Armor as an Magic action which can be used as a Spellcasting Focus that it inherently make it magic.
Bottom line is that Force Demolisher doesn't explicitly states its an effect that is magical.
From the description of simultaneous effects, we can infer that an "effect" is "a thing that happens"
Simultaneous Effects
If two or more things happen at the same time on a turn, the person at the game table—player or DM—whose turn it is decides the order in which those things happen. For example, if two effects occur at the start of a player character’s turn, the player decides which of the effects happens first.
Game text explicitly states if an effect is magical. Effects created by spells and magic items are always magical. See “Magical Effect” in appendix C of the Player’s Handbook.
The problem with what you said is that the demolisher/projection is not a magical "effect." Rather it's a physical object. Therefore neither the SAC note, nor definition of "Magical Effect" in the PHB apply to this situation.
Nah, in this context, the sentence "Game text explicitly states if an effect is magical" includes class features, feats, weapon properties, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like.
This last response must be a troll. Nowhere, in the SAC or the definition of Magical Effect does all that stuff appear.
You also have the following answers from the 2014 SAC if you prefer a more detailed explanation:
If you replace the word treat as use, you would be correct. This apparatus is not a weapon. Period.
However, this non weapon can be used like a simple weapon to damage an opponent.
I'll point out again, clear, indisputable text from the Armor Model section:
They ARE weapons. The text of the overall ability leaves no room to debate against this.
It is also worth pointing out that there is nothing in the rules that says that an object can't be both armor and a weapon at the same time.
There happen to not be any examples of that in the basic armor and weapon lists, but there's no reason it can't exist.
Which means the argument that because something is part of a set of armor, it therefore can't be a weapon, doesn't really hold water.
pronouns: he/she/they
We can agree to disagree that the demolisher isn't part of the armor and hence not a weapon. However there's many other things that invalidate what you're trying to do, i.e. cast Magic Weapon spell on the weapon-like projection that emerges from the artificer armor. Ya'll keep throwing RAW in my face...lets dig in to that.
1. RAW says: "An arcane wrecking ball or sledgehammer projects from your armor." Arcane/Arcana in the rules always means magical/magic in nature. An Arcane Focus for example, is an object (that you focus on) to perform the Arcane (magic). An Arcana skill check is recalling "lore about spells and magic items". Just because this sentence is getting in the way of what you want to do (cast Magic Weapon on the arcane demolisher), does not mean that this sentence is just "fluff" as the op wrote. If the demolisher was non-magical then RAW would simply be written as: "A wrecking ball or sledgehammer projects from your armor." You can't ignore the word arcane, simply because it's inconvenient for you. Both RAW and RAI seem to be on the side of calling the demolisher magical. Conclusion: One cannot cast Magic Weapon on the demolisher (or any other projection from the artificer armor, because it's magical).
2. RAW also says: "The demolisher counts as a Simple Melee weapon with the Reach property, and it deals 1d10 Force damage on a hit." I am in 100% agreement with post # 9 from Character77006, in which they say:
In every game I played, if the description says "counts as", then that means it is not what it counts as.If the apparatus "counts as" a weapon, then it not legally a weapon by definition. If it was defined as a weapon, then there is no need to state "counts".
I've been regularly DMing for 20 years and playing for longer. Similarly, to Character77006, in every game I've played the phrase "counts as" means it "functions like" or is "accounted for" something that it is NOT. If the demolisher really was a true weapon (on which a casting of Magic Weapon would be legal) then RAW would read "The demolisher is a Simple Melee weapon with the Reach property, and it deals 1d10 Force damage on a hit." Since it does not say "is" and instead say "counts as," the obvious interpretation is that both RAW and RAI, are in agreement that this demolisher/projection is NOT a weapon, it just acts like a weapon, but still not a weapon notwithstanding the damage it does in melee. You folks can't just ignore "counts as" Conclusion: One cannot cast Magic Weapon on the demolisher (or any other projection from the artificer armor).
What explanation could there be if it's not a weapon; one could rationalize that because it's part of the armor....but you all don't like that explanation so feel free to ignore this sentence. That being said, take your pick of #1 or #2 above; You can't cast Magic Weapon spell on the demolisher/projection from the armor. Both #1 and #2 stand on their own...so take your pick.
Well, the problem with #2 is that it does say, multiple times, that they are weapons. People have pointed this out to you in this very thread multiple times.
pronouns: he/she/they
No problem. Just use #1 then! Reasons #1 and #2 stand alone, they are not dependent on each other in any way. You still can't use Magic Weapon on the projection thingy on the artificer armor.
Right. So we're back to where we were in the very first post of this thread, before you went off on this tangent about weapons that count as weapons not actually being weapons.
The question that this thread is actually about is: does the fact that these weapons are described as "arcane" mean that they count as magic weapons?
The RAW answer is not super clear, since neither "arcane" nor "magic weapon" is ever actually given a formal definition in the rules. However, in most cases when the rules want a weapon to be considered magical, they use that specific word, "magical", rather than something else. Personally I think it's reasonable to rule it either way, and neither option has a game-breaking impact.
pronouns: he/she/they
Totally reasonable response. This issue now is dependent on how your DM interprets the RAW. In my opinion, neither interpretation should be considered a "house rule" i.e. something that is changing the rule as written. Though I think the evidence is slightly in favor of my interpretation because the author went out of their way to insert the word arcane in the description.
We've already ruled out 2. Take 1 relies on the definition of Magical Effect.
Conclusion: One can cast Magic Weapon on the demolisher (or any other projection from the arcane armor) because it's not magical.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Nah, sorry, your argument is faulty. Magical things aren't always created by a spell. Arcane = magical. It's black and white.
Conclusion: One
canCAN"T cast Magic Weapon on the demolisher (or any other projection from the arcane armor) because it'snotmagical. (Fixed it for ya!)PS: does your DM allow it?
The SAC also has an entry about the OP's question:
But it's basically what other folks are saying in the thread, and what Athanar said in the first reply.
The problem with what you said is that the demolisher/projection is not a magical "effect." Rather it's a physical object. Therefore neither the SAC note, nor definition of "Magical Effect" in the PHB apply to this situation.
It's an effect of the class feature. The SAC and the Rules Glossary apply. The SAC is even answering "How do I tell if something in the game is magical?" The Special Weapons are Weapons and they are not magical because nothing ever says that they are. It needs to say the word "magic" or "magical" if it does not originate from a spell or a magic item. These weapons originate from class features. That is all there is to it. It does not matter if a thesaurus lists a word as a synonym for magic, if it's not a product of a spell or magic item and doesn't explicitly say "magic" or "magical", it's not magic in D&D.
RAW these are non-magical weapons.
TarodNet doesn't slum in the Artificer forum, but this came up already there. Replicate magic item for Armorer.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
While Force Demolisher counting as a Simple Melee weapon doesn't say it's magical per se, the description of Armorer Subclass refers to you craft magic armor so it's unclear, especially since you turn it into Arcane Armor. as Magic action.
Those are both irrelevant. You create mundane objects as a Magic action with Tinker's Magic and the Armorer has class features specifically related to creating or crafting magic armor: Tools of the Trade and Armor Replication of Improved Armorer. Those two are the only features of the subclass dealing with magic armor. Nothing else does. The Arcane Armor acts as a Spellcasting Focus, but Spellcasting Foci are not magical unless stated to be so, just like any other item.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Nah, in this context, the sentence "Game text explicitly states if an effect is magical" includes class features, feats, weapon properties, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like.
Thank you, adventurer! Yeah, I mostly frequent this Dungeon and its Dragons :)
I'll concede to you, not because you turn it into an Arcane Armor as an Magic action which can be used as a Spellcasting Focus that it inherently make it magic.
Bottom line is that Force Demolisher doesn't explicitly states its an effect that is magical.
From the description of simultaneous effects, we can infer that an "effect" is "a thing that happens"
Any sufficiently widespread magic is indistinguishable from technology.
The second funniest thing to make a D&D party do is explain morality
Try your hand at the Ultimate Skill Build Challenge!
I probably nitpick and scrutinize too much
You also have the following answers from the 2014 SAC if you prefer a more detailed explanation:
- How do I tell if something in the game is magical?
- Is the breath weapon of a dragon magical?: