The 9th level armorer feature SPECIFICALLY mentions that it is considered separate pieces ONLY for infusions.
It is still considered ONE item for the purpose of equipping and attunement.
Now let's take a look at this mechanically.
What the heck is the point of giving the armorer an extra 2 infusions slots specifically for the armor when A. ALL infusions require attunement and B. ALL Artificers get 6 attunement and 12 infusion slots.
It doesn't make sense by that logic.
You infuse the helmet with "Helmet of Awareness"
Chest Piece with "Enhanced Defense"
And Weapon with "Enhanced Weapon"
It all applies to the subsection of armor you used for Arcane Armor feature.
It's really hard to figure out what point you're making, but if you're saying what I think you're saying, you are absolutely incorrect. Not all infusions require attunement: Enhanced Defense and Enhanced Weapon do not, for example. But if they did, infusing your Arcane Armor with the three infusions you mention would occupy three infusion slots. The attunement requirement is part of the infusion.
Okay I was actually mistaken on the Enhanced infusions so apologies.
However comma
Normally you have lets say plate armor, which is separated into different pieces such as the helmet, gauntlets, boots, and chest piece.
A non-armorer may only apply an infusion to the set as a whole and then attune to the plate if required.
Armorers may apply infusions then gain the benefits off all 3 infusions through 1 attunement.
Armorers MAY NOT apply an infusion to the helmet, boots, weapon, etc of Adamantine Armor that is under the effect of Arcane Armor as the item is already magical.
The idea is to build your own 'legendary' armor by combining three effects.
No. Infused items (may) require attunements, not generic armor bits. You don't attune to your armor. you attune to infused items (if they require it) or other magic items.
I think you might be thinking of video game inventories or something.
We're at a fundamental disagreement then. I believe the ruling creates a hierarchy so the Armorer doesn't just ditch their non-magical armor immediately.
I suggest you reread Attunement Rules and the lv 9 feature. You attune to an ITEM, the lv 9 features specifically let's you infuse separate pieces of your Arcane Armor as one piece
"armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor’s special weapon."
We are at a fundamental disagreement, and I have read the rules extensively enough to understand that our disagreement could easily be resolved with rules analysis. Infusing an item makes it a magic item. If that infusion requires attunement, then the item it becomes requires attunement. It's right there in the infuse item section of the artificer.
Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch a non-magical object and imbue it with one of your artificer infusions, turning it into a magic item. An infusion works on only certain kinds of objects, as specified in the infusion’s description. If the item requires attunement, you can attune yourself to it the instant you infuse the item. If you decide to attune to the item later, you must do so using the normal process for attunement (see “Attunement” in chapter 7 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide).
It is quite telling to note the part that you left out about the level 9 feature though.
That armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your Infuse Items feature: armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor’s special weapon. Each of those items can bear one of your infusions...
You can almost see the precision cutting that had to be done to get from the entire sentence in the rule to what you quoted.
By the way, for reference, the first sentence of the Attunement rules:
Some magic items require a creature to form a bond with them before their magical properties can be used. This bond is called attunement, and certain items have a prerequisite for it.
We're at a fundamental disagreement then. I believe the ruling creates a hierarchy so the Armorer doesn't just ditch their non-magical armor immediately.
I suggest you reread Attunement Rules and the lv 9 feature. You attune to an ITEM, the lv 9 features specifically let's you infuse separate pieces of your Arcane Armor as one piece
"armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor’s special weapon."
I suggest you do some rereading yourself my friend.
Armor Modifications
At 9th level, you learn how to use your artificer infusions to specially modify your Arcane Armor. That armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your Infuse Items feature: armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor's special weapon. 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. In addition, the maximum number of items you can infuse at once increases by 2, but those extra items must be part of your Arcane Armor.
No where in the description does it say the armor only requires taking up 1 attunement slot. It does however explicitly state that the armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your infuse item feature. Sadly that ends your argument of the armor counting as only 1 attunement slot if you put multiple infusions on it that require attunement. Because they COUNT AS SEPARATE ITEMS AND NOT ONE ITEM.
We are at a fundamental disagreement, and I have read the rules extensively enough to understand that our disagreement could easily be resolved with rules analysis. Infusing an item makes it a magic item. If that infusion requires attunement, then the item it becomes requires attunement. It's right there in the infuse item section of the artificer.
I probably end up agreeing with that interpretation but I have to say that it makes the Armorer a lot less appealing, they'll have to sacrifice a lot of their utility to have their main feature be interesting. Hell I'm not even sure that either of the separate pieces qualify as a "Item: A suit of armor " under that interpretation and that would mean no "Enhanced Defense" and that's problematic IMO.
If you rule that armor isn't a suit of armor for the purposes of this prerequisite, then it doesn't work at all on any light armor, or any medium armor except scale mail, or ring or splint mail.
Only scale mail, chain mail, and plate call themselves suits.
That's especially problematic for the artificers that don't get heavy armor proficiency.
If you rule that armor isn't a suit of armor for the purposes of this prerequisite, then it doesn't work at all on any light armor, or any medium armor except scale mail, or ring or splint mail.
Only scale mail, chain mail, and plate call themselves suits.
That's especially problematic for the artificers that don't get heavy armor proficiency.
Wasn't about if it calls itself "suit" or not but more that the feature cuts the armor into separate pieces. But you're probably right, the wording does seem to work.
If you rule that armor isn't a suit of armor for the purposes of this prerequisite, then it doesn't work at all on any light armor, or any medium armor except scale mail, or ring or splint mail.
Only scale mail, chain mail, and plate call themselves suits.
That's especially problematic for the artificers that don't get heavy armor proficiency.
Wasn't about if it calls itself "suit" or not but more that the feature cuts the armor into separate pieces. But you're probably right, the wording does seem to work.
Yeah, and one of those pieces is "armor (the chest piece)" which would seem to acceptable for fulfilling the requirement of a suit of armor unless you are saying that it needs to be a suit. Then anything that is armor that isn't a suit of armor needs also disqualified. As I said in #26.
Yeah, and one of those pieces is "armor (the chest piece)" which would seem to acceptable for fulfilling the requirement of a suit of armor unless you are saying that it needs to be a suit. Then anything that is armor that isn't a suit of armor needs also disqualified. As I said in #26.
Guess I was unclear. I'm fully OK with accepting that all of the armors in the list in the PHB qualify as a "suit of armor" even if the individual item doesn't say "suit" in its description. The text about armor proficiency "Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm." is enough for me.
The problem I see it that the Arcane Armor feature says "As an action, you can turn a suit of armor you are wearing into Arcane Armor, ..." and the "Armor Modifications" then turn it into separate pieces. And as your argument for individual attunement was that the separate pieces also are separate items it seems to me that you have taken something defined as a "suit" and split it apart. And I thought that the question if any of those parts still qualifies as being a "suit" was relevant.
It is very possible that the text saying that the chest piece is "armor" is enough but I do think that just assuming something modified by two separate features still automatically count as the base item was a bit sloppy.
You're ok with taking a sentence that isn't necessarily describing every piece of armor and applying it to them all? But then you're not ok with using that same ruling for armor later on (You've just said all armor counts as suits of armor, and the Armor Modifications feature is explicit about that one part being armor)? Seems rather circuitous to me.
We just need more attunement slots period. It's dumb we can't raise it by any means. Like it be great if you hit 20 abilities you get one for free or something. Just three is 100% worthless.
Also something I did for a player in one of my games but cant find it now is I homebrewed an item that give you more attunment slots like that feat. While it "cost" an attunment slot it gave 2 slots to make up for the missing one.
No. Infused items (may) require attunements, not generic armor bits. You don't attune to your armor. you attune to infused items (if they require it) or other magic items.
I think you might be thinking of video game inventories or something.
We're at a fundamental disagreement then. I believe the ruling creates a hierarchy so the Armorer doesn't just ditch their non-magical armor immediately.
I suggest you reread Attunement Rules and the lv 9 feature. You attune to an ITEM, the lv 9 features specifically let's you infuse separate pieces of your Arcane Armor as one piece
"armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor’s special weapon."
We are at a fundamental disagreement, and I have read the rules extensively enough to understand that our disagreement could easily be resolved with rules analysis. Infusing an item makes it a magic item. If that infusion requires attunement, then the item it becomes requires attunement. It's right there in the infuse item section of the artificer.
It is quite telling to note the part that you left out about the level 9 feature though.
You can almost see the precision cutting that had to be done to get from the entire sentence in the rule to what you quoted.
By the way, for reference, the first sentence of the Attunement rules:
I suggest you do some rereading yourself my friend.
Armor Modifications
At 9th level, you learn how to use your artificer infusions to specially modify your Arcane Armor. That armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your Infuse Items feature: armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor's special weapon. 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. In addition, the maximum number of items you can infuse at once increases by 2, but those extra items must be part of your Arcane Armor.
No where in the description does it say the armor only requires taking up 1 attunement slot. It does however explicitly state that the armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your infuse item feature. Sadly that ends your argument of the armor counting as only 1 attunement slot if you put multiple infusions on it that require attunement. Because they COUNT AS SEPARATE ITEMS AND NOT ONE ITEM.
I probably end up agreeing with that interpretation but I have to say that it makes the Armorer a lot less appealing, they'll have to sacrifice a lot of their utility to have their main feature be interesting. Hell I'm not even sure that either of the separate pieces qualify as a "Item: A suit of armor " under that interpretation and that would mean no "Enhanced Defense" and that's problematic IMO.
If you rule that armor isn't a suit of armor for the purposes of this prerequisite, then it doesn't work at all on any light armor, or any medium armor except scale mail, or ring or splint mail.
Only scale mail, chain mail, and plate call themselves suits.
That's especially problematic for the artificers that don't get heavy armor proficiency.
Wasn't about if it calls itself "suit" or not but more that the feature cuts the armor into separate pieces. But you're probably right, the wording does seem to work.
Yeah, and one of those pieces is "armor (the chest piece)" which would seem to acceptable for fulfilling the requirement of a suit of armor unless you are saying that it needs to be a suit. Then anything that is armor that isn't a suit of armor needs also disqualified. As I said in #26.
Guess I was unclear. I'm fully OK with accepting that all of the armors in the list in the PHB qualify as a "suit of armor" even if the individual item doesn't say "suit" in its description. The text about armor proficiency "Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm." is enough for me.
The problem I see it that the Arcane Armor feature says "As an action, you can turn a suit of armor you are wearing into Arcane Armor, ..." and the "Armor Modifications" then turn it into separate pieces. And as your argument for individual attunement was that the separate pieces also are separate items it seems to me that you have taken something defined as a "suit" and split it apart. And I thought that the question if any of those parts still qualifies as being a "suit" was relevant.
It is very possible that the text saying that the chest piece is "armor" is enough but I do think that just assuming something modified by two separate features still automatically count as the base item was a bit sloppy.
You're ok with taking a sentence that isn't necessarily describing every piece of armor and applying it to them all? But then you're not ok with using that same ruling for armor later on (You've just said all armor counts as suits of armor, and the Armor Modifications feature is explicit about that one part being armor)? Seems rather circuitous to me.
Thanks, was put the spirit of obo'laka in as a magic item, and I couldn't figure out how to do it. This works.
Thanks so much for the input it was so helpful!!
Perfect, thank you! Our DM decided to give us an extra slot as a reward and this worked perfectly.
Here, in case this helps anyone: (https://www.dndbeyond.com/feats/265761-attuned).
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
We just need more attunement slots period. It's dumb we can't raise it by any means. Like it be great if you hit 20 abilities you get one for free or something. Just three is 100% worthless.
Not worth wasting a feat on that. If it gave 3 then yes. Getting tough, or anything is worth more.
Also something I did for a player in one of my games but cant find it now is I homebrewed an item that give you more attunment slots like that feat. While it "cost" an attunment slot it gave 2 slots to make up for the missing one.
If you say so. 🤷♂️ It’s my most popular feat, over 1,000 people have added it to their collections, and it has a comunity rating above 30:
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Also as a DM you can add the feat to a character sheet and not eat there feats.
Anyone can add feats directly to their own character sheet without an ASI under “Features & Traits->Feats->Manage Feats”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting