4
\$\begingroup\$

If I were to split a sword in two, and use a different infusions on both parts, and lock them back together (without fusing them together), would I get one weapon with 2 artificer infusions?

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ How do you intend to lock them back together without fusing them? If you don't fuse them, aren't you just trying to hold two weapons in one hand? \$\endgroup\$ – RHS May 18 at 6:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ Can you just tie two swords together? \$\endgroup\$ – SeanR May 19 at 14:39
22
\$\begingroup\$

No, this won't work

All of the infusions that apply to weapons have the restriction:

Item: A simple or martial weapon...

A part of a sword isn't a sword and therefore isn't a viable item to have a weapon infusion placed on it.

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • \$\begingroup\$ I disagree, it still is a blade on a handle designed with the intent to cause damage, a thin sword is still a sword just look at rapiers \$\endgroup\$ – user55068 May 17 at 23:42
  • 11
    \$\begingroup\$ Is your intent to somehow slice a sword down the middle creating two still functional 'swords'? Rapiers are designed with a specific intent in mind. So is any other sword. Cutting it in half destroys that design intent (unless the original design was woefully inefficient and included more material that was strictly required). At best you'd be left with two improvised weapons, which still aren't of any use for your purposes. \$\endgroup\$ – Steve May 17 at 23:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ Wouldn't the blade fall out the hilt if you sliced it down the middle? \$\endgroup\$ – RHS May 18 at 6:51
  • 9
    \$\begingroup\$ @user55068 yeah but your tag says "dnd-5e" and not "play-pretend" and DnD has clear rules about what is a weapon/object and what isn't. And even if you homebrew combining sword parts, the second you do it RHS's answer comes in and the later-cast infusion removes the older one. \$\endgroup\$ – Hobbamok May 18 at 7:18
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @user55068 You try to solve that question narratively. But that doesn't work if you try to figure out a game's mechanic. You can't compare DnD to RL. The rules are very specific when it comes to the definition what a weapon is. It's not the pummel, the guard or the blade... it's the whole damn thing, the sum of its parts that makes a sword a sword. \$\endgroup\$ – TheKhileyan May 18 at 11:45
17
\$\begingroup\$

Only one infusion per object

The rules in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything (where the Artificer is introduced) say on page 13 (emphasis mine):

You must touch each of the objects, and each of your infusions can be in only one object at a time. Moreover, no object can bear more than one of your infusions at a time.

It also goes on to say what happens if you try what you described:

If you try to exceed your maximum number of infusions, the oldest infusion ends, and then the new infusion applies.

Note that it doesn't specifiy that this is what happens if you try to infuse the same object twice - it just says that this is what happens if you try to exceed the maximum (by whatever means).

So either you "combined" the two parts of the sword in a way that still leaves them as two objects. in which case you would attempt to hold two objects (weapons) in one hand (which doesn't work), or you combined them in such a way that it becomes a single object, in which case the older of the two infusions stops and the newer remains.

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.