Post/Author/DateTime	Post
aaaron0 03-01-07, 09:21 AM	We have a house rule that the Artificer can use his craft pool to pay for his infusions that cost XP to cast. Just wondering if anyone else uses this or general comments. Thanks, Aaron
Ryoden_Anariavas 03-01-07, 09:23 AM	It makes sense to me.
DarkWarriorKarg 03-01-07, 10:21 AM	I always thought that was RAW to begin with
Nightshade 03-01-07, 04:42 PM	I allow this in my game and it has not led to any problems whatsoever. It makes Spell Storing Item a pretty damn good Infusion. Unfortunately, the player with the Artificer has never played Eberron before so he doesn't use the Artificer as effectively as he should have. He foolishly did not put his CHA as high as he should have and hasn't used his ability score increases on CHA either.
Cifer 03-01-07, 07:05 PM	He foolishly did not put his CHA as high as he should have and hasn't used his ability score increases on CHA either. As long as he's got a decent intelligence, that sounds, well, rather intelligent to me - charisma is only used for UMD checks, which can be aided in a dozen ways (skill focus, charisma-enhancing items, circlet of persuasion - and that are those available if your DM doesn't let you make custom items). Intelligence, on the other hand side, has probably a good dozen more uses, beginning with the "replacement rogue" skills, going on to a simple "more skill points every single level" and finishing at "saving throws/maximum levels for your infusions". So yeah, charisma isn't quite as important as other abilities, as you might have read in The Guide.
Nightshade 03-01-07, 07:41 PM	Yes that's the way to go. But he decided to pump up CON and DEX at the expense of CHA. And then he complains about not being about to make his UMD rolls. Go figure! Anyway, here are some other Houserules I've instituted: 1) Artificers do not have access to semi-spell user spell lists, in particular the Paladin (i.e. no Holy Sword scrolls); 2) Artificers may create +UMD magic items but only to a maximum of +5; 3) Artificers may use Metamagic rods in conjunction with their wands but since a UMD action is a Standard action, it takes 2 UMD rolls to accomplish the metamagic. One roll for the rod, one for the wand. 2 stnd actions = 2 rounds and thus making many of the Metamagic rods useless anyway. I think for #2 and 3, many people on the boards have come out against allowing them at all.
Roland the Crownbreaker 03-01-07, 07:58 PM	Does the "semi-spell user" include the bard? (Most of the spells of of the paladin and ranger list are also on the cleric or druid list, so except for a few things, those two really don't affect much) While setting a limit on + to skill items may very well be a good idea, I think that the same limit should be applied to all skills equally. And how does rule #3 interact with the double wand wielder feat, and the Cannith Wand Adept PrC?
Dragom 03-01-07, 09:14 PM	1) Probably, Bard is a full caster 2) As not all skills are equal, they should not be treated equally. 3) A rod is not a wand and a wand is not a rod. But what do I know? And math wise, a good cha (assuming one skips the Skills Focus UMD) is rather important for crafting in the first few levels, the guide be damned. Eeep, Crafting items the level you get the ability to craft the item, rather then the next, a positive Cha Mod is essential. Or a lot of luck.
Nightshade 03-01-07, 10:19 PM	Does the "semi-spell user" include the bard? (Most of the spells of of the paladin and ranger list are also on the cleric or druid list, so except for a few things, those two really don't affect much) While setting a limit on + to skill items may very well be a good idea, I think that the same limit should be applied to all skills equally. And how does rule #3 interact with the double wand wielder feat, and the Cannith Wand Adept PrC? Rule 1 does not include the Bard. They are full spellcasters. The rule only applies to Ranger and Paladin in the core book. For non-core, anything that gets spells at 1st level is a full spellcaster. The rule was mainly to avoid the Holy Sword Spell (+5 weapon and 2d6 damage) being available to the Artificer at 12th level. This would be fairly game breaking in my campaign when the group hits 12th lvl. Rule #3 does not apply to the double wand wielder feat or the Cannith Wand adept. That feat and class work normally. The rule only governs Metamagic Rods and how they might interact with spell trigger items. The RAW is fuzzy on how Metamagic Rods work with Artificers so some guidance was required. Oh, and I forgot Rule #4 that Edymnion recommended: To use the Infusion Personal Weapon Augmentation to cast Bane on your weapons, you must first make a sucessful roll of the appropriate Knowledge skill for monsters. The DM basically has control of when this is necessary. In my campaign, there's no need to roll for humanoids that the character should already know... the core races, orcs, and goblinoids. Yuan-ti or other races not native to Khorvaire require a roll, however.
Cifer 03-02-07, 08:34 AM	Oh, and I forgot Rule #4 that Edymnion recommended: To use the Infusion Personal Weapon Augmentation to cast Bane on your weapons, you must first make a sucessful roll of the appropriate Knowledge skill for monsters. The DM basically has control of when this is necessary. In my campaign, there's no need to roll for humanoids that the character should already know... the core races, orcs, and goblinoids. Yuan-ti or other races not native to Khorvaire require a roll, however. Meh. There are relatively few monsters whose type is not self-evident - Yuan-Ti: Scaly, but not a dragon, not freaky enough to be an aberration and also quite more menacing than humanoids - how many types are left there? Plus, the standard knowledge rules are considered stupid by me. So it's easier to recognize a baby red dragon is a red dragon than an ancient wyrm one? Sure...
Nightshade 03-02-07, 11:41 AM	Meh. There are relatively few monsters whose type is not self-evident - Yuan-Ti: Scaly, but not a dragon, not freaky enough to be an aberration and also quite more menacing than humanoids - how many types are left there? Plus, the standard knowledge rules are considered stupid by me. So it's easier to recognize a baby red dragon is a red dragon than an ancient wyrm one? Sure... You are metagaming there. How is a player character supposed to know or have even heard of such a thing as an Owlbear, if you do not check his knowledge skill? Sure the character has heard of Dragons but do people in Khorvaire know that there is a difference between blue dragons and red? Not unless you first roll a check to determine if the character has studied them before. Hence a Knowledge (arcana) check. For aberrations, knowledge (dungeoneering) or Knowledge (the planes) for Gatekeepers. How might an Artificer differentiate between the multitudinous types of Undead? And how might one differentiate an Undead you've never encountered an some Outsider from Mabar. A knowledge roll only makes logical sense. Especially since the Personal Weapon Augmentation: Bane infusion is the most commonly used combat infusion that the Artificer uses, at least in my campaign.
Kid SixXx 03-02-07, 12:34 PM	I always thought that was RAW to begin with Indeed. I thought the whole point of the craft reserve was to supply XP to any application the Artificer saw fit; whether item creation or infusions.
Cifer 03-02-07, 01:13 PM	How is a player character supposed to know or have even heard of such a thing as an Owlbear, if you do not check his knowledge skill? He doesn't need to. He knows what creature types there are (sorry, but I'd consider that very basic knowledge for all the guys that have type-dependent spells). He sees a big furry thingy. Now what could that be? Humanoid? Nope. Aberration? Not enough tentacles. Animal? Not really... Monstrous Humanoid? Most of them still are intelligent, which this one doesn't seem to be. Magical Beast? Yep, sounds fitting. How might an Artificer differentiate between the multitudinous types of Undead? Why would he need to? Undead-Bane is a one-size-fits-all. Sure the character has heard of Dragons but do people in Khorvaire know that there is a difference between blue dragons and red? Again, who cares? It's Dragon-Bane anyway. And finally, my massive problem stays the fighter. Either he has absolutely no clue what he fights (and I thought fighters would be the elite guys with training at Rekkenmark and so on) or he has no ranks in the basic skills like Climb, Jump or Ride. And I don't even want to go to paladins, which should have knowledge Religion and Planes, but suffer from MAD and a phenomenal +2 skill points. So yeah, I metagame. I'll stop as soon as the system allows me to build a round character without doing so and as soon as the base ideas behind creature recogntion start to make sense (see: that huge red lizard looks a bit like the red dragon wyrmling, but it's a lot bigger so I have no idea what it might be...).
Nightshade 03-02-07, 01:26 PM	I see what the problem is... I didn't specify that both Type and Subtype are required for monsters as well as for humanoids. And thus, a roll to see if the character knows what type and subtype of creature it is makes more sense.
OneWinged4ngel 03-04-07, 01:31 PM	I allow this in my game and it has not led to any problems whatsoever. It makes Spell Storing Item a pretty damn good Infusion. Unfortunately, the player with the Artificer has never played Eberron before so he doesn't use the Artificer as effectively as he should have. He foolishly did not put his CHA as high as he should have and hasn't used his ability score increases on CHA either. Uhhm, you realize that most experienced players will tell you that you don't need more than 10 Cha for an artificer, right?
Roland the Crownbreaker 03-04-07, 04:08 PM	Origianlly posted by OneWinged4ngel Quote: Originally Posted by Nightshade I allow this in my game and it has not led to any problems whatsoever. It makes Spell Storing Item a pretty damn good Infusion. Unfortunately, the player with the Artificer has never played Eberron before so he doesn't use the Artificer as effectively as he should have. He foolishly did not put his CHA as high as he should have and hasn't used his ability score increases on CHA either. Uhhm, you realize that most experienced players will tell you that you don't need more than 10 Cha for an artificer, right? There is a difference between a Cha of 10 and treating it as a dump stat, which I believe the player in question has done, at least if I have read the posts in this thread properly.