-1
\$\begingroup\$

Relevant Text:

Wish

You grant up to ten creatures you can see immunity to a single spell or other magical effect for 8 hours.

Antimagic Field

Magic Items. The properties and powers of magic items are suppressed in the sphere. For example, a +1 longsword in the sphere functions as a nonmagical longsword. A magic weapon’s properties and powers are suppressed if it is used against a target in the sphere or wielded by an attacker in the sphere. If a magic weapon or a piece of magic ammunition fully leaves the sphere (for example, if you fire a magic arrow or throw a magic spear at a target outside the sphere), the magic of the item ceases to be suppressed as soon as it exits.

Infusing An Item

Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch a nonmagical object and imbue it with one of your artificer infusions, turning it into a magic item.

Scenario: An Artificer starts sleeping, at the 4 hour mark, a friendly wizard grants immunity to a spell / magical effect for 8 hours. At the 7 hours and 10 minutes, the wizard casts antimagic field.

When the Artificer wakes up, they grab a mundane item that was once a magical item. They use an infusion on it, and are seemingly immune to not being allowed to use a magical effect on an object.

Questions:

  1. If the Artificer is immune to the spell, does that carry over to the item its magical effect is on?
  2. Assuming that the infusion is on the item, but just suppressed, what happens to the original magic item properties when the antimagic field runs out? Do both properties of the infusion and the original properties carry over? Or does one overpower the other?
\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ Welcome to RPG Stack Exchange. Take the tour if you want to learn about customs around here. I added the D&D 5e tag as you quote it at length, and we always require the game tag for rules questions, as rules differ between games and editions. Have fun! \$\endgroup\$ May 4 at 4:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ I love this question, +1. I'd like to ask, are you trying to solve a specific problem, or is this hypothetical? Sometimes when people ask that, it seems like they're implying it's a bad question. I'm not implying that. But it might make a difference if it's a question from a live game with a DM, or a hypothetical and DM-free exercise in rules examination. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jack
    May 4 at 21:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Jack Nope, purely hypothetical lol. I was just curious if there's anything in RAW that provides further clarification or implies some course of action. \$\endgroup\$
    – Alterinam
    May 7 at 19:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ Maybe i am missing one thing: the item your are infusing is mundane item that received an infusion? Then you are trying to infuse it again? \$\endgroup\$
    – Eddymage
    May 8 at 13:40

3 Answers 3

5
\$\begingroup\$

You wasted one magical infusion of the day.

The Wish spell granted you the immunity to the Antimagic Field spell: this means that all your magical abilities are working normally, not influenced by the latter spell.

The magic item you are trying to infuse is actually a mundane item, since Antimagic Field suppresses any power and any magic property: hence it is an eligible target for one of your infusion. But as soon as the infusion takes place, the item becomes magical and it does not have any immunity to Antimagic Field, then the field suppressed the new magical properties granted by the infusion.

Indeed, the classical use of Wish for granting this immunity works only on creatures and not on items:

You grant up to ten creatures you can see immunity to a single spell or other magical effect for 8 hours. For instance, you could make yourself and all your companions immune to a lich's life drain attack.

If you want a more specific effect, you have to word it very well and work with your DM to accomplish what you desire.

The item hence lose all its infused properties while in the AoE of Antimagic Field.

As soon as the item exits from the AoE, all its magical properties are again present, including the ones before the infusion: this makes it a non suitable target for the Artificer infusion and then it makes lose the infused properties.

Summing up:

  • The artificer is immune to Antimagic Field (AF) via Wish.
  • One magic item, with magical features A, becomes mundane inside AF.
  • The item is a suitable target for an artificer's infusion, since it is now a mundane item: due to the infusion it becomes magical.
  • The new magical properties, namely I, are suppressed by the AF.
  • AF ends (or the artificer exits from its AoE): the magical properties are again presents, both A and I
  • since it is a magic item with properties A, the item is not a suitable target for the infusion: it loses the infused properties I.

If you infuse a mundane item while in the Antimagic Field, as in the previous case you can infuse the item, but all of its magical properties are suppressed. Once outside of the AoE of Antimagic Field, the infusion kicks in and the item has all the infused properties.

\$\endgroup\$
12
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, I agree. But wouldn't the Artificer being immune to the antimagic field allow it to use its very magical imbuing? I do agree, the item would IMMEDIATELY turn into a mundane item, but the infusion would be just suppressed. I'm just trying to see the logic where antimagic field turns a magic item into a mundane item, which means that making it a mundane item that comes from a magical item implies that it was once a magical item in the first place. Why would the infusion not stick (the target for the infusion only applies when you finish a long rest) but the original properties would? \$\endgroup\$
    – Alterinam
    May 4 at 17:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Alterinam As soon as a magic item exits the AoE of AF it regains its magical properties, as stated in the spell description. It does not turn permanently into a mundane item. \$\endgroup\$
    – Eddymage
    May 4 at 17:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, I already understand that. The point I was asking in my comment was regarding which magical properties it regains. It never uses the word "original" anywhere in the spell. Thus, which properties would be applied on the magical item. This is under the assumption that "immune" means that your spells and magical effects are unimpeded by antimagic field and that you can target an mundane item whilst immune. That was mainly the crux of the question: I was not claiming that they permanently lose their magic. \$\endgroup\$
    – Alterinam
    May 4 at 20:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Alterinam I think that I explained in the answer: once outside the AF, the item becomes again magical as it was before the infusion: since the artificier came out after the spell, AF did not take into account that a magic item could change its properties. \$\endgroup\$
    – Eddymage
    May 4 at 22:14
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't fully understand what connections you're making. As I already said, there are no mentions of it restoring the original properties of the magic item in the first place. The word "original" does not appear anywhere in the antimagic field. It does say when it leaves the field that its magical properties return, but it doesn't say which ones. In other words, how does one determine which magical properties return. Under a reading of antimagic field, it says "properties", which means it doesn't preclude infusions, right? I'm just looking for a cite where it says what you're saying. \$\endgroup\$
    – Alterinam
    May 7 at 19:19
2
\$\begingroup\$

Nothing happens (but ask your DM)

I am assuming the wizard grants immunity to antimagic field to the artificer (you do just say "a spell" in the question, but that seems to be the premise).

What it means to be immune to a spell is not defined by the rules, so in the end the DM adjudicates how to handle it. You seem to think it means that for the immune creature it is as if the spell had never been cast, but another DM may decide it only means that a spell cannot affect the immune creature, or it means that direct effects from that spell cannot work on the creature, but indirect ones can (like in the case where an attacker has been buffed with, say enlarge, and thus deals extra damage with its attacks). The rules do not specify how that works, so the DM must decide.

Here is how I as the DM would reason:

Even if the artificer himself is immune to antimagic field, the item he is trying to infuse is not, otherwise its status as a magic item would not be supressed. Antimagic field says

Targeted Effects. Spells and other magical effects, such as magic missile and charm person, that target a creature or an object in the sphere have no effect on that target.

So Infusing an Item has no effect on the item, even though the artificer still can infuse items or use other magical abilities in the sphere. To your specific questions

  1. No, as you cannot infuse the item in the first place, the question if immunity would carry over is moot.

  2. These things cannot happen.

\$\endgroup\$
7
  • \$\begingroup\$ Could the downvoter add a note on what they think is not right with the answer? Thank you. \$\endgroup\$ May 4 at 6:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ You can infuse the item, simply as soon as the infusion takes place it does not work due to the AF. \$\endgroup\$
    – Eddymage
    May 4 at 6:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Eddymage Do you mean infusing is not a magical effect? Because antimagic field says explicitly that magical effects do not work on objects in its area. \$\endgroup\$ May 4 at 6:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ But the artificer is immune. \$\endgroup\$
    – Eddymage
    May 4 at 6:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Eddymage Yes, but what does that mean? The rules never define that. I do not debate that the artificer still can go and infuse items, what I do believe is that this would not also make the item immune (but I am also not claiming that the rules say that, I only say that is how I would rule -- because the rules do not say either way) \$\endgroup\$ May 4 at 6:21
1
\$\begingroup\$

This doesn't work

The problem lies in Antimagic Field and Infuse Item. Here are the relevant bits of text with added emphasis:

Antimagic Field:

The properties and powers of magic items are suppressed in the sphere. For example, a +1 longsword in the sphere functions as a nonmagical longsword.

Infuse Item:

you can touch a nonmagical object

Antimagic Field does not turn a magic item into a nonmagical object, it just suppresses the magic powers of the item. The item itself is still a magic item and not a valid target for infusion.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I never really considered that. But, "...and even magic items become mundane.". I get that specific overrides general, but I don't see how both pieces of text conflict. \$\endgroup\$
    – Alterinam
    May 10 at 15:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ I missed that part. I guess magic items do become mundane items then. Or that's just flavour text and the actual mechanics are that the items are still magic but the effects are suppressed. \$\endgroup\$ May 10 at 17:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .