Can magic tattoos be used by warforged, or other constructs such as the battle smith artificer’s steel defender?

Magic tattoos all say things akin to the following:

To attune to this item, you hold the needle to your skin where you want the tattoo to appear, pressing the needle there throughout the attunement process. When the attunement is complete, the needle turns into the ink that becomes the tattoo, which appears on the skin.

They each appear on the skin, they are applied by being held to the skin. Can the metal body of a warforged use it? If so, the only other item I am aware of that has race specific requirements is the dwarven thrower.

It dawned on me that warforged aren’t considered constructs in 5e (at least I don’t think there is a distinction made for what player characters are). However, I think it should be considered that what would bar constructs from being able to use the tattoos is that the tattoos specifically say how you apply it to the skin, or how it appears on the skin. I think this would be the same disqualifying factor for warforged, or for other ‘constructs.’

Does the Artificer’s Spell-Storing Item effectively bypass the bonus action spellcasting rule?

The rule on Bonus Action Casting Time states:

A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

This would ordinarily prevent you from casting a levelled spell and a bonus action spell on the same turn; however, the Artificer’s Spell-Storing Item states:

[…] While holding the object, a creature can take an action to produce the spell’s effect from it, using your spellcasting ability modifier. […]

Furthermore, the following question’s highest-scoring answer states:

  • Do class or subclass features that relate to spellcasting apply when producing a spell's effect from an Artificer's Spell-Storing Item?

[…] The user never casts the spell either. They merely use a (special, unnamed) action to produce the spell’s effects. They don’t cast it and don’t get to modify it with their features which care about them casting a spell. […]

And the Sage Advice Compendium even states (page 3):

Q. Which action is used to activate a Spell-Storing Item?

A. Activating a Spell-Storing Item uses the Use an Object action.

Does this mean that a caster could use a Spell-Storing Item, creating the effects of any 1st or 2nd level Artificer spell with a casting time of 1 action, and then use their bonus action to cast any (bonus action) spell?

Artificers – One Shot disrupters?

As a DM in an upcoming group where we’re running one shots I had a passing thought that could be problematic. Artificers take time to build items/weapons/whatever, in a campaign setting there’s down time, days and evenings for them to create an item but that’s not the case in a one shot.

If an artificer walks in with 6 goggles of night they created it could really throw off a game balance. If they hand out 4 caps of water breathing it could make one of the dungeon challenges stupidly simple and really throw some wrenches into my plans.

I really don’t want to limit the types of characters in my games and I don’t want to ask everyone for every single magic item they have on their character but I also don’t want to set up a jungle trek with pit falls and mobs to have someone give everyone a broom of flying and they cruise over everything reach the end and go ‘tada’…

The talk is to have these one shots kinda blend together and create a world that has these jobs in it but there’s not specific ‘time line’ or ‘down time’ between one shots. Sssooo the artificer class could theoretically create 4 caps of water breathing and muck up plans for a DM. Or create the brooms of flying and give them away to their fellow characters.

Am I over-thinking this? Or can some DMs maybe give me some insight into how to handle this/ideas/get over it you baby. I mean I’d take the last option too but I’m hoping there might be some more clever thoughts. 😛

If the consensus is ‘shut up and deal with it’ I’ll take it but you can’t blame a person for asking for input.


Edit ~ This is DND 5e in reference to UA Artificer.

Can the artificer’s spell-storing item affect a Rakshasa?

My character is being hunted down by 3 Rakshasa. The character is aware they possess limited magic immunity which reads as follows:

Limited Magic Immunity. The rakshasa can’t be affected or detected by spells of 6th level or lower unless it wishes to be. It has advantage on saving throws against all other spells and magical effects. [Basic Rules, p. 341]

As a level 11 Artificer, I can store spells into a Spell-Storing Item.

Spell-Storing Item

At 11th level, you learn how to store a spell in an object. Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one simple or martial weapon or one item that you can use as a spellcasting focus, and you store a spell in it, choosing a 1st- or 2nd-level spell from the artificer spell list that requires 1 action to cast […].

While holding the object, a creature can take an action to produce the spell’s effect from it, using your spellcasting ability modifier. […] [ERLW p. 58]

Since the item is just "producing the spell’s effect" should it be treated as a magical effect instead of a 1st or 2nd level spell?

Is the Rakshasa immune to the spells produced by the item? Or would they just have advantage against saving throws?

Does the Artificer’s Steel Defender get a Full turn?

I know the Steel Defender uses your initiative and goes immediately after you. What I’m not sure about is what is can actually do on its turn.

Does a Steel Defender get a full turn?

  1. Action
  2. Free Action (Item interaction)
  3. Bonus Action
  4. Move

I know it has the stat block that tells you what action it can take but it does not say anything about having or not having a bonus action and what it can do with that.
It also does not specify interactions

Example 1

SD uses bonus action to activate boots of speed and now has the ability to move 80′ around the battlefield potentially using up AoO of enemies and positioning itself at a choke point Then takes the Dodge Action

Now we have a speedy Gonzales that can get up next to people and provide Cover, Help or be a damage sponge before zipping over the the other side to block a charging enemy that appeared from around that corner you never checked

Example 2

Party member about to die SD pulls out HP potion out of bag (item interaction) and Dashes (action) to party member Party members turn take potion and drink it.

Basically a mobile Vending machine that can run in hand out potions and use its reaction to impose disadvantage.

Does an artificer’s Spell-Storing Item bypass the need for costly/consumed material components?

Suppose I am an 11th-level Artificer with a +5 intelligence modifier, and I use my Spell-storing Item feature to store Continual Flame, whose material component is "ruby dust worth 50 gp, which the spell consumes". However, it’s not clear whether producing the spell from the item requires this or any components at all:

While holding the object [in which the spell is stored], a creature can take an action to produce the spell’s effect from it, using your spellcasting ability modifier.

The usage of the item appears consistent with the usual rules for casting spells from items: activating the item to cast the spell is an action, but that action is distinct from the "Cast a Spell" action and doesn’t require components. However, if this is the case, it seems that I can use Spell-Storing Item to produce 10 Continual Flame torches (or Arcane Locks) per day without spending any money at all. Does this work as described, or is there some reason that the spell-storing item would require the costly component in order to cast the spell?

Can an Artificer’s eldritch cannon work with the use of the Rogue’s sneak attack ability?

Sneak Attack

Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.

You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.

Eldritch Cannon

At 3rd level, you learn how to create a magical cannon. Using woodcarver’s tools or smith’s tools, you can take an action to magically create a Small or Tiny eldritch cannon in an unoccupied space on a horizontal surface within 5 feet of you. A Small eldritch cannon occupies its space, and a Tiny one can be held in one hand.

Once you create a cannon, you can’t do so again until you finish a long rest or until you expend a spell slot of 1st level or higher. You can have only one cannon at a time and can’t create one while your cannon is present.

The cannon is a magical object. Regardless of size, the cannon has an AC of 18 and a number of hit points equal to five times your artificer level. It is immune to poison damage, psychic damage, and all conditions. If it is forced to make an ability check or a saving throw, treat all its ability scores as 10 (+0). If the mending spell is cast on it, it regains 2d6 hit points. It disappears if it is reduced >to 0 hit points or after 1 hour. You can dismiss it early as an action.

Now, my question is, is an eldritch cannon counted as an enemy or not?

Can Two Artificers Make a Bag of Holding Bomb

So, the artificer class has the Infuse Item class feature, which allows it to make "effectively a prototype" of a permanent Bag of Holding using the Replicate Magic Item Artificer Infusion, which, as far as I can tell, is an exact replica of a real Bag of Holding, only temporary. It has all rules text of a Bag of Holding, including the following:

Placing a bag of holding inside an extradimensional space created by a handy haversack, portable hole, or similar item instantly destroys both items and opens a gate to the Astral Plane. The gate originates where the one item was placed inside the other. Any creature within 10 feet of the gate is sucked through it to a random location on the Astral Plane. The gate then closes. The gate is one-way only and can’t be reopened.

It was already ruled in the text of those items that Bag of Holding is a "similar item", meaning placing a Bag of Holding inside a Bag of Holding instantly buys all creatures within 10 feet of it a one way ticket to the Astral Plane.

So then, is there anything at all to stop a party from having two party members, both artificers (since a single one cannot make two bags of holding) from creating a "Bag of Holding Bomb" by strapping the bags together, lobbing them at the enemy, and then placing one bag in the other with a spell like Telekinesis?

If the Telekinesis spell is readied as a reaction to the bag being within 10 feet of an enemy, there would then be no saving throw or other way for them to avoid the warp, not even a legendary action.

I am aware of tricks a DM could use to avoid this, maybe the creature is smart enough to recognize the danger and ready reaction of it’s own to steal the bags, maybe someone in the Astral Plane gets annoyed at all the new visitors and starts sending them back, with some extra planar creatures tagging along as a bonus, etc.

But DM tricks aside, is the "Bag of Holding Bomb" RAW? In RAW, is it unavoidable, or is ruling that the creature can make a DEX save since it is being used as an attack still RAW? (I assume not, unless I missed something)

Does the artificer’s Enhanced Weapon stack on top of hexblade’s Improved Pact Blade?

I play a hexblade warlock with an Improved Pact Blade longsword. I like the idea of the eldritch tinkerer, who builds his patron’s gifts into his gadgets, which fits in a warlock/artificer multiclass. The artificer’s Enhanced Weapon infusion would be very nice with the warlock if it stacks with the Improved Pact Blade bonuses, but I can’t tell if it does from the class descriptions. Do these features stack, or do I need to rethink this build?