An arcane wrecking ball or sledgehammer projects from your armor. The demolisher counts as a Simple Melee weapon with the Reach property, and it deals 1d10 Force damage on a hit.
To me, the first sentence is fluff. "Arcane" is never used for rules or mechanics. My interpretation is that the demolisher can be buffed with the Magic Weapon spell.
Improved Arsenal. You gain a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the special weapon of your Arcane Armor model.
Even this feature doesn't actually say it becomes magical(As the Magic Weapon spell, and other effects do), and I think a strict reading of the rules allows you to stack a casting of Magic Weapon on this.
To me, RAW, this works. As far as RAI goes, I think before Improve Arsenal it's legit. After that, I'm guessing this was just a flub in the writing of the feature.
If it doesn't specifically say it's magical, it's not.
That said: These aren't normal weapons, they're part of the armor. So they can't be created separately as magic items, but enhancements like the Magic Weapon spell should be fine.
The wrecking ball or sledgehammer is part of the armor. Can one cast Magic Weapon on armor? I think not; it can only be cast on a non-magical weapon. Now don't be confused by the wording "The demolisher counts as a Simple Melee weapon..." The "counts as" stuff is game play mechanics of what reach it has and what damage it does (but it's still not a weapon...it's part of the armor).
Another illustration is as follows: Say you have fighter, who fights with a longsword and a shield, giving him the +2 to AC. Can you cast magic weapon on the shield, so that when the fighter smashes the shield into an enemy he gets +1 to attack and damage with it?
The "counts as" stuff is game play mechanics of what reach it has and what damage it does
I disagree with your interpretation of "counts as." The rules are saying it's a weapon. You're saying you just don't want to read that part.
Your example of the shield is completely misplaced. There's nothing in the rules for shields that say they count as a weapon. It does say that for the demolisther.
The "counts as" stuff is game play mechanics of what reach it has and what damage it does
I disagree with your interpretation of "counts as." The rules are saying it's a weapon. You're saying you just don't want to read that part.
Your example of the shield is completely misplaced. There's nothing in the rules for shields that say they count as a weapon. It does say that for the demolisther.
There are rules about shields (and other non-weapon objects) counting as a weapon, see PHB pg 369 for Improvised Weapons. Sorry if I burst the bubble on your OP (i.e. overpowered, not original poster) Artificer build.
The "counts as" stuff is game play mechanics of what reach it has and what damage it does
I disagree with your interpretation of "counts as." The rules are saying it's a weapon. You're saying you just don't want to read that part.
Your example of the shield is completely misplaced. There's nothing in the rules for shields that say they count as a weapon. It does say that for the demolisther.
There are rules about shields (and other non-weapon objects) counting as a weapon, see PHB pg 369 for Improvised Weapons. Sorry if I burst the bubble on your OP (overpowered, not original poster) Artificer build.
1) If anything, the "Weapon Equivalents" section of that rule is a point in favor of my interpretation. Nothing there helped your side.
2) Adding Magic Weapon to the demolisher would still be miles short of making anything to do with that OP. Far stronger builds can be accomplished without ever coming near the edges of the rules. You've assumed an intent on my part while having no evidence to support that assumption.
3) Even if you had pointed out accurate or well reasoned points, the snark about bursting my bubble would be very sad on your part.
1) If anything, the "Weapon Equivalents" section of that rule is a point in favor of my interpretation. Nothing there helped your side.
2) Adding Magic Weapon to the demolisher would still be miles short of making anything to do with that OP. Far stronger builds can be accomplished without ever coming near the edges of the rules. You've assumed an intent on my part while having no evidence to support that assumption.
3) Even if you had pointed out accurate or well reasoned points, the snark about bursting my bubble would be very sad on your part.
Look, once again the description of the original ability says..."An arcane wrecking ball or sledgehammer projects from your armor." The wrecking ball or sledgehammer is PART OF THE ARMOR, period. They cannot be separated into two separate things, that being armor and weapon. You cannot cast the spell Magic Weapon on armor....period.
Were you hoping to show forum agreement to your DM so he/she will let you do it? You're not getting it, so far. Sorry...stop making up rules. Nor should you assume "flub in the writing of the original feature" to try to get around the rules.
That they are weapons, and not armor, was never even up for discussion. The rules clearly state that they are weapons. The discussion is are they magical, and if not, do they become magical at level 9?
Again, assuming intent with no evidence. I don't even have a game, or GM. I was just reading over artificer and noticed the they count as weapons, which means things that affect weapons affect them, and that they don't say they're magical. I'm not attempting to accomplish anything other than discuss a potential discrepancy between RAW and RAI, which is pretty much exactly what this forum is for. I'm unsure why you decided to make it about me and my imagined intentions, and even more unsure why you decided to be angry about it.
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".
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.
“The phrase “counts as a weapon” is not the same as “is a weapon”. The demolisher, being attached, and one with the armor, is part of a singular construct. That the game rules allows this piece of the armor to function similar to a Simple Weapon (and not an Improvised Weapon which has penalties, no proficiency bonus applied) does not make it a weapon.
“The phrase “counts as a weapon” is not the same as “is a weapon”. The demolisher, being attached, and one with the armor, is part of a singular construct. That the game rules allows this piece of the armor to function similar to a Simple Weapon (and not an Improvised Weapon which has penalties, no proficiency bonus applied) does not make it a weapon.
In that they are not the same exact words, yes. In that we cannot treat them as weapons using other mechanics of the game that effect weapons, I disagree. Unless you can point to Sage Advice or other official source explicitly backing up your position I see no reason why these things would "count as weapons" as opposed to being a feature that allows you to make a melee spell attack. I'd say this point is moot. It was never even the crux of the question. If you are of the position that they made things that count as weapons, just so we could not treat them as weapons, this topic isn't for you. The question here, as I said, is are these weapons magical?
Whether or not they are magical is moot. It seems to me that you want to ignore the elephant in the room, which is that the sledge/wrecking ball is part of the armor, in communion with the whole of the armor. Everything you propose to do after that falls apart. It doesn’t matter whether it’s magical or not….because you can’t cast Magic Weapon spell on armor!
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.
This is from the Armor Model section, before describing any of them. It's a weapon. Not debatable. Just because it's granted by the armor doesn't make it not a weapon.
There are rules about shields (and other non-weapon objects) counting as a weapon, see PHB pg 369 for Improvised Weapons. Sorry if I burst the bubble on your OP (i.e. overpowered, not original poster) Artificer build.
"Each model includes a special weapon. When you attack with that weapon ..." The section establishes that are weapons. The later sections tell us what kind of weapon it is.
"The demolisher counts as a Simple Melee weapon with the Reach property..." tells us that it counts as Simple, Melee, and having the Reach property.
"The pulse counts as a Simple Melee weapon..." tells us that counts as Simple and Melee.
"The launcher counts as a Simple Ranged weapon with a normal range of 90 feet and a long range of 300 feet..." tells us that counts as Simple and Ranged and what it's range categories are.
Since it already established that they are weapons, the phrase "counts as" applies to the other characteristics, not whether or not it is a weapon.
Whether or not they are magical is moot. It seems to me that you want to ignore the elephant in the room, which is that the sledge/wrecking ball is part of the armor, in communion with the whole of the armor. Everything you propose to do after that falls apart. It doesn’t matter whether it’s magical or not….because you can’t cast Magic Weapon spell on armor!
No one is saying it's not part of the armor.
It's a weapon that is part of the armor.
Things can be parts of other things. That doesn't make them not what they are. A wheel being part of a car doesn't make it not a wheel anymore.
Whether or not they are magical is moot. It seems to me that you want to ignore the elephant in the room, which is that the sledge/wrecking ball is part of the armor, in communion with the whole of the armor. Everything you propose to do after that falls apart. It doesn’t matter whether it’s magical or not….because you can’t cast Magic Weapon spell on armor!
No one is saying it's not part of the armor.
It's a weapon that is part of the armor.
Things can be parts of other things. That doesn't make them not what they are. A wheel being part of a car doesn't make it not a wheel anymore.
@ Wagnarokkr, I like your analogy. Say you have a spell that makes things go faster, but it is not allowed to be cast on cars. If you then direct the spell at the wheel of the car, would work? I say no, because while the wheel is physically attached to the rest of the car, the wheel is part of the car. It doesn’t matter that a wheel detached all by itself is just a wheel and not a car.
Bringing this back to the sledgehammer or wrecking ball: If the sledgehammer/wrecking ball can be physically removed from the armor, then I would agree that a Magic Weapon spell can be cast while detached, and then you can reattach it. But this option is not possible with the artificer armor, because the sledge/wrecking ball is permanently attached!
Whether or not they are magical is moot. It seems to me that you want to ignore the elephant in the room, which is that the sledge/wrecking ball is part of the armor, in communion with the whole of the armor. Everything you propose to do after that falls apart. It doesn’t matter whether it’s magical or not….because you can’t cast Magic Weapon spell on armor!
No one is saying it's not part of the armor.
It's a weapon that is part of the armor.
Things can be parts of other things. That doesn't make them not what they are. A wheel being part of a car doesn't make it not a wheel anymore.
@ Wagnarokkr, I like your analogy. Say you have a spell that makes things go faster, but it is not allowed to be cast on cars. If you then direct the spell at the wheel of the car, would work? I say no, because while the wheel is physically attached to the rest of the car, the wheel is part of the car. Doesn’t matter that a wheel all by itself is just a wheel and not a car.
The problem there is that you don't have the analogy quite right. What we're talking about is not a spell that's "not allowed to be cast on cars". We're talking about a spell that's "only allowed to be cast on wheels" and says nothing about whether the wheel can or can't be part of a car at the time.
Magic Weapon says it has to be cast on a weapon. It does not say that the weapon in question can't be part of something else. It doesn't say that the weapon in question can't be something else as well as being a weapon. It just has to be a weapon. The special weapons attached to Armorer armors are weapons, so you can cast the spell on them. It's as simple as that.
The funniest part of all this is that an artificer with haste and +2 Magic Weapon spell, and +1 from the level 9 feature does less than 2/3 the damage a GWM Barb is doing. This imaginary OP build I was supposedly trying to slip past an imaginary GM. Look out. It might solo a CR 5 mob at level 16!
Bringing this back to the sledgehammer or wrecking ball: If the sledgehammer/wrecking ball can be physically removed from the armor, then I would agree that a Magic Weapon spell can be cast while detached, and then you can reattach it. But this option is not possible with the artificer armor, because the sledge/wrecking ball is permanently attached!
That's something you're adding as a requirement and isn't part of the game. This is Rules & Game Mechanics, where RAW rules. You're looking for the Homebrew board.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
To me, the first sentence is fluff. "Arcane" is never used for rules or mechanics. My interpretation is that the demolisher can be buffed with the Magic Weapon spell.
Even this feature doesn't actually say it becomes magical(As the Magic Weapon spell, and other effects do), and I think a strict reading of the rules allows you to stack a casting of Magic Weapon on this.
To me, RAW, this works. As far as RAI goes, I think before Improve Arsenal it's legit. After that, I'm guessing this was just a flub in the writing of the feature.
If it doesn't specifically say it's magical, it's not.
That said: These aren't normal weapons, they're part of the armor. So they can't be created separately as magic items, but enhancements like the Magic Weapon spell should be fine.
The wrecking ball or sledgehammer is part of the armor. Can one cast Magic Weapon on armor? I think not; it can only be cast on a non-magical weapon. Now don't be confused by the wording "The demolisher counts as a Simple Melee weapon..." The "counts as" stuff is game play mechanics of what reach it has and what damage it does (but it's still not a weapon...it's part of the armor).
Another illustration is as follows: Say you have fighter, who fights with a longsword and a shield, giving him the +2 to AC. Can you cast magic weapon on the shield, so that when the fighter smashes the shield into an enemy he gets +1 to attack and damage with it?
I disagree with your interpretation of "counts as." The rules are saying it's a weapon. You're saying you just don't want to read that part.
Your example of the shield is completely misplaced. There's nothing in the rules for shields that say they count as a weapon. It does say that for the demolisther.
There are rules about shields (and other non-weapon objects) counting as a weapon, see PHB pg 369 for Improvised Weapons. Sorry if I burst the bubble on your OP (i.e. overpowered, not original poster) Artificer build.
1) If anything, the "Weapon Equivalents" section of that rule is a point in favor of my interpretation. Nothing there helped your side.
2) Adding Magic Weapon to the demolisher would still be miles short of making anything to do with that OP. Far stronger builds can be accomplished without ever coming near the edges of the rules. You've assumed an intent on my part while having no evidence to support that assumption.
3) Even if you had pointed out accurate or well reasoned points, the snark about bursting my bubble would be very sad on your part.
Look, once again the description of the original ability says..."An arcane wrecking ball or sledgehammer projects from your armor." The wrecking ball or sledgehammer is PART OF THE ARMOR, period. They cannot be separated into two separate things, that being armor and weapon. You cannot cast the spell Magic Weapon on armor....period.
Were you hoping to show forum agreement to your DM so he/she will let you do it? You're not getting it, so far. Sorry...stop making up rules. Nor should you assume "flub in the writing of the original feature" to try to get around the rules.
That they are weapons, and not armor, was never even up for discussion. The rules clearly state that they are weapons. The discussion is are they magical, and if not, do they become magical at level 9?
Again, assuming intent with no evidence. I don't even have a game, or GM. I was just reading over artificer and noticed the they count as weapons, which means things that affect weapons affect them, and that they don't say they're magical. I'm not attempting to accomplish anything other than discuss a potential discrepancy between RAW and RAI, which is pretty much exactly what this forum is for. I'm unsure why you decided to make it about me and my imagined intentions, and even more unsure why you decided to be angry about it.
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.
“The phrase “counts as a weapon” is not the same as “is a weapon”. The demolisher, being attached, and one with the armor, is part of a singular construct. That the game rules allows this piece of the armor to function similar to a Simple Weapon (and not an Improvised Weapon which has penalties, no proficiency bonus applied) does not make it a weapon.
In that they are not the same exact words, yes. In that we cannot treat them as weapons using other mechanics of the game that effect weapons, I disagree. Unless you can point to Sage Advice or other official source explicitly backing up your position I see no reason why these things would "count as weapons" as opposed to being a feature that allows you to make a melee spell attack. I'd say this point is moot. It was never even the crux of the question. If you are of the position that they made things that count as weapons, just so we could not treat them as weapons, this topic isn't for you. The question here, as I said, is are these weapons magical?
Whether or not they are magical is moot. It seems to me that you want to ignore the elephant in the room, which is that the sledge/wrecking ball is part of the armor, in communion with the whole of the armor. Everything you propose to do after that falls apart. It doesn’t matter whether it’s magical or not….because you can’t cast Magic Weapon spell on armor!
This is from the Armor Model section, before describing any of them. It's a weapon. Not debatable. Just because it's granted by the armor doesn't make it not a weapon.
"Each model includes a special weapon. When you attack with that weapon ..." The section establishes that are weapons. The later sections tell us what kind of weapon it is.
Since it already established that they are weapons, the phrase "counts as" applies to the other characteristics, not whether or not it is a weapon.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
No one is saying it's not part of the armor.
It's a weapon that is part of the armor.
Things can be parts of other things. That doesn't make them not what they are. A wheel being part of a car doesn't make it not a wheel anymore.
pronouns: he/she/they
@ Wagnarokkr, I like your analogy. Say you have a spell that makes things go faster, but it is not allowed to be cast on cars. If you then direct the spell at the wheel of the car, would work? I say no, because while the wheel is physically attached to the rest of the car, the wheel is part of the car. It doesn’t matter that a wheel detached all by itself is just a wheel and not a car.
Bringing this back to the sledgehammer or wrecking ball: If the sledgehammer/wrecking ball can be physically removed from the armor, then I would agree that a Magic Weapon spell can be cast while detached, and then you can reattach it. But this option is not possible with the artificer armor, because the sledge/wrecking ball is permanently attached!
The problem there is that you don't have the analogy quite right. What we're talking about is not a spell that's "not allowed to be cast on cars". We're talking about a spell that's "only allowed to be cast on wheels" and says nothing about whether the wheel can or can't be part of a car at the time.
Magic Weapon says it has to be cast on a weapon. It does not say that the weapon in question can't be part of something else. It doesn't say that the weapon in question can't be something else as well as being a weapon. It just has to be a weapon. The special weapons attached to Armorer armors are weapons, so you can cast the spell on them. It's as simple as that.
pronouns: he/she/they
The funniest part of all this is that an artificer with haste and +2 Magic Weapon spell, and +1 from the level 9 feature does less than 2/3 the damage a GWM Barb is doing. This imaginary OP build I was supposedly trying to slip past an imaginary GM. Look out. It might solo a CR 5 mob at level 16!
That's something you're adding as a requirement and isn't part of the game. This is Rules & Game Mechanics, where RAW rules. You're looking for the Homebrew board.