Anyone seen the new Faq? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Anyone seen the new Faq? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Lokiyn
08-24-06, 11:28 PM Of note
Artificer
When an artificer scribes a scroll, is it an arcane scroll,
a divine scroll, or neither?
Actually, it’s either.
As part of emulating the spell required to create the scroll,
the artificer may choose to treat it either as an arcane spell or a
divine spell. This has no bearing on the artificer’s ability to use
the scroll (unless he has levels in a spellcasting class with
access to the spell in question, he must make a Use Magic
Device check to use the scroll regardless of whether it’s arcane
or divine), but it’s quite important if anyone else wants to use
it.
Archivists got a huge boost. Since the scrolls can be selected for type now an archivist can scribe anything as divine for his archivist buddy, sigh

Page 282 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide says an item
that requires a specific class or alignment to use cuts the
cost of the item by 30%. The Extraordinary Artisan feat
(EBERRON Campaign Setting, page 53) says when
determining the cost when creating an item, reduce the base
price by 25%. Do these reductions stack?
Effectively, yes. Extraordinary Artisan cares only about the
actual base price of the item, however the DM has determined
it. It doesn’t care how that value was determined.
If the DM determined that a new magic item would
normally have a price of 10,000 gp, but that by adding a
restriction on its use its appropriate price dropped to 7,000 gp, a
character would normally have to spend 3,500 gp of raw
materials in order to create that item. A character with
Extraordinary Artisan would spend raw materials as if the base
price were 25% lower than 7,000 gp (or 5,250 gp), which
would result in only 2,625 gp of raw material cost.
Remember that the Dungeon Master’s Guide only provides
pricing guidelines, not strict rules. The sidebar on page 282
suggests a few rough adjustments that might help in finding an
appropriate price, but whenever you create a new magic item,
be sure its price is reasonable based on comparison to other
magic items of similar power level and utility. The DM is
strongly encouraged to adjust the price of any player-created
magic item to ensure that it is appropriate for the campaign.
This is particularly true of player-created items with a
restriction on who can use them, since that restriction often
isn’t significant in play. (Creating a magic rod that works only
for good-aligned characters doesn’t really prevent it from being
passed around in the party as needed, so it probably shouldn’t
result in much—if any—price reduction.)
hmmm this clears up the argument about multiplicitive or additive cost reduction.
igotsmeakabob!!
08-24-06, 11:48 PM Yes, those were The Sage's answers to some questions in the newest Dragon.
Lokiyn
08-24-06, 11:53 PM yep, but now that its in the faq its a bit more official than "dragon" magazine
igotsmeakabob!!
08-25-06, 12:02 AM Yeaaah... the sage is blatantly wrong sometimes though, but they usually catch those and fixem in a month.
LogicNinja
08-25-06, 12:07 AM So does that make a gestalt artificer/archivist the Most Broken Playable Thing In D&D?
Lokiyn
08-25-06, 12:15 AM Well the main thing is that it blatently ignores the ECS Errata

Page 32: Artificer—Item Creation
Magic items created by an artificer are considered
neither arcane nor divine.

But since this apparently calls out an exception to that rule in the form of scrolls then an archivist has it much easier to get those wiz/sorc/bard spells in his book.
Kresalak
08-25-06, 12:18 AM The Artificer is kinda "meh", as a Warlock could already do this-or the Artificer, if he made it with the Archivist. Archivists now have access to every spell ever printed... but Warlocks could already do that.
NoldorForce
08-25-06, 12:22 AM It helps the chameleons who only focus on one spellcasting focus.
catharz
08-25-06, 12:35 AM There was also an interesting bit stating that a Reforged Warforged Juggernaut looses Adamantine Body but retains all Juggernaut abilities, *****!

A warforged Juggernaut 3/Reforged 3 would, however, be unable to gain anymore Juggernaut levels, *****!

This lends more credibility to the assumption that PrC prerequisites matter only for taking levels in the class (although Dragon Disciple did that pretty well already).
Lokiyn
08-25-06, 01:10 AM This lends more credibility to the assumption that PrC prerequisites matter only for taking levels in the class (although Dragon Disciple did that pretty well already).

i thought the agreed apon (well as much as anything here) was that prerequisite are always required unless the class itself makes a change that invalidates the prerequisites.
X-Codes
08-25-06, 02:50 AM Well the main thing is that it blatently ignores the ECS Errata

But since this apparently calls out an exception to that rule in the form of scrolls then an archivist has it much easier to get those wiz/sorc/bard spells in his book.
No it doesn't. ECS Errata is RAW, whatever dumb thing the Sage says next isn't.

So does that make a gestalt artificer/archivist the Most Broken Playable Thing In D&D?
Don't need to go that far. If you follow the FAQ instead of the RAW then any Archivist need only pick up the Leadership feat. The Artificier Cohort he would recieve would be able to scribe any scroll the Archivist can use anyway thanks to his other special abilities. Even if they get more than 2 levels apart the Archivist can do some item crafting of his own (or use his XP to help the Artificier I think, I don't know where the rules for that are, however, if they exist).
tsuyoshikentsu
08-25-06, 03:15 AM Some pretty brain-dead rulings, wild shape and polymorph are now even MORE confusing, and nothing important was affected -- pretty much par for the course.
FriendlyFrog
08-25-06, 04:03 AM Some pretty brain-dead rulings, wild shape and polymorph are now even MORE confusing, and nothing important was affected -- pretty much par for the course.
I'm getting a feeling they're making playing a Druid so complicated that no one will want to do so anymore. That way they can "nerf" it without having to say "Okay, we made that mistake, Druids got too powerful, no one wanted to play something else."
colm_l
08-25-06, 08:05 AM Archivists got a huge boost. Since the scrolls can be selected for type now an archivist can scribe anything as divine for his archivist buddy, sigh

*Groan* Why don't they get someone who understands the implications of game mechanics to write the bloody FAQ.

There's no longer any reason to play any caster that's not an Archivist.

Better HD, Skills, class features, more spells per day than the wizard & now any spell written at it's lowest possible level.
jstorrie
08-25-06, 08:23 AM It should have been worded 'As part of emulating the spell required to create the scroll, if the spell exists on both divine and arcane spell lists, the artificer may choose to treat it either as an arcane spell or a divine spell.'

SAGE WHY DO YOU NOT GET CHAR-OP TO HELP YOU WITH YOUR DAMNED JOB?
jstorrie
08-25-06, 08:25 AM Anyway this ruling basically allows your party artificer to hand arcane scrolls of True Resurrection to the wizards, bards and hexblades in the group, so players rejoice!
hogarth
08-25-06, 08:33 AM Anyway this ruling basically allows your party artificer to hand arcane scrolls of True Resurrection to the wizards, bards and hexblades in the group, so players rejoice!
I was unaware that True Resurrection was on the hexblade spell list. :rolleyes:
jstorrie
08-25-06, 08:47 AM A spell doesn't need to be on your spell list to use a scroll, does it? It just has to be on the right side of the arcane/divine line. Or am I thinking wands?
hogarth
08-25-06, 08:51 AM A spell doesn't need to be on your spell list to use a scroll, does it? It just has to be on the right side of the arcane/divine line. Or am I thinking wands?
To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements.

-The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his or her class.)
-The user must have the spell on his or her class list.
-The user must have the requisite ability score.
Wands don't get classified as "arcane" or "divine"; you still need to have the spell on your spell list to use one, though.
Surreal
08-25-06, 12:31 PM Some pretty brain-dead rulings, wild shape and polymorph are now even MORE confusing, and nothing important was affected -- pretty much par for the course.
They changed it again?!?... ugh, y'know, I gave up about two erratas ago. I'm not even going to bother reading it this time.
FriendlyFrog
08-25-06, 12:49 PM They changed it again?!?... ugh, y'know, I gave up about two erratas ago. I'm not even going to bother reading it this time.
No, they didn't change it, it's about what you use your own constitution and what the new forms constitution for.
Will_Shakespeare
08-26-06, 08:23 AM Hi there,

and there is another thing in the new FAQ that contradicts the RAW, right?
I'm talking about the statement that an artificer never needs to supply an arcane material component, so spells that use such components are for free. That sounds kinda silly to me, because it means free Identify spells!?!
The ECS clearly states that an artificer either uses the arcane material component or an arcane focus.

ECS Errata:
An artificer never requires a divine focus to imbue an item with an infusion. In cases where an infusion duplicates a spell that requires either a material component or a divine focus, or requires either an arcane focus or a divine focus, the artificer uses the arcane material component or arcane focus.

What do you guys say?

Cheers

Will
Caelic
08-26-06, 08:43 AM In general, if the FAQ directly contradicts the primary source, the board convention has been to accept the primary source as authoritative. The best example I can think of is when the FAQ briefly insisted that Polymorph allowed one to take on templated forms, when the PHB clearly established that they couldn't.
runestar
08-26-06, 10:29 AM It seems that the same people in charge of churning out endless pages of errata for M:TG has found a new career path...:rolleyes:

*Groan* Why don't they get someone who understands the implications of game mechanics to write the bloody FAQ.
Because that is not their responsibility to begin with. They can add sidenotes stating their own 2 cents about possible game imbalances, but at the end of the day, their job is solely to interpret the rules as they are written, whether it will upset the game or not is really not their business. :P
colm_l
08-27-06, 05:26 PM Because that is not their responsibility to begin with. They can add sidenotes stating their own 2 cents about possible game imbalances, but at the end of the day, their job is solely to interpret the rules as they are written, whether it will upset the game or not is really not their business. :P

:thinks: Doesn't make much sense to me. Surely they're supposed to provide a ruling that doesn't destroy the game enviroment where possible.

When it's an error any of us would have noticed, I think it's fair to say it shouldn't have gone into the FAQ
Kresalak
08-27-06, 07:34 PM *Groan* Why don't they get someone who understands the implications of game mechanics to write the bloody FAQ.

There's no longer any reason to play any caster that's not an Archivist.

Better HD, Skills, class features, more spells per day than the wizard & now any spell written at it's lowest possible level.
Warlocks could already allow them to do this. Or Artificers so long as the Archivist did the scribing with the Artificer providing the spell.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lokiyn 08-24-06, 11:28 PM	Of note Artificer When an artificer scribes a scroll, is it an arcane scroll, a divine scroll, or neither? Actually, it’s either. As part of emulating the spell required to create the scroll, the artificer may choose to treat it either as an arcane spell or a divine spell. This has no bearing on the artificer’s ability to use the scroll (unless he has levels in a spellcasting class with access to the spell in question, he must make a Use Magic Device check to use the scroll regardless of whether it’s arcane or divine), but it’s quite important if anyone else wants to use it. Archivists got a huge boost. Since the scrolls can be selected for type now an archivist can scribe anything as divine for his archivist buddy, sigh Page 282 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide says an item that requires a specific class or alignment to use cuts the cost of the item by 30%. The Extraordinary Artisan feat (EBERRON Campaign Setting, page 53) says when determining the cost when creating an item, reduce the base price by 25%. Do these reductions stack? Effectively, yes. Extraordinary Artisan cares only about the actual base price of the item, however the DM has determined it. It doesn’t care how that value was determined. If the DM determined that a new magic item would normally have a price of 10,000 gp, but that by adding a restriction on its use its appropriate price dropped to 7,000 gp, a character would normally have to spend 3,500 gp of raw materials in order to create that item. A character with Extraordinary Artisan would spend raw materials as if the base price were 25% lower than 7,000 gp (or 5,250 gp), which would result in only 2,625 gp of raw material cost. Remember that the Dungeon Master’s Guide only provides pricing guidelines, not strict rules. The sidebar on page 282 suggests a few rough adjustments that might help in finding an appropriate price, but whenever you create a new magic item, be sure its price is reasonable based on comparison to other magic items of similar power level and utility. The DM is strongly encouraged to adjust the price of any player-created magic item to ensure that it is appropriate for the campaign. This is particularly true of player-created items with a restriction on who can use them, since that restriction often isn’t significant in play. (Creating a magic rod that works only for good-aligned characters doesn’t really prevent it from being passed around in the party as needed, so it probably shouldn’t result in much—if any—price reduction.) hmmm this clears up the argument about multiplicitive or additive cost reduction.
igotsmeakabob!! 08-24-06, 11:48 PM	Yes, those were The Sage's answers to some questions in the newest Dragon.
Lokiyn 08-24-06, 11:53 PM	yep, but now that its in the faq its a bit more official than "dragon" magazine
igotsmeakabob!! 08-25-06, 12:02 AM	Yeaaah... the sage is blatantly wrong sometimes though, but they usually catch those and fixem in a month.
LogicNinja 08-25-06, 12:07 AM	So does that make a gestalt artificer/archivist the Most Broken Playable Thing In D&D?
Lokiyn 08-25-06, 12:15 AM	Well the main thing is that it blatently ignores the ECS Errata Page 32: Artificer—Item Creation Magic items created by an artificer are considered neither arcane nor divine. But since this apparently calls out an exception to that rule in the form of scrolls then an archivist has it much easier to get those wiz/sorc/bard spells in his book.
Kresalak 08-25-06, 12:18 AM	The Artificer is kinda "meh", as a Warlock could already do this-or the Artificer, if he made it with the Archivist. Archivists now have access to every spell ever printed... but Warlocks could already do that.
NoldorForce 08-25-06, 12:22 AM	It helps the chameleons who only focus on one spellcasting focus.
catharz 08-25-06, 12:35 AM	There was also an interesting bit stating that a Reforged Warforged Juggernaut looses Adamantine Body but retains all Juggernaut abilities, ***! A warforged Juggernaut 3/Reforged 3 would, however, be unable to gain anymore Juggernaut levels, ***! This lends more credibility to the assumption that PrC prerequisites matter only for taking levels in the class (although Dragon Disciple did that pretty well already).
Lokiyn 08-25-06, 01:10 AM	This lends more credibility to the assumption that PrC prerequisites matter only for taking levels in the class (although Dragon Disciple did that pretty well already). i thought the agreed apon (well as much as anything here) was that prerequisite are always required unless the class itself makes a change that invalidates the prerequisites.
X-Codes 08-25-06, 02:50 AM	Well the main thing is that it blatently ignores the ECS Errata But since this apparently calls out an exception to that rule in the form of scrolls then an archivist has it much easier to get those wiz/sorc/bard spells in his book. No it doesn't. ECS Errata is RAW, whatever dumb thing the Sage says next isn't. So does that make a gestalt artificer/archivist the Most Broken Playable Thing In D&D? Don't need to go that far. If you follow the FAQ instead of the RAW then any Archivist need only pick up the Leadership feat. The Artificier Cohort he would recieve would be able to scribe any scroll the Archivist can use anyway thanks to his other special abilities. Even if they get more than 2 levels apart the Archivist can do some item crafting of his own (or use his XP to help the Artificier I think, I don't know where the rules for that are, however, if they exist).
tsuyoshikentsu 08-25-06, 03:15 AM	Some pretty brain-dead rulings, wild shape and polymorph are now even MORE confusing, and nothing important was affected -- pretty much par for the course.
FriendlyFrog 08-25-06, 04:03 AM	Some pretty brain-dead rulings, wild shape and polymorph are now even MORE confusing, and nothing important was affected -- pretty much par for the course. I'm getting a feeling they're making playing a Druid so complicated that no one will want to do so anymore. That way they can "nerf" it without having to say "Okay, we made that mistake, Druids got too powerful, no one wanted to play something else."
colm_l 08-25-06, 08:05 AM	Archivists got a huge boost. Since the scrolls can be selected for type now an archivist can scribe anything as divine for his archivist buddy, sigh Groan Why don't they get someone who understands the implications of game mechanics to write the bloody FAQ. There's no longer any reason to play any caster that's not an Archivist. Better HD, Skills, class features, more spells per day than the wizard & now any spell written at it's lowest possible level.
jstorrie 08-25-06, 08:23 AM	It should have been worded 'As part of emulating the spell required to create the scroll, if the spell exists on both divine and arcane spell lists, the artificer may choose to treat it either as an arcane spell or a divine spell.' SAGE WHY DO YOU NOT GET CHAR-OP TO HELP YOU WITH YOUR DAMNED JOB?
jstorrie 08-25-06, 08:25 AM	Anyway this ruling basically allows your party artificer to hand arcane scrolls of True Resurrection to the wizards, bards and hexblades in the group, so players rejoice!
hogarth 08-25-06, 08:33 AM	Anyway this ruling basically allows your party artificer to hand arcane scrolls of True Resurrection to the wizards, bards and hexblades in the group, so players rejoice! I was unaware that True Resurrection was on the hexblade spell list. :rolleyes:
jstorrie 08-25-06, 08:47 AM	A spell doesn't need to be on your spell list to use a scroll, does it? It just has to be on the right side of the arcane/divine line. Or am I thinking wands?
hogarth 08-25-06, 08:51 AM	A spell doesn't need to be on your spell list to use a scroll, does it? It just has to be on the right side of the arcane/divine line. Or am I thinking wands? To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements. -The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his or her class.) -The user must have the spell on his or her class list. -The user must have the requisite ability score. Wands don't get classified as "arcane" or "divine"; you still need to have the spell on your spell list to use one, though.
Surreal 08-25-06, 12:31 PM	Some pretty brain-dead rulings, wild shape and polymorph are now even MORE confusing, and nothing important was affected -- pretty much par for the course. They changed it again?!?... ugh, y'know, I gave up about two erratas ago. I'm not even going to bother reading it this time.
FriendlyFrog 08-25-06, 12:49 PM	They changed it again?!?... ugh, y'know, I gave up about two erratas ago. I'm not even going to bother reading it this time. No, they didn't change it, it's about what you use your own constitution and what the new forms constitution for.
Will_Shakespeare 08-26-06, 08:23 AM	Hi there, and there is another thing in the new FAQ that contradicts the RAW, right? I'm talking about the statement that an artificer never needs to supply an arcane material component, so spells that use such components are for free. That sounds kinda silly to me, because it means free Identify spells!?! The ECS clearly states that an artificer either uses the arcane material component or an arcane focus. ECS Errata: An artificer never requires a divine focus to imbue an item with an infusion. In cases where an infusion duplicates a spell that requires either a material component or a divine focus, or requires either an arcane focus or a divine focus, the artificer uses the arcane material component or arcane focus. What do you guys say? Cheers Will
Caelic 08-26-06, 08:43 AM	In general, if the FAQ directly contradicts the primary source, the board convention has been to accept the primary source as authoritative. The best example I can think of is when the FAQ briefly insisted that Polymorph allowed one to take on templated forms, when the PHB clearly established that they couldn't.
runestar 08-26-06, 10:29 AM	It seems that the same people in charge of churning out endless pages of errata for M:TG has found a new career path...:rolleyes: Groan Why don't they get someone who understands the implications of game mechanics to write the bloody FAQ. Because that is not their responsibility to begin with. They can add sidenotes stating their own 2 cents about possible game imbalances, but at the end of the day, their job is solely to interpret the rules as they are written, whether it will upset the game or not is really not their business. :P
colm_l 08-27-06, 05:26 PM	Because that is not their responsibility to begin with. They can add sidenotes stating their own 2 cents about possible game imbalances, but at the end of the day, their job is solely to interpret the rules as they are written, whether it will upset the game or not is really not their business. :P :thinks: Doesn't make much sense to me. Surely they're supposed to provide a ruling that doesn't destroy the game enviroment where possible. When it's an error any of us would have noticed, I think it's fair to say it shouldn't have gone into the FAQ
Kresalak 08-27-06, 07:34 PM	Groan Why don't they get someone who understands the implications of game mechanics to write the bloody FAQ. There's no longer any reason to play any caster that's not an Archivist. Better HD, Skills, class features, more spells per day than the wizard & now any spell written at it's lowest possible level. Warlocks could already allow them to do this. Or Artificers so long as the Archivist did the scribing with the Artificer providing the spell.