log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E How is Artificer Balanced?

A tiny sized magical object can easily be considered to be within the weight capacity of the Mage Hand cantrip. My group has used that to pass the baton, as it were. Typically to play “keep away” if enemy spell casters get close to the Protector Cannon.
Could just put it in a sack so your enemy spellcasters can't see it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Could just put it in a sack so your enemy spellcasters can't see it.
That seems, uncouth. The turret is powerful enough, even before ruling it doesn’t need line of effect.
The player of the Artificer constantly changes the appearance and Role Play description, so pure efficiency is not always an option..(alas 😀)
 

Coroc

Hero
The turret is largely immune to AoE effects. Remember; it's an object, not a creature.

If the turret is attended (its being held, worn or is clinging to a creature) it becomes an attended object, and is not affected by most AoE effects. In addition most AoE effects only target creatures, they dont target objects.

Look at fireball:



Fireball doesnt damage it (its an object, not a creature) even if unattended, and only sets it on fire if the Turret is fluffed as being flammable and is unattended. Burning hands is worded the same.

Same deal with a dragons breath:



Its also immune to that. It's not a creature; it's a magic object. It is just as immune to the AoE damage as +2 Full plate or a Cloak of resistance or the fighters sword is.

In fact I cant think of many AoE spells or effects that actually target objects, and the few that do require the object to be unattended (not worn or carried).

It's the same with spell targeting generally. A heck of a lot of spells target 'one creature within range'. As the turret is not a creature (it's an object) it cannot be targeted. You cant spam an Eldritch blast on it for example.
Very clarifying, and if you recap, quite logical. Since the thing is although kind of summoned, part of the artificers weapons it should be as immune to most AE etc. as other things carried around by players.

The question comes up though, why is it stated with HP and AC anyway?

Is it intended to be at least attackable by physical means? A built in "tank/decoy" to get attention away from the artificer himself?
 

The rules for Objects in the DMG, (pg 246), states this about Objects:
For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book,table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects.

So, (to me), an Arcane Canon, a magical object, is already, somewhat, outside the normal definition of objects per the rules. An Arcane Canon, is most certainly animate.

The intent of the class, moreover, is for the player to describe what they are making. An origami paper dragon turret or even a turret made of brass, certainly are susceptible to burning or melting.

The Fireball spell says this:
The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried.

So while creatures are allowed a saving throw, an object gets NO Saving Throw and is automatically subject to the effect, and catches on fire, (if appropriate), in addition.

Not being a creature, grants the Arcane Canon, less protection than a creature, not more.

To counter all rules lawyer-ish arguments the DMG states(pg 246):
Use common sense when determining a character's success at damaging an objects.

If the Jawas in Star Wars can shoot R2-D2 with a lightning gun, then it seems like common sense that someone could target a player’s, physical, Arcane Canon with a Lightning Bolt or a Fireball.

How the player choses to describe their Arcane Canon, is going to drive how it interacts with spells. Keep in mind, the Arcane Canon, as an object, is going to interact with spells, it has NO choice. It gets no chance to save itself.................not it is unaffected.
 
Last edited:

When RAW is harmful to the suspension of disbelief, it's time to ditch RAW. There is no practical difference between a turret trotting around on little legs and a suit of animated armour. The technicality of one being labelled an object and the other being labelled a construct is just that - a label. The DM should decide what they are affected by. It is a convenience/narrative device to treat worn or carried things differently, so fireballs don't destroy the PC's clothes (not looking at any Game of Thrones in particular), or the wooden floor they are standing on (unless the DM thinks that development would be fun).

As for Fireball, it does not say "leaves objects in the AoE untouched", it says, by omission "objects don't get a saving throw".
 

TaranTheWanderer

Adventurer
I'm playing a battlesmith at the moment. 6th level.

I admit that I'm not optimizing for damage - we have a barbarian and a warlock for that. I instead shifted the character a bit towards filling a support and rogue slot...

So, not using a combat cantrip at this time - I have mending (for the Steel Defender) and Mage Hand for utility. I'm working with an infused crossbow, and with the extra attack, and the Defender's attack, it all comes out to be a decent steady damage output.
RE: the rogue.

if you are using the turret as a worn object, can you get sneak attack with it if you are muti-classed? I'm thinking no because it isn't finesse or light...but it is a ranged weapon and bows allow for SA.
 


RE: the rogue.

if you are using the turret as a worn object, can you get sneak attack with it if you are muti-classed? I'm thinking no because it isn't finesse or light...but it is a ranged weapon and bows allow for SA.
No.

As per rules, the force balista makes a ranged spell attack. In 5e you can't sneek attack with a spell attack.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
RE: the rogue.

if you are using the turret as a worn object, can you get sneak attack with it if you are muti-classed?
I am playing a Battlesmith, so I haven't had to answer that question.

As a GM, if I had to rule this moment, I'd say:

Sneak attack requires you make an attack with a finesse or ranged weapon. The Force Ballista power is a ranged spell attack, not a weapon attack. If you can't sneak attack with fire bolt, you can't with the turret.
 

Ashrym

Hero
The turret is largely immune to AoE effects. Remember; it's an object, not a creature.
The larger canon occupies space (which can be useful) and is unattended by default. The held canon loses that space and can still become unattended. When it comes up damage based on saves is a weakness for canons.
 

If the Jawas in Star Wars can shoot R2-D2 with a lightning gun, then it seems like common sense that someone could target a player’s, physical, Arcane Canon with a Lightning Bolt or a Fireball.
R2 is a creature (namely a construct) and the Demp guns they shoot him with are capable of making ranged weapon attacks (and ranged weapon attacks can target objects - even attended ones - just fine).
 

Flamestrike, that is focusing on flavor text that is meaningless. My decision to include an admittedly superfluous Star Wars reference was an attempt to add a laugh to a long post.

By not addressing the rules portion of the post, should we assume capitulation on the points stated?

The Arcane Canon rules also state this:
If it is forced to make an ability check or a saving throw, treat all its ability scores as 10 (+O).

So if the Arcane Canon is just an object, in most circumstances it will have no chance at a Saving Throw.
If the Arcane Canon, is in a new category as a "magical object", then a Saving Throw is at the discretion of the DM, using the guideline of "common sense " per the DMG. When the Arcane Canon does get a Saving Throw, it is just a straight roll of a die 20.

In either circumstance, the Arcane Canon is quite susceptible to being attacked.
 

Flamestrike, that is focusing on flavor text that is meaningless. My decision to include an admittedly superfluous Star Wars reference was an attempt to add a laugh to a long post.

By not addressing the rules portion of the post, should we assume capitulation on the points stated?

The Arcane Canon rules also state this:
If it is forced to make an ability check or a saving throw, treat all its ability scores as 10 (+O).

So if the Arcane Canon is just an object, in most circumstances it will have no chance at a Saving Throw.
If the Arcane Canon, is in a new category as a "magical object", then it at the discretion of the DM, using the guideline of "common sense " per the DMG, when the Arcane Canon does get a Saving Throw, it is just a straight roll of a die 20.

In either circumstance, the Arcane Canon is quite susceptible to being attacked.
No, the cannon is not a creature. Creature is a specific game term. An Eldrich canon is an object (specifically a magic object). It can not be targeted unless the spell, effect, attack or ability allows the targeting of objects.

Being a 'magic' object, it doesnt function in an AMF though.

Being a magic object, it's immune to disintegrate:

This spell automatically disintegrates a Large or smaller non-magical object or a creation of magical force. If the target is a Huge or larger object or creation of force, this spell disintegrates a 10-foot-cube portion of it. A magic item is unaffected by this spell.


They should have made it a Creature for mine (specifically a construct), but its not, it is an object (specifically a magical object).

I guess your DM could have it affected by the odd spell or effect notwithstanding the RAW, but that's a DM call really. The RAW on creatures/ objects and targeting is pretty clear.
 


Right the rule is common sense...which is the DMs call. As the Disintegrate spell predates the rules for the Arcane Canon..judgement is required. Magic Items are not intended to be targets of Disintergrate...

Flamestrike, you seem to be selectively pasting only parts of the texts of spells.
Did you miss this part of the Disintegrate spell:
The target can be a creature, an object, or a creation of magical force, such as the wall created by wall of force.

So again, if the Arcane Canon is ruled an object...instant disintegration, if the canon is ruled as a new category then a roll of a die 20 Saving Throw is all it gets. If one were to rule the canon a magical item, then it is immune.
 
Last edited:

You didn't answer my question so I win" absolutely can not ever be a valid point in an argument.
doc, that was to bring emphasis to the fact that Flamestrike was not responding to factual points, but to the irrelevant, attempted humor in the post.

The intent of the phrase you are objecting to was not to say "I win", but to encourage a response to points made, rather then making a straw man argument....which R2D2 is.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
doc, that was to bring emphasis to the fact that Flamestrike was not responding to factual points, but to the irrelevant, attempted humor in the post.

The intent of the phrase you are objecting to was not to say "I win", but to encourage a response to points made, rather then making a straw man argument....which R2D2 is.
And the point of my response was that such a phrase never encourages further genuine discussion, because it makes the speaker seem like they are arguing in bad faith.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
So again, if the Arcane Canon is ruled an object...instant disintegration, if the canon is ruled as a new category then a roll of a die 20 Saving Throw is all it gets. If one were to rule the canon a magical item, then it is immune.
No ruling is required. It is both magical, and an object. It is therefor a magical item.
 

DMG pg 133:
Magic Items. Types of magic items include armor, potions, scrolls, rings, rods, staffs, wands, weapons, and wondrous items. Magic items also have rarities: common, uncommon, rare, very rare, and legendary.

I would say, categorizing the Arcane Canon as a wondrous item, which is what in effect you are claiming..is most definitely a ruling.

Your table, your rules....I would argue, however, that such a ruling is bad jurisprudence..as is ignoring the text. In this case you are essentially re-writing the text...which in an occidental legal context, is considered bad form at least....or gross negligence or malfeasance at worst.

Again..your game, your ruling.
 

Right the rule is common sense...which is the DMs call. As the Disintegrate spell predates the rules for the Arcane Canon..judgement is required.
No, if the intent was for the Canon to be targeted by spells that target creatures, they would have made the canon a creature (construct) instead of an object, or included a rule that it can be targeted as if it were a creature (despite being an object).

Like (for example) the constructs created by animate objects does. It specifically turns objects into creatures (constructs) that are capable of being targeted with spells and effects that target creatures.

Flamestrike, you seem to be selectively pasting only parts of the texts of spells.
Did you miss this part of the Disintegrate spell:
The target can be a creature, an object, or a creation of magical force, such as the wall created by wall of force.
Yes, you can target objects, creatures and magical force effects with disintegrate. You cant target magic objects though. The text of the spell specifically rules them immune.

So again, if the Arcane Canon is ruled an object...instant disintegration,
No, the disintegrate spell expressly does not affect magic objects. The canon is expressly a magic object. It is not affected by disintegrate.

For an AoE spell that affects magic objects look at Meteor Swarm:

Blazing orbs of fire plummet to the ground at four different points you can see within range. Each creature in a 40-foot-radius Sphere centered on each point you choose must make a Dexterity saving throw. The Sphere spreads around corners. A creature takes 20d6 fire damage and 20d6 bludgeoning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. A creature in the area of more than one fiery burst is affected only once.

The spell damages Objects in the area and ignites flammable Objects that aren't being worn or carried.
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top