D&D 5E How is Artificer Balanced?

[Flamestrike]

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).

 

[Todd Roybark]

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]

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Literally no one, ever, anywhere, is capitulating when they don't respond directly to a point that you raise.

"You didn't answer my question so I win" absolutely can not ever be a valid point in an argument.

 

[Todd Roybark]

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.

 

[Todd Roybark]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Todd Roybark]

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.

 

[Flamestrike]

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.