Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Edymnion 11-11-05, 01:57 AM	Alrighty, its high time that the artificer thread was updated with new material, all the pages of discussion condensed down into the usable bits, and all around spiffy things up. And, since the original thread became rather unweildy at 17 pages, I decided to simply remake it from scratch. For referance purposes, the original thread can be found HERE. So, here it is, the Unofficial Artificer Player's Guide 2.0, formerly the Unofficial Artificer Thread! The Unofficial Artificer Player's Guide 2.0 (http://evildm.datavortex.net/pdf/gamecraft/ArtificerFAQ.pdf) You may download this guide in PDF format by clicking the title above. +-------+ | INDEX | +-------+ I. Introduction II. Races 1. Humans 2. Gnomes 3. Half-Elves 4. Elves 5. Halflings 6. Dwarves 7. Half-Orcs 8. Warforged 9. Kalashtar 10. Changlings 11. Shifters III. Ability Scores 1. Strength 2. Constitution 3. Dexterity 4. Intelligence 5. Wisdom 6. Charisma IV. Feats 1. Point Blank Shot 2. Precise Shot 3. Rapid Reload 4. Metamagic 5. Skill Focus (Use Magic Device) 6. Creation Feats 7. Heroic Spirit vs. Action Boost 8. Dragonmarks 9. Artisan Feats 10. Attune Magic Weapon 11. Extra Rings 12 Wand Mastery 13. Cull Wand Essence 14. Improved Homunculus 15. Rapid Infusion 16. Wand Surge 17. Etch Schema V. Skills 1. Weapon and Armor Smithing 2. Armorsmithing, Blacksmithing, Gemcutting, and Sculpting 3. Knowledge (Arcana) 4. Spellcraft 5. Search, Disable Device, and Open Lock 6. Craft Skills in General 7. Appraise 8. Synergies VI. Class Abilities 1. Infusions 2. Craft Reserve 3. Artificer Knowledge 4. Artisan Bonus 5. Disable Trap 6. Item Creation 7. Craft Homunculus 8. Retain Essence 9. Metamagic Spell Trigger/Completion 10. Skill Mastery VII. Equipment 1. Weapons 2. Armor 3. Shields 4. Assorted Magical Gear VIII. Multiclassing 1. Base Classes a) Sorcerer b) Cleric 2. PrC a) Cannith Wand Adept b) Alchemical Savant c) Renegade Master d) Other IX. Houserules and Varients 1. Scrolls 2. PrC 3. Magic Item Crafting 4. Psionic Artificer I. Introduction At the most basic level, the Artificer is a 20 level base class that focuses on the ability to craft magical items, and gains a number of abilities and features that make it easier to craft these items. It does this, primarily, through the Use Magic Device skill. The Artificer does not have a spell list, meaning it is incapable of casting spells, but it has the unique ability to make Use Magic Device checks in place of casting spell prereqs when crafting, meaning they can "fake" any spell in the books, in order to make any non-artifact level magic item in the game. Their high Use Magic Device (UMD) check also means that the Artificer excels at using scrolls, wands, and even items with racial/alignment/class restrictions. Thanks to this extreme magical flexibility, combined with several other class features, the Artificer makes the ultimate stand-in character. Artificers aren't great fighters, rogues, wizards, or clerics, but with the right magical items, they can sure fake it! II. Races One of the first questions to be asked after someone decides to play an Artificer is what race to make them. Which races make good Artificers? The answer is, they all do. Well, most of them do anyway. The PHB Races Humans: The humans have three major factors in their favor when it comes to being an Artificer. First is their bonus feat. There are more good feats for an Artificer to take than a single character can take, so the bonus feat goes a long way. Second, the skillpoints. Depending on what kind of Artificer you want to be, you are going to need ranks in many differant skills, and the human skillpoint bonus can be the differance between picking which skills you like more, and picking between which must-have skills you can afford to pick. Last, but not least, is the fact that humans can be marked members of House Cannith. Not only does the Mark of Making synergize with the class very nicely, but House Cannith is THE source of all things crafting in Eberron, magic and mundane. While any race can potentially join the house, only humans can be blood members with the Mark of Making, and hence only humans can really reach the heights of the organization. Gnomes: Gnomes make excellent Artificers for three major reasons. One, their keen sense of smell grants them a +2 to checks relating to alchemy, which is an area Artificers do quite well in. Second, they are Small size, which grants them bonuses to attacks, their AC, Hide checks, and actually makes them stronger in comparison. While they half their carrying load, properly scaled items only weight 1/4 normal. Meaning they actually gain the ability to carry 25% more gear than the Medium sized Artificers, as long as everything they carry is sized for Small characters. The other is that, in Eberron, the Gnomes hold a near monopoly on the ability to bind elementals into weapons, armors, and vehicles. If you plan on making elementally bound items, you can avoid a lot of hassles by choosing to be a gnome. Half-Elves: While half-elves do not have any racial bonuses to skills or abilities that benefit an Artificer, they do have the ability to manifest the Mark of Storms, and to be a member of House Lylander. House Lylander runs most of the airships in Eberron, and have a very easy time controlling those airships with their dragonmark. If you know there will be airships involved in your game, or you want to eventually have your own airship, a half-elf is the way to go, and there are definate attractions for the Artificer in having and running his or her own airship. Elves: Elves have Favored Class: Wizard, meaning they can dip into Wizard without penalty in order to gain a spell list. They also gain a bonus to Dexterity, and come with proficiency in the bow. Where the default Artificer will rely greatly on their crossbow, the elven Artificer will rely on the bow, the superior of the two choices. The elves of Areneal also have an almost total monopoly on the special material soarwood, which is a primary material in the construction of airships. An Areneal Artificer could potentially have an easier time getting ahold of this rare wood than the other races. Halflings: The halflings share the Dexterity bonus of the Elves, making them better at hitting with thier ranged attacks. They also gain the bonus to saves, and their Small size gives them the same advantages as the Gnomes gain. You trade the Gnome's skill at Alchemy and potential ease of gaining Bind Elemental, and in return become better at hitting your targets and are less likely to spend precious Action Points on making a Save thanks to your racial bonuses. If you're going to be a Small sized Artificer, Halfling is a good way to go, especially if you don't want to get tied up in the schemes of the gnomes. Dwarves: Dwarves face an initial roadblock in being an Artificer because of the -2 to Charisma they suffer. With so much of the class revolving around Use Magic Device, a Charisma based skill, the Dwarves are handicapped from the start. However, their +2 to Constitution helps up the Artificer's rather weak d6 hitdice. There is also the racial +2 bonus to Craft checks involving metal or stone, which covers the bulk of weapons, armor, and many constructs. In addition, Dwarves in Eberron hold the monopoly on the banking system. As such, there would be an implied level of trust when dealing with Dwarves, which means if your Artificer wanted to set up a shop and sell their magical goods, you've got a long tradition of Dwarves being trustworthy with your money to help back you up. Half-Orc: Half-Orcs suffer a hit to both Intelligence and Charisma, the two key abilities for the Artificer class, which makes them rather poor choices for your traditional Artificer build. However, the Artificer has some abilities, namely certain Infusions (we'll get to that later) that allow it to do some particularly nasty damage in combat. Combined with the class's proficiency in Medium armor, there is definate potential to make some brutal melee builds using the Artificer, which would make great use of the half-orc's Strength bonus. If you want a more traditional buffing/crafting/ranged combat Artificer though, you might want to stay away from this one. The Eberron Races Warforged: At first glance, the Warforged are poor choices for an Artificer, but look twice, they have definate advantages that can make the WF a powerhouse Artificer. Warforged cannot fully benefit from healing magic, but a WF Artificer is capable of using his Repair infusions on himself, bypassing this weakness entirely. Or, barring that, the skills used to repair Warforged are also class skills for the Artificer that would allow the WF to repair himself without wasting Infusions. The Artificer also gains several infusions that work only on Constructs, which the WF Artificer can use on himself. And perhaps best of all, there is a Warforged only item called the Wand Sheath that stored a wand inside of the forearm, with some great benefits. The Artificer, especially in the middle levels, relies heavily on wands, giving the Warforged Artificer a definate advantage here. The Kalashtar: As a normal Artificer, the Kalashtar rank with the elves and halflings in terms of usefulness. However, there is a variant Artificer, the Psionic Artificer (covered later on) that would benefit greatly from being a Psionic race. Given that the Kalashtar are the prominant PC psionic race in Eberron, that puts them at the top of the list for Psionic Artificers. Changlings: Like the Kalashtar, the Changlings are middle ground Artificers without bringing in some extra material. However, if your DM allows material from Races of Eberron (and most do), there is a feat that allows the Changling to actually count as the subtype of what they change into. This means that the Changling with this feat would actually count as an Elf while in the form of an Elf, and would not have to make UMD checks to use racially restricted Elf-Only magical items, for example. Essentially, with the right feat, the Changlings can throw an entire section of UMD checks out the window, which means they can use those racially restricted items much more reliably than your default Artificer. Shifters: Shifters suffer from hits to both Intelligence and Charisma, and are generally presented as being less inclined to build magical items on their own, making them poor choices for Artificers. However, their multiple shifter traits can add a new level of versatility for Artificers. Bottom line here, though, is that there is very little reason to be a Shifter Artificer other than for roleplaying reasons. Of all the races, mechanically speaking, Shifters make the worst Artificers. III. Ability Scores After race, the ability scores is the next most crucial aspect for an Artificer. However, it must be noted that the ECS entry for Artificer is flat out wrong when it comes to the Artificer’s primary stat. Charisma, while important, is *NOT* the most important stat for an Artificer, Intelligence is. This will be explained below. Strength: For the traditional Artificer build, you could call Strength your dump stat. You will be relying much more on Dexterity for your attacks and damage than you will Strength, and later on you will be able to make Haversacks and Bags of Holding to carry most of your gear, so Strength isn’t particularly important. However, you will be carrying a lot of stuff before you get Bags of Holding, your wands and weapons won’t do you any good in your pack, and with you potentially wearing Medium armor, you don’t want to skimp too much on Strength. You will be perfectly fine with a Strength score of 10, but I wouldn’t let it go below an 8. Obviously if you want a melee focused Artificer, you will want to up this stat considerably. No less than a 14 if you plan on entering melee regularly. Constitution: For your traditional Artificer, Con is almost as much of a dump stat as Strength. You should not be on the front lines, so you should not be getting hit very often. However, you have the second lowest hitdice in the game with the d6, so extra hitpoints can be a blessing. Also, if you are being pressed into service as a replacement Rogue opening up locked chests, you run the risk of poison needles, so the higher Fortitude save helps too. I suggest a 12 here, but no higher than a 14. Again, if you are going for a melee based Artificer, you want to bump this one up as well. Dexterity: Welcome to the most important physical stat for the Artificer. You cannot use Heavy armor without spending a feat, and you still suffer from Arcane Spell Failure when casting from arcane scrolls, which means you will most likely be in Light armor, or Mithril Medium armor. Either way, you are going to need a good Dexterity to up your Armor Class. Also, a majority of your offensive capabilities come in the form of ranged attacks, both mundane and magical, which means you will need to be able to hit the broad side of the proverbial barn, meaning you will need a good Dex score. And while you are not on the front line, you are vulnerable to enemy spells like Fireball, which means your Reflex save is important as well. A 14 will serve you well here, but never let this go negative, as it will hurt you far too much. Intelligence: Unlike what the ECS says, this is your primary stat as an Artificer, not Charisma. You will be making many Craft checks, all of which are Int based. Search, Disable Traps, and Knowledge Arcana will all get used frequently, and are Int based. Your bonus Infusions per day are also tied to your Intelligence. In short, everything about being an Artificer, other than Use Magic Device, is tied to your Intelligence score. You cannot get this score too high. I suggest a 16 here, and the sky is the limit for the cap. Wisdom: The least important mental stat for an Artificer, Wisdom can potentially be used as a dump stat. However, your Will saves are tied to it, as are the always useful Spot and Listen checks. It justifies having a 10 in, but I would not recommend putting more than a 12 in it. One reason to go higher though is that you can prevent having to make extra UMD checks to replicate a high Wisdom score when faking Divine spells. If you plan on doing a lot of Divine magic (like if you are the party’s substitute healer), then you might want to put a 14 here. Charisma: While the ECS says this is a vitally important stat, it really isn’t that important. The only thing it does is give you a bonus to your UMD checks, and that’s it. And, if you are familiar with using other classes that get a lot of skillpoints, the actual ability modifier to the roll quickly becomes less important than your number of skill ranks. I wouldn’t suggest putting more than a 14 into this stat. However, just because it is not the most important stat doesn’t make it a dump stat either. Under no circumstances should you drop this below a 10. IV. Feats What feats you take for your Artificer are going to depend largely on what kind of Artificer you want to play. But, here is a brief list of the most important/useful feats for you to consider. General Point Blank Shot: For a traditional Artificer, I would HIGHLY recommend you take this feat at first level. You will spend a lot of time with your trusty crossbow, and after that, ranged attack spell wands. Seeing as you will most often be within 30’ of an opponent anyway, this is a free +1 to hit, and with the general lack of good first level feats means you really can’t go wrong here. Precise Shot: Typically, you are not going to be on the front lines, but in the back row with your ranged attacks. Which means the party tank will be in melee with the bad guys. Which means you are firing into melee, and taking a -4 to hit in the process. If you’ve got Point Blank Shot, you should seriously consider taking Precise Shot as well. A human Artificer can take both at level 1, making him quite good at ranged attacks. Rapid Reload: Unless you multiclass or take a proficiency feat for a better ranged weapon, you’re likely going to be using a crossbow as your primary weapon. While this is fine at lower levels, at higher levels you’re going to be limited by not being able to make full attacks with your crossbow. This feat removes that hinderance, and ensures that your crossbow remains a lethal weapon for all 20 levels. Metamagic: This is really going to depend on what kind of Artificer you want to play. A melee build will have practically no use at all for Metamagic, while a “normal” Artificer will have only a passing need for it. The kind of Artificer that benefits the most from Metamagic is the “Blastificer”, aka an Artificer that focuses on using attack wands to do maximum damage per round. If you go this route, you will want Metamagic that makes you as flexible as possible, such as Energy Substitution/Admixture, and Metamagic that lets you pump out as much raw damage as possible, such as Empower, Maximize, and Twin Spell. The Blastificer outputs this damage via the Metamagic Trigger ability (more on that later). Instead of increasing the level of the spell being cast, the Blastificer instead pours more charges into each wand activation for the various Metamagic effects. As long as you don’t mind pouring through expensive wands like water, you can get some impressive damage this way. Just don’t expect to have enough money left over for other things. Like shoes. Skill Focus (Use Magic Device): This one is very controversial, and you need to think long and hard before you take this one. It grants you +3 to your UMD checks, which makes you better at activating magic items and crafting your own. However, by the higher levels, it becomes a large drawback in that you are a feat short, which means there are less feats left over for the much more useful things. If you know that you will be playing a low level only game, then yes, Skill Focus (UMD) is a VERY useful feat, and is one you should definitely take. If you are playing a high level game, stay away from this feat like the plague. If you are starting at lvl 1 and plan on going all the way up to lvl 20, you need to stop and ask yourself this. Do you want more power and survivability at the low levels, or do you want to be more powerful at high levels? It’s a lot like a Wizard taking Toughness. It helps you survive the low levels, but you’ll regret ever taking it later on when you’ve got lots of hitpoints and you’re hurting for feats. Creation Feats: If you are patient, the Artificer will get vitually all of the creation feats for free as class abilities. However, there are two big ones that you don’t get that you might want to consider. Craft Construct is very useful if you want to make golems and other construct defenders, beyond your homunculi, and (especially if you are a Gnome) Bind Elemental is incredibly powerful, if hard to come by. Eberron General Heroic Spirit vs. Action Boost: If you come down to having to choose between having more Action Points, and having more powerful Action Points, the Artificer is better off having more AP. Many infusions are slow to cast, but can be sped up by burning an Action Point. So, if you get caught by surprise and want to be fighting at full power, you’re going to be burning at least one AP per combat just to get started. That’s above and beyond what everybody else is using for skill checks and saves. If anybody is going to run out of AP in a given level, it’s the Artificer. Dragonmarks: Obviously the Mark of Making is the best of the Dragonmarks for an Artificer. However, the Mark of Finding will grant you a free Identify spell per day, which is always useful, and the Mark of Healing will let you be a much more effective healer for the party. Other than these, Dragonmarks are more for flavor and won’t really help you become a better Artificer. Artificer Specific The Artisan Feats: First things first, please be sure you know that the errata fixed these and no longer allows them to stack with themselves. You can’t take one four times and make items for free. That out of the way, you should seriously consider at least one of these feats. Most useful would be Extraordinary Artisan, which grants you a 25% reduction in the gp cost of making items. This will be a big help for your entire career, especially at higher levels where a 25% discount can equal tens of thousands of gp. Next up is Legendary Artisan for the 25% reduction in the xp cost. This will stretch your Craft Reserve (more on this later) even farther, meaning you can make more magical items without having to spend any of your own xp. The only one you shouldn’t really take is Exceptional Artisan, which grants you only a 25% reduction in crafting time. If time is that essential in your game, you would be far better served by constructing a Dedicated Wright and letting it work on your items while you are out adventuring. Attune Magic Weapon: This one is practically a no-brainer, as long as you have the spare feats for it. As an Artificer, you are virtually the ONLY person in the party that is guaranteed to have a magical weapon. With this feat, you get a +1 to hit and a +1 to damage using an attuned weapon. Its effectively a free +1 to every magic weapon you have (although it won’t help you get past Epic damage reduction). Its everything that Weapon Focus is, applies to any kind of weapon, and even throws in half of Weapon Specialization, for any weapon. The only reason you would want to take Weapon Focus when Attune Magic Weapon is available is because they stack with each other. Extra Rings: This is a strong feat. Very strong. So strong it will cost any other character two EPIC level feats (Extra Slot) to duplicate. It lets you benefit from four magic rings at one time instead of just two. Especially since you will have the ability to craft your own rings, this feat is invaluable. Wand Mastery: Good for Blastificer's in particular, but good for any Artificer thats going to rely a lot on wands. Ups the save DC and effective caster level of wands you use by 2. Means its harder for your opponent to make a save against them, and it means you get more damage out of each shot. As in, if your wand is crafted as a 5th level Fireball wand, this feat will make the wand do damage as if it were a 7th level Fireball wand. Given how expensive it is to up the caster level on wands, this one can go a long way. Magic of Eberron feats Cull Wand Essence: Lets you turn any wand into an attack wand. You’re going to be carrying a lot of wands on you anyway, this feat lets you get double duty out of utility wands. Blastificers won’t get much use out of this one, but your generic Artificer that doesn’t want to have to pack a million and one wands, this one comes in handy. Not a must have, but definitely something to keep in mind if you just need a feat to take. Improved Homunculus: If you plan on making good use of your Homunculi, like a pack of Iron Defenders, this is an important feat to have. You can upgrade the movement options of your homunculus (like giving your iron defender the ability to fly), letting them deliver Sneak Attacks, or any number of other VERY useful abilities. You can skip this one if you aren’t using your homunculi for much, but if you like the little guys, you definitely want this feat. Rapid Infusion: This one is a must have feat. Lets you speed up infusions as if you had spent an action point without actually spending one. Sure, its limited to once a day, but it will drastically cut down on your reliance on AP just to stay in the fight. Once you meet the prereqs, there’s really no reason not to take this one. Wand Surge: A must have feat for Blastificers. Burning AP instead of wand charges means you can pimp those wands for all they’re worth without magic as huge of a dent in your wallet while you’re at it. Etch Schema: Not exactly a must have feat for anyone, but a good feat for everyone at the same time. It lets you craft Minor Schema, which are essentially like Eternal Scrolls. Schema are very important in Eberron, so its nice to be able to make and use them. Very flavorful. But, perhaps more importantly, Minor Schema count as magical items, and get a +2 to activating any magical device you know how to make, and you get a +2 for having activated the item before. So you’re looking at +4 to your UMD checks to activate these things (after the first time), and it really streamlines your item creation for commonly made items. Plus, anyone with the spell stored in the schema can use the schema, so its actually an infinite scroll that the other spellcasters in your party can use without fuss or muss. V. Skills As an artificer, your main job is to make things, which means you’re going to need crafting skills. Sure, you could pay full price for a base item, but why bother when you can make it yourself for less, and you get to customize how it looks? Plus the fact that you can actually enchant something as you build it, you come out on top in terms of both money and time. And you’ve got plenty of skillpoints from your class and your high Intelligence score, so you gotta spend them on something! Weapon and Armor smithing: Figure out what kind of weapons and armor you and your party is going to be using. Figure out which is the most difficult to make, and invest enough skillpoints in Weapon/Armorsmithing until you can Take 10 and pass the check to craft them. You won't need more than that. Armorsmithing may or may not be a skill you want to keep maxxed out, see below. Armorsmithing, Blacksmithing, Gemcutting, and Sculpting: These are the skills that allow you to repair a Warforged character. If you’ve got a Warforged in the party, or you are a WF yourself, then you will almost assuredly want to keep one of these maxxed out. In addition to repairing a WF, armorsmithing lets you make armor for yourself and your party, and there is a useful homunculus that requires Sculpting, so you should keep that in mind. And, depending on what you make, your DM may ask for a Blacksmithing check for making metal objects like amulets and rings, if you want to make your own instead of buying them. Maxxing out armorsmithing is likey the best idea of these, although a few ranks in Blacksmithing and Sculpting wouldn’t hurt. Knowledge (Arcana): Eberron is a world filled with ancient magic and powerful schemas, along with all sorts of lost magic, so this skill will serve you well. Its important, but not something you need to keep maxxed out. Spellcraft: If you have the time, Spellcraft checks can help you identify the functions of magical items just by looking and playing with them. It will help you identify magical effects and find weaknesses in those effects that your other skills and powers can exploit. This one you should keep maxxed out, or at least keep it higher than you do Knowledge (Arcana). Search, Disable Device, and Open Lock: These are conditional. Do you have a Rogue in the party? Is he going to be doing this sort of thing? If so, you can skip these completely, let the Rogue do it. However, if you don’t have anyone else in the party that can use these skills, then you should keep them maxxed out, because you are the replacement Rogue. Craft Skills in General: The Homunculi all require various craft checks to create their bodies, but the DCs for these checks are relatively low. Figure out which Homunculi you want to make, and put just enough ranks in the appropriate crafting skills that you can succeed automatically by Taking 10. With your high Int score, you can get away with just having 2-3 ranks in these skills. Or, you can get just one rank in them if you’re willing to burn action points to hit the DCs. Or skip them entirely if you plan on paying somebody else to build the bodies for you. Appraise: While not exactly a critical skill, its good for roleplaying. Typically, you are going to be working with magic items, and you've got Identify for figuring out the details of any magic items you run across. However, Appraise checks can be quite helpful for when you are scanning a room. Identify can be expensive, especially at low levels, however an Appraise check is free, and can at least help you narrow down the field of things that need checking. If you're going to be a master of all things trinket, you should at least be able to tell if said trinket is pure gold, or a dime a dozen Synergies: A mark of a truely advanced Artificer player is one that knows how to work their skillpoints to the fullest, via skill synergies. Important synergies for the Artificer are listed below: 5 or more ranks in Spellcraft gives +2 on UMD for scrolls 5 or more ranks in Decipher Script gives +2 UMD on scrolls 5 or more ranks in UMD gives +2 to Spellcraft to decipher spells on scrolls You get +2 on UMD checks if you've activated the device previously Artificers get +2 on UMD if they have the appropriate item creation feat 5 or more ranks in Knowledge Architecture/Engineering gives +2 on search skills for secret doors and compartments So, by spreading your skillpoints around a bit, you can get not only the benefits of the skill itself, but get an added bonus to other checks as well. VI. Class Abilities Class abilities are what sets one class apart from another. Obviously the Artificer gets most of the Craft feats for free as class abilities, but they have other useful abilities as well. Infusions: While its true that Artificers are not spellcasters, and that they do not have spell lists, they do have Infusions, and those infusions act very much like spells. The main differences between spells and infusions is that an infusion can ONLY be placed on an item or a construct. Infusions never affect living beings directly (although you could infuse a buff into an item, and then give the item to another character to wear, and let them benefit that way). The only exception is the Warforged, who fall under the Construct category, which can be infused directly. The downside of infusions is that they often have long casting times, measure in minutes instead of actions or rounds (although the Artificer can spend an Action Point to turn those minute long infusions into full round actions). Even when sped up, it takes the Artificer a while to get into full swing. However, when they have time to prepare, the Artificer can be particularly deadly. Most effective, especially at low levels, is Personal Weapon Augmentation. This allows you to put Bane on any weapon, even ordinary non-magic weapon, making them act as if they were +2 better and deal an extra 2d6 damage to specified types of creatures. You can basically think of Infusions as a kind of temporary magic item. And while these may sound powerful, infusions are much more likely to have costly (very costly!) material components. Giving someone else’s weapon a temporary +1 ability is going to cost the Artificer 50gp worth of oils and ungents every time it gets cast, for example, and there’s no way around it. Which generally means you are going to rely on only a select few infusions with no costly components, and leave the expensive ones for emergency situations, or for later levels when you can actually afford them. On the up side though, Infusions are not arcane spells, so they aren’t affected by Arcane Spell Failure. You can infuse all day long wearing your medium armor without fear of messing up. Something that has to be remember though is that infusions NEVER count as prereqs for crafting normal magic items. It does not matter that the Artificer has an infusion that duplicates the light spell, they still must make a UMD check to fake casting light. On top of this, it is also important to remember that infusions are not spells. They cannot be researched by any known means. There are only so many Infusions that exist in the world, and an Artificer can’t just make up a new one whenever he wants. Learning a new infusion that isn’t in one of the books is a very special thing, and requires a special adventure, like wrestling the secrets of the Infusion out of the hands of a secret society or out of the heart of Xen’Drik. Learning new Infusions should never be allowed to be something that is done casually. Craft Reserve: This is what really makes the Artificer stand out as being the best item creation expert in the game. Normally, the crafter must spend his or her hard earned xp when making a magical item. The Artificer, however, has their Craft Reserve, a set amount of points that can be used in the place of xp when crafting. Which means the Artificer can craft to their heart’s content without fearing about falling behind on xp. Something important to remember with your Craft Reserve though is that it is not additive. You get a set amount of craft points per level, and if you do not use them, you lose any unused points when you level up. You do not carry them over to add to the new total for that level. However, you can opt to simply not level up until after you have used all of your Craft Reserve. But, depending on your game, you may end up not getting full use of your Reserve if you are spending a lot of time in the field with no downtime to craft in. Artificer Knowledge: A lot like Bardic Knowledge, an Artificer can make a special check with a bonus of his Artificer level + his Int mod (see, I told you Intelligence was important! :D) to tell if something is magical or not. Its DC 15, which means it isn’t hard to make. Use an Appraise or Spellcraft check to see if you think something might be magical, then make an Artificer Knowledge check to find out for sure. Then you can use Identify without the risk of wasting that pearl on something non-magical. Artisan Bonus: An Artificer gets a +2 circumstance bonus to any UMD check he makes if he also has the appropriate crafting feat. For example, if the Artificer has Craft Wand, he gets a +2 bonus to all UMD checks to activate a wand. Its not much, but its still 2/3rds of the Skill Focus feat for free. Disable Trap: Its just like the Rogue ability. Lets you disable traps with a DC higher than 20. Useful for when you are replacing a Rogue. Item Creation: The bread and butter of the Artificer class is the ability to make any magic item in the game via UMD checks. The exact details are on page 32 of the ECS, but I’ll hit the high points here. The Artificer can make items just like anybody else, except that instead of casting the prereq spells, they may make a Use Magic Device check (DC 20 + Caster Level). In other words, if you want to make a Wand of Fireball, you would craft normally, then make a DC 25 UMD check (because the lowest level anyone can cast Fireball at is lvl 5). And to make it even easier on the Artificer, they can make the check multiple times. They’re allowed one check every day that they work on it, and another last ditch chance at the end of creation. That’s a minimum of 2 chances to make the check for any item, and dozens of tries to make the expensive stuff, virtually guaranteeing that you succeed, since you only have to make the check once for it to count. And since you only need to fake a caster level of 17 in order to make 9th level spell items, that’s only a DC 37 check. Its one reason why you don’t really need things like Skill Focus (UMD), because most of your checks have a hard cap of how high they go, and anything above that cap is usually just wasted skill points. The other important thing to remember is that the Artificer, through the virtue of being an Artificer, can create items 2 levels sooner than everyone else. For example, an Artificer can make a Scroll of Fireball at 4th level, when a Wizard has to wait until 6th because of the caster level. The Artificer would still count as being 4th level for determining how much damage that fireball would do, but he can still make the scroll 2 levels sooner than anyone else can. One odd restriction though. Any scroll that the Artificer makes counts as an Artificer Scroll, not an Arcane Scroll, not a Divine Scroll. As such, it can ONLY be activated with a UMD check, but is not subject to Arcane Spell Failure. The reason behind this odd rule is that, by the rules, the Artificer can make a scroll of any spell he can make the UMD check for. The Wizard can learn any spell he can get his hands on a scroll of. Hence, an Artificer and a Wizard could team up and literally put every arcane spell in the game into the Wizard’s spellbooks. To prevent that abuse, the higher ups put in this rule, meaning that the Wizard cannot scribe them over. Here is an example of how to price wands made by an Artificer: Here is the corrected and revised pricing for wands. The proper formula for calculating the values are: 750 x Caster Level x Effective Spell Level (including any built in metamagic levels!) = Base/Market Price. 1/2 of Base/Market Price is YOUR COST. 1/25 of Base Market Price is YOUR XP COST. Yes, that 200k Item really does take 8000 xp to make! 1/1000 is the TIME IN DAYS to make the item. Yes, a 200K item does take 7 months! ===================================== Revised, Edited, and Updated (Now with Improved GP/Charge!) Lastly, WATCH YOUR ARTISAN FEATS. These suckers DO NOT play off one another! They operate only on the base price of the wand, and they DO NOT STACK. Consider a Wand of Doodle. Base/Market Cost is 10k. To Make the Wand would cost 1/2 the base cost (5000 gp), 1/25th of the base cost in xp (400xp) and 10 days (1 day/1000 gp of base cost). The Artisan feats knock 25% of the BASE numbers. So, your cost would be 1/2 of 75% of 10000 gp, or 3750. Your XP cost would be 75% of 400 xp, or 300 xp. No, you don't get to refigure xp based on the 'new' 7500 price, and take 75% of that. Your new time is 75% of 10 days, or 7.5 days, rounded up to 8. No, you don't get to take 75% of the 'new' price of 7500 and churn this sucker out in 56.25% of the normal time. These feats all work off the base pricing, they do not work off of each other. ===================== Cost of the Wands Wands are cost-priced at 375 gp x Caster level x spell Level. Market (or base cost!) is 750 gp x Caster level x Spell Level. Artificers with CWA get huge breaks on pricing because they get the effect boost of +5 Wand Mastery. Scorching Rays top out at caster level 11 for damage. Fireballs and Lightning Bolts top out at 10th. Force Orbs top out at 10th. Forceballs and Elemental Orbs top out at 15. So, for the 2nd level spell Scorching Ray, we basically want a Wand casting at 6th level, which lets us hit 11th level with our +5 bonus for the damage cap. 750 gp x 2nd level x CL6. 9000 base price, 4500 cost, 9 days, 360 xp. Charge Cost: 90 gp (Multiply the numbers bolded by .75 if you have the appropriate Artisan feats.) EMPOWERED Scorching Ray. 750 x 4th level x CL 7th. 21,000 base price. Cost 10,500, xp 840, 21 days to make. (EDITED TO 7th Caster Level) Charge Cost: 210 gp Fireballs/Lightning bolts are in the SRD/DMG. You only want a level 5 wand, since with +5 you top out with a 10d6 fireball/bolt. 750 x 5 x 3 = 11,250 to buy. 5,625 gp, 11.25 days, 450 xp. Charge Cost: 112.5 gp Force Orb: You only want a CL 7 Wand, since it tops out at 10d6. 750 x cl7 x 4th level spell = 21,000 gp. 11,500 to make, 21 days, and 840 xp. (Edited to 7th CL per Cost minimums). Charge Cost: 230 gp. Elemental Orb/Forceball: These are your heavy hitters, one for direct dmg with no save and no SR, and the other for Mook clearage, saves and SR. 750 x CL10 x 4th level = 30000 price. Cost, 15,000. 30 days, and 1200 xp. Charge Cost: 300 gp. BUT...at level 10 you are spending a charge to shoot out a 15th level effect. You can Empower this, Maximize this, Quicken this...and if you want to get silly, you can Dual Wield this for desperate measures. =============== There! Hopefully with the base numbers right this should satisfy closer scrutiny. Considering it's been up there over a month, suprised no one caught it on the original post. That 375 is a sneaky bugger.... ==Aelryinth Craft Homunculus: The Artificer’s answer to the Familiar. Normally crafting a homunculus requires the Craft Construct feat, but the Artificer gets the ability for free, and they can come in very handy, should you choose to use them. When making an Artificer, you should look through the various Homunculi and see which craft skills are required to make them, and take enough ranks in those skills that you can make them without difficulty. And while its not actually in the rules in any way, Small sized Artificers like Halflings and Gnomes should go easy on how many homunculi they make in a row, as it requires a pint of the creator’s blood. So, making three or four in a row isn’t exactly a good idea, what with the blood loss and all. Which homunculus you make, and when you make it depends a lot on personal preference. My recomendation for your first Homonculi, should you choose to build them, is the Expedititious Messanger. Its cheap and easy to build, can fly, and has a perfect telepathic link to it's master. The writeup in the book discusses using them essentially as a radio to send messages back and forth. However, as a flyer, and with an instantaneous telepathic link, they make for EXCELLENT flying scouts/spy satellites. Let them fly up and ahead to scout the area, and keep you informed as to whats there. Being of size Tiny also means they get a huge bonus to Hide checks, which means they can hide in a room and relate back to you everything that is said in it, great for spying. Next on the list, overall, is the Dedicated Wright. The job of the Artificer is to build things. However, its no fun to always be stuck in your laboratory spending a month to craft that magic sword while everybody else is either out having fun, or sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for you. Enter the Dedicated Wright. You come in, make the initial checks, and you can leave to do whatever you want while this homonculous does the tedious day to day crafting. Set him to work, go adventuring, and have your new magical item finished for you when you get back. The next one is a matter of personal taste. The Iron Defender makes a great little bodyguard for your Artificer, especially when you up it's HD. Perfect for more martially oriented Artificers, or those that tend to get picked on by the monsters for all the Scorching Rays you're firing off from your wands. If you take the Improved Homunculus feat however, you can get a lot of options to make the Iron Defender a much more powerful choice. You can up it’s hitpoints, give it the ability to make Sneak Attacks, up it’s strength, and even give it’s claws a free magical +1 equivolent enchantment like Flaming or Bane. It can turn a mediocre pet at higher levels into something to be feared, which is a good thing for the Artificer. The other, the Ethereal Filcher, is for those with a more sneaky/larcenous bent. With it's ability to sneak around and steal things, nothing is outside of your grasp. BBEG has a cool wand on his belt? Send your Filcher out to to literally climb his leg and take it away from him. Chances are, he'll never notice it was gone. And although it lacks the real time intelligence gathering ability of the Messenger, its much better at hiding and creeping around, so its a good choice for spying as well. Magic of Eberron introduces several new homunculi as well. The Arbalester, despite it’s picture, is a crossbow. Its good for ranged support, and with it’s high Balance check, it can usually sit on your shoulder and plunk away at the enemy. Give it the natural weapon upgrade, and you’ve got free flaming arrows (or whatever) whenever you need ‘em! The Persistent Harrier is good for making Sneak Attacks for you, however it is made obsolete the instant you have Improved Homunculus as you can give that same ability to your Iron Defender. The Packmate is a walking treasure chest homunculus, but one earns it’s keep in a way none of the others do. Not only can it throw grenade like weapons (like alchemist’s fire or acid) on it’s own, but it can carry a healing potion, walk over to a downed ally, and pour the potion down their throat for them. If you’re getting made into the party healer because you can make all of those healing potions, the Packmate is a great way to keep your buddies alive without taking yourself out of combat at the same time. Retain Essence: This lets the Artificer essentially deconstruct any magic item and suck the XP used to create it out and put into their craft reserve. While you may still prefer to sell those excess magic items off for gold, the Artificer gets the option to suck them dry so that he can create more magical items than he normally could. Or another way to look at it, if you find a suit of armor with an enchantment you want, you can Retain Essence on it, then enchant the armor you already have with that xp, essentially transferring the enchantment. Only catch is that you have to be able to craft the item normally before you can use Retain Essence on it (as in, you cannot Retain Essence on a magic ring until you actually get Forge Ring). An interesting side point to this that most people don’t think of is that magical traps use the Craft Wonderous Item feat to make. Which means if you run into a trap that you can’t disarm, and that won’t go off while you mess with it, you can actually use Retain Essence on it to destroy it, and get some free Craft Reserve points in the process. However, it does require you to sit there for 24 hours, in which time who knows what could attack you. But, if you manage to bypass traps on the way in, you win the big fight, and have lots of time to kill on the way out, you might as well stop and Retain those traps you bypassed earlier. Metamagic Spell Trigger/Completion: These are the core abilities of the Blastificer build. They let you apply any metamagic feat you know to spell trigger and spell completion items (aka wands and scrolls). With it, you can pick up a normal wand, and by burning more charges per shot, pile on metamagic such as Empower, Twin Spell, or Energy Admixture to whats already there. You can potentially pump out hundreds of points of damage this way, although it typically drains the entire wand into one massive blast to do it. Talk with your DM before you try this though, as a lot of them won’t like you doing 300 points of damage in a single round, even if you did burn an entire 50,000 gp wand to do it. Its easily the most abusable ability the Artificer has. Skill Mastery: You finally get the ability to Take 10 on your UMD checks. By the time you get this, you should be able to activate just about every magic item you own, every time, without fail due to your massive UMD bonus.
Edymnion 11-11-05, 01:57 AM	VII. Equipment As an Artificer, you can essentially make any item in the game that you might need, but its still worth mentioning a few important things that will make your life easier. Weapons: For your traditional Artificer, the crossbow is your best friend. It will be your main weapon for most of the lower levels, tearing through foes thanks to the Bane infusion you should be using on it every chance you get, and still remaining quite lethal even at higher levels. You should still carry backup weapons though. A pair of daggers are mandatory for any character, and a mace is quite useful for undead. Especially when you are able to enchant it up into a Disrupting Mace. Other than those, the spear is very powerful for a Simple melee weapon, although it means giving up on using a shield. Armor: None of your class skills are affected in any way by armor check penalties, so you should try to wear the heaviest armor you can find. However, it will slow you down to wear Medium armor, so you should probably stick to Light armor at the low levels, like a Chain Shirt, and then move up to a Mithril Breastplate the first chance you get. When you have the money and skill to make your own magical armor, my personal suggestion is Tessellated Armor from the Arms & Equipment Guide. It wears like Mithril Full Plate, only counts as Medium (so you can wear it without penalty), and best of all, you can equip it and dismiss it as a standard action. So you can walk around without your armor up normally, with no penalties to things like Move Silent and Hide, and then when combat begins, you simply activate your armor and suddenly become a tank. Shields: To put this mildly, the only reason you should not be using the best shield you can find is if you are wielding a two handed weapon like a spear. Otherwise, you need that AC, and you’re not really affected by the penalties of it. If you’re relying on your crossbow, you should always be wearing a buckler. If you’re relying more on a one handed weapon, go straight to a large shield. Again, as long as you have a free arm, there is no reason at all not to use the biggest, baddest shield you can find. Assorted Magical Gear: You are going to be carrying a LOT of stuff around as an Artificer. From wands and schema to the vials of oils for your infusion material components, to all that loot and crafting supplies. As such, one of the first things you should make for yourself is Heward’s Handy Haversack. Its really a no brainer, get one as soon as you can, by hook or by crook. Another must have item for a ranged combat artificer is Bracers of Archery. That'll net you free proficiency with a longbow, which should immediantly replace your crossbow. No need to get feats like Rapid Reload for a crossbow, or for Martial Weapon Prof when you can build yourself a core item and get it essentially for free. Other than that, you are going to want to get an item that boosts your Use Magic Device check. Check with your DM to see if he allows you to make non-standard magical items (those that are not expressly listed in the DMG, using the item creation pricing tables). If he does, the second thing you need to make is a UMD boosting item. A +5 item is pretty inexpensive to make, is a big help, and puts the final nail in the Skill Focus coffin. Make one ASAP, and upgrade it whenever you find those UMD are getting difficult to make again. If the DM doesn’t allow custom items, there is the Circlet of Persuasion which grants +3 to all Charisma based checks, including UMD, which still makes Skill Focus (UMD) a complete waste of a feat. At later levels, you should also look into making a Portable Hole. A Dedicated Wright doesn’t need to breath, and there’s plenty of room in one to put a full magical laboratory. Set one up in your portable hole, toss your Dedicated Wright in it, and then fold it up and stick it in your pocket. That way, you can carry the Wright around with you while you adventure, and it can be making your magic items for you the whole time, and you don’t have to go back home to get them. You could even be cute about it. Give it a little Alarm item it can activate to make the hole ding like a microwave. *ding!* Oh good, my +3 sword is done! :D Other than those, you are an artificer. If you find that you need something, then simply make it. VIII. Multiclassing Multiclassing is a question that comes up a lot with Artificers, and for good reason. The Artificer is a good class, and it makes you think twice before multiclassing or taking a PrC, much like the Rogue does. Base Classes Mechanically speaking, there is only one reason a primary Artificer (as in, a character that is mostly artificer that is just going to dip for a couple of levels into something else) to multiclass. To obtain spell lists, and utility magic. Dipping into Sorcerer gives you the entire Arcane spell list (meaning no more UMD checks to activate arcane wands), and would give you spontaneous casting of good utility magic. Take spells like Prestidigitation, Mage Hand, Dancing Lights, True Strike, and other spells that have a set effect that does not depend on caster level. Dipping into Cleric gives you basic healing capabilities, better armor choices, and some other neat abilities. If you want to get really cheesy, take a single level in Cleric devoted to the Sovereign Host in general and pick the War and Magic domains. The War domain gets you pretty much any weapon proficiency you want (that is used by any of the sovereign host gods), but the Magic domain is what is key. Not only do you get access to the Divine spell list, but the Magic domain also gives you access to the entire Arcane spell list as well. You can use any wand in the game without a UMD check. This one is a good idea for Blastificers that don’t want to deal with the failure chance on activating their wands. If you can convince your DM to let you do something this cheesy, that is. But as a secondary class, the Artificer can add some oomph to almost any class. It’ll take several levels to be of full use, but just enough to get to Craft Wonderous Item is a great boon to everybody. Rogues mix with Artificer exceptionally well, as both classes have Use Magic Device as class skills. The rogue essentially trades sneak attack for magic item creation, and the artificer trades creation feats for more skillpoints and some sneak attack. PrC: Even though we now have some PrC made specifically for the Artificer, I would like to step out of guide mode here long enough to say that the Artificer is a wonderful class that remains exceedingly good for the whole 20 level run (and the thought of an Epic level Artificer should make you tingle all over). One big reason not to take a PrC is that the Craft Reserve only refills when you level up in Artificer, not any of the PrC out there. Which means you have to use Retain Essence a lot, use actual XP to craft with, or stagger your progression in the PrC by going back and forth between Artificer and PrC to keep refilling that Craft Reserve. Back into guide mode, there are 3 good PrCs for Artificers out there now: Cannith Wand Adept: If you’re a Blastificer, you want into this PrC ASAP. Its in the Sharn: City of Towers expansion book, and is a 3 level PrC focusing on, obviously, wand use. The main draw here, besides only being 3 levels, is that it lets you activate two wands at the same time, meaning double the pain per round for the Blastificer. On top of that, they can suck charges out of wands and use them as if they were action points. However, it has some stiff prereqs, including needing the Mark of Making, meaning it’s a Human-Only PrC. Alchemist Savant: From Magic of Eberron, its good for Gnomes with their bonus to alchemy checks. It’s a 5 level PrC that lets you make alchemical items and potions extremely quickly (three potions a day instead of 1, and alchemical items are made in hours, not days, and days instead of weeks). The biggest draw for this one is that it’s capstone ability is the ability to make vanilla potions. A potion that is blank, that you can cast spells or infusions in later, and then have the potion work normally. It is the only way to make an item out of an infusion, and when you can start cranking out Potions of Iron Construct and Weapon Augmentation, that’s some sweet stuff. Renegade Mastermaker: Also from Magic of Eberron, this one is a transitive class that slowly turns the character into a Warforged. You gain a free battlefist (which you can infuse normally, and which also gains magical plusses for free), damage reduction, and all around slowly become a Warforged. You gain the ability to use embedded and attached items, and at the final level of this 10 lvl PrC, you take on the Living Construct type, and get a bonus WF feat, which can include body feats like Mithril Body. Other than these, the Artificer also qualifies for any normal PrC however, but he has some special considerations. Any PrC that requires a spellcasting level is fair game, but not ones that require specifically arcane or divine spellcasting. If the PrC grants “+1 Spellcasting Level”, it increases the Artificer’s caster level and grants new Infusions known/per day, but none of the other Artificer abilities (aka no Craft Reserve refill), just like it does for increasing a cleric’s spells known/per day, but not things like Turn Undead. If the PrC grants +1 Arcane/Divine Spellcasting level, the Artificer does not benefit from those, as his infusions are neither Arcane nor Divine. The Artificer is still restricted from taking PrC that require having a certain spell on their spell list, or the ability to cast a specific spell, as they are not actually spellcasters, do not have spell lists, and cannot actually cast any spell on their own. However, all of this is rather restrictive, so you could always talk to your DM and see if (s)he would houserule that you can qualify for other PrC. If so, PrC like the Effigy Master become very good choices for an Artificer indeed. IX. Good Houserules and Variants With the Artificers being so new, its hard to make them work well with other things that have been printed. If you see it here, its because it is a good houserule to help the Artificer run more smoothly. If you are a Player, make sure to ask your DM if its okay to use any of these before you try to do it. Scrolls: Simply say that wizards and clerics and the like are capable of casting off of an Artificer’s scroll normally, just that the Wizard cannot scribe the scroll over into his spellbook. PrC: Allow the Artificer to meet spellcasting prereqs for PrC as long as he can replicate that spell, and is the same level as a normal spellcaster is supposed to be. As in, if the PrC requires the ability to cast Lighting Bolt, that the Artificer be allowed in after lvl 5, when the wizard would first be able to cast the spell. Magic Item Crafting: Let the bloody Artificer make custom items! There are so many wonderful things he can do, its unfair to limit the entire class to only what a handful of designers print on a few pages. You still need to keep a close eye on what they make, and realize that the pricing guidelines do not work for everything, but in the hands of a good Artificer player, you'll get a lot more benefit out of letting them make custom items than you will headache. The Psionic Artificer: This one is not a houserule (although it began life as one). Magic of Eberron officially set down the rules for the Psionic Artificer. It is a Varient of the Artificer, meaning you cannot mix levels of Psionic Artificer with normal Artificer levels, and it essentially only changes which crafting feat you get from magical items to their equivolent Psionic counterpart. For example, you would get Craft Psicrown instead of Craft Staff, or Encode Powerstone instead of Scribe Scroll. In Closing I’ll admit, I didn’t go through every last page of the old thread to pick out every little thing that was there. If I missed something that you think is important to be in this guide, then by all means, either type it back out for me, or link me to the posts that talk about it, and I’ll see about getting it included. However, there are things that should *NOT* be in this thread. If you want to debate on whether or not the Artificer can do something, make your own thread for that. When the debate is done, and one side clearly wins out over the other, then post the result in here, and we’ll see about getting it added. For example, if they can put more than one metamagic on the same item trigger (like empower twin etc on the same wand use) or not. Don’t debate that here, take it to it’s own thread, then bring the final answer back here. Essentially, this thread is supposed to be to help those that don’t know what the Artificer is to learn how to use them. What they are, how they work, etc. If your topic is something that is just going to muddy the waters and confuse the new people, then don’t post it here. Take it to another thread where we can muddy it all we want, settle on a clear answer, then come back and fix this thread. Lets all do our best to keep this thread clean and easy to use so that it remains helpful to everybody, okay -Edymnion
Edymnion 11-11-05, 02:00 AM	Updates and Corrections to the Guide Changes and updates to this guide are inevitable, so instead of having to dig through however many pages the thread comes to be, I'll put all notices of updates here in this post. 11-10-05: Posted up the guide, split the guide into two posts due to character limit, and added the PDF provided by Save-vs-DM 11-11-05: Added the Psionic Artificer under Houserules and Variants, added warning about item creation under Houserules, created this Updates and Corrections post, and expanded the Elves and Halflings race entries. 11-15-05: Added Wand Mastery to Feats. 5-23-06: Added Bracers of Archery to the Assorted Magical Gear list. 2-03-07: Added the dwarven racial bonus to craft checks.
Pinky's brain 11-11-05, 07:00 AM	Magic Item Crafting: Let the bloody Artificer make custom items! There are so many wonderful things he can do, its unfair to limit the entire class to only what a handful of designers print on a few pages.If you are going to give tips to DMs you might want to mention that they have to be very carefull, you can't just use the guidelines as rules and expect things to work out well. You'll just end up intervening all the time. Allowing use activited item pricing formula for spells other than buffs with duration can be unbalancing, also these days activation should really be a swift action rather than a free action. Allowing unlimited uses for the standard prices can be unbalancing (just making it 5x/day is a lot better). Basically having no limit to the amount of magic items you can wear with continuous spell effects can be unbalancing (there's lots of low level spells which when made continuous provide huge benefits all through the game, protection from alignment, expeditious retreat, enlarge person etc ... at high level this can really start adding up when they don't have to sacrifice a slot to get the effect).
Chiyo 11-11-05, 11:01 AM	I'd also make a small change to the part on metamagic feats. Metamagic feats can be quite important for melee/archery oriented artificers. For a melee artificer (or archer actually), you probably gonna want extend spell and persistent spell. There are a decent number of spells you'll likely cast in a persistent fashion at the beginning of the day such as divine favor, divine power, etc that will greatly enhance your melee/archery performance and are well worth the investment of two feats. You can also pass the wands to other UMD users or divine/arcane caster for them to buff themselves with. Also for persistent buffing and passing the wand/staff to others in group, you'll probably want to use metamagic item infusion as the self-buffing could become quite expensive via spell-trigger ability (6 extra charges per buff). I was also wondering why not including wand mastery in the discussion on feats? It seems like it'd be a very good candidate for blastificers no? If nothing else, for most wands, it'll become a decent cost saving tool (saves both gp and XP) on top of making spells harder to resist. Good comment on custom items Pinky. For illustration, consider an item with unlimited command word activation of cure light wounds/lesser vigor. Basically a near infinite supply of healing spells. Theoretically, cost guideline is 1800 x 1 x1 (x 2 to make it not use a body slot since it's cheap anyway) = 3600 gp for unlimited cure light wounds sounds really a bit too cheap. With allowing custom items, comes the risk of imbalances especially like Pinky said due to the low cost of low level spells. Changing unlimited uses to 5x/day sounds like a good compromise for many of them although it does make them more like minor schemas. As a DM, just be ready to bump the costs or disallow some items if they'd ruin things in your campaign.
Edymnion 11-11-05, 12:42 PM	If you are going to give tips to DMs you might want to mention that they have to be very carefull, you can't just use the guidelines as rules and expect things to work out well. You'll just end up intervening all the time.Thats a problem inherent in the custom item making itself, not the Artificer. It goes without saying, just like "Let the PCs take PrC" implies "Be careful about which ones you let them take". But, I added a line about that. I also added in the Psionic Artificer varient, since I mentioned it and forgot to put it in last night.I was also wondering why not including wand mastery in the discussion on feats?Heh, because I totally forgot about it, and I still don't remember where its from to look it up again? ;)
Pinky's brain 11-11-05, 12:49 PM	It's upto the DM what rules to use and what content to allow into the game, but without any predetermined ground rules it just turns into a game of "beg the DM". The guidelines in the DMG are poorly suited for such groundrules, they are just not well designed. BTW, you could include a mention of the possibility of using psychic reformation to drop skill focus later on ... even if you do hate it yourself ;)
Taluron 11-11-05, 02:24 PM	Under the Item Creation section you state that wizards can't cast fireball until 6th level. That's a sorcerer. Wizards can cast 3rd level spells at 5th. Minor snig.
Edymnion 11-11-05, 02:27 PM	Under the Item Creation section you state that wizards can't cast fireball until 6th level. That's a sorcerer. Wizards can cast 3rd level spells at 5th. Minor snig.Yeah, I caught that and corrected it last night. The wizard gets fireball at 5th, but since its a prereq normally, it means the PrC can't be taken until the level after that. So they would meet the spell prereq at 5th level, and would then be free to take the first level of the PrC at lvl 6. As a houserule, of course. Main reason I put that in there was to allow Artificers to become Effigy Masters.
AlDaRoN Arg 11-11-05, 02:46 PM	The Artificer can make items just like anybody else, except that instead of casting the prereq spells, they may make a Use Magic Device check (DC 20 + Caster Level). In other words, if you want to make a Wand of Fireball, you would craft normally, then make a DC 26 UMD check (because the lowest level anyone can cast Fireball at is lvl 6). Actually the minimun level for casting a fireball is 5th since a fireball is a 3rd level spell. :p Other than that the guide looks great. Good work.
Sarlax 11-11-05, 04:08 PM	It's not self-evident that artificers are best served with high Dexterity and ranged attacks. The arcane spell failure chance for scrolls is rather small; most artificers, when they have the cash and craft reserve to regularly be making magic items for offense are much better served with wondrous items and wands. To be an effective ranged warrior, any character not using touch attacks needs Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot, which you note. However, this puts the artificer two feats in the hole when he could be saving money with Extraordinary Artisan or picking extra action points for rapid infusions with Heroic Spirit. Instead, consider developing an artificer's mundane combat skills around a high Strength stat is more easily capitalized in combat because it adds to melee attacks and damage, whereas Dex only affects attack rolls. Likewise, by wielding a two-handed weapon, the artificer can get 1.5 his Strength modifer into attacks. Second, going melee neutralizes the need for ranged combat feats, giving the artificer at least 2 more feats with which to play. Third, high Strength allows the artificer to use the weighty armors with which he is proficient without being slowed. Instead of using a two-handed weapon, you can also use a one-handed simple weapon and a heavy shield. Fourth, artificers generally are not going to be so hot in melee or ranged combat unless they primarly level in warrior classes. A single-classed artificer, as he moves out of low-levels, should come to rely more on wands, eternal wands, and similar items to be dealing damage. If he focused on Strength earlier, the transition is painless. If, however, he spent two feats to be good at ranged combat early in his career, he'll rapidly find that his ranged focus is providing diminishing returns. It's just like taking Skill Focus (UMD) and Magical Aptitude; it's nice for a couple levels, but then you wish you'd taken something else. Fifth, few of the artificer's core power (magic items) are Dexterity dependent. There are a few ranged touch attack spells, but there are always spells of comparable level that deal damage just as effectively. True, magic items also aren't Strength dependent; I include this just so there's no mistake in thinking that attack rolls are particularly important with magic. It's true that with a small hit die (d6) artificer's aren't great tanks. However, it's more important to rapidly deal damage than it is to be able to take it. A melee artificer can complement the primary melee fighter with flanking maneuvers. Since any artificer is going to be using Bane (Enemy of the Moment) in a battle and hence dealing even higher damage than by Strength alone, the enemy will drop quite quickly.
waper9 11-11-05, 05:09 PM	Playing my artificer in a low level campaign, and leveling to mid-lvl, I gotta agree with Sarlax. I was constantly struggling to be under the weight limit at first. Handy haversack/efficient quiver isn't craftable til 7th lvl. Crossbow with bane, etc was nice, but ultimately, I was very feat tight, and not like I had a wand of touch spells anyway. I was better served trying to set the rogue up as a flanker with my medium armor/shield most of the time. Not to mention with magic vestment/shield of faith as a lvl 1 infusion, I tended to have one the highest AC in the group. The few utility spells I'd want were covered by my scroll making needs. Spending a full round trying to cast a weak spell at those levels were not my idea of fun. By level 3, I was looking at wondrous items more and more, and by 6th I was using wands constantly. I know Edy is trying to sound as neutral as possible, but those are my critiques and advice as well in light of the 2.0 guide.
Joni-san 11-11-05, 05:28 PM	Well done, a good a and solid guide to the Artificer. :) Minor quibbles: *Some problems in the code in the Spellcraft section. *Lylander? Isn't it an 'a' and a 'r'? Or was it two...
Edymnion 11-11-05, 07:28 PM	Instead, consider developing an artificer's mundane combat skills around a high Strength stat is more easily capitalized in combat because it adds to melee attacks and damage, whereas Dex only affects attack rolls. Likewise, by wielding a two-handed weapon, the artificer can get 1.5 his Strength modifer into attacks.Yes, but melee means putting yourself right next to the monster in question. Ask any rogue player, and they'll tell you the LAST thing they want is to be the tank for the party, because even Sneak Attack, they simply will not survive a full on counter-attack. Same with the Artificer. Even with the best armor they can wear, going into melee is very dangerous. With the right stuff, yes, its doable, and even powerful. But normally, with a d6 hitdice, middling BAB, and a low to medium AC for their entire careers, a front line artificer is going to be a dead artificer.Third, high Strength allows the artificer to use the weighty armors with which he is proficient without being slowed.Strength is irrelivant. Medium and Heavy Armor drop the speed of whoever wears them, if they're Strength of 5 or Strength 25.Fourth, artificers generally are not going to be so hot in melee or ranged combat unless they primarly level in warrior classes. A single-classed artificer, as he moves out of low-levels, should come to rely more on wands, eternal wands, and similar items to be dealing damage. If he focused on Strength earlier, the transition is painless. If, however, he spent two feats to be good at ranged combat early in his career, he'll rapidly find that his ranged focus is providing diminishing returns.Not really. Many of the best direct damage dealing spells still require ranged attacks (usually ranged touch attacks) to hit. Those still benefit fully from PBS and Precise Shot. Even ranged touch attacks can be tricky with middle BAB and the target in melee with the party tank. You can hit with Fireball or area effect spells for damage easily enough when you have the room. But when the rest of your party wants to get in on the fight too, you gotta realize that you can't use area attacks, and that means you have to either fire into melee with massive penalties, or you have to enter melee yourself, and risk getting yourself killed. It's true that with a small hit die (d6) artificer's aren't great tanks. However, it's more important to rapidly deal damage than it is to be able to take it. A melee artificer can complement the primary melee fighter with flanking maneuvers. Since any artificer is going to be using Bane (Enemy of the Moment) in a battle and hence dealing even higher damage than by Strength alone, the enemy will drop quite quickly.Again, ask a Rogue player what the first word out of his mouth is when he gets a full sneak attack off on the badguy, and it turns around to look at him. In my experience, its generally, "Oh :censored:" because the baddy knows how much hurt the rogue can cause, and is going to lay into 'em with everything it has. Same with the Artificer. Survivability increases dramatically and stays high when you keep the Artificer off the front line. Which means you must rely on ranged and area attacks.
LuciferNietzsche 11-11-05, 09:58 PM	I've noticed that everyone seems to overlook the fact that if you want your artificer (bufficer) to stay out of melee combat, Reach Spell is an absolute must-have. Once you get that, you never have to worry again about standing in harm's way when the 'forged in the party needs some buffing or repairs. For the other artificer builds, it's really not important, because a melee artificer is going to be right up there in it anyway, and an artificer (blastificer) is going to be in the back tossing wand-shots, rather than buffing anyone much. Aside from that one thing, I think it's a great guide, very helpful to new artificer players.
Sarlax 11-12-05, 03:05 AM	Strength is irrelivant. Medium and Heavy Armor drop the speed of whoever wears them, if they're Strength of 5 or Strength 25. I should have been clearer. By "weighty," I meant armor that has great weight; I wasn't specifying Medium+. To elaborate, armor tends to add a lot (if not the most) of the weight a character carries. If an artificer uses Strength as his dump stat as was suggested, it'll be very difficult for him to benefit from any significant armor without being slowed. A strong artificer can get to the chain shirt and still have plenty of carrying capacity to go around. Once mithral's available, you can pull this trick again with Medium armor. Expanding this, they can freely push into heavier armors. For instance, an admantine breastplate can give them the DR to deal with their low HD. Yes, they lose 10 feet, but they have the option available to them, whereas lesser artificers are held to the ground. But when the rest of your party wants to get in on the fight too, you gotta realize that you can't use area attacks, and that means you have to either fire into melee with massive penalties, or you have to enter melee yourself, and risk getting yourself killed. Or! You use single-target spells that don't involve attack rolls. Dominate Person or Flesh to Stone will take someone out of a fight just as well as Ray of Enfeeblement or Disintegrate. You'd be hard-pressed to find a level of spells across all spell lists in which there isn't a single target spell that competes with a ray of the same level. There's always a good spell that can leave your friends untouched and take out your enemies without you having to roll. ...because the baddy knows how much hurt the rogue can cause, and is going to lay into 'em with everything it has. Same with the Artificer. This point is particular to characters who've neglected defense. Rogues have an excuse since they're not proficient with the better armors or with shields, but artificers have good defense as an option. An artificer will only be abyssmal in defense if he's deliberately passed on it in favor of ranged combat. Survivability increases dramatically and stays high when you keep the Artificer off the front line. Which means you must rely on ranged and area attacks. The use of ranged effects can be done without Dexterity since there are so many targetted effects which don't require rolls. By selecting Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot, the artificer is only making himself viable in weapon combat for a few levels; once he can regularly craft the better items, he doesn't need either feat, nor does he need the Dexterity. If, however, he went with melee early on, he's ahead by two feats and can use exactly the same tactics the snipeficer will use in several levels. He also constantly benefits from the heavier armor (not a big deal if ranged is your thing) as well as higher carrying capacity, which never goes out of style.
Terraneaux 11-12-05, 04:59 AM	Actually, I've found that if you have a strength of 13+ as an artificer, taking power attack as a feat is a very viable choice. I would suggest holding off on it until about 9th level or so, as once you can craft a wand of divine power that you can persistent, it becomes pretty bomb. Combine it with a wand of wraithstrike that you've done something similar to, it gets pretty bomb. I'd also master's touch a falchion, scythe, or goliath greathammer for the extra hurtage.
Elderich 11-12-05, 11:23 AM	But normally, with a d6 hitdice, middling BAB, and a low to medium AC for their entire careers, a front line artificer is going to be a dead artificer. I consider an Artificer comparable to a cleric, with it's armor and spell options. Granted a d6 vs a d8 is one less HP per level, but otherwise they are the same. The artificers ability in melee should also take into account the possability of persistant divine power, ect. With the correct buffs on the artificer should be able to match or beat the effectivness of clerical melee fighters, which compare much more favorably with artificers than rogues. Consider the case of an artificer with TWF and weapon finesse instead of PBS, and PS. Use finessed melee touch attacks in place of ranged touch for ray spells in combat and, assuming Divine Favor, your to hit is better than a fighter. Why TWF? When magic item can cost you 37.5% of retail, why not have as many as you can? Edymnion, I do not understand why you suggest the artificer has "a low to medium AC". Why do we not assume the artificer would have one of the top ac's in the party? The artificer will not replace a tank, but can be very effective on the front line. Perhaps I would not get any fighter feats in my builds, as most parties I play with have that covered, but I think a front line fighter is very viable.
Sarlax 11-12-05, 05:29 PM	Why do we not assume the artificer would have one of the top ac's in the party? It (high AC) is certainly available to them, because they aren't dependent on 30'/round mobility unless your specifically design them to be. The sheer versatility of their defensive buffs should make them well-suited to defense, if they choose to go that way. Perhaps I would not get any fighter feats in my builds, as most parties I play with have that covered, but I think a front line fighter is very viable. I played in a 3 PC Eberron game. We were a rogue/warlock, swashbuckler/kineticist, and an artificer. The artificer always packed a very mean punch with his Bane and became our de facto front-line warrior. Although he wasn't a tough as a true fighter, he held his own.
Edymnion 11-12-05, 06:24 PM	I should have been clearer. By "weighty," I meant armor that has great weight; I wasn't specifying Medium+. To elaborate, armor tends to add a lot (if not the most) of the weight a character carries. If an artificer uses Strength as his dump stat as was suggested, it'll be very difficult for him to benefit from any significant armor without being slowed. A strong artificer can get to the chain shirt and still have plenty of carrying capacity to go around. Once mithral's available, you can pull this trick again with Medium armor.Yes, but by then, you can afford to make a Strength boosting item if you used it as your dump stat. I even mentioned several times that a strength build is completely viable if done right. But for someone who is brand new to the class (and thats who I was targetting with this, not a seasoned artificer pro), it is much easier to go for a back-line character than it is a front line Meleeficer. At the early levels, melee is going to get you killed. At mid and later levels, yes, you can enter melee with your magical buffs quite well. But by the time you can do that, you can craft yourself up some items to bypass your initial weaknesses. Call it a judgement call, but for new players with non-melee characters, I tend to try and reinforce the "you are not a fighter, you shouldn't try to be a fighter". Once they understand what the class can and cannot do, then they're free to experiment. So, I make the ranged Artificer the default for this guide, and then mention the melee side several times as an alternative. Remember, this is for people that have never played an artificer, so I'm trying to make it as easy for them as possible.It (high AC) is certainly available to them, because they aren't dependent on 30'/round mobility unless your specifically design them to be. The sheer versatility of their defensive buffs should make them well-suited to defense, if they choose to go that way.Yeah, but for the money, the best normal armor the Artificer can get is a Mithril Shirt or a Mithril Breastplate. Which gives them plenty of Dex bonus, and the Dex helps against Touch Attacks as well. Strength only helps them hit harder. Dex helps them hit better and avoid being hit, and ups a Save. And since they're most likely going to be in armor that allows a lot of Dex, they are best off utilizing that. Especially when ASF gets involved with those wizard scrolls.
aelryinth 11-12-05, 08:07 PM	The Melee Artificer is a mid to late game build. Edy's build focuses on the early to mid levels. Wand Monkeys also tend to be mid to high levels, especially since Wand Mastery is what, level 8 to get? And affording the wands happens at later levels. If someone is interested in contributing to the thread, break down by level how much gold the Artificer would need at EVERY level to maximize use of the Craft Reserve. The Artificer is VERY gold dependent, and this should drive the point home. It should also note how much extra gear the Artificer can make because of this. ==Aelryinth
Edymnion 11-12-05, 09:09 PM	If someone is interested in contributing to the thread, break down by level how much gold the Artificer would need at EVERY level to maximize use of the Craft Reserve. The Artificer is VERY gold dependent, and this should drive the point home. It should also note how much extra gear the Artificer can make because of this.Thats actually pretty easy. 1 xp = 25 gp. So it would be the points in the Craft Reserve * 25. So the gold per level to maximize the Craft Reserve would be: 500 gp 1,000 gp 1,500 gp 2,000 gp 2,500 gp 3,750 gp 5,000 gp 6,250 gp 7,500 gp 10,000 gp 12,500 gp 17,500 gp 22,500 gp 30,000 gp 37,500 gp 50,000 gp 62,500 gp 75,000 gp 100,000 gp 125,000 gpThats a grand total of 569,000 gp to get every last drop out of your craft reserve. The total character wealth for a 20th level character is supposed to be 760,000 gp. Thats nearly 75% of your total character wealth for the entire game that has to be poured into your craft reserve. Along with a year and a half of crafting time. Of course, you come out 378,000 gp ahead of the curve, or just under 50% more gear than you should normally have. Assuming, of course, that every last copper was poured into yourself, and that you didn't spend any of your craft reserve on anyone else in the party. Divided out evenly across a party of four, the Artificer can increase average character wealth by about 12.5%.
Quenditar 11-12-05, 11:56 PM	Or! You use single-target spells that don't involve attack rolls. Dominate Person or Flesh to Stone will take someone out of a fight just as well as Ray of Enfeeblement or Disintegrate. You'd be hard-pressed to find a level of spells across all spell lists in which there isn't a single target spell that competes with a ray of the same level. There's always a good spell that can leave your friends untouched and take out your enemies without you having to roll. This is only a good idea at higher levels when Wand Mastery and staves become available; before that the save DCs are the minimum possible (11 for 1st level, 13 for 2nd level, 14 for 3rd level, etc.). I'm not sold on using a spell with a save DC that low against what might quite possibly be an opponent's good save.
Save-vs-DM 11-13-05, 12:00 AM	Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't give a save - you just have to roll to hit. So it's a great 1st level spell. CHeers, Save vs DM
Edymnion 11-13-05, 12:07 AM	Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't give a save - you just have to roll to hit. So it's a great 1st level spell.Which requires a ranged touch attack, which means good Dex :P
Sarlax 11-13-05, 03:27 AM	Call it a judgement call, but for new players with non-melee characters, I tend to try and reinforce the "you are not a fighter, you shouldn't try to be a fighter". I agree with the maxim, but it really means that it's wrong to encourage melee and ranged. To optimize a character, one ought to play to strengths, not moderate weaknesses. If the artificer advice holds true, it's equally true for many classes, including bards, clerics, sorcerers, wizards, etc: they should all take Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot. Of course, this makes them unable to focus in their particular class abilities. The party as a whole does better not with an abudance of middling ranged attackers but instead with specialists; the artificer should be running around supplementing, ideally.
Edymnion 11-13-05, 12:52 PM	If the artificer advice holds true, it's equally true for many classes, including bards, clerics, sorcerers, wizards, etc: they should all take Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot.Um, my Rogues, Bards, and Sorcerers *DO* take Point Blank Shot...
waper9 11-14-05, 12:35 PM	You can also set your artificer up as a 2 weapon fighter with dual wand feat later as well. So say use the quarterstaff, deal out double bane or whatever else. Your two weapon penalties are negated by bane in that case, and you still have a nice pre-req feat for dual wand use. Make charisma your near dump stat. When you count in spellcraft synergy, and the fact artificer's get +2 to Use magic check via having the feat, the low levels where you're using scrolls should be viable at 9 to 10 UMD check even with 10 charisma at lvl 2. Lvl 1, probably aren't making too many scrolls unless your party is stopping everyday or so. Add in a masterwork tool, for another +2 circumstance check as well, for a total of +12 check at lvl 2 with scrolls. Mainly, if the issue is the UMD checks, then +1 or +2 shouldn't be that much of a difference. If the main issue is ranged touch attacks, not all artificers are the blasting type and even the -4 penalty for firing into melee is not much for touch attacks. Not to mention, the stats in dex/str/con make your character that much more survivable to later levels. Personally, I prefer strength in either case, d6 hp is not the greatest for sure, but board/weapon combo plus magic vestment + shield of faith all available at lvl 1 means you will have one of the best ACs in the group. Heck be warforged, and you got self healing on top of that.
Chiyo 11-14-05, 12:52 PM	Heh, because I totally forgot about it, and I still don't remember where its from to look it up again? Wand Mastery is in the ECS feat section, p. 62. It's on the artificer bonus feat list too. Pre-reqs are Craft Wand and CL 9. Benefits: wands function with regular DC+2 and effective CL+2. Which means for a given effect, you can craft it at 2 CL lower. Say a wand of fireball CL10 would only require being crafted at CL8 and still produce 10d6 fireballs. Thus gold AND XP savings of 20% and fireballs at DC +2 higher. Works also on wands you find which is a bonus. The lowly CL1 wand of cure light wounds gives you +2 HP per charge. One extra missile on wand of magic missile you found. Etc. Not bad for one feat. By comparison with spell focus, spell penetration or artisan feats for DC, SR checks increase and cost savings. Caveat is IMO after you get to staff creation and very high CL spell-trigger items. Just because that feat won't apply on staves and if that becomes your mainstay based on staves using your own current DC and CL rather than crafted one, then the feat loses usefulness. Anyway, it's also a pre-requisite feat for Cannith Wand Adept PrC.
DBlizzard 11-15-05, 12:27 AM	Extra Rings: This is a strong feat. Very strong. So strong it will cost any other character two EPIC level feats (Extra Slot) to duplicate. It lets you benefit from four magic rings at one time instead of just two. Especially when you get the ability to craft your own rings, this feat is invaluable. Since Forge Ring is a requirement for Extra Rings the bolded comment is redundant, since you will always have the ability to craft your own rings when you have the feat.
aelryinth 11-15-05, 02:06 AM	Edymion, you forgot to extend out your Reserve table. People have to see the effect of the reserve once you take the Artisan feats to conserve xp and gold. Those numbers start looking better and better. Example: 10th level Craft Reserve: 400 xp Need: 10,000 GP, 20K of gear. Legendary Artisan (XP): 400 XP, 13,333 GP, 26.7k of gear. + Legendary Craftsman (Gold) = 400 XP, 10k GP, 26.7K of gear. At high levels, adding another 33% value to the magic items you can make, while time and xp cost are the same, is quite significant (gear goes to approx +500k by level 20!) ===Aelryinth
Edymnion 11-15-05, 01:02 PM	Since Forge Ring is a requirement for Extra Rings the bolded comment is redundant, since you will always have the ability to craft your own rings when you have the feat.Heh, oh yeah... :P
13x13 11-18-05, 04:48 PM	Edymnion, I believe the War domain and Sovreign host gives you the same weapon as the Sovreign Host's martial diety. It doesn't allow you to choose any weapon you like. You will need to change that bit in the multiclassing section.
Edymnion 11-20-05, 06:44 PM	Edymnion, I believe the War domain and Sovreign host gives you the same weapon as the Sovreign Host's martial diety. It doesn't allow you to choose any weapon you like. You will need to change that bit in the multiclassing section.To my knowledge, it would let you pick the favored weapon of any god in the pantheon.
Sarlax 11-22-05, 06:49 PM	To my knowledge, it would let you pick the favored weapon of any god in the pantheon. Taken as a whole, the pantheon is neutral good, and its favored weapon is the longsword - the weapon of its martial champion, Dol Dorn. A general worshipper of the Host with War domain gets that Host's favored weapon: the longsword.
technodemon 11-23-05, 10:18 AM	How would the other races from the Races of book series or the Environmental books (like Sand sStorm and Stormwrack) work well as artificers?
Dougbert 11-23-05, 11:05 AM	Since item creation is the bread and butter of an artificer it may be nice to include a section on how an artificer can use cooperative item creation as well as his +2 caster level bump to meet item prereqs during creation.
Edymnion 11-23-05, 02:26 PM	How would the other races from the Races of book series or the Environmental books (like Sand sStorm and Stormwrack) work well as artificers?Eh, they aren't included in Eberron by default, and if I started including every rules variant from every book ever written, well lets just say I might consider it if I was getting paid by the word ;)
Isran_Imrador 11-28-05, 02:46 PM	Hey Edy! Great Guide :) Shouldnt Drow be included? I mean they got racial bonuses to both Cha & Int! Perfect for Artificers, Some of the drow tribes are even more advanced than the gnomes in Elemental binding to...A new source for the Bind Elemental feat! An Artificer with a Boomerang! Cool ;)
Stephen Hawking 11-29-05, 04:31 AM	I wouldnt include drow because of their ECL. Artificer much like any other caster needs as many levels as possible, not saying they're not a great choice for the artificer though. That said if we're allowing a few secondary sources, warforged scout with the tiny messenger via alter self is a nice nuker type. 100 fly perfect + smaller size. Strongheart halfling is also great with +2 dex, and the bonus feat and small size as well.
Edymnion 12-02-05, 08:54 PM	I wouldnt include drow because of their ECL.I will not include Drow because Drow are not acceptable as PCs in Eberron. Period.Strongheart halfling is also great with +2 dex, and the bonus feat and small size as well.There are no subraces in Eberron. You get whats in the PHB, and the extras from the ECS. Thats it. An elf is an elf is an elf, and a halfling is a halfling is a halfling.
aelryinth 12-04-05, 03:29 AM	Reposting a bevy of basic useful information from the previous thread that didn't get transferred over. Artificer Stuff Let's Go thru the Weirdness of the Wands. Yes, you can Quicken a Wand. The feat is specifically used in mention of Metamagic Item for use on Wands. Note that this is ideal for a Metamagic Spell Trigger, because you only have to Quicken a spell ONCE to get full use out of the feat for the round...if you were, say, to Empower the spell, you wouldn't really do the same thing...although I suppose you could Repeat or Admixture it to the same effect if you had the qualifying feats or didn't mind the damage delay. For bringing the rhythm, nothing like doing it right NOW, however. Quickening the Item and Triggering a Twin means triggering twice a round instead of once, as well...inefficient. An Artificer can craft an item as if he were two levels higher. However, the item uses the true level he actually IS to determine its effects. This means you can make stuff early…but for less damage, and no cost savings. So, to make an Empowered Scorching Ray, you need a level 4 spell, right? Minimum caster level of 7...two rays. Except the Artificer can pretend he's two levels higher, and could actually make an Empowered Scorching Ray at only 5th level of usage...saving himself some cash. He would, of course, make it 6th level, with maximum Wand Twinking levels of +5. I say he might want to make the Wand at 10th level to help with distance and SR, so it casts in his hands at 15th level. However, DAMAGE caps at level 11 with 3 rays. SO, you have a choice...a level 6 Wand, to hit the Damage cap, or the 10th level Wand, for better Distance and SR (or 9th level, with no Wand Adept) For Force Orb, the damage Cap is actually 10d6! So, you really only want a 5th level wand of Force Orb (and you can make one as an Artificer). +5 levels puts it back at maximum…but, caster level restrictions mean since you save no money making it at 5th as opposed to 7th, make it 7th level. (NWA = 8th level) For Elemental Orb, you want 10th, because the Cap is 15d6. For Forceball, you want 10, because the cap is 15d6. For Fireball/Lightning Bolt, you want 5th, because the Cap is 10d6. (Caster level 8 with no Wand Adept) --------------------------------- Damage for An Empowered Scorching Ray, Twinned. BASE: Scorching Ray. 3x 4d6. This effect is Empowered, so 3 x 6d6, effectively. However, The BASE is twinned, so we are + 3 x 4d6. Total Dmg: 30d6. Vulnerable to SR. Touch attacks. Cost: 1 charge. Use the Power Infusion for Temporary Charges from your XP and you don't even have to pay for the Charges. By Using Quicken via Metamagic Spell Trigger, cost 4 charges, you can get off another one of these, for another +30d6 dm. 60d6 Elemental Damage for 2+4 charges, minus your Infuse Power if you are so inclined, and you can customize the Fire damage via Elemental Infusion if you are so inclined to another element. Elemental Orb (Level 4): Made at 10th Caster level. Dmg 15d6. Twinned for 30d6, two touch attacks, no save, no SR. Change Element as desired. Use d4's if a base Sonic damage, secondary effects as per spell type. Force Orb (level 4): Made at 7th caster level. 10d6 dmg cap, Twinned for 20d6. No save, no SR, two touch attacks, hits incorporeals, no need to worry about elemental res/immunes/vulns. Half the cost of Elemental Orb due to lower Caster level. Empowered Scorching Ray (level 4): Made at 6th level. Tops out at CL 11, 3 rays at 4d6 +50% each (6d6). Twin the base Rays for another 3 x 4d6. Total dmg 30d6 when Twinned. Customizable by Element. 6 Touch Attacks, SR, no save, multiple targets if desired. A little over half the cost of Elemental Orb, but possibly the same damage. Your best basic dmg dealing tool. Forceball: Has to be made at 10th Caster level. As Fireball, but made of Force. Dmg, 15d6, Twinned, for a 30d6 area effect double blast, Reflex save, SR. Mook clearing tool. Fireball/Lightning Bolt: Made at 5th Caster level. Dmg is 10d6, element can be customized. Less then half the cost of Forceball. Twinned is 20d6 dmg, area of effect, Reflex Save. Mook clearing tool, customize to vulnerable element, SR, Reflex save. And there you have your fighting gear. If you can find some other great spells to stick in wands and go ownage, more power to you. For use in the city, you might want to purchase a Wand of Subdual Damage Scorching Rays or Fireballs, so you don't kill stuff or light in on fire...but that's your call. ------------- Bogus the Wand Master/Cannith Wand Adept uses all Wands at +5 levels. Therefore, he needs only a 6th level Wand of Scorching Ray to maximize his damage with Scorching Ray, thus saving him a substantial amount of dough. Metamagic feats affect only the base spell when damage is concerned. Therefore, this wand, in Bogus' hands, does not do 108 dmg (doubled for two wands to 216). With Metamagic Infusion to Maximize it, this wand does 3 rays at 4d6 each (Maximized) + 50% of 3 x 4d6 (Empowered) [which effectively is 3 x 2d6]. In other words, 3 rays at 24 +2d6, for an average of 31 pts per ray, or 93 damage, doubled to 186 with Dual Wield. He would be FAR better off merely Quickening the Wand with his metamagic infusion instead of Maximizing it. Then he would effectively get 3 rays at 4d6+2d6 each, twice a round via Quicken, for 36d6 of damage, which works out to 126 per wand, doubled for 252 damage. Note also you can't make a wand higher then caster level 10. Bogus can pull the 'best possible Scorching Ray damage trick' off with a Wand made at Caster level 6. Another thing, you have to burn the Metamagic Spell Trigger each time you trigger the wand. Ouch! You are piling on charges once you add Quicken to the Mix. Now, you are assuming you are using BASE Scorching Ray wands, not Empowered Scorching Ray. The difference here is up front cost of making the Wand against the burning of charges for lesser damage. Quickening a Wand so you can cast the spell twice is implicitly better then Maximizing it for the same cost. I.e. 10d6 dmg x 2 = ~70 dmg. Maximized 10d6 is 60. Holds true with ALL spells. ------------------------- Don't grab Energy Substitution!!! There's an Artificer infusion that allows you to change the Energy type of the Item you are using. Since you are going to use Metamagic Item to Energy Substitute, you are in effect, burning a precious feat to use an infusion for lesser effect then using an infusion you already have access to! (If you are doing it to have access to Admixture, that's a different story). ------------------------- Here is the corrected and revised pricing for wands. The proper formula for calculating the values are: 750 x Caster Level x Effective Spell Level (including any built in metamagic levels!) = Base/Market Price. 1/2 of Base/Market Price is YOUR COST. 1/25 of Base Market Price is YOUR XP COST. Yes, that 200k Item really does take 8000 xp to make! 1/1000 is the TIME IN DAYS to make the item. Yes, a 200K item does take 7 months! ===================================== Revised, Edited, and Updated (Now with Improved GP/Charge!) Lastly, WATCH YOUR ARTISAN FEATS. These suckers DO NOT play off one another! They operate only on the base price of the wand, and they DO NOT STACK. Consider a Wand of Doodle. Base/Market Cost is 10k. To Make the Wand would cost 1/2 the base cost (5000 gp), 1/25th of the base cost in xp (400xp) and 10 days (1 day/1000 gp of base cost). The Artisan feats knock 25% of the BASE numbers. So, your cost would be 1/2 of 75% of 10000 gp, or 3750. Your XP cost would be 75% of 400 xp, or 300 xp. No, you don't get to refigure xp based on the 'new' 7500 price, and take 75% of that. Your new time is 75% of 10 days, or 7.5 days, rounded up to 8. No, you don't get to take 75% of the 'new' price of 7500 and churn this sucker out in 56.25% of the normal time. These feats all work off the base pricing, they do not work off of each other. ===================== Cost of the Wands Wands are cost-priced at 375 gp x Caster level x spell Level. Market (or base cost!) is 750 gp x Caster level x Spell Level. Artificers with CWA get huge breaks on pricing because they get the effect boost of +5 Wand Mastery. Scorching Rays top out at caster level 11 for damage. Fireballs and Lightning Bolts top out at 10th. Force Orbs top out at 10th. Forceballs and Elemental Orbs top out at 15. So, for the 2nd level spell Scorching Ray, we basically want a Wand casting at 6th level, which lets us hit 11th level with our +5 bonus for the damage cap. 750 gp x 2nd level x CL6. 9000 base cost, 4500 cost, 9 days, 360 xp. Charge Cost: 180 (Multiply the numbers bolded by .75 if you have the appropriate Artisan feats.) EMPOWERED Scorching Ray. 750 x 4th level x CL 7th. 21,000 base price. Cost 10,500, xp 840, 21 days to make. (EDITED TO 7th Caster Level) Charge Cost: 210 gp Fireballs/Lightning bolts are in the SRD/DMG. You only want a level 5 wand, since with +5 you top out with a 10d6 fireball/bolt. 750 x 5 x 3 = 11,250 to buy. 5,625 gp, 11.25 days, 450 xp. Charge Cost: 112.5 gp Force Orb: You only want a CL 7 Wand, since it tops out at 10d6. 750 x cl7 x 4th level spell = 21,000 gp. 11,500 to make, 21 days, and 840 xp. (Edited to 7th CL per Cost minimums). Charge Cost: 230 gp. Elemental Orb/Forceball: These are your heavy hitters, one for direct dmg with no save and no SR, and the other for Mook clearage, saves and SR. 750 x CL10 x 4th level = 30000 price. Cost, 15,000. 30 days, and 1200 xp. Charge Cost: 300 gp. BUT...at level 10 you are spending a charge to shoot out a 15th level effect. You can Empower this, Maximize this, Quicken this...and if you want to get silly, you can Dual Wield this for desperate measures. ======================== Note that the way the CWA is set up, Dual-Wielding costs effectively the same amount as Metamagic Spell Triggering a Wand with Quicken (+1-4 charges per use is 2.5...so using a wand 'twice a round' is 5 charges on average, while Quicken with Metamagic Spell trigger is only 4!). Quicken is the best of the spells, because unlike all the others, it stacks on top of them...you get all the OTHER effects Twice. You can't maximize an Empower...You can't Repeat a Twin...you can't Admixture a Maximize. Damage effects work off the base spell. Quicken, however, includes EVERYTHING. A Twinned Empowered Scorching Ray is Empower + Scorching Ray +the Twinned Scorching Ray...the Empower is NOT Twinned. Dmg is effectively Scorching ray x 2.5. A Quickened Empowered Scorching Ray is 2 Empowered Scorching Rays! Dmg is effectively x 3! Editor’s Note: As a balance issue, it is perfectly reasonable to assert that like all other metamagic spells, Quicken only affects the base spell and ignores all other metamagic and infusions. Thus, You would only Quicken the base spell, and, for example, neither the Twin nor the Empower would apply. This nicely cuts back further on Artificer damage if such is a problem for you. ===================== Efficient Charge usage We've already determined that Quicken is the single best Metamagic Infusion to put into a wand for dmg per round...but Quicken forces us to use a second charge. By CHARGE, what we want is a metamagic effect that directly affects damage. The best of these are the feats that directly add on damage. Twin is the best of these, since it works on all spells, and is not dependent on damage type to function. It directly doubles your damage Per Charge. Next comes Admixture...it also doubles your damage, but it is restricted to spells doing Elemental damage. Then comes Repeat Spell...sort of a Twin that goes off a round later. Ehhhh. Then we go down to Maximize, and lastly Empower. Neither is an effective doubling, although a Double Empower is effectively the same as a Twin Spell (but would cost you a second feat, and so is Feat Inefficient, too) The Main reason you take Empower is so you can maximize the damage per charge of your lower-level wands. It's cheap at +2 spell levels, and can be put on Wand spells while staying at the 4th level and below limit. You now do 50% more damage per charge with your wand. Sure, the Magic missile wand tripled in price, and the Scorching Ray doubled...so what? We are talking damage per charge, not cost per charge. An Empowered Scorching Ray does better direct damage to any creature then any other 4th level spell in the game. Maximize is only useful if you are not allowed one of the better damage dealing enhancements above, preferably Twin (since Twin can be used with ANY spell, it is very useful). If you are basically restricted to Core feats, Maximize is it. Otherwise, you probably don't even want to take the feat! Quicken is almost mandatory. It can be applied on the fly with Metamagic Spell trigger to double your wand damage in any given round as needed. It works with all sorts of spells, not just direct damage, so if you want a Quickened Wand of Dispel Magic, go right ahead! However, Quicken works via Metamagic Spell Trigger by burning more charges. The damage infusions work by upping damage PER charge...which equals fewer charges needed, which equals cost savings. Quicken is basically your back up ‘machine gun of death and doom’. Dual Wield works like Quicken...except it's more costly. It costs you extra charges each and every time you activate your wands, sucking away at them with horrible speed in order to bring the power. Generally, because it's a full round action, you are better off using a Quickened wand via Metamagic Spell Trigger then Dual-Wielding Wands, and Dual Wielding with a Quickened wand means 3 discharges a round...at +1-4 charges per activation! This can get EXTREMELY inefficient on charges! If you really, really want to unload your two Twinned-infused Elemental Orb Wands with Quicken Metamagic Spell Trigger, you are looking at 4 charges for the base Twinned Orbs, +4 charges for EACH Quicken (8), +1-4 charges for each of 4 activations for Dual-Wielding. Congratulations, you just blew an average of 22 charges out the door. You had better be able to do a considerable amount of damage by dint of dumping this many charges in mere seconds! Being able to grant temporary charges to your wands will extend their lives at the cost of your XP. This is not a bad thing. Generally, you will make far more XP Powering up your wands and letting loose with them then you will lose to the effect, and will let you keep your charge reserve high just in case you do need to unload both barrels in desperation. It also means you can focus your time and gold for item creation on other objects, diversifying your other magical reserves. In short...when using wands… 1) build metamagic in to maximize the damage per charge if at all possible. 2) Take advantage of your Wand Mastery (and CWA levels) to make cheaper wands and save yourself some cash. 3) Apply damage enhancements directly as Metamagic Infusions first, maximizing your damage per charge. 4) Strongly consider using temporary charges to extend the life of your wand and conserve wand charges. 5) Quicken is the best spell to use for Metamagic spell trigger if you want to maximize damage. And if you want to maximize damage, the extra charges won't be a problem. Because the Quickened spell duplicates ALL effects of the wand, it is better per charge then any other feat. 6) Save dual wielding for true emergency situations, when it's time to blow the hell out of the enemy or die trying. But when you bring it, bring it like you mean it. Otherwise, Metamagic Spell Trigger (Quicken) is more effective and flexible. Smashing 8 15d6 Elemental Orbs into a charging red dragon is very likely to ruin its day if needed, however. 7) If your Dm is concerned about the power of Dual Wield, Quicken, and Twin in Synergy, restricting yourself to Core Feats is not a bad thing for campaign balance. You can also restrict Quicken to only one wand a round, not allow Elemental Orbs so that SR is always a problem, and keep out Twin so the damage cap is based on Empower and Maximize. 8 ) Going from an Empowered Twinned Elemental Orb with Quickened Dual Wielding down to an Empowered Maximized Scorching Ray with One Quickened Dual Wield cuts your potential damage in half, while keeping the number of charges burned almost the same, and creatures with high SR will ignore much of the damage unless you keep your wands at the highest caster level (and the highest price). 9) You only have so many infusions a day. Bogus can only use Metamagic Item twice a day with the above build...so save your charges until they are needed, and make best use of them. ==Aelryinth IF you have a comment that modifies the above information via numbers, feel free to post it and I will modify it.
aelryinth 12-04-05, 03:44 AM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=520855&page=1 The above post has an excellent array of magic items for Artificers, and an excellent array of spells suitable for wands for buffificers as well. ==Aelryinth
Stephen Hawking 12-08-05, 01:42 AM	.....There are no subraces in Eberron. You get whats in the PHB, and the extras from the ECS. Thats it. An elf is an elf is an elf, and a halfling is a halfling is a halfling. I fear I was misquoted here... I was only saying if they included those races. Normally I just stick to the eberron goodies.
Pinky's brain 12-11-05, 02:11 PM	DMG-II has some great weapon abilities which let you summon elementals which are great for an artificer. Essentially it would let you summon greater elementals with weapon augmentation, and elder elementals with greater weapon augmentation.
Sir Draconion 12-12-05, 01:41 PM	i might be wrong but, looking over the prerecs spells for creating homunculus, you cant make some untill higher lvls w/out help. the messenger would require a 7th lvl caster wich a 4 lvl artificer cant do "arcane eye" the main spell for making them all is a 4th lvl spell = 7th lvl caster so am i right that you cant even make one untill 5th lvl? one other thing if i muti-class does the practice spellcaster feat help me with spell lvl requirements for crafting?
spikegif 12-12-05, 07:33 PM	i might be wrong but, looking over the prerecs spells for creating homunculus, you cant make some untill higher lvls w/out help. the messenger would require a 7th lvl caster wich a 4 lvl artificer cant do "arcane eye" the main spell for making them all is a 4th lvl spell = 7th lvl caster so am i right that you cant even make one untill 5th lvl? one other thing if i muti-class does the practice spellcaster feat help me with spell lvl requirements for crafting? This is one subject that people have disagreements with. the example giving about the fire ball in the Eberron hand book talks about a spell being placed in an item (scroll) and thus you need to be a caster level high enough to cast it. for magic items that do not minic or cast spells you just need that spell in order to make the item or such, then you just need to emulate the spell the the correct DC of your UMD check, no caster level required. I have not found any answer to this question as both sides duke it out. My personal feeling is that you must be/have a caster level high enough to cast the spell. Thus you need someone else to cast the spell for you or you are a 5+th level artificer.
talion09 12-15-05, 08:41 PM	Rapid Infusion? I won't have access to Magic of Eberron until the next session, but I'm working on finishing up a 4th level artificer right now for that session... Edy lists it as a "must have" feat, and from the brief description it sounds perfect for an artificer who uses infusions in combat, but can someone list the pre-reqs for it? Is it a feat that a low-level artificer can take, or does it have hefty pre-reqs?
Pinky's brain 12-15-05, 09:26 PM	the messenger would require a 7th lvl caster wich a 4 lvl artificer cant do "arcane eye" the main spell for making them all is a 4th lvl spell = 7th lvl casterThe minimum caster level the spell can be cast at is 7th level. There is no minimum artificer level for emulating it (the fireball scroll example deals with caster level prerequisites, which scrolls have but which the messenger doesn't).
Edymnion 12-15-05, 09:29 PM	can someone list the pre-reqs for it?No, its closed content. If anyone puts up enough information on it that you could use the feat without having bought the book, thats enough for the WizO's to start sending out warns for copyright violation. Sorry man, if you want the feat, you really need to get the book.Is it a feat that a low-level artificer can take, or does it have hefty pre-reqs?You said you had a 4th level artificer that might want to take it. I can't tell you the nature of the prereqs, but I can say that yeah, when you get your next feat, you should be able to take it, no problem.
talion09 12-15-05, 09:39 PM	No, its closed content. If anyone puts up enough information on it that you could use the feat without having bought the book, thats enough for the WizO's to start sending out warns for copyright violation. Sorry man, if you want the feat, you really need to get the book.You said you had a 4th level artificer that might want to take it. I can't tell you the nature of the prereqs, but I can say that yeah, when you get your next feat, you should be able to take it, no problem. Thanks. Yeah, I know I can't just have someone list the feat b/c of copyright/closed content issues, someone in my group has the book, but I can't borrow it until the next session, a few days after my DM wants our characters in to him... I really just wanted to know if it was a low-level or mid-level or high-level type of feat, so I knew whether or not I should count on it as my tentative 6th level feat, and thereby change up my plans for the character. But thanks for the answer Edy, if I should be able to take it around 6th, well then thats all I need to know when taking my first 3 feats (1st, 3rd, Human)
talion09 12-16-05, 05:55 PM	For a low-level artificer, how do you manage to keep all you gear organized? I'm just finishing up creating a 4th level artificer for a new campaign, and I can't bring myself to spend the starting cash on a bag of holding or handy haversack, but I have a strength of 13, so I can at least pack around a fair amount of gear. But its the sheer volume of scrolls that I own that is causing me problems. My DM had no problem letting me use my craft reserve and starting gold on scrolls and potions that I had created myself, as long as I made the UMD checks. Even after wasting a few scrolls with bad rolls, I still have 36 scrolls of various utility spells (Dispel Magic, Fly, Knock, Invisibility, Detect Magic, Identify, etc)... I basically have a backpack stuffed full of scroll/map cases, each with a 3-4 scrolls of similar spells inside. The scrolls that I might need on the spur of the moment are kept in cases attached to my belt for easier access. Does anyone have a better solution for a mundane way of carrying around (and Organizing!) the sheer volume of scrolls (and potions) that a low-level artificer is liable to create before creating a bag of holding or haversack?
NathanD 12-17-05, 07:27 AM	For a low-level artificer, how do you manage to keep all you gear organized? The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting has two non-magical items called a Potion Belt, and a Scroll Organizer. Magic of Eberron has a new magic item called the Infinite Scrollcase.
klode_me 12-19-05, 04:43 PM	Retain Essence could also be used on these manuals and tomes which grant an inherent bonus to an ability. 25500XP. thank you!
TLStarfighter 12-25-05, 03:56 PM	Thats actually pretty easy. 1 xp = 25 gp. So it would be the points in the Craft Reserve * 25. So the gold per level to maximize the Craft Reserve would be: 500 gp 1,000 gp 1,500 gp 2,000 gp 2,500 gp 3,750 gp 5,000 gp 6,250 gp 7,500 gp 10,000 gp 12,500 gp 17,500 gp 22,500 gp 30,000 gp 37,500 gp 50,000 gp 62,500 gp 75,000 gp 100,000 gp 125,000 gpThats a grand total of 569,000 gp to get every last drop out of your craft reserve. The total character wealth for a 20th level character is supposed to be 760,000 gp. Thats nearly 75% of your total character wealth for the entire game that has to be poured into your craft reserve. Along with a year and a half of crafting time. Of course, you come out 378,000 gp ahead of the curve, or just under 50% more gear than you should normally have. Assuming, of course, that every last copper was poured into yourself, and that you didn't spend any of your craft reserve on anyone else in the party. Divided out evenly across a party of four, the Artificer can increase average character wealth by about 12.5%. These numbers are off by almost double. Initially, you only need 250 GP at level 1, 500 GP at level 2, etc to max out your craft reserve because you only actually pay one half of the base price when crafting. What you have listed is the base price of items that you will be able to create based on your craft reserve, not the actual gold your character would need to maximize their reserve. There also seems to be a slight mathmatical error in your total posted. The numbers you provided should total 572,500 so 575,500 GP worth of base price items. The amount your character would actually spend if using all of their craft reserve at every level is 286,250 GP or roughly 37.67% of a level 20 character's total wealth. Thanks, TLStarfighter
TLStarfighter 12-25-05, 04:03 PM	Which requires a ranged touch attack, which means good Dex :P While I agree with the idea that a dex based Artificer is most probably superior to a strength based one. The feat Wandstrike from the Complete Arcane (if allowed in your campaign) would allow the melee Artificer to user their strength rather than dex bonus for ray based wands as well as granting an additional d6 of untyped damage dice. (For more info you will have to read the actual book) TLStarfighter
cocacoka 01-05-06, 08:34 AM	if adding some common calculation will be better. In crafting part and in battle part, with examples and clear explanation.
Spooty 01-05-06, 03:41 PM	Awesome thread here, thanks for the info so far. I just started up my first artificer not too long a go, 2nd lvl Changeling. I was trying to come up with some item ideas that I can make now, but one is bugging me. It comes from the SpellCarved Soldier, i think its called, out of RoE. The Extend Rune. I was wondering if I would need the Craft Wondrous Item feat first? Then I can attach one to my armor/weapon and my infusions would last twice as long. What kind of cost would that involve? Also does anyone have the location of the Casters Shield info?, that sounds useful.
aelryinth 01-07-06, 05:38 PM	I believe using this is an ability exclusive to the Spell Carved Soldier. I think they evolve the ability, they don't 'make' it like an artificer. =+Aelryinth
Spooty 01-08-06, 07:15 PM	Is it not a feasible item to make though? The Spellcarved have to physically engrave a Rune of Extension and they are meant for spells and Infusions. I wasn't planning to give it to my warforged teamate or anything, although I could see how that could get out of hand, having the runes w/out taking the class. Personal use only then, like the Artificer scrolls (I'm the only one in-party). And it merely incorporates into my armor just as it would to thier body. I have no idea what it might cost to make though. Other thoughts?
The Law 01-10-06, 01:17 AM	I've got a question though to Aelrynth... I see that you're very keen on using Metamagic infusion to twin spells from a wand. But metamagic infusion takes a full round to cast, and only effects the next charge (in other words, you can only twin once). So is it worth it to spend one round infusing your metamagic twin into your empowered scorching ray wand in the middle of combat (seeing that the duration is only 1 round/level, so you can't do it ages in advance) just to shoot off that one bolt of doom? Or am I missing something? :D
mbfu3k 01-10-06, 11:46 AM	I've got a question though to Aelrynth... I see that you're very keen on using Metamagic infusion to twin spells from a wand. But metamagic infusion takes a full round to cast, and only effects the next charge (in other words, you can only twin once). So is it worth it to spend one round infusing your metamagic twin into your empowered scorching ray wand in the middle of combat (seeing that the duration is only 1 round/level, so you can't do it ages in advance) just to shoot off that one bolt of doom? Or am I missing something? :D You seem to be confusing the Artificier class ability Metamagic Spell Trigger and the infusion which the Artificer can cast called Metamagic Item. Metamagic Spell Trigger is a Su ability that is a non-action to activate that applies the metamagic feat to the current activation of the wand only, by expending additional charges from the wand. Metamagic Item is an infusion that, for the duration of 1 rnd/lv, causes all activations of the wand to have the metamagic feat applied to them without expending any additional charges, regardless of how many times the wand is activated during that duration, and even regardless of who does the activating (so the Artificier can pass the wand off to another member of the party who doesn't have that metamagic feat, and it still works for them as long as they can activate the wand normally).
aelryinth 01-10-06, 05:48 PM	You seem to be confusing the Artificier class ability Metamagic Spell Trigger and the infusion which the Artificer can cast called Metamagic Item. Metamagic Spell Trigger is a Su ability that is a non-action to activate that applies the metamagic feat to the current activation of the wand only, by expending additional charges from the wand. Metamagic Item is an infusion that, for the duration of 1 rnd/lv, causes all activations of the wand to have the metamagic feat applied to them without expending any additional charges, regardless of how many times the wand is activated during that duration, and even regardless of who does the activating (so the Artificier can pass the wand off to another member of the party who doesn't have that metamagic feat, and it still works for them as long as they can activate the wand normally). Entirely correct. Also note, I'm being VERY conservative on what is capable with infusions, at least according to the Optimization Boards, who try to pile on all the double-damage stacking feats that they can (Admixture, Born of the Three Thunders, Twin Spell, Repeat Spell). They also tend to forget the limit on one Quickened/Swift action/rd, which another poster on the old Artificer thread pointed out as another restriction. Artificer opens itself up for a lot of twinkie cheese if you get liberal with the wording. If you stay conservative, the abuse isn't that bad, although it can be pretty nice. Limits on the Artificer are time and magic. As a House rule, I'd probably start adding UMD modifiers upwards for 3rd party spells, also. Assuming the PHB spells are 'normal', a supplement made for 'all campaigns' that is really applicable to Eberron might make the UMD +5, a 'somewhat restricted' supplement like, oh, Exalted Deeds, a +10, and something out of another campaign world, like Magic of Faerun, might warrant a +15 to the UMD check, since they've heard/been exposed to those spells, and are essentially 'working blind'. DM's should feel very free to bear down on the 'any spell can be infused rule' if they have no exposure to the spell. In essence, I'd probably force them to have at least looked at the real spell formula, or seen it cast, in order to be able to infuse it...which could result in a big list of 'possible spells', and another money sink. And did everyone catch the pic of the Epic Artificer for the Player's Guide to Eberron? ==Aelryinth
The Law 01-11-06, 01:26 AM	Silly me, didn't read the part about the metamagic effect lasting the duration of the Metamagic Item infusion. That changes everything... Anyway, one more question to the arty experts if I may. I'm a bit confused with the whole 'artificers can craft an item at +2 caster level, but use their actual level to determine effects' thing. Consider the following: A 6th level arty with Craft wand and Empower spell wants to make a wand of Empowered Scorching Ray (errata says you get Metamagic spell trigger at level 7, Craft Wand at lvl 6). So the best you can do, is: 375gp x caster level x spell level = 375 x 4 (empowered scorching ray) x 3 (minimum caster level) = 4500gp for 1 x 6d6 beam? Seeing that your +2 caster level doesn't boost the effects of the spell, only when you can craft it, the arty will need to wait until level 7 if he wants to shoot 2 empowered beams: 375gp x 4 x 7 = 10500gp for 2 x 6d6 beams. Is my understanding correct, with regards to the +2 caster level for creating items, and also how applying a metamagic feat to an item during its creation doesn't effect minimum caster level (the caster level is for the base spell, not the empowered version)?
yawsh 01-11-06, 11:47 AM	Hello everyone. I just started playing D&D again and was immediately interested in the Artificer. The FAQ/Guide is absolutely amazing and has helped immensely. Thanks to all for the guide. The one thing I can't figure out is the Bane spell that is mentioned. I looked up the spell in the PHB and online SRD but the 1st level Cleric Bane spell does not list the effects mentioned in the guide (+2 to hit +2d6 damage). I was hoping someone could point to the location of the spell. I wanted to search the forums here but for some reason I have no search link other than "search wizards". Thanks for any help Yawsh
Pinky's brain 01-11-06, 12:30 PM	It's a weapon special ability, it's in the DMG. It's used with personal weapon augmentation.
aelryinth 01-11-06, 03:06 PM	Silly me, didn't read the part about the metamagic effect lasting the duration of the Metamagic Item infusion. That changes everything... Anyway, one more question to the arty experts if I may. I'm a bit confused with the whole 'artificers can craft an item at +2 caster level, but use their actual level to determine effects' thing. Consider the following: A 6th level arty with Craft wand and Empower spell wants to make a wand of Empowered Scorching Ray (errata says you get Metamagic spell trigger at level 7, Craft Wand at lvl 6). So the best you can do, is: 375gp x caster level x spell level = 375 x 4 (empowered scorching ray) x 3 (minimum caster level) = 4500gp for 1 x 6d6 beam? Seeing that your +2 caster level doesn't boost the effects of the spell, only when you can craft it, the arty will need to wait until level 7 if he wants to shoot 2 empowered beams: 375gp x 4 x 7 = 10500gp for 2 x 6d6 beams. Is my understanding correct, with regards to the +2 caster level for creating items, and also how applying a metamagic feat to an item during its creation doesn't effect minimum caster level (the caster level is for the base spell, not the empowered version)? You are correct. Basically, the artificer can break the rules on WHEN he can make an item...but he doesn't break the rules on effective caster level. A simpler example is fireball. Assuming he had craft wand at level 3, the Artificer could craft a wand of fireball, which requires level 5 casting ability (his level+2). He pays for a level 5 fireball wand (costs don't change) It takes the same amount of time as a level 5 fireball (time doesn't change) It costs the same xp as a level 5 fireball (xp needed doesn't change). He gets a wand of level 3 fireball (3d6) - his actual caster level. basically it's a 'throwaway' class feature...he can make items before a mage can, but it is so inefficent he's much better off waiting to do so. If you are desperate, however... ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-11-06, 03:08 PM	Hello everyone. I just started playing D&D again and was immediately interested in the Artificer. The FAQ/Guide is absolutely amazing and has helped immensely. Thanks to all for the guide. The one thing I can't figure out is the Bane spell that is mentioned. I looked up the spell in the PHB and online SRD but the 1st level Cleric Bane spell does not list the effects mentioned in the guide (+2 to hit +2d6 damage). I was hoping someone could point to the location of the spell. I wanted to search the forums here but for some reason I have no search link other than "search wizards". Thanks for any help Yawsh This is the Bane Weapon ability out of the DMG, a +1 cost enhancement that gives a weapon +2/+2 and +2d6 dmg against a specific class of enemies. One of the very best artificer infusions...if you know what you are fighting, there is nothing better for the cost. ==Aelryinth
catfan 01-11-06, 06:26 PM	I'm a bit confused over the rules for Homunculi. From the unofficial description of the Craft Homunculus class feature in this thread, I distinctly got the impression that you can have as many homunculi as you have pints of blood to give. But... The Craft Homunculus class feature allows the artificer to create a homunculus as though he had Craft Construct, etc. All references are to having a single homunculus. The Improved Homunculus feat refers to a single homunculus. Where are the rules for having more than one homunculus? While I personally think that the penalties of creating a hundred flying arbelesters with Improved Homunculus are sufficient to make anyone think twice about it (2d10 damage when each one dies, 1000+ gp cost each, etc), I don't see any rules stating one way or another whether you can have a million homunculi or only one, but the way the rules are stated seem to imply one. Likewise, the advancement limitation of a homunculus by the monster type (general cap is 3 or 6 HD), which can be bypassed by the artificer class feature... but again, implies a single homunculus. Can a human artificer with Craft Homunculus create 2 18 HD homunculi and possess them both at once? Can a warforged artificer with substitution level 4 (lose Craft Homunculus feature), but who takes Craft Construct later, still advance Homunculi beyond the normal limits, as a human artificer could? Can a human artificer with Craft Homunculus AND Craft Construct make two homunculi, one from each? Or is he still limited to one (or no limit, regardless)? Can only one be advanced beyond the normal limits? While I think it would be cool to have a bunch of homunculi come flying out of a bag of holding on command would be awesome - 'Fly my pretties!' - I just don't see it in the rules. Otherwise, an artificer could be simultaneously constructing several items at once, simply by having multiple dedicated wrights. He could even use them to construct more homunculi...
Pinky's brain 01-11-06, 11:07 PM	Likewise, the advancement limitation of a homunculus by the monster type (general cap is 3 or 6 HD)Advancement entries of creatures are "not an absolute limit, but exceptions are extremely rare.". They should have put a caster level cap on homunculi creation like they did for effigies. Oh, and I agree ... I think there should be a limit on the number of homunculi you can have (and for general constructs a limit on the amount of HD you can command).
catfan 01-14-06, 08:08 PM	From Ask Keith threads, clarifying several major aspects of artificer class: Q Originally Posted by PCBInc I had a few questions about the artificier and his abilities. I'm not the final authority on rules. Here are my opinions - but it's quite possible I've missed something in the RAW. 1) Can you add more than one metamagic feat at a time to an item using the metamagic spell trigger ability. For example could I use both empower and maximize on a wand of fireballs and expend 5 additional charges? A No. You may apply *A* metamagic feat, which is to say, just one. 2) Can the metamagic spell trigger ability stack with an item that has the metamagic item infusion on it. For example if I cast metamagic item on a wand with the maximize feat, could I then use my metamagic spell trigger to apply empower to it for 2 additional charges. I believe that this would work, though you couldn't empower a wand that was already empowered. 3) How does the metamagic spell trigger ability interact with the dual wand wielder feat. Can you use it with both wands? Studying the feats, I see no reason why you couldn't. But again, this is my opinion, not an official ruling. 4) Can the energy alteration infusion be applied to a spell trigger item. For example if I cast it on a wand of fireballs, could I change it into a wand of acid balls. I believe so. 5) When I use the UMD skill to operate a staff can I use the emulate class feature option to increase the caster level of the staff. For example if an arcane staff were CL 11 and I emulated the wizard class with a CL of 15 and used the staff would it cast at CL 11 or CL 15? For purposes of using an item, I see no reason why this would be different for an artificer than it would for, say, a bard. Use the same ruling you would there. ------------------------------------- Originally Posted by catfan I'm a bit confused over the rules for Homunculi. Some people have the impression that a character who is either a 4th level Artificer or has the Craft Construct feat can create any number of Homunculi and 'own' them all at once. I'm of the opinion that an Artificer with the Craft Homunculus class feature can have a single Homunculus... What is your opinion? I personally limit people to one homunculus, treating it essentially as an animal companion or familiar: it's not just a construct, it's bound to your lifeforce. The closest thing I could find to a rule supporting this is that the Improved Homunculus feat in MoE clearly refers to "your homunculus", not "your homunculi" or "all homunculi you create." However, I am not the Sage by any stretch of the imagination, and if you want an official ruling you should write to WotC customer service (and if you do, let me know what they say!).
callen 01-15-06, 09:43 PM	Great thread! I keep finding it really handy. I've come across a question from it. I've seen Etch Schema and Eternal/Permanent Scroll mentioned here and elsewhere. Where can I find the details? I'm not even sure which books to check, especially for the scroll, in which I'm more interested. Thanks! Chris
Edymnion 01-15-06, 10:05 PM	Great thread! I keep finding it really handy. I've come across a question from it. I've seen Etch Schema and Eternal/Permanent Scroll mentioned here and elsewhere. Where can I find the details? I'm not even sure which books to check, especially for the scroll, in which I'm more interested. Thanks! ChrisIts covered in Magic of Eberron, the Artificer's best friend :)
mostholycerebus 01-16-06, 03:58 PM	I see that the guide lists Warforged as a 'decent' Artificer, but i'll contend that they make the bst Artificers hands down. Particularly with the racial substitution levels (barring 5th level, which sucks). Thier infisuions work as self-buffs, which also heal when you take Infuse Self, and they get double-XP from Tools of War. However, the best thing they get is the fact that they don't need sleep. So, when the rest of your party is resting you can be on watch, cutting down total rest time, AND you can spend that time getting a full day of crafting. Warforged artificers can spend literally evey day crafting, and never miss a minute of adventuring.
aelryinth 01-16-06, 05:00 PM	in between repairing himself if he's out of infusions, standing watch because he is the only one who doesn't need to sleep, and probably not having a lab or peaceful environment to do the work in, maybe. The locations of doing adventure don't allow you to get in the uninterrupted time needed to do crafting easily. Tho I suppose you could make up a henchie who stays in your portable hole when you don't need him. Also, the warrforged gives up two bonus feats to the average human...one for body and one bonus feats. Feats define artificers. The Tools of War is good, but you give up Retain Essence...a massive boon to any scavenging artificer, and it doesn't do you any good for making wands or buff items. For making arms and armor for yourself and your buddies, it's very nice...but no better then a human with a scavenged longsword +1 on hand to add to his craft reserve. The Warforged Artificer makes a superb fighter/artificer combo with his gifts. For other builds, you are far better off using a human. ==Aelryinth
mostholycerebus 01-17-06, 03:36 AM	The Tools of War is good, but you give up Retain Essence... You are reading the racial substitution section incorrectly. A Warforged artificer can have Tools of War (get healed when casting any infusion, and get 2-for-1 XP on weapons, armor, and gear) as well as keep Retain Essence. As far as a 'body feat' I don't really see the point when the ECS points out that characters can create armor warforged components. Losing robes sucks, but oh well. According to the DMG; "Any place suitable for preparing spells is suitable for making items". Unless you don't let your wizards memorize, artificers will be able to craft. The only other requirements are those listed under the item. A day of work is defined as 8 hours, about the same amount of time those humanoids need to sleep every day. The Artificer has gish BAB, spell progression, and skill points, and thus IMO works best in a gish niche. The Warforged does this extremely well by being able to out-buff clerics, fight extremely well, and bring a great variety of spell power to any situation. I'm not sure if Light Fortification, the ability to get mad buffs, craft full time, build innate components that can't be disarmed, immunity to a lot of effects (which, BTW, let you use poison too), and a slam attack are better than a feat and 24 hit points for an Artificer, but it looks at least as good.
aelryinth 01-17-06, 05:57 PM	You are reading the racial substitution section incorrectly. A Warforged artificer can have Tools of War (get healed when casting any infusion, and get 2-for-1 XP on weapons, armor, and gear) as well as keep Retain Essence. As far as a 'body feat' I don't really see the point when the ECS points out that characters can create armor warforged components. Losing robes sucks, but oh well. According to the DMG; "Any place suitable for preparing spells is suitable for making items". Unless you don't let your wizards memorize, artificers will be able to craft. The only other requirements are those listed under the item. A day of work is defined as 8 hours, about the same amount of time those humanoids need to sleep every day. The Artificer has gish BAB, spell progression, and skill points, and thus IMO works best in a gish niche. The Warforged does this extremely well by being able to out-buff clerics, fight extremely well, and bring a great variety of spell power to any situation. I'm not sure if Light Fortification, the ability to get mad buffs, craft full time, build innate components that can't be disarmed, immunity to a lot of effects (which, BTW, let you use poison too), and a slam attack are better than a feat and 24 hit points for an Artificer, but it looks at least as good. ? I believe the first level racial sub gives them the ability to get a spot of healing whenever they infuse themselves. At the level of artificer where most artificers get Retain Essence, I thought they got Tools of War as a replacement (double craft reserve for purposes of arms and armor). I don't have my books at hand, but this has been put up as a very equivalent exchange. Docents and warforged components are misc items, not arms and armor, so they don't benefit from Tools of War. Crafting requires an uninterrupted 8 hours. That's not likely to happen while adventuring, and while not adventuring, is pretty much superfluous. Warforged come with a lot of inbuilt advantages, I agree with you. That benefit on COn goes against Cha, which helps UMD, a key class ability. They are automatically down a feat against a human, two if they want to have anything better then composite plating for base armor (which means the human has better armor). A ring of sustenance gives almost the same sleep/food/drink benefits. Light Fort is a +1 Armor enhancement. Most misc magic items can't be disarmed. A Slam attack is nice, but Improved Unarmed Strike amounts to almost the same thing, and so does a Spiked Gauntlet or SPiked Armor. In the end, the human artificer will be able to do everything with artifice the warforged can, AND be a better buffer, crafter, and/or blaster. The warforged makes a fine gish, but he isn't going to compete on an overall basis with a human...those two feats can be two crafting feats, Extend and Persistent Spell, Empower and Twin Spell, etc etc. The human is going to be able to make more and better misc magic items and wands to empower himself. It's all a trade off. If you don't want to work for the stuff the warforged gets naturally, more power to you. A well built human, however, is still the best all-around artificer. ==Aelryinth
Edymnion 01-17-06, 06:09 PM	This guide does not include non-Eberron material. The racial substitution levels are found in Races of Eberron, which is not a part of the Eberron line. Hence, it is not covered here any more than the material from Races of Destiny is.
ChronosCrow 01-17-06, 06:59 PM	Something I've wondered about is the MoE rule of not allowing Artificer to mix with Psionic Artificer. I do see how one would not stack of the other, though. But, I don't see why being in one class makes you completely unable to comprehend what's in another class. Artificers see magic/psionics in a more scientific way and analyze their area of expertise and apply that knowledge to cast infusions. I'm thinking a good house rule would be to allow a person to multi class in them, they just don't stack. So its more like gaining a new class rather than advancing in the same class.
aelryinth 01-18-06, 06:36 PM	I think they are more worried about a class that gets stacking benefits of UMD and UPD checks, more then anything...and then introducing a 'theurge' artificer ala the Cerebramancer to bring the two concepts together. If you want to see how this could get abused, post the concept on the Optimizers board and watch them break it wide open. It may make sense, but from a balance perspective you are looking at problems. ==Aelryinth
Neko=Evil 01-25-06, 01:31 PM	since rapid infusion can only be used once per day, won't rapid spell metamagic feat (CDiv)be a better choice with only a 1 level increase. I could be wrong (don't have the book with me), 1 minute(10 round) casting time becoming 1 full round is worth the cost
aelryinth 01-25-06, 07:47 PM	And then you use Action points on top of this? >:) ==Aelryinth
Pinky's brain 01-25-06, 08:27 PM	Rapid spell isn't completely rule kosher with 1 minute casting time spells, it's a bit of an edge case.
Eberronlore 01-28-06, 09:07 AM	Greetings everyone, I've some difficulty in interpreting the artificer spell emulation rules for spells of the ranger and paladin classes. Let's say an artificer wants to emulate a 2.nd level ranger spell, that would mean that the difficulty is 20+caster level which I presume would be in this case 8.th (for 2.nd level spells) and thus the DC would be 28. How then would the duration etc. be calculated, as a 8.th level caster/2 for paladin? Also, would the artificer need to be 8.th level as a ranger/paladin would need to be, 6.th level (8-2 for the ability to emulate a spell but with lesser effectiveness as in the Eberron book's fireball example). Am I reading this correctly or should the aforementioned examples be treated as a pure caster in which case the caster level and especially duration would be very different. Any opinions? : Niko Btw. a further twist to this question is that if a 3.rd level artificer with +2 caster level emulates a standard wizard/cleric/druid 3.rd level spell - would the artificer be treated as a 3.rd level caster (-2 levels in effective level), as a 5.th level caster due to the caster level bonus (able to emulate a 3.rd level spell perfectly at 3.rd level albeit at a 5.th level spell cost multiplier) or somehow differently?
Pinky's brain 01-28-06, 09:59 AM	Rangers and Paladins are half caster level classes, so you have to divide the level at which they can cast the spell by 2 to get the the minimum caster level. Your caster level can be upto 2 lower than the minimum caster level when the item has a caster level prerequisite (such as scrolls or potions). The cost will be determined by the minimum caster level though, and the effect will take into account your lower caster level ... just as the ECS says. Indeed you pay for an expensive scroll, but you get a less effective scroll (assuming the spell has caster level dependent effects, if not it doesnt matter much).
Eberronlore 01-28-06, 10:20 AM	Thanks pinky for the answer but the thought eludes me, how would the scroll be weaker? I mean, Fireball cast from a scroll as a 3.rd level artificer with +2 caster level bonus from some source would be able to cast the spell as 3.rd level (i.e. the 3D6 fireball from ECS+2 levels caster level bonus = 5D6), spell cost as 5.th level minimum caster level*3 from spell level*12,5 (unless no feats that modify it). But with the caster level bonus, wouldn't the spell be exactly the same in terms of variables as when cast by a 5.th level character? I assume that you meant to multiply by 2 instead of divide. But how would the duration, range and damage be measured with the artificer emulation. A better example, 2.nd level spell for ranger. The artificer would need to be at least 6.th level (8-2) to be able to cast the spell even though the numeric variable would be worse. But let's say the artificer is 6.th level and succeeds in the emulation roll. Would the duration and range be calculated as a 6.th level artificer (for example duration 1round/level would be 6 rounds) or by halving it (6.th/2 for 3 rounds to reflect the half-caster level nature of paladins and rangers)? Sorry for the silly questions, I'd just like a general consensus on this issue since paladins and rangers do have some nice spells, especially on 1.st level - but I'm still a little uncertain on the emulation. Thanks in advance. : Niko
Pinky's brain 01-28-06, 12:03 PM	The caster level bonus is only for meeting the caster level prerequisite, the actual caster level of the scroll is your actual caster level. So you would have a 3d6 fireball, just as the ECS says. I meant divide. A paladin can cast first level spells at 4th level, his caster level at 4th level is 4 divided by 2 is 2. An artificer can't cast spells, you shouldnt even think about it in that way. Scrolls have caster level prerequisites. The fact that rangers and paladins have half caster level is irrelevant to an artificer, he has full caster level with a +2 bonus for meeting prerequisites only. A scroll of a second level ranger spell has a minimum caster level of 4, as an artificer you can scribe that scroll at level 2 (though if you do the actual caster level of the scroll will only be 2 of course). PS. my DM only let me use spells from the paladin/ranger lists (and from the PrC lists) for scrolls/potions/wands/staffs/spellstoring-item/etc if they weren't on the full caster lists ... but that is a houserule.
Eberronlore 01-28-06, 02:41 PM	Thanks for the replies and insights Pinky. First off, I was being vague - the +2 caster level I listed was meant as separate, just like Clerics have feats and domains that allow them a higher caster level, I was referring to a separate bonus caster level not the +2 allowance in the emulation ability. But you're right in that emulation is not spellcasting, thus the caster level bonus would apply only to infusions, not to emulated spells - major oversight on my part. I still fail to see why a 2.nd level paladin only spell or ranger only spell would be available at 2.nd level, if the minimum caster level for such is 4.th or 8.th - why would the artificer be able to emulate it earlier, I don't know of any references that would state that artificer emulation progression is one half the caster level. If anyone can confirm this either way, I'd appreciate it, with the way I'm reading it if a spell becomes available to any class at 8th, then it requires a 8th level caster (or 6th with the limited effect emulation from ECS). Thanks for your time! : Niko
Pinky's brain 01-28-06, 04:45 PM	I didn't catch that you meant a separate bonus, if that is the case it depends on the source ... if it's an untyped bonus such as an ioun stone or deathknell gives you can use it to meet prerequisites, if it's a bonus which only says it allows you to cast spells at higher caster level such as a bead of karma or divine spell power you can't. I still fail to see why a 2.nd level paladin only spell or ranger only spell would be available at 2.nd levelYou keep thinking in the wrong way. An artificier doesn't need a level sufficient "to be able to cast the spell" and he doesn't them to be "available". For crafting magic items an artificier uses his class level with a +2 bonus to meet caster level prerequisites, and UMD checks to meet spell prerequisites. Scrolls have as a caster level prerequisite the minimum caster level at which they can be crafted. For a 2nd level ranger/paladin spell that is 4 (they can cast it at class level 8, at which point they have 8 divided by 2 caster levels). Which the artificer can meet at 2.
Stephen_E 02-01-06, 08:57 AM	>Otherwise, an artificer could be simultaneously constructing several items at >once, simply by having multiple dedicated wrights. If you refer to the recent Article on Magic Item Crafting and the ECS Dedicated Wright description you'll see this isn't possible (thankfully). 1) Dedicated Wrights don't actually make magic items, they merely assist the Artificer to make items. This is important because of a 2nd point. 2) Characters can only make ONE item at a time. If you start making a 2nd item before completing the 1st, the 1st item promptly fizzles losing all XP ecetre put into it. Thus an Artificer startys making a item, and once he's completed all UMD checks necessary passes it onto the Dedicated Wright to finish, allowing the Artificer to go off and do anything else OTHER than making magic items, since he's still "making" the item that the Wright is finishing. This is very useful in helping discourage Artificers developing a relationship to their part akin to the relationship between Storeowners and oldtime Goldminers. This particular abuse is where the Artificer gets the Artificer cheap construction feats and then proceeds to make magic items for other party members at a "cheap" rate, say 75% of market price. Of course because of feats this is actually a 100% profit for the Artificer (ignoring XP). While over time this will probably result in the Artificer dropping back a level on the rest of the party, when combined with turning all his gold earned into magic items for himself, it is possible for him to end up with half the entire party wealth. Well worth falling behing a level. Stephen
Stephen_E 02-01-06, 09:49 AM	When considering the ranged blasting Artificer option it is important to keep cost in mind. It's no good killing the monster if you get less treasure than you spent in magic item charges. For this purpose it is useful to look at some of those 1st level spells. One I've recently crunched the numbers on is the Ray of Enfeeblement. Ranged touch attack for 1d6+1 per 2 CLs strength damage. With the Artificer Artifact creation discount feats and the Metamagic Trigger class ability this becomes a horror for "Big Moster" encounters, especially when added to the Double Wand Wielding feat. A CL1 Wand cost 750*0.5*0.75 = 282gp at 5.64gp per charge. Using Metamagic Trigger to Empower and Split Ray it for 4 more charges you do 2d6*1.5 Strength damage for 28.2gp. If you use Double Wand Wielding as well you double that for 6 more charges (1 base, +2 Empower, +2 Split Ray, +1 2nd Wand) for a total of 4d6*1.5 at the cost of 62gp. This equates to delivering on average 21 strength damage on 4 ranged touch attacks in one round by 7th level for a cost of 62gp. This is enough to stop a Juvenile Red Dragon (CR10) in its tracks, and to top it off the Wands only require a day each to make. Stephen
Eberronlore 02-01-06, 10:40 AM	While I understand that was just a singular example, nevertheless I would ask you to read PHB 3.5, Combining magical effects, page 172 and paragraph: "Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths". Which incidentally points out Ray of Enfeeblement as the exact example, stating that of multiple castings only the best one applies until the duration runs out. Hope this helps your worry about them dragons ;) Kindest regards, Niko
Pinky's brain 02-01-06, 10:57 AM	If you start making a 2nd item before completing the 1st, the 1st item promptly fizzles losing all XP ecetre put into it.Bull.
Quenditar 02-01-06, 01:52 PM	Bull. A character can work on only one item at a time. If a character starts work on a new item, all materials used and XP spent on the under-construction item are wasted. Interesting houserule, though.
Pinky's brain 02-01-06, 02:05 PM	You aren't working on the item.
aelryinth 02-01-06, 04:25 PM	You aren't working on the item. You are trying to draw an artificial distinction between the making of the magic item and the infusing of xp into it. For example, you are trying to say that the Wright is making a ring/sword/stave, and no xp is going into it. In essence, the Wright is just making a crafting check. My response to that is sure, you can do that. However, then you aren't making a magic item. If you have a Wright doing 'finish work' for you, you've invested the XP, and the Wright is finishing up for you via your link to it and desires. If you start working on something else magical, that XP link fizzles and you've lost all your work. Any other interpretation just breaks the rules. When in doubt, go with the most conservative rules interpretation to avoid problems like this. ==Aelryinth
Stephen_E 02-01-06, 07:28 PM	While I understand that was just a singular example, nevertheless I would ask you to read PHB 3.5, Combining magical effects, page 172 and paragraph: "Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths". Which incidentally points out Ray of Enfeeblement as the exact example, stating that of multiple castings only the best one applies until the duration runs out. Hope this helps your worry about them dragons ;) Kindest regards, Niko Oops. I forgot that. Oh well, have to switch to Wand of Ehaustion in the primary hand with Split Ray to cause Exhaustion (A save reduces it to Fatigued, but if the creature is already Fatigued this automatically becomes Exhaustion, so get around the normal stacking restriction) for a -6 Str, -6 Dex effect at the cost of 253gp. Then use the Ray of Enfeeblement CL Split and Empowered in the off-hand to increase the chance of getting a high roll. If you craft the item at 6th lev it increase the price to 33.75gp per charge, or 202.5gp for the works, but gives you 1d6*1.5 + 3, taking the best roll. With 20/36 probability of rolling at leat one 5 or 6 giving you 10 or 12 additonal strength damage. Total damage will, over half the time, be 16 - 18 strength, 6 dex, half movement and can't run or charge, all done in the 1st round. Still a very unhappy dragon and much happier frontline fighters :-) Stephen
Stephen_E 02-02-06, 01:01 AM	When looking at 2nd rank feats for the heavy Wand/Staff user Artificer, another to keep in mind is Quick Draw. This is especially useful if you've gone the Double Wand Wielder route. If you suddenly realise the Wands you're holding is useless against the monster that has popped up, simply drop them and quick draw a new pair of wands or a staff as a free action, and still make your full attack. This is also helpful if you're trying to combine multiple effects. i.e. Web them one round, burn them and the webs next round, magic missile Monk 3rd round. This is probably best as a midlevel feat, say 8+, since before then your feats are more designed to getting your Artificer upto a basic level of performance. It does have the advantage over some of the other 2nd rank Artificer feats that it's level of usefulness stays pretty constant. i.e. It's as useful at 8th level as it is at 20th level. Stephen
aelryinth 02-02-06, 03:41 AM	In Eberron it's basically safe to say only members of the Cannith Wand adepts get to wield two wands...the feat is better then their class ability. Besides, after infusions, a single Wand and Quicken spell tends to be much more useful. ==Aelryinth
Pinky's brain 02-02-06, 10:55 AM	You are trying to draw an artificial distinction between the making of the magic item and the infusing of xp into it.I don't quite see how you pull that from the simple factual statement "You aren't working on the item.". For example, you are trying to say that the Wright is making a ring/sword/stave, and no xp is going into it.No, Im saying he is working on the item. If you start working on something else magical, that XP link fizzles and you've lost all your work.You loose investments on items you are currently working on.
Stephen_E 02-02-06, 07:24 PM	Quote: For example, you are trying to say that the Wright is making a ring/sword/stave, and no xp is going into it. >No, Im saying he is working on the item. To quote the ECS "on behalf of it's master" Quote: If you start working on something else magical, that XP link fizzles and you've lost all your work. >You loose investments on items you are currently working on. Is the item complete? No. Then you are still currently working on it. The DnD definition of "Magic item you are currently working on" is quite clearly defined as "Magic item you started which hasn't been completed", which is why if you start an item and then do nothing for a year. the game considers you to still be working on it, unless it is completed. Again referring to the Dedicated Wright section on item creation in the ECS, last sentence "He may then leave, allowing the Wright to carry the process through to completion". Until the process is complete it remains the one item the Artificer is working on. (I'd cut/paste the entire section but don't have ECS in a form I can cut/paste) You seem to be trying to claim a state where if you can stop working on a item, which isn't complete, and say it is no longer your current magic item creation. The rules don't allow any such state currently. Stephen
aelryinth 02-03-06, 12:32 AM	Exactly right. This is the conservative interpretation that fits with all the rules. Otherwise, we are dealing with 'exceptions', which is messy ground, because it leads to munchkinism and cheese...and being allowed to work on as many magic items at one time as you have homunculi is definitely getting into cheese territory. ==Aelryinth
Pinky's brain 02-03-06, 07:04 AM	To quote the ECS "on behalf of it's master"So if the work is being done on behalf of me who is doing the work?
Chiyo 02-03-06, 10:40 AM	Besides, after infusions, a single Wand and Quicken spell tends to be much more useful. ==Aelryinth Not to mention much more than enough to outdamage most everyone else in the campaign at a given level. With just wand mastery and twin and/or quicken spell, artificer is gonna outdamage most casters. At least, it's been my experience comparing to the warmage in our group. Wand adept dual wand wielding (and extra CL/DC) is just extra that's further distancing the blastificer from the rest of the group in damage output at the cost of extra money. Was going to get it at 10th but eventually decided against it. At 9th level, 170ish dmg per round (without crit) for 9 or 18 rounds (extended metamagic item infusion) is good enough without pilling it up more.
DeVryGuy 02-03-06, 01:12 PM	Hey guys, where can I find the formula for making custom magic items? For instance if I want to craft a +5 UMD cloak or something (I see a lot of places that it costs around 2500, I just want to know how to get to that conclusion). Thanks!
Quenditar 02-03-06, 01:35 PM	Hey guys, where can I find the formula for making custom magic items? For instance if I want to craft a +5 UMD cloak or something (I see a lot of places that it costs around 2500, I just want to know how to get to that conclusion). Thanks! Check the SRD here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm). Also talk with your DM, as the "rules" given are just guidelines and can produce broken items without much effort.
DeVryGuy 02-03-06, 03:09 PM	Check the SRD here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm). Also talk with your DM, as the "rules" given are just guidelines and can produce broken items without much effort. I already got the go-ahead to make a UMD +5 item, I just was unsure how to go about it. Another question, Wondrous Items all have a spell that needs to be emulated to create it. So if I wanted to make a Artificer Cloak (+5 to UMD), do i need to find a spell to emulate to go along with it?
Edymnion 02-03-06, 06:37 PM	I already got the go-ahead to make a UMD +5 item, I just was unsure how to go about it. Another question, Wondrous Items all have a spell that needs to be emulated to create it. So if I wanted to make a Artificer Cloak (+5 to UMD), do i need to find a spell to emulate to go along with it?Rule #1 when making new magic items, always look for similar existing items and use their prices as a major guideline. So, look for other +5 skillcheck items (like boots of elvenkind, or cloak of elvenkind). They have solid prices, and they do not have spell prereqs.
Stephen_E 02-04-06, 03:01 AM	So if the work is being done on behalf of me who is doing the work? If we're talking about a worker/slave you employ/own (which IMHO is the most accurate description of what Dedicated Wright's are/do when making magic items) then by NZ law and TTBOMK most Western law, you, the original contractor. (note, this is giving the quick n dirty answer, and slavery is mostly no longer legal). Before you say DnD isn't under Western law, the game is written by those who live under such laws, and the general background society is mostly based on the historical western societies that the precepts of our laws came from. Stephen
aelryinth 02-04-06, 05:14 AM	Rule #1 when making new magic items, always look for similar existing items and use their prices as a major guideline. So, look for other +5 skillcheck items (like boots of elvenkind, or cloak of elvenkind). They have solid prices, and they do not have spell prereqs. Rule #2, if it's cheap to make, make it a slotless item. You are gonna need that cloak slot for the pricier stuff (like save boosting Cloaks of Resistance). ===Aelryinth
glug 02-08-06, 04:24 PM	So if the work is being done on behalf of me who is doing the work? The logic you're going for could easily set up a magic item sweatshop (or would have already done so) such that one magical item crafter is employing as many mundane crafters as he can muster, and just stopping by to drop off a bag of XP and some cash every so often at each station. Your stubbornness in this must be the reason there are dozens of relatively large books, endless eratta, rules clarification columns on websites, etc etc. The obvious answer is this: You, as a player, are intended to create one magic item at a time. A dedicated wright allows for you to do so without having to inflict upon your party a month of "downtime" between adventures while you do this.. and nothing more.
glug 02-08-06, 04:42 PM	For those folks without DMGs who were curious about item bonus' for personal weapon augmentation, something I've found really useful is here: http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/ There are some awesome charts there, but specifically the last one: Artificer Infusions. After a good list of all of the infusions, scroll to the bottom, where the standard item enhancements for weapons and armor are listed, categorized by which infusions can be used to augment items with them. Very handle piece to print out. And if you're just recently level 2, and excited about the goofy items you can make at level 3, they have Magic Personal (by Creator Level), which shows you just what you can make with the appropriate skills at whatever level you are. Don't forget to subtract 2 from the minimum create level, since you'll have faster access to these spells. One thing I've noticed so far is that this was created w/out including MoE. Otherwise, I think it's awful perrty. EDIT: The Artificer Infusion index has been updated. (2/7/2006) - guess I need to download that again myself, and I'll wager MoE is in there.
Pinky's brain 02-08-06, 05:05 PM	Half the time WotC writers don't know what the hell is actually intended with the rules already written and how what they are writing interacts with them. I don't really care about intent at all, I only care what makes the game fun ... worrying about downtime has never been a part of that for me, so if I can use RAW to make that less of a concern Ill do so.
AnyRandomElf 02-08-06, 07:02 PM	Is the item complete? No. Then you are still currently working on it.Unless someone else is.The DnD definition of "Magic item you are currently working on" is quite clearly defined as "Magic item you started which hasn't been completed", which is why if you start an item and then do nothing for a year.But this definition ignores the idea expressed in the wright that SOME THING ELSE is completing the work. Since the idea of "exclusive creator" has been changed with a dedicated wright, the standard definition no longer applies. The rule on the wright explicitly states the wright will be finishing the item, and makes no mention of any link to the master in regard to item cretion, or any prohibition on the master starting another item.
glug 02-09-06, 09:57 AM	Half the time WotC writers don't know what the hell is actually intended with the rules already written and how what they are writing interacts with them. I don't really care about intent at all, I only care what makes the game fun ... worrying about downtime has never been a part of that for me, so if I can use RAW to make that less of a concern Ill do so. *shrug*. It all boils down to how much crafting your DM wants you to be able to do I guess. However... what is "RAW"? Can't find a good acronym list. Ring of Artificer Work? :confused: Ridiculous Artifact Workshop? ;)
Pinky's brain 02-09-06, 10:39 AM	Rules As Written.
stone_river_glory 02-10-06, 01:05 AM	In my opinion: Since the Dedicated Wright is linked to the creator, and you pay all the costs associated with creating the item, the wright is just finishing the work on it. So, Pinky, if you found a half-finished magic sword and finished the work on it you'd have yourself a brand new sword hmm? Doesn't that sound a little odd? Yes, your not doing the work on the item. But since the Wright is connected to you, it is an extension of you. The nature of creating the homonculus states that. Any further arguements are pointless, your going to play by your own rules regardless of what we say.
koboldlord 02-10-06, 08:12 PM	It's true, really. And anyways, what kind of DM would allow you to do that?
Pinky's brain 02-10-06, 09:48 PM	So, Pinky, if you found a half-finished magic sword and finished the work on it you'd have yourself a brand new sword hmm?No, only a dedicated wright can do that for it's creator.
AnyRandomElf 02-11-06, 08:53 PM	So, Pinky, if you found a half-finished magic sword and finished the work on it you'd have yourself a brand new sword hmm? Doesn't that sound a little odd?I dont know about what sounds odd to you. But I do know there are no rules for what you are suggesting. Which is entirly different than the rules that actualy exsist to govern something else finishing an item for you, such as the dedicated Wright;which actulay has rules. Oh, by the way, your argument is what we call a "Straw Man." A "Straw Man" is a flawed thought process. Google it.Any further arguements are pointless, your going to play by your own rules regardless of what we say.Your right. This kind of flawed thinking and bullying should not change how ANYONE playes the game.
Gao 02-12-06, 03:31 PM	So, I've read some of the posts here (including the original poster's guide, of course), and it seems the general idea gravitates towards ranged weapon and/or wand using builds, while striking heavily away from melee. My question is as thus. I made a Warforged Artificer with Adamantine Body. I'm currently Sword (well, mace) and Board, and have a Crossbow. I'm partied with another Warforged (a Barbarian with Mithral Body), who uses a two-handed sword. As such, in this party, I really AM the "Cleric", as it were, with a huge amount of defensive capabilities as compared to my friend, but obviously less damage output in a general sense (not counting Bane). The DM has told us that we can change some things about our characters if we like before the next adventure (we're new to the game, and we just hit 2nd level), but after that we'll be set into our "builds". Now, I liked melee, and it worked out really well for my first level, what with flanking and the high AC / damage reduction. I don't know how Wands and the like will factor in later, but I never liked being "outside" of a fight, and I was thinking of going something like 11 Artificer / 4 Fighter (Focus / Specialize in Warhammer for flavor, with Wand Mastery later on. Mmm, Lightning Bolts). Does this sound like a horrible, death-waiting-to-happen choice, or could it work out all right? I'm worried I'll wind up getting my friend murdered repeatedly if I pick something potentially disasterous. Help? (And sorry in advance for the long post!)
catfan 02-12-06, 03:58 PM	You're almost unequivicably better off to go straight artificer. You can still be a melee monster without a single fighter level, and will actually be better at it - once you buff up. 4 fighter levels instead of 4 artificer levels gives you 1 more BAB, ~8 more hp, heavy armor proficiency, martial weapons, and 3 feats, two of which would be weapon focus and weapon spec. You lose 4 caster levels in artificer, along with craft reserve and bonus feats (and the Attune Magic Weapon feat is 'better' than weapon focus/weapon spec since you get a bit of both with only one feat, and it applies to pretty much any weapon you may want to use). Even if you don't bother buffing up in combat, artificer is a better bet because of the better equipment you (and possibly your friend) will have. An 11th level artificer can make +4 arms and armor, while a 15th level artificer can make +5. Add that to Attune Magic Weapon and you've got better than weapon focus/spec, along with other beneficial items, such as cloaks/vests of resistance, amulets of natural armor, etc. Dipping into fighter for a single level might be worth it for the tower shield proficiency and martial weapons, but I wouldn't go more than that, and wouldn't even go for that much unless I was going to use a tower shield (-2 on attacks...). Artificer is a better bet for what you've described yourself as enjoying, since it emphasizes the defensive aspect without neglecting the offensive much. Keep in mind that you can still provide a flank while using a wand in melee (even with a tower shield), since you have a slam attack. Plus, using a wand doesn't provoke. I would recommend making a wand sheath, though, unless you want to go with Quick Draw and scatter wands all over as you cycle through them and your weapon. Also, I, personally, would go with a battle fist over a warhammer, despite the loss of the x3 multiplier, since it can't be disarmed and leaves your hand free (for those wands or scrolls or whatever). Lastly, both of you will have significantly more and better healing available via the better repair infusions and caster level thereof, not to mention the various defensive infusions at higher level. If you are really set on going for weapon spec, I'd suggest waiting till the very last 4 levels (17-20), or possibly taking a single fighter level early on (but not at level 1; you need those artificer skill points!).
aelryinth 02-12-06, 08:48 PM	You're almost unequivicably better off to go straight artificer. You can still be a melee monster without a single fighter level, and will actually be better at it - once you buff up. 4 fighter levels instead of 4 artificer levels gives you 1 more BAB, ~8 more hp, heavy armor proficiency, martial weapons, and 3 feats, two of which would be weapon focus and weapon spec. You lose 4 caster levels in artificer, along with craft reserve and bonus feats (and the Attune Magic Weapon feat is 'better' than weapon focus/weapon spec since you get a bit of both with only one feat, and it applies to pretty much any weapon you may want to use). Even if you don't bother buffing up in combat, artificer is a better bet because of the better equipment you (and possibly your friend) will have. An 11th level artificer can make +4 arms and armor, while a 15th level artificer can make +5. Add that to Attune Magic Weapon and you've got better than weapon focus/spec, along with other beneficial items, such as cloaks/vests of resistance, amulets of natural armor, etc. Dipping into fighter for a single level might be worth it for the tower shield proficiency and martial weapons, but I wouldn't go more than that, and wouldn't even go for that much unless I was going to use a tower shield (-2 on attacks...). Artificer is a better bet for what you've described yourself as enjoying, since it emphasizes the defensive aspect without neglecting the offensive much. Keep in mind that you can still provide a flank while using a wand in melee (even with a tower shield), since you have a slam attack. Plus, using a wand doesn't provoke. I would recommend making a wand sheath, though, unless you want to go with Quick Draw and scatter wands all over as you cycle through them and your weapon. Also, I, personally, would go with a battle fist over a warhammer, despite the loss of the x3 multiplier, since it can't be disarmed and leaves your hand free (for those wands or scrolls or whatever). Lastly, both of you will have significantly more and better healing available via the better repair infusions and caster level thereof, not to mention the various defensive infusions at higher level. If you are really set on going for weapon spec, I'd suggest waiting till the very last 4 levels (17-20), or possibly taking a single fighter level early on (but not at level 1; you need those artificer skill points!). Wands. Persistent Divine Power, Divine Might. You were saying you needed fighter levels? Not really. If you do, you might want to focus on feats that apply to both classes. Still, flavor is all, and if you want 4 levels of fighter go ahead with it. Don't worried about not being uber. The low level buffs of the artificer work just fine with fighter levels. A Bane before any fight against the primary enemy will serve you in great stead all by itself. ==Aelryinth
catfan 02-13-06, 09:52 PM	I don't know anyone that allows the Persistent Spell feat in their games (including WOTC and the living campaigns), but it does seem to be a popular [albeit broken] feat. Granted that I only know a couple dozen DMs, though.
Stephen_E 02-13-06, 11:17 PM	I dont know about what sounds odd to you. But I do know there are no rules for what you are suggesting. Which is entirly different than the rules that actualy exsist to govern something else finishing an item for you, such as the dedicated Wright;which actulay has rules. . There is the small problem that the dedicated Wright rules don't actually say what you want them to say. The dedicated Wright "assists" you making the item. Regarding the Wright revoking the rule that you can only craft one magic item at a time: I'd note that the existance of the dedicated Wright doesn't supercede previous rules on crafting magic items unless it specifically says so, which it doesn't. As for intereting the rules so as to cause fun, because the rules writers have no idea what they're talking about. IMHO the Wright does increase the "fun" level as written because you don't have to sit around for weeks finishing your item. While fudging/houseruling the rules to allow magic item factorys might indeed be even more fun for the Artificer, it won't be for most other party members unless you also make lots of items for them at cost. I could be wrong but IMHO most players get unhappy quickly if one PC is way more powerful than the rest of the party, which is what the Artificer running a personal magic item factory does. Of course he could hide his power and cackle away in the background with all that hidden power, helping at a moderate level except where he's in real danger. It takes all sorts, but frankly having been in a (good) campaign where I beleive that was happening I was left with an icky feeling that went a long way to putting me off Artificers. In a evil campaign it might work, but then the other PCs have the option of killing you in your sleep as well. Stephen
Pinky's brain 02-14-06, 05:46 AM	There is the small problem that the dedicated Wright rules don't actually say what you want them to say. The dedicated Wright "assists" you making the item.Why are there quotation marks around "assists" there?
Stephen_E 02-14-06, 04:09 PM	Quote: Originally Posted by Stephen_E There is the small problem that the dedicated Wright rules don't actually say what you want them to say. The dedicated Wright "assists" you making the item. Why are there quotation marks around "assists" there? Because I screwed up. It should have been "help with". ;) The point been that I can't find anywhere in the ECS on Dedicated Wrights that says "this supercedes the rules allowing a character to only make one magic item at a time, and lose all work done on a item if he starts another before the 1st is completed". Barring that I see no reason to assume that such a rule is implied just because they've created a new class or creature that would make such a rule change really powerful (indeed one would suspect the opposite to be true). Stephen
waper9 02-14-06, 04:43 PM	Yeah, I believe we debated this before, the wrights making a magical factory due to the fact you'd use up said xp/gold at the beginning, and no where does the wright actually contradict the normal rule of starting a new item makes you lose gold and experience. Personally, I'm of the mind, as long as you and the player have a good communication line/don't exceed the wealth per level, it shouldn't be that much of an issue. Certain things like Feather tokens are kinda cool i feel to have as little artificer tricks, but take too long, etc. Regardless, this is one of those where rule zero will apply, or hopefully we'll get a rule clarification.
TLStarfighter 02-14-06, 04:45 PM	You're almost unequivicably better off to go straight artificer. You can still be a melee monster without a single fighter level, and will actually be better at it - once you buff up. 4 fighter levels instead of 4 artificer levels gives you 1 more BAB, ~8 more hp, heavy armor proficiency, martial weapons, and 3 feats, two of which would be weapon focus and weapon spec. You lose 4 caster levels in artificer, along with craft reserve and bonus feats (and the Attune Magic Weapon feat is 'better' than weapon focus/weapon spec since you get a bit of both with only one feat, and it applies to pretty much any weapon you may want to use). Even if you don't bother buffing up in combat, artificer is a better bet because of the better equipment you (and possibly your friend) will have. An 11th level artificer can make +4 arms and armor, while a 15th level artificer can make +5. Add that to Attune Magic Weapon and you've got better than weapon focus/spec, along with other beneficial items, such as cloaks/vests of resistance, amulets of natural armor, etc. Dipping into fighter for a single level might be worth it for the tower shield proficiency and martial weapons, but I wouldn't go more than that, and wouldn't even go for that much unless I was going to use a tower shield (-2 on attacks...). Artificer is a better bet for what you've described yourself as enjoying, since it emphasizes the defensive aspect without neglecting the offensive much. Keep in mind that you can still provide a flank while using a wand in melee (even with a tower shield), since you have a slam attack. Plus, using a wand doesn't provoke. I would recommend making a wand sheath, though, unless you want to go with Quick Draw and scatter wands all over as you cycle through them and your weapon. Also, I, personally, would go with a battle fist over a warhammer, despite the loss of the x3 multiplier, since it can't be disarmed and leaves your hand free (for those wands or scrolls or whatever). Lastly, both of you will have significantly more and better healing available via the better repair infusions and caster level thereof, not to mention the various defensive infusions at higher level. If you are really set on going for weapon spec, I'd suggest waiting till the very last 4 levels (17-20), or possibly taking a single fighter level early on (but not at level 1; you need those artificer skill points!). Catfan is correct. You will be better off staying pure Artificer. Assuming you have the correct stats for it a melee Artificer is a perfectly viable build. You can always pick up the Wandstrike feat from Complete Arcane to allow you to make touch attacks with wands and deal and extra d6 of damage in the process. Most people advocate going with a ranged build because it is easier to supply the necessary stats to make that work than it is to make a melee build work. You just need more good physical stats to play melee than you do ranged. If you have the stats, then have fun in melee.
Pinky's brain 02-14-06, 05:31 PM	Personally, I'm of the mind, as long as you and the player have a good communication line/don't exceed the wealth per level, it shouldn't be that much of an issue. Certain things like Feather tokens are kinda cool i feel to have as little artificer tricks, but take too long, etc.The only real trouble is that it wrecks the theoretical economy worse than usual ... it makes it possible to use the artisan feat based infinite money loops at exponentially accelerating rates. I doubt many DMs let players use the infinite money loop at all though, I know my DM doesn't. Saving a theoretical economy which is absurd to start with isn't a big concern :)
glug 02-15-06, 10:03 AM	Infinite money loop!? What, making items at 25% discount and selling them like walmart with dedicated wrights? That'd still be xp-prohibitive.
Elderich 02-15-06, 12:50 PM	Look, This is a game. The REASON for a dedicated wright is so the artificer can actualy adventure with the rest of the party, instead of spending weeks crafting. It is strictly a tool to keep the game flowing. If it makes sense in YOUR game to have the party go off and save the world, and have the magic items they want ready when they get back, then the DW is a way to do that. If you want to use the DW as a way to make an infinte number of magical items, well have fun. If the rest of the people you get together with think that is fun too, then go right ahead.
Gao 02-15-06, 05:13 PM	Okay, thanks! No Fighter, then. Seems pointless and wasteful. But...Persistant Divine Might? Wand Touch? What does that stuff do? We only have the three core books, the Eberron Campaign Setting guide, and the Explorer's Handbook (Eberron), so any information is greatly appreciated! Also, if it helps any, I went with 14 Strength, 10 Dexterity, 16 (14) Constitution, 14 Intelligence, 10 (12) Wisdom, and 10 (12) Charisma. The DM let us use 28 points to buy our stats instead of rolling. I didn't think Charisma was too important, since it only factored usefully (for me) into Use Magic Device, and a +1 or +2 to my rolls with it didn't seem worth the points when compared to what else it could get me. Beyond that, um...well, I figured on taking Combat Expertise somewhat early for some added defensive ability, so I dunno if a Tower Shield would help all that much, what with the -2 stacking with whatever other penalty I take that turn for more AC. And the tutorial in the beginning of this thread is neat, but some of the stuff is too complex for me, like all the math on...super...light...frying wands of doomy-death. So...I have no idea what kinds of wands and things I should be attempting to craft and/or blow myself up with beyond maybe Sleep, Magic Missle, Knock, Repair (Insert Modifier Here), Raise Dead, Lightning Bolt (Mmm...), some magic arms and upgrades for our bodies, and so on, and so forth...mm...toys...explode-y boom-death toys...
Pinky's brain 02-15-06, 06:11 PM	Divine power and righteous might are both spells from the PHB. Divine power is a little easier to use with persistent spell, sice it fits in a wand. With adamantine body you are already a walking talking tank at low level, do you really need combat expertise? Id not bother with wands of low level spells you will either rarely use like knock or never get 50 uses out off them, like sleep which will be useless at higher levels. Use scrolls, or your spellstoring item infusion. Wand of cure light wounds however you will be making your entire career. For offensive wands with only core Id stick to scorching ray. Magic missile again Id stick on scrolls, cause you are probably not going to use it enough for a wand (at higher level a low caster level magic missile ain't all that). Usually you are just going to be able to stick to melee anyway. At low level just use personal weapon augmentation with bane, at higher level use persistent spell with metamagic item and wands of divine favor and divine power (or with the spellstoring item infusion, a wand of divine power and a high caster level wand of divine favor aren't cheap). One nice wand to have for a melee artificer is a wand of truestrike, put it in a wand sheath and get the quickened spell feat ... after level 7 you can always get a truestrike when you need it for the lowly cost of 37,5 gp through metamagic spelltrigger (or 7,5 gp if you use metamagic item on the wand). Powerattack is handy with this too, for getting in a nice first hit when you make a single attack after moving.
aelryinth 02-16-06, 01:13 AM	Unless you are going to be healing in combat, you want a Wand of Lesser Vigor, not CLW. CLW heals d8+1 per charge, lesser Vigor gives fast healin/1 for 10 rds + 1 rd, for 11 pts healed per charge. Takes a little longer, but since you are going to use it out of combat, better place to spend your money. ==Aelryinth
Pinky's brain 02-16-06, 02:23 AM	Ah, but note the source restriction in his post ;)
glug 02-16-06, 03:00 PM	Has anyone been so enterprising as to put together a lovely, artificer-friendly character sheet pdf, complete with such absurdity as seperate sections for your scrolls, potions, wands, etc - and anything else that an artificer might find incredibly useful in a character sheet?
aelryinth 02-16-06, 04:39 PM	Well, if you go back to page Two, I give you a guide for Combat Wands to grab. Note that lesser Orbs are now much less powerful then they used to be. Many of the metamagic feats we refer to (TWin, persistent spell) are in Complete Arcane. I did make an example with only core feats, however. The Optimized Artificer thread on the CO boards might have a much better breakdown of gear and stuff you want. However, it's a very long thread by now...hopefully most of the information is up front. Also note, the Optimizers use All Books Possible. It might make a good idea for a new thread, but you are talking something VERY time-consuming,especially with a level by level breakdown. ==Aelryinth
Elderich 02-16-06, 05:40 PM	Recognizing Edymnion's guide is for more of the new commer than the typical COer. And that is a good thing. On to the COing. Does it seem that a light crossbow +1 percision, quickloading is more useful in the short and long term than the three archery feats? And it saves you 3 feats?
glug 02-17-06, 12:13 PM	I'm going to assume that such an item would cost a bit of gold, and therefore it would be a few levels before you got your hands on it. Now granted, I'm still trying to fit about 30 feats into my level 3 feat slot coming up.. but having PB Shot and Precise Shot has so far, in my newbie adventures, been the difference between hitting something, and hitting our tank. The latter is often what happens when everyone *else* in the party takes a shot, and I yell at them. :rolleyes:
Timlagor 02-19-06, 08:30 PM	How does 'Metamagic Item: Heighten Spell' affect CL and DC coming out of a wand? Eg CL5 Fireball Heightened to 9th level (no reason to stop any lower since you aren't 'paying'). DC could be * 13 (original wand), * 19 (base +6 for heighten), or * 23 (minimum for 9th level fireball) Which is it? Does it do 5d6 or 10d6 (capped from 17d6) damage?
Pinky's brain 02-19-06, 08:54 PM	You would have to ask the Sage or customer service, because noone here can give you a definitive answer. My DM simply didn't allow heighten with metamagic item (and put a metamagic cap on metamagic spell trigger). That's just houserules though.
Will_Shakespeare 02-20-06, 04:17 AM	I'm going to assume that such an item would cost a bit of gold, and therefore it would be a few levels before you got your hands on it. Now granted, I'm still trying to fit about 30 feats into my level 3 feat slot coming up.. but having PB Shot and Precise Shot has so far, in my newbie adventures, been the difference between hitting something, and hitting our tank. The latter is often what happens when everyone *else* in the party takes a shot, and I yell at them. :rolleyes: Hi, now what does that mean? Everytime you or your buddies miss an enemy via ranged attacks, they hit your tank who is fighting with the enemy targeted? Now that certainly is not the way how these situations are to be handled in D&D 3.5. The -4 to ranged attacks (for shooting into melee) and the -4 for soft cover represent your carefulness when shooting into a melee situation, because you just don't want to hit your tank buddy. Having the Precise Shot feat simply makes you a bit more skillful in such situations. You never ever have the risk hitting your allies when using ranged weapons, except when firing into a grapple without the Improved Precise Shot feat. Cheers Will
glug 02-20-06, 10:13 AM	Ahh, I might have to read up on that some, or perhaps he's going by 3.0 or house rules on it.. but I think he has you hit your engaged buddy if you're missing by 1-4 points. I believe he considers the reason for that -4 and acts on it. =) Hrm just checked the SRD, and you're right. There's nothing about hitting your teammate in there. Personally, I like it =) but it might be 3.0 or house rules that our dm plays with.
aelryinth 02-20-06, 04:32 PM	Generally, the rule is if you miss by the AC granted by the cover, you hit the cover instead of the target. Just a rule of logic. At low levels, this can be deadly. Precise shot and Point blank shot also work with Ray spells, which as wands will be your primary forms of spell offense. Heighten has long been a source of problems for the infusions. Limitations include the following options, which are all logical: You can't Heighten a spell to above level 4 for a wand. Wands can only store spells up to level 4. Anything more is wasted...not that it's going to be a problem. Staves: You can't Heighten a Spell past what the caster level of the staff can compensate for. So if the staff has a natural 13th level casting level, 7th level is as high as you can Heighten it. You can't Heighten a Spell past a level you yourself can naturally cast. This puts some real limitations on it for Artificers, preventing a lot of abuse. You can't Heighten a Spell past a level = your caster level/2. More lenient, but still stops low level cheese. I've asked Andy Collins for a ruling on this, but he's taking his time, as he does have to make a ruling. But, the above are all logical steps you can take. I'd just default to the level 4 for wands, and the inbuilt caster level of the staff for staves. That takes the limits out of the hands of the user and into the objects...consistent and logical. ==Aelryinth
Timlagor 02-20-06, 06:25 PM	Hitting the cover is a houserule in 3.5 (possibly one suggestedin the PHBDMG though..). I liked the idea about limitting Heighten to 4th for Wands... but then I realised what it would mean for allother Metamagic. If you limit Wands to 4th Level Slot Metamagic-enahnced Spells, you really stuff the Artificer. I think it's bette to just leave Heighten 'as-is' (so long as you are stopping MetaItem from self-stacking). Nice as the effect of Heighten is, it doesn't actually add anything to the all-out blasting power of an Artificer. What it does do is save money the more moderate-damage blasting. (You Heighten a 1st level wand instead of Twinning a 4th for considerably less damage but much less money). It also sets all DCs to 23 (or more with Wand Mastery/CWA) but by 8th level that isn't a really excessive DC (though it is certainly high -9th Level Gray Elf with Headband +2 and no Feats can hit DC22 with 5th level spells -the Artificer is using a Feat, an Infusion and a charge=gp+xp and the Artificers DC isn't going up until they get a Staff). I can see that you might not want to allow that in which case I recommend you rule that you only gain the spell-level benefit to DC with no change to CL or Attribute-based DC. You could also ban Heighten completely from Met-Item for a nice clean rule. Limitting by Artificer Level or Item level just has too many implications.
aelryinth 02-21-06, 02:35 AM	Why would limiting by Item level have bad implications? It's the default limit now. And a level 5 character able to pop off a DC 23 save for ANY spell he has a wand with is indeed a very dangerous abuse of power...and don't forget, at later levels this stacks with Wand Mastery and Cannith Wand Adept and whatnot. No, its not a good thing to let go. 4th level makes a great limitation and is perfectly within the flavor aspect of the rules. If a caster tried to make the spell inside a wand an actual 9th level spell, instead of a metamagicked one (a crucial difference!) I'd probably have the wand blow up as the spell came out from the overload...but that's just me. ==Aelryinth
Timlagor 02-21-06, 01:35 PM	Why would limiting by Item level have bad implications? It's the default limit now. If you limit Heighten to 4th level then how can you allow any other Metamagic to exceed 4th level? I've already explained how you can avoid the DC23 wands without this problem
aelryinth 02-22-06, 03:14 PM	If you limit Heighten to 4th level then how can you allow any other Metamagic to exceed 4th level? I've already explained how you can avoid the DC23 wands without this problem It's all about how Heighten works. MEtamagic makes a lower level spell use a higher level slot for some additional effect...but its still the lower level spell. Heighten actually makes the spell higher level. That's the difference. Metamagic INfusions/Spell Trigger pay the 'cost' of the metamagic when you use them...you are still gettting off a low level spell. It never actually becomes the higher level spell, or uses a higher level slot. You can't really do that with Heighten...how do you pay the 'bump cost' when, if you don't bump it, nothing happens? It doesn't say heighten gives +3DC/2 spell levels..it's not a mechanical effect. It actually makes the spell higher level. So that Empowered Lesser Sonic Orb coming out of the wand really IS a 4th level spell now...not just an Empowered Second level one. As heighten is the only feat which operates this way, putting the restriction in is fine. And the DC23 save is broken at any level under 12, and likely higher, because you have to figure the save is going to go against an average enemy's weak save, not his strong one. Once you add in stacking bonuses, it just gets silly. I'm not going to throw a DC23 reflex save at the rogue, or a DC23 Will save at the cleric...I'll mix them up, and watch both of them eat the magic. A 12th level rogue probably has a will save of around +6-8...he's got almost no chance of making the save, and the cleric is probably even worse on the reflex save. ==Aelryinth
Elderich 02-22-06, 07:13 PM	Putting such limits on metamagic is just silly. If you would like to debate metamagic, why not make a thread for that and post the link here?
aelryinth 02-24-06, 04:55 PM	putting limits on metamagic is designed into the metamagic system is why. Heighten is the ONLY metamagic feat that doesn't have an inbuilt cap to it, other then the Epic ruling that you can't Heighten above 9th level without Epic Heighten. It doesn't say "Spell is considered to occupy a slot two levels higher. Adjust all saves by +2 DC, and consider the spell for all intents and purposes to be a spell of the higher level." It's not quantified, like EMpower (+2) or Maximize, or Twin, or even Persistent. There's no number there to fall back on. And it's this very open ended nature which makes it subject to abuse. A normal caster doesn't have this problem, because Heighten obeys the metacap...because there IS no cost, you can't use, say, Divine Metamagic, to make a spell 6th level while occupying a 4th level slot. It actually has to occupy that slot to have effect, so you have to be able to cast that slot and expend the slot. Suddenly waiving that restriction just because you are an artificer is trying to get around the workings of the metamagic system. The artificer, in particular, has enough problems with people trying to abuse it. The conservative approach is, In My Opinion, the best, smoothest and easiest way to handle the problem. If you like your characters throwing out DC 23 Hold Persons at level 5 or whatever, more power to you. ===Aelryinth
Timlagor 02-24-06, 06:39 PM	Huh? 1) Heighten is capped to 9th level -says so right there in the text -so there is a cap. 2) Divine Metamagic does work with it: you just specify the number of bumps and burn that many turn attempts. 3) Your approach is totally arbitrary and inconsistent with allowing other metamagics to break the effective limits. The rules are very clear that spell-casting items are based entirely off which slot the spell uses: there is simply no distinction between Heightened to 6th and Tinned to 6th from the wand's perspective. If you're going to make a rule up out of whole cloth you should aim to be as consistent with the rest of the rules and as general as possible. I'll repeat the options I presented earlier which don't bring in this massive inconsistency: a) Just ban it for artificers (arbitrary again and almost as unsatisfactory) -however you can make it work, for scrolls and wands at least, by explaining that the wand fails to meet the CL/attribute requirement for the higher level spell. By the time you get to staves it's not that much of an issue. b) Heightened does increase the spell leel but this doesn't affect the caster leel or attribute DC: +8 to the DC of a first level spell is powerful but it goes down from there and the Wizards are up to 4th level spells by the time you can do this. DC21 for a 4th level spell is high but perfectly achievable by a Wizard at 8th level and the Artificer is giving up a Twin (or similar), which can't be achieved by the Wizard, to get that DC it. [my favoured option] c) Allow the full DC bump but no CL change. d) Full CL change but no/partial DC bump. Neither of these if really satisfactory as there is no obvious reason to seperate the CL and Attribute requirements of higher level spells. ________________________________________ _________________________ This is certainly something any Artificer DM needs to think about. I think I've made my points about as clearly as I can so I won't clog this thread any further unless I read something that changes my mind.
aelryinth 02-24-06, 09:36 PM	Heighten does not have a fixed, static cost. It has a variable cost. It is the only feat which does not have a declared cost. Misinterpreting my statement does not change this. A Twinned Scorching Ray is not a 6th level spell...it merely occupies the slot as part of the cost. And if you can pay the cost...it doesn't even have to do that. A Heightened spell in the 6th level slot IS a 6th level spell. As I iterated above, Heighten does not say "For every level you pay/raise the spell, it gets +1 DC." From the SRD A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). Unlike other metamagic feats, Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level. The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level. I treat Heighten as different from other feats for these very reasons. (shrugs) And since it actually increases the level of the spell, and wands are restricted to level 4 spells...therein lies my logic. Ditto with staves...you can't stick a spell of higher level into a staff then its casting level can support. Hence the restrictions. ==Aelryinth
Kuraito 02-26-06, 01:39 PM	This thread has been rather useful. I'm currently in the process of building my first artificer for my first Ebberon game and the tips here were useful. I think some of the stuffs a LITTLE to focused for my taste (Blastificer? Bufficier? I plan to do a little of everything). I also disliked the argument that broke down this thread for almost 2 pages about the Dedicated Wright. I personally agree with the "It doesn't let you create more then one item at a time" side, but I think the issues in the past, lets leave it there. I do however, have some questions. first off, I'm a first level Artificer with 10 str, 14 dex, 14 con, 8 wis, 16 int, 16 cha. I took average atificer gold and was not allowed to Craft alchemical items pregame and i'm to short on money to buy them full cost. As a result, looking at my character, I seem just short of useless untill i get some GP flow. I find traps, thats about it. Other then that, all I really offer are infusions. I heard you sing the praises of the crossbow, but I only get +2 to attack (pathetic, even at 1st level) and a measly 1d8 damage. I have big plans, but for now, i'm just wasted space. Is this a common problem or did i screw up my build? Secondly, I'm HELLA confused on how stuff like Blade Barrier and Major Creation works as Infusion. I read the rules for them very carefully and I just don't see how that works. How do you INFUSE Major Creation? I asked CustServ and they basically said "Don't know, ask your DM!" Finally, with my DMs blessing I took Craft(Mechanical). I plan to make things like Wind-up toys, Music Boxes, maybe eventually even an Ornithopter. I'm thinking of making a Magic: The Gathering style Artificer, who mixes Mechanical and Magic items. Think Urza (hope people get the refernce). But this isn't covered in the rules, hell, wind up TOYS arn't even covered, so any ideas I could pitch to my DM would be useful.
Timlagor 02-26-06, 06:34 PM	1) The way Artificers generally seem to get through the first fe levels is by applying the 'Weapon Augmentation, Personal' Infusion to a (usually ranged) weapon and making it Bane (+2to hit +2+2d6 damage) to whatever they are about to fight. Expect to spend all you Action Points making these take 1round instead of 1minute for combats you weren't prepared for. 2) I would have put more points into Intelligence but your build looks ok (you typod Int as Dex). 3) Clockwork is not something that is generally present in D&D. The closes I can think of are Modrons so it might be worht seeing if you can find any more info on them. 4) No idea how you're supposed to Infuse a Blade Barrier -I would just gloss over that and treat it as a spell.
aelryinth 02-26-06, 10:36 PM	Treat it just like infusing a spell or bane effect...you put the spell INTO something, and when you are done, the effect happens. Range is a bit funny, but I'd have like a shuriken you can toss on the ground as the center of the spell...or throw at a certain spot. Major creation lets you make an object. So carry some clay or tinker toys that you can shape into a crude imitation of the item you want to create, toss it down, and voila, You have now Created something as your infusion transforms the item into what you really want. It's not THAT big a stretch. At low level, the artificer is always chasing gold. EVERYONE is chasing gold. Your friends should be helping you, since you can make things for less then it would cost to buy them. Once you get Create Wand, things start looking up...your friends are going to love having buffing and curing wands around, especially if you are working with a spellcaster. And the whole Action Point think is a point...but again, if you are going to buff, you generally want to do it before a fight, not during it. ANd it's generally better to buff the tank's sword or bow then your crossbow. ==Aelryinth
Timlagor 02-27-06, 04:11 AM	And the whole Action Point think is a point...but again, if you are going to buff, you generally want to do it before a fight, not during it. ANd it's generally better to buff the tank's sword or bow then your crossbow. ==Aelryinth You can only do your own weapons at 1st level. There are other infusions you can use instead though: Shield of faith doesn't cost an AP for instance and will be very welcome to your Tank. Bane does absolutely kick ass though even on your weapon. (and if you can get one of the +2Int Elves you can use a longbow isntead of the crossbow :) )
aelryinth 02-28-06, 03:24 PM	You can only do your own weapons at 1st level. There are other infusions you can use instead though: Shield of faith doesn't cost an AP for instance and will be very welcome to your Tank. Bane does absolutely kick ass though even on your weapon. (and if you can get one of the +2Int Elves you can use a longbow isntead of the crossbow :) ) So, the fighter hands you his bow. it's now 'your' bow. You buff it and hand it back. ==Aelryinth
Elderich 02-28-06, 05:01 PM	So, the fighter hands you his bow. it's now 'your' bow. You buff it and hand it back.and in the fighters hands it is back to just a normal (pre buff) bow.
Will_Shakespeare 02-28-06, 05:20 PM	and in the fighters hands it is back to just a normal (pre buff) bow. This is true. Weapon Augmentation, Personal only works "if you wield, throw, or fire" (ECS, p.117) the weapon. So an artificer will not be able to take the fighter's bow, spend an infusion on it and give it back to the fighter with the infusion still working. Cheers Will
makerofrules 03-01-06, 02:41 AM	Where in RAW does it say infusions can not be in wands and such?
Timlagor 03-01-06, 04:18 AM	You can use infusions on wands so I assume you mean: "where does it say you can't make a 'wand of Infusion X'?" If you check the wand creation rules you will see that they only refer to spells. Infusions are not spells. The same applies to scrolls and staves. A nice DM might let you strecth the wording "[Infusions] funtion just like spells and follow all the rules for spells" to allow creation of such items... I'm not aware of any rule that specifically forbids it.... EDIT: ACtuallly "Like a spellcaster, an artificer can apply item creation feats and metamagic feats to his infusions". Looks to me like you can craft wands and scrolls of Infusions.
aelryinth 03-01-06, 10:18 PM	This is true. Weapon Augmentation, Personal only works "if you wield, throw, or fire" (ECS, p.117) the weapon. So an artificer will not be able to take the fighter's bow, spend an infusion on it and give it back to the fighter with the infusion still working. Cheers Will Wait a second. The only way this could work as you say in ANYTHING resembling a practical interpretation is in something that only works for one strike. You are imbuing a weapon. You are both placing the accent on 'you' for the infusion. The accent is on the weapon, and then it defines what 'weapon' is. For instance, you can't infuse a wand with +1 or Bane. Does it actually say the infusion stops working if the weapon changes hands? That seems extremely strange...it only has an augmentation in your own hands? The infusion doesn't target you or augment you...it augments a weapon. Personal also probably refers to the fact that you probably can't infuse a ballista or catapult. You are going a bit overboard on the interpretation. Plenty of examples on the boards talk about enhancing the weapons of the party's tanks. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 03-01-06, 10:21 PM	You can use infusions on wands so I assume you mean: "where does it say you can't make a 'wand of Infusion X'?" If you check the wand creation rules you will see that they only refer to spells. Infusions are not spells. The same applies to scrolls and staves. A nice DM might let you strecth the wording "[Infusions] funtion just like spells and follow all the rules for spells" to allow creation of such items... I'm not aware of any rule that specifically forbids it.... EDIT: ACtuallly "Like a spellcaster, an artificer can apply item creation feats and metamagic feats to his infusions". Looks to me like you can craft wands and scrolls of Infusions. Interesting. I thought the only way to put an infusion into an item was via schemas. Can this be substantiated? I've never seen an example of infusions being worked into magic items in any source. ==Aelryinth
spikegif 03-01-06, 10:41 PM	Wait a second. The only way this could work as you say in ANYTHING resembling a practical interpretation is in something that only works for one strike. You are imbuing a weapon. You are both placing the accent on 'you' for the infusion. The accent is on the weapon, and then it defines what 'weapon' is. For instance, you can't infuse a wand with +1 or Bane. Does it actually say the infusion stops working if the weapon changes hands? That seems extremely strange...it only has an augmentation in your own hands? The infusion doesn't target you or augment you...it augments a weapon. Personal also probably refers to the fact that you probably can't infuse a ballista or catapult. You are going a bit overboard on the interpretation. Plenty of examples on the boards talk about enhancing the weapons of the party's tanks. ==Aelryinth If you would take out your Eberron Campaign Setting book and look on page 117, top right. Last sentance of the spell description it states that "The weapon gains the benefit of the unfusion only if you weild, throw, or fire it."
spikegif 03-01-06, 10:51 PM	You can use infusions on wands so I assume you mean: "where does it say you can't make a 'wand of Infusion X'?" If you check the wand creation rules you will see that they only refer to spells. Infusions are not spells. The same applies to scrolls and staves. A nice DM might let you strecth the wording "[Infusions] funtion just like spells and follow all the rules for spells" to allow creation of such items... I'm not aware of any rule that specifically forbids it.... EDIT: ACtuallly "Like a spellcaster, an artificer can apply item creation feats and metamagic feats to his infusions". Looks to me like you can craft wands and scrolls of Infusions.Make note on page 32, end onf the Item Creation section. Infusions do not meet spell prerequisites for creating magic items. it gives the example of a wand of light. Light is an infusion listed on the artificers infusion list, but he cannot use his infusion to create the wand, he must still make a UMD check to emulate the "spell" light. so you cannot craft a wand or scroll of Infusions. Etch Schema located in the Magic of Eberron allows you to create lesser schemas what function like a wand the contains Infustions.
makerofrules 03-02-06, 02:23 AM	Make note on page 32, end onf the Item Creation section. Infusions do not meet spell prerequisites for creating magic items. it gives the example of a wand of light. Light is an infusion listed on the artificers infusion list, but he cannot use his infusion to create the wand, he must still make a UMD check to emulate the "spell" light. so you cannot craft a wand or scroll of Infusions. Etch Schema located in the Magic of Eberron allows you to create lesser schemas what function like a wand the contains Infustions. What prevents the Artifacer from making a UMD check to emulate the infusion just like he emulates a spell?
spikegif 03-02-06, 09:13 AM	What prevents the Artifacer from making a UMD check to emulate the infusion just like he emulates a spell? Item creation ability for the artificer allows you to make an UMD check to emulate spells, not infusions. See text.
glug 03-02-06, 10:24 AM	You are going a bit overboard on the interpretation. Plenty of examples on the boards talk about enhancing the weapons of the party's tanks. ==Aelryinth Note that at level 3, you gain the level 2 infusion: Weapon Augmentation, Lesser(Eb p117) <Trans, SM(20gp ointment), 1Min, Touch, 10min/lvl> – The touched weapon gains a magical enhancement equal to “+1” or up to 10,000gp for the infusion’s duration. 50 projectiles (such as a set of arrows) can be enchanted by a single use of this infusion, though each projectile loses the enhancement when fired once (Shuriken as treated as projectiles). There are some differences between this and Personal, other than the level. Firstly, I don't believe Personal mentions ammunition as an option. Secondly, it costs 20gp. Thirdly, it says 'touched weapon'. Other than that, the infusion itself grants the same +1/10k bonus that Personal grants. The mere fact that a higher level version of the infusion offers no meaningful difference but a 20gp cost and no mention of it being a 'personal' weapon should be sufficient to see that you cannot infuse someone elses weapon with the level 1 infusion. Some good logic on it would be that you're not performing the infusion as completely or accurately as you might have hoped, being new to the profession and with limited skills. Kind of like MacGyvering your crossbow or some such.
Pinky's brain 03-02-06, 10:45 AM	Thirdly, it says 'touched weapon'.Where exactly?
glug 03-02-06, 03:19 PM	I'm looking at some downloads from http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/ as I don't have my books on hand at work. I'm assuming that's where they pulled their information from. Can you tell me what the difference is between those level 1 and level 2 infusions are then?
spikegif 03-02-06, 03:57 PM	Where exactly? page 117 Weapon Augmentation, Lesser As personal Weapon Augmentation.... Weapon Augmentation, Personal Range: Touch Target: Weapon Touched
Pinky's brain 03-02-06, 05:59 PM	Not that it matters much, but the target line is overridden.
aelryinth 03-02-06, 08:53 PM	If you would take out your Eberron Campaign Setting book and look on page 117, top right. Last sentance of the spell description it states that "The weapon gains the benefit of the unfusion only if you weild, throw, or fire it." And that's my point. Your interpretation is "The weapon gains the benefit of the infusion only if you weild, throw, or fire it." Mine is "The weapon gains the benefit of the infusion only if you weild, throw, or fire it. The difference between this and the second level version is simply the second level one applies to ammo...which, btw, allows for 'doubling up' on bonuses. And if the target is Weapon Touched, there ain't no reason why you can't give the weapon away. ===Aelryinth
spikegif 03-02-06, 10:34 PM	And that's my point. Your interpretation is "The weapon gains the benefit of the infusion only if you weild, throw, or fire it." Mine is "The weapon gains the benefit of the infusion only if you weild, throw, or fire it. The difference between this and the second level version is simply the second level one applies to ammo...which, btw, allows for 'doubling up' on bonuses. And if the target is Weapon Touched, there ain't no reason why you can't give the weapon away. ===Aelryinth and just what benifit will that do to give the weapon then give that weapon to some one else? It they weild it, throw it, or fire it, the bonus does not work.
Timlagor 03-03-06, 08:42 AM	And that's my point. Your interpretation is "The weapon gains the benefit of the infusion only if you weild, throw, or fire it." Mine is "The weapon gains the benefit of the infusion only if you weild, throw, or fire it. The difference between this and the second level version is simply the second level one applies to ammo...which, btw, allows for 'doubling up' on bonuses. And if the target is Weapon Touched, there ain't no reason why you can't give the weapon away. ===Aelryinth This makes absolutely no sense. Read the two infusions and it should be perfectly obvious. If not then... well there's really no point in arguing about it.
glug 03-03-06, 11:54 AM	This makes absolutely no sense. Read the two infusions and it should be perfectly obvious. If not then... well there's really no point in arguing about it. Agreed. "As personal weapon augmentation, but any character can wield the weapon you augment." Nothing can be more clearly implied by this than the fact that you are reading "Personal" wrong. The accent is on "YOU". ...only if you wield.. This is also why the addition of ammo makes sense. If you were only able to effect yourself, you'd just infuse your weapon, and not care about the ammo. With the second level infusion, you can infuse the ammo, and spread it out to your entire party as the case may be.
makerofrules 03-04-06, 04:05 AM	Make note on page 32, end onf the Item Creation section. Infusions do not meet spell prerequisites for creating magic items. it gives the example of a wand of light. Light is an infusion listed on the artificers infusion list, but he cannot use his infusion to create the wand, he must still make a UMD check to emulate the "spell" light. so you cannot craft a wand or scroll of Infusions. Etch Schema located in the Magic of Eberron allows you to create lesser schemas what function like a wand the contains Infustions. But Etch Schema p. 122 states Construction: Requires Etch Schema, the spell contained in the item So would this need to be erratted to say this instead: Construction: Requires Etch schema, the spell or infusion contained in the item? I read the page 122 entry currently as "the spell contained in the item" to mean that a infusion is the same as a spell. The Artifacer would need to make a UMD check to make the Minor Schema. If we go with the "Construction: Requires Etch Schema, the spell or infusion contained in the item" instead then how does the Artifacer put in the infusion as the Artifacer item creation rules state infusions do not count as a spell for creation purposes. This would mean you cannot put infusions in Minor Schemas and that clearly contradicts the description on Minor schemas.
spikegif 03-04-06, 09:47 AM	But Etch Schema p. 122 states If we go with the "Construction: Requires Etch Schema, the spell or infusion contained in the item" instead then how does the Artifacer put in the infusion as the Artifacer item creation rules state infusions do not count as a spell for creation purposes. This would mean you cannot put infusions in Minor Schemas and that clearly contradicts the description on Minor schemas.Did you read both the feat and the entire minor schemas section? How many times does it state that you can put an infusion or spell into a minor schema? To activate it at all an artificer must still make a UMD check even if it is an infusion. This still does not allow you to creat scroll or wands of infusion.
darkness ninja of light 03-04-06, 09:25 PM	The ways that both the MM and the ECS describe crafting homunculi confuse me. Sorry if this question has been answered before, I know I've been keeping an eye out for the answer. To craft homunculi it says that you need a homunculus lab to work in. Both the MM and ECS says that "this is similar to an alchemist's lab and costs 500gp" and leaves it at that. Is this saying that if I have an alchemist's lab, I can be considered to have a homunculus lab? Or does it simply mention the alchemist lab as a reference as to what the other lab is like (it's about 40lbs, for example)? Thus, an alchemy-using articifer wanting a homunculus would have to buy both for 1000gp? I hope there's an answer to this.
makerofrules 03-05-06, 09:18 PM	The ways that both the MM and the ECS describe crafting homunculi confuse me. Sorry if this question has been answered before, I know I've been keeping an eye out for the answer. To craft homunculi it says that you need a homunculus lab to work in. Both the MM and ECS says that "this is similar to an alchemist's lab and costs 500gp" and leaves it at that. Is this saying that if I have an alchemist's lab, I can be considered to have a homunculus lab? Or does it simply mention the alchemist lab as a reference as to what the other lab is like (it's about 40lbs, for example)? Thus, an alchemy-using articifer wanting a homunculus would have to buy both for 1000gp? I hope there's an answer to this. I would say that a alchemist's lab and a homunculus lab are different but weigh the same and would have to be bought sepratly.
makerofrules 03-05-06, 09:31 PM	Did you read both the feat and the entire minor schemas section? How many times does it state that you can put an infusion or spell into a minor schema? To activate it at all an artificer must still make a UMD check even if it is an infusion. This still does not allow you to creat scroll or wands of infusion. Yes I read the description many times. Point of fact I almost have it memorized. When the description in the item does not match the description in the how to create section then to me the how to create section has presidance. The creation section on Minor Schemia states the need for a feat and the spell in the item. If an infusion is a spell then the creation section for this works. if it is not a spell the item needs erratted. To restate my original question: where in RAW does it SPECIFICALLY state you cannot put infusions in wands and similar items. I am looking for the RAW statemt on this not a house rule. I can create house rules on this just fine. I have a player who is asking this of me and as a DM who likes to play by the rules if I am going to tell him no I would like to point to the section in RAW that blocks this.
spikegif 03-05-06, 09:51 PM	Yes I read the description many times. Point of fact I almost have it memorized. When the description in the item does not match the description in the how to create section then to me the how to create section has presidance. The creation section on Minor Schemia states the need for a feat and the spell in the item. If an infusion is a spell then the creation section for this works. if it is not a spell the item needs erratted. To restate my original question: where in RAW does it SPECIFICALLY state you cannot put infusions in wands and similar items. I am looking for the RAW statemt on this not a house rule. I can create house rules on this just fine. I have a player who is asking this of me and as a DM who likes to play by the rules if I am going to tell him no I would like to point to the section in RAW that blocks this. You have answered your own question. You cannot make a scroll or a wand of an infusion. No where in the Scribe Scroll and Craft Wand does it allow you to put an Infustion into it. By the way you want to read the rulles apply that exact same logic to your infusion.
Azazyll 03-06-06, 12:14 AM	You have answered your own question. You cannot make a scroll or a wand of an infusion. No where in the Scribe Scroll and Craft Wand does it allow you to put an Infustion into it. By the way you want to read the rulles apply that exact same logic to your infusion. Actually, makerofrules appears to be on to something. My first reaction was to agree with spikegif, and I'm positive I read at some point that infusions could not be put into magic items. But not only is that not explicitly stated in the class description, the magic chapter, or the magic items chapter, it's also not in the errata. Most importantly, it explicitly states that "They function just like spells and follow all the rules for spells" on page 31, first paragraph under "infusions". Later, under "item creation" in the last paragraph it is clarified that "An artificer's infusions do not meet spell prerequisites for creating magic items" but this appears from the example to only mean that artificers still have to make a UMD check even if they have an infusion that is the same as the prerequisite, the example being the <i>light</i> spell for a <i>wand of light</i>. Technically, as far as I can find, there is nothing to prevent you from making a <i>wand of personal weapon augmentation</i> or some such, but since it would not be on any one else's spell list, and artificer's infusions never qualify as a spell list in this case, everyone would have to make a UMD check to use the wand. Basically, it appears to be a matter of how strict you are in interpretation. I feel that the rules coudl be read either way, and in fact seem vaguely contradictory. I'm torn as to whether or not to allow it myself. They do not seem particularly overpowered for spell completion or spell trigger items, but for regular magic items I think they would be a little too meta. In keeping with the metamagic rods, I think that would be a reasonable place for infuson items. If someone does find the specific wording of the rule, please, by all means, point it out to me. It's really bothering me.
Pinky's brain 03-06-06, 01:51 AM	OMG, you are right! The old arguements against why infusions can't be put in magic items apply just as much to minor schemas, there are no special rules to meet the prerequisites for them ... it just mentions "the spell contained in the item" so you have to use spell equivalency rules to create a minor schema with an infusion. Anyone who found the RAW arguements against the rules allowing spell trigger/completion items with infusions convincing, which I never did, can not allow schemas with infusions be made either without houseruling. Hahaha, this is classic :)
glug 03-06-06, 04:50 PM	I swear I read something interesting from you in this thread or another, but I am certain now that you are just a troll.
aelryinth 03-06-06, 07:52 PM	The counterpoint is where in the rules DOES it allow you to put infusions into Wands and Scrolls and the like? To my knowledge, it only allows you to put spells into them. Infusions are treated as spells for various purposes (you can extend them, Widen them, etc), but nowhere does it say you can use them to make magic items of infusions. You can't even UMD an infusion...it's not on the list of possible emulations. The only thing I've ever seen which allows storing infusions is Schema...and those are very particular, and require their own feat to do so, no? ==Aelryinth
Pinky's brain 03-06-06, 08:14 PM	To my knowledge, it only allows you to put spells into them. Infusions are treated as spells for various purposes (you can extend them, Widen them, etc), but nowhere does it say you can use them to make magic items of infusions. You can't even UMD an infusion...it's not on the list of possible emulations.Well there are plenty of reasonable RAW arguements against allowing wands/scrolls of infusions (I don't agree with them, but in semantics noone can ever truely be said to be right). The one you mentioned is usually only a very small part of the arguement against allowing wands/scrolls of infusions, even the ones who argue against it usually feel this is covered by the "all rules of spells" rule. The only thing I've ever seen which allows storing infusions is Schema...and those are very particular, and require their own feat to do so, no?True, but the problem comes with the prerequisites needed to make a minor schema. The feat mentions minor schemas of infusions, but as far as prerequisites are concerned only spells are mentioned ... and as such you have to rely on spell/infusion rule transparancy which a lot of people argue cannot be used for item creation. The biggest arguement against allowing infusions in scrolls/wands has been that infusions can't be used to meet prerequisites (which IMO is not quite the same as not allowing you to meet infusion prerequisites through UMD). That arguement is as true here as it is for wands/scrolls.
makerofrules 03-09-06, 01:46 PM	Well there are plenty of reasonable RAW arguements against allowing wands/scrolls of infusions (I don't agree with them, but in semantics noone can ever truely be said to be right). The one you mentioned is usually only a very small part of the arguement against allowing wands/scrolls of infusions, even the ones who argue against it usually feel this is covered by the "all rules of spells" rule. True, but the problem comes with the prerequisites needed to make a minor schema. The feat mentions minor schemas of infusions, but as far as prerequisites are concerned only spells are mentioned ... and as such you have to rely on spell/infusion rule transparancy which a lot of people argue cannot be used for item creation. The biggest arguement against allowing infusions in scrolls/wands has been that infusions can't be used to meet prerequisites (which IMO is not quite the same as not allowing you to meet infusion prerequisites through UMD). That arguement is as true here as it is for wands/scrolls. The way I see it if you can't use UMD checks to make itmes with infusions then you can't put infusions in Minor Schemas. The way I read it the way artifacers make items is with UMD checks not with the regular method that other magic using clases use. No UMD means no Schemas and that conflicts with the RAW. Now I intend to house rule infusions out of almost all items. The thought of an eternal wand of almost any of the infusions is anathema to me and it has no place in my game. But running strickly on RAW I can not find a rules based reason to block regular wands if they pay the x50 component costs. Eternal wands would bypas that so I intend to not allow eternal wands with any expensive component just like it states in Schemas. But that is a house rule not RAW.
DiamondShade0 03-10-06, 07:52 PM	The wizard gets fireball at 5th, but since its a prereq normally, it means the PrC can't be taken until the level after that. So they would meet the spell prereq at 5th level, and would then be free to take the first level of the PrC at lvl 6. Not realy, if by taking the 1st level of PrC you meet all the prerequesites then you can take it. So if the PrC gives +1 spell level and your a wizard lvl 4 who requires a spell level 3, you will gain that spell on your lvl1 of the PrC.
Pinky's brain 03-10-06, 08:25 PM	No. Prestige classes offer a new form of multiclassing. Unlike the basic classes, characters must meet Requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class. The rules for level advancement apply to this system, meaning the first step of advancement is always choosing a class. If a character does not meet the Requirements for a prestige class before that first step, that character cannot take the first level of that prestige class. Taking a prestige class does not incur the experience point penalties normally associated with multiclassing.
DiamondShade0 03-10-06, 11:29 PM	Oh, well its either the rules have changed in 3.5 or its writen lower in the rules. (Where is that quote from?)
thol 03-13-06, 04:11 PM	From Keith Baker: "Item creation feats cannot be applied to infusions, so no Wand of Weapon Augmentation for you. " It also states in the errata: "Like a spellcaster, an artificer can apply metamagic feats he knows to an infusion" which replaced the text in the book which stated "an artificer can apply item creation feats and metamagic feats he knows to an infusion". Very simple. You cannot create items from infusions.
Azazyll 03-13-06, 08:53 PM	I remember the hellcow saying it. The removal is of the word in the faq is a definite sign that they don't want you to, but in my opinion it is still not explicit. And while they are not spells, the RAW says they are treated exactly like spells excpet when it says otherwise. I think they should come down more definitively on it.
Edymnion 03-13-06, 09:54 PM	Oh, well its either the rules have changed in 3.5 or its writen lower in the rules. Nope, it was there in 3.0 as well. You must meet prereqs BEFORE you take the class, hence the reason they are called pre-requisits. That means things like BAB, skill ranks, spellcasting, everything that you can only get by having class levels has to be in place before you can take something that requires them. Abilities granted by a PrC cannot be used to meet the prereqs for the PrC, since you cannot gain them until you have already taken the level in the PrC. If it says you need a BAB +5 to take a PrC, the PrC has a +1 BAB at first level, and you have a +4 already, then you still can't take that level of the PrC in order to get that +5. Because until you actually take the level, you don't have that +5 BAB, so you can't take the PrC. It was always that way.
makerofrules 03-14-06, 02:30 AM	From Keith Baker: "Item creation feats cannot be applied to infusions, so no Wand of Weapon Augmentation for you. " It also states in the errata: "Like a spellcaster, an artificer can apply metamagic feats he knows to an infusion" which replaced the text in the book which stated "an artificer can apply item creation feats and metamagic feats he knows to an infusion". Very simple. You cannot create items from infusions. Then Minor schemias can not have infusions as etch Schemia is a item creation feat. Just a little conflict with other elements of RAW but I am ok with that.
glug 03-14-06, 09:57 AM	Then Minor schemias can not have infusions as etch Schemia is a item creation feat. Just a little conflict with other elements of RAW but I am ok with that. ..which is the one thing I'm certain I've read about.. I do believe they mention 'campaign ideas' where one might find schemas for new infusions to learn. The idea that you can learn infusions from schemas, but not create schemas with infusions, is a little odd.
makerofrules 03-15-06, 03:16 AM	In game terms I like the idea of not being able to make Schemia's with infusions. That goes with the idea that it is "lost" knowledge and makes them rare. If any artifacer who had the cash could make them then it would kind of spoil the uniqueness of them.
prototype00 03-15-06, 05:54 AM	Hey all, I posted this in the optimization board, but didn't really get a definitive reply. I'm hoping you guys can give me a hand. Alright, I must be a total retard because I'm reading all the sources and I'm still not getting it. Artificers, because they can't cast spells need to make UMD checks when creating items. Check. a)When making say a bottle of air, which requires Water Breathing (which is a 3rd level spell castable at 5th level) with CL 7, the example given in the ECS Why does the artificer have to get a DC 27 UMD and not a DC 25? Is it because he is emulating a water breathing spell cast at CL7 and thus has to make a 20 + 7 UMD? b.)What about things that have multiple spell requirements? Like say, the dedicated wright. This little guy requires the arcane eye spell (4th level spell) and fabricate (5th level spell). You only get one UMD check per day of construction to emulate a spell prerequisite for an item. So in this case, does he get to make a check for the arcane eye and the fabricate each day, one for each, so thats two UMD per day? Or does he have to make two successful checks, one at 27 (to emulate a 7th level wizard, minimum required for arcane eye) and one at 29 (ditto for fabricate, minimum CL is 9th) over the course of the 5 days he takes to make one of these (4200 base price, calculating from the 2100 creation price) and the last ditch attempt he makes on the last day for a total of 6 tries to make two UMD attempts one at 27 and one at 29? To muddy the issue further, the dedicated wright doesn't even have a CL attached to it, so is it the case that as long as you can emulate the spells involved, you're good to go? I apologize if this has been answered before, but I've read the artificer faq and scanned the boards and nothign came up. prototype00 Thanks!
pale_enchantress 03-25-06, 01:24 AM	Prototype i'm not a great rules lawer but I'm fairly positive the Artificier can make one UMD check per prerequisite emulated per day, not just one UMD check per day. As for the DC I think the artificier has to use the DC set by the caster level of a class that actually has the spell, she just is able to emulate the spell 2 levels before the class can normally cast it. I don't see how the dedicated wright would be any different then a normal magic item other then the normal difference between items and constructs which has little to do with spell prerequisites. I hope it helps
prototype00 03-25-06, 01:44 AM	Thanks for the reply, and yes it does help. I've come to two conclusions after seeing everyone's reply. 1.) You get one use magic device check per day per spell to emulate spells required for the item in question. 2.) You have to fulfill the caster level requirements -2 (because you're an artificer) but if there are no caster levels listed, you just have to be able to emulate the spells and possess the relevant feats. Thanks everyone! prototype00
Timlagor 03-25-06, 05:43 AM	As a DM I would require CL-2 based on the minimum caster level for the spells if none is listed for th item.
Elderich 03-25-06, 01:58 PM	The counterpoint is where in the rules DOES it allow you to put infusions into Wands and Scrolls and the like? <snip> Infusions are treated as spells for various purposesInfusions follow all the rules for spells. Infusions are treated as spells for ALL purposes, unless otherwise noted in the text. Therefore Infusions are subject to the item creation rules.
aelryinth 03-25-06, 10:11 PM	And what do spells have to do with Item Creation? Just because a spell exists doesn't mean it can be stuck into an item. And I believe, according to your own rules, that infusions have been specifically cited as not being allowed into magical items. A schema is the only item that allows infusions to be put into a magic item, and that's because it is a specific feat. ERgo, why the quote? ===Aelryinth
Elderich 03-27-06, 01:41 PM	And what do spells have to do with Item Creation? Just because a spell exists doesn't mean it can be stuck into an item.Actualy the item creation rules say the oppisite. ANy spell can be put into a wand or a staff. And, since an infusion is in all ways like a spell, an infusion can too!And I believe, according to your own rules, that infusions have been specifically cited as not being allowed into magical items.I think your conservitive faith has let you down. I don't have rules. If I did, they are irrelevant to this discussion, as are your rules. And remember, in response to pinky's well thought out post, YOU suggested there was NO Rule that said you CAN put infusions into items. Your thinking was correct. Not only does there need to be no rule against this topic (as pinky noted), but a rule that ALLOWS infusions in items is required to ALLOW them. I pointed out there is such a rule.
aelryinth 03-28-06, 02:06 AM	And I and other posters have pointed out that there IS a rule which says they cannot be...so exactly where are you coming from? And no, just because a spell exists does not mean it can be put into a magical item...at least, not in any form like the original spell! ==Aelryinth
makerofrules 03-28-06, 01:36 PM	And I and other posters have pointed out that there IS a rule which says they cannot be...so exactly where are you coming from? And no, just because a spell exists does not mean it can be put into a magical item...at least, not in any form like the original spell! ==Aelryinth I believe this is becoming tiresome for both sides. I believe this is a point that can not be reconciled. In my opinion I can find nothing in RAW that blocks infusions in items. The best the anti side could come up with is a statment from Keith Baker stating no item can have an infusion in it and that conflicts with the RAW on infusions being in Schemia. In your post you seam to say that you need a specfic ruling for each seprate spell to allow it, this would entail hundreds of separate rulings on each spell to make items. Yes in the if we go with the eratta for Ebberon they changed the wording to states that infusions follow the rules of spells but again they did not specficly state they can not be in items.
Timlagor 03-28-06, 02:10 PM	It is rather tedious and I'd stopped responding but you clearly haven't absorbed the argument against allowing wands of infusions or you would be aware of this: ECS page 31 (Artificer Class Description): "Infusions: ..... An artificer cannot automatically use a spell trigger or spell completion item if the equivalent spell appears on his infusion list. For example, an artificer must still employ the Use Magic Device skill to use a wand of light, even though light appears on his infusion list." Not completely definitive but you'd certainly expect them to have mentioned making a "wand of the infusion light" there if it were possible. It's also telling that the Errata specifically removed the text that said: "an artificer can apply item creation feats ... to his infusions" (leaving the reference to metamagic feats).
Elderich 03-28-06, 07:27 PM	I apologize for my tedious nature, but it IS all in the details... An artificer cannot automatically use a spell trigger or spell completion item if the equivalent spell appears on his infusion list. For example, an artificer must still employ the Use Magic Device skill to use a wand of light, even though light appears on his infusion list."The Point here is that an infusion followes all the rules for spells, but is NOT a spell. You cant swap an simular infusion(e.g. light) in for a spell (e.g. Light). It has nothing to do with allowing or not allowing the creation of items.Not completely definitive but you'd certainly expect them to have mentioned making a "wand of the infusion light" there if it were possible.The first time i didnt go to the ZOO i figgured out what i expect does not effect what happens. The fact that it is not here means nothingIt's also telling that the Errata specifically removed the text that said: "an artificer can apply item creation feats ... to his infusions" (leaving the reference to metamagic feats).While I see this line bantied about, as you note it says nothing about NOT allowing it. You are right it is "Not completely definitive", infact, it is entirly irrelavant. I see the line "an artificer can apply item creation feats ... to his infusions" removed in the errata because it is just silly. No caster can apply item creation feats to the things they cast. Creators of items require a source of the magic used in the creation of an item, but they arent "applied". The whole point is that you cant use an infusion in PLACE of a spell. For a class that is ALL ABOUT building things this is an important note. But still infusions follow ALL the rules for spells, and spells can go into magic items. Absent the RAW saying "you cant put an infusion in a magic item", you CAN. Now in rereading the whole thread I see that makerofrules and Azazyll have the topic firmly in hand. I dont post here much, so I must leave any further responses to them
makerofrules 03-29-06, 02:06 AM	I apologize for my tedious nature, but it IS all in the details... The Point here is that an infusion followes all the rules for spells, but is NOT a spell. You cant swap an simular infusion(e.g. light) in for a spell (e.g. Light). It has nothing to do with allowing or not allowing the creation of items.The first time i didnt go to the ZOO i figgured out what i expect does not effect what happens. The fact that it is not here means nothingWhile I see this line bantied about, as you note it says nothing about NOT allowing it. You are right it is "Not completely definitive", infact, it is entirly irrelavant. I see the line "an artificer can apply item creation feats ... to his infusions" removed in the errata because it is just silly. No caster can apply item creation feats to the things they cast. Creators of items require a source of the magic used in the creation of an item, but they arent "applied". The whole point is that you cant use an infusion in PLACE of a spell. For a class that is ALL ABOUT building things this is an important note. But still infusions follow ALL the rules for spells, and spells can go into magic items. Absent the RAW saying "you cant put an infusion in a magic item", you CAN. Now in rereading the whole thread I see that makerofrules and Azazyll have the topic firmly in hand. I dont post here much, so I must leave any further responses to them Finally someone gets it. I am looking for the SPECIFIC line in RAW that says you cannot put infusions in items. Personally I in my game I house rule infusions that I will not allow most of them in wands and such but that is house rule not RAW. Can anyone state the SPECIFIC line that blocks it? In RAW the usual rule of thumb is unless specifically forbidden it is allowed. MM1 page 136, Iron Golem, nothing in the description states it cannot swim. It is listed as having a weight of 5,000 pounds and a height of 12' but nothing stating it can or cannot swim. Logic states it cannot swim with the massive weight but on this point RAW is silent. Except the golden rule of if not forbidden then RAW allows it. Personally I rule that the Iron Golem and the Warforged sink like the stone (and metal) they are made of. But that is house rule not RAW. What I would really like to see is not an argument about is it allowed or not allowed but what infusions you would allow in what items under what conditions. Me, I don't allow any of the weapon enhancement or armor enhancement infusions as anything other than scrolls because I feel it breaks the flavor of the infusion. I will allow wands but usually not eternal wands of metamagic item but am torn as to whether to restrict it to one feat chosen at creation of the wand or allow any feat the user of the wand knows. What is your take on all this?
glug 03-30-06, 01:53 PM	As I'm relatively new, and a sparse poster... do The Powers that Be ever make their way around these forums, and provide "definitive" answers to rule debates like this? Or is this mainly for people to argue back and forth for giggles..
Ricohard_Draconis 03-30-06, 04:19 PM	yes, Hellcow, the creator of the setting hangs around, but he isn't all knowing
aelryinth 03-30-06, 04:22 PM	What it is consists of people trying to interpret the RAW as creatively as possible to get the results they want, and others applying common sense to the same thing to get at intent. One side nitpicks at the precision of the language for openings, the other looks, sees, and says "Ah, so that's how its supposed to be done." There was a great post on the ten rules of Rules on the Optimizer board about this. Very down to earth, and the best place to put it, since Optimizers are all about pushing the rules. This argument all boils down to what I have to call a peevish interpretation of 'treat infusions as spells'. The errata clearly states that you can't apply item creation feats to infusions. That's all the conservative side needs to know...clearly, the intent is that you can't use infusions to make magic items, an Artificer MUST emulate spells to do so. A specific feat, Create Schema, was made up to allow this rule to be broken. By willfully misinterpreting the intent of the statement by focusing on how 'apply' works, the ruling gets cited by the "RAW" crowd as contradictory and worthless, and off they go to do things that aren't intended. And then both sides get mad at one another, pointing fingers, and stating how each side is actually making up 'House Rules' and that THEIR version is the correct version. I've always been of the conservative side...I look at the intent as much as possible for stuff, but I'm also very willing to point out where intent and rules simply don't match (Eberrons' treatment of clerics and not casting gold for money is a point which Keith Baker eventually had to concede to me.) But I don't try to blur over fine points of language that much...the most heated I ever got was over the ring of sustenance and spell rejuvenation...that actually had to get errata'd because so few people could argue against the fact that one of the benefits of 8 hours of sleep was a full recharge of your memorizing capacity. I could see the intent...it wasn't supposed to work that way...but the broadness of that one statement certainly made it possible. Putting in the simple exclusion satisfied me...language and intent were very much at odds. I don't see the word 'apply' for infusions and Item Creation feats as having anywhere near the sort of vagueness without willful misinterpretation. Moreover, the inclusion of a feat that specifically allows for creation of infusion items is ample support of proof of intent here. Stay conservative, go for balance, and problems take care of themselves. Start going liberal, and that's where things start going wrong. ===Aelryinth
Pinky's brain 03-30-06, 06:34 PM	The errata clearly states that you can't apply item creation feats to infusions.No, the context of the errata implies they wanted to forbid it ... if you just take the errata and apply it to the text you still end up with something which states nothing of the sort. A specific feat, Create Schema, was made up to allow this rule to be broken.That might be their intention, but again the rules don't actual work out that way. By willfully misinterpreting the intent of the statement by focusing on how 'apply' works, the ruling gets cited by the "RAW" crowd as contradictory and worthless, and off they go to do things that aren't intended.You can be as conservative as you like, but this will not help you with minor schemas of infusions. You don't only have to be conservative, but also inconsistent. You have to allow for minor schemas the exact thing you don't allow for spell trigger/completion items, allowing the artificer to emulate infusions with UMD as if they are spells for item creation. You are too forgiving. It's up to the developers to write clear rules, not us to distill them from semi random gibberish. Writing rules in the way they did is way is simply deplorable, with infusions the intention might still shine through clear enough for most ... but it's only a very small step from this to stuff like polymorph and metamagic stacking (for which some people also claimed high and low that the intentions of the developers were clear ... until the new Sage was kind enough to show the complete fallacy of that assertion). Sweeping bad writing like this under the rug with calls for conservatism is counterproductive. Following idiotic RAW to idiotic conclusions and propogating those on these boards in the end has a better chance of making a change for the better. The percentage of DMs which read these boards is small, but the percentage of developers is high ...
aelryinth 03-30-06, 06:42 PM	See? Peevish nitpicking:) It goes around and around. Some people would rather demand perfection then use a little of their own common sense. I prefer to think people are doing their best, but whatever floats your canoe. FWIW, I did ask Andy for an official ruling on the Staff UMD trick...yet to get a reply. Hopefully Sage Advice will cough up something. ==Aelryinth
Pinky's brain 03-30-06, 07:19 PM	See? Peevish nitpicking:)Oh come on, what do you expect when you equate implying by omission to stating clearly? That is no way to make a cogent arguement ... now maybe you are right, and to expect that from you is peevish :p I ain't paying you for what you write though. I don't see what is wrong with asking for perfection. I prefer to think they did not do their best yet, it's a more charitable viewpoint. Would it not have been better in retrospect if they had stated their intentions clearly in the errata and especially the minor schema rules? It isn't clear now whether you have to roll a UMD check to create a minor schema of an infusion ... conservatism doesn't really help here.
Phillip0614 03-30-06, 10:00 PM	Has anybody thought of the possiblity of going High Elemental Binder with an Artificer? The two classes seem to go hand-in-hand to me, and since my Artificer will shortly be level 8, I'm getting rather close to being able to take my first level in HEB. What do you guys think?
makerofrules 03-31-06, 02:25 AM	Has anybody thought of the possiblity of going High Elemental Binder with an Artificer? The two classes seem to go hand-in-hand to me, and since my Artificer will shortly be level 8, I'm getting rather close to being able to take my first level in HEB. What do you guys think? Mabie I am a chicken but HEB kind of scares me as a DM. The things you can do with it if you do not watch the class closley can be dangerous. As a player I prefer going with pure artifacer but that is a personal thing. If plande out a HEB I believe could quite dangerous in the right hands
makerofrules 03-31-06, 02:27 AM	Oh come on, what do you expect when you equate implying by omission to stating clearly? That is no way to make a cogent arguement ... now maybe you are right, and to expect that from you is peevish :p I ain't paying you for what you write though. I don't see what is wrong with asking for perfection. I prefer to think they did not do their best yet, it's a more charitable viewpoint. Would it not have been better in retrospect if they had stated their intentions clearly in the errata and especially the minor schema rules? It isn't clear now whether you have to roll a UMD check to create a minor schema of an infusion ... conservatism doesn't really help here. Bakers response seemed to me to state that NO item creation feets can put infusions in to items. This means that you can not creat Schemia with infusions and as that conflicts with RAW I just blow it off.
Phillip0614 03-31-06, 08:46 AM	Mabie I am a chicken but HEB kind of scares me as a DM. The things you can do with it if you do not watch the class closley can be dangerous. As a player I prefer going with pure artifacer but that is a personal thing. If plande out a HEB I believe could quite dangerous in the right hands It seems to me that the entire point of the HEB prestige class is to be dangerous. I mean, granted, my next choice to that would be straight Artificer. But to me, the idea of binding an elemental to an item is really cool. I have read the small article that talked about how utterly rare 10th-or-higher PCs are, and the HEB PrC itself indicates just how rare that sort of talent is, but I think that's one of the things that makes me want to play it. I've talked about it with my DM, and he's said that he could always turn getting to the training academy for them a mission or two in and of itself after I get the Bind Elemental feat, assuming that's the one that I take. I'd like to get other input from other DMs or other players, though, if people would be willing to give me some input. I know just from reading the class that a HEB has the potential to be enormously powerful once they get to the end of the class, but do you guys think it's something that a DM should rightfully fear?
prototype00 03-31-06, 09:00 AM	Well, if you're a HEB, then you're probably a meleeficier as opposed to a blastificier. As Blastificier is where the most blatant abuse takes place, I see the HEB and really all meleeficiers as something DMs should be really comfortable with. Seriously, I'd be a lot more okay with an optimized HEB than with a highly optimized CWA. Meleeficier is really more exciting than blastificier, its like playing a cleric or a fighter/rogue or something like that. Playing a blastificier is just math. prototype00
prototype00 03-31-06, 09:04 AM	P.s. Is there an official word on the increasing caster level of the HEB give the artificer more infusions of higher levels? Or does it only apply to caster levels and such. It will be a major nerf for an artificer to take 10 level class that gives no craft reserve and no new infusions. prototype00
Pinky's brain 03-31-06, 10:16 AM	You get new infusions and infusions per day, but no craft reserve. The rules for artificers and +1 spellcasting classes are in MoE.
Elderich 03-31-06, 01:53 PM	Magic of Eberron, p109. A wonderous Item with an infusion requirement for it's creation. So infusions are shown in RAW to be requirements for Item creation, outside schemas.As Blastificier is where the most blatant abuse takes placeIf you examine the latest post in the optomized artificer thread it seems the reports of blastificer abilities are rather exaggerated.
mbfu3k 03-31-06, 02:37 PM	An artificer's infusions do not meet spell prerequisites for creating magic items.Note the bolded text. It's not that infusions can't be used to create magic items, just that they can't replace spells required to make a specific item, since they are not spells (even though they otherwise work the same). There's nothing stopping you from creating an item that has an infusion as a prerequisite instead of a spell, as evidenced by the Cannith Goggles referred to by Elderich. It's just that there are very (perhaps only that one) few items published so far that do so. This makes sense, because magic items do not, in fact, cast spells. They simply create magical effects that sometimes appear indistinguishable from casting a spell and, in other cases, might be indistinguishable from casting an infusion. It also happens that these items usually require the casting of a specific spell during the creation process of the item (which can't be satisfied by instead casting an infusion that is similar to the requisite spell) but it should be possible to create a novel item that happens to require an infusion during its creation process. Of course, it's important to keep in mind that you have to follow the normal rules for item creation. Just like you can't claim that putting true strike into a sword makes it +20 to attack for 2000gp, you can't use personal weapon augmentation to create a Bane sword for cheap. Instead, you have to use CMA&A to create it as per the normal description for Bane.
aelryinth 03-31-06, 02:40 PM	Magic of Eberron, p109. A wonderous Item with an infusion requirement for it's creation. So infusions are shown in RAW to be requirements for Item creation, outside schemas.If you examine the latest post in the optomized artificer thread it seems the reports of blastificer abilities are rather exaggerated. As if there aren't other blatant errors in books? Are you going to quote RAW the big half-elf error concerning elf and human dragonmarks as RAW now, too? No? Then we go back to the ECS and the official errata, where infusions can't be used for magic items. Stop waving the RAW grail because it doesn't work...and Keith actually has the right of it. Blastificer builds are very much overpowered if you allow metamagic infusions and spell triggers to stack with themselves (because the "RAW" don't say they don't, why, they must!). If not, then far fewer problems. ===Aelryinth
glug 03-31-06, 03:09 PM	I'd have to agree with mbfuk3? above. I was excited to look at the few artificer-specific items that were in MoE to craft, and I had assumed that wonderous items could be made with infusions based on those. At the same time, I also assumed that Schemas could be made with infusions, since there would be *no* reason to include schemas in the game if it were not so. A flavorful version of a scroll is not a bit enough reason to include a whole new feat and item type. I'm also not understanding the confusion with infusions replacing UMD rolls on item creation.. that makes sense.. a light spell and a light infusion are different things. However, think of infusions as a sort of magical engineering, and think of schemas as just that... schematics. It makes all the sense in the world that infusions should be used in the creation of schemas, and also that *everyone* attemtping to use one should make a UMD check to do so.
Phillip0614 03-31-06, 05:22 PM	Oh yes, my character is most definitely a melee-ficier. I've never been much for ranged combat in D&D, and my 'ficer does VERY well with his heavy mace. Not to mention that after the next session, we'll be losing our Warforged fighter, so my chara and possibly the cleric and rogue will have to try and fill his shoes. The sorceror sure as heck ain't..hehe.
makerofrules 04-01-06, 02:05 AM	As if there aren't other blatant errors in books? Are you going to quote RAW the big half-elf error concerning elf and human dragonmarks as RAW now, too? No? Then we go back to the ECS and the official errata, where infusions can't be used for magic items. Stop waving the RAW grail because it doesn't work...and Keith actually has the right of it. Blastificer builds are very much overpowered if you allow metamagic infusions and spell triggers to stack with themselves (because the "RAW" don't say they don't, why, they must!). If not, then far fewer problems. ===Aelryinth Where in the erratta does it say infusions cannot be in items. Below is the EXACT text from the erratta covering artifacers Page 31: Artificer—Infusions In the Infusions class feature, fourth paragraph, delete the last sentence (“Infusions never allow saving throws.”) and replace it with “The save DC is Intelligence-based.” In the Infusions class feature, the first sentence of the eighth paragraph should read as follows: Like a spellcaster, an artificer can apply metamagic feats he knows to his infusions. Also, add the following text: 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. Page 32: Artificer—Item Creation Magic items created by an artificer are considered neither arcane nor divine. Page 32: Artificer—Craft Homunculus The Craft Homunculus class feature uses the example of building the basic homunculus described in the Monster Manual. Although it’s not clearly stated, an artificer can use this ability to construct other types of homunculi (such as the ones found on pages 284–287 of the Eberron Campaign Setting). The same rules apply. Page 32: Artificer—Bonus Feats The artificer gets Craft Wand as a bonus feat at 6th level, not 7th level. Both the text and the table are incorrect. Page 32: Artificer—Metamagic Spell Trigger The artificer gets the metamagic spell trigger ability at 7th level, not 6th level. Both the text and the table are incorrect. Page 33: Gnome Artificer Starting Package The gnome artificer starting package’s feat choice should be Magic Aptitude, not Magic Affinity as indicated. .. Where does it say no infusions in items in the erratta?
Timlagor 04-01-06, 09:13 AM	The ECS says explicitly that Infusions can't satisfy spell requirements for items with the specific example that you can't make a wand of Light using the infusion.* The Errata removes the text about "applying item creation feats to infusions" (the paragraph 8 bit) Wands etc have a spell requirement for creation. That's pretty much the argument. It's not watertight but it is at least as strong as the argument in favour of wands of infusions. Personally I think it's extremely unlikely -to the point of absurdity- that they would put in the text about the wand of Light if they intended you to be able to make a a wand of the Light Infusion. I haven't managed to get my hands on MoE yet so I don't know about schemas. EDIT: this has nothing to do with Aelryinth's claims about Spell Trigger which I find frankly bizarre.
makerofrules 04-01-06, 02:41 PM	The ECS says explicitly that Infusions can't satisfy spell requirements for items with the specific example that you can't make a wand of Light using the infusion.* The Errata removes the text about "applying item creation feats to infusions" (the paragraph 8 bit) Wands etc have a spell requirement for creation. That's pretty much the argument. It's not watertight but it is at least as strong as the argument in favour of wands of infusions. Personally I think it's extremely unlikely -to the point of absurdity- that they would put in the text about the wand of Light if they intended you to be able to make a a wand of the Light Infusion. I haven't managed to get my hands on MoE yet so I don't know about schemas. EDIT: this has nothing to do with Aelryinth's claims about Spell Trigger which I find frankly bizarre. On the light issue I but as there would be no difference between a wand of light: spell and a wand of light:infusion I think that is a moot point. In MoE Schemias states in the text that they can have infusions in thsm but in the creation section state you need the feat and the spell to be placed i the schemia. That is the same wording that they have for wands. Now if they erratted it to say "spell or infusion" that would change things. They would also need to erratta wondrous itmes or remove several other magic itmes from MoE. I have a real issue with the artiface items are "neithor arcane nor divine" in the erratta. So you have to make UMD checks to use the scrolls but anyone with light on their spell list can use any wand of light regardless what class made it? I do not like that one. On a side note I have a wizard in my campaign wanting to do spell research to make infusions into spells. He wants to make them 1-2 levels higher than the original infusions to have the same effect as the infusion. Infusions are arcane in nature and in many sub classes the main class can duplicate the spell but at a higher level but I am afraid of what will happen if I let this go through.
Timlagor 04-01-06, 03:10 PM	Don't let him do that. It would be very bad.
Edymnion 04-01-06, 04:12 PM	What would happen is that, aside from the Craft Reserve, there would be no point in playing an Artificer anymore. Wizards can take the creation feats with their bonus feats, and if you give them infusions as spells, suddenly the *ONLY* thing the Artificer can do that the wizard can't is avoid spending his own xp while crafting. Well, that and being able to make divine stuff as well. No, do not make the Wizard any more powerful than it already is.
aelryinth 04-01-06, 06:36 PM	What would happen is that, aside from the Craft Reserve, there would be no point in playing an Artificer anymore. Wizards can take the creation feats with their bonus feats, and if you give them infusions as spells, suddenly the *ONLY* thing the Artificer can do that the wizard can't is avoid spending his own xp while crafting. Well, that and being able to make divine stuff as well. No, do not make the Wizard any more powerful than it already is. Technically, there's nothing that says you can't do this, but Edy has the right of it...it's more a balance issue then anything. Infusions are low level, but fairly powerful as long as you resist allowing them to stack. Making spells able to do the same thing would probably effectively wipe out the need for an artificer. That said, thematically there's nothing wrong with having a class that can cast Greater Magic Weapon being able to cast a spell that allows the same effects as Greater Weapon Augmentation, as long as the casting limits by level are obeyed. I see all sorts of Persistible abuse with this, tho. And what's so bizarre about the Spell Trigger ruling? People just resorted to Spell Trigger to get around the infusion ruling of 'one only'. I liken it to a Judge's Peacekeeper. "Explosive!" spend 4 charges, changes ammo to explosive. "Ricochet!" spend 3 charges, changes ammo to ricochet instead, overriding explosive. "Quicken!" computer thinks you are stupid, but blows 4 charges to make your ammo go really fast. "Armor-Piercing!" Computer slows down, blows 4 charges, and now your ammo is instead armor piercing. "Double-whammy!" Computer notes you only have one charge left after spending four, thinks you are an idiot, but makes the change. You fire and your double whammy goes off, not a quickened Armor-piercing ricocheting explosive double whammy. Throwing an infusion on it is analogous to throwing on a special barrel that grants one of the effects...you only get one barrel. Spell Trigger is about making an alteration to the ammo on the fly...but you only get one ammo type at a time. =\==Aelryinth
jlindemuth 04-03-06, 10:54 AM	On the same note as the previous discussions about being able to make infusions into magic items, I noticed that there are offcial potions of Oil of Light/Moderate Repair. Since Artificers are the only people with an infusion with this effect in Eberron it would be logical to assume that Artificers make these oils. Has there been any official word on how these oils are made? Are they made through Brew Potion with the Artificer using his infusion? Since it is a magic item based on an infusion only available to an Artificer does he have to do a UMD check to mimic his own infusion? I would like to know how these oils are made so I can make some for a warforged in our party. Since the Artificer is a relatively new class there are still things that need to be ironed out with it. Yelfis
MiscDebris 04-03-06, 01:16 PM	Artificers can make those because the repair spells are also wizard/sorceror spells.
Edymnion 04-03-06, 01:22 PM	Since Artificers are the only people with an infusion with this effect in Eberron it would be logical to assume that Artificers make these oils. Has there been any official word on how these oils are made?The Repair spells are on the arcane spell list. The artificer has to make a UMD check to emulate the spell and make a potion of it with the normal potion making rules. Just because he has the ability to use this as an infusion does not mean he can use it for prereqs, as the ECS specifically says that infusions do not meet item crafting prereqs. The example they used was Light, but the same thing applies to Repair X Damage. Doesn't matter that they can infuse that ability X number of times per day, they still have to fake it when making scrolls/potions of it.
jlindemuth 04-03-06, 01:47 PM	Thanks, that was what I was wondering.
prototype00 04-04-06, 09:54 AM	Just wondering, am I the only one here who thinks that elemental binding is an absolute b**ch to perform? I've just gone through the entire process in Magic of Eberron, and its not just a matter of having the Elemental binding feat. 1.) You need at least two casters 2.) You need to buy a Khyber shard 3.) One of the casters needs to be able to cast planar binding 4.) One of the casters needs to make a concentration check based on the hit dice of the elemental 5.) One of the casters needs to make a charisma check to convince the elemental to get stuck in the shard. Granted elementals probably don't have amazing charismas, but stat checks are always very chancy things. Why would anyone want to go through all that? Granted the items are nice. But it seems like quite a bit of trouble. (Probably only if the DM wants you to go through with it, otherwise he could just say, "Ok, you succeed." and leave it at that. But wheres the Roleplay there?) prototype00
Elderich 04-04-06, 03:06 PM	And what's so bizarre about the Spell Trigger ruling? People just resorted to Spell Trigger to get around the infusion ruling of 'one only'.Very bizzare. Again, this is what happens when you try to fix what is not broke.
aelryinth 04-04-06, 05:17 PM	Very bizzare. Again, this is what happens when you try to fix what is not broke. Which, of course, explains nothing. What a succinct argument. Must be indefensible if you can't defend it. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 04-04-06, 05:19 PM	Just wondering, am I the only one here who thinks that elemental binding is an absolute b**ch to perform? I've just gone through the entire process in Magic of Eberron, and its not just a matter of having the Elemental binding feat. 1.) You need at least two casters 2.) You need to buy a Khyber shard 3.) One of the casters needs to be able to cast planar binding 4.) One of the casters needs to make a concentration check based on the hit dice of the elemental 5.) One of the casters needs to make a charisma check to convince the elemental to get stuck in the shard. Granted elementals probably don't have amazing charismas, but stat checks are always very chancy things. Why would anyone want to go through all that? Granted the items are nice. But it seems like quite a bit of trouble. (Probably only if the DM wants you to go through with it, otherwise he could just say, "Ok, you succeed." and leave it at that. But wheres the Roleplay there?) prototype00 Don't forget you need the proper feat. The magitech thread on the General board was ignoring all these requirements, thinking to bind elementals everywhere. Just not efficient. ===Aelryinth
prototype00 04-05-06, 09:48 PM	Binding elementals sounds like one of the most troublesome things to do really. Hey Aelryinth, I wanted to ask you a question, where do you get that metamagics only affect the base spell? It says in sage advice and in the PhB that multiple metamagic effects stack, so I'm just wondering. Heres the example I posted in the metamagic stacking board. From the 3.5 main faq updated Feb pg 22. If my wizard applies Energy Admixture (Complete Arcane, page 78) and Maximize Spell to the same spell, does he get a spell that deals double its maximized damage (maximum normal damage in two different energy types)? If he also applied the Twin Spell feat (Complete Arcane page 84) to the same spell would it duplicate the entire effect? Heres the answer: Yes and yes. Assuming your character can cast 13th level spells - the slot required by a 2nd level spell affected by these metamagic feats, a scorching ray so affected would create two sets of three rays each, wih each ray dealing 24 points of fire damage (4d6, maximized) and 24 points of a second energy type (as appropriate for your Energy Subsitution feat), for a grand total of 288 points of damage... assuming all six rays hit their target. prototype00
aelryinth 04-05-06, 11:43 PM	You are opening another can o' worms argument by asking :) Andy posted that ruling because he didn't have much choice in the matter. I was going by precedent. Look in the Core Rules, there's only two damage dealing feats...Empower and Maximize. Note that these feats specifically do not stack with one another. Now, introduce a whole load of new feats. Don't follow precedent, because there's too many feats to list...and effectively it's an open-ended list, how could you list them all? Guess what? Because you didn't say they don't stack, they do...even though precedent in the Core Rules for damage says otherwise. Also note that because they DO stack, you are now in violation of the 'double doubling = a triple' Precedent, because Twin and Admixture stacking means you get a Double Double = Quadruple, with Repeat/Split making this an Octuple and then a Sextenuple. So, his ruling is Completely Correct. Because the feats don't say they don't stack, they do. And the feats break two precedents if you follow that ruling. This isn't a fault of Andy...he's following the rules. The feats are just breaking the rules as they stand, and when you can use Cheese to pay for the metamagic costs, or ignore them entirely like an Artificer can, it breaks them six ways to Sunday. And if you check the dates on those original posts, it was before his ruling, and I got very little conflict with DM's regarding my viewpoint, simply because of the Empower/Maximize precedent, and a liberal dose of common sense. Andy's Ruling is 'Rules as Written'...for those feats. My ruling was 'Precedent as Written'. I happen to think mine is the 'real' ruling, because of Core Precedent, and Andy has to adhere to what the published feats say. Bad feat design, but a good 'Rules' call on his part. I personally think a Conservative DM will go with Precedent, but whatever floats your Kazoo! (I actually specifically called him out on his own boards for this ruling, he explained his decision, and that's that.) ===Aelryinth
prototype00 04-06-06, 01:59 AM	Ah, now I understand the ins and outs of it. That does make more sense. Andy has a board? prototype00
aelryinth 04-07-06, 04:37 AM	Andy Collins is at http://www.andycollins.net he hasn't updated it yet, but he still lurks on his board. It used to be a lot more active then it is now...new duties, I guess. ==Aelryinth
Elderich 04-10-06, 11:18 AM	Must be indefensible if you can't defend it.Defend what? You said...People just resorted to Spell Trigger to get around the infusion ruling of 'one only'.Which NEVER HAPPENED. There is no such ruling. And you presume they switched, which they didn't. You imply everyone was cheating, when your the one who refuses to understand the rules.Andy posted that ruling because he didn't have much choice in the matter. I was going by precedent.Andy didn't have a choice, BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROBLEM, and the other thing, THAT IS WHAT THE RULES SAY. Are you suggesting the actual GAME DESIGNER could not get it right, BUT YOU DID? Wow that is neat. Tell me, where can I buy the game books YOU WROTE? Cause I just don't trust that Andy guy any more, now that you pointed this out.Look in the Core Rules, there's only two damage dealing feats...Empower and Maximize. Note that these feats specifically do not stack with one another.Simply False, again. Can anyone else point out the 5 other damage enhancing feats? Any you find have any metamagic interaction rules? No? Why is that? As A is very well aware, the only reason Maximize (only) has a special rule, is because it eliminates variable dice, something Empower requires. So they went out of the way to find a way to stack them, following exactly what Andy later clarified to be the intent.Also note that because they DO stack, you are now in violation of the 'double doubling = a triple' Precedent, because Twin and Admixture stacking means you get a Double Double = Quadruple, with Repeat/Split making this an Octuple and then a Sextenuple.Again this is so wrong that I get taint point for quoting it. Working backwards... You CANNOT stack repeat and split. I have said it before A, and I will say it again, READ THE RULES! Admixture (Hey, is this one of the missing "damage" feats?) requires you get energy sub first, and you can only admix the type of energy you selected when you chose EnSub. Hardly game breaking. Twin does not double damage. It casts the spell again. It is a whole another attack, subject to the same energy resistance the first spell was. Hey now we are down to A's misunderstanding of 'double doubling = a triple'. Again A missed that this rule only applies when you have a damage multiplier, like when you crit with a weapon. Since Twin/split/repeat do not actually DO that, you cannot use that rule. In fact NO MM feat does that. They increase damage, not multiply it.I got very little conflict with DM's regarding my viewpointReally? I remember it a little differently.I actually specifically called him out on his own boards for this ruling, he explained his decision, and that's that.Looking at THIS (http://www.andycollins.net/Projects/List%20of%20Credits.htm) it is a good thing we got A watching that shifty Andy guy.
drizztthepanther 04-10-06, 04:01 PM	I want to know in Weapon Augmentation,Personal it says that you can have any ability up to 10,000 gp right? Well,can I create a UMD boosting item with this? (for a limited time anyway) Probably stupid but it was the first thing that occured to me when I saw the inf. descrpition.
mbfu3k 04-10-06, 05:10 PM	I want to know in Weapon Augmentation,Personal it says that you can have any ability up to 10,000 gp right? Well,can I create a UMD boosting item with this? (for a limited time anyway) Probably stupid but it was the first thing that occured to me when I saw the inf. descrpition. Skill boosts are usually found on Wondrous Items. While there's no explicit prohibition against putting a skill boost into a weapon in general, consider the following from the infusion description: "The weapon you touch temporarily gains a special ability commonly found on magic weapons." Now, granted, the next sentence of the infusion description does say "any special ability" and the first sentence could be construed as flavor, but I'm pretty sure the intent was only to allow published weapon abilities. Also consider that allowing such an ability would make another first level infusion, Skill Enhancement, completely moot, and I think it's pretty obvious that skill enhancing weapon abilities are over powered with this infusion.
aelryinth 04-10-06, 11:27 PM	Defend what? You said...Which NEVER HAPPENED. There is no such ruling. And you presume they switched, which they didn't. You imply everyone was cheating, when your the one who refuses to understand the rules.Andy didn't have a choice, BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROBLEM, and the other thing, THAT IS WHAT THE RULES SAY. Are you suggesting the actual GAME DESIGNER could not get it right, BUT YOU DID? Wow that is neat. Tell me, where can I buy the game books YOU WROTE? Cause I just don't trust that Andy guy any more, now that you pointed this out.Simply False, again. Can anyone else point out the 5 other damage enhancing feats? Any you find have any metamagic interaction rules? No? Why is that? As A is very well aware, the only reason Maximize (only) has a special rule, is because it eliminates variable dice, something Empower requires. So they went out of the way to find a way to stack them, following exactly what Andy later clarified to be the intent.Again this is so wrong that I get taint point for quoting it. Working backwards... You CANNOT stack repeat and split. I have said it before A, and I will say it again, READ THE RULES! Admixture (Hey, is this one of the missing "damage" feats?) requires you get energy sub first, and you can only admix the type of energy you selected when you chose EnSub. Hardly game breaking. Twin does not double damage. It casts the spell again. It is a whole another attack, subject to the same energy resistance the first spell was. Hey now we are down to A's misunderstanding of 'double doubling = a triple'. Again A missed that this rule only applies when you have a damage multiplier, like when you crit with a weapon. Since Twin/split/repeat do not actually DO that, you cannot use that rule. In fact NO MM feat does that. They increase damage, not multiply it.Really? I remember it a little differently.Looking at THIS (http://www.andycollins.net/Projects/List%20of%20Credits.htm) it is a good thing we got A watching that shifty Andy guy. And see Elderich, you swamp all your arguments in a swarm of personal attacks with no logic behind them. If the logic doesn't agree with you, its automatically non-sensical. That stuff above reads like a case of hysteria, I'm sure you would agree...and it's all directed at me. Aren't you such the nicest person? First of all, Maximize and Empower don't stack. They add. The 'lack of variability' is just an excuse,. it's not what I would call a justifiable reason. In the SRD, there are no other spells that affect damage. Area of effect, range, saves, etc. Not damage. Doubling rules affect everything from bonuses to hit, speed afoot, attacks per round, and several other examples throughtout the history of 3E...it's not simply a damage calculation, and specifically it isn't limited to critical hits on damage! Twin, Repeat and Split can all be stacked. See the Artificer thread. Does it matter that there are new saves, new targets, old targets, etc? No, statistically it makes absolutely no difference. When applied to a damage dealing spell, they double the damage it does. Andy COllins makes mistakes, too...are you now saying Game Designers are infallible? Interesting notion. The Optimizer Boards would rather vociferously disagree with you. I also note the prior Sage was also a 3E Game Designer, Skip Williams, and his opinions were also frequently questioned, dismissed, and even over-ridden by later rulings. Was I a little over the top on my initial post? Sure. It got his attention, which was the key thing. Unlike in the Sage Advice where he simply posted a ruling, he explained the reasons behind it, which I summed up above. And which even he agreed didn't solve the underlying imbalance of spells and metamagic feats. In short, Elderich, you need to learn how to get a level head, instead of harping on personal attacks again and again. You are getting old. ======== The Metamagic Spell Trigger workaround for the 'limitation' of one Metamagic Item Infusion (Also not 'official', and yet widely accepted) is simply being noted for what it is...another method of breaking the balance of a class, and so the unstated limitation is again being widely accepted (conservative "It can be used once a round" vs liberal "there's nothing that says it can't be used multiple times a round, so it can be!"). ===Aelryinth
Frobi-Wan Kenobi 04-11-06, 01:20 AM	I want to know in Weapon Augmentation,Personal it says that you can have any ability up to 10,000 gp right? Well,can I create a UMD boosting item with this? (for a limited time anyway) Probably stupid but it was the first thing that occured to me when I saw the inf. descrpition. Try Skill Enhancement - same level Infusion designed just fro what you want. You should see the Diplomacy Monkey's Face when my 10th level Artificer pops that out, "There you go have a nice hat that gives you +7 to Diplomacy rolls for the next 100 minutes." So a scarf that gives a bonus to UMD is what you are looking for. EDIT - Could someone throw me a bone on what RAW is?
aelryinth 04-11-06, 03:14 AM	RAW = Rules As Written. It's a term used increasingly by people who like to either 'break' the rules or argue over minscule points in the language to further their agendas, instead of applying common sense and looking at the intent of the rules. ==Aelryinth
prototype00 04-11-06, 04:11 AM	Well, he's right, but in the strictest sense, its just the rules as they are set down on the page, and not just powergamers use it, in a way its just the strictest interpretation of the tools we get to play the game. So please don't go about thinking that everyone who invokes RAW is out to make life difficult for our DMs, some of us just want to know what to do. prototype00
ORC_Tuhteth 04-12-06, 02:09 PM	Okay, I hate having to remove posts so long and detailed because I know they represent a lot of effort on your part -- but things were just getting a little too heated. Let's do ourselves a favor and let the subject sit for a bit, maybe a 24-hour cooling-off period, then come back and make your points without making inferences about one another's motives. Just address the logic and evidence, nothing more, and try to remember that we're all friends here even when we disagree. :)
glug 04-13-06, 04:16 PM	Yummy. Must have missed the tail end of that action. I was just working my way slowly through the enormouse 'ask keith baker' consolidated thread, and as I know we've all discussed these points a bit in this thread, here's one that caught my eye. The interesting thing is that these were questions/answers he wouldn't give at first, and then went back to the other developers on.. Having had more discussions with the development team, here are a few answers to a few common artificer questions: 1. When an artificer makes a magic item such as a scroll, it is considered to be arcane or divine based on the spells involved; if it could go either way, the artificer decides. It is up to the DM to decide if an arcane scroll created in this way can be copied by a wizard; if a DM wants to deny this to restrict access to spells, that's his privilege. 2. "Infusions never allow saving throws" is in error. Infusion saving throw DCs should be based on Intelligence. 3. Item creation feats cannot be applied to infusions, so no wand of weapon augmentation for you. 4. The craft reserve cannot be used to pay the cost of spell storing item. 5. Craft Homunculus will allow you to create any type of homunculus, including those in the Eberron book. According to this, it seems the intent is not to be able to make items of infusions (although I'll keep looking, eventually, through these millions of posts, for more information specific to schematics).
aelryinth 04-14-06, 01:57 AM	Yummy. Must have missed the tail end of that action. I was just working my way slowly through the enormouse 'ask keith baker' consolidated thread, and as I know we've all discussed these points a bit in this thread, here's one that caught my eye. The interesting thing is that these were questions/answers he wouldn't give at first, and then went back to the other developers on.. According to this, it seems the intent is not to be able to make items of infusions (although I'll keep looking, eventually, through these millions of posts, for more information specific to schematics). I b elieve its been errata'd that scrolls created by Artificers are neither Arcane nor divine, and need UMD to use...otherwise you get a situation where one Artificer could supply any wizard with *every* possible spell. ===Aelryinth
Kingside_Bishop 04-15-06, 08:44 PM	I have a question on the Artificer. I'm not very familiar with Eberron, and allowed the Artificer class in my campaign at someone's request. The players are 6th level, and I was wondering: If an Artificer starts at a level other than 1st, does he get some percentage of his Craft Reserve from previous levels to craft items with? Thanks!
Quenditar 04-15-06, 09:11 PM	As far as I know, this is entirely up to DM judgment. Since the whole class revolves around item crafting, I'd give them a sizeable percentage (40-80%) as long as they spend it on stuff they could have made at those levels.
Edymnion 04-15-06, 09:12 PM	If an Artificer starts at a level other than 1st, does he get some percentage of his Craft Reserve from previous levels to craft items with?No. The first several levels he is incapable of making anything permanet (just scrolls and potions), and its assumed he actually, you know, USED THEM at low levels. Everything else doesn't really matter, because your character wealth is what matters, and even making your own, it still counts against your character wealth normally. So it doesn't matter if he bought his magic cloak, stole it, or made it, it still takes up the same amount of his character wealth, it would just have cost less loose gold to make it himself. Crafting your own stuff is not a cheat to get around the character wealth guidelines, you don't get twice as much stuff just because it is half as cheap to get.
Zaphiel 04-16-06, 01:23 PM	If you still want to use the craft reserve, you can house-rule that a player can make items equal to the difference in character wealth between levels (but only for permanent items), as long as that PC has the appropiate feats and skills at that level, and passes all of the checks involved. However, to balance it, the player also has to understand that any failed attempts to create anything still count towards the character wealth (so, worst case your artificer looks like a half-naked begger if you're really unlucky). It takes a lot longer to create than most other characters (since the DM has to be present for all rolls and checks to prevent cheating), but it's an effective way to allow Artificers to use what they would've gotten had they played out rather than start at a higher level.
sir_dwar 04-16-06, 02:56 PM	These levels grant them better ablity to infuse themselves, the ability to repair constructs, weapons, armor, and sheilds when infused, DOUBLES how far the craft reserve goes when making magic arms and armor, and trades the homucolus for a cooler weapon familiar... All that you lose for this (besides the before mentioned Homuncolus) is your retain essence feature... Its found in Races of Ebberon, just so the creator puts it in mention of the warforged race entry... Not sure if this has been pointed out. Also, warforged allow for AWESOME Star Wars/Futuristic-type builds (At level 7, Super Battle Droid)(Combine this guy w/ a warforged charger, and you can make a tank (as in litteral tank).
Edymnion 04-16-06, 03:00 PM	All that you lose for this (besides the before mentioned Homuncolus) is your retain essence feature.Which, for me, makes it absolutely useless. Although, I generally find racial substitution levels to be iffy at best, and downright munchkin powergaming at their worst.
sir_dwar 04-16-06, 03:12 PM	Which, for me, makes it absolutely useless. Although, I generally find racial substitution levels to be iffy at best, and downright munchkin powergaming at their worst. Well, think about it... you don't have too take the fifith or fourth level one thus losing no cpabilities and gaining te infsing ability i mentioned early... You may also get a HD increase, i'm not sure... Nope....
sir_dwar 04-16-06, 03:14 PM	Also, the purpose of racial sub levels is to give a class a racial flavor, and make odd combonations (Warforged paladin, Dwarf Sorceror, Half-Elf Fighter, and Elf Paladin) less, well, problematic.
Tem_probe 04-17-06, 01:22 AM	Which, for me, makes it absolutely useless. Well, I disagree. Sure, retain essence is very nice, but it all depends on the optic of your character. My warforged artificer levels are his secondary class(he's primarily a fighting type), which I use primarily to enchant my weapon and armor, as well as keep me repaired. So losing retain essence hurts me now, especially since I no longer have craft reserve and won't gain further levels as artificer(only gaining casting level through prestige class if at all), so I have to spend my own xp... on the other hand, I only spend half as much of it, so its still worth it. Wealth isn't an issue for this character, only xp is, so its arguable whether or not retain essence is more valuable than Tools of War or the other way arround, but I still like the concept, and it works, so I took it.
Elderich 04-20-06, 05:12 PM	Well I just got back to have a look at the thread. If I bothered anyone with any of the prior posts I apologize. I would like to thank WizO_the_Hutt for not removing the posts. While none of my posts were personal attacks, the use of capitals, while often considered yelling, was to highlight the repeated points in a rather long, and complicated post, and were not intended to carry the traditional meaning. My only intent was to once again highlight aelryinth's continued advococy of house rule nerfs not supported by the rules, the game designers, or actual game playing experience.
aelryinth 04-20-06, 10:23 PM	And mine is, of course, to encourage conservative and consistent interpretations of the rules, instead of liberal house rules leading to abuse of the classes and/or feats or skills in question, as Elderich advocates. See how easy it is to turn negative wording back on the poster? Do you really want to start another string of arguments? The entire premise of your post is "I was posting just to tell you all that Aelryinth is wrong." Just a prelude to another flame war. ===Aelryinth
jameswilliamogle 04-23-06, 11:05 PM	This is such an awesome guide; I wish the other ones were as comprehensive. There's a few things I was curious about the manufacture of Homonculi: can you have one dedicated wright manufacture another? Does one pay the whole cost listed? It says the body costs like 100 gp, but then gives cost as 2100 gp. Do I have to pay 100 gp, succeed on a DC 16 (or whatever it is) craft check, then pay 2000 / 25 in xp, and thats it, or do i pay 2000 / 25 in xp and 2000 in gp? The way the Wright's Su ability is worded, it seems like you have to make the homonculi yourself since you might not have the craft construct feat yet...
aelryinth 04-25-06, 10:58 PM	This is such an awesome guide; I wish the other ones were as comprehensive. There's a few things I was curious about the manufacture of Homonculi: can you have one dedicated wright manufacture another? Does one pay the whole cost listed? It says the body costs like 100 gp, but then gives cost as 2100 gp. Do I have to pay 100 gp, succeed on a DC 16 (or whatever it is) craft check, then pay 2000 / 25 in xp, and thats it, or do i pay 2000 / 25 in xp and 2000 in gp? The way the Wright's Su ability is worded, it seems like you have to make the homonculi yourself since you might not have the craft construct feat yet... Q here, fella...when you make a sword, how much does it cost? Well, it costs the amount of the magic + the amount of the sword. You only pay xp for the magic part, tho. If you make a homunculi, what does it cost? The amount of the body, + the amount of the magic. You only pay xp for the part of the magic, however. ==Aelryinth
jameswilliamogle 05-04-06, 09:08 AM	Q here, fella...when you make a sword, how much does it cost? Well, it costs the amount of the magic + the amount of the sword. You only pay xp for the magic part, tho. If you make a homunculi, what does it cost? The amount of the body, + the amount of the magic. You only pay xp for the part of the magic, however. ==AelryinthI see, thanks! The magic part is 2000 gp; I couldn't reduce this cost w/ any of the artisan feats since it isn't technically item creation, just a Su class ability (but if I happened to have the Craft Construct feat, I could).
glug 05-05-06, 12:31 PM	Hey while we're posting in purgatory, how about getting a flame war started up again. Just a thought.
Elderich 05-05-06, 05:00 PM	Where were you when others were complaining?
aelryinth 05-05-06, 05:12 PM	I disagree with Elderich. Glug was everywhere! um...;) ===Aelryinth
Dlgood 05-10-06, 06:40 PM	I checked and maybe I missed it, but if no one else has said so... Rapid Reload is a bad feat for an artificer to take. Bracers of Archery cost just 5,000 GP -- so that's a very cheap way of getting proficiency with a bow. Cheaper than the feat, and superior to using a crossbow.
Edymnion 05-16-06, 11:34 PM	Don't worry, any smacking de wizo will carry over to the new boards.
WizO_Autumn 05-17-06, 09:51 AM	Attacking each other is trolling, harrassment and off topic, all of which are against the code of conduct. Keep it about the topic, not each other.
Elderich 05-23-06, 01:51 PM	Havent seen this IDEA, so I put it forward for your review. 2 levels of chameleon. Why? Floating bonus feat you get a second level. Now you dont need to spend bonus/character feats on creation feats you do not recive. Dont take craft construct/schema/rod/portal/whatever... but still get it when you need it. What is the cost? You lose the L20 artificer bonus feat. Must be human, dopplerganger, or perhaps chamelion. Must take able learner feat. Must buy about 20 skill points you would not normaly buy. Anything else? I think a artificer/chameleon would make the ultimate crafter. Your thoughts?
aelryinth 05-24-06, 09:08 PM	For an artificer? Superfluous...they get all the item creation feats for free anyways. All you've done is remove infusion ability from them. However, I believe a Warlock 11+/Chameleon 2 has been put forwards as a viable alternative to an Artificer if all you want is the item creation feats, since Warlocks are treated as if they always have the required spells when making magic items. You'd lose one die of your Eldritch Blast and an invocation or two... For a straight caster, giving up the two caster levels is most likely not worth it. It might dovetail with a partial caster class, like a ranger or paladin, where the two level dip wouldn't hit too hard. Also note, the Chameleon is restricted to humans and changelings, so it's also not viable if you want any race other then those. ===Aelryinth
Elderich 05-25-06, 07:34 PM	For an artificer? Superfluous...they get all the item creation feats for free anyways. All you've done is remove infusion ability from them.Actualy there are many item creation feats you do not recive for free. Can you name them?
Frobi-Wan Kenobi 05-26-06, 09:12 AM	I would agree that there are some very important ICFs that Artificers do not get for free - the Artisan set of feats, Wand Mastery, Etch Schema, Bind Elemental and that's only touching a couple books.
Elderich 05-26-06, 11:25 AM	I would agree that there are some very important ICFs that Artificers do not get for free - the Artisan set of feats, Wand Mastery, Etch Schema, Bind Elemental and that's only touching a couple books. I am pretty sure the Artisan set of feats and Wand Mastery are not creation feats, but perhaps they are for putting the chameleon slot when not making stuff. Well except for the Artisan feats, which you want when building. So just going by this very short list Etch Schema, Bind Elemental, and i will ad one, craft construct. So three feats you free up. Is it worth it? Of course there are many more creation feats you do not have. Do you think it would be a big deal to modify chameleon to include an "artificer focus" in Eberron?
Frobi-Wan Kenobi 05-26-06, 12:02 PM	Well, page 49 of the ECS lists them (along with Attune Magic Weapon and Extra Rings) as ICFs. The entry for Wand Mastery on page 62 says that it is a General feat and while the entry should contradict the table I believe that a feat that requires an Item Creation feat to take counts as one itself. And it's basically it's Attune Magic Weapon for Wands. Craft Construct is a great example.
gelalshawr 05-26-06, 12:07 PM	I will not include Drow because Drow are not acceptable as PCs in Eberron. Period. This is my first time in this thread because I've never considered playing an artificer, but after reading the entire thread I cannot understand why no-one brought this particular comment up. My thanks to Edy on this wonderful guide it's quite impressive, but I find your nigh-racist comment that Drow are not an acceptable player race in Eberron to be narrow minded at best. There is no RAW or even suggested hint that Drow are not acceptable in an Eberron campaign, and I'm not bothering to quote RoE here because all I need is ECS. Now it is perfectly acceptable for you to disallow Drow in your games, but in creating a guide that is supposed to aid others and choosing to omit the race merely because you feel they are "not acceptable" is counter-productive.
Elderich 05-26-06, 01:05 PM	I find your nigh-racist comment that Drow are not an acceptable player race in Eberron to be narrow minded at best.Hold it right there. "Racism", meaning the irrational color bias and prejudice, is a very offensive claim to make with out a preponderance of the evidence to support your claim. This very well should earn you a "WizO" warning. If you mean that you cannot understand Edymnion's preference, or lack of, for a particular game mechanic, then start another thread and discuss it there.
Elderich 05-26-06, 03:36 PM	Well, page 49 of the ECS lists them (along with Attune Magic Weapon and Extra Rings) as ICFs. The entry for Wand Mastery on page 62 says that it is a General feat and while the entry should contradict the table I believe that a feat that requires an Item Creation feat to take counts as one itself. And it's basically it's Attune Magic Weapon for Wands. Craft Construct is a great example.Now you have a point. I was thinking specificaly of Item creation feats that allow you to create items, and only sellecting them when you need them for the days you are creating. But it would work well on the "not creating" days to select something to give you a little Umph. And if you were going epic it might be very handy? Wand mastery seems TO ME to be a non starter. You cant get it before 9th, and at 12 you get staves, so will prolly never need to touch a wand again. You probably do not want Cham before Art12, as it slows you down and does not give you much.
gelalshawr 05-26-06, 05:31 PM	Hold it right there. "Racism", meaning the irrational color bias and prejudice, is a very offensive claim to make with out a preponderance of the evidence to support your claim. This very well should earn you a "WizO" warning. If you mean that you cannot understand Edymnion's preference, or lack of, for a particular game mechanic, then start another thread and discuss it there. Well I actually find Edy's prejudice quite irrational, so I fail to understand your complaint, and I don't really believe I need to understand his preference, his desire to disregard a race is his own decision to make, I simply dislike his blanket statement that Drow are unacceptable as a player race.
aelryinth 05-26-06, 05:42 PM	The Chameleon's 'unlimited' floating feat is only as unlimited as the DM allows. Especially in Eberron, this is going to run into problems with 'secret' or 'racial' feats. Bind Elemental might be one of these feats. Likewise, their unlimited ability to get spells via the 'Extra Spell' feat has to be correctly interpreted with an eye towards balance. Just getting into the Chameleon will prove to be something of a Chore for the Artificer, because of the skill rank reqs. It probably requires losing another character level to a class with Bluff and disguise on its list, it definitely requires Able Learner. You've now blown at least one character level, one feat, and what, 20 skill points on non-Artifice needed skills, JUST to get to the two levels of Chameleon you want. So, overall, you've cost yourself 3 levels of Artificer for the privilige of picking up, what, Craft Ring, Craft Homonculous, and Craft Construct, in a reasonable campaign? You've also lost 3 levels of your Craft Reserve, infusions, casting level and so forth. Is it really WORTH what you've given up? it MIGHT be a viable strategy...if you really, really want to be able to craft everything, and are able to do so. Also, Epic Item creation requires you having the non-Epic Version of the feats, and the Chameleon floating feat can't be used as a pre-req for another feat or class. You can't get the simplest one, Wondrous Items, until level 23, and your cost of 3 character levels means you get Epic Bonus feats later and later. ===Aelryinth
Elderich 05-26-06, 09:10 PM	Just getting into the Chameleon will prove to be something of a Chore for the Artificer, because of the skill rank reqs. It probably requires losing another character level to a class with Bluff and disguise on its list, it definitely requires Able Learner.With able learner, why would you need another class to get Bluff and disguise??????You've now blown at least one character level, one feat, and what, 20 skill points on non-Artifice needed skills, JUST to get to the two levels of Chameleon you want.Get your own question. This is the same one I was asking.So, overall, you've cost yourself 3 levels of Artificer for the privilige of picking up, what, Craft Ring, Craft Homonculous, and Craft Construct, in a reasonable campaign?You are so silly! You get Craft Ring and Homonculous for free! Why would you pick the ones you get for free with the floating feat? Are you sure you know how Artificer and Chameleon works?You've also lost 3 levels of your Craft Reserve, infusions, casting level and so forth. Is it really WORTH what you've given up? Again, go get your own question. Oh, and it is 2 levels and a bonus feat, you did actualy READ my post, right?Also, Epic Item creation requires you having the non-Epic Version of the feats, and the Chameleon floating feat can't be used as a pre-req for another feat or class.You don't have a fever do you? An Artificer gets most all the "epic"able creation feats for free. One uses the Cham feat to get epic versions of the feats one has been given, and avoids actually taking most epic creation feats. While a 2 level delay in epic feats may seem painfull, not having to take... 1 Scribe Epic Scroll 2 Craft Epic Wondrous Item 3 Craft Epic Magic Arms and Armor 4 Craft Epic Staff 5 Craft Construct 5 Scribe Schema 6 Craft Rod 7 Craft Scepture 8 I'll leave this for you to fill in the rest Aelryinth, as you have dodged the "can you name them?" question. Seems a good deal. Can you name another build that can save the artificer having to take as many feats?You can't get the simplest one, Wondrous Items, until level 23, and your cost of 3 character levels means you get Epic Bonus feats later and later.You have actually READ the Epic rules, right? You do know that ANY 21+ Level can choose epic or normal feats, right? Sounds like some one needs to read the rules more before we can continue this in an intelligent manner.
Elderich 05-26-06, 09:19 PM	Well I actually find Edy's prejudice quite irrational, so I fail to understand your complaint, and I don't really believe I need to understand his preference, his desire to disregard a race is his own decision to make, I simply dislike his blanket statement that Drow are unacceptable as a player race.You can find Edy's emotions to a game mechanic irrational, you can even discuss it. Just do not call people racist, or expect difficulty.
gelalshawr 05-27-06, 12:09 AM	You can find Edy's emotions to a game mechanic irrational, you can even discuss it. Just do not call people racist, or expect difficulty. I did not call anyone racist, and I'm certainly not worried about difficulty from you, if you can't even comprehend my post enough to figure that out. It is not possible to be racist against a race that doesn't, point in fact, exist, which is why his comment was not racist, only nearly so, and I never directed such titles at a person, merely at a comment.
aelryinth 05-27-06, 03:22 AM	With able learner, why would you need another class to get Bluff and disguise??????Get your own question. This is the same one I was asking.You are so silly! You get Craft Ring and Homonculous for free! Why would you pick the ones you get for free with the floating feat? Are you sure you know how Artificer and Chameleon works?Again, go get your own question. Oh, and it is 2 levels and a bonus feat, you did actualy READ my post, right?You don't have a fever do you? An Artificer gets most all the "epic"able creation feats for free. One uses the Cham feat to get epic versions of the feats one has been given, and avoids actually taking most epic creation feats. While a 2 level delay in epic feats may seem painfull, not having to take... 1 Scribe Epic Scroll 2 Craft Epic Wondrous Item 3 Craft Epic Magic Arms and Armor 4 Craft Epic Staff 5 Craft Construct 5 Scribe Schema 6 Craft Rod 7 Craft Scepture 8 I'll leave this for you to fill in the rest Aelryinth, as you have dodged the "can you name them?" question. Seems a good deal. Can you name another build that can save the artificer having to take as many feats?You have actually READ the Epic rules, right? You do know that ANY 21+ Level can choose epic or normal feats, right? Sounds like some one needs to read the rules more before we can continue this in an intelligent manner. The tone, as ever, of your replies is insulting. Craft Scepter is Faerunian, and most people probably just fold it into Rod or Staff. Craft Schema is an artificer only feat, and definitely might be of interest. But it's also a tradeoff...exactly how many of these Item Creation feats do you actually NEED? There's nothing that leads me to believe that a Chameleon can use his floating feat to emulate an Epic feat. And he'd STILL need to have the base feat to qualify for the Epic one. I personally would never let a Chameleon's floater emulate an Epic feat. There is and has always been a clear division between feats and Epic feats, and if the Chameleon floating feat doesn't explicitly allow for Epic feats, then you can't take them. They are a different class of feats. Why have another class with Able Learner? Because otherwise you are going to be level 13 before you can qualify for Chameleon. You need the other class to get max levels for the skill...if not, it's cross-class limits, if not cross-class costs. You DO know how Able Learner works, right? If you are going to wait til level 13, why bother at all? Just when you need your power, multiple infusions and can start cranking out the items...you change class? You were talking about getting into Chameleon, and I'm figuring a reasonably early level, like 10 or so. You do not have Craft Ring or Staff by then. Exactly how many people in a reasonable campaign make use of Craft Rod? I'm applying voice of reason, and you're applying voice of Nitpicky nyahh nyahh Aelryinth is an idiot. Your argument about getting the extra feats is superfluous again...if you qualify for Chameleon AND you can get the Item Creation feats, why continue taking Artificer levels? You are already three levels behind the curve. You are effectively 'doubling up' on your multiple feats of your Item Creation schema. Is the three feats you might not ever need or use really worth it? Oh, and being three levels behind the curve also means losing out on an Epic bonus feat, in addition to other things. So you lose three feats, three (MAYBE two) levels, 2-3 craft reserve levels, casting power, and dilute your focus, so that you can pick up 3-4 extra crafting feats which you might or might not ever use. Is it worth it? I'm of the mind a Super Crafter wants that Craft Reserve...but that's just me, I guess. Grow up and lose the animosity, aye? The WizO is watching the thread, and once again you are starting another flame war with your language. Anytime I post in answer to you, you go right into attack mode overdefensiveness, and it's really irritating. ===Aelryinth
gelalshawr 05-27-06, 10:10 AM	Craft Schema is an artificer only feat, and definitely might be of interest. Etch Schema is not limited to Artificers only, there is nothing in the feat description or prerequisites that says so. Any spellcasting class can make use of the feat. and I know I've seen able learner but I don't know what book it's in, so I can't look it up to be certain. Besides those two points you're primarily right Aelryinth, though you are also getting a little defensive. Your point is valid, but it has been said, if someone attacks your point, then defend it as much as necessary, but don't go overboard or you risk degenerating to their level. And also, while your point IS valid, any DM can choose to ignore it and interpret the rules as they see fit.
Elderich 05-27-06, 12:04 PM	The tone, as ever, of your replies is insulting.Look, you do not have to reply. No one is FORCING you. But you really have no grounds for complaint when people point out the factual and logical errors in your posts. You could find it informative and educational, but instead you take it the discussion from the ideas about a game to a personal drama conflict.Exactly how many of these Item Creation feats do you actually NEED?Did you actually read my post? There are quite a few important craft feats that are not granted to an artificer (Remember he does not get them ALL!) that are quite useful to a party. The point is for 2 Levels of Cham, you can have most all of them, so if someone needs something special, you can do it.There's nothing that leads me to believe that a Chameleon can use his floating feat to emulate an Epic feat.That is a very nice house rule. When you post your house rules it is just good form to state them as such and not let the reader be confused with what the rules actualy are. A Cham can select "any feat they qualify for". If a character is epic, then an epic feat is selectable.Why have another class with Able Learner? Because otherwise you are going to be level 13 before you can qualify for Chameleon. <snip> You were talking about getting into Chameleon, and I'm figuring a reasonably early level, like 10 or so.Ok, now I am pretty sure you did not read my posts. Let me say it again in the hope you will read it.You probably do not want Cham before Art12, as it slows you down and does not give you much.The Height of hubris to quote oneself, but it seems like one of those times. Now it seems like you understand one reason why I selected Level 13 to go into Cham, the skill points. Another is not desiring a delay in getting to ART 12. After Art12 the gain from staying in the class drops off, in my opinion. It is still a great class, but there is room for taking a short break into Cham in my opinion. It is a pain to skip Etch Schema till 12. Perhaps take it anyway and do a physic reformation to remove it once you get Cham in. The point is that an artificer can take feats that are useful in every day life, or take feats that help him craft things. With 2 levels of Cham the Art never needs to worry about taking extra craft feats again.I'm applying voice of reason, and you're applying voice of Nitpicky nyahh nyahh Aelryinth is an idiot.This is a personal attack by you against me. It is against the CoC. I did not call you names nor suggest a name for you. You cannot accuse me of doing so with impunity. If you want to discuss playing a game, fine. If it is pointed out to you that there is a rule error in your post, that is not a personal attack. You can debate the suggestion there is an error. By not supporting any one of the rules points I have questioned you on, you have implicitly agreed that they are incorrect. Pointing out you are wrong is not a personal attack, no matter how many times it is done or how irritating you may happen to find it.if you qualify for Chameleon AND you can get the Item Creation feats, why continue taking Artificer levels?still need Caster Level. I don't think anything is better than continuing in artificer.Oh, and being three levels behind the curve also means losing out on an Epic bonus feat, in addition to other things.Not true. Infact the ART20 feat now is epic, so you GAIN an epic bonus feat, on top of the floating epic-able feat.So you lose three feats, three (MAYBE two) levels, 2-3 craft reserve levels, casting power, and dilute your focus, so that you can pick up 3-4 extra crafting feats which you might or might not ever use. Is it worth it? I'm of the mind a Super Crafter wants that Craft Reserve...but that's just me, I guess.You can argue that able learner is not really a lost feat. You do lose craft reserve and, most painfully caster level (but not if there is an artificer focus for Cham), but pick up the possibility to craft more than half a dozen craft feats.Grow up and lose the animosity, aye? The WizO is watching the thread, and once again you are starting another flame war with your language. Anytime I post in answer to you, you go right into attack mode overdefensiveness, and it's really irritating.I just do not understand this. This is a discussion about a game. There is not "Flame war" going on. No one except you is making personal attacks. The rest of us are talking about ideas for a game. Your posts have many factual game rule errors in them! If you do not want to be corrected then remove the errors before you post! Or do not post where people will examine your posts for errors. You keep accusing people of stuff, and talking about stuff between people, when you could just be discussing the game, like the rest of us are.
Quenditar 05-27-06, 01:10 PM	Look, could you two cut it out? Elderich, your reply in post #293 was unnecessarily insulting. Aelryinth has some good points, especially about the delay in getting epic bonus feats (the ones you get for class levels beyond 20th). Aelryinth, your house rules are not the official rules as written, even when they make more sense, so please quit confusing the two. If you insist, put the rule as written and your own house rule together with a note saying how this is how you run a problematic rule in your campaign.
aelryinth 05-27-06, 04:39 PM	THere's nothing in the Chameleon BOnus Feat which says it allows Epic Feats. Epic Feats are a class unto themselves. AN Epic Chameleon class may or may not allow this...but as it stands, there is NOTHING to infer that you can get Epic Item Creation feats from the floating feat of a Chameleon. The same logic is applied to the bonus feats for various classes. Wizards of non-Epic levels can't use their class level granted bonus feats to get Epic feats, nor can fighters. You actually have to have Epic levels in classes for those class abilities to apply...and not just Epic levels. A wiz/20 who takes a level of Fighter cannot take an Epic feat with his Fighter bonus feat, even though he is Epic. YOu need to have Epic Wizard levels/Epic Fighter levels...not just be Epic and have Fighter levels. There is and has always been a clear line between Feats and Epic Feats, and I see nothing in the Chameleon description to break that line. Otherwise, I could use absolutely the same logic to acquire Epic FIghter feats with bonus Fighter feats once I hit level 20...and that is explicitly NOT allowed. YMMV, but that's how it works. This is NOT a House Rule. That bonus feat the Art/20 gets is a normal feat, not an EPic feat...he's not an Epic Artificer, he's 'merely' an Epic character. ============================ And I specifically noted the 'I Would not.' I did not say 'this is the rule'. RAW is not the be-all and end all, and your DM mileage may vary. There is RAW and there is playability. (This is in specific reference to Bind Elemental, etc, and the limits on the floating feat). =================== I imagine if you were simply to MAKE a Art/18, Cha/2, you could circumvent much of the problems with the build. To play a character with that as a career path would be far more difficult...which is the whole point of what I was addressing. You are probably better going the Warlock/Chameleon route instead. ========================= And I will again note, that if you don't take a class with Disguise and Bluff as class skills, then you have to get 13 levels in Artificer to have the 8 ranks needed in both skills to qualify for Chameleon (4 ranks at level 1 +12 normal = 16, /2 for cross class skills)...at level 14. Able Learner is indeed wasting a feat, because you are not using it to gain access to skills which give you class synergy...you are getting it so you can blow 20 skill points on essentially wasted skills to qualify for 2 levels in a PrC. Artificers have enough usage for their skill points, they don't need to be wasting 5 levels worth on qualifying for a PrC. ===================== Thus, your net gain for the Chameleon floating feat rather sucks. You lose 20 skill points. Well, 16. Spellcraft might be useful for scrolls or something. You lose 2-3 caster levels, and the extra infusions to go with them. You lose a General Feat for nabbing Able Learner. If you don't pick up another class, this feat is saving you paying cross class double points, that's it. For your useless skill ranks. You also can't be any race but human or changeling. YOu lose an Artificer bonus feat. You lose 3 levels of craft reserve. You push Epic Artificer levels back 2-3 levels. A bonus Epic feat gets lost. Is it worth it for the extra 2-3 feats you MIGHT use? The arti bonus feat and Able Learner account for two feats right there. The lost skill points are probably worth 2-3 feats. The lost craft reserve is worth tens of thousands of gold...and you know, you can make magic items that give you Item Creation feats? IF you want nothing but Item Creation feats, this is NOT the best way to go about it. It will work, but it's not 'Optimal'. ======= And Eld, you specifically named me and challenged me TWICE in your posts. You DO make this personal. ===Aelryinth
Elderich 05-27-06, 06:10 PM	THere's nothing in the Chameleon BOnus Feat which says it allows Epic Feats.You are simply repeating yourself. I pointed out where it does.You actually have to have Epic levels in classes for those class abilities to apply...and not just Epic levels. A wiz/20 who takes a level of Fighter cannot take an Epic feat with his Fighter bonus feat, even though he is Epic. <snip> Otherwise, I could use absolutely the same logic to acquire Epic FIghter feats with bonus Fighter feats once I hit level 20...and that is explicitly NOT allowed.Wrong again. I told you you should check stuff before posting it.www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/epicLevels.html Whenever an epic character is allowed to pick up a feat as part of character level advancement, he or she can choose either a nonepic feat or an epic feat.Continuing, you noted the skill points. Well that is an important point, I point out that maxed Spellcraft is required for epic "Item Creation." Kind of critical if your artificer is going epic.Is it worth it for the extra 2-3 feats you MIGHT use?How many Feats would it have to save to be worth it? If you do not know the number of creation feats not given to the artificer, you might think it is silly. Let us add one more feat to the list. Craft Contingency.The lost skill points are probably worth 2-3 feats. The lost craft reserve is worth tens of thousands of gold...and you know, you can make magic items that give you Item Creation feats?The skills the points go into are not "useless", but perhaps you have a point. Let us ask the reader; How many skill points equal a feat? The loss in craft reserve is less of a big deal due to the self adjusting nature of the XP system, and compensated by the fact that you can charge to craft anything. While Items granting feats are technically possible, it is a 3.0 source , very expensive, and most conservative DMs would frown on it.And Eld, you specifically named me and challenged me TWICE in your posts. You DO make this personal.Not true. You continue to critique the build erroneously. Pointing out that the things you are saying are wrong from rules or logic point of view is not a "personal attack." I even asked you to check yourself, as myself and the other posters here do not want to be the ones who have to correct your posts! I do not enjoy having to go look up what is in the SRD and quote it to prove what you say is wrong. However falsely accusing me of calling you an idiot is a personal attack by you against me. Of the valid critiques you pointed out, are any of them different than what I posted in my first post on this build? Honestly? To the readers like Quenditar;Look I am sorry this is happening, but honestly, tell me how to stop it?
gelalshawr 05-28-06, 01:07 AM	Actually Elderich Ael is right about Chameleon floating feat not translating to epic feats, and it's in the RAW as you yourself stated it, the Chameleon feat allows you to emulate any Feat you qualify for, not any Feat or Epic Feat.
aelryinth 05-28-06, 03:06 AM	Aye, Elderich, you need to go back and review your Epic rules and how they interact with normal ones. You are very much mistaken on this point. What "you told me to do" is very petulant, especially when it is you who are wrong. You just referenced the rule for epic Character feats. You specifically avoided the ruling over class granted feats and bonus feats at Epic levels. And BTW, what are you doing referencing the SRD? ANytime I use the SRD you nix it and insist on using the handbooks.... ================= By dint of the feat Versatile, 1 Feat = 5 skill points. If you can explain how a dedicated Artificer Item Creation build is benefited by ranks in Bluff and Disguise, I'll drop this point. =========== Craft Contingency spells is another Faerunian invention. It may or may not exist in any campaign, much like Craft Scepter (and the thankfully retired Craft Portal). =========== Exactly how much Craft Reserve is lost in those 3 levels? Those are additional magic items that the artificer can make for himself or his allies, doubling their gold value for it. At high levels, that's substantial benefits you are giving up. ============== As for the Item creating feats, you now turn around and rely blindly on the very rule I was advocating...'most DM's wouldn't allow it' (i.e., your 'House Rule'). If it wasn't over-ruled, it's still perfectly valid as 3.5...and you DO have that extra Craft Reserve, right? ======================= Now, Elderich, The tone of every one of your responses to me was insulting. First, you challenged me by name, confident I wouldn't rise to the challenge. I ignored it. You then chortled and named me again as you posted your triumph, and you didn't 'discuss' the build...you gleefully named everything I said as wrong and House Rule and you can't justify this and it's not RAW blah blah blah, admonishing me like a child and you the smug master. Even the other posters noted your tone...the instant I post, you go into hyperactive defensive Ael-is-an-idiot tone, and you want everyone else to see it, too. I'll agree with you, my 4 bachelor's degrees and Master's degree makes me an idiot, alrighty? And yet, you are wrong, and you walk around the points instead of debating them. You are far too black/white, and you INSIST on me always being wrong, and STILL you take the same tone, even though now you are in clear error of rules that were discussed and errata'd to death literally years ago. We haven't had any reasonable discussions about a class, because you take everything I post personally and turn it into a flame war! Could you kindly stop it? I'm not the only one it irritates. And I'm fairly sure WizO is gonna close all this down AGAIN because of it! ===Aelryinth
Elderich 05-28-06, 03:56 AM	Again, If you have percived insult, it was not intened. I am discussing the topic, not you. You say I "specifically avoided" some part of the rules without actualy pointing to the part I skipped over. I belive I quoted the exact correct spot. But how can I possabily address this oversight on my part without you directing me to the rules I skipped? You made the accusation, but did not back it with a reference. Why?And BTW, what are you doing referencing the SRD? ANytime I use the SRD you nix it and insist on using the handbooksThis is a personal attack, and off topic.By dint of the feat Versatile, 1 Feat = 5 skill points.While true, the questions remains; What is a feats value? If Versatile was a good deal, everyone would take it. If not, few would. Which is true do you think? You don't need to drop the point. It is available for the reader to evaluate and decide. I suggest a few ranks in bluff and disguise will come in handy.that's substantial benefits you are giving upWe already discussed this. The doubling is for the gold value, the Craft reserve loss does not change this. The self adjusting nature of XP will compensate for atleast some of the craft reserve loss. The rest of your post is off topic and of a personal nature. I really cannot reply to most all of it, except to make clear to the reader I never intended personal offence or attack. I did not "challenged [you] by name." I have only answered your posts in response to my idea. "you walk around the points instead of debating them." I have addressed all of the points I could find. If I missed any, please let me know and I shall address them as time permits. "you are in clear error of rules that were discussed and errata'd to death literally years ago." If you would just point me to that errata file I would be gratefull.
gelalshawr 05-28-06, 11:30 AM	I think someone should work out a Kalashtar psionic artificer substitution, it might be rather interesting but I don't have a wide knowledge of psionics myself or I would try it.
aelryinth 05-28-06, 03:03 PM	Actually I believe the Psionic Artificer has been done. Basically it swaps out Item Creation Feats for their counterpart Psionic Item Creation Feats, subs Psicraft and Know(Psi) for Spellcraft and Know (Arc). Infusions, I believe, remain the same. I'm fairly sure either Keith posted it himself, or it was on the WoTC main boards. The other fact was you could have levels in one or the other, but not both. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 05-28-06, 03:06 PM	Eld, to find the appropriate reference, you'll have to track down the FAQ and look for the Epic Errata, OR go after Andy Collins' Epic Insights column (two years off the boards, but probably in old columns). It's there. Trust me. It got argued to death and firmly squashed with people quibbling over the language. 20th level Barbarians and one-shot dippers were drolling at the idea of just taking Fighter levels and getting all those bonus feats as Epic Feats. It didn't fly. ===Aelryinth
Edymnion 05-28-06, 06:09 PM	Actually I believe the Psionic Artificer has been done. Basically it swaps out Item Creation Feats for their counterpart Psionic Item Creation Feats, subs Psicraft and Know(Psi) for Spellcraft and Know (Arc).Yes, the Psionic Artificer is in Magic of Eberron. However, it wasn't very well done, as it is incapable of crafting it's own homunculi without outside help, as they cannot meet the spell prereqs for the critters. A common houserule is to simply replace the magic spell with it's psionic equivolent.
gelalshawr 05-28-06, 09:30 PM	Actually I believe the Psionic Artificer has been done. Basically it swaps out Item Creation Feats for their counterpart Psionic Item Creation Feats, subs Psicraft and Know(Psi) for Spellcraft and Know (Arc). Infusions, I believe, remain the same. I'm fairly sure either Keith posted it himself, or it was on the WoTC main boards. The other fact was you could have levels in one or the other, but not both. ==Aelryinth Ok, please read the entire post before you try to answer it, I asked for people to suggest racial substitution levels for a Kalashtar psionic artificer. Owning the MoE I already know that the class exists, I was asking for something that does not exist.
aelryinth 05-28-06, 11:14 PM	I'm not suprised that there isn't one. THe kalashtar have a very rich spiritual culture, not a materialistic one which would center around a Psi Artificer. Perhaps look at the warforged sub levels, but instead of arms and armor, the kalashtar focuses on any single item creation feat and gets an xp or gold break. Not sure where to go with this, really! ==Aelryinth
Elderich 06-10-06, 01:23 PM	FYI http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=9359488 Apparently the Chameleon trick is RAW.
aelryinth 06-10-06, 04:03 PM	And I'll agree that before the errata came out, this would have worked. The errata that only Epic Classes could garner Epic feats came out of the very type of argument you are making...so the Ftr1 bonus feat at level 21 was shot down as the munchkinness it was, and clearly drew a line between Feats and Epic Feats. They had to also use further wording to distinguish between Epic Feats via Character level and Epic feats from class levels. The Chameleon feat does not break the feat/Epic feat barriar. If you ignore the errata, then by interpretation, it works. By balance, intent and errata, it does not. ===Aelryinth
Elderich 06-11-06, 09:45 PM	Could you post your answer in the thread dedicated to the discussion, instead of posting off topic here? I downloaded and searched every errata file and found no such thing. Could you tell me where you found it when you post in that other thread?
aelryinth 06-13-06, 01:04 AM	Done, DOne. It was right on page 3 of the EPic FAQ from the Sage. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a ==Aelryinth
Elderich 06-13-06, 09:28 AM	That was an off topic post. I will not debate off topic. You already had an ON TOPIC thread to post to, yet you post here? Here is another thread SPICIFICALY ABOUT the epic feat topic that covers the error in the FAQ, and how that FAQ does not apply. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=645821
aelryinth 06-13-06, 12:38 PM	I replied to you on the thread, I didn't debate you, I didn't call you out, I didn't wag my finger at you. The FAQ is LATER information then the badly worded ruling you seem to be referring to. It thus trumps the RAW you seem to be referring to and even provides an EXPLICIT example! What IS the problem here? I did exactly what you wanted, and STILL you are nagging! =================== Ah ha! This isn't even a point of debate, although your jumping to conclusions is. I DID post my rebuttal elsewhere...but now you've got multiple threads going and you didn't see it! Why do you think there's only two lines here, mmm? And why are you so scraping for opinions? You've got this post going in FOUR forums now! Of course you missed where I posted my full reply! ==Aelryinth
Edymnion 06-13-06, 12:59 PM	Ok, please read the entire post before you try to answer it, I asked for people to suggest racial substitution levels for a Kalashtar psionic artificer.And I would ask you to please read the original posts of this thread. Suggesting racial substitution levels is not considered on topic for this thread, you shouldn't have been asking it here in the first place. Make your own thread for that sort of thing.
WizO_Sith 06-13-06, 06:51 PM	Chronic Off-Topic Posting falls under the heading of "Spamming" and is a violation of the Wizards Online Code of Conduct (http://www.wizards.com/coc). It stops now or this thread will be locked and guilty parties (especially those patrons who have been spoken to and/or warned about this kind of beligerance in the past and know better) will be dealt with accordingly (up to and including permanent, no-reprive, removal of all User IDs and prevention from re-registering on the Wizards.COMmunity ever). This is the one and only warning this thread will be given.
Tweedledope 06-23-06, 12:32 AM	For some construct goodness, has anyone taken a look at the Techsmith PrC from the Faiths and Pantheons? I know it's cross-campaign but, it seems to have some really good class ablities and flavor...any ideas? -=TD=-
MiscDebris 06-23-06, 10:10 AM	Well, technically, artificers cannot become techsmiths, as they never gain the spell "minor creation". Yes, I know they gain it as an infusion, however, artificers cannot use infusions to qualify for PrC's. That aside, they actually make a pretty decent pairing.
TrothgardtheMad 06-23-06, 10:16 AM	For some construct goodness, has anyone taken a look at the Techsmith PrC from the Faiths and Pantheons? I know it's cross-campaign but, it seems to have some really good class ablities and flavor...any ideas? -=TD=- I had looked at that recently (as my friend is letting me try out an artificer in his homebrew) and thought that it might be a perfect fit, albeit cross-campaign for those of you playing Eberron specific campaigns. Seeing as our DM has Gond and such, Gondsmen and such shouldn't be too difficult of a concept. Gnomes: Gnomes make excellent Artificers for three major reasons. One, their keen sense of smell grants them a +2 to checks relating to alchemy, which is an area Artificers do quite well in. Second, they are Small size, which grants them bonuses to attacks, their AC, Hide checks, and actually makes them stronger in comparison. While they half their carrying load, properly scaled items only weight 1/4 normal. Meaning they actually gain the ability to carry 25% more gear than the Medium sized Artificers, as long as everything they carry is sized for Small characters. The other is that, in Eberron, the Gnomes hold a near monopoly on the ability to bind elementals into weapons, armors, and vehicles. If you plan on making elementally bound items, you can avoid a lot of hassles by choosing to be a gnome. Question on this: Is there errata on this because all the calculations in my book say 1/2 weight for small items (at least weapons and armors)? I only ask because in creating my Gnome artificer, I have a 10 in STR which allows me 25ish pounds to carry without being too encumbered (with my group's predilection toward humans and their bonus feats, this makes me the "slowest," unless they weight themselves down with gear) Question the second: Bracers of Archery, you say they are good for an artificer, is this because it's better to have the proficiency in longbows in order to not incur the necessity to get the Rapid Reload feat (but in order to get the cool damage and to hit bonuses (when you have a the greater bracers) replace with Marital Weapon Proficiency (long bow) feat)? Thanks, Trothgard the Mad
Tweedledope 06-23-06, 10:30 AM	I would assume that the archery bracers are very critical for Blastificers...all of those ranged attacks with Wands need as many to-hit boosts as possible. -=TD=-
TrothgardtheMad 06-23-06, 10:37 AM	I would assume that the archery bracers are very critical for Blastificers...all of those ranged attacks with Wands need as many to-hit boosts as possible. -=TD=- Well reading my copy of the SRD (which was scooped up 2 years ago and saved locally), the bracers of archery give you the bonus only to bows you are already proficient with. If this changed recently, that's kewl, at least I know and should DL the latest SRD. Trothgard the Mad
AbsentMindedProfessor 06-24-06, 07:19 PM	I'm pretty sure that the Bracers of Archery are a good idea because it does save the Artificer from taking Rapid Reload since he will be proficient in Bow. And at 5000gp base price, that is realatively cheap for a feat replacement...unless of course you are using your bracer slot for something more significant.
aelryinth 06-30-06, 06:35 PM	only problem being he probably can't afford them until level 6 or so, and what's he going to do in the meantime? ==Aelryinth
AbsentMindedProfessor 07-01-06, 08:34 PM	Use his trusty crossbow because he's not attacking twice in the same round anyway since his BAB isn't high enough. He could always play an elf of course. I'm planning on my next PC to be elf Artificer of House Phiarlan. Someone's got to be making gadgets for the house. Kind of like Q from 007. I don't think they'd trust anyone else to make their stuff and it can kind of fall under the artisan category of the House front. Or they'd jsut work for House Cannith as a cover and then have their secret lab elsewhere. But I'm getting off topic so that will be all.
aelryinth 07-02-06, 02:01 PM	I was referring to more of the fact that he didn't have Precise Shot so firing into melee might get really dangerous. As the wizard not so equipped made the mistake of doing, and woke up the next morning to find his crossbow had kept the fire going all night. ==Aelryinth
AbsentMindedProfessor 07-03-06, 11:45 AM	That's funny. Happy 4th of July.
xsurprisex 07-04-06, 11:46 AM	hi everyone =) i read here for a long time, but from now on im going to bug you all with a hell lot of questions :P im currently planning on playing an artificer, starting at level 6 besides the metamagic-stacking problem and not exactly knowing what type of artificer im going to play, ive got another question: how do you optimize UMD best, so you dont have to roll your craft checks? thats something im missing in this article. i dont have any feats free, so skill-focus(umd) is no option currently im stuck with: base 9 charisma 1 umd-item +5 artisan bonus 2 =>17 umd @ level 6 i got some ideas how to get that better, but those depend on the will of my dm any ideas on your side how to get that higher?
aelryinth 07-04-06, 01:23 PM	Let's see. A Circlet of Persuasion doubles Cha mods. DOn't forget the bonus of +2 if you have the correct Item Creation feat, and +2 if you've successfully done it before. Your DM is nice in letting you have a +UMD item. Increase the bonus on that to at least keep pace with your level. You might want to swap out Magical Artisan for Skill Focus (UMD)...you are probably only using the feat for the UMD bonus, anyways. For your crappy Cha, you aren't doing too bad. 9 ranks, +1 Cha, +5 Item, +2 feat = +17 at level 6. With up to +4 from Item Creation feats and prior usage, you can hit a DC 20 check every time, and you've got 80% + chances to make the triple check for making magic items with low level spells. Have a cleric cast Wieldskill on you for that check, and you should be doing Okay. ==Aelryinth
MiscDebris 07-04-06, 01:31 PM	Circlet of Persuasion This silver headband grants a +3 competence bonus on the wearer’s Charisma-based checks. Faint transmutation; CL 5th; Craft Wondrous Item, eagle’s splendor; Price 4,500 gp. The bonus for item creation feats is for activating the item, not creating it. How do you get the +2 for having previously activated the item when the item has not even been made yet?
xsurprisex 07-04-06, 02:21 PM	okay, rewind -i thought the artisan bonus was for crafting as well, not only for activating so thats 2 less -and as i said, i dont have any feats left, i neither have skill focus nor magical artisan does the +3 competence from circlet of persuasion stack with +x competence to UMD from the UMD-item? its the same bonus, helps with the same skill... no clue about that, wouldnt this bonus overlap? what was that with a +2 bonus for the correct item creation feat? as already stated, afaik it only counts towards activating which means my bonus gets worse to base +9 charisma +1 item +5 =>15 UMD @ level 6 the HAS to be a dm-proof was to improve that *G* thanks for the answer, i appreciate your help, keep it coming ;) PS: By the way, is it possible to use action points while crafting? i dont really need my low-level action points for anything else ^^ would be too nice to be honest, i dont know if there are rules for that ^^
MiscDebris 07-04-06, 02:56 PM	Chance to fail at mod of 15. Item CL Check Mod 2 checks 3 checks 4 checks 5 checks 6 checks 1 15 09.00% 02.70% 00.81% 00.24% 0.07% 2 15 12.25% 04.29% 01.50% 00.53% 0.18% 3 15 16.00% 06.40% 02.56% 01.02% 0.41% 4 15 20.25% 09.11% 04.10% 01.85% 0.83% 5 15 25.00% 12.50% 06.25% 03.13% 1.56% 6 15 30.25% 16.64% 09.15% 05.03% 2.77% 7 15 36.00% 21.60% 12.96% 07.78% 4.67% 8 15 42.25% 27.46% 17.85% 11.60% 7.54% Yes, you can use action points. Your UMD crafting roll is a d20 roll after all. At this level, you should be able to make a cloak of charisma. I had the same check as you did at that level, and with action points, I've only missed 3-ish items. Keep in mind that I have spent 2500 XP above my craft reserve in crafting thus far (at level 7) I don't believe the circlet stacks with the UMD item.
MiscDebris 07-04-06, 03:03 PM	Side note: Does anyone know the formula for eternal wands? Regular wands are Spell Level x Caster Level X 375 to make.
aelryinth 07-04-06, 07:08 PM	The formula might have been posted earlier in the thread. I think you just use the Wondrous Item formula, 0-3rd level spells, and how many times/day its usable. ==Aelryinth
Quenditar 07-04-06, 07:13 PM	If there's a formula for eternal wands, it seems to include another part to make the price fall with increasing power, which I haven't figured out yet. And you could always try to use the Skill Enhancement infusion; the types don't clash.
MiscDebris 07-04-06, 11:58 PM	Doesn't seem to be working out for me either.
xsurprisex 07-05-06, 05:33 AM	i go skill enhancement noted in my char-sheet, bu the question is if my dm allows buffs with 10min/level as helpful to crafting if this is allowed im all out of problems, there are some other combos in my backhand then what i looked for were ways to increase my umd without having to depend on my dm well, maybe i get another idea^^
MiscDebris 07-05-06, 02:42 PM	Well, I'd say that unless you can get that up to 8 hours (the amount of time you spend crafting every day), spells don't help with crafting. That's how we play it anyway.
glug 07-06-06, 10:36 AM	I was referring to more of the fact that he didn't have Precise Shot so firing into melee might get really dangerous. As the wizard not so equipped made the mistake of doing, and woke up the next morning to find his crossbow had kept the fire going all night. ==Aelryinth =) I enjoyed that bolt-in-the-tanks-head moment in my friend's campaign, and I think everyone learned their lessons, because in my campaign, I regularly hear the squishies moaning when my fiance charges into the fray screaming "ANABA CHOP!", and they wouldn't dare fire their crossbows into the back of *her* head...
djinni 07-13-06, 05:32 PM	I was referring to more of the fact that he didn't have Precise Shot so firing into melee might get really dangerous. As the wizard not so equipped made the mistake of doing, and woke up the next morning to find his crossbow had kept the fire going all night. if you take the -4 to hit you don't hit anything you aren't trying to, how then is not having precise shot dangerous?
aelryinth 07-16-06, 03:13 AM	Eh? Without Precise Shot, you take the -4, period. With it, you don't and you hit what you are aiming at. In 3E, if you missed, you had a good chance of hitting your ally, because the -4 was deemed 'cover', and rolling in that area meant hitting the cover...i.e. your buddy, in the back. Go look at the rules. The only way to get out of the -4 th is if the enemy is 10' away from your allies. ==Aelryinth
limelizard 07-22-06, 02:34 AM	Can an Artificer make a wand of an infusion?
Ricohard_Draconis 07-22-06, 07:44 AM	no infusions can only be used in the construction of schema.
jameswilliamogle 07-28-06, 12:28 PM	Is the WF Artificer Sub level Tools of War worth it to lose Craft Homonculi? It seems like in a higher level campaign it would be ok (since one could get the feat Craft Construct fairly easily), but in a campaign grinding from 3rd up it isn't as good. Is this a fair asessment?
Elderich 07-28-06, 04:34 PM	no infusions can only be used in the construction of schema.If you read this thread you will see that is not correct. Infusions cannot be substutied for a spell, when a spell is called for, in item creation.
Edymnion 07-28-06, 04:48 PM	If you read this thread you will see that is not correct. Infusions cannot be substutied for a spell, when a spell is called for, in item creation.Minor Schema are specifically stated to be able to hold infusions.
Mastermind_Omega 07-31-06, 04:32 PM	Does anyone know if an artificer would be able to become an effigy master by taking only artificer class levels?
MiscDebris 07-31-06, 07:47 PM	Not without DM intervention. If you take a moment to follow the handy link in my sig called " Prestigious artifice", you may find something your DM will let you use.
Cornrelius 08-01-06, 09:56 AM	Hi all. Followed the thread so far and found several parts of it very useful. However there is this one thing that I would like guidance in: Artificers and Arcane Spell Failure (calling it ASF from now on). The Rules state: Rule 1 (Eberron Errata): Items made by Artificers are neither arcane nor divine (but artificial ;) ) Rule 2 (DMG): a scroll (=being spell completion) is specifically mentioned to be subject to ASF. Rule 3 (DMG): spell trigger items are not mentioned that way, and are described to be "much simpler than spell completion". So no ASF here. Rule 4 (EbCS): Infusions are not arcane spells (so there is no ASF from infusions). These rules lead to the conclusion that ASF is only relevant in the rare cases that the Artificer is trying to use an arcane scroll he did not make himself... (The party wizard might have use for those, though.) So basically, ASF is no issue for Artificers. And then, what is limiting the Artficer from becoming a tank? Why should he, you may ask? Because he can. By spending some few skill points on craft(armorsmithing), and maybe liberally using the eternal wand of magecraft, the masterwork mithril full plate (counting as medium and thus proficiently usable) is only 3500gp away (list price: 10500gp; non-magic craft takes 1/3 of item costs, reachable around level 5) and can be artificially "improved" later on. Gives you a definite boost in AC. Besides it still has a max dex bonus of +3 so with a dex of upto 16 you are not limited at all. You need not neccessarily be a melee-artificer to benefit from that; if you unexpectedly find yourself close to an enemy this might make the difference between life and death; a situation that may occur with any build. The 3500 gp don't really hurt much. Do I miss anything obvious? Why is the artificer always depicted as being lightly armoured? Best regards and thanks in advance, Cornrelius
Elderich 08-02-06, 02:57 PM	Minor Schema are specifically stated to be able to hold infusions.and spells. However no Items are specificaly excluded from holding infusions, As we discussed, AD NASUEM, in this thread.
PowerPlay 08-02-06, 05:24 PM	Hi all. Followed the thread so far and found several parts of it very useful. However there is this one thing that I would like guidance in: Artificers and Arcane Spell Failure (calling it ASF from now on). The Rules state: Rule 1 (Eberron Errata): Items made by Artificers are neither arcane nor divine (but artificial ;) ) Rule 2 (DMG): a scroll (=being spell completion) is specifically mentioned to be subject to ASF. Rule 3 (DMG): spell trigger items are not mentioned that way, and are described to be "much simpler than spell completion". So no ASF here. Rule 4 (EbCS): Infusions are not arcane spells (so there is no ASF from infusions). These rules lead to the conclusion that ASF is only relevant in the rare cases that the Artificer is trying to use an arcane scroll he did not make himself... (The party wizard might have use for those, though.) So basically, ASF is no issue for Artificers. And then, what is limiting the Artficer from becoming a tank? Why should he, you may ask? Because he can. By spending some few skill points on craft(armorsmithing), and maybe liberally using the eternal wand of magecraft, the masterwork mithril full plate (counting as medium and thus proficiently usable) is only 3500gp away (list price: 10500gp; non-magic craft takes 1/3 of item costs, reachable around level 5) and can be artificially "improved" later on. Gives you a definite boost in AC. Besides it still has a max dex bonus of +3 so with a dex of upto 16 you are not limited at all. You need not neccessarily be a melee-artificer to benefit from that; if you unexpectedly find yourself close to an enemy this might make the difference between life and death; a situation that may occur with any build. The 3500 gp don't really hurt much. Do I miss anything obvious? Why is the artificer always depicted as being lightly armoured? Best regards and thanks in advance, Cornrelius Because the craft skill sucks. 3500 gp doesn't sound like a lot... but think for a second about how long it would take to make 3500 gp worth of materials. Let's say you are 10th level and you have your craft (armorsmithing) skill maxed out at 14 with an Int of 20 (+5 to check), and item that gives you a +10 boost to craft (armorsmithing), +2 for masterwork tools, and some magical feat that you found in some obscure web splat book that lets you make items 25% faster. To make said item you must first convert it to SP, 35,000sp. Now the way craft works is you make your check and multiply the result by the DC of the item being created. For armor the DC is 10+AC bonus. For mithrall full-plate that means the check is going to be 20 (I believe). So let's say you average 10 on the roll. 10 (roll) + 14 (ranks) + 5 (int) + 10 (enhancement bonus) + 2 (tools) = 41. 41 x 20 = 820... SP. 820 SPs worth of work towards 35000sp. To complete the armor you would need to work on the damn thing for (35000/820) = 42.68 weeks. Even making it 25% faster would still take you 32 weeks. By comparison creating a magic item that costs 10,500gp would take you 6 days, 3 if you are an artificer with the 25% discount(s) for time and materials. So, in sum, you suck. :ayyyy!: -PowerPlay
PowerPlay 08-02-06, 05:31 PM	Chance to fail at mod of 15. Item CL Check Mod 2 checks 3 checks 4 checks 5 checks 6 checks 1 15 09.00% 02.70% 00.81% 00.24% 0.07% 2 15 12.25% 04.29% 01.50% 00.53% 0.18% 3 15 16.00% 06.40% 02.56% 01.02% 0.41% 4 15 20.25% 09.11% 04.10% 01.85% 0.83% 5 15 25.00% 12.50% 06.25% 03.13% 1.56% 6 15 30.25% 16.64% 09.15% 05.03% 2.77% 7 15 36.00% 21.60% 12.96% 07.78% 4.67% 8 15 42.25% 27.46% 17.85% 11.60% 7.54% Yes, you can use action points. Your UMD crafting roll is a d20 roll after all. At this level, you should be able to make a cloak of charisma. I had the same check as you did at that level, and with action points, I've only missed 3-ish items. Keep in mind that I have spent 2500 XP above my craft reserve in crafting thus far (at level 7) I don't believe the circlet stacks with the UMD item. Sorry, my probability math skills are a little retarded, can someone explain where these numbers came from? Are there any links anyone can direct me to to help explain D&D probability? Like these above and lets say you roll a d8 + 2d6 damage, what will average damage be? -PowerPlay
aelryinth 08-02-06, 09:18 PM	average damage is add high to low and divide. a d8 +2d6 is 1-8 +2-12 which is 3-20 =23/2 = 11.5. And for the crafting rules, I believe you don't have to include the extraordinary cost of the material in the item when crafting things like Arms and Armor. Thus, you'd only have to make a crafting check of 25 to get your masterwork armor check, figure out the time and cost of making masterwork full plate or whatever, and then add the cost of material (the mithril) on at the end. I don't believe material affects crafting time...just base cost and masterwork. I could, however, be wrong. Also note, that by 'losing 10' (increase the DC by 10) on your roll, you can halve the crafting time on any item....cumulative. So if you can stack enough modifiers for someone with some skill, that full plate suit won't actually take all that long...although even being out of play a month making a suit of armor is a hell of a long time. ===Aelryinth
MiscDebris 08-02-06, 10:23 PM	And for the crafting rules, I believe you don't have to include the extraordinary cost of the material in the item when crafting things like Arms and Armor. Thus, you'd only have to make a crafting check of 25 to get your masterwork armor check, figure out the time and cost of making masterwork full plate or whatever, and then add the cost of material (the mithril) on at the end. I don't believe material affects crafting time...just base cost and masterwork. I could, however, be wrong. Also note, that by 'losing 10' (increase the DC by 10) on your roll, you can halve the crafting time on any item....cumulative. So if you can stack enough modifiers for someone with some skill, that full plate suit won't actually take all that long...although even being out of play a month making a suit of armor is a hell of a long time. This is also an excellent use of those Dedicated Wrights.
PowerPlay 08-03-06, 11:24 PM	And for the crafting rules, I believe you don't have to include the extraordinary cost of the material in the item when crafting things like Arms and Armor. Thus, you'd only have to make a crafting check of 25 to get your masterwork armor check, figure out the time and cost of making masterwork full plate or whatever, and then add the cost of material (the mithril) on at the end. I don't believe material affects crafting time...just base cost and masterwork. I could, however, be wrong. Also note, that by 'losing 10' (increase the DC by 10) on your roll, you can halve the crafting time on any item....cumulative. So if you can stack enough modifiers for someone with some skill, that full plate suit won't actually take all that long...although even being out of play a month making a suit of armor is a hell of a long time. ===Aelryinth My understanding is that for any craft skill, to create the finished product you multiply the cost of the final product by 10, divide it by 3 for raw materials, and determine your WEEKLY progress based on DC x Check result (d20 + modifiers). The point of 'losing 10' is to increase the DC by 10 to increase weekly progress... it does not function to cut the time in half (if only). As a frequent artificer-player, I am very frustrated by this rule. Making an adamantine weapon takes damn near a year. Also, thanks for the tips on probabilty calculation. Posted for your reference from the SRD: "1. Find the item’s price. Put the price in silver pieces (1 gp = 10 sp). 2. Find the DC from the table below. 3. Pay one-third of the item’s price for the cost of raw materials. 4. Make an appropriate Craft check representing one week’s work. If the check succeeds, multiply your check result by the DC. If the result × the DC equals the price of the item in sp, then you have completed the item. (If the result × the DC equals double or triple the price of the item in silver pieces, then you’ve completed the task in one-half or one-third of the time. Other multiples of the DC reduce the time in the same manner.) If the result × the DC doesn’t equal the price, then it represents the progress you’ve made this week. Record the result and make a new Craft check for the next week. Each week, you make more progress until your total reaches the price of the item in silver pieces." (don't know how to put things in quotes yet) -PowerPlay
aelryinth 08-04-06, 03:02 AM	Well, I'm pretty sure, for example, that Masterwork doesn't actually COST you any more money, or take extra time...it's just done so well you get more cash out of it. Likewise, I'm not sure that pricey materials does anything more then raise the material cost. You are still making a masterwork suit of armor. What it SHOULD do is raise the craft DC, so that only high level smiths can work it...but I am really not sure if that extra cost for the armor is just that...extra, and not part of the calculation for crafting. Eh! Probably needs to be clarified somewhere. ===Aelryinth
PowerPlay 08-04-06, 10:19 AM	It's all there sir. "Creating Masterwork Items: You can make a masterwork item—a weapon, suit of armor, shield, or tool that conveys a bonus on its use through its exceptional craftsmanship, not through being magical. To create a masterwork item, you create the masterwork component as if it were a separate item in addition to the standard item. The masterwork component has its own price (300 gp for a weapon or 150 gp for a suit of armor or a shield) and a Craft DC of 20. Once both the standard component and the masterwork component are completed, the masterwork item is finished. Note: The cost you pay for the masterwork component is one-third of the given amount, just as it is for the cost in raw materials." (SRD - Skills I p.9) Thus to create the masterwork portion you multiply the gp x 10 to get SP, divide it by 3, and proceed to use a craft check DC 20. 150 x 10 = 1500, 1500/3 = 500. 20 x 20 = 400, takes about a week and a few days for an experienced smith to simply masterwork that ****. Now imagine making an adamantine weapon, say an adamantine dagger. 3000+1gp, 3001 gp or 30,010 SP, 10,003 sp for raw materials, average DC x Check roll of 400, 10,003/400 = 25 weeks... and then tack on a week for masterwork. That sucks.
PowerPlay 08-04-06, 03:10 PM	Oops, I'm wrong. You don't divide the cost by 3 to determine completion time. So that masterwork adamantine dagger is really gonna take you 78 weeks to make. Sorry world, say goodbye to the economy.
cancerousmango 08-04-06, 06:54 PM	I DM power-play, and believe you me, this guy's like a friggin' supreme court justice when it comes to arguing rules points. We're like Socrates and Nietzche arguing at every round of combat. Now I know to watch out for him if he's checking out threads I make pertaining to our campaign. PWNED.
PowerPlay 08-04-06, 07:43 PM	Gadzooks! The jigg is up!
cancerousmango 08-04-06, 11:48 PM	Gadzooks! The jigg is up!BTW, you asked for a fight in the next session because the last two were more talky than usual, you f-ing got it, mate! You better friggin' stock up on those damn instant rez spells from miniature's handbook.
aelryinth 08-07-06, 04:54 AM	Oops, I'm wrong. You don't divide the cost by 3 to determine completion time. So that masterwork adamantine dagger is really gonna take you 78 weeks to make. Sorry world, say goodbye to the economy. Actually, if you look at the cost of making, it doesn't say add the cost of SPECIAL materials into the cost of the final item to determine duration. This is actually born out by the pricing tables, since you have to pay the full cost of a dagger made of, oh, steel, AND for the adamantine. Ergo, the cost for the adamantine can get added onto the end, and isn't factored into the construction time...it just costs a lot more to take all the special steps and materials needed to work the adamantine or mithril. ====Aelryinth
AbsentMindedProfessor 08-07-06, 12:32 PM	Adamantine and Mithril have an added base cost because it is a rare material and it is more difficult to work with and as a result, takes more time. PHB crafting clearly states that you take the base price of the item and go from there. There is no short cutting and going around the base price. Having special material adds to the base price. Making an entire suit of armor from mithril or adamantine that would carry an equal cost to a nice house SHOULD take the better part of a year to make. Use some common sense people. Remember in Princess Bride when Enigo Mantoya father made that sword (masterwork), he slaved for a year (or was it more) to make that sword. And that's just a sword! Of course, quoting Princess Bride as evidence of what is true isn't the best thing to do either since we ALL know that ROUSes don't exidt.
PowerPlay 08-08-06, 05:29 PM	Actually, if you look at the cost of making, it doesn't say add the cost of SPECIAL materials into the cost of the final item to determine duration. This is actually born out by the pricing tables, since you have to pay the full cost of a dagger made of, oh, steel, AND for the adamantine. Ergo, the cost for the adamantine can get added onto the end, and isn't factored into the construction time...it just costs a lot more to take all the special steps and materials needed to work the adamantine or mithril. ====Aelryinth Dude, where are you getting this from? What is your reference? -P.P.
aelryinth 08-10-06, 02:03 AM	Crafting rules are fairly obtuse and hard to decipher. Looking at the way its worded, you could interpret it in either direction. I'm not saying I'm sure I'm right...but that IS a way you could rule it. More likely, you'll have a master smith making it who can Raise the DC by 20 and get it done in 1/4 the time. ===Aelryinth
glug 08-11-06, 03:51 PM	While we're on the subject of crafting, I've found it um... lacking.. at low levels. One thing I've noticed is that at the level you get 'Craft Homonculous', there is perhaps *one* from MoE that you can make. Most Homonculous require some spells that really need you to wait a few levels, or even risk your fortune on mimicing some higher level spells, before you can attempt to make them. I would love for people to work up a small list of useful, realistically craftable items for lower levels. IE: You're level 3 and you can craft Wonderous Items. What would be affordable and useful at level 3? At 4? At 5?... Thanks.
Dcourt99 08-21-06, 04:54 AM	I was wondering if anybody has noticed the new spell Splinterbolt from the Spell Compendium. Its almost exactly like Scorching Ray except its Druid 2, has a material component instead of just verbal and somatic, its piercing damage instead of fire, and it has a crit range of 18-20. I'd like to hear what everyone thinks about. Edit: And wouldn't you know it, right after posting I notice the big difference. Its a ranged attack instead of ranged touch. :(
bertman4 08-28-06, 07:42 PM	Dwarves: Dwarves face an initial roadblock in being an Artificer because of the -2 to Charisma they suffer. With so much of the class revolving around Use Magic Device, a Charisma based skill, the Dwarves are handicapped from the start. However, their +2 to Constitution helps up the Artificer's rather weak d6 hitdice. In addition, Dwarves in Eberron hold the monopoly on the banking system. As such, there would be an implied level of trust when dealing with Dwarves, which means if your Artificer wanted to set up a shop and sell their magical goods, you've got a long tradition of Dwarves being trustworthy with your money to help back you up. You're forgetting that the +2 racial bonus to craft skill involving stone or metal is really nice for a dwarf artificier. Great for arms and armor, and especially if crafting a homonculus. Bertman
periscope 09-01-06, 02:59 AM	What is CWA? you mention it in the craft wand example (its the one that gives you +5) but I cant seem to find any other references to it.
Ricohard_Draconis 09-01-06, 03:22 AM	Cannith Wand Adept, PrC from MoE, i think.
prototype00 09-01-06, 03:46 AM	The CWA is from Sharn city of Towers. prototype00
periscope 09-02-06, 12:00 AM	Thanks!:D
Octal40 09-06-06, 02:17 AM	How would I go about making an item that boosts UMD? I don't see anything in the SRD or the first posts of this thread. Is it based on an existing item? What is the cost? What is the bonus cap vs caster level (I'm 7th)?
glug 09-06-06, 01:39 PM	From the SRD: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#tableEstimatingMa gicItemGoldPieceValues Effect / Base Price / Example Skill bonus (competence) / Bonus squared × 100 gp / Cloak of elvenkind As a guideline, that would make it +1 to +5 for 100/400/900/1600/2500 base price. I made one in my game, and went with gloves as the slot for the item. I think it probably makes the most sense, and then you don't have to deal with funky costs for wrong-slot or no-slot items, etc. Check with your DM though. And there are a number of items that give skill bonus' for other skills. Many seem to be rings, however.
Chrae77 09-06-06, 05:25 PM	I don't think this has been brought up but i've been curious... How would a a homunculi work with Warforged??? doesn't it take blood to create? so would warforged just not be able to have homunculi at all???:confused:
Lafarallin 09-06-06, 05:49 PM	I don't think this has been brought up but i've been curious... How would a a homunculi work with Warforged??? doesn't it take blood to create? so would warforged just not be able to have homunculi at all???:confused: Warforge Artificers can have weapon familiars instead. I assumed this was the trade off.
aelryinth 09-07-06, 07:41 PM	alchemical fluids work perfectly fine as a sub for blood...which is itself being used in alchemy to make something remarkably similar to a warforged. The feat/recipe doesn't say 'human blood' after all. ==Aelryinth
THE_VESPER 09-12-06, 08:07 AM	How many metamagic feats can an artificer actually use when he activates a wand(scorching ray for example) in a round. can the artificer use maximize spell, twin spell, empower spell, etc. as long as his wand has enough charges to spend?I read somewhere of the massive amounts of damage this could potentially make.
Feeble_Kobold_Wizard 09-12-06, 12:52 PM	Blastificing is the new black...
aelryinth 09-12-06, 09:20 PM	How many metamagic feats can an artificer actually use when he activates a wand(scorching ray for example) in a round. can the artificer use maximize spell, twin spell, empower spell, etc. as long as his wand has enough charges to spend?I read somewhere of the massive amounts of damage this could potentially make. It depends on who you ask. A liberal interpretation of Metamagic Item and Metamagic Spell Trigger notes that these abilities place absolutely no limit on the number of Metamagicks you can stack on something. Ergo, they infer that you can stack as many as you have infusions and time, or charges. A conservative interpretation notes that these are all identical effects with differing results, and says that consecutive castings/uses override prior uses, just like if you cast the same buff twice on a person. I leave you to decide the balance of these interpretations... The Admixtured, Twinned, Repeating, empowered, Maximized Quickened Wand of Acid Orb dealing 120d6 + 1440 dmg (and that's without dual wand wielding adding another 60d6+ 360)...and that's without tons of addons with Metamagic Trigger if appropriate...(1 charge+ Infusion costs!) 16 glorious orbs of death hurtling on out over 2 rounds... Or an Artificer wielding a 'mere' wand of Empowered lesser Acid Orb, Twinned and then QUickened for +4 charges on the second use, for a minor 30d6 x2 dmg. The balance question is all yours. Have fun! ===Aelryinth
THE_VESPER 09-13-06, 12:35 AM	Some argue that this "metamagic feat stacking trick" the blastificer is famous for, would definitely hinder game balance. I know my DM would be shaking in his boots once he finds out that I'm getting curious about this neat capability artficers have. And I'm afraid, that the other players in our party would not be so happy if my character can end an encounter by himself by being a tactical-nuke-on-legs so to speak. Are there any official rulings on this matter?
aelryinth 09-13-06, 03:20 AM	None. I've asked ANdy COllins for a ruling on it, and gotten only silence. My interpretation was more from Hellcow's pointing out how he'd handle it Then someone with a bit less tact related how he'd be perfectly happy to let it stand, and then started remonstrating about how easy it was going to be to kill the PC's with a nice, cheap wand. NpC's of the same level have the same number of feats as PC's after all...and that's all this is, is application of feats. Enthusiasm for mass stacking in his campaign dwindled rapidly thereby. I guess they didn't want the artificer with a 5d6 wand of fireballs dropping 40d6 of fireball damage down on top of them in one round at level 6 or something. ===Aelryinth
THE_VESPER 09-13-06, 04:02 AM	None. I've asked ANdy COllins for a ruling on it, and gotten only silence. My interpretation was more from Hellcow's pointing out how he'd handle it Then someone with a bit less tact related how he'd be perfectly happy to let it stand, and then started remonstrating about how easy it was going to be to kill the PC's with a nice, cheap wand. NpC's of the same level have the same number of feats as PC's after all...and that's all this is, is application of feats. Enthusiasm for mass stacking in his campaign dwindled rapidly thereby. I guess they didn't want the artificer with a 5d6 wand of fireballs dropping 40d6 of fireball damage down on top of them in one round at level 6 or something. ===Aelryinth What was Hellcow's opinion about this? BTW thanks for all the help.
PowerPlay 09-13-06, 10:19 AM	You can check for yourself in "Players Trying to Kill Daughters of Sora Kel" under Eberron General. The acid orb trick is only really overpowered when used against "storyline" characters. i.e., you're fighting the Ancient Super Wyrm Guardian of the Artifact of Ultimate Power and you drop him with 2 million damage in the first round, that's no good. But in general, it's not unbalancing because it only works against two or three targets. However, as in my campaign in the aforementioned thread, we killed a major character who was a much higher CR than us and pivitol to Eberronian politics. We thought this was cool but apparently it abused game balance.
PowerPlay 09-13-06, 10:20 AM	Well actually that post is like 20 pages long. My reading of what he said is, "It's not how I would play, but if it works for your group, more power to you."
PowerPlay 09-13-06, 10:23 AM	Even if you use a conservative interpretation of the rules as Aerylinth states, there is little doubt that the use of Metamagic spell trigger in conjunction with the metamagic stacking rules in the PHB along with the metamagic rules as they apply to spell trigger items (also in the PHB) clearly allow for this powerful stacking effect. I reiterate, however, that this is only good against big bad bosses. It will not, for instance, save you from a horde of zombies (or a horde of anything else!) But it might let you take out their leader.
PowerPlay 09-13-06, 10:32 AM	Finale note on the subject: The trick is not unbeatable if you are prepared (for when your DM tries to pull this on you) Use the following countermeasures: 0(a). Ray Deflection (Spell Compendium, spell can't hit you, period) 0(b). Globe of Invulnerability 1. Tower Shield used with the full cover option (breaks line of effect) 2. Blur/Blink/Displacement/Mirror Image/Entropic Shield will severely hamper her efforts to hit you (she'll have in the order of 8-12% chance per orb... with 16 orbs or so that could still be a problem as you'll be hit by 2 or 3 of them, but it's still better than being hit by all 16) 3. Energy Immunity if you can guess what type of energy is being used 4. Targeted Dispell on the wands 5. Sunder the wands
glug 09-13-06, 05:38 PM	Enthusiasm for mass stacking in his campaign dwindled rapidly thereby. I guess they didn't want the artificer with a 5d6 wand of fireballs dropping 40d6 of fireball damage down on top of them in one round at level 6 or something. ===Aelryinth If I'm not mistaken, jacking up wands with all of these metamagic feats requires you to *have* those metamagic feats, right? Using the enormous 120d6+1440-ish damage example from a couple of posts back, realistically, at what level can an artificer even do this?
DarkPawn 09-13-06, 05:40 PM	If I'm not mistaken, jacking up wands with all of these metamagic feats requires you to *have* those metamagic feats, right? Using the enormous 120d6+1440-ish damage example from a couple of posts back, realistically, at what level can an artificer even do this? ..and more importantly, what DM would allow such nonsense. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The first time an artificer in my group used an item like that (assuming I let them which I wouldn't), I would turn around and have someone use the same exact item against them. If any of the players survived, I think they'd learn their lesson. What is sense of even playing a character that abuses the rules like this? What fun is there or challenge anymore? What fun is it for the DM to run a campaign with powergamers like this? People forget that the DM should be having fun too.
THE_VESPER 09-14-06, 02:24 AM	Was my DM correct when he ruled that an artificer can only use 1 metamagic feat at a time? So metamagic feat stacking is not an option anymore.He based this on the ECS w/c stated something along the lines of "an artificer can use a metamagic feat he knows on a spell trigger item...". But I guess it still depends on how you interpret it.I'm saying this not because I want to do the whole infinite damage combo, but it just a cool ability to stack metamagic feats while expending extra charges, I would rather put a limit on how many metamagic feats we can stack than eliminating the whole stacking ability altogether. When using a metamagic feat on a spell trigger item, does the artificer take a standard action like wizards & clerics do, or a full round to execute said action like bards and sorcerers since artificers don't prepare spells normally? Your thoughts?
PowerPlay 09-14-06, 09:52 AM	You can use any metamagic feat you want, and you can use as many as you want per shot, but you can only use each one once. Thus you can have a twinned maximized empowered wand of scorching ray, but not an extended extended wand of protection from evil, for instance. And, yes, as aelryinth stated, you must have the feat before you can use it. And to whoever said it, you can't just "use the same item" against the characters... You would need to actually clone the character so that they could make use of the prerequisite feats, and hope that you can play an artificer better than your player can. -powerplay
Ravenscroft 09-14-06, 02:24 PM	And to whoever said it, you can't just "use the same item" against the characters... You would need to actually clone the character so that they could make use of the prerequisite feats, and hope that you can play an artificer better than your player can. -powerplay Doesn't matter whether the DM can play an Artificer better than the Player. All he needs is an NPC that can do the same things. Any effect that the player can do is automatically copied. This NPC has a variable feat pool , so that he/she/it can automatically have the correct feat/feats needed. They have the Class Feature of "Emulate Pre-requisites for any feat" You could always use the "Mirror Damage" effect. Any damage handed out by the Artificer is automatically copied and directed back at the Artificer (or Party). This negates the need to have duplicates of the PCs or a Handy "Mirror of Opposition" :D
Elderich 09-14-06, 04:15 PM	Allow me to offer a counter point. While it is possible for many characters do "Go Nova" it is simply silly to say that the given artificer is somehow unbalanced. While an artificer may be able to do large damage, (I am very sure aelryinth's damage calculations are rather incorrect) one must also examine the cost. The GP cost of the wand, and the SCARCITY of said wand, makes actually doing that damage rather a "last ditch effort", not a routine occurrence. Remember that your players should (according to the DMG) expect 4 encounters a day and 13.3 encounters per level. The gold received per encounter will only allow your artificer to go nova very occasionally, which makes for a dramamtic and exciting occasion for the party and the artificer. The point here is that in aelryinth's world there are "conservative" and "liberal" DnD rules. The rest of the DM's just have the rules, and house rules. aelryinth has difficulty with this part of the game. The rest of the DM's just play the game as the rules suggest. Note there are a many perfectly valid DM coping mechanisms that do not require house rules. A post in the Character Optimization forum will get you any help you need. For example I belive the sheild spell (A force tower sheild right?) should totaly counter any such attack. Also note that an artificer needs to declare how many wand enhancing effects will be used on the wand BEFORE the attack roll. If by some "miracle" the uber shot of doom misses the BBEG, the Artificer, and the party is out those rather expensive charges.
MiscDebris 09-14-06, 04:44 PM	While an artificer may be able to do large damage, (I am very sure aelryinth's damage calculations are rather incorrect) one must also examine the cost. The GP cost of the wand, and the SCARCITY of said wand, makes actually doing that damage rather a "last ditch effort", not a routine occurrence. Remember that your players should (according to the DMG) expect 4 encounters a day and 13.3 encounters per level. The gold received per encounter will only allow your artificer to go nova very occasionally, which makes for a dramamtic and exciting occasion for the party and the artificer. Excepting that a properly built blastificer need not spend all that much on the wands he/she makes. Being able to make a wand 5 caster levels lower than needed for the effect (cannith wand adept adds 3, wand mastery adds 2 more). Combine that with the artisan feats, and wands get pretty cheap. Also add to the fact that an artificer can use infusions and XP instead of charges, all an blastificer really needs is a wand with 1 charge 5 casters below the spells cap, xp, and time. Time being the only real problem here. With all that firepower, the blastificer can take things over way his EL, and get the XP he needs. Note there are a many perfectly valid DM coping mechanisms that do not require house rules. A post in the Character Optimization forum will get you any help you need. For example I belive the sheild spell (A force tower sheild right?) should totaly counter any such attack. Shield, Tower This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else. The important part is bold. Also, the shield spell does not grant you a 'force tower shield', but instead grands a shield bonus of 4, and protection against magic missles.
aelryinth 09-14-06, 06:57 PM	If I'm not mistaken, jacking up wands with all of these metamagic feats requires you to *have* those metamagic feats, right? Using the enormous 120d6+1440-ish damage example from a couple of posts back, realistically, at what level can an artificer even do this? Hellcow's take was to rule that the effects replaced one another, rather then stacked. As for the whole point of having the feats (cough Chameleon cough Flaws cough) there's some marvelously slick ways of getting around that limit, too. A human Paragon/artificer with 2 flaws can have, what, about 6 feats by level 6 or 8 or something? Under classic rules, he'd only have 4 or so...but since every doubling feat doubles the others... Yeah, to get ALL of them you'd need a high level character. You probably can't even affford a Caster level 10 wand until after 10th level, to be realistic. But the potential is there...which is why this kind of stuff needs a nerf bat. But! That's a balance question for another day. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 09-14-06, 07:23 PM	Wow, Eld posted so many wrong things I'm just scratching my head. This whole discussion came up because the rules don't actually say if you can stack multiple effects with Metamagic Infusion or Metamagic Spell trigger. They just say you can add a Feat to the spell on the wand. Since there is no RULING, all you have are INTERPRETATIONS. And thus, conservative or liberal. WHEN there is a RULING, then you will have his 'rules' and 'house rules' distinction. But he seems to have a hard time drawing the line between what is known and unknown and thus subject to the vagaries of language. ==== And since he simply said "I think his math is wrong" rather then bothering to ACTUALLY CHECK IT...let me see how I did. The Admixtured, Twinned, Repeating, empowered, Maximized Quickened Wand of Acid Orb dealing 120d6 + 1440 dmg (and that's without dual wand wielding adding another 60d6+ 360)...and that's without tons of addons with Metamagic Trigger if appropriate...(1 charge+ Infusion costs!) 16 glorious orbs of death hurtling on out over 2 rounds... We have a Wand of Acid Orb that, by Wand Mastery, CWA levels, and/or construction maxes out at its caster level of 15 dice tops. Note, this is a fairly pricey wand...but then, it's gonna take a helluva high level guy to get all these feats in. Base Dmg is 15d6. We maximize this for 90. We also Empower it for +7.5 d6. Good enough. THEN...we start doubling it. ALL of it, since Andy Collins ruled that they all stack, since the feats, unlike maximize and empower, don't say that they don't. Admixture, x2 (dmg increase) Twin, x2 (2 orbs now) Repeat, x2 in the next round (4 orbs now, 2 this round, two the next)) And QUickened, x2. (8 orbs now, 2 salvoes per round Quickened is 'elective'...we'd probably spell trigger for it. so, thats x2^4, which means x16. Half of this number will come in round 2 when the spells Repeat. 90 x 16 is 1440. 7.5 x 16 is 15x8 which is 120d6. So, final damage is 1440 + 120d6, spread across 8 (oops is me) different Acid Orbs coming out in salvos of 2, twice a round, for two rounds, for the whopping cost of 6 charges TOPS...or 2 charges if you Infuse the Quicken. Maybe we even pay for the charges with another infusion? Imagine if we Chain this to get all the annoying fodder around at the same time? hey, they only take half damage... Fairly cost effective, since you could easily take out a CR26 creature in the first round with it. And kindly note we're using a wand. This gets really, really bad when you start using staves that use the Arti's caster level and spells with higher damage caps. The 40d6 Fireballs at level 6 is a bit of a misnomer...it'd actually be 'only' 20d6 of them. 5d6 Twinned and Quickened would be 4 5d6 fireballs in salvoes of 2. I'm sure that makes your level 6 party feel more safe. Of course, if Admixture is allowed to stack...ahem, 40d6 is entirely possible. Any human artificer can have 5 metamagic feats by level 6. Good gaming! ==Aelryinth
Elderich 09-15-06, 11:24 AM	aelryinth; How does that wand price compare to the MAX item value for a level 6 character? Or the gold a Level 6 character has? You did not do the charge cost, so we do not know the gold cost per hp of damage. I am pretty sure you do not have enough charges to do as you suggest. Only if optional rules are included could this be possible by level 6. You should make this clear. While the wand boosting tricks might work at low levels, you are rather gimped at mid levels. Everything the wand can do can be done cheaper with a staff of whatever. And is still compleatly useless against lesser globe, not to mention greater. And still requires an attack roll (which is subject to miss and all the gold and SCARCE resourced are gone), and there are still a million DM coping mechanisn MiscDebris; I may have misremmembered, but does not sheild stop spells "like MM", or just mm specificaly? I remembered this as blocking line of effect. Perhaps I was incorrect. While we may agree to disagree, let us look at the expected gold at each character level and max item value and see when you can actualy afford to have these wands. I suggest this is simply against these rules at level 6. And much latter. It is simply not a viable in game tactic. I could be convinced otherwise, but when I look at the rules I mentioned it just does not work reliably or often. The occasional nova, if all the rolls work right, it will work, and that is fun for the players and DM's alike. But every day all day? Not Possible. Now if we took a single ray spell like disintigrate, added split ray and perhaps chain, we could do some serious damage.
MiscDebris 09-15-06, 12:04 PM	I may have misremmembered, but does not sheild stop spells "like MM", or just mm specificaly? I remembered this as blocking line of effect. Perhaps I was incorrect. Magic Missile specifically. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shield.htm While we may agree to disagree, let us look at the expected gold at each character level and max item value and see when you can actualy afford to have these wands. I suggest this is simply against these rules at level 6. And much latter. It really doesn't work at all til level 7. A CL 6 wand of scorching ray is 4500 gp to make without the artisan feats. A level 7 character has about 19.000 gp. They also can have 5 feats (for human), easily getting the required metamagic to pull this off. it comes into it's own at about level 12 though, when you can make a CL 10 wand of acid orb and have it's CL bumped up by 5. It is simply not a viable in game tactic. I could be convinced otherwise, but when I look at the rules I mentioned it just does not work reliably or often. The occasional nova, if all the rolls work right, it will work, and that is fun for the players and DM's alike. But every day all day? Not Possible. if you have enough infusions, you can keep burning them on Metamagic Item and Power Surge to keep from using charges. Pearls of Power and Rods of Extend help out too. Mind you, my artificer is a bufficier and a crafter. He uses extend and persistant currently. Will likely pick up reach spell later.
Elderich 09-15-06, 12:36 PM	Magic Missile specifically. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shield.htmThanks. I compleatly forgot about the online SRD??It really doesn't work at all til level 7. A CL 6 wand of scorching ray is 4500 gp to make without the artisan feats. A level 7 character has about 19.000 gp. They also can have 5 feats (for human), easily getting the required metamagic to pull this off. it comes into it's own at about level 12 though, when you can make a CL 10 wand of acid orb and have it's CL bumped up by 5.I dont think this is in the SRD right? So we will take your word for it. So at 7th level you hit the no more that 25% in one item rule. At 7th level you DO NOT HAVE the Wand feats. You cant get them before 12th level, and then you should be using Staffs, which are cheaper. But ONE of the blasts suggested will burn out from half to the whole wand, if you can even do it with one wand, and is still subject to an attack roll. How often can a 7th level character afford to spend 2250 GP on one attack that may or may not hit? Probably want to true strike that, but that only works for one attack, not the 16? attack rolls needed? 13.3 equal ECL encounters per character level right? you can do this perhaps once? Perhaps 4 times if you put ALL OF YOUR GOLD into it? So is this a viable 7th level tactic? Honestly?if you have enough infusions, you can keep burning them on Metamagic Item and Power Surge to keep from using charges. Pearls of Power and Rods of Extend help out too. The 7th level character has at most, what 4 power surges and MMI's? MMI's take a minute each or a standard action and an action point. You CANNOT do this every time. Power surge will add one charge before 10th. No where CLOSE to the ~50 charges needed to do this trick. My point is that this is not a viable Tactic. There are a thousand ways to better spend your character levels and gold.
glug 09-15-06, 02:18 PM	Now that this has gone straight to hell, I would love for someone to do the full math on a level 7 human artificer, with a fireball wand (made at CL 6), and see what the best bang-for-the-buck you could pull off is. I might take a stab at it, but I'll need to be at home with my books, and don't believe I'll have a chance this weekend. But we've gone back and forth on this, and I'm curious to see just how ugly it is at such a mere level as 7. My artificer has no metamagic feats, although I did take the +2 CL wand feat, and just made my first wands for using it. Mostly, I like to tinker and craft and make things, and offer ranged support to the group. I don't expect to ever be a real 'blastificer', but this conversation has involved alot of hubbub, and I would love to see the rest of the numbers. Thanks for doing the math on that maxidoubladmixtified wand blast for a cool 6 million damage. Now we just need to take feats at each level, craft a CL6 Fireball wand, and see what we can blow up with this human artificer.
prototype00 09-15-06, 03:04 PM	At 7th level you DO NOT HAVE the Wand feats. You cant get them before 12th level, and then you should be using Staffs, which are cheaper. I've just looked through the Use Magic Device description in the SRD and there is nothing about emulating CL in there. With that said, how are staffs better than wands? But ONE of the blasts suggested will burn out from half to the whole wand, if you can even do it with one wand, and is still subject to an attack roll. Stacking metamagic spell trigger is silly in my estimation, and on that point I agree with you. Burning through wands like that is not an optimal solution. I am also of the school of thought that only one metamagic infusion can be used on a wand at once. (Draconian I know, but how else can you avoid DMs labeling you as overpowered?) So you just have to find a way around, a method by which you only use one or two charges/round and still deal massive damage. There is a way. 1) Take the twin spell feat 2.) Take the dragon prophesier and the prophecy artifex feats 3.) Take the 3 levels of CWA With these three conditions fulfilled, you can make the lowest priced wands of empowered scorching ray (CWA ability), twin spell the wand (Using metamagic infusion) and use the wand twice/ round (Prophecy artifex allows you to activate your wand as a swift action) doing a modest (with empowered scorching ray) possible 72d6 damage / round. Let me see a staff priced for less than 21000 gp do that. In the event that you cannot hit the ranged touch AC of whatever you're trying to kill half the time (an unlikely prospect, but lets exhaust all possibilities shall we.) It still does a respectable 36d6 damage. Should the monster be resistant to fire, use an infusion to make the wand do sonic damage instead. If the enemy you're fighting has SR, use acid orb instead of scorching ray (does less damage, costs about the same). If it has SR and fire resistance, change the acid orb to a sonic orb. In all events, all it takes is probably 4 rounds and about 4 charges from your wand and most things are dead. I don't know, that just sounds much better than using a staff, any day. prototype00
glug 09-15-06, 04:16 PM	A level 7 human artificer has 5 feats. Wand Mastery Extraordinary Artisan (whichever is the 25% cash one) Maximize Empower Twin A level 6 wand of fireballs costs: 750 * 3 * 6 = 13500 *.75 *.5 = 5062.5 gp 540xp is harsh, but what can you do. You now have a level 7 character dropping 8d6 fireballs (Wand Mastery). Maximize = 48 damage Empower = +4d6 Twin = x2 Level 7: 96 + 8d6, AOE, save for half =) (Roughly 62 damage on average w/ a save) Now the only remaining question, for which I have nothing handy, is how many charges/action points/infusion slots are burned each time you pump that damage out?
prototype00 09-15-06, 04:20 PM	10 charges/ discharge as you say in charges. If you have wand surge, it would cost you 9 action points. Infusion slots? 3 lvl 3 infusions cast over 3 round, 1 charge one round later. prototype00
Balkazar 09-15-06, 04:35 PM	Ive got a Question that is related to this I think. In the Races section of the Handbook Faqs/Builds, it says Warforges make good artificers. I agree with that they do, however, im curious if a Warforge would have the same effect with Traps as a Kobold would? As for the current question on what good things to make at lower lvls, well Gloves are Wonderous items, so I suggest making Gloves of healing, then as you get up there in lvls you get more powerful versions of the healing spells. Gloves of healing Cure Minor wounds (Unlimited) Cure Light wounds (Unlimited) Cure Moderate wounds (2/day) Cure Serious woulds (2/day) Cure Critical wounds (1/day) The Useage of the minor and light wounds unlimited would leviate some of the healing off of everyone. It even helps with healing a warforge sense theres unlimited useages and you get half healing from them true, but you can get the same effect from Gloves of Repairing for the use for healing yourself or another warforge if there in the party. Or Gloves of Regerate (Construct healing or fleshy Healing. But im sure ppl get the idea. Then later on add the Serious, Mod, and Crits. :)
glug 09-15-06, 04:50 PM	OK. So worst case scenario, you're blowing 10 charges for this big explosion at level 7, on a quite affordable wand. Maximize is +3, Empower is +2, Twin is +4. If you use Metamagic Item for the most expensive (Twin), you're saving yourself 4 charges at the cost of 1 infusion, and you'll be twinning your wand charges for the next 7 minutes for free. You've spent 101.25gp per charge on this wand, +10.8xp With just using one infusion, you're able to get this quite powerful fireball off for a mere 607.5gp. While that's not pocket change, that's still inexpensive in the grand scheme of things. That's 124 avg damage, or 62 with a save. You can do this for as many battles per day as you have 3rd level infusions, and you can do this 8 times before eating your wand. I don't know that this is extremely game breaking, but it's definitely powerful as all hell for a level 7. It's also no where near an optimized situation.
glug 09-15-06, 04:53 PM	Are Gloves of Healing a std item? I think it'd make sense as the right slot for such a thing, if not. That's a really keen idea. I'd have to look it up to see the math on pricing it though.
aelryinth 09-15-06, 06:58 PM	Ive got a Question that is related to this I think. In the Races section of the Handbook Faqs/Builds, it says Warforges make good artificers. I agree with that they do, however, im curious if a Warforge would have the same effect with Traps as a Kobold would? As for the current question on what good things to make at lower lvls, well Gloves are Wonderous items, so I suggest making Gloves of healing, then as you get up there in lvls you get more powerful versions of the healing spells. Gloves of healing Cure Minor wounds (Unlimited) Cure Light wounds (Unlimited) Cure Moderate wounds (2/day) Cure Serious woulds (2/day) Cure Critical wounds (1/day) The Useage of the minor and light wounds unlimited would leviate some of the healing off of everyone. It even helps with healing a warforge sense theres unlimited useages and you get half healing from them true, but you can get the same effect from Gloves of Repairing for the use for healing yourself or another warforge if there in the party. Or Gloves of Regerate (Construct healing or fleshy Healing. But im sure ppl get the idea. Then later on add the Serious, Mod, and Crits. :) NO NO NO NO NO NO NO and I repeat NO. The Item Creation guidelines are the LAST thing you use when creating magic items, they are not the RULES for creating magic items. Rule #1 is, find the closest thing to what you are intending to make and compare prices. Unlimited Cure Minor Wounds is effectively Fast Healing/1. fast healing/1 types out at about 90K (sort of close to a Ring of Regen...I think there's a fast healing/2 item somewhere that is 200k). =================== Elderich, in my example I specifically said you are Infusing the Wand, you are NOT using Metamagic Spell Trigger at all if you can help it. On top of this, you can use Infusions to pay for the Wand charges burned to some extent. That hellacious BOOM you heard? TWO charges. So you'd have to burn 6 or 7 Infusions doing it...so what? Renewable resource. It's a Nova situation. By merely powering back to something like TWin + QUicken, we are doing a 'mere' 60d6 in damage...and we can do that multiple times a day. I'd personally use Twin + Admixture, and keep Quicken 'in the wings' with Metamagic spell trigger if I needed to target a second party or really needed to bring the oomph this round. It'd be worth the 4 charges (or less) I'd have to burn. O yeah, and just make sure you have Unfettered Heroism going off an Item you made, and you get an action point every round you can use to sub for the ONE CHARGE you are spending... Thus I say unto thee...no stacking infusions, and one effect off of Spell Trigger...and you can STILL break the artificer wide open if you really, really want to. ============ Lastly, Staves are generally 50% or more expensive then wands are. 1) Staves have multiple spells. REad it...it's right in the description. You cannot make a staff with one spell. 2) Staves have specific types. You can only make published staves, if you go strictly by the rules. 3) Staves have to have a strong theme to them. Not a general theme, not a casual theme...a strong theme. 4) Caster level, yada yada yada. I can use Wand Mastery and CWA levels to actually make Wands that cast at higher level then I do! Woot! And since I want my wand to be of a specific type and only one spell, it's far cheaper to make the wand to cast 50 Acid Orbs then it is to make the staff to cast 50 Acid Orbs and Maybe Some Other Spells. 5) Craft Wand you can get at level 5 or 6 or something. Staves need caster level 12. Not level 12...CASTER level 12. Bit of a delay...and you still can't make a custom staff to order. ===Aelryinth
PowerPlay 09-15-06, 07:04 PM	Hellcow's take was to rule that the effects replaced one another, rather then stacked. This is absolutely not true. Show me where he says this. I had another point, but I forget what it was.
Balkazar 09-15-06, 07:06 PM	Glug. Yes in my game when theres no priests or any healers for that matter around, we sometimes substitute other things to make up for it. If you wish to cut down on the prices just go for the minor and light wounds (Unlimited), my game uses it when needed. In my group we add custimize items to benefit our specific class or make up for the lack of our specific class :). Those gloves are not STD, infact there custom made item :). Just like our Companion Collars for a druid or rangers animal companion to make them more combat friendly and not so weak :). Companion collars, have like Greater magic fang, continous enlarge, Spells that benefit the animal. Or my favorite is a ring of Balsephim's blessing, its the spell that allows the useage of turning a person into a lyconthrope for an entire week then if you need to change to a different lycanthrope switch :). I was the bat in this instance :), We traveled around in our Hybrid forms to fully use both our animal abilities and our class abilities, like for a wizard HYBRID BAT!!, make sure you got your thumbs going :P. But we also use the STD magic items too, HOWEVER, We customize our magic items if there isnt a magic item around that we need :).
PowerPlay 09-15-06, 07:23 PM	Okay, some of this is getting a little crazy. First of all, to do this rediculous explosion that Aelryinth is talking about, you need to be at least level 11 or 12 realistically. Why? You can't get Wand Mastery until you are level 9 (you can't get it at level 7 peeps... the +2 caster level only applies to magic items, not feats), and Cannith Wand Adept does not add to your caster level. So to do this build you neat Art 9/CWA 2 or 3. You need the following feats, quicken, twin, admix, energy substitution. Also, Aelryinth, how do you get around the fact that when you dual wield a wand it uses d4 charges per wand? And when you use a quickened shot, you're still using an extra shot? In my estimation the minimum cost even using all infusions is 1 + 2d4 charges. Also, applying the damage from repeat spell is silly unless you have somehow bound your opponent because they are bound to move. Repeat spell casts the same spell at the same area... Although it just hit me in a flash of insight that the target of an acid orb spell is the orb itself, so when you repeat the spell you might actually be able to re-target the orb. I'm not sure though, but that's questionable. Regardless, repeat spell is silly, it probably won't work. Realistically you are just going to do 1000 damage to a melted corpse 1 round later. Okay... So in summary: To do this trick you really need to be level 12 (art9/cwa3), you need to have taken two or three flaws for feat purposes, and it's expensive, but not that expensive. My personal opinion is that this move really isn't that game breaking unless your DM blows chunks. -PowerPlay
aelryinth 09-16-06, 02:04 AM	Well, you don't NEED to be a CWA...you just need to get your hands on a wand with a high caster level. CWA saves you money by meaning you can make that wand a level 10 casting tool, not a level 13. For Scorching Ray, you can make it level 6 instead of level 9, for example. Lesser Acid Orb, level 5 instead of 8. The cost savings are...significant. You can get all the feats you need by level 6. Sickening, yes? Except Wand Mastery...that is at level 9. Human feat, level one, level 3, bonus feat from class, level 6. Bing! Next, I'm not dual wielding in that combo above. Dual Wield is for emergencies. QUicken Spell is more efficent via Metamagic Spell Trigger. Dual Wielding just increases the damage by 50%...but it costs an entire extra set of infusions, which you might/might not be capable of doing. For the most part, for NOVA damage, you want it all from one wand. Dual wielding is for bringing the beat down from unbuffed wands. It's very pricey and not at all efficent. Like spraying a gun all around instead of aiming and taking a good shot. I'd rather get a huge bang out of my gun then shoot a lot of ineffectual BB's around. And TWin + Quicken is available quite soon and does nasty damage all by itself. And it's not broken...well, maybe Twin is... ================= As for HEllcow's position on the stacking, that IS the position, because I didn't know how to phrase why I believed it didn't stack, and he supplied the wording why. I use his explanation of like replacing like. ===Aelryinth
Elderich 09-19-06, 03:43 PM	Couple points... 1) A 13000GP wand in the hands of a 7th level character violates the "no item worth more than 25% of your wealth" rule. As such it is not Core. 2) Contrary to some assertions, an Item that costs a character 5000+ GP at ANY pre epic level IS NOT CHEAP. That goes double if it is CONSUMABLE. That is over 25% of A ECL7's worth, and from a damage point of view is a horrible investment at that level. 3) There is some confusion on Magic Item Rules. Creating magic items need to follow the RULES for creating magic items. However there is a rule that pricing magic items is sometimes difficult and they should be priced relative to other similar items. That does not mean you CANNOT find a good deal, It just means your group should have a discussion about Items you think might be good to add to the campaign. 1) Staves have multiple spells. REad it...it's right in the description. You cannot make a staff with one spell.Not true. No where does it say "Staffs Must HAVE more than one spell." Further The SRD says "Furthermore, a staff can hold a spell of any level, unlike a wand." aelryinth you really need to actually read the rules.2) Staves have specific types. You can only make published staves, if you go strictly by the rules.There is simply no such rule. There are very specific rules for creating staffs and the SRD even says staffs are priced very closely to those rules. aelryinth is suggesting that we cannot do what the rules have specific sections on doing. For example "Creating Staffs" which contain the formulas for making your own staffs. As an aside to the reader; I do not like to directly engage aelryinth in any sort of discussion, as you can see from this thread he has a tendency to not let the facts dissuade his arguments. The astute reader will have noticed he is jumping from case to case, modifying them has he goes, instead of creating some fixed set of specific cases for us to examine. This allows him to change the assertions as will, and makes it very difficult to pin down exactly what is and is not being asserted. Finally a CWA is a very poor idea, unless you like the flavor. Staffs are better due to the ability to use your Caster Level instead of the staff (Which is much better than the CL bonus of the CWA, and just gets better with each level) AND you can use your STAT bonus for DC checks (Which is always better than the +DC of CWA). Staffs will also retain utility as the character progresses to 20th level and goes epic, and wands will be forgotten. A staff ( say CL8 SL2, of elemental ORB, Lesser) is ALWAYS a better in the hands of an Art12 than a similar wand in the hands of an Art9/CWA3. An Art12 has Craff Staff, and can make a Staff for the same price as a wand. The Staff will give a higher DC, be cheaper to make and do more damage. CWA takes feats and levels and gives nothing in return. HellCow has ALWAYS and REGULARLY said that nothing he says has anything to do with the rules. He explains how he plays and how he thought it would work, but that is not Official in any way. In this he is just wrong according to the current Eberron rules. As always you play the way that is the most fun for you. I would also like to again point out that none of this is game breaking, except for the parts that actualy break the rules, not the parts that break rules that do not exsist. Any decent DM can handle all of this with no problem.
Elderich 09-19-06, 03:57 PM	Sorry I did not get back to you 1) I've just looked through the Use Magic Device description in the SRD and there is nothing about emulating CL in there. 2) With that said, how are staffs better than wands?1) http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/skillsCha.html Emulate a Class Feature: Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item. In this case, your effective level in the emulated class equals your Use Magic Device check result minus 20. That is the part, you can check the stafficer link in my sig for more details. 2) I think this has been addressed above mostly. I think a Staff of scorcing ray (CL8) will do your example better and cheaper. In fact I challange you to find a case in which a staff is weaker than a wand. My DM does not think me Overpowered and I do the same sort of thing from time to time. If he puts me in a position that I can go nova my DM either wants me to or screwed up.
Elderich 09-19-06, 04:01 PM	<SNIP>As for the current question on what good things to make at lower lvls, well Gloves are Wonderous items, so I suggest making Gloves of healing, then as you get up there in lvls you get more powerful versions of the healing spells.<SNIP>Might I suggest an artificer with Extend and persistant and a wand of vigor, lesser. Fast healing 1 for 48 hours. Much cheaper. No pricing hassle with your group.
aelryinth 09-20-06, 04:31 AM	Couple points... 1) A 13000GP wand in the hands of a 7th level character violates the "no item worth more than 25% of your wealth" rule. As such it is not Core. 2) Contrary to some assertions, an Item that costs a character 5000+ GP at ANY pre epic level IS NOT CHEAP. That goes double if it is CONSUMABLE. That is over 25% of A ECL7's worth, and from a damage point of view is a horrible investment at that level. 3) There is some confusion on Magic Item Rules. Creating magic items need to follow the RULES for creating magic items. However there is a rule that pricing magic items is sometimes difficult and they should be priced relative to other similar items. That does not mean you CANNOT find a good deal, It just means your group should have a discussion about Items you think might be good to add to the campaign. Not true. No where does it say "Staffs Must HAVE more than one spell." Further The SRD says "Furthermore, a staff can hold a spell of any level, unlike a wand." aelryinth you really need to actually read the rules.There is simply no such rule. There are very specific rules for creating staffs and the SRD even says staffs are priced very closely to those rules. aelryinth is suggesting that we cannot do what the rules have specific sections on doing. For example "Creating Staffs" which contain the formulas for making your own staffs. As an aside to the reader; I do not like to directly engage aelryinth in any sort of discussion, as you can see from this thread he has a tendency to not let the facts dissuade his arguments. The astute reader will have noticed he is jumping from case to case, modifying them has he goes, instead of creating some fixed set of specific cases for us to examine. This allows him to change the assertions as will, and makes it very difficult to pin down exactly what is and is not being asserted. Finally a CWA is a very poor idea, unless you like the flavor. Staffs are better due to the ability to use your Caster Level instead of the staff (Which is much better than the CL bonus of the CWA, and just gets better with each level) AND you can use your STAT bonus for DC checks (Which is always better than the +DC of CWA). Staffs will also retain utility as the character progresses to 20th level and goes epic, and wands will be forgotten. A staff ( say CL8 SL2, of elemental ORB, Lesser) is ALWAYS a better in the hands of an Art12 than a similar wand in the hands of an Art9/CWA3. An Art12 has Craff Staff, and can make a Staff for the same price as a wand. The Staff will give a higher DC, be cheaper to make and do more damage. CWA takes feats and levels and gives nothing in return. HellCow has ALWAYS and REGULARLY said that nothing he says has anything to do with the rules. He explains how he plays and how he thought it would work, but that is not Official in any way. In this he is just wrong according to the current Eberron rules. As always you play the way that is the most fun for you. I would also like to again point out that none of this is game breaking, except for the parts that actualy break the rules, not the parts that break rules that do not exsist. Any decent DM can handle all of this with no problem. 1) A 13000 Gp wand in the hands of a 7th level character that he made himself violates nothing at all, especially if he has the 'makes it cheaper' gold cost feat. And oddly enough, that 25% is a guideline, not a rule. 2) An item is quite cheap if you can get more gold from using it up then it costs to replace the item. Eminently possible with buffed wands. 3) You really need to actually read the rules on Item Creation, Elderich, instead of inferring what you want to. The cost for the materials is subsumed in the cost for creating the staff—375 gp × the level of the highest-level spell × the level of the caster, plus 75% of the value of the next most costly ability (281.25 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster), plus one-half of the value of any other abilities (187.5 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster). Staffs are always fully charged (50 charges) when created. Nowhere in the above says you can elect to have only one spell. You MUST have a second ability. There's no 'if any' in there. Craft staff specifically says you may craft any staff whose prerequisites you meet...in other words, a staff that has already been created. While I might personally house rule this away, it is clearly inferring that the design of the staff must exist...the wording is VERY diffferent from that used to make wands, which are basically wide open. A staff is a long shaft of wood that stores several spells. Unlike wands, which can contain a wide variety of spells, each staff is of a certain kind and holds specific spells. A staff has 50 charges when created. From the direct description of staves. Nowhere does it mention that you can make a staff with only one SPELL. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, does 'several spells' translate as ONE spell. In other words, your double negative logic is not working. I.e. just because it doesn't explicitly say it's not forbidden, does not mean it's possible. The examples of every created staff (which you are limited to) the wording of the item creation rules, and the description of staves themselves, completely crush your 'one spell only rule.' It's a game try, but completely unsupported. House rule it, but don't call it official here. 4) Oh Lord, not this rehash Emulate Caster Level stuff again. Why are you bringing it to this thread? The only reason this ability exists is so that you can emulate a caster level when reading a scroll, so as not to incur spell failure chances. Since a Staff never calls for a caster level check as mandatory, you aren't able to force a caster level on it. Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item. In this case, your effective level in the emulated class equals your Use Magic Device check result minus 20. This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature. If the class whose feature you are emulating has an alignment requirement, you must meet it, either honestly or by emulating an appropriate alignment with a separate Use Magic Device check (see above). Right there...you can't actually use the caster level of another class, because it's a class feature. It lets you 'activate' items as if you had it. THere's nothing in the abilty about substituting caster levels. Activating a staff as if you were a mage with 100 caster levels doesn't mean you can use your caster level for the staff...it's a completely different effect, not activation...and activation is ALL you can do. Do not rehash this old and tired argument on this thread. ============ In other words, there's almost no circumstance concerning cost or caster level where a staff is better then a wand for an artificer. ONly at Epic levels when Master Staff gets taken and you can sub spell slots for charges do Staves start getting pretty cool as a way to expand your 'on demand' repertoire. Until then, they are way too pricey for what they do. ===Aelryinth
glug 09-20-06, 05:34 PM	Ael, now I'm a little confused about staves.. The pdf's on CrystalKeep (what I have available while I'm at work) lists tons of staves from many books. They all have charges in the range of 1-2 typically for each spell.. which looks like it's a per-day thing. If that's the case, where does the 'staves start with 50 charges' thing come into play, and when would you ever use a formula for staff creation if all of the staves are explicitly defined?
Elderich 09-20-06, 07:31 PM	If you read the creation rules for staffs Glug, I think it will become clear. http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/magicItemsCreation.html The 1 or 2 charge thing is unique to staffs. One may create a staff that uses more than one of the 50 starting charges, and pay less for adding the spell to the staff. Very few DM’s follow Aelryinth’s thinking on staffs. If your DM or Group has this wrong headed thinking then feel free to add a 0 level spell that takes 2 charges to cast at a cost of about 1000GP. It is still much cheaper and better DC’s than a wand once you get craft staff. To the reader; I will not engage Aelryinth in a Discussion. Simply, there is no requirement for a staff to have more than one spell at any place in the rules. If you have a doubt about this, feel free to contact customer service and ask them. I have. It is simply impossible for one encounter to generate enough gold to cover the cost of the wand charge until near Epic levels. You may run the scenarios if you wish. I have. Remember that a player should encounter 13.3 equal level challenges per level and rewards should be relatively evenly distributed through out those encounters, with a lump sum on completing a story arch. The Caster Level emulation of UMD is entirely RAW, and also broken, and needs errata, as many and myself have argued for quite some time. Feel free to contact customer service if you have a doubt wish. I have. Customer service may be found by registering here http://wizards.custhelp.com/
aelryinth 09-21-06, 12:37 AM	Staves can be set up to cost 1 or 2 charges or even more per usage. This drives down the cost of the ability, but of neccessity limits the number of times you can use the staff. It is theoretically possible to make a staff that costs 50 charges to use its spell, cutting your cost drastically, but you'd get that Meteor Swarm off. Personally, I don't know why they give you spell creation formula if their wording is such that you have to go by officially created staves. I suppose it's so DM's can intro staves that are 'official', but not allow PC's to deviate into making custom staves. There is a HUGE emphasis put onto related spells for staves that many players would happily just ignore...a balance thing, I'd guess. Most of the Optimizers on the Boards agree with this ruling as far as mandatory two spells go, but the opinions are varied as to the "official only" meaning of 'meeting Prerequisites'. And Optimizers are big rules freaks. Because of the dubiousness surrounding the issue, they just resort to scrolls or use wands for specifics. Staves are just not held as viable items for what they do. The Emulating Caster level is another Liberal Interpretation of the Rules, not RAW. A more conservative and common sense of the rules without an eye to bending them completely supports the impossibility of this sort of thing happening. You really have to stretch and exaggerate the wording to allow this sort of thing to pass...which is not what a sensible, Conservative reading of the Rules states. There's no doubt that both above factors suffer from a rather odiously high lack of clarity and need more precise language. The same thing applies to stacking SPell Trigger and Metamagic Infusions...and they seem to avoid the subject, while Cust Serv gives conflicting answers. ====== Eld's problems with language seem to extend to math, too. One charge from a buffed wand dealing over 100 hp can kill several trolls at once (A maximized, Twinned fireball), and, say, this EL 8 encounter would pay for 1 charge from a level 8 Fireball Wand several times over. (3400 gp or something?). If you are talking individual foes, that Empowered Scorching Ray, Twinned, with Quicken, would be 6 charges total, dealing out 66d6 dmg, pretty much guaranteed to kill anything 200 hp or less, which is more then most EL 10 encounters...would more then pay for the 6 charges. You could just spend one charge for 100 damage, and then use it again in the next round if you get suprise if you really have to... Epic levels? Sometimes, I don't know where he comes up with these ideas. ===Aelryinth
Pinky's brain 09-21-06, 11:28 AM	You know what's even sillier ... character designed staves of spells are custom magic items, but character designed staves of mysteries (Tome of Magic) are explicitly allowed.
TheCook 09-22-06, 05:03 AM	Hi all, First,I apologize for my poor English. Second, i'll get to the point, i'm going to play a gestalt artificer, and i need some help. i supposed an artificer/spellthief (fire a ray, SA and steal spell, coool :cool: ) or an artificer/rogue (evasion and so on :rolleyes: ) or an artificer/wizard (for feats, to be a blaster and a buffer :D but with NO armor :( ) or even an artificer/beguiler (sooo social ;) ) Any suggestion for another gestalt class? and for the prestige class on the roguish-side? what do you think? Thank you all, i apologize again for my poor english.
aelryinth 09-22-06, 03:32 PM	This thread is more for finding actual information and clarifying information on the artificer, rather then designing optimal artificer combos. I suggest you ask your question on the Optimizer boards. You will get a MUCH better answer. Gestalt is just something not used here much. ===Aelryinth
THE_VESPER 09-23-06, 12:08 AM	Is my DM right by ruling that my artificer couldn't make gloves that gives +5 to my UMD skill checks, just because such an item doesn't exist in the DMG or any book for that matter. He said that my artificer is only allowed to craft items w/c appear in the DMG list and other Eberron themed books. And although there are rules written in the DMG for making items with different kinds of bonuses (sacred, profane, insight etc.) he thinks those are just variant rules thus it's considered optional. I think that if I accept this houserule of his, my artificer would be somewhat crippled, since this class' main forte is making items. Your thoughts?
Elderich 09-23-06, 10:40 AM	Let me suggest you post your question as a seperate thread.
Elderich 09-23-06, 10:46 AM	Eld's problems with language seem to extend to math, too. One charge from a buffed wand dealing over 100 hp can kill several trolls at once (A maximized, Twinned fireball), and, say, this EL 8 encounter would pay for 1 charge from a level 8 Fireball Wand several times over. (3400 gp or something?).Really? Is this a fact? Lets detail this some. How many trolls? How many party members? How does this encounter fit into the adventure as a whole. Paint the WHOLE picture instead of just the attaractinve parts of it.If you are talking individual foes, that Empowered Scorching Ray, Twinned, with Quicken, would be 6 charges total, dealing out 66d6 dmg, pretty much guaranteed to kill anything 200 hp or less, which is more then most EL 10 encounters...would more then pay for the 6 charges. You could just spend one charge for 100 damage, and then use it again in the next round if you get suprise if you really have to... Epic levels? Sometimes, I don't know where he comes up with these ideas. ===AelryinthAgain, actualy Give us some specific details, instead of vague assertions. Infact, how about we create a whole other thread and we can ACTUALY address your assertions in detail, and stop cluttering up Edy's thread? What do you say Aelryinth? Start a new thread on this topic, and see if you actualy have finaly got the better of me in understanding the rules of this game. And even IF the Blastificer DOES work, MORE damage can be done CHEAPER with the ninjaficer, and be all day long and strong, not a one hit wonder.
aelryinth 09-23-06, 02:40 PM	Might I suggest an artificer with Extend and persistant and a wand of vigor, lesser. Fast healing 1 for 48 hours. Much cheaper. No pricing hassle with your group. I believe you need a wand of mass less vigor to do this. Something about how the durations interact. Persistent extends the duration out to one day...the wording for the others is somewhat wonky, but lesser vigor didn't satisfy the condition. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 09-23-06, 02:46 PM	Is my DM right by ruling that my artificer couldn't make gloves that gives +5 to my UMD skill checks, just because such an item doesn't exist in the DMG or any book for that matter. He said that my artificer is only allowed to craft items w/c appear in the DMG list and other Eberron themed books. And although there are rules written in the DMG for making items with different kinds of bonuses (sacred, profane, insight etc.) he thinks those are just variant rules thus it's considered optional. I think that if I accept this houserule of his, my artificer would be somewhat crippled, since this class' main forte is making items. Your thoughts? In all actuality, he's got a very firm foundation...the only magic items published anywhere that affect UMD checks are the Admiral's Tricorn and the Circlet of Persuasion, which give boosts to all Charisma checks...and UMD sort of falls into the bonus. Hellcow himself does not let his players make +UMD items. It forces a radical change in the way players make and take feats, since UMD is so essential to the class. In short, just because the bonuses exist, doesn't mean you can apply them equally to all skills. Making a blanket ban might be too high, but what you are effectively doing is making something no one else has ever done before, akin to spell research. At the very least, I'd force you to spend a lot of money creating the initial effect...and then watch the rampant carnage as every artificer out there tried to steal/learn what you've done for themselves. Suddenly, skill focus (UMD) actually looks worthwhile, doesn't it? :) ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 09-23-06, 02:53 PM	Eld, you are setting a double standard. You are saying it couldn't be done...I'm giving a fairly basic description of an encounter where it very easily COULD be done with any brains...and now you are calling foul and demanding I do more work so you can nitpick it, which is what all encounter challenges devolve into. Color me unimpressed. Are you trying to get the thread locked and posts deleted again? As for buffificers, buffs take multiple spells and don't end an encounter as abruptly as mass damage can. That doesn't mean they aren't useful, but for some reason you are ignoring the cost ramifications of using multiple buffs over multiple days, even ones where you might not have an encounter, and that can be dispelled, vs using a single charge to end an encounter at the time and place and need of your choice. So again, you set a double standard and don't apply it to yourself. Everything has limitations. The power of the artificer is that even with the limitation of gold, he gets incredibly powerful if you care to design him that way. ==Aelryinth
Elderich 09-23-06, 02:59 PM	It would be easy to start another thread and stop cluttering Edy's thread. Again you have not posted specific details, so the blatent errors are hidden to the casual reader. Prior experience shows it is useless to pint out the errors as you will change the example as soon as it is done. I will continue with you IF you post in a new thread. Else you are in error as has been shown time and time again. You do not have a full understanding of the rules and do not understand how this game is played, as has been pointed out time and again. I urge the reader to cast a critical eye on vague assertions that do not bear out in actual game play.
aelryinth 09-23-06, 08:49 PM	It would be easy to start another thread and stop cluttering Edy's thread. Again you have not posted specific details, so the blatent errors are hidden to the casual reader. Prior experience shows it is useless to pint out the errors as you will change the example as soon as it is done. I will continue with you IF you post in a new thread. Else you are in error as has been shown time and time again. You do not have a full understanding of the rules and do not understand how this game is played, as has been pointed out time and again. I urge the reader to cast a critical eye on vague assertions that do not bear out in actual game play. Riiight. And you are the uber game master when I've broken apart every single rule you've posted and you've not a leg to stand on. Grain of salt with those high falootin' words? Go start your own thread, and maybe I'll deign to set foot in it...when you aren't trying to mess people up with liberal rule interpretations. And, I'm going to notify the moderator to watch the thread (edited out) ==Aelryinth
Pinky's brain 09-25-06, 11:34 AM	Tow artificer tricks ... For "normal" artificers : you can hold the charge on infusions. Hold the charge with an augmentation infusion when you head into danger. For higher level artificers which use persistent spell : always keep some long duration first level spells heightened to 9th level active on yourself to deal with area dispels (rings of counterspelling can protect you against targetted dispelling of course).
aelryinth 09-25-06, 07:16 PM	There's a lot of debate about Wands being capable of unleashing Heightened spells above 4th level (I doubt they can). Unlike normal metamagic feats, there's no 'cost' to this...they HAVE to occupy the spell slot to qualify. I'm not even sure it's even possible to use Heighten with a Metamagic infusion...you'd probably violate caster level limits. UNless you are talking about infused magical items? That ups the difficulty of a UMD check a lot...but it is a decent tactic. Is there an xp cost based on doing so (min caster level 17, of course)? ===Aelryinth
Balkazar 09-25-06, 10:29 PM	For those Artificers that like to multiclass *Which im considering a halfling instead of WF now*, what lvl is reccommended to go ?
Pinky's brain 09-26-06, 04:50 PM	There's a lot of debate about Wands being capable of unleashing Heightened spells above 4th level (I doubt they can).Every time people bring up that the effective level of a spell determines what fits into a wand, and thus if heighten would prevent metamagic spelltrigger to work with a wand then so would any other metamagic feat which raised the effective level above 4, you have ignored them. We have assertion, counter ... and there it stops. That is no debate.
aelryinth 09-26-06, 09:25 PM	For those Artificers that like to multiclass *Which im considering a halfling instead of WF now*, what lvl is reccommended to go ? It really depends on race and class, and what you want to do. But character build questions should go to the main board...this thread is more about the rules governing making artificers. You can also read the very first posts for some decent advice from Edyminion. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 10-01-06, 02:43 PM	Every time people bring up that the effective level of a spell determines what fits into a wand, and thus if heighten would prevent metamagic spelltrigger to work with a wand then so would any other metamagic feat which raised the effective level above 4, you have ignored them. We have assertion, counter ... and there it stops. That is no debate. Heighten doesn't have a cost...you actually stuff the spell into the slot, there's no 'cost' to be paid. It is unique among all metamagic feats that way. All other metamagic has a 'cost' assigned to it...and an infusion can pay that cost. Heighten has no cost..the spell must occupy the slot, and unlike all other modifiers, becomes a spell of that slot. And no wand can cast a spell above 4th level, and it now IS a spell above 4th level. Furthermore, the item doesn't have the caster level to shoot off a 9th level spell, more then likely, and so heightening to 9th level probably isn't possible unless you use a staff and have a high caster level yourself. An Empowered Lesser Orb is a 2nd level spell with 2 slots of 'cost' tacked on. A Heightened Lesser Orb to 4th is a 4th level spell. There IS a difference...and refusal to see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Balance and conservative interpretation of the rules. I already got into a riproaring discussion elsewhere over how DC 23 saves forced on a party at 8-10th level would decimate them handily without Heighten restrictions...all the balance issues still hold true. Allowing it at lower levels? Suicide or a broken campaign. ==Aelryinth
Pinky's brain 10-01-06, 04:56 PM	Heighten doesn't have a cost...you actually stuff the spell into the slot, there's no 'cost' to be paid. It is unique among all metamagic feats that way.Which is only relevant for metamagic item, and not metamagic spelltrigger which simply uses the effective spell levels added to determine the number of charges used. And no wand can cast a spell above 4th levelNo wand can cast a spell with an effective spell level above 4th period. Either it matters or it doesn't. Your distinction between effective spell levels and spell level for reasons of globe of invulnerability etc. has no bases in the rules. and it now IS a spell above 4th level.As is a quickened magic missile for as far as it matters to what fits in a wand. Furthermore, the item doesn't have the caster level to shoot off a 9th level spell, more then likely, and so heightening to 9th level probably isn't possible unless you use a staff and have a high caster level yourself.There are a lot of ways to cast spells at lower than 2*level-1 caster level, this happens to be one of them (artificer scrolls, half caster classes, ur-priest etc). An Empowered Lesser Orb is a 2nd level spell with 2 slots of 'cost' tacked on. A Heightened Lesser Orb to 4th is a 4th level spell. There IS a difference...and refusal to see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.There is a difference, but not as far as the rules is concerned as to whether it fits in a wand. Balance and conservative interpretation of the rules. I already got into a riproaring discussion elsewhere over how DC 23 saves forced on a party at 8-10th level would decimate them handily without Heighten restrictions...all the balance issues still hold true. Allowing it at lower levels? Suicide or a broken campaign. So house rule ...
aelryinth 10-01-06, 06:53 PM	and the difference there is you cannot fit the quickened magic missile into a wand, nor a 5th level Heightened effect. But unlike Quicken spell, Heighten does not have a defined cost. It doesn't actually have a cost at all...it has a spell slot it occupies. It is "Unlike other metamagic feats." Arcane Thesis even specifically notes that it won't work with Heighten spell, because there's no cost associated with it. It simply MUST occupy the spell slot...you can't buy it off. ===Aelryinth
Pinky's brain 10-01-06, 07:37 PM	But unlike Quicken spell, Heighten does not have a defined cost. It doesn't actually have a cost at allMetamagic spell trigger doesn't require a cost, it takes as many charges as the number of effective spell levels added ... and a heightened spell does have an effective spell level.
aelryinth 10-02-06, 03:55 PM	Again, look at the language. A Heightened Spell actually becomes a spell of the spell level it occupies. If you don't change the level it occupies, you can't Heighten the spell. The cost factor is irrelevant. An Orb of Fire Heightened to 9th level MUST occupy a 9th level slot by wording of the feat. Paying the 'cost' does nothing for you. And since there's no 9th level spell slots built into most random magical items, the technique simply won't work. ===Aelryinth
Pinky's brain 10-02-06, 05:54 PM	Read metamagic spell trigger, the word "cost" isn't even in there. You use as many additional charges as the metamagic feat adds to the effective spell level, does a heightened spell have an effective spell level? Is that higher than the original spell level? Did it thus add effective spell levels?
aelryinth 10-03-06, 03:30 AM	Does the Heighten spell occupy a new spell slot? No? Then it won't work. Exactly the same as Arcane Thesis. You can't reduce Heighten spell down...it has to occupy a spell slot to work. Cost is therefore irrelevant to the mechanics of the feat. ===Aelryinth
prototype00 10-03-06, 03:34 AM	Let the Bickering be ended: BEHOLD! Dear CustServ, 1.) I just had a question about Metamagic Item the 3rd level artificer infusion found on page 113 of the Eberron Campaign setting. This infusion allows you to apply a metamagic feat that you know to a spell contained within a spell trigger item, and is used quite frequently in conjunction with wands. What is the effect of applying the heighten spell metamagic feat to said wand? Is it possible with this feat to boost the spell contained within to 9th level (with the associate changes to the DC and whether or not the spell bypasses a globe of invulnerability?). 1) Yes you can do this. prototype00
Pinky's brain 10-03-06, 03:47 AM	Does the Heighten spell occupy a new spell slot? A silly question ... does a spell cast through metamagic spell trigger ever occupy a spell slot? The word "slot" occurs in the heighten feat no more than "cost" does in the metamagic spell trigger description BTW. There is something which occurs in both though ... "effective spell level".
aelryinth 10-03-06, 12:46 PM	Let the Bickering be ended: BEHOLD! prototype00 If I hadn't seen them waffle so much on issues, I'd likely take this with more then a grain of salt. And since it also implies that merely by taking Improved Heighten at Epic, you can Heighten any spell on a wand to infinity, I'm going to disregard the logic behind it too, mm? ==Aelryinth
Fuego 10-23-06, 06:28 PM	I have a, hopefully, quick question. Can someone use a metamagic rod in conjunction with a wand or other magical item? For example, my artificer has a wand of magic missile and a rod of empower. Can he use the metamagic rod to empower the casting of the magic missile from the wand? I seem to have read somewhere that this is possible, but can't find it anywhere. Thanks in advance
aelryinth 10-24-06, 02:21 AM	No, actually, its not possible. You can apply metamagic to a wand, but not via a rod which specifically only affects cast spells...not charges from spell-trigger items. ==Aelryinth
Pinky's brain 10-24-06, 02:54 AM	That is the commonly accepted ruling. It's not actually what the rules say, the rules are full of references to "casting a spell from a wand" and similar phrases. On the one hand there is nothing in the rules to preclude you from using a metamagic rod with a spell cast from an item on the other being the caster for a spell is all that is necessary to apply the metamagic feat from a rod ... if you just follow the rules without preconceptions then yes, you could use a metamagic rod with a spell cast from an item. As I said though, it's commonly accepted it can't be done, commonly accepted to the point where nearly everyone would rule against it (including the Sage and Customer Service).
Fuego 10-24-06, 07:39 AM	hehe, thanks. That makes sense and is what I thought, but it was still bothering me. Thanks for clarifying. I thought that it might be too good to be true, so I asked.
jameswilliamogle 10-25-06, 03:09 PM	Is the WF Artificer Sub level Tools of War worth it to lose Craft Homonculi? It seems like in a higher level campaign it would be ok (since one could get the feat Craft Construct fairly easily), but in a campaign grinding from 3rd up it isn't as good. Is this a fair asessment?bump this old post. Any opinions on it?
Fuego 10-26-06, 08:28 PM	I have a question about higher level artificers. If an artificer is epic level and has taken Improved Metamagic (or has access to the same ability through a PrC or some other means), does that mean that when he uses either his Metamagic Spell Completion ability or the 1st level infusion Metamagic Scroll, the Improved Metamagic affects this, right? Also, on a different topic, if you use the Reach Spell feat in conjunction with the 3rd level infusion Metamagic Item, could Metamagic item now be Chained? I also thought that a good idea for a higher level character (one at least possessing the Metamagic Spell Completion ability) could carry around a schema of Metamagic Item and either Twin/Repeat for his buff spells or Reach/Chain. The first way is more straightforward RAW and could net you 4 persisted (or other) wand buffs. The other could be a lot more beneficial, but it is not as clear RAW.
mostholycerebus 10-26-06, 09:02 PM	IMO, Tools of War is the best thing a warforged artificer gets, and it's the only reason I took those substitution levels. Free healing with every buff, puts you near the d10-d12 hit die category for amount of damage you can take. It also makes a good defense against those nasty Sunder fighters that DM's love to use on characters with "overpowered" (AKA: cool) magic weapons and armor (like, for example, an artificer). With Tools of War, Legendary and Extraordinary artisan, an artificer can create alot more 'stuff', for the whole party. My NPC warforged artificer does the crafting at night, so every adventuring day is also a work day, and the party doesn't need more than 8 hours of rest. We used to only get maybe 12 hours of adventuring done every day because of staggered shifts for night watch. Again IMO, weapons and armor are already the best use of craft reserve, because they aren't consumed, are always active, and can be easily upgraded. Technically you could even get an infinite craft reserve by crafting at half cost, then eating the same item, for full XP reclaimed.
mostholycerebus 10-26-06, 09:08 PM	double post...
Edymnion 10-26-06, 09:09 PM	Technically you could even get an infinite craft reserve by crafting at half cost, then eating the same item, for full XP reclaimed.No, you can't. Retain Essence gives you the amount of xp that went into making the item, not its normal amount. If you only put half the xp into the item, you would only get half the xp out of it when you used RE on it.
aelryinth 10-27-06, 06:34 PM	I have a question about higher level artificers. If an artificer is epic level and has taken Improved Metamagic (or has access to the same ability through a PrC or some other means), does that mean that when he uses either his Metamagic Spell Completion ability or the 1st level infusion Metamagic Scroll, the Improved Metamagic affects this, right? Also, on a different topic, if you use the Reach Spell feat in conjunction with the 3rd level infusion Metamagic Item, could Metamagic item now be Chained? I also thought that a good idea for a higher level character (one at least possessing the Metamagic Spell Completion ability) could carry around a schema of Metamagic Item and either Twin/Repeat for his buff spells or Reach/Chain. The first way is more straightforward RAW and could net you 4 persisted (or other) wand buffs. The other could be a lot more beneficial, but it is not as clear RAW. 1) No. Improved Metamagic makes using metamagic feats cost less spell levels. It has nothing to do with Metamagic item/spell trigger, etc. Now, it will have an effect on Metamagic Spell Trigger, because now he has to use less charges to get the metamagic effect off. 2) Yes, If you turn a spell into Reach so that it meets the prerequisites of Chain, you could chain /reach. You'd have to read the descriptions of both to see if it actually works. Yes, a potential way to get Persisted buffs on all the party members with one charge of a wand, or possibly Persist multiple wands with a casting of Metamagic Item. I am kind of wondering how you are going to Chain and REach the Infusion at the same time however, as using both schema takes an action of their own... ===Aelryinth
Elderich 10-28-06, 10:37 AM	bump this old post. Any opinions on it?It is a good deal. Remember you can get someone to make a homoc FOR you. So just hire some one to make a homoc for you.
Fuego 10-29-06, 11:30 AM	1) No. Improved Metamagic makes using metamagic feats cost less spell levels. It has nothing to do with Metamagic item/spell trigger, etc. Now, it will have an effect on Metamagic Spell Trigger, because now he has to use less charges to get the metamagic effect off. 2) Yes, If you turn a spell into Reach so that it meets the prerequisites of Chain, you could chain /reach. You'd have to read the descriptions of both to see if it actually works. Yes, a potential way to get Persisted buffs on all the party members with one charge of a wand, or possibly Persist multiple wands with a casting of Metamagic Item. I am kind of wondering how you are going to Chain and REach the Infusion at the same time however, as using both schema takes an action of their own... ===Aelryinth 1) I think I wasn't clear in what I wrote, but what you said I agree with and think I answered my own question. Thanks 2) I looked at both feats and the description for Metamagic Item and I believe this combo will work. To be more clear (and b/c I have had time to think it out a bit more), this is how it would work. Your artificer gets a schema of Metamagic Item. He casts his first level infusion Metamagic Scroll and applies the Reach Spell to the Schema. Then, he activates the schema using his Metamagic Spell Completion ability to tack on Chain Spell. This gives you the ability to chain Metamagic Item on as many wands as you have in a 30 foot area. You would then choose persist spell to be used with the Metamagic Item infusion and now those wands will cast persisted versions of whatever spells they have. All of this for a 6000 gp schema, a first level infusion, and the Craft Schema feat. A couple of potential problems as I see it. 1) Since using reach/chain, Metamagic Item now has a ranged touch attack and I suppose you could miss (if I am thinking about this correctly.) 2) Metamagic Item only lasts one rd/caster level. Depending on the number of wands you want to cast, you may not be able to get them all done before they expire. I would think that if you got a schema of Extended Metamagic Item, this could help, or you could just do the combo again on a second Schema of Metamagic Item. This could round up any wands you couldn't get to the first time as well as any that you missed hitting in the first round.
Fuego 10-29-06, 12:15 PM	Another question while I am thinking about it. I have read several instances where an Artificer could use Alter Self, I believe, to change into a warforged charger or arrow demon. How can they do that with Alter Self? I thought polymorph was the spell to do that. Does this have to do with the new Polymorph subschool?
Pinky's brain 10-29-06, 02:27 PM	Alter Self works with forms upto 5 HD of your own type, warforged charger is less than 5 HD and a construct ... and as such an appropriate choice for alter self if you are a warforged.
aelryinth 10-29-06, 05:16 PM	1) I think I wasn't clear in what I wrote, but what you said I agree with and think I answered my own question. Thanks 2) I looked at both feats and the description for Metamagic Item and I believe this combo will work. To be more clear (and b/c I have had time to think it out a bit more), this is how it would work. Your artificer gets a schema of Metamagic Item. He casts his first level infusion Metamagic Scroll and applies the Reach Spell to the Schema. Then, he activates the schema using his Metamagic Spell Completion ability to tack on Chain Spell. This gives you the ability to chain Metamagic Item on as many wands as you have in a 30 foot area. You would then choose persist spell to be used with the Metamagic Item infusion and now those wands will cast persisted versions of whatever spells they have. All of this for a 6000 gp schema, a first level infusion, and the Craft Schema feat. A couple of potential problems as I see it. 1) Since using reach/chain, Metamagic Item now has a ranged touch attack and I suppose you could miss (if I am thinking about this correctly.) 2) Metamagic Item only lasts one rd/caster level. Depending on the number of wands you want to cast, you may not be able to get them all done before they expire. I would think that if you got a schema of Extended Metamagic Item, this could help, or you could just do the combo again on a second Schema of Metamagic Item. This could round up any wands you couldn't get to the first time as well as any that you missed hitting in the first round. I must be missng something. How is he applying Reach spell to the Schema? He'd have to be using Metamagic Item infusion to do so...or does it explicitly say you can treat a Schema as a Scroll when using that infusion? A Schema is a reusable item, as I recall, not a scroll...or is it simply an Artificer 'scroll?' Also, keep note that you've now expended Reach Spell, Chain Spell, Extend spell and Persistent spell as feats (you can't metamagic in feats you don't have), in addition to Craft Schema. So, basically you aren't going to be doing this before level 12. Chain spell has a limit on secondary targets equal to your caster level, also...which, in this case, would mean the caster level of the initital schema. Probably still more then enough. This would make a fairly potent buffificer, but remember you are spending a LOT of cash every day to make this work. In addition, to make it shine, you need a whole slew of buff wands to persist/use on allies...and all of those wands use up charges, which cost yet more money. Buffificers can be very strong as a 'nova' effect...i.e. when it's needed. But to say this combo is something you'd be doing every day is ignoring the GP limits on what characters have. Consider that if you select 5 buff wands to use on 4 characters, you are going through 2 wands every 5 days (100 charges!), in addition to 30,000 gp worth of schemas! Also, remember range must be TOUCH for the initial effect. If it's personal, close, or something else, it simply won't work. So, while a nice combo, unless you've got a DM who lets you run with a river of gold, this isn't something you are going to do often. Personally, I'd rather pick feats I can use all the time, as opposed to ones only useful when I've got lots of time to buff and unlimited funding. Heh! ===Aelryinth
Fuego 10-29-06, 06:31 PM	From Magic of Eberron, the first level infusion Metamagic Scroll specifically cites that it can be used on a schema. I believe, in order to use Metamagic Spell Completion ability for the artificer that the artificer would need to have Etch Schema in order to use the ability. Since you don't get the Metamagic Spell Completion til level 11, this was aimed at a higher level artificer than most. You are right in that regards. I was mainly thinking of using this combo for myself and using eternal wands when I could. If the other PCs wanted in on this action, I would probably have my character charge for their portion of using the regular (non-eternal) wands, thus spreading out the gp burden a bit. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++ For the Alter Self into a warforged charger, what can you gain/not gain from turning into the charger? I am a bit confused by the new rules and other things that have been going on with the polymorph type spells.
Elderich 10-30-06, 11:26 AM	Alter Self works with forms upto 5 HD of your own type, warforged charger is less than 5 HD and a construct ... and as such an appropriate choice for alter self if you are a warforged.An Addendum... There are several spells that can grant you a new type, so you can get to other forms as well.
Elderich 10-30-06, 11:32 AM	A couple of potential problems as I see it. 1) Since using reach/chain, Metamagic Item now has a ranged touch attack and I suppose you could miss (if I am thinking about this correctly.) 2) Metamagic Item only lasts one rd/caster level. Depending on the number of wands you want to cast, you may not be able to get them all done before they expire. I would think that if you got a schema of Extended Metamagic Item, this could help, or you could just do the combo again on a second Schema of Metamagic Item. This could round up any wands you couldn't get to the first time as well as any that you missed hitting in the first round. 1) You really cannot miss. The ray is unopposed and you have enough BAB to make it a no roll hit. But I guess your DM could mess with you. 2) Chain has a hard limit of 10 targets, so you only get 10 wands, and you have 11 rounds to do it.
TYGRHobbes 11-02-06, 03:27 AM	First off, very excellent thread. I've heard of Ninjaficer a few times and I cannot find an example of one. What type of artificer is this and where can I find an example? Thanks.
Fuego 11-02-06, 07:39 AM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=520855 is the the Artificer Handbook (rough draft). About halfway down it shows several builds if you click on the button. One of those is the Ninjaficer by Caelic. For a little more information on how he gets all those sneak attacks and makes them touch attacks, I don't know. Now that you mention it, I am a bit curious myself as to the specifics.
Elderich 11-02-06, 03:38 PM	paste this into google ninjaficer site:boards1.wizards.com
Natural_Twenty 11-29-06, 12:42 AM	This thread has been a great help in understanding the Artificer character, I decided to try my first Eberron Character to be a Warforged Artificer. Anyways, I'm still trying to understand some points on the Artificer and Wand building (it got quite confusing reading all the different opinions/interpretations). I have a question thats puzzling me - I've seen Empowered Wand of Scorching Ray mentioned time and time again in this thread. Is this the only Metamagic Feat that can be applied to the construction/crafting of a wand ? So in the example mentioned in this thread, you take a Empowered Wand of Scorching Ray, apply the 3rd Lvl Infusion Metamagic Item (Quickened) then the Artificer Class Ability Metamagic Spell Trigger (Twin) and cast alot of damage. OK, fine. Can you instead 'make' (craft) a Quickened Wand of Scorching Ray, apply the 3rd Lvl Infusion Metamagic Item (Twin) then the Artificer Class Ability Metamagic Spell Trigger (Empower) ? Hypothetically speaking, ie is Wand Characteristic/Infusion/Spell Trigger interchangeable like that ? :confused:
prototype00 11-29-06, 03:52 AM	You can only fit up to 4th level spells in wands. Ergo, since scorching ray is a 2nd level spell you can only add empower as it is a 2 level increasing metamagic. prototype00
Natural_Twenty 11-29-06, 04:52 AM	You can only fit up to 4th level spells in wands. Ergo, since scorching ray is a 2nd level spell you can only add empower as it is a 2 level increasing metamagic. prototype00 Thanks prototype. So what you mean is as long as the base spell level and the associated spell level adjustment does not exceed 4 it can be done ie you could chain or maximise a 1st level spell for example into a wand. And getting back to the example, the wand is created as a Empowered Scorching Ray wand, so it's that type of wand no matter who weilds it ?? (assuming they meet the requirements to use a wand etc etc). Thanks again.
Elderich 11-30-06, 02:38 PM	Thanks prototype. So what you mean is as long as the base spell level and the associated spell level adjustment does not exceed 4 it can be doneIf you mean the wand may be created, then yes. Read the section in the DMG on creating magic items, and you will see an example.And getting back to the example, the wand is created as a Empowered Scorching Ray wand, so it's that type of wand no matter who weilds it ?? (assuming they meet the requirements to use a wand etc etc).yes
aelryinth 11-30-06, 03:07 PM	The Empowered Scorching Ray is used as the 'most efficent' dmg dealing wand of its level. Orb wands are used as the most unstoppable wands of their level. How much metamagic stacking you allow is based on your game and what you and your DM allow the artificer to get away with. Over the top artificer builds allow all the metamagic stacking you want/have charges for/have feats for. I tend to advocate playing it a bit closer to the chest. ==Aelryinth
Natural_Twenty 12-01-06, 12:54 AM	Thanks Elderich and Aelryinth. Just a clarification on CWA PrC, does the Dragonmark/Favoured in House Cannith prerequisite mean this PrC is only open to Human/Human Subtype characters ? Did I read it incorrectly ? Also I was thinking about a variation with an Artificer where he/she combined Artificer abilities with a Telekenisis expert (Master of the Unseen Hand PrC), any tips/ideas on how I'd go about that ? (so far I'd need levels in Sorc/Wiz or Wu-Jen to achieve it but I thought perhaps if I could craft a Staff of Telekenisis maybe it would work ??) :confused:
aelryinth 12-01-06, 05:38 PM	Yes, the PrC is restricted to human members of House Cannith. The Capstone ability does grant the mark of making, you'll notice. The master of the Unseen Hand requires the ability to cast or use telekinesis as an innate ability. I don't think you can substitute a magical item for that, but I'm going from memory. You'd have to read the pRe-reqs. If it just says USE telekinesis...I imagine you could get by with a ring...which I imagine most masters pick up for when their spells run out. ===Aelryinth
Nightshade 12-18-06, 08:31 AM	Here are some questions I've run into in my game... Please provide page references, if possible. 1) Is there a limit on how many Homunculus can an Artificer craft? 2) Can an Artificer craft their infusions into items like potion of weapon augmentation, personal? 3) What are some basic Houserules people use to restrict Artificers? I started by prohibiting semi-spell user lists. I don't want a 12 lvl character making +5 Holy Weapon scolls. Breaks the game.
Edymnion 12-18-06, 12:28 PM	1) Is there a limit on how many Homunculus can an Artificer craft?Homunculi are not familiars or animal companions. The only limit is how many you have the time and money to build. My artificer has 2 of them at the moment (a dedicated wright and an expeditious messanger). 2) Can an Artificer craft their infusions into items like potion of weapon augmentation, personal?No, it says right there in the book that you can't use infusions to meet prereqs. The only way to do this is to take Craft Schema. 3) What are some basic Houserules people use to restrict Artificers?Requiring knowledge rolls to see if they can identify the type of a monster they are fighting to restrict the usage of Bane. Not allowing them to make items of spells they have not encountered. Not letting them stack multiple metamagic triggers on the same wand.
aelryinth 12-19-06, 11:03 PM	3) probably the most important, not allowing them to make Competence (or other) BOnus to UMD magic items. (Hellcow specifically doesn't allow +UMD items). 3) Keep real, hard track of gold. Really. Artificers become much more manageable when they have to track their gold. ===Aelryinth
Edymnion 12-20-06, 07:57 PM	3) probably the most important, not allowing them to make Competence (or other) BOnus to UMD magic items. (Hellcow specifically doesn't allow +UMD items).That one is really DM specific. I allow UMD boosting items, for example. 3) Keep real, hard track of gold. Really. Artificers become much more manageable when they have to track their gold.Heh, I think that falls under "Actually use the rules the way they are written" clause. You should always be keeping tabs on a character's gold. More importantly, IMO, is that you keep an eye on the artificer's material components. Remember all those infusions using lots of gp worth of stuff actually require you to have the components with you BEFORE you use the infusion. You can't just mark 100 gp off your sheet, you actually need to have that jar of oil in your pack first.
aelryinth 12-20-06, 09:31 PM	I wasn't against UMD boosters either...until I checked to veryify something someone has posted, and nowhere, anywhere, is there a direct device that gives a bonus to UMD checks. There's two devices that give bonuses to Charisma checks (Circlet of Persuasion and Admiral Tricone), but that's not the same. And the reason for it is pretty clear. With a +30 UMD item, you can make pretty much any reasonably check in the game with as little as one rank in the skill, because it's all straight DC based, for the most part. A +UMD device really means you are wasting a lot of skill points better spent on something that magic can't sub for, or that gets you increasing results. ===Aelryinth
Edymnion 12-21-06, 06:53 PM	I wasn't against UMD boosters either...until I checked to veryify something someone has posted, and nowhere, anywhere, is there a direct device that gives a bonus to UMD checks. There's two devices that give bonuses to Charisma checks (Circlet of Persuasion and Admiral Tricone), but that's not the same.So? One of the major points of the Artificer is that they get to make whatever they want/need, not that they are restricted just to the DMG's items. With a +30 UMD item, you can make pretty much any reasonably check in the game with as little as one rank in the skill, because it's all straight DC based, for the most part. A +UMD device really means you are wasting a lot of skill points better spent on something that magic can't sub for, or that gets you increasing results.Except that, you know, an artificer with only 1 rank in UMD would never actually be able to get to the point they could afford a +30 skillcheck item, nor would they have the UMD needed to craft it in the first place. Its like saying no Rogue should ever buy ranks in Hide or Move Silent because they can just get cloaks and boots of elvenkind.
aelryinth 12-22-06, 01:32 AM	So? One of the major points of the Artificer is that they get to make whatever they want/need, not that they are restricted just to the DMG's items. Except that, you know, an artificer with only 1 rank in UMD would never actually be able to get to the point they could afford a +30 skillcheck item, nor would they have the UMD needed to craft it in the first place. Its like saying no Rogue should ever buy ranks in Hide or Move Silent because they can just get cloaks and boots of elvenkind. the point isn't for the Artificer alone, Edy. It's for, oh. a Fighter. With one rank of UMD brought cross class and a +30 UMD item, he's as good as any rogue with 23 ranks in the skill at using magic items, because the DC's are all fixed. Ditto wizards and sorcs using cross class items...why not? So, it's a not a skill you can bump up with competence bonuses. And remember, if an Artificer can do it with competence bonuses, he can make TWO and turn the second one into a stacking SACRED bonus. Bleh. Also, note that I specifically mentioned the FIXED DC's. Hide and MS are NOT fixed DC's...enemy spot and listen checks are always increasing, there's always penalties you want to take to do stuff, and you need that skill as high as it will go. UMD highest possible DC to check against is what, 38? Eh. ===Aelryinth ===Aelryinth
Dcourt99 12-22-06, 03:33 AM	I wasn't against UMD boosters either...until I checked to veryify something someone has posted, and nowhere, anywhere, is there a direct device that gives a bonus to UMD checks. Actually there the Spellsight Spectacles that give a comp bonus on UMD for scrolls.
Cabral 12-22-06, 04:00 AM	3) What are some basic Houserules people use to restrict Artificers? :thinks: Okay, I think this technically restricts artificers ... I allow craft reserve to overflow over levels. It doesn't reset to the new level's base. However, each level you only gain the difference between that level's craft reserve and the next's. Thus, at level 2, an artificer would gain 20 craft reserve rather than having it reset. Apart from that, I'm pretty good to artificers. I really like them. Particularly with a dedicated wright and retain essence, it helps the DM with treasure. No one can use that +5 Unholy Dire Flail? give it to the Artificer.
Elderich 12-26-06, 05:06 PM	the point isn't for the Artificer alone, Edy. It's for, oh. a Fighter. With one rank of UMD brought cross class and a +30 UMD item, he's as good as any rogue with 23 ranks in the skill at using magic items, because the DC's are all fixed. Ditto wizards and sorcs using cross class items...why not?Oh come on! At what price the +30 Item? What level is that even affordable? What is the fighter giving up in other USEFUL equipment? Show me a fighter who bought a +30 UMD Item and I will show you a fighter that should have spent the money elsewhere. A +X to UMD item is hardly that game breaking. The only REAL use for it is for the 11th level artificer working some MM feats on a schema or scroll.
aelryinth 12-26-06, 06:05 PM	Well, a +30 Competence UMD device (ring?) would, by the default rules (there's nothing to really compare it to), be 100 Gp x 30^2, or 90,000 gp. With such a tool, any character can use ANY magic device in the game...emulate any class, any alignment without fail, trigger any wand/staff/rod, and use any normal scroll. It's not only worth the money, it's amazingly worth the money. And it completely replaces the need to devote any skill ranks at all above the first into UMD, which is the worst part of the process. It completely devalues the UMD skill. For an Artificer, it means you never have to add another skill rank past level 10 when you can take 10 on UMD's. A +15 upgradeable ring is only 22,500k, halved if you make it yourself. You should be easily able to hit a DC38 UMD check, which lets you craft up to level 9 spells without fail. ===Aelryinth
Balkazar 12-27-06, 05:07 PM	I thought I should mention this sense it also has to do with Artificers. My brother found a spell called (Fabricate), all you need is beat a DC 25 taking 10 to make stuff, The cost tho is that you have to have to beat a Craft (Alchemy) check to make like 11,000 lbs of Alchemist fire at 9th lvl, thats a around 60k gold for the cost of one spell and that more then enough covered the cost of the materials. Use Wall of Iron to get the iron needed to make Master work weapons threw Craft (Weaponsmith) DC 25 to make tons of weapons to sell. Craft (Armorsmith) DC25 on taking 10, to make a bunch of armor to sell. As long as you got the specific craft skill and the ability to cast fabricate and wall of stone, or able to use the Quaal (Tree) you can do pretty much anything you want. Make alot of cash that way too. Just thought I would mention it.
aelryinth 12-28-06, 02:49 AM	The ways to abuse the system with Fabricate are well known:) ==Aelryinth
AbsentMindedProfessor 12-28-06, 12:37 PM	I thought Fabricate had a duration, so all that stuff would go away. Otherwise, why bother with True Creation, which has an xp cost?
aelryinth 12-28-06, 02:43 PM	Look at the spell description. Fabricate basically allows you to make Craft checks from existing materials, and make them INSTANTLY...but you must have the raw material. True Creation allows you to create something from nothing...or just about anything from nothing, as another way of looking at it. Rare spell comps, gems, precious metals are just a few xp away. ===Aelryinth
Elderich 12-31-06, 04:03 PM	It's not only worth the money, it's amazingly worth the money. And it completely replaces the need to devote any skill ranks at all above the first into UMD, which is the worst part of the process. It completely devalues the UMD skill.A +30 Item devalues ANY skill. And the spells KNOCK and OPEN/Close makes points in Pick lock useless. So what? But you have no addressed the POINT, which is there is no point in a fighter having a +30 Item, even if it does mean they may activate any magic item in the game. 90,000 GP in fighter gear on the fighter beats a 90,000 GP ring that lets the fighter activate any magic item. And it is not like a fighter desperately wants a magic item that only another class may activate. A commissioned magic item built for the fighter would not even NEED UMD. Honestly, the whole argument is irrational.For an Artificer, it means you never have to add another skill rank past level 10 when you can take 10 on UMD's.Again you have forgotten the rules aelryinth. An Artificer may need every +UMD item AND all the ranks in UMD that can be had, in order to make its UMD checks. If it wants to actually use its 11th level ability.
AbsentMindedProfessor 01-01-07, 03:28 PM	Look at the spell description. Fabricate basically allows you to make Craft checks from existing materials, and make them INSTANTLY...but you must have the raw material. True Creation allows you to create something from nothing...or just about anything from nothing, as another way of looking at it. Rare spell comps, gems, precious metals are just a few xp away. ===Aelryinth Doh. I was thinking Major Creation. And for True Creation...just a few xp? :( sounds like a lot of xp! Happy New Year!
aelryinth 01-02-07, 03:23 PM	A +30 Item devalues ANY skill. And the spells KNOCK and OPEN/Close makes points in Pick lock useless. So what? But you have no addressed the POINT, which is there is no point in a fighter having a +30 Item, even if it does mean they may activate any magic item in the game. 90,000 GP in fighter gear on the fighter beats a 90,000 GP ring that lets the fighter activate any magic item. And it is not like a fighter desperately wants a magic item that only another class may activate. A commissioned magic item built for the fighter would not even NEED UMD. Honestly, the whole argument is irrational.Again you have forgotten the rules aelryinth. An Artificer may need every +UMD item AND all the ranks in UMD that can be had, in order to make its UMD checks. If it wants to actually use its 11th level ability. OH please. A +30 UMD item turns any and every character into a portable wizard. That entire collection of wands and staves can now be brought into play...he doesn't have to worry about class or alignment restrictions. He can wield a Holy Avenger to full effect. He can discount magical items that require specific classes to use, since he can emulate all of them. In short, he can now play with magical toys just as effectively as any artificer. Why have a +10 Shield when he can use a Schema with Persistent Spell on a Wand of Shield, and get a better benefit? Or a Wand of Polymorph Self for better combat buffs then elsewhere? Heck, he can do away with potions for Cure Wands and save himself and his friends a lot of money over time, if he likes. +30 bonuses to certain skills do indeed make life easier...if they fixed DC's. Craft skills come to mind...a +30 DC basically lets you make an item in 1/4 the normal amount of time, which of course quadruples your profit. BUT...it's not as important with contested skills. Spot buffs are contested with Hide buffs, Listen with Move Silently, Bluff with Sense Motive, etc etc. +30 Items shine best when used against Fixed DC's...and UMD is by far the most broadly useful of all of these if you can beat the fixed DC's. As for Artificers NEEDING to hit those DC's...well, DUH. That's why you invest in Skill Focus (UMD), and not Persistent Spell. Or Arcane Student or whatever. And buy a circlet of Persuasion. And actually have a decent Charisma instead of dumping it, which it's perfectly reasonable to do with a +UMD item. at Level 20, with 23 ranks, taking 10, an Artificer needs a Circlet of Persuasion and a 16 Charisma to make any UMD check that he could be confronted with. At level 17, he needs a Charisma of 22 to make up for his lack of ranks. At lower levels the Artificer is SUPPOSED to have a deep investment in his UMD skill...it's the defining skill of his class. Allowing +UMD buffing devices basically is telling the Artificer that UMD is no longer an essential class skill...being able to make a device that buffs UMD is far more important. At level 10 or 11, a +15 competence bonus to UMD item basically means the Artificer need never again put ranks into UMD to use any of his class abilities. For 22.5k, that's a wonderful investment. Think through the implications a little more before you post next time, Eld. There's a reason there ARE no items that give a blanket bonus to UMD specifically. Some skills are indeed far more valuable then others. ==+Aelryinth
eRaz0r 01-03-07, 01:17 PM	That's why I'd impose the same limit on all +X Skill Items as those already in the DMG - Creator must have X ranks in the skill, max +15 (Greater Boots of Elven Kind IIRC, max out at +15) This limits the abuse to already high level characters. If you want a +15 UMD item, you already have to be 12th level. If one were to allow a +20 item, you'd need to be 17th level (if I'd even allow it). If you really want to limit the items effectiveness, and still allow it, call it the Ring of Amplification - doubles the users ranks in UMD, to a maximum bonus of +5/+10/+15 ranks, which makes it still incredibly useful, but only to characters with ranks in the skill.
aelryinth 01-03-07, 02:39 PM	Well, that flies in the face of things like Jump and Glibness, which give hefty competence bonuses to skills, and surely can be integrated into items. So, I just prefer to follow the guidelines of what is unwritten, and simply not allow a flat bonus to UMD item. Heck, the only thing anyone came up with for a UMD bonus was in a totally optional book on Incarnum, and that was spectactles for using scrolls, and that was a class ability/feat, not a magic item. ===Aelryinth
eRaz0r 01-03-07, 07:54 PM	I'm taking my cue from existing magic items, rather than spells. If you take the Magic Item Creation guidelines at face value you can get True Striking Swords on the cheap. Your argument is like saying "Pricing a +1 sword so high flies in the face of spells like True Strike!" Instead of looking at spells like Jump and Glibness, it's better to look at existing items like Boots of Striding and Springing, Elven Cloak and Boots, and Armor enchantments like Shadow, Slick, Silent Moves, etc. All the ones that don't have a spell prereq which gives a better effect than the skill bonus (e.g. Shadow, which requires invisibility : a spell with an effect better than the enchantment) or a racial requirement (e.g. elf), requires that the person have ranks in the skill in question equal to the bonus (and are limited to +5, +10 and +15) (or equal to half the bonus in the case of one-shot items like the Elixir of Swimming) Therefore, requiring ranks in UMD to make an item that grants bonus skill in UMD is hardly flying in the face of anything, no more than requiring a "+20 bonus to hit" item follow the guidelines for attack bonuses and not the ones for imbuing a 1st level spell. Of course, as a DM you're within your rights to outlaw any particular magic item from the game - but you needn't disparage those who approach the problem differently just because you prefer otherwise. The precedents are there, it's only your interpretation of game-balance that compels you to differentiate them. BTW - Swimming has flat DCs, so does Jumping, Climbing etc. There are numerous items which give bonuses or reduce the DC for checks to perform those actions, and others like them, but I don't hear your railing against them. It's the UMD skill itself that's the problem, not the magic items. Limiting the uses of that skill or changing the DCs might be a better solution than simply outlawing enhancements to it. IMHO.
aelryinth 01-04-07, 02:53 AM	Actually, the DC's for a lot of skills scale with level...you want to do better and faster things with Jump, Swim and Climb checks. The DC's for, say, Jumping over a giant are immense...scales with level! I can't see any requirement for skill ranks on any items... It's a house rule, and is going to make some items almost impossible to get...unless, of course, you also use the same rule that the ranks don't have to belong to the creator any more then the cast spell actually has to be cast by the item creator! So, no, I'm not complaining...just acknowledge it's a House Rule and we're fine, and think thru the implications. For some reason, certain skills are valued higher then others, and the set DC's are less key. But one of the key arguments I was making is that UMD is not JUST a set DC...it's also CENTRAL to the artificer class, the way no other skill is for any class (althought To9S introduces some DC's for manuvers from skills, esp Jump). And by issuing competence items, you effectively allow the Artificer to bypass the need for ranks in the central skill to his class. ===Aelryinth
Ravenscroft 01-04-07, 03:25 AM	Page 230 , DMG Ring of Climbing : Creator must have 05 ranks in the Climb Skill Climbing , Improved : Creator must have 10 ranks in the Climb Skill Page 232 , DMG Ring of Jumping : Creator must have 05 ranks in the Jump skill Jumping , Improved : Creator must have 10 ranks in the Jump skill Page 233 , DMG Ring of Swimming : Creator must have 05 ranks in the Swim Skill Swimming , Improved : Creator must have 10 ranks in the Swim Skill As far as i can see , only items that grant a Competence Bonus require the Creator to have levels in the appropriate skill.
goblin_pride 01-04-07, 03:43 AM	As far as i can see , only items that grant a Competence Bonus require the Creator to have levels in the appropriate skill. Wouldn't that limit a +30 UMD ring to a crafter of something like 27th level?
Elderich 01-04-07, 11:45 AM	OH please. A +30 UMD item turns any and every character into a portable wizard.It does not. The value of a wizards is spells per day, FREE, not the items they can use. And you have COMPLETELY IGNORED how your fighter suggestion is COMPLETELY misleading. A fighter may purchase any spell effect they might need with the 90K GP. In fact a rogue may effectively do exactly what you are speaking of, and not even require the + UMD ITEMat Level 20, with 23 ranks, taking 10, an Artificer needs a Circlet of Persuasion and a 16 Charisma to make any UMD check that he could be confronted with.As I pointed out, you need to actually READ the RULES. specifically the artificers 11th level ability.Think through the implications a little more before you post next time, Eld. There's a reason there ARE no items that give a blanket bonus to UMD specifically.Ignoring your insults, you have not addressed the flaws in your premise. 1) + UMD items are not that useful generally. a) the GP investment also requires a corrisponding investment in other items that may or may not be useful. b) specific desired spell effects may be commissioned in item not requiring a UMD check to use. 2) + UMD items are needed for an artificer to make checks. At low levels AND at especially at high levels an artificer will require + UMD items to meet UMD checks. 3) The lack of + UMD items has no bearing on weather such things should exist. Specifically there are many items that are very similar to a + UMD item , and a + UMD item follows all the item creation rules. 4) banning the items prevent nothing. Specifically there are sever low level spells that may be potioned, scrolled, or put in an item that easily give a +25 to any skill check. 5) There is nothing in ANY Wotc/Hasbro product that suggests there should be a restriction on +UMD Items. You may play how you wish, but your suggestion that the game is broke if you do not do it your way is just foolish.
aelryinth 01-05-07, 04:00 AM	It does not. The value of a wizards is spells per day, FREE, not the items they can use. And you have COMPLETELY IGNORED how your fighter suggestion is COMPLETELY misleading. A fighter may purchase any spell effect they might need with the 90K GP. For considerably more money. Don't forget, with UMD, you can take advantage of race and alignment break prices, and you can purchase the cheapest type of item to use over time...typically spell trigger instead of general usage. Moreover, you can be in a DUNGEON and have access to a spell, instead of having a spellcaster follow you around to cast it on you at the proper time. For whatever he cares to charge...? In fact a rogue may effectively do exactly what you are speaking of, and not even require the + UMD ITEM Did I ever say a Rogue couldn't? Why no, no I didn't. Odd, that. But then he'd have to invest skill ranks. And we are talking about NOT investing skill ranks, aren't we? So the smart Rogue would actually take after the FIGHTER. And put his skill ranks into something with CONTESTED DC checks. As I pointed out, you need to actually READ the RULES. So, obviously do you. And my post. You are starting on argument on something I'm not even talking about. specifically the artificers 11th level ability.Ignoring your insults, you have not addressed the flaws in your premise. Ignoring your insults, if there's a flaw in my premise of an artificer able to take 10 on UMD checks, what exactly might that be? And DO read the rules. It's level 13, it's Skill Mastery, and allows him to take 10 on UMD checks. TYVM. 1) + UMD items are not that useful generally. They are extremely useful, else it'd be a take ten skill and the randomness of success wouldn't be there. The quickest way to 'de-randomize' any skill with set DC's is make success automatic...which is done with competence devices. a) the GP investment also requires a corrisponding investment in other items that may or may not be useful. For whom exactly are we talking about? For the fighter? The 30% price breaks on restrictions AND the ability to use Spell Trigger devices instead of things like potions or command word items alone will save him $ in the long run...not to mention the ability to buff, cure and other things he can now do for himself. For the ARtificer? It plays right into mastery of his class abilities. How could this NOT be useful? For ANY class with UMD? It means you never have to take ranks in UMD to be effective. This saves skill points for other purposes. b) specific desired spell effects may be commissioned in item not requiring a UMD check to use. Ah, but such effects are usually more expensive when put into, say, spell-completion items rather then spell-trigger items (or, for example, in potions vs wands). 2) + UMD items are needed for an artificer to make checks. No, they aren't. A feat or two and a high Cha are the ONLY things an artificer needs. There are NO magic items in the published game granting +UMD bonuses...even in the Eberron books. Thus, such items are NOT worked into the main abilities of an artificer...and as I pointed out, at high levels, an Artificer hardly needs them. At low levels, there's a reason for Artificers to actually have Skill Focus (UMD) and actually NOT have charisma as a dump stat. The highest POSSIBLE UMD check an Artificer could ever need for Item Creation is 37 (40 if you want a caster level of 20), to emulate a level 9 spell requiring a caster level of 17. With 23 ranks, taking 10, Artisan bonus of +2, they need a Charisma of 14 to make the check every single time. With a Circlet of Persuasion, they don't need a Cha bonus at all. Now, at lower levels, a level 10 artificer making a level 10 caster item needs to hit a 30. With Artisan of +2, Charisma of 16 for +3, a +4 Cha buffer for another +2, 13 ranks, a Circlet of Persuasion for another +2, and actually spending a feat of Skill Focus(UMD) for +3, he can have a +25 bonus to hit his 30, all without actually NEEDING a +UMD device, as you so strongly posit. Sure, he'll have a chance of failure. Sure, he'll be spending most of his reserve making very low casting level stuff, or scrolls that he can get a +6 bonus to UMD checks on. But he's SUPPOSED TO. NEEDS a +UMD device? Do not make me laugh. Er, too late, I already am. At low levels AND at especially at high levels an artificer will require + UMD items to meet UMD checks. Blatantly false. The highest level UMD check for an Artificer to emulate a Metamagic spell is 47, and is easily reachable at the levels you can actually use said effects. what? How, you say? My word! They could actually invest LEVEL RAISES into Charisma! They could wear +6 Charisma boosters! They could KEEP Skill Focus (UMD)!!! And start with a decent Charisma score (say, 16)! OMG, look at that. 23 ranks. 16 Cha+3 Raises +5 Inherent+6 Enhanced = 30 for a +10 = +33. +2 Artisan ability for 35. Circlet of Persuasion for +2 = +37. They take TEN AND MAKE THIS CHECK EVERY SINGLE TIME. They can even SKIP THE LEVEL RAISES and devote ONE FEAT to improving their UMD (Skill Focus). Where are they REQUIRED to NEED a +UMD device? Oh, right, math just isn't part of your arguments. 3) The lack of + UMD items has no bearing on weather such things should exist. Specifically there are many items that are very similar to a + UMD item , and a + UMD item follows all the item creation rules. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Munchkins say the exact same thing about Cure Minor Wounds rings and True Strike swords. The Item Creation rules are the LAST point of reference for making an item. The first is look for similar items...and that doesn't mean skill-buffing items, that means UMD buffing items. 4) banning the items prevent nothing. Specifically there are sever low level spells that may be potioned, scrolled, or put in an item that easily give a +25 to any skill check. And now resources must be double spent each and every time to make that check, instead of being 'always available'. Which means delays in combat and the like...and the assumed accessibility of those spells etc. etc. etc. Which makes them almost useless to a fighter, who will lose all the utility of an unlimited UMD ability, and slow down the Artificer by at least a round in combat, as he has to use these temporary measures, which often only work for ONE skill check, instead of having the bonus available all the time, any time. But you aren't thinking about that aspect, are you? 5) There is nothing in ANY Wotc/Hasbro product that suggests there should be a restriction on +UMD Items. There are NO +UMD items in any WoTC/Hasbro product to compare this assertion to not being a glaring enough hint? Okay... You may play how you wish, but your suggestion that the game is broke if you do not do it your way is just foolish. Ah, a straw man argument. Gotta love those. When did I ever infer the game was broken if not played my way? Strange, I did not. But you do so love to put words into my mouth. ==Aelryinth
ArcTan 01-06-07, 04:29 AM	What exactly is it that you're afraid of, ael? Why is it so very, very important that the Artificer achieve a high UMD check solely by means of investing skill points? It seems odd that you basically prove that it's irrelevant either way -- at mid-levels an Artificer can accomplish basic Artificer tasks like crafting items reliably whether they use +UMD or not -- so who cares? What's the big difference if they get to spare some ranks put in +UMD? So an Int 14 Artificer will be able to max out Knowledge (arcana) when, if +UMD items weren't available, she wouldn't be able to. Big whoop. Are extra skill points such a big deal that they break the game? Does it destroy a character concept beyond recognition for a character not to put points in her "core" skill, whatever that means? You seem to again be making a lot of sound and fury over nothing.
aelryinth 01-07-07, 12:30 AM	Arc Tan, let me give you a counter example. Would you play a fighter with a Strength of 10? Or a barbarian or other melee class? The answer is, probably no. They need that stat because it powers the entire premise of their class along. But, you COULD play one. By the rules! Get a ring that casts Enlarge 1/rd...hey, +4 bonus and reach! Then, at later levels, get something that allows you to stay polymorphed as, oh, a Firbolg all day. Great, 36 str and I got to DUMP Str as a stat. I can still wear Str boosters, too! But the cost savings on Inherent boosters and being able to up other stats alone make it worth it. (Btw, this above reasoning is why the Druid is considered overpowered, as his Wild shape ability (into an Ape, for instance) allows him to do exactly this) nn..... UMD is the core class skill of the artificer. Everything he does is basically rotating around applications of this skill. And what you are proposing to me is that he basically dump the skill because he can, and will, replace investing in it character wise with investing in it gold-wise, and for very, very little money, relatively speaking. He's not only not penalized for doing so, it makes eminent sense for him to! Every Artificer in Eberron should have a crappy Cha and +UMD device, because they are sooooo cheap and easy to make. take a UMD boosting feat? It is to laugh...i'll just up the bonus by +2 or 3. 50k on a charisma booster? Why? I can spend 5k and get the same benefit, I'll spend the money on an Int booster for bonus infusions...or a Con booster. THAT is the reason I don't like it. And then, above and beyond that, is the implications of 'If the Artificer can have it, why can't every other class?' DC checks for UMD are fixed. It's very, very easy, and quite cheap, to make UMD devices that allow you to hit those fixed DC's every time, which means every character should have one of these things. And that's the other reason I don't like it. A Circlet, at least, raises the cost very, very quickly. A +5 bonus is now 12.5k, not 2.5k. A +10 bonus is a whopping 50k...still pricey, but much better then blowing the same amount on a +3 bonus to UMD from a +6 Cloak...and more reasonably then a mere 10k by the 'funding rules'. I still probably wouldn't allow that broad a bonus, but that's just me. Just note that a +20 bonus to UMD takes care of: a +6 Cha booster (50k), +5 Inherent bonuses (125k), a +3 circlet (4500), allows you to dump your prime Stat of Cha to 10 (meaning you only have Int as a prime stat now, value = 50k+ bonus to another stat) and having no MAD, and you only need 17 ranks, maybe 15, as an Artificer to hit the highest possible DC check you could ever need, which saves you another 8 skill ranks. If you took the Cha dump points and put them into INT, you could profit by another 46 skill points or more, since you get MORE skill points as you level up for having a high INt. Not bad for 40k, aye? ==Aelryinth
Elderich 01-08-07, 03:42 PM	For considerably more money. ... Moreover, you can be in a DUNGEON and have access to a spell, instead of having a spellcaster follow you around to cast it on you at the proper time. For whatever he cares to charge...?Does your caster Charge to cast spells? Does your fighter charge to kill the thing attacking the spell caster? While Command Word items cost ~3 times as much up front, you should point out they last forever. They are actually CHEAPER over a rather short time. Do you play DnD by yourself? Of course your going to have a CASTER with you? The whole game is based around have 4 players and a DM. While YOUR fighter example might get along, all alone in a dungeon with no armor and ring that is worth half his wealth, the other half being spent on the wands the fighter need, I just do not see the fighter, sitting all alone in the dark, as an extraordinarily powerful character.Don't forget, with UMD, you can take advantage of race and alignment break prices.Remember, Pricing is a concern with custom magic items, so one should discuss the item and the pricing with the group. But a player commissioning an item may have such discounts ANYWAY???if there's a flaw in my premise ... YOUR PREMISE in post#486 to make any UMD check that he could be confronted with.The artificers 11th level ability has DC's in far excess of the DC's you suggest. My parties artificer often makes +60 DC UMD's. these would not be possible without +UMD items. Your premise is false.They are extremely useful, else it'd be a take ten skill and the randomness of success wouldn't be there.Assumes facts not in evidence. Again you are not a game designer of this game. You should make that clear.The quickest way to 'de-randomize' any skill with set DC's is make success automatic...which is done with competence devices.I do not even know what this means, or how it is relevant. Look I will not debate you, as I have said several times. The point to the reader is that there are several flaws in aelryinth ideas, suggestions and house rules.
aelryinth 01-08-07, 07:21 PM	Does your caster Charge to cast spells? Does your fighter charge to kill the thing attacking the spell caster? Um, Eld, you are getting snippy at yourself. Please answer this question to yourself for the benefit of the readers. It was YOU who suggested you could pay for the spells. So yes, I'm assuming YOU would be paying YOUR spellcaster. As for the fighter...well, I assume YOU would be paying him, too. While Command Word items cost ~3 times as much up front, you should point out they last forever. They are actually CHEAPER over a rather short time. Thank you for pointing out the cost basis. IN other words, as long as you have an item worth 22.5k, you are much better off having a +15 UMD device then buying a command word item...you'll save yourself 22.5k. And it only gets better as you level up! Ooops, I don't think that's what you intended, but math is not something you use routinely in your arguments. Do you play DnD by yourself? Of course your going to have a CASTER with you? The whole game is based around have 4 players and a DM. While YOUR fighter example might get along, all alone in a dungeon with no armor and ring that is worth half his wealth, the other half being spent on the wands the fighter need, I just do not see the fighter, sitting all alone in the dark, as an extraordinarily powerful character. Sigh. Again, you are now trying to remove single character functionality and trying to bring in the 'free group adventurer buff one another scenario', when it was YOU who also brought up the fact he could 'buy any spells he needs.' Please, stay consistent. You are mixing up your lack of a viable argument again. Misdirection is so key to those without a leg to stand on. Remember, Pricing is a concern with custom magic items, so one should discuss the item and the pricing with the group. But a player commissioning an item may have such discounts ANYWAY??? Which of course only supports my argument the more. Oh, you forgot that you were arguing about buying spells, and I'm talking about acquiring usable magic items. As soon as he saves 22.5k, he's paid for his UMD tool, and then pure profit starts. It seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp. The artificers 11th level ability has DC's in far excess of the DC's you suggest. Actually, no it doesn't. The only way to break that particular paradigm is if you try to metamagic beyond the 9th level spell limit...in effect, you try to create Epic spells of 10th level and higher, or 'break the metacap'. This is exactly the same sort of cheese that breaks Persistent spell. The Artificer's ability works PERFECTLY up to the DC for level 9 spells, which is a 47...and without taking any real steps to optimize or 'push' UMD. My parties artificer often makes +60 DC UMD's. these would not be possible without +UMD items. You are mistaken. Since there are no +UMD devices IN THE RULES at the time of creation of this class, you are missing a very vital point...that you aren't supposed to be breaking the metacap with this level 11 ability. To hit a 60+ DC you'd have to applying a Twin Spell feat or other level 4+ Spell Adjustment feat to a 9th level spell scroll. Since this is, in effect, creating an Epic Level spell effect at pre-Epic level, it can be reasonably assumed that you are not supposed to be able to do this. So, in other words, to break the metacap limit of the class, you are resorting to another item that isn't in the rules, either! And if you even bother to reread it, you can't apply multiple metamagic feats at once. The ability specifically says 'A metamagic feat', not 'metamagic featS'. And this is, of course, ignoring yet another basic ability of the Artificer class. I could hit a 60 DC fairly easily. All I have to do is have multiples of one item that provides a substantial bonus (like, oh, the +6 competence bonus from a Tricorn) and change it to a Sacred Bonus, and the next one to a Profane bonus, and the one after that to an Insight bonus...and if I have to make them a no-slot item, so what? They are still cheap! I made that DC 47 check without even truly optimizing...and I can add another +18 without breaking stride! Do you even know how to make a reasonable argument here? Oh, you didn't think of that EITHER? What about all that spells that grant bonuses to a single skill check, some of them rather hefty? No, no, let's ignore those! They only are IN THE RULES AND PUBLISHED! Give us our +UMD items for cheapcheap! We want to be hitting Epic DC's at level 11, and it's all your big mean fault if we have to stay within reason for our level! Waaaah! Your premise is false. LOL. Right back at you...and at least I have the rules, not a faulty and completely erroneous opinion, to back me. Assumes facts not in evidence. Again you are not a game designer of this game. You should make that clear.I do not even know what this means, or how it is relevant. You are correct, you don't know what you just said means, since you are routinely ignoring what IS possible and what is NOT published in favor of your interpretations! And the slam at credentials is basically admitting you don't know anything. People slam game designers all the time, and critics don't need to be PUBLISHED to analyze and criticize. Monte, the Sage, even Hellcow, all get slammed by different parties for bad rules, good rules, this rules, that rules. This is not an argument, it's a flame. Look I will not debate you, as I have said several times. No, you'll just call me wrong, wrong, wrong, when you have no idea what you are talking about. Flaming is SOOO much easier then politely debating, after all. The point to the reader is that there are several flaws in aelryinth ideas, suggestions and house rules. The point here being Elderich still can't do his math, still can't acknowledge there might be a reason for the non-existence of items, can't be inventive in applying solutions to the very problems he presents so they follow existing rules, and also has demonstrated that he likes breaking the metacap, too! See, isn't it wonderful when Elderich is referred to as if he didn't exist and isn't involved in the process? Why, I can say all sorts of things about him, because I'm not talking to him, and if he happens to read this, it's not like he matters...only the readers do. Cheers! ===Aelryinth
Edymnion 01-08-07, 08:13 PM	still can't acknowledge there might be a reason for the non-existence of itemsYeah, but can you admit that it is equally probable that there hasn't been an official UMD booster for the same reason there hasn't been an official Forgery booster, or Tumble booster? Not because it would break the game to give somebody +5 to Forgery, but because it just really hasn't been something that was popular enough to warrent an item before now? I mean, before the Artificer came out, did you *EVER* see *ANYBODY* max out Use Magic Device (other than a 3.5 sorcerer)? The demand for one is relatively new, its equally possible that simply nobody has gotten around to making one yet. As for the whole set DC thing, shouldn't the same apply to Craft skill boosters, since the craft DCs are set? But you can get MUNDANE skill boosting items for Craft checks in the form of masterwork tools, and numerous spells that boost your crafting checks.
Elderich 01-09-07, 04:30 PM	[B]The point here being Elderich still can't do his math, still can't acknowledge there might be a reason for the non-existence of items, can't be inventive in applying solutions to the very problems he presents so they follow existing rules, and also has demonstrated that he likes breaking the metacap, too! I acknowledge your argument is circular. I acknowledge your your preconceived idea of what everyone else's game should be clouds your thinking. I acknowledge you refuse to do the math, or the thinking, that shows the counterpoint to your opinion. You get so excited you can not think straight. I will come back when you have calmed down.
aelryinth 01-10-07, 12:42 AM	Yeah, but can you admit that it is equally probable that there hasn't been an official UMD booster for the same reason there hasn't been an official Forgery booster, or Tumble booster? Not because it would break the game to give somebody +5 to Forgery, but because it just really hasn't been something that was popular enough to warrent an item before now? I mean, before the Artificer came out, did you *EVER* see *ANYBODY* max out Use Magic Device (other than a 3.5 sorcerer)? The demand for one is relatively new, its equally possible that simply nobody has gotten around to making one yet. As for the whole set DC thing, shouldn't the same apply to Craft skill boosters, since the craft DCs are set? But you can get MUNDANE skill boosting items for Craft checks in the form of masterwork tools, and numerous spells that boost your crafting checks. Edy, bards and rogues used to max UMD all the time...it was standard for their classes so they could use Cure Wands and the like, fool magic items with alignment pre-reqs, suprise the baddies with a fireball wand, and so forth. It was never so heavily emphasized because the DC's were so low that just investing in ranks would do the job...and because no +UMD's existed, not just anyone could do it. Enter the Artificer, with his entire class revolving on his UMD ability. Suddenly, UMD is VERY important! Being able to hit those high UMD checks becomes almost essential, and some of those checks can be pretty high! Unless you want to waste craft reserve and the like, you want your UMD as high as it can go and as fast as you can get it! Whereas this was intended to get you to invest in Charisma, feats that boost UMD, and the like, instead someone simply said, "Oh, I'll make a +UMD booster for next to nothing and I won't have to have any real emphasis on UMD at all in my artificer." In other words, the need is not there. Now, compare this with the Truenamer. He also has high DC's for his skills, and a Competence booster is not only desirable, it's expected...they made it when they presented the class, because he HAS to hit those Truename checks, and they scale with level! -------------- Edy, Craft checks are a very bad example, because Craft checks scale. Every 10 points you raise the DC, cuts your time in half (and thus doubles your money over time). For extremely expensive items, you cannot HAVE too high a Craft skill. The amount of time saved becomes enormous. take a look at how long it would normally take to make something like a suit of full plate. If you keep scaling the skill check, a master smith can actually produce one in a reasonable amount of time, and make a decent return on his investment. ============================== If a class came out where Forgery was a key skill and the DC checks were such that to succeed every time you had to have a competence booster, then I think, like the Truenamer, we'd have skill boosters for Forgery in game. Despite this, and the central role of UMD in the artificer, there are no UMD boosters in game. Why? Because there is no need. The artificers fixed DC's are much easier to hit then the Truenamers, and he has the tools at his command to hit even the silliest and game stretching DC's (like the 59 for a Twinned Meteor Swarm, or the 67 for a Persistent Foresight or something). The Artificer CAN do it. He just has to EXERT himself and make PREPARATIONS to do so. If he wants to do it off the cuff, then let him try action points. But when he starts intruding on Epic territory and complains that he can't hit those DC's....sorry, that is NO reason to allow +UMD's. Advise him to set his sights a bit lower. As for everyone else...the Fixed DC's are low enough that at low levels it's a bit risky and wasteful, and at high levels, with a little investment, pretty routine. That seems just fine and balanced to me. A normal character has to be able to get his UMD high enough to 'take 1' to use the skill with no risk. Artificers, with higher target DC's, get to 'take 10', and tend to have some other bonuses accruing. I don't see a NEED for +UMD's, and, indeed, I can see the impact it would have on other classes. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-10-07, 12:46 AM	I acknowledge your argument is circular. I acknowledge your your preconceived idea of what everyone else's game should be clouds your thinking. I acknowledge that you are unable to understand any point but your own. I acknowledge you refuse to do the math, or the thinking, that shows the counterpoint to your opinion. I acknowledge that you are incapable of doing the math to support your own opinion, and expect me to do it for you since you can't justify your opinion. (You really expect me to argue your counterpoint for you?) You get so excited you can not think straight. I will come back when you have calmed down. You get so dismissive that you are unable to think at all. I will post again when I think you finally are able to do so reasonably and logically. Gosh, wasn't that fun. ==Aelryinth
Gden 01-10-07, 08:46 PM	I know this kinda sounds stupid, but the Warforged says that only Warforged wizards have to rest 8 hours to regain spells. Does this mean a Warforged Artificer only has to rest the other 15 minutes required to memorize his infusion slots of the day? Or, is it possible that I can actually spend the night crafting while my other party members are asleep
aelryinth 01-11-07, 02:12 AM	I believe artificers use the same rules as wizards for regaining infusion slots, just like sorcs do. Clerics, of course, simply need to pray and don't need the rest. ===Aelryinth
ArcTan 01-11-07, 02:20 AM	Edy, bards and rogues used to max UMD all the time...it was standard for their classes so they could use Cure Wands and the like, fool magic items with alignment pre-reqs, suprise the baddies with a fireball wand, and so forth. It was never so heavily emphasized because the DC's were so low that just investing in ranks would do the job...and because no +UMD's existed, not just anyone could do it. Enter the Artificer, with his entire class revolving on his UMD ability. Suddenly, UMD is VERY important! Being able to hit those high UMD checks becomes almost essential, and some of those checks can be pretty high! Unless you want to waste craft reserve and the like, you want your UMD as high as it can go and as fast as you can get it! Whereas this was intended to get you to invest in Charisma, feats that boost UMD, and the like, instead someone simply said, "Oh, I'll make a +UMD booster for next to nothing and I won't have to have any real emphasis on UMD at all in my artificer." In other words, the need is not there. Maybe my character was just underoptimized, but the last time I played an Artificer I did, indeed, have a +UMD skill item and still found it useful to take ranks in UMD and have a decent Cha. And even when my character stopped failing UMD checks as a general rule, this didn't make me God or anything. As yrogerg pointed out, the Action Point dependency, the fact that gold puts a hard limit on what you can craft and therefore what you can cast, the low DCs thanks to having to spend more money to scribe scrolls or craft wands at higher CLs -- as opposed to any true spellcaster, whose DCs go up *for free* as he gains levels -- all this made it a struggle to succeed at times. UMD is important for the Artificer but it's not the balancing factor for an Artificer, and so even if +UMD items did allow you to play Artificers with an 8 Cha and no ranks taken in UMD ever (which they don't) I still don't see what the big damn deal is. Now, compare this with the Truenamer. He also has high DC's for his skills, and a Competence booster is not only desirable, it's expected...they made it when they presented the class, because he HAS to hit those Truename checks, and they scale with level! That's actually a problem with the Truenamer. The fact that an Artificer has many ways he can hit his UMD checks -- spending gold on a +UMD item, which, shockingly enough, is *not always the best option* (given that the Artificer is absolutely totally dependent on his gold total for most of his use of magic); spending skill ranks; getting feats; exploiting synergies; boosting his Cha ability score; etc. -- is a way for Artificers to be *flexible*. An Artificer can do all kinds of different things depending on what he wants to do -- depending on how much, say, he wants to take Knowledge skills and RP Profession and Craft skills vs. how much gold he has at hand etc. -- whereas the Truenamer really can't do much if he doesn't have that amulet, because the Truenaming skill *doesn't* have a lot of ways to push it up. (I actually think it's still more a problem with Truenaming's DCs not growing in a reasonable way, but that's another matter.)
ArcTan 01-11-07, 02:28 AM	UMD is the core class skill of the artificer. Everything he does is basically rotating around applications of this skill. You do realize that D&D is not a skill-based RPG, right, and therefore the most important things in the game -- spellcasting progression, BAB, AC -- are not considered skills? Because an Artificer's primary spellcasting stat is Intelligence, and having a low Int and being unable to use high-level infusions really is a bigger deal than having a low Cha and having to buy it up to use UMD -- as you point out, because of the fixed DCs. Everything the Artificer does *involves* UMD, but by dumping all stats besides Int the Artificer not only gets more infusions -- very hard to get any other way -- but effectively makes up for the Cha loss by having more skill points to put into UMD. (This feature of Int is, after all, why Wizards usually have, for example, a higher Concentration check than Sorcerers do.) The Artificer still can't get as high as he might if he pumped Cha *and* maxed out UMD's skill points at the expense of other skills, but big whoop. As you say, UMD has fixed DCs, and the Artificer also likes other skills like Spellcraft and Knowledge and Concentration. In other words, while Artificers don't dump Cha, they're not MAD on it the way Monks are with Str, Dex and Wis, and I've never seen an Artificer with a terribly high Cha score (my last one had 12 Cha and was doing fine even before he got a +UMD item).
aelryinth 01-11-07, 04:45 PM	Maybe my character was just underoptimized, but the last time I played an Artificer I did, indeed, have a +UMD skill item and still found it useful to take ranks in UMD and have a decent Cha. And even when my character stopped failing UMD checks as a general rule, this didn't make me God or anything. As yrogerg pointed out, the Action Point dependency, the fact that gold puts a hard limit on what you can craft and therefore what you can cast, the low DCs thanks to having to spend more money to scribe scrolls or craft wands at higher CLs -- as opposed to any true spellcaster, whose DCs go up *for free* as he gains levels -- all this made it a struggle to succeed at times. UMD is important for the Artificer but it's not the balancing factor for an Artificer, and so even if +UMD items did allow you to play Artificers with an 8 Cha and no ranks taken in UMD ever (which they don't) I still don't see what the big damn deal is. That's actually a problem with the Truenamer. The fact that an Artificer has many ways he can hit his UMD checks -- spending gold on a +UMD item, which, shockingly enough, is *not always the best option* (given that the Artificer is absolutely totally dependent on his gold total for most of his use of magic); spending skill ranks; getting feats; exploiting synergies; boosting his Cha ability score; etc. -- is a way for Artificers to be *flexible*. An Artificer can do all kinds of different things depending on what he wants to do -- depending on how much, say, he wants to take Knowledge skills and RP Profession and Craft skills vs. how much gold he has at hand etc. -- whereas the Truenamer really can't do much if he doesn't have that amulet, because the Truenaming skill *doesn't* have a lot of ways to push it up. (I actually think it's still more a problem with Truenaming's DCs not growing in a reasonable way, but that's another matter.) Notice how you r argument defers from Elderich. He's saying you MUST have the booster in order to hit the DC's. That's a patently false rule. truenamers do, because their DC's keep scaling. You instead took it as given that the item existed, and you worked it into your build. You have a subpar Cha for an Artificer. With more skill ranks from a boosted Int, you can actually afford to spend more in UMD, whereas without the +UMD the skill is now KEY and must remain maximized...you literally have no choice in the matter if you want to make magic items or Spell Storing items with higher effects as you level. Ah, but by getting a +UMD item, you can back off all that stuff, and turn your feats, skills, gold and whatever stuff in a more optimized/powerful/profitable direction. Is your Cha booster a +6? I doubt it...that's just a +3 UMD bonus, and you'd be better off selling it or retaining it for specific use. I doubt you have any feats devoted to +UMD. Your own example clearly shows why...having the device lets you focus on INt and get more skill points and more infusions...and thus more power. This is what results when you don't have MAD...your Cha is now just a tad above average, instead of one of your two highest stats. Although you sound very reasonable and restrained in what you are trying to do ArcTan, assume rightfully that no +UMD devices existed. Exactly how would this change your character and his design? I would be very, very suprised if you went all the back to level 1, knowing that you could NEVER have a +UMD, if some of your choices didn't change markedly. As for gold, a +UMD device is by far the most gold-efficient manner for an Artificer to raise the results of his skill, point by point. You cannot do any better. And the profit and balance skewing to the character able to get one are incredible! The Action Point dependency is another fallout of this. Certain builds, such as the Buffificer and Blastificer, require massive feat investment. Investing feats in making cheaper, faster, less xp intensive stuff does, also. If you want to use AP's all the time in combat, you either invest in Heroic Spirit or change the way you play. Either way, it again limits the power and options for the Artificer. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-11-07, 04:50 PM	You do realize that D&D is not a skill-based RPG, right, and therefore the most important things in the game -- spellcasting progression, BAB, AC -- are not considered skills? Because an Artificer's primary spellcasting stat is Intelligence, and having a low Int and being unable to use high-level infusions really is a bigger deal than having a low Cha and having to buy it up to use UMD -- as you point out, because of the fixed DCs. Everything the Artificer does *involves* UMD, but by dumping all stats besides Int the Artificer not only gets more infusions -- very hard to get any other way -- but effectively makes up for the Cha loss by having more skill points to put into UMD. (This feature of Int is, after all, why Wizards usually have, for example, a higher Concentration check than Sorcerers do.) The Artificer still can't get as high as he might if he pumped Cha *and* maxed out UMD's skill points at the expense of other skills, but big whoop. As you say, UMD has fixed DCs, and the Artificer also likes other skills like Spellcraft and Knowledge and Concentration. In other words, while Artificers don't dump Cha, they're not MAD on it the way Monks are with Str, Dex and Wis, and I've never seen an Artificer with a terribly high Cha score (my last one had 12 Cha and was doing fine even before he got a +UMD item). You are actually making my point, because they are supposed to have MAD. As I said in the above post...don't assume you can just make a +UMD. There aren't any in the Core+Eberron books. Now, how does that change your character, his design? It becomes quickly clear that an Artificer has MAD, if he wants to craft anything and use his essence pool, or use Spell-Storing item. A +UMD chucks all that out the window. The potential also obviates the need for high ranks in UMD at all for other classes...who don't have to HIT DC's over 30. Once they get a +29 UMD, they can 'take 1', always make a check, and have full benefits of the skill with no drawbacks, instead of making the traditional fairly deep investment into it that was required. Magic was intended to be strong, sure, but not to completely replace the benefits of a skill, especially one as potentially strong as UMD. There is, after all, a reason why it's on only two core class lists. And gold is only as much of a problem as the DM and the rest of the party wants to make it. It's assumed that the Artificer will have enough gold to use up his essence, between crafting for his own needs and those of the party. If he has the Crafting Feats, he's actually making gold and xp retaining stuff and building new then the party is selling and buying what it wants. If he's scrambling for low level gold, that's fine...everyone scrambles at lower levels. At higher levels, this becomes ever less of a problem, particularly if the party maximizes his use of the skill and class feature. There's only one caveat...he still has to hit those UMD DC's. ===Aelryinth
yrogerg 01-11-07, 05:18 PM	Y And gold is only as much of a problem as the DM and the rest of the party wants to make it. It's assumed that the Artificer will have enough gold to use up his essence, between crafting for his own needs and those of the party. If he has the Crafting Feats, he's actually making gold and xp retaining stuff and building new then the party is selling and buying what it wants. If he's scrambling for low level gold, that's fine...everyone scrambles at lower levels. At higher levels, this becomes ever less of a problem, particularly if the party maximizes his use of the skill and class feature. There's only one caveat...he still has to hit those UMD DC's. ===Aelryinth You do realize that Retain Essence only allows you to reclaim experience, not gold, and in the process ends up making gold *scarcer*, since you just destroyed a magic item... right? And that it's not actually reasonable to assume that any character has as much gold as they could use? Gold usually remains the limiting factor with crafting, not XP.
yrogerg 01-11-07, 05:29 PM	Although you sound very reasonable and restrained in what you are trying to do ArcTan, assume rightfully that no +UMD devices existed. Exactly how would this change your character and his design? I would be very, very suprised if you went all the back to level 1, knowing that you could NEVER have a +UMD, if some of your choices didn't change markedly. Actually, I was in the same campaign, and he did assume that, until he talked to our DM. Our DM took a very "only if you can convince me" approach to new stuff, even from published materials. Also, IIRC, he didn't have an actual "+UMD" item- y'know, the type that you're claiming is an issue. I believe he only used the skill-boosting item infusion, and the scroll-holder from MoE. His character was rather under-optimized, if effective: he had originally intended to play a primary Barbarian, and the Artificer multiclass was actually an afterthought.
ArcTan 01-11-07, 05:44 PM	You are actually making my point, because they are supposed to have MAD. NO. THEY DON'T. WHETHER YOU USE A +UMD ITEM OR NOT. As I said in the above post...don't assume you can just make a +UMD. There aren't any in the Core+Eberron books. Now, how does that change your character, his design? It becomes quickly clear that an Artificer has MAD, if he wants to craft anything and use his essence pool, or use Spell-Storing item. I only invested in the +UMD item once I hit about 11th or 12th level. Up to that point I had been doing just fine with skill points, a Cha of 12 boosted with a circlet of persuasion, and the occasional Action Point at low levels. The thing is that keeping UMD maxed is not *difficult* as an Artificer, not if you have an Intelligence high enough to use all your infusions. And the Artificer is not a Rogue, and is not terribly greedy for skill points. Aside from Spellcraft, Concentration and UMD, I still had skill points left over for purely role-playing skills like Profession. For anyone who doesn't have tons of useful skills across the board (Rogues) or a 2 + Int modifier (Fighters), skill points are not the precious resource you're treating them as. Also, as you say, the DCs are flat. There are always very high-DC things you can *try* to reach for, but this is limited by your gold pool and by your effective caster level (which is capped). A +UMD chucks all that out the window. The potential also obviates the need for high ranks in UMD at all for other classes...who don't have to HIT DC's over 30. Once they get a +29 UMD, they can 'take 1', always make a check, and have full benefits of the skill with no drawbacks, instead of making the traditional fairly deep investment into it that was required. See, what you're not getting is that a +UMD item costs gold, and an Artificer's ability to make *anything* is limited by his ability to pay for stuff. Believe me, I was always worried a lot more about how much gold I had than making UMD checks -- because in order to make magic items in line with the party's level, the UMD checks were more or less trivial. Also, what you're not getting is that the total cost of a +UMD item and, say, a wand of cure light wounds is actually pretty high relative to just having the Cleric do his job and giving the Rogue magic items that have to do with his class abilities. Magic was intended to be strong, sure, but not to completely replace the benefits of a skill, especially one as potentially strong as UMD. There is, after all, a reason why it's on only two core class lists. This is becoming silly. Instead of continuing to go on about "meant to", why not do the math to show a way in which +UMD items actually *break the game*, instead of claiming that it somehow sullies the integrity of a game to let a Fighter spend a huge heaping passel of gold instead of cross-class skill points? Because the former is probably more of a cost for the Fighter -- or almost any other character -- than the latter. And gold is only as much of a problem as the DM and the rest of the party wants to make it. It's assumed that the Artificer will have enough gold to use up his essence, between crafting for his own needs and those of the party. If he has the Crafting Feats, he's actually making gold and xp retaining stuff and building new then the party is selling and buying what it wants. Gold is as much of an issue as the wealth guidelines in the DMG makes it. It is not meant to be a flexible, fuzzy resource -- it *is* the cap on what characters can do, as much or more than XP is. Saying gold is only as much of a problem as the DM makes it is like saying the CR of monsters you face is only as much of a problem as the DM makes it. Given enough gold a 1st-level commoner can kill Tiamat. Also, Retain Essence doesn't replace gold, only XP, as yrogerg pointed out. If he's scrambling for low level gold, that's fine...everyone scrambles at lower levels. At higher levels, this becomes ever less of a problem, particularly if the party maximizes his use of the skill and class feature. There's only one caveat...he still has to hit those UMD DC's. Which he'll find a way to do anyway, regardless. The +UMD item just lets you build an Artificer who has ranks in Profession (whittling), Craft (goldsmithing) and maybe some Knowledge (the planes). That's all. It's not like it even changes the average Artificer's Charisma, since pushing Cha up to 14 or 16 is suicide for a low-level Artificer, who would much, much rather have Dex, Int and some Con. Artificers only need enough Cha to make UMD checks survivable at low levels, which is the opposite of how a truly constraining MAD like the Monk's works.
ArcTan 01-11-07, 05:47 PM	Actually, I was in the same campaign, and he did assume that, until he talked to our DM. Our DM took a very "only if you can convince me" approach to new stuff, even from published materials. Also, IIRC, he didn't have an actual "+UMD" item- y'know, the type that you're claiming is an issue. I believe he only used the skill-boosting item infusion, and the scroll-holder from MoE. His character was rather under-optimized, if effective: he had originally intended to play a primary Barbarian, and the Artificer multiclass was actually an afterthought. I think I did get a +UMD item eventually, but only towards the end of the campaign. I may be misremembering, though. It was in the flurry of item acquisition just before the final battle, when I -- knowing both in- and out-of-game that my character was unlikely to last much longer -- decided to blow all of my gold at once.
ArcTan 01-11-07, 05:49 PM	Actually, I was in the same campaign, and he did assume that, until he talked to our DM. Our DM took a very "only if you can convince me" approach to new stuff, even from published materials. Also, IIRC, he didn't have an actual "+UMD" item- y'know, the type that you're claiming is an issue. I believe he only used the skill-boosting item infusion, and the scroll-holder from MoE. His character was rather under-optimized, if effective: he had originally intended to play a primary Barbarian, and the Artificer multiclass was actually an afterthought. Yeah... a Meleeficer is even more MAD than other Artificer builds, what with wanting Str and Con from the get-go, but even then the Charisma was not actually a problem. I never felt the need to boost Charisma or, God forbid, spend one of my natural ability increases on Cha -- I think doing that would be ridiculous for *any* Artificer build. (If you're not pushing up Int, you're pushing up either Dex or Str.)
Edymnion 01-11-07, 09:50 PM	NO. THEY DON'T.I covered this in the guide. They are MAD, as their primary stat is Intelligence, and yet their primary ability is tied to Charisma, which means you have to keep them both in the positives to get the job done. Add in that a high Wisdom is also a good thing to have for when you're faking divine spells, and you've got yourself a MAD character.
aelryinth 01-11-07, 10:23 PM	You do realize that Retain Essence only allows you to reclaim experience, not gold, and in the process ends up making gold *scarcer*, since you just destroyed a magic item... right? And that it's not actually reasonable to assume that any character has as much gold as they could use? Gold usually remains the limiting factor with crafting, not XP. And here's where crafting feats come into play. If you take an item that you can sell for 1000 gold, you can buy a similar item for 2000 gold...you just 'wasted' 1000 gold, to go from what you had to what you wanted (maybe a swap of +2 stat boosters). If you CRAFT the item, you break even. You retain the essence of the one item, make the second...and at no gold cost, you effectively have what you want. If you have the Conserve Gold feat (I forget the name!), it instead takes you 750 gold to make the new item. You are now 250 gold ahead of the game. But...you have to have the feat available to take, instead of, say, UMD skill Focus. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-11-07, 10:27 PM	I think I did get a +UMD item eventually, but only towards the end of the campaign. I may be misremembering, though. It was in the flurry of item acquisition just before the final battle, when I -- knowing both in- and out-of-game that my character was unlikely to last much longer -- decided to blow all of my gold at once. okay, one campaign and you acquired a UMD device late...and why? probably to be SURE that you made all those UMD device checks when you needed to. And hoarding/conserving gold and not maximizing usage of it is a factor of roleplay, not balance. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-11-07, 10:41 PM	NO. THEY DON'T. WHETHER YOU USE A +UMD ITEM OR NOT. As Edy validates, yes, they do. I only invested in the +UMD item once I hit about 11th or 12th level. Up to that point I had been doing just fine with skill points, a Cha of 12 boosted with a circlet of persuasion, and the occasional Action Point at low levels. The thing is that keeping UMD maxed is not *difficult* as an Artificer, not if you have an Intelligence high enough to use all your infusions. And the Artificer is not a Rogue, and is not terribly greedy for skill points. Aside from Spellcraft, Concentration and UMD, I still had skill points left over for purely role-playing skills like Profession. For anyone who doesn't have tons of useful skills across the board (Rogues) or a 2 + Int modifier (Fighters), skill points are not the precious resource you're treating them as. a) You just told me you weren't trying to hit high UMD checks. That's wonderful. Now go argue with Elderich who insists that you MUST have +UMD devices because you MUST be able to hit those ungodly high checks. You are making my case for me, not against me. b) Artificers can easily serve as backup rogues, and can devote a lot of points to Disable Device, Open Lock, and Craft skills, chewing up their points as quickly as any other class. But of course, if you get to dump Cha, that Int bonus helps a lot! Also, as you say, the DCs are flat. There are always very high-DC things you can *try* to reach for, but this is limited by your gold pool and by your effective caster level (which is capped). Actually the level 11 ability of applying metamagic feats to scrolls doesn't have a caster level cap...so them check DC's can hit outrageously high numbers, as Elderich pointed out. I guess he really likes empowering scrolls he stumbles on, or something. As for magical items, that's all dependent on how much gold the party trusts you with. See, what you're not getting is that a +UMD item costs gold, and an Artificer's ability to make *anything* is limited by his ability to pay for stuff. Believe me, I was always worried a lot more about how much gold I had than making UMD checks -- because in order to make magic items in line with the party's level, the UMD checks were more or less trivial. I 'get' that quite well. But if your party works with you on maximizing gold cash flow and making items for the party, it is much less a problem then it is dealing with 'just' your own gold and buffing yourself. Also, what you're not getting is that the total cost of a +UMD item and, say, a wand of cure light wounds is actually pretty high relative to just having the Cleric do his job and giving the Rogue magic items that have to do with his class abilities. Now we are moving outside the realm of need for +UMD devices to party mechanics. Your argument also makes MY case, not yours. If you can give other party members the ability to do their jobs so you don't have to, then you don't need +UMD's. Thanks! But, of course, we are talking about JUST the Artificer and him doing HIS job, whatever job he has decided that must be, and so the cleric and the rogue are to be set aside. This is becoming silly. Instead of continuing to go on about "meant to", why not do the math to show a way in which +UMD items actually *break the game*, instead of claiming that it somehow sullies the integrity of a game to let a Fighter spend a huge heaping passel of gold instead of cross-class skill points? Because the former is probably more of a cost for the Fighter -- or almost any other character -- than the latter. Okay, we are getting silly. Define to me a 'heaping passel of gold'. The ability to make a magic item at half price is a godsend. A Polymorph Self wand letting you change into a War Troll or Firbolg or something is DIVINE...and I already mentioned costs earlier. A +20 UMD device is 40k to make. At the level you'd normally take it (15th +) it's likely well worth the investment, especially since you can pass it around to whoever needs it (we're ALL gonna be Firbolgs for this fight!) Gold is as much of an issue as the wealth guidelines in the DMG makes it. It is not meant to be a flexible, fuzzy resource -- it *is* the cap on what characters can do, as much or more than XP is. Saying gold is only as much of a problem as the DM makes it is like saying the CR of monsters you face is only as much of a problem as the DM makes it. Given enough gold a 1st-level commoner can kill Tiamat. Also, Retain Essence doesn't replace gold, only XP, as yrogerg pointed out. Retain essence helps you 'make gold' in concert with the feat that lets you spend 75% on items, as I pointed out above. This reduces your money spent on magic items by 25%, which lets you acquire more magic items. Which he'll find a way to do anyway, regardless. The +UMD item just lets you build an Artificer who has ranks in Profession (whittling), Craft (goldsmithing) and maybe some Knowledge (the planes). That's all. It's not like it even changes the average Artificer's Charisma, since pushing Cha up to 14 or 16 is suicide for a low-level Artificer, who would much, much rather have Dex, Int and some Con. Artificers only need enough Cha to make UMD checks survivable at low levels, which is the opposite of how a truly constraining MAD like the Monk's works. This last section contradicts ITSELF. You say they'd be insane to have a high Cha, essential to UMD, then say they'd rrather have Dex, Int Con...this is the very essence of a MAD. Which are you arguing here? And if they can't make UMD checks at low levels with no UMD device, what is that telling you?...That they need to invest in UMD with Cha and feats, which means the other things they so desperately want they can't have. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-11-07, 10:44 PM	Yeah... a Meleeficer is even more MAD than other Artificer builds, what with wanting Str and Con from the get-go, but even then the Charisma was not actually a problem. I never felt the need to boost Charisma or, God forbid, spend one of my natural ability increases on Cha -- I think doing that would be ridiculous for *any* Artificer build. (If you're not pushing up Int, you're pushing up either Dex or Str.) As soon as you can make wands of Change Self, or Polymorph Self, Str and Dex are no longer issues. And if you are UMD gimped, obviously you aren't going to play a meleeficer easily...which means you have to re-evaluate your build. If you are only ever going to make level one and two stuff, that's a completely different story. But if that's the case...you don't need +UMD, which has been my argument all along!!!! ==Aelryinth
yrogerg 01-12-07, 11:13 AM	As soon as you can make wands of Change Self, or Polymorph Self, Str and Dex are no longer issues. You mean Alter Self, which doesn't change ability scores, and Polymorph, which any DM with any sense already rigidly controls including limiting the forms you can assume. Also note that since you *are* limited to forms where HD<= Caster Level, Polymorph Wands can get very expensive very, very quickly, particularly if you're aiming for one of the more cheesetastic forms. (How much does the CL 15 Wand cost to make? And don't you actually need to *have* a CL 15, first?) And again, making the argument that Artificers are broken, or could be broken, because of access Polymorph is the same as saying that *any other* spellcasters or manifestor are broken because of Polymorph/Metamorphosis. Hey, at least the Artificer has to pay for it.
aelryinth 01-12-07, 05:54 PM	a DM can only put on controls for Polymorph Self as a House rule. We are talking general rules, right? The Artificer has to pay for the wand, true...but he can also use it for the whole party at once, if need be, by also passing around that +UMD device so they can all use it, without chance of failing. This benefits everyone, so they all contribute money to the making of the next wand, etc. Regardless, we are talking +UMD toys, not general gear, and their effect on the metagame and the real game. If you want to start talking about optimal magical gear by level, that's a function of gear, build, gold and party makeup. It would be very hard to argue any strong point successfully here, given the variance in dynamics. ===Aelryinth
Edymnion 01-13-07, 12:02 PM	And of course, by the point anybody could afford a UMD booster with a high enough bonus to do what you're talking about, they would already be a high enough level that they would be legendary in Eberron a hundred times over. Do keep in mind that this is Eberron, not Faerun. Somebody getting a +20 UMD booster is already going to be somebody that has rocked the very foundation of the setting. And that doesn't even get into the flavor restrictions as to all of this.
Elderich 01-13-07, 02:52 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6494157&postcount=56One thing an Artificer should do every level is update their UMD competency item to add more +'s. It's the single most important magical object they own, given how vital UMD is to performing their class skills. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-13-07, 07:31 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6494157&postcount=56 Ah, another flame attempt. Wonderful. I bet you didnt' even notice the post date of 6-05? I also posted above that I used to consider +UMD's the shiznit and great for arti's...and then changed my mind after Hellcow posted. What's funny, is that if you are allowed to make competence items and upgrade them, it's still the best investment for an artificer over time. ===Aelryinth
ArcTan 01-13-07, 08:11 PM	okay, one campaign and you acquired a UMD device late...and why? probably to be SURE that you made all those UMD device checks when you needed to. No, because I had a lot of gold and didn't know what to spend it on. Sure, it was also to help make checks, but those are the checks that aren't flat -- the ridiculous tricks with Metamagic Spell Completion, which, even with the item, I only pulled off once or twice. And hoarding/conserving gold and not maximizing usage of it is a factor of roleplay, not balance. ===Aelryinth I don't get exactly what you mean by this. However the players are roleplaying their PCs, it's the DM's job to make sure that they don't have more gold per level than the Suggested Wealth Guidelines. Just like regardless of whether your players are playing cowardly or suicidally courageous, as the DM your job is to make sure that they get encounters that are roughly their ECL and that they gain XP at the appropriate rate. If they don't, then you only have yourself to blame if the game gets broken. Any character build at all can kill the Tarrasque with two million gold.
ArcTan 01-13-07, 08:13 PM	I covered this in the guide. They are MAD, as their primary stat is Intelligence, and yet their primary ability is tied to Charisma, which means you have to keep them both in the positives to get the job done. Add in that a high Wisdom is also a good thing to have for when you're faking divine spells, and you've got yourself a MAD character. But you don't need a very high Charisma to get the job done. It only needs to be decent, and even if it's not decent you can cover for it without too much trouble. That's kind of the point of this whole thread.
ArcTan 01-13-07, 08:24 PM	a DM can only put on controls for Polymorph Self as a House rule. We are talking general rules, right? *smacks forehead* For one thing, it's just polymorph, in 3.5. For another, WotC really does seem to have a policy against actually ruling anything *out* -- they only use errata to cover obvious typographical or mathematical errors, not to fine-tune game balance, and *never* to simply cut out a whole mechanic that's unbalanced. (Else they would've errata'd out the Frenzied Berserker completely long ago.) And yet they came the *closest they've ever come to doing this* with the polymorph errata. The only thing the polymorph errata does is carefully excise all mention of polymorph-tree spells from the game aside from the polymorph tree itself. If all you do is read the errata themselves, this is silly and pointless, since polymorph is not a hard spell to get. If you read the big, long official explanatory document that comes with the errata, you find out that WotC considers polymorph irreparably broken and wants to get it out of the game as quickly as possible, but that -- apparently as a matter of policy -- they can't actually delete the spell because of DMs who may want to use it, so instead they're systematically "freeing the rest of the game from polymorph's grip" by rewriting things like Wild Shape and Alternate Form. In other words, WotC themselves have come out and said that polymorph is bad. Really, really, really fervently. Excluding polymorph isn't really, I would say, a "houserule" so much as it is reading between the lines of WotC's marketing policy -- recognizing that WotC is *not allowed* to say "We were wrong" about a product and instead has come as close as they can to saying it without saying it. (Notice the same kind of thing with Spell Compendium -- they've grossly changed certain spells for inclusion in Spell Compendium for no other reason besides balance, and yet the unbalanced existing versions of the spells have not been errata'd out -- because, frankly, no one pays for errata.) That said, I still allow polymorph in my game -- I even give it out to players to have fun with, because it *is* fun -- but anyone who's thought about the issue for more than two minutes, or spent two minutes reading WotC's *own evaluation of the immense and unsolvable balance problem that is polymorph* would be an idiot not to run it with strict DM-fiat controls over what you can turn into. That's like saying a DM can only ban the combination of rules that lead to Pun-Pun as a houserule, and therefore any general-rule discussion of D&D has to take Pun-Pun into account. (In which case, why bother banning +UMD items? A Pun-Pun build can have an indefinitely high UMD check.) The Artificer has to pay for the wand, true...but he can also use it for the whole party at once, if need be, by also passing around that +UMD device so they can all use it, without chance of failing. This benefits everyone, so they all contribute money to the making of the next wand, etc. Yeah. +UMD gear or no +UMD gear this is standard operating procedure for things that benefit the whole party like a wand of cure light wounds. Big whoop -- unless you're rolling around in a dragon's hoard of gold, pooling resources for this kind of thing doesn't boost a party's power level all that much. (Unless you allow them to do something stupid like toss the wand of fireball to each other between turns without sacrificing an action to do so.) Regardless, we are talking +UMD toys, not general gear, and their effect on the metagame and the real game. If you want to start talking about optimal magical gear by level, that's a function of gear, build, gold and party makeup. It would be very hard to argue any strong point successfully here, given the variance in dynamics. ===Aelryinth Look, either +UMD toys overpower a party or they don't. If they don't, then banning them is just an aesthetic choice. If they do, I want proof that they do, because my experience is that they in fact don't.
ArcTan 01-13-07, 08:29 PM	As soon as you can make wands of Change Self, or Polymorph Self, Str and Dex are no longer issues. And if you are UMD gimped, obviously you aren't going to play a meleeficer easily...which means you have to re-evaluate your build. This is stupid. If you allow polymorph cheese, a Meleeficer is already a less viable build than a Meleewizard, and the UMD has nothing to do with it -- if +UMD items make Meleeficers dangerous, a Wizard who doesn't *need* UMD to cast polymorph is ten times as dangerous, since he also doesn't need to spend gold on the +UMD item *or* the wand! In other words, this isn't a balance issue with the Artificer at all -- it's a balance issue with polymorph, and it's easy enough to fix, by disallowing polymorph. (And, frankly, I regard anyone who sat through WotC's loud, sad recriminations at themselves for being so stupid as to ever allow the polymorph spell into the game and still allows it as being the one who's houseruling. Just because WotC doesn't want to cramp the style of DMs who allow polymorph isn't a reason for you to allow a Wizard to polymorph any object himself, the party Fighter and everyone else in the party into Firbolgs or War Trolls.)
Edymnion 01-13-07, 09:49 PM	But you don't need a very high Charisma to get the job done. It only needs to be decent, and even if it's not decent you can cover for it without too much trouble. That's kind of the point of this whole thread.Methinks you do not understand the concept of MAD. Multiple Attribute Dependancy. As in, the class cannot function with only one good score, but pretty much by definition must spread their scores out over multiple "good" abilities. If you can make a functional character with an attribute range of 18, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, then it is not a MAD character. Most spellcasters are not MAD, as they only need a single high score in their primary stat to be effective. Some classes, like the Ranger or the Paladin, require multiple good scores to be functional in their primary role. Paladins require good Wisdom to cast spells, good Charisma for laying on hands, on top of good physical stats for front line combat. The artificer needs a good Intelligence for his infusions. He needs a moderate Charisma for his UMD. He needs a moderate to good Dexterity for AC and the ability to hit the broad side of a barn with wands or bows. He does well with a good Wisdom for faking Divine spells (since you still have to meet those minimum ability score prereqs for spell levels). The artificer requires two "good" stats to function properly at all, Intelligence and Charisma, and is frankly rather handicapped without Wisdom (as it doubles the number of checks they need to make to fake divine spells). Add in the need for Dexterity to be at all useful in combat, and you've got yourself a pretty MAD artificer.
ArcTan 01-13-07, 09:56 PM	Methinks you do not understand the concept of MAD. Multiple Attribute Dependancy. As in, the class cannot function with only one good score, but pretty much by definition must spread their scores out over multiple "good" abilities. If you can make a functional character with an attribute range of 18, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, then it is not a MAD character. Most spellcasters are not MAD, as they only need a single high score in their primary stat to be effective. Some classes, like the Ranger or the Paladin, require multiple good scores to be functional in their primary role. Paladins require good Wisdom to cast spells, good Charisma for laying on hands, on top of good physical stats for front line combat. The artificer needs a good Intelligence for his infusions. He needs a moderate Charisma for his UMD. He needs a moderate to good Dexterity for AC and the ability to hit the broad side of a barn with wands or bows. He does well with a good Wisdom for faking Divine spells (since you still have to meet those minimum ability score prereqs for spell levels). The artificer requires two "good" stats to function properly at all, Intelligence and Charisma, and is frankly rather handicapped without Wisdom (as it doubles the number of checks they need to make to fake divine spells). Add in the need for Dexterity to be at all useful in combat, and you've got yourself a pretty MAD artificer. Actually, my argument continues to be that while an Artificer with a Cha of 10 will have problems, he's far more viable than, say, a Paladin with a Cha of 10 or a Monk with a Wis of 10.
aelryinth 01-14-07, 02:28 AM	But you don't need a very high Charisma to get the job done. It only needs to be decent, and even if it's not decent you can cover for it without too much trouble. That's kind of the point of this whole thread. And if that is true, then why do you need +UMD at all, and why are you arguing so strongly for it? A lot of powergamers RELY on that +UMD so they CAN tank charisma, and feats, and change their build plans. ===Aelryinth
Edymnion 01-14-07, 01:43 PM	A lot of powergamers RELY on that +UMD so they CAN tank charisma, and feats, and change their build plans.And if you start trying to balance things around what the Character Optimization board can do to the rules, you've already lost the battle. Your primary objective, when it comes to balancing something, is to balance it for the largest majority of players out there, while still retaining as much usefulness as possible. I mean, if you start pulling out what a powergamer could potentially do with something, you're going to have to ban toothpicks as overpowered, as I'm sure somebody over there could come up with a way to kill a Great Wyrm with a toothpick in under 10 rounds, so the toothpick must be broken, right?
AbsentMindedProfessor 01-14-07, 05:17 PM	Ok, change of topic... Would House Phiarlan be secretive enough to have their own Artificers so that they can have stuff made in House so that they don't have to deal with Cannith? Their own Q division, I suppose. And would they be behind the scenes or would they have their own store front with the secret stuff behind the curtain?
aelryinth 01-14-07, 07:31 PM	Well, this is an Artificer thread, not a House politics thread. You'd be better off posting this to the General board where you'd get more weigh in. we're debating the rules and how they apply to the class, not how the Dragonmark Houses interrelate. ===Aelryinth
jameswilliamogle 01-15-07, 11:44 PM	I mean, if you start pulling out what a powergamer could potentially do with something, you're going to have to ban toothpicks as overpowered, as I'm sure somebody over there could come up with a way to kill a Great Wyrm with a toothpick in under 10 rounds, so the toothpick must be broken, right?A toothpick, Greater Magic Weapon at 20th level, Drunken Master PrC, Monk levels, and a True Strike ring ought to do it. Great thread, btw, Ed.
Nightshade 01-17-07, 03:33 PM	Question: On Weapon Augmentation, personal The Artificer in my group has been using this Infusion to apply Bane to his crossbow as often as he can. It makes Artificer's ridiculously strong. He shoots Bane bolt after Bane bolt because the duration is 10 min/lvl. Artificers would never use Inflict Light Damage on a Warforged if they can bane their ranged weapon and shoot from a distance. But I've been wondering... is he applying the Infusion to the wrong items? Should he be applying this Bane enhancement to his Crossbow Bolts rather than to the crossbow itself? Is there a rule on this aspect of Bane in the DMG?
jameswilliamogle 01-17-07, 04:15 PM	Question: On Weapon Augmentation, personal The Artificer in my group has been using this Infusion to apply Bane to his crossbow as often as he can. It makes Artificer's ridiculously strong. He shoots Bane bolt after Bane bolt because the duration is 10 min/lvl. Artificers would never use Inflict Light Damage on a Warforged if they can bane their ranged weapon and shoot from a distance. But I've been wondering... is he applying the Infusion to the wrong items? Should he be applying this Bane enhancement to his Crossbow Bolts rather than to the crossbow itself? Is there a rule on this aspect of Bane in the DMG?What he's been doing is legitimate. If he were fighting Warforged, there would be one advantage of using Inflict Light Damage: he'd only have to make a touch attack instead of a ranged weapon attack.
eRaz0r 01-17-07, 05:46 PM	Question: On Weapon Augmentation, personal The Artificer in my group has been using this Infusion to apply Bane to his crossbow as often as he can. It makes Artificer's ridiculously strong. He shoots Bane bolt after Bane bolt because the duration is 10 min/lvl. Artificers would never use Inflict Light Damage on a Warforged if they can bane their ranged weapon and shoot from a distance. But I've been wondering... is he applying the Infusion to the wrong items? Should he be applying this Bane enhancement to his Crossbow Bolts rather than to the crossbow itself? Is there a rule on this aspect of Bane in the DMG? As the previous poster has noted, it's a legitimate use of the spell. However, make sure of two things : 1/ Bane is specific to a creature type. You can't enhance something with Bane (everything), it has to be Bane (Constructs) or Bane (Humanoids) or Bane (animals) etc. 2/ Casting Weapon Aug (personal) takes 1 minute (1 round if he burns an Action Point). Action points don't grow on trees, and most combats are nearly over after 10 rounds. So if your artificer is abusing bane, either your DM is not aware of the restrictions on the spell, or he's giving you too much prep-time before combat (or the Artificer is artfully fudging the number of APs he's got). If you're facing hordes of homogeneous monsters, that you've crept up on and prepared against, the Artificer with his bane weapon will be awesome. If you're jumped in the middle of the night by a mix of goblinoids, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, living constructs and magical beasts, you'll find the Bane Personal Weapon Augmentation quickly fades in comparison with, say, Shield of Faith :)
Cabral 01-18-07, 10:27 AM	Aelryinth, I can't think of once that I've agreed with you. Regardless, you may have better luck convincing others of the merits of your arguements if you adopted a less abrasive tone. You're not the only one who has neglected their ranks in Diplomacy. It seems many an argument on these boards seem to involve Edymnion and ArcTan as well. Can we just take a step back, breath deeply, and reapproach this as a discussion rather than a shouting match? It's giving me a headache to read this thread. ---- Now, as to contributing to the discussion, in my experience, the Multiple Attribute Dependency is superficial. Yes, they rely heavily on a charisma based skill, however, they can acquire several bonuses to that skill without magic (5 ranks in Spellcraft, 5 Ranks in Decipher Script, Artisan Bonus, Skill Mastery, Skill Focus, Magical Aptitude). Additionally, being a skill, at level 1, the attribute contributes, at most, 50% of a skill bonus (+4 versus 4 ranks) and diminishes from there. It is generally, more effective to boost the skill rather than the linked attribute. Compare a cloak of charisma +6 (36,000 gp) to a circlet of persuasion (4,500 gp). As for items that grant a bonus to Use Magic Device, I've never had a problem with it. I've never seen a dependance for it, nor a problem allowing it. However, before anyone remarks at what can be done with a +30 UMD item, can you show me an example of a +30 item? The only one I could find is an epic wondrous item (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#mantleofGreatStealth). I suspect, with a look at such precedence, it will be much harder to justify a +UMD item above +5, let alone above +15.
aelryinth 01-18-07, 07:29 PM	Aelryinth, I can't think of once that I've agreed with you. Regardless, you may have better luck convincing others of the merits of your arguements if you adopted a less abrasive tone. You're not the only one who has neglected their ranks in Diplomacy. It seems many an argument on these boards seem to involve Edymnion and ArcTan as well. Can we just take a step back, breath deeply, and reapproach this as a discussion rather than a shouting match? It's giving me a headache to read this thread. ---- Now, as to contributing to the discussion, in my experience, the Multiple Attribute Dependency is superficial. Yes, they rely heavily on a charisma based skill, however, they can acquire several bonuses to that skill without magic (5 ranks in Spellcraft, 5 Ranks in Decipher Script, Artisan Bonus, Skill Mastery, Skill Focus, Magical Aptitude). Additionally, being a skill, at level 1, the attribute contributes, at most, 50% of a skill bonus (+4 versus 4 ranks) and diminishes from there. It is generally, more effective to boost the skill rather than the linked attribute. Compare a cloak of charisma +6 (36,000 gp) to a circlet of persuasion (4,500 gp). As for items that grant a bonus to Use Magic Device, I've never had a problem with it. I've never seen a dependance for it, nor a problem allowing it. However, before anyone remarks at what can be done with a +30 UMD item, can you show me an example of a +30 item? The only one I could find is an epic wondrous item (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#mantleofGreatStealth). I suspect, with a look at such precedence, it will be much harder to justify a +UMD item above +5, let alone above +15. There were +30 items in 3.0, specifically involving the Jump skill, as I recall. in 3.5, if you have a caster level of 9, Jump grants a +30 Enhancement bonus to Jump checks. Not bad for a first level spell, aye? Also, I believe any potion of Glibness gives you a +30 bonus on bluff checks...tho only for restricted uses. Level 2. It is the really powerful skills that appear to have built in limitations...WoTC acknowledging that some skills have more value then others. =================== As for Diplomacy, thank you for talking down your nose at us. Please forgive us for our impertinence in doing the same to you. I don't require you to agree with me, although that would certainly stop any arguments, as you might be able to understand. Also, while ArcTan is abrasive and I'm happy to reply in kind, Edymion is merely firm and persuasive. I believe you are confusing him with Elderich, who is neither. Kindly apologize to Edy, and feel free to lambaste Eld. And if you don't want to agree with me, I really don't mind. I've found that my disagreeing with a large number of people, including Hellcow himself, results in some very interesting discussions. And the fact I can't be browbeaten on the boards only makes it more fun for me when people start getting frustrated at how I hold to a position despite them misconstruing and misinterpreting my words. So, Cabal, you might have more success in getting my respect for an argument if you didn't issue opinionated judgments on posters before bothering to contribute. My replies tend to be about as civil as the original poster. For instance, I have never responded with hostility to Hellcow, because he is always magnificently polite. Edy, despite some firm opinions of his own, is also polite and not disparaging. You, of course, started off your entire post with a flame. You just might want to skip such things in the future if you want to be taken seriously. ====Aelryinth
Cabral 01-19-07, 01:35 AM	There were +30 items in 3.0, specifically involving the Jump skill, as I recall. in 3.5, if you have a caster level of 9, Jump grants a +30 Enhancement bonus to Jump checks. Not bad for a first level spell, aye? Also, I believe any potion of Glibness gives you a +30 bonus on bluff checks...tho only for restricted uses. Level 2. The SRD potion of Jump grants a +10 bonus. The potion of glibness is not in the SRD. While a potion of jump could be crafted that provided a +30 bonus (at significantly higher cost), can you find a nonepic item that provides a +30 bonus and would have been priced with the "bonus squared" guidelines? Items that produce a spell effect are priced differntly and we are not discussing the merit of Skill Enhancement (Use Magic Device), but rather the merit of items that provide a bonus to use magic device calculated with those guidelines. I don't require you to agree with me, although that would certainly stop any arguments, as you might be able to understand. Also, while ArcTan is abrasive and I'm happy to reply in kind, Edymion is merely firm and persuasive. I believe you are confusing him with Elderich, who is neither. Kindly apologize to Edy, and feel free to lambaste Eld. Perhaps my observation was ill-placed, or better left unsaid. My appologies if you took offense to an observation coupled with a humorous attempt to calm things down. The three (four if Elderich is included) of you seem to be at the heart of many an argument here and in the visual medium of these boards, within this thread, your arguments come accross to this reader as a shouting match as much as a debate.And if you don't want to agree with me, I really don't mind. I've found that my disagreeing with a large number of people, including Hellcow himself, results in some very interesting discussions. And the fact I can't be browbeaten on the boards only makes it more fun for me when people start getting frustrated at how I hold to a position despite them misconstruing and misinterpreting my words. I never intended to browbeat you. If you feel I have misconstrued ot misinterpreted your words, please elaborate. You, of course, started off your entire post with a flame. You just might want to skip such things in the future if you want to be taken seriously.o.O? What flame?
aelryinth 01-19-07, 03:33 AM	Passing judgement on others negatively is a flame attempt, regardless if you attempted it humorously or not. I'm not a mind reader, and how I interpret your words is not up to you unless you are much more careful with your language. I didn't see humor...I saw smugness and snootiness. As for the +30 items, if you look at the items written up in the SRD and published, they top out at +15. One of the reasons why is that you must have 15 ranks in the skill the item boosts to make it. Thus, while +30 is possible pre-Epic as it stands, it is impossible by the skill ranks. +15 is also a huge bonus to any skill. There is no need to make items that only 17th level characters can possibly make if they scale as perfectly as they do, according to the prices guideline. And it is precisely this scaling effect that +UMD users are attempting to follow, if you follow their example. Also, you are ignoring the fact that generally speaking, the SRD and DMG list items at the lowest caster level due to cost savings. There is no reason that you couldn't make items at higher caster levels, and such things scale along with everything else. It simply costs a lot more. Really, do they have to post every iteration of a device between 5-20? But my main thrust of the UMD argument included the fact that they've seen fit to never boost UMD with competence items, despite their certainly being a market/demand for it, especially with Artificers. Hellcow himself confirmed that he doesn't let +UMD devices 'just exist' in his campaign in the gauntlet thread on the magic page. ===Aelryinth
Cabral 01-19-07, 09:24 AM	As for the +30 items, if you look at the items written up in the SRD and published, they top out at +15. One of the reasons why is that you must have 15 ranks in the skill the item boosts to make it. Thus, while +30 is possible pre-Epic as it stands, it is impossible by the skill ranks. One makes the other impossible. If you can't show me one that isn't based upon skill ranks. Also, you are ignoring the fact that generally speaking, the SRD and DMG list items at the lowest caster level due to cost savings. There is no reason that you couldn't make items at higher caster levels, and such things scale along with everything else. It simply costs a lot more. I acknowledged that in my prior post concenring potions. Are you now sayig that a ring of jump would provide higher than a +5 bonus if its caster level were higher? But my main thrust of the UMD argument included the fact that they've seen fit to never boost UMD with competence items, despite their certainly being a market/demand for it, especially with Artificers. That's a relatively weak argument. Artificers are setting specific, restricting the items to Eberron books. Books, which oddly have had relatively few magic items. The lack may be simply be a matter of Hellcow's opinion's coloring the designer's opnions, or may be that they feel similarly to me, in that I don't see the demand.Hellcow himself confirmed that he doesn't let +UMD devices 'just exist' in his campaign in the gauntlet thread on the magic page. ===Aelryinth More accurately: Just as a side note: The (skill bonus squared * 100 gp) is a guideline. It is, ultimately, up to a DM to decide on the price of a particular magic item, or if it can be created at all. In my personal campaign, I don't actually allow + UMD items. If someone really wanted one, I'd personally make it a challenge to acquire; it's an item that's never been made and one that is extremely useful in an artifice-based culture; if it was easy to do, every artificer would have one. So I'd draw it out a bit, making the character acquire rare components (at considerable risk), and explore combinations of different effects (I might decide ahead of time on two effects that I thought would do it, and see how long it took the character to pick those two). But in another campaign, the DM might consider the item to be inconsequential and allow it off the cuff. I'm not going to argue whether or not +UMD is balanced or unbalanced; I see others are already doing that. All that matters, in my opinion, is what the DM personally wants to allow in his or her game. The key thing is that the DMG guidelines are guidelines, and there's a reason they're in the DMG instead of the PHB. Any new magic item should get the approval of the DM, and the DM has the right (and the duty, if he feels it threatens the game) to adjust things as he sees fit. For all I know, an Eberron sourcebook may come out with a +UMD item. It's possible one already has. Personally, I still wouldn't use it. I just don't like what it does to the artificer. But that's *my* opinion, as a DM in my own campaign. If another DM thinks its no big deal, more power to him.
aelryinth 01-19-07, 07:23 PM	Which effectively is what I just said, without having to read several paragraphs. As for the skill rank thing, Remember Epic Rules are 3.0, and the 'caps' didn't exist back then. Also, there's nothing in the core pricing guide requiring skill ranks to make items. That's an 'add on' you are supposed to follow as a guideline. Also, let's really muck things up. Take a look at the stuff in the SRD with bonuses, and, as always, keep in mind that Epic rules are not 3.5. Notice something? No? Well, go back to the Epic rules, and you'll read that +30 is the maximum non-Epic value for Skill Enhancement bonuses. uh huh. That's right. enhancement. Not Competence. Competence they 'back-doored' with the skill rank req. fun, fun. But, of course, you now you have to somehow figure out the pricing guidelines for skill enhancement items, which were primarily 3.0. As for your jump skill argument, I turn it back on you. If I have a magic item that casts Jump on me at 9th level, why would I get only a +5 to jump? Lastly, Artificer is a 20th level base class, and is not setting specific...as a 20 level class, it can be used in any campaign. The fact that it came out in Eberron no more makes it setting specific then the Red Wizard and Purple Dragon Knight, both of which are in the DMG as examples of classes that can be adapted to any campaign. ===Aelryinth
Cabral 01-20-07, 12:37 AM	Also, there's nothing in the core pricing guide requiring skill ranks to make items. That's an 'add on' you are supposed to follow as a guideline. The easiest way to come up with a price is to match the new item to an item that is already priced that price as a guide There is no other guideline for guessitmating prerequisites.Also, let's really muck things up. Take a look at the stuff in the SRD with bonuses, and, as always, keep in mind that Epic rules are not 3.5. Notice something? No? Well, go back to the Epic rules, and you'll read that +30 is the maximum non-Epic value for Skill Enhancement bonuses. uh huh. That's right. enhancement. Not Competence. Competence they 'back-doored' with the skill rank req. fun, fun. But, of course, you now you have to somehow figure out the pricing guidelines for skill enhancement items, which were primarily 3.0. 1. 3.5 did not invalidate 3.0 except in cases where it explicitly contradicts 3.0. 2. Why would I want to figure out 3.5 pricing guidelines for items with enhancement bonuses to skills. As for your jump skill argument, I turn it back on you. If I have a magic item that casts Jump on me at 9th level, why would I get only a +5 to jump? ... because it doesn't cast jump at a caster level of 9. It has a caster level of 5 and grants a +5 competence bonus; it just has jump as a prerequisite. Lastly, Artificer is a 20th level base class, and is not setting specific...as a 20 level class, it can be used in any campaign. The fact that it came out in Eberron no more makes it setting specific then the Red Wizard and Purple Dragon Knight, both of which are in the DMG as examples of classes that can be adapted to any campaign. As a 20 level based class presented in the Eberron Campaign Setting, it is not a valid assumption that it is appropriate for other settings.
aelryinth 01-20-07, 01:44 AM	There is no other guideline for guessitmating prerequisites. Well, duh. So, you are telling me both are priced the same way, but competence items have an additional req of skill ranks? So, I can slap +5 Skill Competence and +5 Skill Enhancement on an item for half the cost of +10 COmpetence and miniscule ranks? Sign me up! 1. 3.5 did not invalidate 3.0 except in cases where it explicitly contradicts 3.0. Well, duh. You DID ask about +20 and +30 bonuses, didn't you? 2. Why would I want to figure out 3.5 pricing guidelines for items with enhancement bonuses to skills. Because enhancement bonuses can get up to +30 without requiring skill ranks from the caster? You did ask that, right? ... because it doesn't cast jump at a caster level of 9. It has a caster level of 5 and grants a +5 competence bonus; it just has jump as a prerequisite. Excuse me, look at my example. You are clearly ignoring what I said. If I have a magic item with a caster level of 9 casting a Jump Spell on me... As a 20 level based class presented in the Eberron Campaign Setting, it is not a valid assumption that it is appropriate for other settings. Actually, that's an invalid assertation, it is presumed that any material presented in a campaign setting is balanced for all settings unless specifically noted otherwise. There is nothing in the Artificer class that ties it to Eberron. Eberron, however, makes full use of the integration of Artificer rules. You are mistaking effect for cause. ==Aelryinth
yrogerg 01-20-07, 04:39 AM	Actually, that's an invalid assertation, it is presumed that any material presented in a campaign setting is balanced for all settings unless specifically noted otherwise. There is nothing in the Artificer class that ties it to Eberron. Eberron, however, makes full use of the integration of Artificer rules. You are mistaking effect for cause. Use a bit of logic, though, Ael. Artificers are balanced given the presupposition of Action Points. Action Points are in fact a major feature in making the class at all workable, and are only a given in Eberron. Ergo, Artificers, as written, are not necessarily balanced for settings where Action Points are not a given feature. I mean, otherwise, there wouldn't be so many "How Do I Adapt the Artificer to a Different Setting" threads on these boards. Note additionally that both the Red Wizard and PDK are prestige Classes, not 1-20 classes, that the PDK is *not* listed in the DMG, and also that neither the Red Wizard nor the PDK make use of setting-specific mechanics. Note however, that the Node Sorcerer or whatever from Underdark does. Are you claiming that that PrC was intended to be used in any and all settings, despite the fact that Earth Nodes are extremely specific to FR?
Cabral 01-20-07, 08:36 AM	Aelrinth, could you not reply inside a quote block? It makes it annoying to reply with quotes. If you want to divide someone's post, type the /quote tag in front of the starting quote block, copy that and delete the /quote tag. you'll have something like "[/quote]" on your clipboard. Then paste the tags wherever you want to divide the quote. [QUOTE=aelryinth;11236393]Well, duh. So, you are telling me both are priced the same way, but competence items have an additional req of skill ranks? So, I can slap +5 Skill Competence and +5 Skill Enhancement on an item for half the cost of +10 COmpetence and miniscule ranks? Sign me up! 3.5 has replaced enhancement bonuses to skills with compentance bonuses. This is one of those contradictions I mentioned.Well, duh. You DID ask about +20 and +30 bonuses, didn't you?Yes, I asked for an example of a priced +30 skill item. If you revised your argument to say how a +15 UMD item broke the game, this point would be a non-issue. Because enhancement bonuses can get up to +30 without requiring skill ranks from the caster? You did ask that, right?See above.Excuse me, look at my example. You are clearly ignoring what I said. If I have a magic item with a caster level of 9 casting a Jump Spell on me...Your example? You wanted to turn my example around on me. My example a caster level 5 ring of jump that grants a +5 bonus to jump checks. I already acknowledged that an item that actually cast jump upon the user would work differently. It would also be priced differently and thus is not a valid example for the merit of pricing +30 to a skill item with the magic item pricing guidelines. A CL 9 potion, scroll, wand, staff or x per day casts jump on the wearer/user item would all grant a +30 bonus to jump checks. All such items would be priced on the spell they cast (first level spell, caster level 9), not the bonus they provide.
aelryinth 01-20-07, 04:56 PM	Use a bit of logic, though, Ael. Artificers are balanced given the presupposition of Action Points. Action Points are in fact a major feature in making the class at all workable, and are only a given in Eberron. Ergo, Artificers, as written, are not necessarily balanced for settings where Action Points are not a given feature. I mean, otherwise, there wouldn't be so many "How Do I Adapt the Artificer to a Different Setting" threads on these boards. Note additionally that both the Red Wizard and PDK are prestige Classes, not 1-20 classes, that the PDK is *not* listed in the DMG, and also that neither the Red Wizard nor the PDK make use of setting-specific mechanics. Note however, that the Node Sorcerer or whatever from Underdark does. Are you claiming that that PrC was intended to be used in any and all settings, despite the fact that Earth Nodes are extremely specific to FR? Artificers don't require AP to survive. You have to play them differently, is all...no super infusions in the middle of combat! It means revising your intentions of what you want the class to do...preparation becomes far more key. For instance, metamagic spell trigger becomes much more important then metamagic infusion in a campaign with no AP. And AP are a generic tool from UA...however, they are applied differently in UA from Eberron, so YMMV. If Earth Nodes aren't in your game, you definitely have a setting specific class. However, how difficult is it to change the concept to holy/unholy sites or the like? And I'm pretty sure the Red Wizard and PDK were added to the 3.5 DMG, but, I could also be mistaken. They are, of course, not in the SRD. And if you want setting-specific classes, the Marshal was designed for the miniatures handbook, which has it's own campaign setting on the far side of Oerth, but it can also be used in any other setting. The game is inherently set up around the concept of portable classes and ideas. If such is not portable, it's either tied intimately to very different mechanical rules of the setting (making the setting a D@D variant campaign), or there is something intrinsically unbalanced about the class. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-20-07, 05:29 PM	Aelrinth, could you not reply inside a quote block? It makes it annoying to reply with quotes. If you want to divide someone's post, type the /quote tag in front of the starting quote block, copy that and delete the /quote tag. you'll have something like "" on your clipboard. Then paste the tags wherever you want to divide the quote. Sigh. Thank you for explaining general Word Processing to me. I'm sure I could never have figured that out for myself. I reply this way so that people can see the answer and the question, and it saves me a lot of time. I could give you instructions on how you could simply cut, paste, and then post your replies in between what you pasted, but I'm sure you could figure those out for yourself, as well. but I won't, just as I won't point out that when I quote you, all your replies are jumbled together because they aren't spaced and I have to keep wasting time going back to the original post to seperate them out. When I have a lot of time, or very few different questions, I'll use the other format. 3.5 has replaced enhancement bonuses to skills with compentance bonuses. This is one of those contradictions I mentioned. Replaced? You can still make items with enhancement bonuses to skills. It's just not generally used anymore. They, ah, took away the guidelines. Note that such wonderful things as the Jump spell still use the enhancement bonus. Yes, I asked for an example of a priced +30 skill item. If you revised your argument to say how a +15 UMD item broke the game, this point would be a non-issue. If there was a priced +30 device in the game non-Epic, this wouldn't be an issue. You are issuing a challenge you know the answer to, which has nothing to do with game balance as applies to UMD. I've never said that I care about massive skill mods. As a matter of fact, I think they are great ideas, especially for skill checks that scale. UMD, however, does not scale, except for the Artificer, and he has tools enough to handle it without resorting to cheese that could break the non-scaling aspect of the skill, mainly by other characters. And I did note how lower levels of +UMD could radically alter how a character was built, and those points could be applied directly to the like of rogues, bards, Able Learners, and the like, who could all drastically curtail their investment into UMD with such toys. See above. Your example? You wanted to turn my example around on me. My example a caster level 5 ring of jump that grants a +5 bonus to jump checks. I already acknowledged that an item that actually cast jump upon the user would work differently. It would also be priced differently and thus is not a valid example for the merit of pricing +30 to a skill item with the magic item pricing guidelines. Well, first mistake you are making is caster level 5. The ring of jumping granting a +5 bonus is caster level 2...2 because that's the minimum level the person needs to be to have 5 ranks in jump, I'm assuming. Second of all, the ring grants a competence bonus to Jump checks. The spell grants an enhancement bonus to jump checks, yet is required for the ring. By the rules, a use-activated Jump ring/device at 9th level would be a mere 18,000 gp, vs 90,000 for the competence item (and that would need a 27th level maker). lastly, Jump is a scaling skill check. You get a higher check, you can jump further, higher. You are still limited by movement restrictions per round, but being able to bounce 30' instead of 15' isn't going to throw anything off kilter. Handing your ring to the fighter so he can use your Persistent Divine Power wand, and then to everyone else in the party, might just be. A CL 9 potion, scroll, wand, staff or x per day casts jump on the wearer/user item would all grant a +30 bonus to jump checks. All such items would be priced on the spell they cast (first level spell, caster level 9), not the bonus they provide. And the problem with that last statement is that you'd turn around and go by the item guideline, which is that Jump items should be priced like the ring, and you are ignoring use-activated item pricing guidelines. It's the same reason you don't do True Strike Rings and Periapts of Minor Wounds...the rules don't work that way. So, obviously WoTC toned down the skill bonuses available to people, despite the existence of the Epic Rules. The game also caters to people in the 8-12 level range, because that is where most games end up stopping. A +20 item is for the 17th+ level game. And none of which intrudes at all on the viability of a skill bonus item that allows the ability to reach instantly fixed Skill DC's for UMD. Even a +15 UMD device radically alters an Artificer's dependence on UMD as a class skill, and would change how other classes invest in UMD radically as well. Hence, there are no +UMD devices. And yes, the reason I have a reply outside the blocks is so that you CAN quote me, and then cut/paste inside the resulting blocks. I do also try to space out my replies for easy reading and answering. ===Aelryinth
yrogerg 01-20-07, 07:48 PM	Artificers don't require AP to survive. You have to play them differently, is all...no super infusions in the middle of combat! It means revising your intentions of what you want the class to do...preparation becomes far more key. For instance, metamagic spell trigger becomes much more important then metamagic infusion in a campaign with no AP. It's more than that. Look, there isn't a balanced single 1-20 class that is only useful in an encounter if it's had between a half-hour's and a week's worth of foreknowledge and preparation time. You simply can't play a character in D&D who's built around the assumption that you'll never be surprised. Yes, you have to play them differently, but that's because you completely lose the ability to *react* to encounters or use infusions during combat. You're playing a de-fanged UMD rogue. Seriously, I can't think of a compelling reason to play an artificer without action points instead of a UMD rogue or an Item Creation Feat-heavy Spellcaster. At least the former gets sneak attack, and the latter can use spells in combat, as well as access to lots of excellent feats and prestige classes that do them more good than they do Artificers. Removing a functional feature of a class does not mean the class is necessarily still balanced, and that "playing the class differently" will make up for the unbalance. I do find it deeply baffling that you think that a static skill DC creates a limiting resource for an Artificer's effectiveness, but needing to use Action Points to overcome the prohibitive infusion times doesn't. And AP are a generic tool from UA...however, they are applied differently in UA from Eberron, so YMMV. Yes, they are mentioned in UA, and Action Points themselves can be used in any campaign easily enough. However, they are a fairly integral part of Eberron as-written, and excising them does require extensive adaptation of many classes in the setting, including the Artificer, Extreme Explorer, Dragonmarked Heir... and so on. They require radical redesign. If Earth Nodes aren't in your game, you definitely have a setting specific class. However, how difficult is it to change the concept to holy/unholy sites or the like? If memory serves, it does kinda render the class rather incoherent. I'm obviously weak on details, as I don't have the book in front of me. My primary point was that what you're suggesting now is adapting the class. That's an entirely different matter from assuming that setting-specific material- material that refers to setting specific mechanics- is written to be balanced and ready to be plopped into other settings, as-is. Again, this is obviously untrue if you look at, say, Extreme Explorer, which barely has any any class abilities *other* than Action Points. In a campaign without Action Points, the EE is about as good as a few Warrior Levels. And I'm pretty sure the Red Wizard and PDK were added to the 3.5 DMG, but, I could also be mistaken. They are, of course, not in the SRD. Red Wizard, not PDK. PDK only became a general PrC in Miniatures Handbook, or Heroes of Battle or some such. But both of those were written to be generic enough *to* be used in any setting, in a way that Artificers and Extreme Explorers aren't. ...If such is not portable, it's either tied intimately to very different mechanical rules of the setting... Bingo.
Cabral 01-21-07, 12:03 AM	Sigh. Thank you for explaining general Word Processing to me. I'm sure I could never have figured that out for myself. You're welcome. Replaced? You can still make items with enhancement bonuses to skills. It's just not generally used anymore. Not used anymore? Try not at all in the SRD. When an item emulates a spell on a user, it's a different matter. If there was a priced +30 device in the game non-Epic, this wouldn't be an issue. You are issuing a challenge you know the answer to, which has nothing to do with game balance as applies to UMD. I've never said that I care about massive skill mods. As a matter of fact, I think they are great ideas, especially for skill checks that scale. You use +30 UMD as an example of how items that grant a bonus to UMD break UMD/the Artificer. Since you need 30 ranks in UMD to make such an item and it would require a character level of 27+ to make it, the argument is a bit weak. Now, if you want to argue that a +15 UMD item breaks the Artificer, we can try from there. Well, first mistake you are making is caster level 5. The ring of jumping granting a +5 bonus is caster level 2...2 because that's the minimum level the person needs to be to have 5 ranks in jump, I'm assuming. Actually, in my hurry, the other mistake was that it requires 5 ranks in jump, not the jump spell. It's a "bonus squared" item, not a "spell level x caster level" item. By the rules, a use-activated Jump ring/device at 9th level would be a mere 18,000 gp, vs 90,000 for the competence item (and that would need a 27th level maker). And the two would stack since one provides an enhancement bonus and the other a competence bonus, illustrating why certain items shouldn't be made. Skill items should be priced via the guidelines rather than by duplicating constant spells. In fact, often duplicating permanent spells generally turns out broken.Handing your ring to the fighter so he can use your Persistent Divine Power wand, and then to everyone else in the party, might just be. Again, that is an issue of Persistent being broken. And the problem with that last statement is that you'd turn around and go by the item guideline, which is that Jump items should be priced like the ring, and you are ignoring use-activated item pricing guidelines. It's the same reason you don't do True Strike Rings and Periapts of Minor Wounds...the rules don't work that way. I am confused. Are you saying that I am ignoring the use activated guidelines or that they shouldn't be used for these cases? The game also caters to people in the 8-12 level range, because that is where most games end up stopping. A +20 item is for the 17th+ level game. If you think so, it's perfectly valid to extrapolate the bonus and requirements. However, it's still valid that any discussion about "balance" should be restricted to non-epic levels as epic games is notoriously "problematic". And none of which intrudes at all on the viability of a skill bonus item that allows the ability to reach instantly fixed Skill DC's for UMD. Even a +15 UMD device radically alters an Artificer's dependence on UMD as a class skill, and would change how other classes invest in UMD radically as well. Hence, there are no +UMD devices. A level 1 scroll requires what DC for activating it without mishap? DC 21. A level 4 scroll requires what DC for activating it without mishap? DC 27. A level 9 scroll requires what DC for activating it without mishap? DC 37. Looks like it scales to me.
Thramzorean 01-21-07, 03:20 AM	Cabral Try not at all in the SRD. - NOT for oneupmanship ;) but simply for your information from the SRD psionic items: Skin of the Chameleon: This psychoactive skin adjusts to surrounding textures and colors, continually granting the wearer a +10 enhancement bonus on Hide checks. Faint psychometabolism; ML 3rd; Craft Universal Item, chameleon; Price 18,000 gp; Weight 2 lb Obviously a special case given the chameleon power though. It would be nice if the posters of some of the less viable-to-topic parts of the back and forth please put it into sblocks to make the 16 odd pages easier reading...
Cabral 01-21-07, 01:29 PM	- NOT for oneupmanship ;) but simply for your information from the SRD psionic items: [I]Skin of the Chameleon: This psychoactive skin adjusts to surrounding textures and colors, continually granting the wearer a +10 enhancement bonus on Hide checks. Nice catch. There's also Eyes of Expanded Vision. Looks the skin was priced as a constant/use activated Chameleon manifested by a 3rd level Egoist. That doesn't explain the Eyes of Expanded Vision.
aelryinth 01-21-07, 03:15 PM	The psionics stuff in the SRD is also generally 3.0 material, never updated to 3.5. If re-written as 3.5, I'm pretty sure the material would show a competence bonus. The Boots of Swiftness from the Epic Rules also use an Enhancement bonus to Skills, so it kind of showcases the problem. Sigh. I used the Wand as an easy example of something easily obtainable by an Artificer and beneficial to everyone in the whole party. Let's try spell completion Item of Mind Blank (saves money). Or Staff of Bite of the Werebear...or hells, a Scroll of Holy Word. And you messed up the DC's for the Scrolls. It's 20+Caster level. A level 4 spell does not have to be scribed at level 7. And it's STILL a fixed DC. 20+ Caster level is, since you are shying away from Epic, a maximum DC of 40 and a minimum DC of 21. The top is fixed and the bottom is fixed....fixed DC's. As for your continually calling for a +15 UMD device 'break', I already posted that before you began doing things. Go back and read my prior examples and portage them in if you want. Just remember that with 'take 10' and +15 on UMD checks, the Artificer now needs only +12 to hit your 'fantastically hard' DC of 37. In short, this '12th level' item now completely obviates the need for any form of stat booster to Charisma, Charisma in the core build, and any other feats or magic items to boost UMD...and he only needs 12 ranks in UMD tops, and could probably get away with 8 (artisan bonus, craft item bonus, and possibly synergies) Yeah, I'd say that's a problem. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-21-07, 03:32 PM	It's more than that. Look, there isn't a balanced single 1-20 class that is only useful in an encounter if it's had between a half-hour's and a week's worth of foreknowledge and preparation time. You simply can't play a character in D&D who's built around the assumption that you'll never be surprised. Yes, you have to play them differently, but that's because you completely lose the ability to *react* to encounters or use infusions during combat. You're playing a de-fanged UMD rogue. Spell-storing Device. Know it, use it, love it. Get wands. Oh, and boost that UMD so it doesn't fail. See why UMD is so crucial to the Artificer? Preference of play style and mechanics of class are two VERY different topics. You are confusing them. For instance, a Buffificer needs to have almost no infusions in melee...he casts them all ahead of time. The Blastificer needs almost no infusions in melee...he casts them ahead of time or uses Metamagic Spell Trigger. You'd have to change your style of play without AP's as a crutch. In other words, having AP's changed how you play the class...but it does NOT change the class. Seriously, I can't think of a compelling reason to play an artificer without action points instead of a UMD rogue or an Item Creation Feat-heavy Spellcaster. At least the former gets sneak attack, and the latter can use spells in combat, as well as access to lots of excellent feats and prestige classes that do them more good than they do Artificers. Removing a functional feature of a class does not mean the class is necessarily still balanced, and that "playing the class differently" will make up for the unbalance. Take 10 on UMD. Rogue never gets to use it, AFAIK, even with SKill Mastery. Artificers are not balanced around Action Points, because not all artificers have them (cue NPC artificers). Action Points are available to PC's for heroic actions...they are not an integral part of the PC. AP"s are not a 'functional feature of the class'. They are a feature of the PC's of the Eberron setting. I do find it deeply baffling that you think that a static skill DC creates a limiting resource for an Artificer's effectiveness, but needing to use Action Points to overcome the prohibitive infusion times doesn't. Uh, what? Limiting Resource? (confused) Obviates the need for +UMD's. And the need for AP's is not a need. AP's are completely elective, and a specific use is assumed for Artificers in Eberron. But Artificers as a class have absolutely nothing specifically reliant on AP's...unlike the Extreme Explorer. Yes, they are mentioned in UA, and Action Points themselves can be used in any campaign easily enough. However, they are a fairly integral part of Eberron as-written, and excising them does require extensive adaptation of many classes in the setting, including the Artificer, Extreme Explorer, Dragonmarked Heir... and so on. They require radical redesign. Again, the Artificer is a 20 level class designed to be portable across any campaign. AP's are setting integral, and so are the two PrC's you just mentioned. If memory serves, it does kinda render the class rather incoherent. I'm obviously weak on details, as I don't have the book in front of me. Well, to put it another way, you could adjust the Dragonmark 'idea' to another setting, you could adjust the Node 'idea' to another setting. And no, don't have my books in front of me to look it up, either. My primary point was that what you're suggesting now is adapting the class. That's an entirely different matter from assuming that setting-specific material- material that refers to setting specific mechanics- is written to be balanced and ready to be plopped into other settings, as-is. Well, it's the truth. Look at the Artificer. There's nothing in the class saying 'must spend AP's'. It just looks a lot nicer when you do. But then, AP's help out just about any class when you include them. But saying that taking out that ability nerfs the entire idea of the Artificer is, well, kind of short-sighted. Again, this is obviously untrue if you look at, say, Extreme Explorer, which barely has any any class abilities *other* than Action Points. In a campaign without Action Points, the EE is about as good as a few Warrior Levels. And this IS a PrC directly tied to the setting, it REQUIRES the use of AP's. If you don't have the AP variant rule, you simply can't play the class. Just like Dragonmark Heir. Without Dragonmarks, you can't play the class. But, you CAN play an Heir without AP's...the bonus of extra AP's is simply lost and is actually irrelevant. Red Wizard, not PDK. PDK only became a general PrC in Miniatures Handbook, or Heroes of Battle or some such. But both of those were written to be generic enough *to* be used in any setting, in a way that Artificers and Extreme Explorers aren't. Artificers are. There is NOTHING in the Artificer class requiring a change in mechanics. EE's, however, REQUIRE use of a variant rule. Red Wizards could be seen as 'setting specific', if you include things like Thayan Circle Magic, and magocracy, etc. But, like AP's, that's all flavor stuff, and can be ruled away. Bingo. Ayup. ==Aelryinth
yrogerg 01-21-07, 04:50 PM	Seriously Ael, it would help everyone if you just used the [/quote] and tags instead of the {b} and {/b} tags, respectively. It makes it worlds easier to read your points, and only only need to type four extra letters per tag. There's really very little excuse beyond laziness. anyway: [quote]Spell-storing Device. Know it, use it, love it. Get wands. Oh, and boost that UMD so it doesn't fail. See why UMD is so crucial to the Artificer? Spell-storing device is only useful if you know precisely what spell you are going to need within the next few hours, have several minutes to infuse items, and don't mind that you don't have all that many infusions/day. Oh, and also don't mind having to burn extra infusions if you don't end up using that particular spell. And as you point out, the other balancing factors (reliance on pricy items, UMD, etc.) don't go away. Wow, all the ability to react to sudden encounters of a Wizard who left all his spell spell slots open, but with the spell failure chance of one that's perpetually wearing armor, and a need to "memorize" twice a day? Sign me up. Preference of play style and mechanics of class are two VERY different topics. You are confusing them. For instance, a Buffificer needs to have almost no infusions in melee...he casts them all ahead of time. The Blastificer needs almost no infusions in melee...he casts them ahead of time or uses Metamagic Spell Trigger. You'd have to change your style of play without AP's as a crutch. In other words, having AP's changed how you play the class...but it does NOT change the class. Umm, it's removing the ability to use infusions on the time scale of combat. An artificer may be much more powerful when it has 5 minutes to a half-hour of preparation time, but they're still supposed to be passable in a combat situation regardless, otherwise that action point mechanic wouldn't exist at all. Look, if an Artificer can be considered balanced against a Wizard by default, then removing a class ability -any class ability- should change that equation. Seriously, what your saying is that Loss of a mechanical ability written into a class is immaterial to balance-as-written because you can always just play the character differently, and it sounds eerily akin to the Oberoni Fallacy.
yrogerg 01-21-07, 05:52 PM	Take 10 on UMD. Rogue never gets to use it, AFAIK, even with SKill Mastery. True, but since the average d20 roll is 10.5, Take 10 only provides a modicum of reliability, without providing a major power boost. And, in exchange, a Rogue gets Sneak Attack, Evasion and Uncanny Dodge. But, no, I see your point. Those class abilities are worthless by comparison. :rolleyes:
aelryinth 01-21-07, 09:23 PM	True, but since the average d20 roll is 10.5, Take 10 only provides a modicum of reliability, without providing a major power boost. And, in exchange, a Rogue gets Sneak Attack, Evasion and Uncanny Dodge. But, no, I see your point. Those class abilities are worthless by comparison. :rolleyes: The average roll means that you are going to fail 50% of the time. I'd hardly call that a MINOR benefit. Wasting an entire round doing nothing, or potentially backfiring?!? Avoiding that is HUGE. The Artificer can take 10 and succeed every time. To get an identical level of success, any other class has to take 1 to succeed every time. That's a built in +9 bonus. I'd call that pretty substantial. It's one reason why Artificers don't need +UMD's...to succeed at UMD checks, they've got beacoup bonuses built right into the class! ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-21-07, 09:27 PM	Seriously Ael, it would help everyone if you just used the and tags instead of the {b} and {/b} tags, respectively. It makes it worlds easier to read your points, and only only need to type four extra letters per tag. There's really very little excuse beyond laziness. anyway: Spell-storing device is only useful if you know precisely what spell you are going to need within the next few hours, have several minutes to infuse items, and don't mind that you don't have all that many infusions/day. Oh, and also don't mind having to burn extra infusions if you don't end up using that particular spell. And as you point out, the other balancing factors (reliance on pricy items, UMD, etc.) don't go away. Wow, all the ability to react to sudden encounters of a Wizard who left all his spell spell slots open, but with the spell failure chance of one that's perpetually wearing armor, and a need to "memorize" twice a day? Sign me up. Umm, it's removing the ability to use infusions on the time scale of combat. An artificer may be much more powerful when it has 5 minutes to a half-hour of preparation time, but they're still supposed to be passable in a combat situation regardless, otherwise that action point mechanic wouldn't exist at all. Look, if an Artificer can be considered balanced against a Wizard by default, then removing a class ability -any class ability- should change that equation. Seriously, what your saying is that Loss of a mechanical ability written into a class is immaterial to balance-as-written because you can always just play the character differently, and it sounds eerily akin to the Oberoni Fallacy. But again, the Artificer is NOT designed to take advantage of AP's. You'd as soon be off arguing that the ability to blow AP's to grab spells out of your spellbook, or cast an extra spell, is ESSENTIAL to playing a wizard, or that extra bonus to skill checks is ESSENTIAL to playing a rogue. The fact of the matter is, with AP's you don't have to DO preparation and think ahead, and this has spoiled you. Having to prepare a spell store ahead of time is no different then a wizard having to do so with HIS magic...but you aren't poo-pooing the wizard having to make preparations, are you? Only the Artificer can, unlike a wizard, prepare his infusions with mere minutes of warning...or less! They can be also be tailored to the situation and be devastatingly effective. I hardly see your problem from a balance perspective, sorry. ===Aelryinth
yrogerg 01-21-07, 10:36 PM	The fact of the matter is, with AP's you don't have to DO preparation and think ahead, and this has spoiled you. Having to prepare a spell store ahead of time is no different then a wizard having to do so with HIS magic...but you aren't poo-pooing the wizard having to make preparations, are you? Every play an NPC Artificer who didn't have Heroic Spirit? Ever play one that didn't have Heroic Spirit and then got Surprised by the PCs? It's a deeply pathetic sight. The only redeeming factor is if he's a Warforged, as he can use some of his better 1-round infusions to buff or heal himself. Don't characters ever get surprised in your campaigns? Wizards have their prepared spells all day; an Artificer who burns all his infusions on Spell-Storing Item still loses them after his level in hours. Without Action Points, an Artificer is *not* all that effective in combat unless he knows minutes in advance that he's going to be attacked. This is a rarity in D&D. Only the Artificer can, unlike a wizard, prepare his infusions with mere minutes of warning...or less! They can be also be tailored to the situation and be devastatingly effective. Actually, a wizard *can* pick his spells just like an Artificer: he just needs to leave some empty spells slots. Preparing spells into empty slots that have intentionally been left empty takes 15 minutes, provided you are preparing 1/4 or less at a time. So, again, without the ability to use half his infusions in combat when necessary, the Artificer is largely as effective as a half-prepared Wizard with a tiny spell list. Fantastic. But, y'know what? None of this matters. I was just trying to point out that when a class that does have some dependency on Setting-Specific mechanics*, it's unreasonable to assume that the class will remained balanced when they're transported to a different setting, effectively eliminating access to an ability written into the class. I mean, can you me to anything ever published by WotC that suggests that portability between published settings -without adaptation- is a cornerstone of 3.5 design philosophy? Because frankly, it really does seem like you're pulling that out of your ass. *Even you're admitting that lack of Action Points changes the way artificers are played, and I suspect that you'd even be willing to admit that lack of Action Points has a larger impact on the way that Artificers are played than it does on the way the Core classes are.
ArcTan 01-21-07, 11:01 PM	The average roll means that you are going to fail 50% of the time. I'd hardly call that a MINOR benefit. Wasting an entire round doing nothing, or potentially backfiring?!? Avoiding that is HUGE. The Artificer can take 10 and succeed every time. To get an identical level of success, any other class has to take 1 to succeed every time. That's a built in +9 bonus. I'd call that pretty substantial. It's one reason why Artificers don't need +UMD's...to succeed at UMD checks, they've got beacoup bonuses built right into the class! ===Aelryinth ...By the time you get this class ability, you're already not failing UMD checks (which, as you point out, are largely static and fixed) anyway. So who cares? It really just eliminates the formality of rolling, on checks where you'd only fail anyway if you got a natural 1 or 2, and makes it easier to get those Metamagic Spell Completion checks that you can only use once in a long while anyway (thanks to the expense of making high-power scrolls on which it'd be worth it to even take the risk of using metamagic).
yrogerg 01-21-07, 11:10 PM	The average roll means that you are going to fail 50% of the time. I'd hardly call that a MINOR benefit. Wasting an entire round doing nothing, or potentially backfiring?!? Avoiding that is HUGE. The Artificer can take 10 and succeed every time. To get an identical level of success, any other class has to take 1 to succeed every time. That's a built in +9 bonus. I'd call that pretty substantial. It's one reason why Artificers don't need +UMD's...to succeed at UMD checks, they've got beacoup bonuses built right into the class! ===Aelryinth Hmm, +9 bonus to a selected skill at level 13 vs. +7d6 Sneak Attack (which can be applied to UMDed ranged touch or touch attacks), Improved Uncanny Dodge, and 2 extra special abilities, either or both of which could be +9 to three other skills, each. No, good point, really. That's a really powerful class ability, especially since a max ranks UMD Rogue with decent Charisma will be topping the DC 20 needed for wands on a 2 or 3.:P Also, there's no such thing as backfiring for Magic Items in 3.5; if you fail with a natural 1, you simply can't try again for a day. (If you succeed on a natural 1, however, the spell goes off as normal) You're either thinking of Second Edition or Psionics.
ArcTan 01-21-07, 11:24 PM	The psionics stuff in the SRD is also generally 3.0 material, never updated to 3.5. If re-written as 3.5, I'm pretty sure the material would show a competence bonus. The Boots of Swiftness from the Epic Rules also use an Enhancement bonus to Skills, so it kind of showcases the problem. Er, no. It's not. It's text taken from the Expanded Psionics Handbook, which is "Expanded" precisely because it was updated for 3.5 from 3.0 from the original Psionics Handbook. That was when things like the wilder and soulknife were invented. Please stop saying you're "pretty sure" about things you clearly haven't researched, at all. FWIW, the Epic and Divine sections of the SRD are taken from *books* written in 3.0 -- the ELH and D&DG, respectively -- and so the material has never been rewritten to be *balanced* in a 3.5 environment (not that "balance" is really the point of Epic or Divine characters anyway), but it has been updated to be *compatible* with 3.5 rules, based on errata by WotC. Go on, look for a reference to polymorph self or teleport without error in the SRD. You won't find one.
Cabral 01-22-07, 01:19 AM	The psionics stuff in the SRD is also generally 3.0 material, never updated to 3.5. If re-written as 3.5, I'm pretty sure the material would show a competence bonus. That depends. I don't know why they gave the power an enhancement bonus, perhaps a quirk in converting from 3e to 3.5, but the skin likely has an enhancement bonus so that it won't stack with the power. The same is likely true for the eyes of expanded vision. And you messed up the DC's for the Scrolls. It's 20+Caster level. A level 4 spell does not have to be scribed at level 7. Actually, you are correct. Since the artificer was introduced, a level 4 spell can be scribed at a caster level of 5 (though the effect is often reduced) and thus the DCs listed should 2 points lower (minimum of 21).And it's STILL a fixed DC. 20+ Caster level is, since you are shying away from Epic, a maximum DC of 40 and a minimum DC of 21. The top is fixed and the bottom is fixed....fixed DC's. A jump check has a fixed DC for most creatures. If a creature does not have the leap of the clouds class feature or an equivalent, his jump checks are limited by height. With height limiting the distance, most creatures have an effective cap on the DCs that matter. Just remember that with 'take 10' and +15 on UMD checks, the Artificer now needs only +12 to hit your 'fantastically hard' DC of 37. In short, this '12th level' item now completely obviates the need for any form of stat booster to Charisma, Charisma in the core build, and any other feats or magic items to boost UMD...and he only needs 12 ranks in UMD tops, and could probably get away with 8 (artisan bonus, craft item bonus, and possibly synergies) Skill points are cheaper than feats. And, depending on the class, may or may not be cheaper than gold. As a class with Intelligence as the primary stat and a base 4 skill points per level, an artificer is not hurting for skill points. He has one "must have" skill (Use Magic Device), everything else is just a matter of what role he wishes to fill or complementary to his "must have" skill. At 13th level(!), an artificer can start taking 10 on UMD checks (a warlock gets this ability at 4th level and a rogue can select UMD and 2 or more other skills as part of skill mastery). An artificer is not going to neglect UMD for 12 levels because he knows this perk is coming. However, let's assume he will for the point of argument. Let's assume his highest DC is going to be 47 (Metamagic spell completion with a spell modified to 9th level). Let's subtract 10 because he can take 10 now. that leaves 37 points. He has the feat to make the item so artisan bonus kicks in taking it down to 35 points. It's an easy matter to have 5 ranks in Spellcraft for another +2 bonus (33). Magical Aptitude is great feat for an artificer and helps immensely early on and is still useful later, granting a +2 bonus (31). At 13th level, the artificer's max ranks in UMD is 16 leaving 15 points unaccounted for. He could make up those 15 points with: a +15 UMD item for 22,500 gp, 20.5% of the character's recommended wealth. Half that if he makes it himself, but that requires the character have the skill ranks that you are proposing could be neglected. a combination of the Skill Enhancement Infusion (+8 bonus), Skill Focus (+3), 5+ ranks in Decipher Script (+2), a circlet of persuasion for 4,500 gp (+3) a charisma of 14+ (+2 or higher), and action points (+2 - +12). Assuming an 18 charisma +6 from an item, and not counting action points, these could add up to +23. In an economics sense the 22,500 gp for a +15 UMD item is a bad investment. The opportunity cost is too high. Apart from the Skill Focus feat (IMO, another bad investment) and maybe the 5+ ranks in Decipher Script (due to being cross-class), the alternative path to a high bonus is much more cost effective. A +10 UMD item for 10,000 gp isn't as bad as far as opportunity cost is concerned. I still wouldn't recommend one. A +5 UMD item for 2,500 gp is a bargain. The cost problem with +15 and +10 UMD items, isn't just the cost of the items themselves. As others have mentioned, it's the cost of the items needed to make those high bonuses worthwhile. Items which are generally expendable yet will cost more than you should be spending on encounters for your level. You may say that there is a reason there are no published +x UMD items. I say there is a reason there is no record for highest possible Use Magic Device skill bonus. (List records are: Bluff: +206; Diplomacy: Without equipment, buffs, etc: +56/with equipment +199; Forgery: +168; Perform: +188; Jump: +366; Knowledge(religion): +68.) It's just not that useful or game-breaking to have a high for your level Use Magic Device skill bonus. You want to break the game with skills, be a half-elf diplomat and convince Tiamat to be your cohort ... Take 10 on UMD. Rogue never gets to use it, AFAIK, even with SKill Mastery. Rogues can get it sooner (level 10) and get 2+Intelligence modifer additional skills that they can take 10 on. There's nothing I see in the Skill Mastery or Use Magic Device description that says otherwise. Artificers are not balanced around Action Points, because not all artificers have them (cue NPC artificers). Ahem. For an NPC to be "balanced" it would have to as strong or weaker as a PC of similar level. Or are you going to tell me a Commoner is "balanced"?Action Points are available to PC's for heroic actions...they are not an integral part of the PC. AP"s are not a 'functional feature of the class'. They are a feature of the PC's of the Eberron setting. I mostly agree, actually. Action points are a relatively sparse resource and therefore have a limited impact on balance. Again, the Artificer is a 20 level class designed to be portable across any campaign. AP's are setting integral, and so are the two PrC's you just mentioned. This is an invalid assumption as artificers increase the availablity and accessability of magic items. Well, to put it another way, you could adjust the Dragonmark 'idea' to another setting, you could adjust the Node 'idea' to another setting. And no, don't have my books in front of me to look it up, either. But then you are altering the setting. In which case you have not adapted the class to the setting but the setting to the class. Artificers are. There is NOTHING in the Artificer class requiring a change in mechanics. Actually, the Artificer changes the Item Creation process. Increases availability of magic items (at a reduced cost due his craft reserve) and makes them more accessable (Sale on CL 3 wand of fireballs!). These all greatly impact a setting. While one artificer may not affect a setting in the grand scheme, the fact that PCs are generally the focus, magnifies the impact greatly. I don't think I'm going to sway you, and I have not been swayed in the slightest by your arguments. Shall we agree to disagree?
Thramzorean 01-22-07, 02:02 AM	The psionics stuff in the SRD is also generally 3.0 material, never updated to 3.5. If re-written as 3.5, I'm pretty sure the material would show a competence bonus. Aelryinth, the psionics SRD was updated almost immediately after the release of the XPH which is a while ago now. Cabral: the skin got the enhancement bonus because that's what the power gives, an enchancement bonus. Quite useful actually. ;)
aelryinth 01-22-07, 03:42 AM	Hmm, +9 bonus to a selected skill at level 13 vs. +7d6 Sneak Attack (which can be applied to UMDed ranged touch or touch attacks), Improved Uncanny Dodge, and 2 extra special abilities, either or both of which could be +9 to three other skills, each. No, good point, really. That's a really powerful class ability, especially since a max ranks UMD Rogue with decent Charisma will be topping the DC 20 needed for wands on a 2 or 3.:P Also, there's no such thing as backfiring for Magic Items in 3.5; if you fail with a natural 1, you simply can't try again for a day. (If you succeed on a natural 1, however, the spell goes off as normal) You're either thinking of Second Edition or Psionics. Since when did this thread devolve into a comparison of class values? FYI, the Artificer can use his UMD to pick up +4d6 SA (via spell that grants SA), Another +7d6 SA (via Spell granting some outsider's form), another +2d6 SA (via another spell granting heroics, granting Martial Stance) and blah blah blah. It's a ninjaficer build. Don't even START comparing class skills until you see what the Artificer can do with UMD that no other class can. The Artificer's ability is take 10 all the time, when nobody else can even take 10 at all (except the Warlock). The Rogue can take 10 in high stress situations, on skills that others can only take 10 on in 'calm' situations. Load of difference there. And if you want to compare classes by level (feats, craft feats, infusions, bonus abilities) I really don't think you want to go there. Lastly, you can blindly activate an item and suffer severe mishaps. It's still there. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-22-07, 03:43 AM	Aelryinth, the psionics SRD was updated almost immediately after the release of the XPH which is a while ago now. Cabral: the skin got the enhancement bonus because that's what the power gives, an enchancement bonus. Quite useful actually. ;) I brought it up because the Jump spell grants an enhancement bonus, but the ring of Jump grants a competence bonus. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-22-07, 04:18 AM	That depends. I don't know why they gave the power an enhancement bonus, perhaps a quirk in converting from 3e to 3.5, but the skin[/i likely has an enhancement bonus so that it won't stack with the power. The same is likely true for the eyes of expanded vision. I can't comment on this, because with that very sensible viewpoint, why did they change the bonus sans the spell Jump vs the ring? Actually, you are correct. Since the artificer was introduced, a level 4 spell can be scribed at a caster level of 5 (though the effect is often reduced) and thus the DCs listed should 2 points lower (minimum of 21). Incorrect. He still has to emulate a 27 DC...he doesn't have to have his own caster level of 5 for making magic items. I was referrring to the fact that a 4th level spell could be scribed at level 15 and require a DC 35 check. A jump check has a fixed DC for most creatures. If a creature does not have the leap of the clouds class feature or an equivalent, his jump checks are limited by height. With height limiting the distance, most creatures have an effective cap on the DCs that matter. I just read the SRD, and found no reference to a maximum vertical height. I thought they removed it in 3.5? Which means they took out your fixed maximum. Skill points are cheaper than feats. And, depending on the class, may or may not be cheaper than gold. As a class with Intelligence as the primary stat and a base 4 skill points per level, an artificer is not hurting for skill points. He has one "must have" skill (Use Magic Device), everything else is just a matter of what role he wishes to fill or complementary to his "must have" skill. Agreed At 13th level(!), an artificer can start taking 10 on UMD checks (a warlock gets this ability at 4th level and a rogue can select UMD and 2 or more other skills as part of skill mastery). An artificer is not going to neglect UMD for 12 levels because he knows this perk is coming. However, let's assume he will for the point of argument. Since he won't be able to craft items without it, I agree he won't totally ignore it. However, he doesn't have to MAX it. Let's assume his highest DC is going to be 47 (Metamagic spell completion with a spell modified to 9th level). Let's subtract 10 because he can take 10 now. that leaves 37 points. He has the feat to make the item so artisan bonus kicks in taking it down to 35 points. It's an easy matter to have 5 ranks in Spellcraft for another +2 bonus (33). Magical Aptitude is great feat for an artificer and helps immensely early on and is still useful later, granting a +2 bonus (31). At 13th level, the artificer's max ranks in UMD is 16 leaving 15 points unaccounted for. He could make up those 15 points with: a +15 UMD item for 22,500 gp, 20.5% of the character's recommended wealth. Half that if he makes it himself, but that requires the character have the skill ranks that you are proposing could be neglected. Actually, YOU are proposing he neglects it. I'm proposing he not make the UMD device, AND that he max the skill out. For purposes of making the device...yes, he needs those ranks. I would also like to point out something. By NOT having to take Magical Affinity, he can take Magical Artisan or whatever it is, and reduce his crafting costs by 25%. That item cost him only 20% of his total. In other words, cash wise, he's already 5% ahead of the game, and it's only going to get better. [I]You just made my case for me! a combination of the Skill Enhancement Infusion (+8 bonus), Skill Focus (+3), 5+ ranks in Decipher Script (+2), a circlet of persuasion for 4,500 gp (+3) a charisma of 14+ (+2 or higher), and action points (+2 - +12). Assuming an 18 charisma +6 from an item, and not counting action points, these could add up to +23. I'd go an Admiral's Tricorn and probably cut back on the base 18 Cha, but that's me. I like that higher starting Int, yes? And my builds assumed point buy. (Not a slam) In an economics sense the 22,500 gp for a +15 UMD item is a bad investment. The opportunity cost is too high. Apart from the Skill Focus feat (IMO, another bad investment) and maybe the 5+ ranks in Decipher Script (due to being cross-class), the alternative path to a high bonus is much more cost effective. Cost effective? Against not needing a circlet, freeing up two feats he could use to save money making items and xp used, allowing the Artificer to dump Cha, etc etc? You are doing what I'm proposing the Artificer was built to do. He doesn't NEED the +UMD. Just about anybody I can think of trying to optimize an Artificer build would be GIDDY over replacing MAD, feats, and other magic items with a simple item he could churn out for 12k and some xp. And, as above, ONE feat not being needed PAYS for the +UMD device. how do you value an extra 2-4 skill points a level, another feat, and not having to spend money on other Cha boosting stuff? For instance, that +6 Charisma booster is 36k!!!! for a +3 bonus!!! That alone pays for your +UMD, because you don't NEED a high Cha anymore!! A +10 UMD item for 10,000 gp isn't as bad as far as opportunity cost is concerned. I still wouldn't recommend one. A +5 UMD item for 2,500 gp is a bargain. against the cost of irreplaceable feats, moving that monster Cha into intelligence for more skills and infusions...? 10k is CHEAP!!! Especially compared to Cha boosters!!! The cost problem with +15 and +10 UMD items, isn't just the cost of the items themselves. As others have mentioned, it's the cost of the items needed to make those high bonuses worthwhile. Items which are generally expendable yet will cost more than you should be spending on encounters for your level. And yet, having that high UMD makes those encounters faster and less pricey, and thus easier to handle. Free feats make crafting less pricey in gold and xp, or free up feats for metamagic goodness, and Int for more skills and infusions. And as I pointed out, not having to buy Cha boosters saves you TONS of money! You may say that there is a reason there are no published +x UMD items. I say there is a reason there is no record for highest possible Use Magic Device skill bonus. (List records are: Bluff: +206; Diplomacy: Without equipment, buffs, etc: +56/with equipment +199; Forgery: +168; Perform: +188; Jump: +366; Knowledge(religion): +68.) Actually, what you ahve to do is locate the Staffificer builds, which might be on the COpt Artificer threads. Using the cheese interpretation of Caster level = UMD check -20 as a class feature UMD check, I believe they got a caster level up to at least 98, which is a +118 Check at the least. One level of Marshal for Motivate Charisma, and some hefty UMD buffers. It's just not that useful or game-breaking to have a high for your level Use Magic Device skill bonus. You want to break the game with skills, be a half-elf diplomat and convince Tiamat to be your cohort ... Unless you go staffificer cheese, you are completely correct. So, why do you need a +UMD device? Isn't that my whole point? Rogues can get it sooner (level 10) and get 2+Intelligence modifer additional skills that they can take 10 on. There's nothing I see in the Skill Mastery or Use Magic Device description that says otherwise. Skill Mastery lets you take 10 on a skill in combat or high stress that normally you couldn't. The Sage even ruled that they don't get a take 10 in UMD, because there's no way to take 10 or take 20 in UMD normally even in no stress situations. Ahem. For an NPC to be "balanced" it would have to as strong or weaker as a PC of similar level. Or are you going to tell me a Commoner is "balanced"? AP"s make PC's ALWAYS more powerful then NPC's of current level. Is this an argument? Normally, wealth limits do it, too... I mostly agree, actually. Action points are a relatively sparse resource and therefore have a limited impact on balance. Okay. Yay for little victories...please direct your attention to ArcTan and co. This is an invalid assumption as artificers increase the availablity and accessability of magic items. No more then having more mages does! But then you are altering the setting. In which case you have not adapted the class to the setting but the setting to the class. No, I'm saying my setting has Runechildren. Runechildren may take the Servant of the Rune class. Which happens to be mechanically identical to the Dragonmark heir. I just use different Runes for the effects/spells (bowing to Monte Cook). My setting has no AP's, so the benefit of heroic spirit is superfluous. My setting didn't change. I can take out the HEir and still have Runechildren (as Monte does in his AU campaign world). Actually, the Artificer changes the Item Creation process. Increases availability of magic items (at a reduced cost due his craft reserve) and makes them more accessable (Sale on CL 3 wand of fireballs!). These all greatly impact a setting. While one artificer may not affect a setting in the grand scheme, the fact that PCs are generally the focus, magnifies the impact greatly. The availability of magic items isn't going to change much without the magic and gold in place to make them possible. Underlevelled magic items don't function as well, are less durable, and make much less profit for the artificer, who will avoid making them except in emergencies (cost to Artificer for CL 3 vs CL5 fireball wands = the same, but sale price is 60%?) If anything, the Magewright class would make them more common. Craft reserve is nice and good...but you still need the gold to take advantage of it. And that's an economics issue, which is waaaaay too weighty for a class discussion. I don't think I'm going to sway you, and I have not been swayed in the slightest by your arguments. Shall we agree to disagree? The fact is, you are agreeing with me as often or more then you aren't, but you are doing it kind of bass ackwards. It's kind of funny! I guess, when I'm designing a character for play, I place a huge amount more importance on favoring stats and not having to 'waste' feats then you do. You seem to be ignoring the game implications for a character who does not need to do this. Two feats and dumping Cha for Int results in a MUCH stronger Artificer, if you can replace that UMD hit with a + magic item...especially one that scales with levels, saving all that money from Cha boosters...huh! I just can't see your point. A +20 UMD device costs less cash then a +6 Cha booster and a Circlet of Persuasion...and gives +14 MORE to your UMD, which is all you really need Charisma for. And you call it a bad investment? You are right, I'm just not seeing it. ===Aelryinth
Ravenscroft 01-22-07, 08:57 AM	Instead of making one item that provides a +30 bonus to UMD , can you make a single item that gives six lots of stackable +05 bonus? Say an item that gave you +05 Luck , +05 Sacred , +05 Profane , +05 Circumstance , +05 Competence and +05 Unnamed.
Cabral 01-22-07, 01:22 PM	I can't comment on this, because with that very sensible viewpoint, why did they change the bonus sans the spell Jump vs the ring?Because the ring is not producing a constant spell effect. The psychoactive skin would be more accurately described as producing a constant chameleon effect rather than providing a +10 enhancement bonus.Incorrect. He still has to emulate a 27 DC...he doesn't have to have his own caster level of 5 for making magic items.You've misunderstood what I was saying. An artificer can qualify to create an item 2 caster levels earlier. So he can create a level 3 fireball spell item with a caster level of 3 (normally requires a caster level 5), thus reducing the minimum DCs for UMD checks for scrolls by spell level. I said, nor implied, nothing as to whether an artificer has to make UMD checks to create the items.I just read the SRD, and found no reference to a maximum vertical height. I thought they removed it in 3.5? Which means they took out your fixed maximum.My mistake. I misread the vertical reach.Since he won't be able to craft items without it, I agree he won't totally ignore it. However, he doesn't have to MAX it.In a world without + UMD items (apart from the skill enhancment infusion), he doesn't have to max it ... It's just a good idea. And it remains a good idea either way.Actually, YOU are proposing he neglects it. I'm proposing he not make the UMD device, AND that he max the skill out. For purposes of making the device...yes, he needs those ranks.No, actually, I'm saying the UMD bonus item doesn't have much of an impact.I would also like to point out something. By NOT having to take Magical Affinity, he can take Magical Artisan or whatever it is, and reduce his crafting costs by 25%.Yes, or he can use other feats, such as the bonus feats or 3rd/6th/etc level feats, when the items he makes start eating into his craft reserve significantly. This is actually why Magical Affinity is the only +UMD feat I would reccomend for an artificer.That item cost him only 20% of his total. In other words, cash wise, he's already 5% ahead of the game, and it's only going to get better. You just made my case for me!Not really. UMD doesn't do anything without items. Items, which he now has 20% less to spend on.I'd go an Admiral's Tricorn and probably cut back on the base 18 Cha, but that's me. I like that higher starting Int, yes? And my builds assumed point buy. (Not a slam)I'm not familiar with the Admiral's Tricorn. If you'll re-examine the post, I assumed only a 10+ charisma and included the calculations for a base 18 charisma for maximums (though I should've used a 21 charisma: starting 18, +3 from level). Also, while I roll attributes in home games, I use ppoint buy or arrays for "builds"/comparisons.Cost effective? Against not needing a circlet, freeing up two feats he could use to save money making items and xp used, allowing the Artificer to dump Cha, etc etc? You are doing what I'm proposing the Artificer was built to do. He doesn't NEED the +UMD. Just about anybody I can think of trying to optimize an Artificer build would be GIDDY over replacing MAD, feats, and other magic items with a simple item he could churn out for 12k and some xp.Artificers do not have MAD. The appearance of MAD is superficial. He has one attribute dependancy: Intelligence. Anything else is just "nice". He shouldn't neglect charisma much like a wizard shouldn't ignore strength and constitution (or are you going to argue that a wizard is MAD because of concentration?). He doesn't need the high UMD bonus and the skill ranks are pretty much free. So cut back on the bonus if you want, but the skill ranks should be the last place to cut from because they are the "cheapest" to the artificer. The only reason [i]I feel the squeeze on skill points is because I like to really sprinkle them around. So much so that in an Iron Kingdoms (http://privateerpress.com/ironkingdoms/default.php) game, playing a ranger/gun mage (http://privateerpress.com/ironkingdoms/default.php?x=rules/characters), with a 20 Intelligence(!), I still "ran out" of skill points and felt the crunch. I just like have random skills like Use Rope, Ride, Survival, Heal, and others that many people don't care about. And yes, I rolled one 18 and put it into Intelligence for skills rather than Charisma for the gun mage's spell casting.And, as above, ONE feat not being needed PAYS for the +UMD device. how do you value an extra 2-4 skill points a level, another feat, and not having to spend money on other Cha boosting stuff? For instance, that +6 Charisma booster is 36k!!!! for a +3 bonus!!! That alone pays for your +UMD, because you don't NEED a high Cha anymore!!There is no need. Not for the high charisma. Not for the feats. Not for the +UMD item.And yet, having that high UMD makes those encounters faster and less pricey, and thus easier to handle. Free feats make crafting less pricey in gold and xp, or free up feats for metamagic goodness, and Int for more skills and infusions. And as I pointed out, not having to buy Cha boosters saves you TONS of money!No. Unless you've neglected Use Magic Device, you should not have any issues using appropriate level items for appropriate encounters. You want feats? 5 from level and 3 bonus feats. There is plenty of room for whatever feats you wish to take. You don't need charisma boosters. I personally like charismatic characters, so my artificer has a decent charisma and will make a circlet as soon as possible. But that's just my play style. (He's a halfling, btw.)Actually, what you ahve to do is locate the Staffificer builds, which might be on the COpt Artificer threads.No, I haven't. In fact doing a search for "staffificer" only comes up with posts by you. Since google thinks you invented the term, perhaps you could point us to the "staffificers"?Unless you go staffificer cheese, you are completely correct. So, why do you need a +UMD device? Isn't that my whole point?I was under the impression that you were arguing that +UMD broke something. It doesn't.Skill Mastery lets you take 10 on a skill in combat or high stress that normally you couldn't. The Sage even ruled that they don't get a take 10 in UMD, because there's no way to take 10 or take 20 in UMD normally even in no stress situations.As I said, I saw nothing in the SRD to indicate that. I couldn't check the FAQ. I'm not sure I agree with the FAQ, but officially Rogues cannot use Skill Mastery for UMD.AP"s make PC's ALWAYS more powerful then NPC's of current level. Is this an argument? Normally, wealth limits do it, too...Then it follows that removing Action Points from the artificer weakens the class. Moreso than other PC classes given that an Artificer can spend an action point reduce an infusion casting time to 1 round. Perhaps you have many combats that last more than 1 minute, but for most games, the 1 minute casting time of many infusions limits their versatility. Yes, the limited nature of action points reduces their impact, but it doesn't eliminate it.No more then having more mages does!Not true. An artificer can produce magic items at a smaller cost himself (Craft Reserve and latter Retain Essence), cheaper (for example CL 3 wands of fireball), and more easily (by being able to emulate any spell without having to buy a scroll, learn the spell, or hire another spellcaster). In addition, his infusions can create a wider array of temporary magic items. And in some cases, such as a CL 3 scroll of fireball, make the items easier to use. Artificers in the world increase the availability of magic items. Artificers in the party (can) immensely increase that availability.Underlevelled magic items don't function as well, are less durable, and make much less profit for the artificer, who will avoid making them except in emergencies (cost to Artificer for CL 3 vs CL5 fireball wands = the same, but sale price is 60%?)The price may be the same but just the fact that more people can make the item increases availability.I guess, when I'm designing a character for play, I place a huge amount more importance on favoring stats and not having to 'waste' feats then you do.I don't waste feats. Of the feats I've brought up, the only one I've actually taken is Magic Affinity. It's very useful early on, though less so later on.You seem to be ignoring the game implications for a character who does not need to do this.You seem to be imagining a need that doesn't exist.A +20 UMD device costs less cash then a +6 Cha booster and a Circlet of Persuasion...and gives +14 MORE to your UMD, which is all you really need Charisma for. And you call it a bad investment?A +20 item, costs about the same as a +6 cloak of charisma and a circlet. Though more accurately, it costs almost 9 times (8.89 times) as much as the circlet. In both cases the charisma provides a bigger bonus. (As it also boosts Diplomacy and Bluff which can be very useful for an artificer, particularly for negotiating prices.) And given that buying items to utilize the higher bonus will cost more gold. No, it's not a justifiable expense in my mind. Using the staffificer to argue for the brokenness of high UMD bonuses loses a bit of it's bite, if it had any, when, in your words:I'm solidly against the staffificer logic. The 'creative interpretation' of UMD sets me down against it. I don't consider 'caster level' a use of the skill. To use the magic item you are emulating the need to be a wizard or cleric or whatnot, nothing else. This doesn't grant you a caster level or anything. You are simply pretending you have a spell list with the spell trigger device's spell on it...caster level is in NO way a prereq for this (rangers/paladins can use their wands with NO caster level). Ergo, this example falls down pretty fast.Instead of making one item that provides a +30 bonus to UMD , can you make a single item that gives six lots of stackable +05 bonus? Say an item that gave you +05 Luck , +05 Sacred , +05 Profane , +05 Circumstance , +05 Competence and +05 Unnamed. Because that winds up being very expensive. The +5 luck bonus is going to be around 50,000 gp (adapting the "save (other)" line of the pricing guideline), if it's even valid to make luck bonus to a skill. Any nonstandard bonus is going to be very expensive simply to prevent using stacking bonuses as a way to make a cheaper total bonus.
yrogerg 01-22-07, 06:16 PM	Lastly, you can blindly activate an item and suffer severe mishaps. It's still there. If they fail by 10 or more, yes. And by level 13, this a danger of this is 0% unless the UMD Rogue has a negative charisma mod. (DC 25, max UMD ranks is 16, so a CHA 10 rogue would need to roll -1 to fail by more than ten). Again, good point. :rolleyes:
aelryinth 01-22-07, 06:55 PM	Because the ring is not producing a constant spell effect. The psychoactive skin would be more accurately described as producing a constant chameleon effect rather than providing a +10 enhancement bonus. The ring gives you a continuous +5 bonus to Jump. I'm not sure where your logic is. You've misunderstood what I was saying. An artificer can qualify to create an item 2 caster levels earlier. So he can create a level 3 fireball spell item with a caster level of 3 (normally requires a caster level 5), thus reducing the minimum DCs for UMD checks for scrolls by spell level. I said, nor implied, nothing as to whether an artificer has to make UMD checks to create the items. The Artificer can create items X two levels before a mage can, by caster level. He still has to emulate the spell at either caster level or spell level. In short, NOTHING changes...not price, xp, gold use, anything...except his ending magic item is two levels lower in ability. He doesn't get a break on the emulation check. My mistake. I misread the vertical reach. In a world without + UMD items (apart from the skill enhancment infusion), he doesn't have to max it ... It's just a good idea. And it remains a good idea either way. A good idea, but not a neccessary one. No, actually, I'm saying the UMD bonus item doesn't have much of an impact. You must not be looking at how drastically such things can affect a build then. Yes, or he can use other feats, such as the bonus feats or 3rd/6th/etc level feats, when the items he makes start eating into his craft reserve significantly. This is actually why Magical Affinity is the only +UMD feat I would reccomend for an artificer. okay, this is where you start to lose me...all other things being equal, he just used up two of those level feats boosting his UMD. Those are his optional feats. They don't contribute to a blaster build, crafter build, ninja build, buffer build. Not really. UMD doesn't do anything without items. Items, which he now has 20% less to spend on. Again, you are losing me. All other things being equal, you have your UMD boosting feat, and I have legendary artisan. With the cash savings of my feat, I can make a UMD booster not only for free, but at a profit...and net +13 more to my UMD then you do, enabling me to succeed more at checks, earlier, and more consistently. I can also do away with the Skill Focus UMD feat you mentioned, and pick up another Artisan feat instead...this one to lower the drain on my Reserve. So now not only can I make items cheaper then you, I can make MORE of them. So now I'm 5k ahead of you in cash value, and +10 in UMD...all other things being equal! But I still have a +10 advantage. I can now tank Charisma completely. Okay, I have a +6 advantage in UMD (no more Cha bonus), and my Int is now 4-6 pts higher then yours for my build...I have more skill points...which I can spend on Diplomacy and Bluff, if I like. Oh, I don't need Charisma now. That +6 Cloak of Charisma? Gone. I'm now 41k in gold up on you...which I can spend on other magic items to broaden my power base...like wands or staves. You, however, don't have the money to do so. At mega high levels, I don't even have to acquire an inherent bonus to Cha...I'd be better off socking the money into my +UMD. I'm not familiar with the Admiral's Tricorn. If you'll re-examine the post, I assumed only a 10+ charisma and included the calculations for a base 18 charisma for maximums (though I should've used a 21 charisma: starting 18, +3 from level). Also, while I roll attributes in home games, I use ppoint buy or arrays for "builds"/comparisons. The Admiral's Tricorn is essentially a double strength Circlet of Persuasion from Stormwrack. When I did my initial comparisons for yes/no UMD's, I assumed a 14 or 16 Cha. Artificers do not have MAD. The appearance of MAD is superficial. He has one attribute dependancy: Intelligence. Anything else is just "nice". He shouldn't neglect charisma much like a wizard shouldn't ignore strength and constitution (or are you going to argue that a wizard is MAD because of concentration?). He doesn't need the high UMD bonus and the skill ranks are pretty much free. So cut back on the bonus if you want, but the skill ranks should be the last place to cut from because they are the "cheapest" to the artificer. Again, your logic escapes me. You use TWO feats (precious feats, more precious then skill points to most people), blow 40k on Charisma booster/checkers (I blow only 22k?!?) and try to tell me Charisma is Not Important? 40% of his character wealth on Charisma boosters?!? Carpal, your logic totally escapes me. You have the very definition of MAD there, blowing tons of cash to influence a stat so you can put your other stats where you want them as part of your build. You are, again, making my case for me. The only reason [i]I feel the squeeze on skill points is because I like to really sprinkle them around. So much so that in an Iron Kingdoms (http://privateerpress.com/ironkingdoms/default.php) game, playing a ranger/gun mage (http://privateerpress.com/ironkingdoms/default.php?x=rules/characters), with a 20 Intelligence(!), I still "ran out" of skill points and felt the crunch. I just like have random skills like Use Rope, Ride, Survival, Heal, and others that many people don't care about. And yes, I rolled one 18 and put it into Intelligence for skills rather than Charisma for the gun mage's spell casting. Yet you completely devalue feats? Int can increase over time. you never get more feats then your precious few. Skills can be enhanced in many ways...it becomes very, very hard to replace feats. There is no need. Not for the high charisma. Not for the feats. Not for the +UMD item. This is again where you are confusing me. There are two opposite viewpoints being shown here. Without spending precious feats and/or build points, the Artificer isn't going to be able to hit his UMD checks at higher levels. But if he has a UMD device, he frees up cash, feats, and build points because now he can sub a piddling amount of cash for that focus. You demonstrated it above. So, color me confused. Using your own example, I have 2 or 3 more precious skill points a level then you; 42k more gold (which translates to 50k more in magic items) AFTER I make the +UMD, AND I can do everything you can do with my other feats. If you take the Artisan feats, bully for you...now I have feats like Empower and Twin, or Extend and Persistent, or Craft Homonculi and Etch Schema, that you simply do not have the Feat Room to take. No. Unless you've neglected Use Magic Device, you should not have any issues using appropriate level items for appropriate encounters. You want feats? 5 from level and 3 bonus feats. There is plenty of room for whatever feats you wish to take. You don't need charisma boosters. I personally like charismatic characters, so my artificer has a decent charisma and will make a circlet as soon as possible. But that's just my play style. (He's a halfling, btw.) ALL other things being equal, I'm better then you. Stronger. More gold. More toys. More good feats. And it's all because of my +UMD toy. No, I haven't. In fact doing a search for "staffificer" only comes up with posts by you. Since google thinks you invented the term, perhaps you could point us to the "staffificers"? I already pointed you to the Character Opt Artificer handbook, and I believe the argument spread here as well (Eldrerich loves the Stafficer argument). I did not invent the term, and I rather loathe the concept. However, it's buried in old pages. Take my word for it, unless you want to go wading. I was under the impression that you were arguing that +UMD broke something. It doesn't. This whole above argument is just for artificers. Now, what happens when you start handing your +20 UMD device around to other members of the party? Their fixed DC's are WAY less then yours. Suddenly, every magic item for every class is usable by anyone at need! As I said, I saw nothing in the SRD to indicate that. I couldn't check the FAQ. I'm not sure I agree with the FAQ, but officially Rogues cannot use Skill Mastery for UMD. ------- Then it follows that removing Action Points from the artificer weakens the class. Moreso than other PC classes given that an Artificer can spend an action point reduce an infusion casting time to 1 round. Perhaps you have many combats that last more than 1 minute, but for most games, the 1 minute casting time of many infusions limits their versatility. Yes, the limited nature of action points reduces their impact, but it doesn't eliminate it. Action points do a lot of things. But if you build an arti relying on AP's to be effective, it's no dif then me building a fighter or spellcaster relying on AP's to do stuff. It's a play style question, not a class balance question. If you don't like it, don't play an artificer. Not true. An artificer can produce magic items at a smaller cost himself (Craft Reserve and latter Retain Essence), cheaper (for example CL 3 wands of fireball), and more easily (by being able to emulate any spell without having to buy a scroll, learn the spell, or hire another spellcaster). In addition, his infusions can create a wider array of temporary magic items. And in some cases, such as a CL 3 scroll of fireball, make the items easier to use. Artificers in the world increase the availability of magic items. Artificers in the party (can) immensely increase that availability. And you are assuming that because artificers are around there's more high level people around then without em. Which is a logical fallacy. If they weren't artificers, they'd likely be mages, and still popping out stuff. Except the need for magic items wouldn't be as great since the people who could afford to use them remains the same, but now a chunk of them can cast their own spells and aren't reliant on them. In any event, the amount of gold to buy the stuff has not changed hands. It's an economic question. It has nothing to do with class balance. The price may be the same but just the fact that more people can make the item increases availability. There aren't more people. They are just a different class. I don't waste feats. Of the feats I've brought up, the only one I've actually taken is Magic Affinity. It's very useful early on, though less so later on. I agree. But guess what? With +UMD, I don't even need to take this. Artisan feat, here I come! You seem to be imagining a need that doesn't exist. Need? Who said it was a NEED? The guys who want UMD toys. It's a desire, not a need. A +20 item, costs about the same as a +6 cloak of charisma and a circlet. Though more accurately, it costs almost 9 times (8.89 times) as much as the circlet. In both cases the charisma provides a bigger bonus. (As it also boosts Diplomacy and Bluff which can be very useful for an artificer, particularly for negotiating prices.) And given that buying items to utilize the higher bonus will cost more gold. No, it's not a justifiable expense in my mind. The Charisma provides a bigger bonus...of +6 on UMD vs +20? Okay. Tell me what you are using to replace that +14 in UMD advantage I have, and we'll start talking Opportunity Cost. Using the staffificer to argue for the brokenness of high UMD bonuses loses a bit of it's bite, if it had any, when, in your words: I'm not arguing for the brokenness of it here. You wanted to know where to find a build of max skill records, and I gave you an answer. Wherever did you get the idea that I was supporting such a ridiculous notion? Especially when I did come down so solidly against it? Because that winds up being very expensive. The +5 luck bonus is going to be around 50,000 gp (adapting the "save (other)" line of the pricing guideline), if it's even valid to make luck bonus to a skill. Any nonstandard bonus is going to be very expensive simply to prevent using stacking bonuses as a way to make a cheaper total bonus. This latter statement is patently untrue. It's almost ALWAYS better to stack cheap bonuses then to layer on big ones (as the long series on boosting AC articles showed). This is because primary numbers go up by squaring. "unusual" bonuses, such as luck, sacred and profane, by the Item guidelines, cost DOUBLE what the normal bonus is (check the footnotes). Guideline 1: I don't think you can put a circumstance bonus into most items. Guideline 2: I probably wouldn't allow an unnamed bonus without a strict predecessor. but, a +5 Enhancement/Sacred/Luck/profane/Competence item would be: Base cost +5 competence = 2500 gp. Sacred/Luck/profane = base 5000 gp each. Enhancement = Competence is the new standard, but psionics still prices it at 2500 gp. For pricing, start with the most expensive, then add the others onto it with +50% extra cost. 5000+7500+7500+3750+3750 = 27,500 for a +25 multilevel bonus. It would be 52,500 for a straight +25 competence bonus. This is, of course, if your DM allows you to do this. ===Aelryinth
yrogerg 01-22-07, 07:04 PM	This latter statement is patently untrue. It's almost ALWAYS better to stack cheap bonuses then to layer on big ones (as the long series on boosting AC articles showed). This is because primary numbers go up by squaring. "unusual" bonuses, such as luck, sacred and profane, by the Item guidelines, cost DOUBLE what the normal bonus is (check the footnotes). Guideline 1: I don't think you can put a circumstance bonus into most items. Guideline 2: I probably wouldn't allow an unnamed bonus without a strict predecessor. but, a +5 Enhancement/Sacred/Luck/profane/Competence item would be: Base cost +5 competence = 2500 gp. Sacred/Luck/profane = base 5000 gp each. Enhancement = Competence is the new standard, but psionics still prices it at 2500 gp. For pricing, start with the most expensive, then add the others onto it with +50% extra cost. 5000+7500+7500+3750+3750 = 27,500 for a +25 multilevel bonus. It would be 52,500 for a straight +25 competence bonus. This is, of course, if your DM allows you to do this. ===Aelryinth Which is why there's that "common sense" restriction to magic items. Because it's far, far more like a +25 item with a minor or moderate 'penalty' in that you can't count other typed bonuses to the same skill than it is like five +5 items. To borrow one of your arguments, that's why there's no precedent for an item that gives multiple types of bonus to the same skill.
aelryinth 01-22-07, 07:46 PM	Which is why there's that "common sense" restriction to magic items. Because it's far, far more like a +25 item with a minor or moderate 'penalty' in that you can't count other typed bonuses to the same skill than it is like five +5 items. To borrow one of your arguments, that's why there's no precedent for an item that gives multiple types of bonus to the same skill. Yeah, when they stack items like this, they want you to do it on multiple different items instead. Same thign, but it costs more money and occupies more slots. It makes a lot more sense, on the other hand, to do stuff this way. They really don't WANT you to...but it makes SENSE to. And there's nothign WRONG about it, even by examples or guidelines. But the biggest thing here is not really stacking effects...it's all the different bonus names. if they didn't have so many bonus names, it wouldn't be a problem. I'll direct you to the Artificer infusion that allows you to change the name of a bonus. Suddenly you make that +15 competence item...well, make 5 copies of them! And then use the infusion to change them to Luck, Sacred, Circumstance, Enhancement and Profane. +90 to my check sure sounds better then +15, and it didn't cost me what a +90 item would. Perfectly legal, too. There's even a thread that they came out with ABILITY SCORE as, say, a damage type, which, by RAW, you could change the damage type of a spell to. Yes, your fireball could now do 10d6, um, Strength damage... ===Aelryinth
yrogerg 01-22-07, 07:53 PM	Yeah, when they stack items like this, they want you to do it on multiple different items instead. Same thign, but it costs more money and occupies more slots. It makes a lot more sense, on the other hand, to do stuff this way. They really don't WANT you to...but it makes SENSE to. And there's nothign WRONG about it, even by examples or guidelines. Only in the sense by which there's nothing WRONG with a CL 1 Ring of True Strike (continuous action). But the biggest thing here is not really stacking effects...it's all the different bonus names. if they didn't have so many bonus names, it wouldn't be a problem. I'll direct you to the Artificer infusion that allows you to change the name of a bonus. Suddenly you make that +15 competence item...well, make 5 copies of them! And then use the infusion to change them to Luck, Sacred, Circumstance, Enhancement and Profane. +90 to my check sure sounds better then +15, and it didn't cost me what a +90 item would. Perfectly legal, too. Only if you ignore the obvious implication written into the guidelines that said +90 item should have its price based on a discounted +90 item, not 6 stacked +15 items. This is, in fact, identical to the example Ring of True Strike cheese. Also, ability damage is different from damage. Anyone who argues otherwise has willfully ignored the glossary of terms in the PHB, and isn't trying to have a discussion about the rules.
Cabral 01-22-07, 11:07 PM	The ring gives you a continuous +5 bonus to Jump. I'm not sure where your logic is.The ring is the standard; the jump spell is the anomally. Normally spells that grant a bonus to a skills grant something other than an enhancement bonus. (mostly unnamed or morale bonuses.) My guess is that the designers wanted [i]jump to allow outrageous jumps so they made the bonus nonstandard (though I don't know why in that case they didn't go with an unnamed bonus).The Artificer can create items X two levels before a wizard can, by caster level. He still has to emulate the spell at either caster level or spell level. In short, NOTHING changes...A very important thing changes: The number of people who can make it increases drastically.You must not be looking at how drastically such things can affect a build then.I'm just not seeing it. Perhaps you can stop dancing around my request that you produce a link to such a "problem build"?okay, this is where you start to lose me...all other things being equal, he just used up two of those level feats boosting his UMD. Those are his optional feats. They don't contribute to a blaster build, crafter build, ninja build, buffer build.*sigh*Again, you are losing me. All other things being equal, you have your UMD boosting feat, and I have legendary artisan. With the cash savings of my feat, I can make a UMD booster not only for free, but at a profit...I'm curious how you figure this.So now I'm 5k ahead of you in cash value, and +10 in UMD...all other things being equal!What makes you think I can't have the cache of artisan feats too? Since the feats only apply once, you can't get ahead of me.But I still have a +10 advantage. I can now tank Charisma completely. Okay, I have a +6 advantage in UMD (no more Cha bonus), and my Int is now 4-6 pts higher then yours for my build...I have more skill points...which I can spend on Diplomacy and Bluff, if I like.Not likely. Like I said, Charisma is not that important to an artificer. So, more likely than not, we're looking at the same Intelligence.That +6 Cloak of Charisma? Gone. I'm now 41k in gold up on you...Why would you buy a +6 cloak of charisma for a Use Magic Device bonus? It's an incredible waste unless you are doing more with charisma.You, however, don't have the money to do so.I'm sorry, but you have the situation backwards.Again, your logic escapes me. You use TWO feats (precious feats, more precious then skill points to most people), blow 40k on Charisma booster/checkers (I blow only 22k?!?) and try to tell me Charisma is Not Important? 40% of his character wealth on Charisma boosters?!?I listed potential bonuses that I could think of would add to Use Magic Device. I was not recommending them. Carpal, your logic totally escapes me.Just a few questions due to the anonymity of the Internet: 1. First Cabal, then Carpal; Are you intentionally misspelling my forum name or you just confusing it because my handle is a foreign word? 2. Is your repeated use of "your logic escapes me" a "polite" way to insult my logic?This is again where you are confusing me. There are two opposite viewpoints being shown here. Without spending precious feats and/or build points, the Artificer isn't going to be able to hit his UMD checks at higher levels.That hasn't been shown at all. An artificer who doesn't neglect UMD will not have a problem hitting appropriate level DCs.ALL other things being equal, I'm better then you. Stronger. More gold. More toys. More good feats. And it's all because of my +UMD toy.So you say. You've yet to show it.I already pointed you to the Character Opt Artificer handbook,You mean this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=520855)? Where, in the handbook, it links to a thread about how +UMD items aren't broken and UMD can't be used to increase the caster level of a staff?This whole above argument is just for artificers. Now, what happens when you start handing your +20 UMD device around to other members of the party? Their fixed DC's are WAY less then yours. Suddenly, every magic item for every class is usable by anyone at need!What happens when people start passing around their boots and cloaks of elvenkind? OMG! Everyone is so sneaky the rogue becomes useless! Burn them all!Action points do a lot of things. But if you build an arti relying on AP's to be effective, it's no dif then me building a fighter or spellcaster relying on AP's to do stuff. It's a play style question, not a class balance question. If you don't like it, don't play an artificer.It's slightly different because no other base class has a class feature that relies on action points.And you are assuming that because artificers are around there's more high level people around then without em. Which is a logical fallacy.No. I am saying that a 3rd level artificer can build a magic item that a 3rd level wizard cannot. Thus, the availability of such items is increased.It's an economic question. It has nothing to do with class balance.Class balance is economics. If the opportunity cost of taking a class, skill rank, feat, etc is too high, then the resource in question is too weak. If the opportunity cost is too low, then the resource is too strong. Basicly, it's matter of is something more valuable than something else. If they are of equal value, then they are "balanced". Some things *ahCLERICSem* are intentionally skewed.I'm not arguing for the brokenness of it here. You wanted to know where to find a build of max skill records, and I gave you an answer. Wherever did you get the idea that I was supporting such a ridiculous notion? Especially when I did come down so solidly against it?More specifically, I'm still looking for how a high UMD bonus breaks the game, something you claimed the staffificer demonstrated."unusual" bonuses, such as luck, sacred and profane, by the Item guidelines, cost DOUBLE what the normal bonus is (check the footnotes).You may want to reread the footnotes before claiming something is patently untrue.1. A 0-level spell is half the value of a 1st-level spell for determining price. 2. Such as a luck, insight, sacred, or profane bonus. (note: this footnote is applied to "AC bonus (other)" and "Save bonus (other)" [i]only.) 3. If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half. 4. See Body Slot Affinities. 5. An item that does not take up one of the spaces on a body costs double. 6. If item is continuous or unlimited, not charged, determine cost as if it had 100 charges. If it has some daily limit, determine as if it had 50 charges. ===Cabral (Not Cabal nor Carpal nor Carpal Tunnel Syndrome)
ArcTan 01-23-07, 12:43 AM	Since when did this thread devolve into a comparison of class values? FYI, the Artificer can use his UMD to pick up +4d6 SA (via spell that grants SA), Another +7d6 SA (via Spell granting some outsider's form), another +2d6 SA (via another spell granting heroics, granting Martial Stance) and blah blah blah. It's a ninjaficer build. Don't even START comparing class skills until you see what the Artificer can do with UMD that no other class can. All of which costs money. Doing something for free rather than having to spend a limited consumable resource on it is a rather big deal when determining whether something is balanced. Artificers are not awesome relative to all other classes because they can craft items any more than UMD Rogues were awesome relative to all other classes because they can buy items. (Keep in mind that crafting is *not* an all-purpose replacement for buying, *especially* when it comes to consumable items, unless your DM gives you months and months and months of downtime to craft in between every major encounter.) The Artificer's ability is take 10 all the time, when nobody else can even take 10 at all (except the Warlock). The Rogue can take 10 in high stress situations, on skills that others can only take 10 on in 'calm' situations. Load of difference there. Big whoop. Does taking 10 automatically destroy the usefulness of skill points in any other situation? Does it destroy the usefulness of having skill points in, for example, Disable Device? Yes, you're going to make a stupid comment about how UMD is more useful than Disable Device. That's not the point. The point is that a trivial investment in UMD obviates whatever huge advantage there was in taking 10 rather quickly. It's not the Disable Device-using Rogue who cares about the ability to take 10 in Disable Device, because if he's maxing that skill every level and he's coming up against properly CR'd challenges he's not going to find that many cases where life and death depend on taking 10. Taking 10 is a big deal for people who have very few skill points, like people who have just gotten a +skills item in a cross-class skill and are using it untrained. This is a description that never applies to an Artificer who's leveled to the point of being able to use this class feature. And if you want to compare classes by level (feats, craft feats, infusions, bonus abilities) I really don't think you want to go there. Lastly, you can blindly activate an item and suffer severe mishaps. It's still there. It doesn't happen to Artificers. Not unless you're purposely dumping your skill points into, I dunno, Profession or something and perversely not taking your max UMD per level.
aelryinth 01-23-07, 12:57 AM	All of which costs money. Doing something for free rather than having to spend a limited consumable resource on it is a rather big deal when determining whether something is balanced. Artificers are not awesome relative to all other classes because they can craft items any more than UMD Rogues were awesome relative to all other classes because they can buy items. (Keep in mind that crafting is *not* an all-purpose replacement for buying, *especially* when it comes to consumable items, unless your DM gives you months and months and months of downtime to craft in between every major encounter.) Big whoop. Does taking 10 automatically destroy the usefulness of skill points in any other situation? Does it destroy the usefulness of having skill points in, for example, Disable Device? Yes, you're going to make a stupid comment about how UMD is more useful than Disable Device. That's not the point. The point is that a trivial investment in UMD obviates whatever huge advantage there was in taking 10 rather quickly. It's not the Disable Device-using Rogue who cares about the ability to take 10 in Disable Device, because if he's maxing that skill every level and he's coming up against properly CR'd challenges he's not going to find that many cases where life and death depend on taking 10. Taking 10 is a big deal for people who have very few skill points, like people who have just gotten a +skills item in a cross-class skill and are using it untrained. This is a description that never applies to an Artificer who's leveled to the point of being able to use this class feature. It doesn't happen to Artificers. Not unless you're purposely dumping your skill points into, I dunno, Profession or something and perversely not taking your max UMD per level. ] ArC Tan. spell storing Item. He doesn't need the magic items. He can emulate any and all of those spells at need. You are comparing multiple levels of abilties to one skill. Artificer is considered one of the top 3-4 classes in power because of its ability to emulate any spell...which all centers around UMD. He can make anything he wants when he wants it. ===Aelryinth
Cabral 01-23-07, 01:05 AM	spell storing Item. He doesn't need the magic items. He can emulate any and all of those spells at need.I hope you're not implying that an artificer can use Use Magic Device to emulate the spell to cast into the spell storing item.
aelryinth 01-23-07, 01:09 AM	===Cabral (Not Cabal nor Carpal nor Carpal Tunnel Syndrome) Cabral. You made up an example of an Artificer. Y ou included the magic items he had, the feats he took, the stats he had, all as an example of why you don't need a +UMD device. Bravo. Congrassimo. You then challenged me to see why the +UMD device changed things so much it was 'broken'. I did so. I saved the feats. I saved the money. I had more magic items. I had more skill points. And the UMD device did it. and you are now chewing me out for it. So, you lost me. I did what you asked me to do...and you are making all these claims like I didn't. So. Color me confused. The Char Opt link for the Artificer is Caelic's baby, who is opposed to the Stafficer argument as well. If you wade through the first twenty pages of the Link, you'll find the entire gist of how it works, just like I did. However, you don't need to see the argument. Just be aware that someone was taking a crazy interpretation of the Emulate Caster level check that scrolls take, applying it to staves, then building an artificer with a massive +UMD check. And he built one with a +118 check, which would go onto your list if it actually had ingame effects. And if the staffificer caster level scaled infinitely, it would be broken as all heck. I did not supply the staffificer as an example of why +uMD was broken. I supplied it to satisfy your request for a +UMD record. ====Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-23-07, 01:24 AM	Only in the sense by which there's nothing WRONG with a CL 1 Ring of True Strike (continuous action). No. There is nothing more wrong with this then in buying a bunch of low level items that do the same thing. You are just putting it on one item instead of 5. If they were slotless items, it'd actually be cheaper to just accumulate the items instead of stack them...stacking them just helps your record keeping. You already do this with armor. They encourage it! (the whole +1 shield, +1 armor, +1 ring/Prot, +1 amulet nat armor, +2 to Dex; then +2 Shield...) So the problem is the different types of bonuses...not the technique, which can certainly be applied to more then armor class, couldn't it? Actually (as an aside) at Epic levels, when gold isn't a problem, not doing this with your saves is pretty dumb, because missing a save at Epic levels generally means you are dead...but that's Epic. Only if you ignore the obvious implication written into the guidelines that said +90 item should have its price based on a discounted +90 item, not 6 stacked +15 items. This is, in fact, identical to the example Ring of True Strike cheese. No, this is an example of the applied usage of an Artificer's infusion ability to change the type of bonus from one kind to another. It is gloriously allowed by the rules. I made 6 items of +15 to a Skill, competence (not one single item). I used my class abilities to change the bonuses of 5 of them to other bonuses, and all of them stack. Broken? Probably. Allowed? The infusion exists, and I'm applying it just the way it was intended...just to an extent that was never considered. Also, ability damage is different from damage. Anyone who argues otherwise has willfully ignored the glossary of terms in the PHB, and isn't trying to have a discussion about the rules. Hey, I'm not saying I agree with it. But, by RAW, it's a type of damage. ANd the artificer ability to change damage type doesn't explicitly restrict it to elemental damage. I saw that and just like you, I shook my head. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-23-07, 01:28 AM	I hope you're not implying that an artificer can use Use Magic Device to emulate the spell to cast into the spell storing item. I believe he has to spend an infusion to do it, but yes, he can do exactly that. In Hellcow's books, it's the principle means of magic for his artificer, Lei...in one encounter, she has Dimension Door, Lightning Bolt, and something else in Spell Storing stuff for herself. She casts a Teleport, heal spells, creates food and water, etc...all via Spell Storing item. never looked at the infusion? You might want to. I believe it was intended to be the core infusion for the class. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-23-07, 01:30 AM	If they fail by 10 or more, yes. And by level 13, this a danger of this is 0% unless the UMD Rogue has a negative charisma mod. (DC 25, max UMD ranks is 16, so a CHA 10 rogue would need to roll -1 to fail by more than ten). Again, good point. :rolleyes: You are also ignoring the +2 for prior activation, but we are assuming you are activating something blindly, anyways...and happily, not everyone is 13+, the majority of the game is played at lower levels. ===Aelryinth
Cabral 01-23-07, 01:58 AM	I believe he has to spend an infusion to do it, but yes, he can do exactly that.Ah. You mean the spell storing item infusion, not using UMD to put a spell in a spell storing weapon. :D It's a decent infusion. With a minute plus a standard action (or 1 round plus a standard action and an action point), you can cast any spell of 4th level or lower. The versatility of a wizard ...
ArcTan 01-23-07, 04:25 AM	] ArC Tan. spell storing Item. He doesn't need the magic items. He can emulate any and all of those spells at need. No, he can't. He can emulate any fourth-level or lower spell by spending an infusion (of which he doesn't have many) and XP (which isn't a huge cost, but adds up, especially if he's also crafting beyond his reserve, as most Artificers that focus on crafting will end up doing). If he doesn't have several minutes' advance warning, he also has to spend an Action Point and a round. As yrogerg pointed out, without Action Points an Artificer is like a Wizard who *has* to leave all his slots open until something comes up. There's a reason that leaving all slots open at the beginning of the day has never been an optimal strategy for Wizard characters. You are comparing multiple levels of abilties to one skill. Artificer is considered one of the top 3-4 classes in power because of its ability to emulate any spell...which all centers around UMD. He can make anything he wants when he wants it. ...And if it were that simple, the Artificer would be so broken he'd never have made it out of alpha testing. (PrCs are sometimes this broken, but rarely base classes.) You *cannot* make anything you want when you want it. Making things for real -- the only way to reliably have what you need a move action to draw away -- requires money and time and Craft Reserve/XP. Making things on the fly using SSI requires infusions and Action Points, the latter of which is the most limited resource in the whole game, and the former of which is a quite limited per-day resource compared to spells (and given how limited it is, you're quite often better off using other infusions to do something directly than wasting a round making an SSI).
ArcTan 01-23-07, 04:33 AM	I believe he has to spend an infusion to do it, but yes, he can do exactly that. In Hellcow's books, it's the principle means of magic for his artificer, Lei...in one encounter, she has Dimension Door, Lightning Bolt, and something else in Spell Storing stuff for herself. She casts a Teleport, heal spells, creates food and water, etc...all via Spell Storing item. never looked at the infusion? You might want to. I believe it was intended to be the core infusion for the class. I'm not familiar with the novels, but teleport is impossible, as it's a 5th-level spell and SSI can only store spells of 4th level or lower. Of course, when writing a novel one is always free to use dramatic license for the sake of the story. This is why novel material isn't and shouldn't be considered at all canon for the games, for the sake of both better novelized stories *and* better game rules. Are you quite certain that what it describes is the SSI infusion, and not, say, her having made a real magic item that casts teleport? Seriously, my own impression from having played an Artificer is that SSI is quite nice, but having to spend two rounds and an Action Point to cast magic missile makes you in every way inferior to the Wizard who simply prepared magic missile today because he thought he might need it. *Once* in a while you get a chance to use the full minute for a non-AP'd SSI for certain useful spells -- glibness, for example -- but this is fairly rare. Unless your DM is nice enough to give you ten minutes of advance warning before anything dangerous happens -- which, frankly, I see no good way to do in the vast majority of situations even with ridiculously high Spot and Listen checks on your party lookout -- a 1-minute prep time is crippling. If this were not the case, spell preparation would not be considered a Wizard's weakness, as he would simply leave all his spell slots blank and only prepare them as he needed them throughout the day.
ArcTan 01-23-07, 04:37 AM	Cabral. You made up an example of an Artificer. Y ou included the magic items he had, the feats he took, the stats he had, all as an example of why you don't need a +UMD device. Bravo. Congrassimo. You then challenged me to see why the +UMD device changed things so much it was 'broken'. I did so. I saved the feats. I saved the money. I had more magic items. I had more skill points. And the UMD device did it. and you are now chewing me out for it. So, you lost me. I did what you asked me to do...and you are making all these claims like I didn't. So. Color me confused. *sigh* "Broken" and "useful" are two different things. That is, the net effect is that you spent some money and saved some feats and skill points, rather than spending money on another, more expensive item for no good reason. Whoopee. This is how every other magic item works, including boots of elvenkind. You can obviate the effects of boots of elvenkind by raising your Dex, taking Skill Focus, etc. This is more expensive than the item and doesn't give all that much benefit. Therefore the item is *useful*. But this does not make the item *broken*. Fighters would be less powerful if the keen enchantment didn't exist. This does not mean the keen enchantment is essential to playing a Fighter, and it does not mean that allowing the keen enchantment into a game breaks it relative to one where it doesn't exist.
ArcTan 01-23-07, 04:43 AM	You are also ignoring the +2 for prior activation, but we are assuming you are activating something blindly, anyways...and happily, not everyone is 13+, the majority of the game is played at lower levels. ===Aelryinth What he meant was that the danger was 0% at 13 *in the worst possible case*, a Rogue with Cha 10. Any positive Cha modifier, circlet of persuasion, or other boost pushes this level down. And, of course, the 0% chance becomes a 5% chance one level lower, a 10% chance one level lower than that, etc., and if you have Action Points available you can push the probability even lower. A Rogue with Action Points who maxes out UMD and has a decent Cha basically doesn't have to worry about mishaps starting at around level 5 or thereabouts.
ArcTan 01-23-07, 04:52 AM	Ael, you're confusing people by lumping item crafting and infusions into the same category, when they're two different things. What you're describing is a 4th-level infusion. Yes, sure, if I have two +5 skill boosting items and I spend a 4th-level infusion to change one to a different type bonus, I agree -- I should get the bonuses to stack. If I have *five* +5 skill boosting items and I use *four uses* of a 4th-level infusion to get them all to stack, great. I think that's perfectly balanced. You do realize, after all, that an Artificer doesn't even *get* 4th-level infusions until level 10, and that even with a high Int he's in the mid-teen levels before he could ever hope to have four 4th-level infusions to spend. That this effect lasts 10 min./lvl, which means if you use this during an encounter at the beginning of the day you're royally screwed if you have another encounter at the end of the day (and D&D is supposedly balanced on four encounters per day). And that in order to be able to use this effect in the first place you have to have purchased *five whole items* that all grant a +5 skill boost and be *wearing them all*, as opposed to spending the money and the item slots on other items that actually help you with something besides this one skill. And that even if you do use this to get +25 UMD, big whoop -- this means that as a teen-level Artificer you can cast any 4th-level or lower spell for as many 1st-level infusion slots you have left, taking two rounds and an Action Point to do so. Whoa. Wow. Scary. Be still my heart. Note that any competent Wizard will, by this level, have all the 4th-level spells in his spellbook he actually needs anyway, and have more than enough slots to have all the 4th-and-below spells he actually needs prepared for the day, and not have to spend XP, Action Points or extra prep time to use them. If you mean that the Artificer now no longer fails checks to use real items (note that this infusion doesn't last long enough to count for the daily checks to *make* items, unless you're of the somewhat irrational opinion that the check is made instantaneously at the end of the day, or something), well, whoopee. He can spend huge amounts of gold and XP on every use those high-level spells that the Wizard just has to buy once and prepare for free for the rest of his life. I still don't see how failing UMD checks balances the Artificer in a way that his gold, time and XP/Craft Reserve dependencies don't.
aelryinth 01-23-07, 08:49 AM	Ael, you're confusing people by lumping item crafting and infusions into the same category, when they're two different things. What you're describing is a 4th-level infusion. Yes, sure, if I have two +5 skill boosting items and I spend a 4th-level infusion to change one to a different type bonus, I agree -- I should get the bonuses to stack. If I have *five* +5 skill boosting items and I use *four uses* of a 4th-level infusion to get them all to stack, great. I think that's perfectly balanced. You do realize, after all, that an Artificer doesn't even *get* 4th-level infusions until level 10, and that even with a high Int he's in the mid-teen levels before he could ever hope to have four 4th-level infusions to spend. That this effect lasts 10 min./lvl, which means if you use this during an encounter at the beginning of the day you're royally screwed if you have another encounter at the end of the day (and D&D is supposedly balanced on four encounters per day). And that in order to be able to use this effect in the first place you have to have purchased *five whole items* that all grant a +5 skill boost and be *wearing them all*, as opposed to spending the money and the item slots on other items that actually help you with something besides this one skill. And that even if you do use this to get +25 UMD, big whoop -- this means that as a teen-level Artificer you can cast any 4th-level or lower spell for as many 1st-level infusion slots you have left, taking two rounds and an Action Point to do so. Whoa. Wow. Scary. Be still my heart. Note that any competent Wizard will, by this level, have all the 4th-level spells in his spellbook he actually needs anyway, and have more than enough slots to have all the 4th-and-below spells he actually needs prepared for the day, and not have to spend XP, Action Points or extra prep time to use them. If you mean that the Artificer now no longer fails checks to use real items (note that this infusion doesn't last long enough to count for the daily checks to *make* items, unless you're of the somewhat irrational opinion that the check is made instantaneously at the end of the day, or something), well, whoopee. He can spend huge amounts of gold and XP on every use those high-level spells that the Wizard just has to buy once and prepare for free for the rest of his life. I still don't see how failing UMD checks balances the Artificer in a way that his gold, time and XP/Craft Reserve dependencies don't. Actually I'm not talking about both, I'm giving examples of what you can do to stack up skill bonuses. And I didn't make up the example of stacking up different skill bonuses...scroll up and you'll see someone asked the question, and I answered his question of how this would work...both by stacking the items on a single item, or by changing the bonuses on multiple devices. It was not the same argument. I'm only confusing you because you aren't paying attention to all the other posters. If you'll note, I even stayed as far away from mentioning UMD in that example as I could. ======================= Cabral, you are again comparing UMD to a infinite scaling skill. You almost cannot have too many mods to HS/MoveSilently. That high level rogue will have skill mods even if he has all the other stuff. Because his opponents have ever increasing, scaling Spot/Listen mods (think Dragons). And a 50% chance of success is wholly unacceptable. A +50 Skill Check can be opposed one to one! A finite scaling, fixed skill check like UMD faces none of those problems. Allowing large skill bonuses opens up a whole can of worms regarding builds and character choices...it clearly and unequivocally makes an Artificer allowed to make one considerably stronger then one not allowed to, for a PROFIT in gold, feats, skills, etc. A Rogue cannot turf his Dex just because he can make better Boots...he has too many other things he relies on. He's not gonna turf his Int either, if he wants his skill points. He has too many things, too many bonuses to his skills from stats. An Artificer only has to worry about Cha for UMD. And if he doesn't have to worry about UMD, then he doesn't have to worry about Cha at all. You eliminate any MAD. You free up tons of gold. More Skill points. More feats. Can you name another item for any class which so clearly benefits them to this extent? The closest that comes is Natural Spell, and that's a feat. It doesn't involve merely paying gold that is effectively refunded to you. Is it Broken? It's broken the same way Natural Spell is, Persistent Spell is, Divine Metamagic is, and Wildshape is. It's broken because if you have any brains at all, you're going to take advantage of it, because there is way, way too much profit in it not to. =============== ArcTan, book two, Lei teleports everyone into the Vault of the Kobold Sorceror in Stormreach. Was she pushing some limit? Hey, I just read the story. And ArcTan, it's interesting how you dwell on money, and suddenly the wizard doesn't have to worry about the cost of acquiring 'every spell he could possibly need', and the artificer doesn't have the wherewithal to create magic items to be useful in the situations he might find himself in. The mage prepares magic missile...the artificer hauls out his wands or staves or a scroll. The mage has his spells at his fingertips (if he's picked the right ones)...the artificer has his arsenal and his armory. If the artificer isn't prepared...then perhaps it is time to consider why he has a d8 hd, Medium BAB and can wear armor. It's there for a reason, is it not? Oh, of course, he's supposed to be a PRIMARY SPELLCASTER...er, not. The class is not designed to rely on AP's. It is simply profited by them in specific circumstances. And if you can't play one without AP's, then by all means, don't play one. Priests can do so much more, after all. --- Cabral, let's try to make an analogy with Fighters. Can you think of a single item which: Gives a Fighter two extra feats of his choice; Costs a Negative amount of money (you PAY the fighter more money as he goes up in level to have this item), and completely replaces his need for Con (it provides scaling bonus HP = 10+his skill check x his Int or something). Can you think of an item which PAYS a wizard to scribe extra spells into his spell book; replaces his need for a good Con score to shore up his hp and Concentration check; and gives him a couple extra magical feats to round out his abilities? No? Why not? That's about what +UMD does for the Artificer, and, like the two above classes, he doesn't need the help. ===Aelryinth
Cabral 01-23-07, 09:45 AM	===Cabral (Not Cabal nor Carpal nor Carpal Tunnel Syndrome) <snip> ====Aelryinth Not much fun replying to someone whose post is entirely in the quote blocks so it doesn't appear automatically when you reply. Maybe you will take the time to actually format your posts properly. Thank you for spelling my name correctly, though you did not explain whether any potential slight was intentional or not. (Which is common practice when someone expresses that your post may have been offensive)Cabral, let's try to make an analogy with Fighters. Can you think of a single item which: Gives a Fighter two extra feats of his choice;A +4 weapon is better than the weapon focus/weapon specialization chain (4 feats!); Obviously it's broken and needs to be replaced.Costs a Negative amount of money (you PAY the fighter more money as he goes up in level to have this item),That's not true about a +UMD item, why should it be true for the fighter? and completely replaces his need for Con (it provides scaling bonus HP = 10+his skill check x his Int or something).Amulets of Health and DR armor, a Dex (and AC) focus all reduce the need for Con. But say it with me ... Artificers don't need Charisma. Yes, it's a relatively cheap way to get a UMD bonus early on, but it's a poor choice in the long run, unless you are going to do a lot with charisma. Why not? That's about what +UMD does for the Artificer, and, like the two above classes, he doesn't need the help. A +UMD device, like the Rod of Mimicry? It was published by WotC in the Arms & Equipment Guide. For 30k gp it provides a +10 Competence bonus on UMD, Forgery and Disguise as well cast ventriloquism at will. (note, that using the 3.5 pricing guidelines, this would be a 41,500 gp item. Though if you ignore the double cost for ventriloquism being 1 min/level, it would be 29,500 gp.) So, back to "WotC has never published a +UMD item," patently untrue. I don't know if any others were published. What would be similar to the 3.5 version of the Arms and Equipment Guide, the Magic Item Compendium (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/107627200), won't be out until March, so we'll have to wait and see if a +UMD item is presented there. As for spell storing item, I'll have to look into how it interacts with metamagic feats (including the metamagic rods). I'm pretty sure the emulate spell doesn't at all, meaning the emulated spell is pretty limited.
yrogerg 01-23-07, 05:42 PM	You are also ignoring the +2 for prior activation, but we are assuming you are activating something blindly, anyways...and happily, not everyone is 13+, the majority of the game is played at lower levels. ===Aelryinth And happily, an Artificer doesn't get his "glorious" take-ten ability until 13th level. A point at which UMD mishaps have already ceased to exist. Making this a less-useful class ability than you keep selling it as. For the sake of comparison, why would I *ever* choose a lower-level class? I don't think you're actually keeping track of your own arguments here.
yrogerg 01-23-07, 06:01 PM	Hey, I'm not saying I agree with it. But, by RAW, it's a type of damage. ANd the artificer ability to change damage type doesn't explicitly restrict it to elemental damage. I saw that and just like you, I shook my head. ===Aelryinth At least according to the SRD, Ability Damage is a form of Ability Score loss, has no relation to damage, and certainly is not a damage 'type', the way fire, lightning, acid, cold, sonic, bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing, all are. Again, the PHB's glossary makes this even clearer. So Damage Type: ABILITY SCORE is about as incoherent as Damage Type: HIT DICE or Damage Type: SAVES. It simply doesn't exist, by RAW. Incidentally, Ability Damage *is* multiplied on a critical hit, in case you've ever ruled to the contrary. I'm looking at *you*, ArcTan. No. There is nothing more wrong with this then in buying a bunch of low level items that do the same thing. You are just putting it on one item instead of 5. If they were slotless items, it'd actually be cheaper to just accumulate the items instead of stack them...stacking them just helps your record keeping. You already do this with armor. They encourage it! (the whole +1 shield, +1 armor, +1 ring/Prot, +1 amulet nat armor, +2 to Dex; then +2 Shield...) So the problem is the different types of bonuses...not the technique, which can certainly be applied to more then armor class, couldn't it? You do realize the key difference between filling all of your body slots with +AC items, and stacking 6 different skill bonuses on the same item, right? :waits: Resources. Body slots, being scarce and competed over by other enchanted items, are another resource. Putting a +15 item into every body slot available would allow you to make a character that was very, very good at one particular skill, but by that level, with no other enhancements, a stiff breeze would kill him.
Elderich 01-23-07, 08:04 PM	If you wade through the first twenty pages of the Link, you'll find the entire gist of how it works, just like I did. However, you don't need to see the argument. Just be aware that someone was taking a crazy interpretation of the Emulate Caster level check that scrolls take, applying it to staves, then building an artificer with a massive +UMD check. And he built one with a +118 check, which would go onto your list if it actually had in game effects. And if the staffificer caster level scaled infinitely, it would be broken as all heck.Actually this is entirely wrong. The reason the stafficer works is the clarifying example in the PHB, which has a rouge emulating the caster level of a cleric. But the stafficer was killed by edict in custserv answer ID 892 Also regarding aelryinth's silly assertion in post 582. It is not a "Flame Attempt" to quote your words without comment. I believe, however, against the CoC to falsely call such a quote a flame. Very nice all. I am gone for a few days and there are two pages of posted problems with aelryinth's house rules. Rod of Mimicry. Very nice.
aelryinth 01-23-07, 08:15 PM	If you are wondering at the misspelling of your name, it was not a slight...I just got the b's and p's mixed up remembering it and forged on ahead, being more concerned with the reply then the name. I do the same thing with Mr. Phibbs (I think its actually Phipps, but I keep misremembering it in favor of the soda) Body slots are great, but the happy thing is we can make all of those items slotless items and its perfectly acceptable by the rules to do so. Ioun stones, anyone? Note that armor and shields occupy slots regardless. But you can get Nat Armor and Deflection bonuses from other then amulets and rings...they are not intrinsically tied to slots. So that's not a good example. As for stacking on one item...those rules are there and allow it, and make it much more efficient to do so. The problem is not the stacking, its the number of bonuses that can stack. I didn't support the Ability Damage thing, but the way it was phrased was the key. I did find it amusing, however. ================================= A +4 Weapon costs money. And I said GETS two feats of HIS choice, not REPLACES two feats of YOUR choice. A +4 Weapon does nothing for Getting me Elusive Target and Shock trooper, or a couple Combat Focus feats, or Martial Study twice, or Improved Toughness and Roll with It. And I don't know about all +4 Swords instantly bestowing two free feats on a fighter...show me where this is. I can guarantee you that if it's true, like +UMD's, fighters are going to be beating paths to +4 swords! A +UMD device lets any artificer swap a UMD feat for a crafter feat. The device becomes free and a profit center instantly, replacing all the other money spent to buff Cha checks. Artificers need Charisma. Say it with me. They need UMD. Without a +UMD device, they MUST invest in charisma and/or feats to pass their checks. With a +UMD device, they don't need Cha or those feats at all. You found a +UMD buffer! Congrats, first person to do so. Let's see if it survives the trip to 3.5, and then argue over whether its permissible to 'split off' the effect into it's own subcategory. Most rods exist to make 'impossible combos' possible. And I don't think you could keep the rod in hand all the time while making all those checks for 8 hours a day, but who knows? A fighter's need for Con is his 'secondary' stat. Reset it to 10 and now he needs focus only on Dex/Str. Armor, DR and feats/gear to the degree you are suggesting are EXACTLY what the Artificer has to do without a +UMD device...you are AGAIN making my argument for me. Do you not follow your own logic? ===Aelryinth
yrogerg 01-23-07, 08:32 PM	Body slots are great, but the happy thing is we can make all of those items slotless items and its perfectly acceptable by the rules to do so. Ioun stones, anyone? Right, but Ioun stones have their own restrictions, even beyond the slotless pricing Note that armor and shields occupy slots regardless. But you can get Nat Armor and Deflection bonuses from other then amulets and rings...they are not intrinsically tied to slots. So that's not a good example. And amulets and rings take up... what? I never said they were tied to specific slots, just that extra amulets and rings means you can't use those slots for other things. As for stacking on one item...those rules are there and allow it, and make it much more efficient to do so. The problem is not the stacking, its the number of bonuses that can stack. And this is why the Crafting rules explicitly state that they all exist solely at the DMs discretion. There is Nothing In the Rules that prevents a ring that generates the continuous effect of the first-level spell True Strike, and this issue is specifically addressed in the rules. DMs are expected to pay attention to crafting that occurs, and restrict abuses by both logic and fiat.
Cabral 01-23-07, 11:01 PM	If you are wondering at the misspelling of your name, it was not a slight...I just got the b's and p's mixed up remembering it and forged on ahead, being more concerned with the reply then the name. Thank you. I like to avoid undeserved hard feelings. Body slots are great, but the happy thing is we can make all of those items slotless items and its perfectly acceptable by the rules to do so. Ioun stones, anyone? There are better examples of slotless items. Monk's Tattoo from Forgotten Realms, for example. A +4 Weapon costs money. And I said GETS two feats of HIS choice, not REPLACES two feats of YOUR choice.Six of one; half a dozen of other.I can guarantee you that if it's true, like +UMD's, fighters are going to be beating paths to +4 swords!by your logic, an item that grants +4 to hit and damage (a +4 weapon) is far better than four feats that grant a total +2 to hit and +4 damage and therefore should be banned. Don't even get me started on +5 weapons ... is there no end to their cheese?!?You found a +UMD buffer! Congrats, first person to do so.Not quite. It was on page 3 of the thread you were insisting I read.And I don't think you could keep the rod in hand all the time while making all those checks for 8 hours a day, but who knows? I don't have easy access to the book, so I'm not going to look up the exact function of the rod. It may not be necessary. Given the nature of UMD, I'd assume it was not. A fighter's need for Con is his 'secondary' stat. Reset it to 10 and now he needs focus only on Dex/Str. Armor, DR and feats/gear to the degree you are suggesting are EXACTLY what the Artificer has to do without a +UMD device...you are AGAIN making my argument for me. Do you not follow your own logic? Uhm. Twist words all you want. An artificer doesn't need charisma. I made no parallel between a fighter's armor and an artificer's UMD item. It's your assertion. You back it up. It's no one here's burden to prove that + UMD items aren't broken. The CO boards have an axiom, "if the rules don't say you can do it, you probably can't." To adapt that, if you can't show how it is broken, it probably isn't. You have yet to show how UMD is broken. Not in the slightest. Not at all. Sorry, but I don't buy into your claims.
ArcTan 01-23-07, 11:58 PM	Actually I'm not talking about both, I'm giving examples of what you can do to stack up skill bonuses. And I didn't make up the example of stacking up different skill bonuses...scroll up and you'll see someone asked the question, and I answered his question of how this would work...both by stacking the items on a single item, or by changing the bonuses on multiple devices. It was not the same argument. I'm only confusing you because you aren't paying attention to all the other posters. If you'll note, I even stayed as far away from mentioning UMD in that example as I could. Regardless. The infusion is not a way to permanently have the skill bonus. It is (the equivalent of a) spell, with a limited duration. Just as regardless of what we rule about pure +UMD items doesn't mean you can't use a 1st-level infusion to grant yourself +UMD. Just because you can do it with an infusion doesn't mean you can craft things that way, permanently. Cabral, you are again comparing UMD to a infinite scaling skill. You almost cannot have too many mods to HS/MoveSilently. That high level rogue will have skill mods even if he has all the other stuff. Because his opponents have ever increasing, scaling Spot/Listen mods (think Dragons). And a 50% chance of success is wholly unacceptable. A +50 Skill Check can be opposed one to one! A finite scaling, fixed skill check like UMD faces none of those problems. Allowing large skill bonuses opens up a whole can of worms regarding builds and character choices...it clearly and unequivocally makes an Artificer allowed to make one considerably stronger then one not allowed to, for a PROFIT in gold, feats, skills, etc. A Rogue cannot turf his Dex just because he can make better Boots...he has too many other things he relies on. He's not gonna turf his Int either, if he wants his skill points. He has too many things, too many bonuses to his skills from stats. An Artificer only has to worry about Cha for UMD. And if he doesn't have to worry about UMD, then he doesn't have to worry about Cha at all. Is it Broken? It's broken the same way Natural Spell is, Persistent Spell is, Divine Metamagic is, and Wildshape is. It's broken because if you have any brains at all, you're going to take advantage of it, because there is way, way too much profit in it not to. I'm not going to argue all of this, all over again. I just think there's nothing particularly broken about an Artificer not needing Cha. Indeed, if no +UMD items *did* make Artificers strongly dependent on a high Cha score, Artificers would be a quite weak class -- if Artificers *needed* a 16 Cha and a 16 Int in order to have all their infusions and make UMD checks, they'd be one of the most MAD classes in the game and be highly ineffective next to anything else. Natural Spell is broken not because it makes Druids with it more powerful than Druids without it, but because it makes Druids with it more powerful than *almost any character*, hence the term CoDzilla. This does not apply to the Artificer, who, despite your florid language, ArcTan, book two, Lei teleports everyone into the Vault of the Kobold Sorceror in Stormreach. Was she pushing some limit? Hey, I just read the story. I and Keith Baker, who wrote the story, and WotC authorities on the subject, and nearly everyone else who has an opinion about how D&D novelizations should work tend to agree that novelizations have *no* impact on canon. Novelizations in Eberron, and Forgotten Realms, and Dragonlance, and numerous other settings repeatedly and unashamedly violate game mechanics for the sake of story -- and I don't think there's any reason why they shouldn't. It just means that the novels and the gamebooks are two completely different rules, and one doesn't really reflect the other at all except as a source for flavor ideas. Anyway, if it just says that Lei teleports people without saying how she does it, a scroll of teleport is the obvious explanation. And ArcTan, it's interesting how you dwell on money, and suddenly the wizard doesn't have to worry about the cost of acquiring 'every spell he could possibly need', and the artificer doesn't have the wherewithal to create magic items to be useful in the situations he might find himself in. It costs the Wizard money to get scrolls. It costs him *less* money, though, because he has to get a scroll *once* in order to be able to cast that spell indefinite times. If the Artificer gets that scroll, he gets *one* use of it before it's gone. This means that the Wizard is inherently spending less money than the Artificer, see? The mage prepares magic missile...the artificer hauls out his wands or staves or a scroll. The mage has his spells at his fingertips (if he's picked the right ones)...the artificer has his arsenal and his armory. If the artificer isn't prepared...then perhaps it is time to consider why he has a d8 hd, Medium BAB and can wear armor. It's there for a reason, is it not? Oh, of course, he's supposed to be a PRIMARY SPELLCASTER...er, not. *shrug* Pure spellcasters are more powerful than gishes or other forms of hybrids. It's a fact. It's fairly obvious when you see what magic can do relative to what melee can do. The Artificer is as good as a mage when he has the same spells that a mage might use, but his total store of available spells is far, far more limited -- because he has to pay a *huge* amount more for one wand of a spell than a mage has to pay for one scroll of a spell; because if he and the mage both buy or make a scroll, he loses the scroll after one use of it and the mage can use it again and again and again; and so on, and so on, and so on. I'm not arguing that the Artificer sucks. It's a great class. But it's inherently limited next to the Wizard and it's foolish to pretend that it's not -- that an Artificer somehow trumps a Wizard *at all* when Wizards are by default and by design the most broken class in the game. The class is not designed to rely on AP's. It is simply profited by them in specific circumstances. And if you can't play one without AP's, then by all means, don't play one. Priests can do so much more, after all. You mean Clerics? Yeah, sure. Clerics are a much more powerful class, with or without APs. You keep seeming to veer off the point of the argument. The point isn't whether I think Artificers are powerful or not (as though power is the important thing -- my distaste for playing Wizards comes entirely from the fact that they are *too* powerful). I like playing Artificers. I don't think Artificers are broken. The only reason not to let Artificers have +UMD items is if this would break them and thus give an unfair advantage to the player playing them. Given that even if an Artificer never fails UMD checks he's still a giant step less powerful than the Wizard or the Cleric, I don't see the problem. Cabral, let's try to make an analogy with Fighters. Can you think of a single item which: Gives a Fighter two extra feats of his choice; Costs a Negative amount of money (you PAY the fighter more money as he goes up in level to have this item), and completely replaces his need for Con (it provides scaling bonus HP = 10+his skill check x his Int or something). You're not "paying" the Artificer. This is the same backwards logic as saying the way to SAVE THOUSANDS NOW! is to buy a new TV. And Cha is nowhere near as important for an Artificer as Con is for *everyone*. Compare it to Dex on a Fighter, if anything -- and notice that there exist Fighters who dump Dex. A Bufficer is a suboptimal character but a usable one if he avoids making items -- only crafting ones low-level enough to have a guarantee of crafting even with substandard UMD -- and instead relies on his infusions. Can you think of an item which PAYS a wizard to scribe extra spells into his spell book; replaces his need for a good Con score to shore up his hp and Concentration check; and gives him a couple extra magical feats to round out his abilities? No? Why not? That's about what +UMD does for the Artificer, and, like the two above classes, he doesn't need the help. Whatever. This is why I absolutely loathe arguing by "counting feats" or by direct analogy to other classes -- you can prove anything that way, since WotC isn't balanced that well against itself.
ArcTan 01-24-07, 12:34 AM	If you are wondering at the misspelling of your name, it was not a slight...I just got the b's and p's mixed up remembering it and forged on ahead, being more concerned with the reply then the name. It doesn't take long to glance down at the bottom of the page to check someone's name. Nor does it take long to open up the SRD to check for factual errors. Both of these are things that could improve your posts and make people take them more seriously. (And if you used the damn quote boxes, then his name would actually be in the text of your posts.) I do the same thing with Mr. Phibbs (I think its actually Phipps, but I keep misremembering it in favor of the soda) The soda is Mr. Pibb. The poster's username is Charles Phipps (not "Mr. Phipps"). Body slots are great, but the happy thing is we can make all of those items slotless items and its perfectly acceptable by the rules to do so. Ioun stones, anyone? I thought you were the one saying that things don't exist unless the rules specifically allow you to create them. Isn't this the whole crux of your +UMD item rant? (That because they don't exist in the DMG they don't exist by default?) Note that armor and shields occupy slots regardless. But you can get Nat Armor and Deflection bonuses from other then amulets and rings...they are not intrinsically tied to slots. So that's not a good example. As for stacking on one item...those rules are there and allow it, and make it much more efficient to do so. The problem is not the stacking, its the number of bonuses that can stack.[/quote] The rules do not arbitrarily allow you to apply any kind of bonus to any kind of check. The rules stipulate, for instance, that armor bonuses only apply to armor, and I'm not sure how you can possibly houserule that away. I didn't support the Ability Damage thing, but the way it was phrased was the key. I did find it amusing, however. Because it contains the word "damage" does not make it damage. For example, a "gaze attack" is not an attack (and doesn't take an attack roll). A "breath weapon" is not a weapon. "Armor class" is not a class. Etc. A "brooch of shielding" is not a shield. ================================= A +4 Weapon costs money. And I said GETS two feats of HIS choice, not REPLACES two feats of YOUR choice. A +4 Weapon does nothing for Getting me Elusive Target and Shock trooper, or a couple Combat Focus feats, or Martial Study twice, or Improved Toughness and Roll with It. And I don't know about all +4 Swords instantly bestowing two free feats on a fighter...show me where this is. I can guarantee you that if it's true, like +UMD's, fighters are going to be beating paths to +4 swords! This is stupid. +UMD lets you get "free feats" in the way that +Hide lets you get "free feats". Again you go with the stupid assuming that an Artificer who *doesn't* have auto-succeed UMD checks for his level is somehow crippled. A +UMD device lets any artificer swap a UMD feat for a crafter feat. The device becomes free and a profit center instantly, replacing all the other money spent to buff Cha checks. Look, I played an Artificer and I never once took a UMD-boosting feat, nor a UMD-boosting item. They are not necessary. Artificers need Charisma. Say it with me. They need UMD. Without a +UMD device, they MUST invest in charisma and/or feats to pass their checks. With a +UMD device, they don't need Cha or those feats at all. They do *not* need to have an insanely maximized UMD in order to be absolutely certain of passing all checks, any more than it's impossible to make a Rogue who does not have an insanely maximized Hide skill to be absolutely certain of hiding from all conceivable enemies. You found a +UMD buffer! Congrats, first person to do so. Let's see if it survives the trip to 3.5, and then argue over whether its permissible to 'split off' the effect into it's own subcategory. Most rods exist to make 'impossible combos' possible. And I don't think you could keep the rod in hand all the time while making all those checks for 8 hours a day, but who knows? Just because they haven't created an equivalent of Arms & Equipment Guide for 3.5 doesn't mean everything in it is automatically obsolete. I fail to see any new design philosophy in 3.5 that says "No UMD boosting items". A fighter's need for Con is his 'secondary' stat. Reset it to 10 and now he needs focus only on Dex/Str. Armor, DR and feats/gear to the degree you are suggesting are EXACTLY what the Artificer has to do without a +UMD device...you are AGAIN making my argument for me. Do you not follow your own logic? "Secondary" stats are not all created equal. Con is more important for *everybody*, including the Artificer, frankly, than Cha is to the Artificer. Once again you're starting out with a broad, general statement -- "Charisma is an Artificer's 'secondary stat'" -- and actually changing *specifics* in order to force the game to fit into this mold, when it makes more sense to treat it the other way around -- when all the evidence is that the only reason Artificers need Cha is because it boosts a single skill that's easily boosted otherwise, it becomes obvious that Cha is not an Artificer's secondary stat -- Artificers don't *have* a secondary stat. Their primary stat is Intelligence and there are viable builds based on privileging any of the other stats -- physical stats, Wis or Cha.
aelryinth 01-24-07, 02:29 AM	Uh Huh. So now personal experience trumps the game play designers who insist that Charisma is the secondary stat for an Artificer. All I can assume from your personal experience is: You missed a lot of UMD rolls at low levels; you couldn't make the higher DC rolls at higher levels; you failed checks in combat because you couldn't possibly meet them all the time; or, simply put, you somehow never bothered to use your UMD skills. A level 13 Artificer who never buffs his UMD is going to miss a DC 35 check about a third of the time and can't take 10 on it...and that's just the check for a scroll meta'd to 5th, two levels below his own, with +6 synergy/rank bonuses. He certainly isn't going to be adding 3 levels of Maximize to a cone of cold (DC 44) without it blowing up in his face. So, he has to roll...and he's likely going to fail. He can make a DC26 check everytime...which won't let him use most staves that have higher level spells (over 5th) without rolling. At level 1, he's going to be turfing at least a third of his level 1 scrolls and thus wasting craft reserve. Synergies help offset this against scrolls somewhat, but his ability to emulate in combat is going to fail on a regular basis until he's 13th. ==================== Natural Spell is "broken" because it allows a Druid to ignore all stats but wisdom. It saves him two feats, and functions better then both...still and silent spell. +UMD is remarkably similar for Artificers. ==================== As for the artificer and costs...hey, that's why he has Retain Essence, Craft Reserve, and can grab caster feats. Your example also tellingly ignores the fact that the Wizard has to BUY that spell at full markup, and then PAY to stick it in his spell book. The Artificer only has to pay HALF PRICE for it, and there it stops. Thus, the Wizard is paying 3:1 for spell advantage. And with a good UMD, the Artificer can acquire and use scrolls of higher level then the Wizard can, if he desires, and those spells can come from ANYWHERE (the whole game is his spellbook). The Wizard is limited by availability...the Artificer can make up a scroll out in the boonies if he wants to, and make any magic item that requires any spell, anytime. (BTW, UMD also allows you to emulate the stat needed to cast a spell, so Edyminion's example of needing Wisdom isn't true, either.) ===================== I like how Elderich makes his own case fall apart, citing an 'iron clad example' and then turning around and noting that it was blown apart. Heh. ===================== Capral, I picked a Fighter because the secondary stat for a classic Fighter is Con. Dex is usually stuck low because of armor restricts. However, if I can trash Con, that money and build points I can now shove into Dex, therefore making Dex monkey fighters a Sure Thing. And note that swords +4 Supplement spec/focus, they don't REPLACE them. That's a very key feature. Damage and hitting scales infinitely. Because UMD doesn't need to scale infinitely, and indeed the DC's are pretty much fixed by level, almost in lockstep, +UMD stuff have a far huger effect on games. +hide stuff doesn't get rid of the need for Dex and dex boosters, and it scales infinitely, but you keep arguing this non-point, too. And you ignore how your own example of how to get around Con perfectly mirrors what you do to get around Cha or to build up a UMD score. =========================== ArcTan, If you want to build an Artificer by your own highly skewed examples, go right ahead. You keep saying that +UMD won't have an effect on the build. Go ahead. Build it. Note the theme (what exactly are you building for?), break it down by level, and build it. No +UMD, 10 Cha, no UMD boosters, Cha boosters ('you don't need them because Artificers don't have MAD'). Make REAL sure it can hit all the checks, because I know that with +UMD, my version of your build certainly will. Note where all these 'free' feats are going to come from. USe a 28 point buy, or something. POint out his UMD checks at certain stages...we have to compare his success rate to expected DC's along the way. You are giving up reliability of performance, even certainty of performance, for some real strange idea of the artificer. maybe your play style works around your failing mechanics...I don't know. But the math and trade-offs of value just can't be swept under the rug like that. And all I see is a lot of sweeping. ===Aelryinth
Cabral 01-24-07, 11:49 AM	*sigh* Aelryinth (notice the time and effort that went into spelling it correctly), I give up showing you that you are wrong. I'm tired. You haven't shown anything and I'm not going to toss anymore posts at the wind. If anyone else wants to discuss the Artificer, in any respect, Use Magic Device, as stop gap for a missing archetype, whatever, I'll be happy to discuss it with anyone other than Aelryinth. And Aelryinth, I'll be happy to discuss other topics with you, but you've filibustered the spirit out of me on this one. the way, the admiral's bicorn is about 51k gp and does alot more than add +5 (not +6) to all charisma based checks. If you just want the bonus to UMD, that 51kgp is nowhere near worth it. If you're a salty seadog and want +5 to your leadership score (which is what I assume it means by +5 to your leadership check), it may be great. But for Artificers stick with a circlet of persuasion. Use Magic Device is fine. Items that add to Use Magic Device (Such as the Rod of Mimicry), are not broken. If you're going to destroy the world, play Pun-Pun; If you're going to craft stuff and make magic items dance, play an Artificer. I'm also asking everyone else to drop discussion of it unless there is a genuinely new topic / point of view /question to consider. We have two camps and neither is budging. This can't end well if it's not dropped. ====== Now, on another topic. Stacking UMD bonuses. A circlet of persuasion (+3 competence bonus to cha checks) and +x competence bonus to Use Magic Device (ie, Rod of Mimicry) don't stack. Anyone disagree? I hadn't actually thought about it before, but it may not be obvious until you try to add the bonuses up ...
Elderich 01-24-07, 02:46 PM	ArcTan, book two, Lei teleports everyone into the Vault of the Kobold Sorceror in Stormreach. Was she pushing some limit? Hey, I just read the story. Just for completeness, this was the 4th level spell "dimension door", not teleport.
ArcTan 01-24-07, 10:14 PM	Uh Huh. So now personal experience trumps the game play designers who insist that Charisma is the secondary stat for an Artificer. All I can assume from your personal experience is: You missed a lot of UMD rolls at low levels; you couldn't make the higher DC rolls at higher levels; you failed checks in combat because you couldn't possibly meet them all the time; or, simply put, you somehow never bothered to use your UMD skills. I made magic items appropriate to my level, and, like a Sorcerer (only more intensely, with more limited options) I very carefully chose spells to put into those items that would be useful in a wide variety of situations. I used wands and eternal wands more than I used scrolls, and I would generally make four or five scrolls of basic utility spells -- an emergency teleport scroll, an emergency cloudkill scroll, etc. -- and then if we absolutely knew something was going to happen I would make scrolls of those particular spells (death ward scrolls for an excursion to Mabar, shadow walk scrolls to travel in and out of teleport-free zones, etc.) I used spell storing item as a last-ditch option at times but never relied on it as a way to pretend I was a Sorcerer with an infinite spell list. I tried to use my infusions as often as possible and put them to good and creative uses. As far as UMD went, I had a Cha of 12, a circlet of persuasion, a cloak of charisma, I used the skill-boosting infusion when I needed UMD in battles, and so on. I felt the extra points that went into Str and Con rather than pushing me up to Int 16 Cha 16 were well-spent, since being a Meleeficer at low levels was a lot more fun than desperately relying on what little magic any low-level character, even an Artificer, could possibly be able to afford in magic item form. A level 13 Artificer who never buffs his UMD is going to miss a DC 35 check about a third of the time and can't take 10 on it...and that's just the check for a scroll meta'd to 5th, two levels below his own, with +6 synergy/rank bonuses. He certainly isn't going to be adding 3 levels of Maximize to a cone of cold (DC 44) without it blowing up in his face. So, he has to roll...and he's likely going to fail. He can make a DC26 check everytime...which won't let him use most staves that have higher level spells (over 5th) without rolling. At level 1, he's going to be turfing at least a third of his level 1 scrolls and thus wasting craft reserve. Synergies help offset this against scrolls somewhat, but his ability to emulate in combat is going to fail on a regular basis until he's 13th. *shrug* In combat you use the infusion if you can, which would only overlap, not stack, with a boosting item anyway (unless you can also afford that 4th-level slot to change the item's bonus type). And why are you making this many scrolls at level 1 anyway? How can you afford that? Do you actually think it's a winning strategy for an Artificer to lay up a large supply of magic missile scrolls and cast them one after another? Natural Spell is "broken" because it allows a Druid to ignore all stats but wisdom. It saves him two feats, and functions better then both...still and silent spell. +UMD is remarkably similar for Artificers. I wasn't aware +UMD allowed lower-level Artificers to ignore their need for Wisdom (Will saves), Strength or Dex, and Con. I suppose UMD eventually allows him to compensate for all of these lacks, if we go with your usual strategy of deciding that an Artificer has infinite rounds to buff himself before a combat and unlimited resources to make as many potions and wondrous items and scrolls as he could ever need. As for the artificer and costs...hey, that's why he has Retain Essence, Craft Reserve, and can grab caster feats. Your example also tellingly ignores the fact that the Wizard has to BUY that spell at full markup, and then PAY to stick it in his spell book. The Artificer only has to pay HALF PRICE for it, and there it stops. The Artificer then casts that scroll, once, and there it stops, because the scroll is gone forever. I can't believe you're overlooking this, since it's the most glaring defect of using the Artificer as any kind of analogue to the Wizard. Five hundred uses of fireball cost the Wizard the same as two uses of fireball; five hundred uses of fireball cost the Artificer two hundred fifty times two uses of fireball. Don't forget that the Wizard can get two new spells per level for free that he can pick from anywhere on the Wizard/Sorcerer list, while the Artificer gets no such thing. Thus, the Wizard is paying 3:1 for spell advantage. And with a good UMD, the Artificer can acquire and use scrolls of higher level then the Wizard can, if he desires, and those spells can come from ANYWHERE (the whole game is his spellbook). The Wizard is limited by availability...the Artificer can make up a scroll out in the boonies if he wants to, and make any magic item that requires any spell, anytime. Well, this is open to interpretation. Clearly a spell doesn't actually exist unless the DM allows it. But sure, whatever. If you really think that money is more of a burden on a Wizard than an Artificer, you must be playing a Wizard who's addicted to new spells and has no idea how to choose spells for versatility, because a mid-level Wizard can spend about 10,000 gold to have all the spells he'll ever *really* need. If this weren't the case, Sorcerers wouldn't be a playable class at all. An Artificer who spends the same amount of gold will find himself screwed once he uses up a utility spell and now no longer has it, needing to make it again. (BTW, UMD also allows you to emulate the stat needed to cast a spell, so Edyminion's example of needing Wisdom isn't true, either.) It allows you to emulate it, but it's much easier for a low-level Artificer to simply have the stat, given that that is a time when you still fail checks -- and, as you say, there's an opportunity cost involved in shoving up your UMD high enough that quickly. Artificers do, after all, benefit from Will saves and respectable Listen checks. I like how Elderich makes his own case fall apart, citing an 'iron clad example' and then turning around and noting that it was blown apart. Heh. You know, you seem to be confused about the difference between disproving someone's interpretation of the rules and changing the rules. When WotC changes a rule to make a certain interpretation impossible, that doesn't mean the interpretation was originally invalid. It means the opposite -- that it was a valid interpretation that forced them to change the rule. You see? Capral, I picked a Fighter because the secondary stat for a classic Fighter is Con. Dex is usually stuck low because of armor restricts. However, if I can trash Con, that money and build points I can now shove into Dex, therefore making Dex monkey fighters a Sure Thing. Yeah, sure, except "secondary stat" doesn't have a single meaning. Low Con makes you guaranteed to die instantly if a level 1 monster with a decent Str gets a critical hit on you. There's no such effect for a 1st-level Artificer with low Cha. And note that swords +4 Supplement spec/focus, they don't REPLACE them. That's a very key feature. Damage and hitting scales infinitely. Because UMD doesn't need to scale infinitely, and indeed the DC's are pretty much fixed by level, almost in lockstep, +UMD stuff have a far huger effect on games. Look, ael, no. It's the opposite. If something scales infinitely, then that means there's a presumed base degree of difficulty you're *always supposed to have* at doing something. Which means if you can accelerate yourself past that base degree of difficulty so that something is much easier for you now than it should be, then this is an advantage that can last forever -- if I start scaling up monster CRs to match you, this is just going to lead to you levelling up faster, increasing your abilities again, and once more being ahead of the curve. On the other hand, since UMD checks are fixed, there was always going to be a point where you stopped failing them. The game has to be designed with the assumption that after a while, UMD checks are no longer a barrier to using magic items, and so *other* balancing factors are introduced for high-level characters -- the fact that magic items cost gold (and your expected wealth vs. item prices is an infinitely scaling progression, which is why over-wealthing characters is such a bad idea). In other words, the fact that UMD checks are flat means that the designers always knew that an Artificer would end up not caring about UMD checks at some point. And so UMD checks do *not* make or break the Artificer. In this UMD stands in stark contrast to how the Truespeaking skill works for the Truenamer, which is the reason Artificers are somewhat balanced and Truenamers are not. +hide stuff doesn't get rid of the need for Dex and dex boosters, and it scales infinitely, but you keep arguing this non-point, too. Look, if I get a +Hide item, then I'm always going to be better at hiding for my level than I'm supposed to be, right? Since, by your logic, I can do all the stuff I was doing before -- boosting Dex, putting ranks in Hide, etc. -- *and* get the item, so now I'm better than I'm supposed to be, so monsters at my proper CR won't see me, so I beat them, so I go up a level, so now I increase my Hide skill *more*, so now monster of my proper CR won't see me, so I beat them... etc. The DM has no choice but to start over-CRing monsters for me and thus implicitly docking my XP, which starts to eat into the fairness of the game. On the other hand, by your logic, +UMD only accelerates a condition that was *always going to happen anyway* -- the condition of no longer failing checks. As a DM I would've had to be prepared for this at level 13, at least (if the Take Ten ability you love so much were really all that great) -- +UMD just pushes this back a little, maybe to level 10 -- but it's still something I always had to be prepared for. It's not a situation that would never have happened otherwise. And you ignore how your own example of how to get around Con perfectly mirrors what you do to get around Cha or to build up a UMD score. I'm not sure how this is part of the argument. Yeah, there are ways you get around Cha or build up a UMD score. These force you to make choices. That's what D&D is about, making choices. Giving one more choice to a player -- spending a ton of gold on a +UMD item -- doesn't destroy the game, since there are still lots of reasons not to take that choice (using up an item slot, using up gold, whatever). +UMD doesn't break the game any more than an amulet that gave Fighters 10 extra hit points would break the game. ArcTan, If you want to build an Artificer by your own highly skewed examples, go right ahead. You keep saying that +UMD won't have an effect on the build. Go ahead. Build it. Note the theme (what exactly are you building for?), break it down by level, and build it. No +UMD, 10 Cha, no UMD boosters, Cha boosters ('you don't need them because Artificers don't have MAD'). Make REAL sure it can hit all the checks, because I know that with +UMD, my version of your build certainly will. Note where all these 'free' feats are going to come from. USe a 28 point buy, or something. POint out his UMD checks at certain stages...we have to compare his success rate to expected DC's along the way. Ael, I'm not going to spend an hour making a character just to win this asinine argument with you, just like I wasn't going to "step up" and spend a day making and statting out a Karrnathi fort just to win an asinine argument with you. I have my own D&D campaign to run, as well as other things to do with my life. Just because you tick me off enough to make me try to point out why you're wrong is not a reason for you to claim my being right or wrong depends on acceding to your demands. I've played Artificers and seen Artificers in play and talked to other people who've played and used Artificers tons of times, and Cha is not that important for them. Sure, it's nice. Con is nice for them, too. As is Str or Dex, at low levels. Just because Artificers are not a one-stat character like, really, only Wizards or Druids can be doesn't make them truly MAD. (I wouldn't want to play a low-level Artificer with a Con of 8 and no Con-boosting items, after all -- or I would find it a challenge, at least. Just as it'd be a challenge to play a pure Arti with both Str 8 and Dex 8 and nothing to boost their attack bonus. Someone trying to play as a Blastificer at low levels is a sad sight to see, and is hard not just because of the UMD checks but mainly because *they can't afford it*.) You are giving up reliability of performance, even certainty of performance, for some real strange idea of the artificer. maybe your play style works around your failing mechanics...I don't know. But the math and trade-offs of value just can't be swept under the rug like that. And all I see is a lot of sweeping. I don't get it, ael. First you say that +UMD items are bad because they break the Artificer and free him to make what would otherwise be horribly suboptimal choices. Then you turn around and tell me that an Artificer without +UMD would suck horribly and that trying to play an Artificer without wholly optimized UMD is a foolish and "strange" idea. Which one is it? My whole point has always been that +UMD is *nice to have but not necessary*. This is the standard for what is balanced in an item or feat. There's even an acronym for it: fizzbin-bunn, or FSBNBNN, Feats Should Be Nice But Not Necessary, which is a criticism of how, say, psionics depends on Psionic Meditation or Druids depend on Natural Spell, and has been extended to criticize how the amulet of the silver tongue is the make-or-break item for any Truenamer build. The *only way* you can say +UMD items are bad is if they make-or-break -- if all Artificers without +UMD suck while +UMD Artificers are playable, or, contrariwise, if all Artificers without +UMD are playable while +UMD Artificers are godlike and unstoppable. If neither of these is true, +UMD is not a problem -- it's just *an option* for how to get a decent UMD check among many, and letting Artificers have access to it doesn't cause any genuine problems.
ArcTan 01-24-07, 10:15 PM	Just for completeness, this was the 4th level spell "dimension door", not teleport. Yeah, privately, I was fairly confident in Keith Baker's ability to remember Eberron mechanics he created, just as I was fairly confident, from experience, in aelryinth's ability to misremember or misrepresent things from books he read. I chose to reserve judgment since I haven't read the novel in question. But it still bore pointing out that things you see in novels should have no bearing on how you play the game, regardless.
Cabral 01-25-07, 01:08 AM	(if the Take Ten ability you love so much were really all that great) Heh. My wife was very conservative with her items and used a different ability ... Take One. ;) Of course, this was with wands of cure light wounds or cure moderate wounds at level 6. Her bonus with an item she could make was +23 or more. Crunchwise, she liked two things: lots of small magic items (small so that there were more of them) and a really big UMD bonus (because she liked seeing the 20+ bonus). She wasn't optimized but she had fun travelling with her wright in a wagon. She even asked if she could buy a "cursed" prototype bag of holding where items would sometime be returned burned, warped, or otherwise deformed. It was a fun game. :)
awaken_D_M_golem 01-25-07, 04:22 PM	Hey - an Artificer , sub-species Psionic , pricing question : 1st level power X 1st level -fester +Link Power ... metapsionic cost +0 ... translates into +0 spell level 4th level power X 7th level -fester requires a -fester level of 1+7=8 so ... 1 X 8 and zero and 4 X 8 tricky : the power has an XP cost proportionate to levelS of reworking. I want to limit this to just one level. -Festing on someone besides yourself splits the cost 50/50 , or in this case 25 XP / 25 XP does the XP cost get *fully* built into the cost of the item ? or does the XP cost get paid with each activation ? that seems to me to price the XP into Gold costs at 250 GP or 125 GP :confused: OK ... so ... dorje = wand for psi-Arty one of these would cost : {(5 X 8) + 250} quantity times Wand pricing AND incur no more XP costs ... or ..............................{(5 X 8) + 125} quantity times Wand pricing AND incur 25 XP cost additionally since this requires an 8th -fester level , a 6th level psi-Arty could do it , right? Thanks ahead of time - I can't succeed all Knowledge ( obscure Artificer ) checks.
glug 01-25-07, 05:02 PM	Ahhh, time to stop by and visit my favorite turdfest! I love this thread. And here's where crafting feats come into play. If you take an item that you can sell for 1000 gold, you can buy a similar item for 2000 gold...you just 'wasted' 1000 gold, to go from what you had to what you wanted (maybe a swap of +2 stat boosters). If you CRAFT the item, you break even. You retain the essence of the one item, make the second...and at no gold cost, you effectively have what you want. If you have the Conserve Gold feat (I forget the name!), it instead takes you 750 gold to make the new item. You are now 250 gold ahead of the game. But...you have to have the feat available to take, instead of, say, UMD skill Focus. ===Aelryinth For those curious about the supposed limits related to money and xp for artificers, I propose that it is only limited by time. Once you can retain essence, as noted above, you can essentially exchange items for equal valued items, just as if a player did it in a show. +1 sword for 2000 gold, sell it for 1000 gold, buy a +1 axe for 2000 gold.. you're out 1000 gp. If you want to make that +1 axe yourself, the price is the same 1000 gp, costing you some xp. If you retain essence on the first item, you now broke even with trading through a store. Now add the 25% gold discount, and blammo! You made money! In the game I was playing, we happen to have TIME. We were on a bit of a break in Sharn, and everyone had some loot to trade out and items they wanted to buy. However, 25% is not good enough for me! You want a +1 sword for 2000? How about... 1500? And it costs me 750.. I've made 750gp profit, you've saved 500gp on the item! Craft enough things for your party in the "downtime", and you're looking at a pile of wealth. The xp cost is minmized by crunching all of the loot you would be selling, and in that case (as with the +1 sword into +1 axe example), you still make the 25% profit on doing it yourself. What that boils down to is when you have a group of people selling a pile of loot and upgrading their items, the sky is the limit for how much of the "party" loot actually becomes the artificer's spending pool. Question: On Weapon Augmentation, personal The Artificer in my group has been using this Infusion to apply Bane to his crossbow as often as he can. It makes Artificer's ridiculously strong. He shoots Bane bolt after Bane bolt because the duration is 10 min/lvl. Artificers would never use Inflict Light Damage on a Warforged if they can bane their ranged weapon and shoot from a distance. ... I used bane as often as I could, and yes, it is powerful. However, if this is the style of fighting you expect to be involved in, you'll be wanting to invest feats (point blank shot, precise shot) to be more effecting there. My DM used the lovely optional rule that the if you missed your shot into melee by within 4 (ie, the -4 cover bonus), then the shot hit your party member (ie: the cover!). Of course, it was still subject to his AC, etc. A +4 weapon is better than the weapon focus/weapon specialization chain (4 feats!); Obviously it's broken and needs to be replaced. Actually, the interesting thing about that is the value of your focus/specialization feats scales up with the bonus on your weapon. If you have focus and specialization for a total of +1/+1 bonus, you're using two feats for the equivelant of a +1 bonus on a weapon, or 2,000gp. But once that weapon is a +4 weapon, those feats now saved you 18,000gp. But yes, I see your point =) But anyway, thanks for four more pages of lengthy one-sided conversations. I do so love this thread!
eRaz0r 01-25-07, 07:52 PM	Uh Huh. So now personal experience trumps the game play designers who insist that Charisma is the secondary stat for an Artificer. Hmm - didn't the original text in the ECS suggest that Charisma was the primary stat for artificers ? No one believes that any more, since INT obviously does more for them.. but hey, why quibble over designers intentions - the consequences of game mechanics aren't always what was intended. So, he has to roll...and he's likely going to fail. He can make a DC26 check everytime...which won't let him use most staves that have higher level spells (over 5th) without rolling. Hmm - as far as I can tell, you only need a DC 20 check to activate any staff : as stated in UMD under "Use a Wand" This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill also applies to other spell trigger magic items, such as staffs. As for the artificer and costs...hey, that's why he has Retain Essence, Craft Reserve, and can grab caster feats. Your example also tellingly ignores the fact that the Wizard has to BUY that spell at full markup, and then PAY to stick it in his spell book. The Artificer only has to pay HALF PRICE for it, and there it stops. You're forgetting usage costs. If an Artificer pays half-price to scribe a scroll, he pays it every time he uses that spell. The wizard pays full price to buy it, then whatever it costs to scribe it (nothing if he's got a Blessed Book) and then he can memorize and cast it day after day. If the Artificer creates three scrolls and casts them all, and the Wizard buys one scroll. scribes it and then memorizes it three times, they've now paid the same price per casting. Thereafter though, the wizard has the advantage, as it doesn't cost him money to continue to cast that spell. No matter how many feats the Artificer has, casting that spell still costs him money (and more time). Thus, the Wizard is paying 3:1 for spell advantage. And with a good UMD, the Artificer can acquire and use scrolls of higher level then the Wizard can, if he desires, and those spells can come from ANYWHERE (the whole game is his spellbook). The Wizard is limited by availability...the Artificer can make up a scroll out in the boonies if he wants to, and make any magic item that requires any spell, anytime. That's the trade off, and the advantage of the Artificer. The Wizard gets to buy scrolls once, and then he knows them. Very powerful. The Artificer converts money (and time and materials) into spells over and over again, but can pull them out of thin air. However, the wizard doesn't need a bunch of scribing materials to carry around in order to memorize the spells in his book. And if it's in his book, it doesn't take a day of scribing to come up with "just the right spell". I see both as having their advantages and disadvantages. I like how Elderich makes his own case fall apart, citing an 'iron clad example' and then turning around and noting that it was blown apart. Heh. The example he uses to justify the Stafficer was always dubious. The rogue in the example uses UMD to see if he gains the Turn Undead class feature. Since this class feature is available at 1st level to Clerics, the Emulate a Class Feature check is really easy. But that doesn't mean that the rogue has a caster level, or that staffs require a particular caster level to function, or that one can substitute a better caster level, yada yada yada. The fact that Cust Serv blew it out of the water was no surprise to anyone who actually *plays* this game. :)
eRaz0r 01-25-07, 08:28 PM	For those curious about the supposed limits related to money and xp for artificers, I propose that it is only limited by time. Once you can retain essence, as noted above, you can essentially exchange items for equal valued items, just as if a player did it in a show. +1 sword for 2000 gold, sell it for 1000 gold, buy a +1 axe for 2000 gold.. you're out 1000 gp. If you want to make that +1 axe yourself, the price is the same 1000 gp, costing you some xp. If you retain essence on the first item, you now broke even with trading through a store. Now add the 25% gold discount, and blammo! You made money! You mean "Blammo" you spent less money! (you're still 750gp in the hole) What if you.. I dunno, sold the first sword for 1000gp, used that to buy the materials for the +1 Axe, paying 250 gp to yourself for the XP and time you'll lose and BLAMMO you made ACTUAL money. If you only have the sword, and not an extra 1000 (750 with the feat) gp lying around, it's a far better option. Retain essence is great if you care about XP and are swimming in cash and magic items. But you already have a Craft Reserve, which resets every level, and after 3rd level, you get more XP per encounter by being lower level than the rest of your party, meaning you'll be able to spend the difference on crafting more items ! Some campaigns are tighter on cash than on XP. Some are tighter on time than either XP or cash ... in which case the Diplo-merchant is better at making money than the Artificer, because it's usually quicker to find and buy an existing +1 axe than it is to make a new one, no matter how much XP and cash you could save... because the time you spent making that weapon could have been spent killing monsters and thus getting more XP and cash. :)
ArcTan 01-25-07, 09:24 PM	For those curious about the supposed limits related to money and xp for artificers, I propose that it is only limited by time. As is everything. Once you can retain essence, as noted above, you can essentially exchange items for equal valued items, just as if a player did it in a show. +1 sword for 2000 gold, sell it for 1000 gold, buy a +1 axe for 2000 gold.. you're out 1000 gp. If you want to make that +1 axe yourself, the price is the same 1000 gp, costing you some xp. If you retain essence on the first item, you now broke even with trading through a store. Now add the 25% gold discount, and blammo! You made money! In the game I was playing, we happen to have TIME. We were on a bit of a break in Sharn, and everyone had some loot to trade out and items they wanted to buy. However, 25% is not good enough for me! You want a +1 sword for 2000? How about... 1500? And it costs me 750.. I've made 750gp profit, you've saved 500gp on the item! Assuming you can find someone just standing around on the street who wants a +1 item! In a world where transportation costs are still large and transportation is still slow compared to the real world, where even with the existence eBay and Federal Express, it's still a huge pain in the butt to sell a used computer! Craft enough things for your party in the "downtime", and you're looking at a pile of wealth. The xp cost is minmized by crunching all of the loot you would be selling, and in that case (as with the +1 sword into +1 axe example), you still make the 25% profit on doing it yourself. What that boils down to is when you have a group of people selling a pile of loot and upgrading their items, the sky is the limit for how much of the "party" loot actually becomes the artificer's spending pool. Reductio ad absurdum: Did you realize you can just *make money* for *free* by standing around in a city and rolling your Profession check, or your mundane Craft check? Hell, get a level 1 character with a high Wis and a high Profession (spitoon cleaner), and have him clean spitoons for 10,000 years, and you have INFINITE MONEY!!! Seriously, putting a limit on downtime is the DM's job. The DM should be massaging everything so it fits within expected-wealth-by-level limits, and not letting players find easy ways around it. When they do, they're frequently making assumptions about the way the world works that they really shouldn't be. After you take an intro econ class, you start to see why you can't just make your "I'll charge slightly less than the list price!" thing a constant behavior, because then eventually that *becomes* the list price. There must be a logical reason why the list price is higher than your price, and that's because of things that real businesses suffer -- overhead, transaction costs, etc. If you try to produce things on the scale of a real business, you will suffer them too -- if you try to sell magic items without the benefit of owning a magic item shop, you're going to waste even more downtime trudging around looking for someone who wants to buy. This is why I generally only let people get away with the "sell at reduced price" thing when selling to other PCs -- otherwise, whether you can even find an NPC who wants to buy what you sell is up to me.
ArcTan 01-25-07, 09:29 PM	Hmm - didn't the original text in the ECS suggest that Charisma was the primary stat for artificers ? No one believes that any more, since INT obviously does more for them.. but hey, why quibble over designers intentions - the consequences of game mechanics aren't always what was intended. The results of the actual mechanics, in general, trump vague, generalistic statements about what a class is "supposed to be like". Do I need to cite the horrible, horrible advice given for school specialization in Complete Mage, here? Are we supposed to take some kind of bizarre "The designer is always right" principle as a reason to try to invent a dubious houserule to turn this advice into good advice? (I myself can't think of how you could possibly houserule a way to make necromancy an advisable banned school for Enchanters.) I mean, originally the intention was that Fighters would be balanced relative to Wizards from level 1 to level 20. Clearly consequences of game mechanics always trump "designer intentions", unless the designers get their act together enough to translate their original intentions into a clear and universally accepted houserule or errata. You're forgetting usage costs. If an Artificer pays half-price to scribe a scroll, he pays it every time he uses that spell. The wizard pays full price to buy it, then whatever it costs to scribe it (nothing if he's got a Blessed Book) and then he can memorize and cast it day after day. If the Artificer creates three scrolls and casts them all, and the Wizard buys one scroll. scribes it and then memorizes it three times, they've now paid the same price per casting. Thereafter though, the wizard has the advantage, as it doesn't cost him money to continue to cast that spell. No matter how many feats the Artificer has, casting that spell still costs him money (and more time). Note that if you use the precise standard for how many encounters of appropriate EL you're supposed to have before levelling up, a campaign that takes you from level 1 to level 20 will have you using some spells hundreds of times, not counting utility magic.
aelryinth 01-26-07, 12:06 AM	Yeah, privately, I was fairly confident in Keith Baker's ability to remember Eberron mechanics he created, just as I was fairly confident, from experience, in aelryinth's ability to misremember or misrepresent things from books he read. I chose to reserve judgment since I haven't read the novel in question. But it still bore pointing out that things you see in novels should have no bearing on how you play the game, regardless. My 'misremembering' was not. Dimension Door is classically restricted to yourself and one other individual, or I would have used it. Unless I am recalling the scene in error, Lei, dain and the Inspired all went down into the vault with ONE casting of the spell. Looking at the spell description, DD has been extended to include more then one creature, a minor fact I hadn't committed to memory, or I wouldn't have used Teleport as an example. I also admitted I might be wrong, oi? Always room for error there. ANd I'll readily concede it now that I know it's possible to exceed the two person limit. ===Aelryinth
Cabral 01-26-07, 12:33 AM	A little post rearranging ... Aye, Elderich has a bad habit of looking down his nose at those who disagree with him <moved below> But I consider it just another failing of his, and I forgive him for it. Count your own failings and don't worry about anyone else's. Also, please refrain from your disguised insults. They are not as disguised as you might think. I rather like this thread and would hate to see it locked. and thinks he looks smart instead of pretentious by not being able to reply directly, but only able to respond in the third person. First Person: "I don't respond to Aelryinth directly ..." Second Person: "You don't respond to Aelryinth directly ..." Third Person: "Elderich doesn't respond to Aelryinth directly ..." Now, perhaps you meant to say that he only refers to you in the third person, in which case, of course he only refers to you in the third person. If he refered to you in the second person, it would confuse the person he is actually responding to.
aelryinth 01-26-07, 12:36 AM	Snip And this is what I dislike about you, ArcTan, and your 'asinine arguments'. First, you say you could do everything an artificer is supposed to be able to do easily. THEN, you counter your own previous example by admitting you use a Circlet and Cloak, when previously decrying the fact that you needed them at all. In short, you replaced feats to boost UMD with magic items. And you won't admit the logic that using that same amount of gold on a +UMD device would have been a far better use skillwise of your money. Then you turn and blame me for saying +UMD is a bad thing, when you don't use it and in fact play the very way that I am advocating....and you ignore that, too. Then you make your Wizard example of "all the spells he could want to ever have", effectively meaning unlimited spell versatility, and try to compare that to an Artificer, while NOT giving the Artificer likewise unlimited spell versatility. THEN you compound the error with that silly 2:500 example, completely ignoring the fact that the game will NEVER have 500 fireballs in it, and if it comes down to that the Artificer can make his Magic Item of Fireballs and cast fireballs til the cows come home...and that the Artificer with his wand of Fireballs can cast ten times as many fireballs in one day as the wizard, if need be, or twenty times, or more. And that by the CR rules, he'll earn more then enough gold to replace his wand by doing so...but noooo, let's ignore that fact, too. ON TOP of that, you then turn around and nerf your own 'unlimited spells access' with a gold limitation and bring up the sorceror, saying you only need "A few spells" to cover 'all you will ever need.' This, of course, flies right in the face of two well known facts: The sorceror's lack of versatility is his greatest drawback, and spells that specifically address a problem are better then general spells shoehorned into place to address a need. And the Artificer can come up with specific spells on demand. Any specific spell. The Wizard is STILL behind on versatility. You also make it pretty plain that you aren't using a number of the higher DC capabilities of the class, and you also aren't making magic items that have an appreciable chance of failure...all of which +UMD would facilitate, and which would make the Artificer stronger because he can do things that your build obviously cannot. Your Wis argument is utterly off-line. Wisdom is a general choice for any character. It has no specific relevance to an Artificer at all. Con, while important to all characters, is particularly important for a classic 'tank' build Fighter, which is why I used it. Your scaling argument is not an argument at all. Your logic of 'floating DC's' is utterly dependent on what is permissible in the campaign. If your Artificer has +15 to his UMD, then he becomes capable of doing things that he simply cannot with the build you presented...metamagic on scrolls, making better items and scrolls, being able to allocate funds from the inefficent Charisma booster elsewhere to enhance the character, and making each and every check far, far more reliably. But you are ignoring that possibility, because you have played conservatively and restrained, the exact way I would be playing. You don't have an argument there. You are actually coming at it from the completely different side that Eld is, who DOES like to push the envelope of what the Artificer can do...and so generates a MUCH more powerful character then what you are capable of. And the only difference between the two of you is the UMD device. He argues he MUST have it to do all the stuff the artificer has to do...and you argue he does not. I argue he doesn't need it...and he provides examples of the stuff he can do with it, in utter contrast to what you can do with NOT having it. He is proving me right using your own example. Your arguments to the contrary don't follow logically and his game play pulls it out. This, then, is and has been my entire contention from the start of this argument...+UMD changes the entire way an Artificer is built and what he is capable of, from stat allocation to directing gold resources to making use of the higher end class abilties AND making certainty of Crafting and other such feats. And your very example supports the fact that the Artificer doesn't need it. So...why are you arguing with me so vehemently? ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-26-07, 12:53 AM	Hmm - didn't the original text in the ECS suggest that Charisma was the primary stat for artificers ? No one believes that any more, since INT obviously does more for them.. but hey, why quibble over designers intentions - the consequences of game mechanics aren't always what was intended. The reason is because most people who play Artificers rapidly try to find a way to boost UMD, which is the main reason they need Charisma. This is particularly easy if you allow +UMD toys, as most builds do. Hmm - as far as I can tell, you only need a DC 20 check to activate any staff : as stated in UMD under "Use a Wand" This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill also applies to other spell trigger magic items, such as staffs. A Staff isn't a wand. For a staff, to use the higher caster level spells and stuff, you actually have to emulate the caster level minimum of the effect. I could be wrong on this point, but triggering a wand and a staff are indeed two different things, because staves have mutable caster level and stats. I believe that by doing the proper emulation, an Artificer can use a staff using his OWN stat and his OWN caster level...as opposed to the Caster level of the Check. You're forgetting usage costs. If an Artificer pays half-price to scribe a scroll, he pays it every time he uses that spell. The wizard pays full price to buy it, then whatever it costs to scribe it (nothing if he's got a Blessed Book) and then he can memorize and cast it day after day. If the Artificer creates three scrolls and casts them all, and the Wizard buys one scroll. scribes it and then memorizes it three times, they've now paid the same price per casting. Thereafter though, the wizard has the advantage, as it doesn't cost him money to continue to cast that spell. No matter how many feats the Artificer has, casting that spell still costs him money (and more time). 1) That's assuming we are talking scrolls, and not infinitely reusable magic items, or charged items, or Spell Storing Item. Scrolls are one shot special case items. Items that need to be cast a lot are wands and toys. And Spell-Storing Device is ALWAYS handy. The artificer carries his arsenal. The mage has only his spells in memory, and his 'arsenal' is his spellbook...if he has the time to study. 2) The Artificer has access to any spell, divine or arcane. He can choose the best spell for the job...which is usually better then 2-3 'crude' spells applied to 'try' to address the situation. having the perfect tool for the job is a good thing. 3) The Party's gold is the Artificer's gold. He can make toys for ANYONE. And the more gold they give him to make toys, the more THEY profit. 4) With homonculi to make your items for you WHILE you are adventuring, time becomes a non-issue, too. I'm not disputing your points...I'm just saying I DID take all of that into account, and found it was a non-issue. This entire versatility issue is one of the reasons the Artificer is considered a top 3 class (CoDAzilla?) That's the trade off, and the advantage of the Artificer. The Wizard gets to buy scrolls once, and then he knows them. Very powerful. The Artificer converts money (and time and materials) into spells over and over again, but can pull them out of thin air. However, the wizard doesn't need a bunch of scribing materials to carry around in order to memorize the spells in his book. And if it's in his book, it doesn't take a day of scribing to come up with "just the right spell". I see both as having their advantages and disadvantages. Yeah, but people are ignoring there's a finite limit to how many times you are going to use any one spell, so the 'advantage' of endless recasting is considerably less then they purport. If a spell truly needs to be endlessly recast, then the Artificer can also make a one time investment and presto! he's an endless recaster, too! The example he uses to justify the Stafficer was always dubious. The rogue in the example uses UMD to see if he gains the Turn Undead class feature. Since this class feature is available at 1st level to Clerics, the Emulate a Class Feature check is really easy. But that doesn't mean that the rogue has a caster level, or that staffs require a particular caster level to function, or that one can substitute a better caster level, yada yada yada. The fact that Cust Serv blew it out of the water was no surprise to anyone who actually *plays* this game. :) Yeah, the Staffificer thing was always overblown. But I confess to sinful pleasure in watching him shoot himself in the foot again. Thank you for seeing where I was coming from on all this. No need to reply. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-26-07, 01:00 AM	Heh. My wife was very conservative with her items and used a different ability ... Take One. ;) Of course, this was with wands of cure light wounds or cure moderate wounds at level 6. Her bonus with an item she could make was +23 or more. Crunchwise, she liked two things: lots of small magic items (small so that there were more of them) and a really big UMD bonus (because she liked seeing the 20+ bonus). She wasn't optimized but she had fun travelling with her wright in a wagon. She even asked if she could buy a "cursed" prototype bag of holding where items would sometime be returned burned, warped, or otherwise deformed. It was a fun game. :) This ability to 'take 1' is the prized goal of just about all UMD users, as only the Arti and the Warlock can take 10 (i.e. get a +9 bonus). Was this possible without taking a +UMD? I'm not commenting on 'fun', I'm commenting on 'possible build.' The fact she had such a high check and didn't abuse it is role playing restraint, but mechanical restraints are rules questions and balance issues. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-26-07, 01:21 AM	You mean "Blammo" you spent less money! (you're still 750gp in the hole) What if you.. I dunno, sold the first sword for 1000gp, used that to buy the materials for the +1 Axe, paying 250 gp to yourself for the XP and time you'll lose and BLAMMO you made ACTUAL money. If you only have the sword, and not an extra 1000 (750 with the feat) gp lying around, it's a far better option. Retain essence is great if you care about XP and are swimming in cash and magic items. But you already have a Craft Reserve, which resets every level, and after 3rd level, you get more XP per encounter by being lower level than the rest of your party, meaning you'll be able to spend the difference on crafting more items ! Some campaigns are tighter on cash than on XP. Some are tighter on time than either XP or cash ... in which case the Diplo-merchant is better at making money than the Artificer, because it's usually quicker to find and buy an existing +1 axe than it is to make a new one, no matter how much XP and cash you could save... because the time you spent making that weapon could have been spent killing monsters and thus getting more XP and cash. :) A minor nit with this; most DM's aren't going to consider you higher level just because you are giving up xp for magic items. Y ou've still earned the same amount of xp as the other characters, yours is just spread into magic items then on your characters. So, this likely isn't going to work if you've a sharp DM who is seeing what you are trying to do...get more xp for NO net loss in power, because you've more magic items then others your level. Also, he's within his rights to limit the amount of gold available to you as if youwere a lower level character...which would mean you and the party wouldn't have the m oney to spend on making all those extra 'free' magic items from your additional xp. It works both ways, you know. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-26-07, 01:24 AM	The results of the actual mechanics, in general, trump vague, generalistic statements about what a class is "supposed to be like". Do I need to cite the horrible, horrible advice given for school specialization in Complete Mage, here? Are we supposed to take some kind of bizarre "The designer is always right" principle as a reason to try to invent a dubious houserule to turn this advice into good advice? (I myself can't think of how you could possibly houserule a way to make necromancy an advisable banned school for Enchanters.) I mean, originally the intention was that Fighters would be balanced relative to Wizards from level 1 to level 20. Clearly consequences of game mechanics always trump "designer intentions", unless the designers get their act together enough to translate their original intentions into a clear and universally accepted houserule or errata. Note that if you use the precise standard for how many encounters of appropriate EL you're supposed to have before levelling up, a campaign that takes you from level 1 to level 20 will have you using some spells hundreds of times, not counting utility magic. And those spells are usually the most minor ones, which are replaced the most easily by minor magic items at low costs of time, gold and xp. The spells used the most are the ones replaced the most with magic items, simply you aren't forced to waste spell slots on them to cast them over and over. ===Aelryinth
ArcTan 01-26-07, 01:24 AM	And this is what I dislike about you, ArcTan, and your 'asinine arguments'. First, you say you could do everything an artificer is supposed to be able to do easily. THEN, you counter your own previous example by admitting you use a Circlet and Cloak, when previously decrying the fact that you needed them at all. In short, you replaced feats to boost UMD with magic items. And you won't admit the logic that using that same amount of gold on a +UMD device would have been a far better use skillwise of your money. Er, what? I never said an Artificer who never boosted his UMD check with items would have an easy time of it. I said that an Artificer who never specifically used a *+UMD item* wouldn't have that hard a time of it. This is to counter one way in which +UMD would be "broken" -- that Artificers are supposed to have a very difficult time, say, *ever* using magic items, and +UMD makes it easy. +UMD could be "broken" another way -- Artificers could be perfectly decent characters, but +UMD makes them completely godlike and unstoppable. This doesn't fly either, since before and after I actually got a +UMD item I was decently powerful, but not spectacularly so. In other words, the presence or absence of *specifically* +UMD items doesn't make much of a difference. This especially true because most DMs don't, by default, allow ridiculous bonuses like +30 skills items at all. Then you turn and blame me for saying +UMD is a bad thing, when you don't use it and in fact play the very way that I am advocating....and you ignore that, too. Then you make your Wizard example of "all the spells he could want to ever have", effectively meaning unlimited spell versatility, and try to compare that to an Artificer, while NOT giving the Artificer likewise unlimited spell versatility. THEN you compound the error with that silly 2:500 example, completely ignoring the fact that the game will NEVER have 500 fireballs in it, and if it comes down to that the Artificer can make his Magic Item of Fireballs and cast fireballs til the cows come home...and that the Artificer with his wand of Fireballs can cast ten times as many fireballs in one day as the wizard, if need be, or twenty times, or more. And that by the CR rules, he'll earn more then enough gold to replace his wand by doing so...but noooo, let's ignore that fact, too. If the DM arbitrarily allows Unlimited Use Command Word Magic Items of an item, sure, whatever. The Artificer *can* keep up what he does by balancing what he makes with the wealth he rakes in, but it's not like Expected Wealth Guidelines mean you'll rake in wealth at *exactly* the rate suggested, and that the DM will give you exactly as much downtime as you need to use it all. Especially because fireballs don't translate directly into XP. (What, your DM never makes you fight enemies with Improved Evasion or fire resistance or high spell resistance?) The reason why I, as an Artificer, didn't invest in tons of wands and scrolls and things is precisely that it's way too easy to waste money. That wand is *only* worth the money you spent if you use it enough times in a day to justify getting the wand and not, say, an eternal wand or a single scroll. You gamble every time you make an item, and too often your gambles don't pay off. I mean, this is basic and obvious stuff to anyone who looks at how Artificers work and the fact that everything they use is consumable. And I don't know why we're arguing about it. (Are you seriously trying to argue that Artificers are *better* than Wizards or something?) ON TOP of that, you then turn around and nerf your own 'unlimited spells access' with a gold limitation and bring up the sorceror, saying you only need "A few spells" to cover 'all you will ever need.' This, of course, flies right in the face of two well known facts: The sorceror's lack of versatility is his greatest drawback, and spells that specifically address a problem are better then general spells shoehorned into place to address a need. Sure, which is why the Wizard is a million times better than the Sorcerer and a thousand times better than the Artificer. But the Sorcerer is *possible to play*. If the Wizard didn't exist to compare the Sorcerer against, the Sorcerer would be a decent class. (Throw in the Cleric and Druid too, I guess.) And the Artificer can come up with specific spells on demand. Any specific spell. The Wizard is STILL behind on versatility. No, he can't. He can come up with any 4th-level or lower specific spell on demand (if it exists in the game world at the DM's concession), if he has two rounds' worth of warning and an Action Point, or if he has a minute and a round otherwise. This isn't all that great. (Why is it when I correct you on things like "ANY spell" you repeatedly ignore me? You still hung up on Lei being able to use teleport?) You also make it pretty plain that you aren't using a number of the higher DC capabilities of the class, and you also aren't making magic items that have an appreciable chance of failure...all of which +UMD would facilitate, and which would make the Artificer stronger because he can do things that your build obviously cannot. *shrug* It wasn't a heavily optimized build, but it was effective. FWIW, the resources to make *tons* of magic items with an appreciable chance of failure aren't that plentiful. You still seem to be assuming everyone plays with unlimited gold flowing from heaven. I don't enjoy wasting money on scrolls of disintegrate that end up not working for some simple reason like being counterspelled (caster level, an Artificer's greatest weakness -- he has to pay for what Wizards get for free) or folks making saves or whatever. Your Wis argument is utterly off-line. I think you mean "out of line". Wisdom is a general choice for any character. It has no specific relevance to an Artificer at all. Con, while important to all characters, is particularly important for a classic 'tank' build Fighter, which is why I used it. It has relevance to an Artificer because an Artificer likes being able to cast low-level clerical spells without having to make an extra UMD check. (This, by the way, has nothing to do with +UMD, unless you think the Artificer should be able to afford such an item at level 2.) Your scaling argument is not an argument at all. Your logic of 'floating DC's' is utterly dependent on what is permissible in the campaign. If your Artificer has +15 to his UMD, then he becomes capable of doing things that he simply cannot with the build you presented...metamagic on scrolls, making better items and scrolls, being able to allocate funds from the inefficent Charisma booster elsewhere to enhance the character, and making each and every check far, far more reliably. *shrug* I suppose it's pointless to point out that my Artificer was, in fact, using scroll metamagic and so on by the end of the game? The point is that I was doing broken stuff with metamagic items and stuff by the end of the game -- I just preferred not to spend huge amounts of resources on it. Boggle at that if you want. I don't see how replacing the cloak and circlet helps *that* much unless you're going to propose some roundabout means of making a +30 skills item both affordable and possible. Whatever. I don't care enough to crunch the numbers all over again. The fact is that the presence or absence of +UMD boosters has nothing to do with But you are ignoring that possibility, because you have played conservatively and restrained, the exact way I would be playing. You don't have an argument there. You are actually coming at it from the completely different side that Eld is, who DOES like to push the envelope of what the Artificer can do...and so generates a MUCH more powerful character then what you are capable of. And the only difference between the two of you is the UMD device. He argues he MUST have it to do all the stuff the artificer has to do...and you argue he does not. I argue he doesn't need it...and he provides examples of the stuff he can do with it, in utter contrast to what you can do with NOT having it. He is proving me right using your own example. Your arguments to the contrary don't follow logically and his game play pulls it out. This, then, is and has been my entire contention from the start of this argument...+UMD changes the entire way an Artificer is built and what he is capable of, from stat allocation to directing gold resources to making use of the higher end class abilties AND making certainty of Crafting and other such feats. And your very example supports the fact that the Artificer doesn't need it. So...why are you arguing with me so vehemently? ===Aelryinth Because your argument really doesn't hold, unless you have something else in mind besides the use of metamagic spell completion (which I could) or the creation of 6th-level spell scrolls without batting an eye, as long as I had the money (which I did end up doing, making multiple bolt of glory scrolls to hammer the BBEG with), or whatever else. It's only if you make a build that's broken and relies on a deprecated rule in the first place, like the Stafficer, that this is an issue.
ArcTan 01-26-07, 01:33 AM	And those spells are usually the most minor ones, which are replaced the most easily by minor magic items at low costs of time, gold and xp. The spells used the most are the ones replaced the most with magic items, simply you aren't forced to waste spell slots on them to cast them over and over. Er, no, because spell slots replenish themselves for free, whereas gold, time and XP are all gone forever once you expend them. Yes, spell slots are restricted *per day* much more than item uses are -- so you use spell slots for things you know you'll need to do today, and don't waste a spell slot on something you might need to do once in a while only -- because on a day when you don't use it at all, that was a wasted spell slot. The logic is usually: "I'm gonna need this, definitely" = prepared spell slot "I might need this, once, at some point" = scroll "I may never need this, but if I do need it I'll need to use it a lot" = wand Eberron creates the additional option of the eternal wand, which basically does take the place of a prepared spell slot in this list -- though, again, it's a waste of money if you have several days in a row where you never use that spell at all. In any case, caster level is a problem here, too. Magic missile is only a real winner of a spell in the mid-low-levels, when you're getting lots of missiles per casting thanks to your increasing CL and the monsters aren't tough enough to take it yet. Then, your increasing CL basically gives you extra damage for free in each of those 1st-level slots. That increasing CL is *not* free when you're making wands or scrolls, though, hence why higher-CL magic missile wands are kind of a gyp for anyone who can make one. (Auto-scaling is magic's primary power over psionics.)
Cabral 01-26-07, 01:49 AM	This ability to 'take 1' is the prized goal of just about all UMD users, as only the Arti and the Warlock can take 10 (i.e. get a +9 bonus). Was this possible without taking a +UMD? Yes. No +UMD item. Like I said, she was moderate in what she made and used. And yes, she was quite effective. With no healer in the group, she was the primary healer and the sorcerer was the back up healer (UMD). The only time there was a problem was when, in a fight designed to be tough for 4 players and the 4th left early, the sorcerer opens up with Lightning Bolt catching the other two PCs in the line... neither made their save. BBEG did. lots of hand waving to not TPK fast ... You like to dwell on petty things and chip away at people with them. Do I? You may want to check my posts to other people. I have been "butting out" of posts concerning the balance of +UMD items with you (The above being a minor exception) due to the "standstill" we've reached. There are still other issues that bear discussion. If the majority of your post is concerning the balance of +UMD items, it will naturally only leave minor issues to discuss, if I choose to. So, I return what I am given. If addressed politely, I endeavor to be polite in turn. But addressing me politely (say, over my posting style), and then tossing in the veiled insults during the argument, isn't going to make me friendly to you. Veiled Insults? I highly doubt it. If you'd like to point out something that offended you, I'll be happy to consider apologizing and editing the post if it was indeed offensive. I did finally get two people on here who actually read what I was posting and understand where I was coming from, so it wasn't me against the world, and you could draw flamestrength from one another. I've a feeling it's going to tip some odds...no, my viewpoint isn't all alone, and it IS reasoned out pretty strongly. I can generally see where you are getting your arguments from. I just generally disagree with them. And Elderich likes to talk to people about me as if I were not there and reading his posts, too. Ergo, he is addressing me in the third person...which is snobbish and condescending, and an old belittling tactic. He is not addressing you in the third person because he is not addressing you. It's an old tactic of avoiding flames, headaches, and bans. I can see how you might take offense to Elderich's "welcome to the club" post, but, if it makes you feel any better, I suspect his intent was mainly to comfort my frustration. I admit I make a nice target...lemmings like to jump on the bandwagon, after all. It doesn't disguise the fact that I'm very often right, or have extremely strong points...but it's easier to join the argument and flame ol Ael then to actually think it through and consider what I say might actually be right. Very often right? I know I haven't seen your full track record, but I have trouble believing you are often right. Right as often as wrong I can see, but not very often right. You may like to think there is so much disagreeance with your views because you're the big target, but have you considered that maybe it's because you're wrong?
aelryinth 01-26-07, 02:34 AM	Because your argument really doesn't hold, unless you have something else in mind besides the use of metamagic spell completion (which I could) or the creation of 6th-level spell scrolls without batting an eye, as long as I had the money (which I did end up doing, making multiple bolt of glory scrolls to hammer the BBEG with), or whatever else. It's only if you make a build that's broken and relies on a deprecated rule in the first place, like the Stafficer, that this is an issue. And see, again, you aren't reading what I post...you are just assuming I'm wrong. You are arguing you dont need UMD devices to be an Artificer. I'm agreeing with you. And you are saying I'm wrong. In essence, you are calling yourself wrong. Your very posts are saying you restricted yourself in what you could do because you didn't have a high UMD skill. Exactly how I would play. But that's not rules...that's play style. You even agree that there is a lot of stuff you couldn't do because you were not optimized...it was your play style. That's what, a Stormwind fallacy? Elderich COULD do all that stuff, and the one thing he had you didn't was +UMD. He could even do it with base 9th level spells. You are saying he's wrong, despite the fact he could do stuff you obviously couldn't...and it made all the difference in his capabilities. You won't even take the time to do the basic math calculation unless it supports you. +6 Cha item, + Circl of Persuasioin = 40k GP. =+6 mod to UMD. 40k buys a +20 UMD device. The exact same investment. 'Additional funds?' By the END OF THE GAME, you were using Metamagic Scroll. Not at the level you gained it. It was basically out of reach. YOUR OWN WORDS. Eld, I'm inferring, was using it much, much sooner...and INSISTED on needing +UMD to meet the DC's because of it! And you specifically avoid the subject of just how often you failed with UMD checks, unless you never attempted stuff without a certaintude level of success. IF you played that way, then a +UMD device would have altered your play style, because you could have attempted stronger things, like Metamagic Scroll, for no additional cost. You make it seem like the DM is going to shaft your gold if you use class abilities. The fact is, the Artificer leverages his gold better then any other class, and has the entire party to draw on for gold to bolster his resources. If the DM arbitrarily starts restricting his gold becuase he's making stuff, then the Artificer is being penalized for being his own class. Being able to create a magical item using any spell in the game is hugely powerful. Ergo, the Artificer is considered on a par with a Wizard on the CharOpt boards. So, forgive me when I say, you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying and letting it sink in. You are just making up arguments against it because I'm the one posting. I reiterate my post and my point. This, then, is and has been my entire contention from the start of this argument...+UMD changes the entire way an Artificer is built and what he is capable of, from stat allocation to directing gold resources to making use of the higher end class abilties AND making certainty of Crafting and other such feats. Your own examples repeatedly prove this point, contrasted with Elderich's style of play and simple numbers logic. And both of you are disputing this statement. The fact that you play a restrained style does NOTHING to change the fact that, mechanically, +UMD changes a great deal about what is possible for the class. And still you dispute it. Stormwind Fallacy, trying to make play style justify lack of rules exploiting. And you go petty on me to boot. Again. So I could be petty back and point out that you can't even quote me properly above by putting all my words in blocks to differentiate them from your own. I, annoying as I get in my style, do at least do that. Argh. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-26-07, 02:43 AM	Yes. No +UMD item. Like I said, she was moderate in what she made and used. And yes, she was quite effective. With no healer in the group, she was the primary healer and the sorcerer was the back up healer (UMD). The only time there was a problem was when, in a fight designed to be tough for 4 players and the 4th left early, the sorcerer opens up with Lightning Bolt catching the other two PCs in the line... neither made their save. BBEG did. lots of hand waving to not TPK fast ... Do I? You may want to check my posts to other people. I have been "butting out" of posts concerning the balance of +UMD items with you (The above being a minor exception) due to the "standstill" we've reached. There are still other issues that bear discussion. If the majority of your post is concerning the balance of +UMD items, it will naturally only leave minor issues to discuss, if I choose to. Veiled Insults? I highly doubt it. If you'd like to point out something that offended you, I'll be happy to consider apologizing and editing the post if it was indeed offensive. I can generally see where you are getting your arguments from. I just generally disagree with them. He is not addressing you in the third person because he is not addressing you. It's an old tactic of avoiding flames, headaches, and bans. I can see how you might take offense to Elderich's "welcome to the club" post, but, if it makes you feel any better, I suspect his intent was mainly to comfort my frustration. Very often right? I know I haven't seen your full track record, but I have trouble believing you are often right. Right as often as wrong I can see, but not very often right. You may like to think there is so much disagreeance with your views because you're the big target, but have you considered that maybe it's because you're wrong? Let's see. Level 6, 9 ranks. 18 Cha? +4 = 13. +2 booster, Circlet...+17. Skill Focus UMD? +20. magical Artisan? +2. That's a minimum check of 23, not +23. Maybe a +4 Cha boost. Regardless, it illustrates my point. Cha is VERY important to the Artificer. YOu needed feats to hit your UMD goals. And a single +9 booster to UMD would have cost less then the Circlet+Cloak of Cha, replaced both, AND she could have replaced her two UMD feats, giving her two open slots. And yet, she played the Artificer the way it was MEANT to be played. She didn't NEED the device...but wow, the difference it could have made in her build. Two feats can be very, very impressive. As to being wrong...hey, so be it. Believe what you like. But I'm not wrong here by a long shot. Have you considered that just because the people who actually support what I say have come in late to the argument, doesn't mean that you're right? ===Aelryinth
ArcTan 01-26-07, 02:51 AM	And see, again, you aren't reading what I post...you are just assuming I'm wrong. You are arguing you dont need UMD devices to be an Artificer. I'm agreeing with you. And you are saying I'm wrong. In essence, you are calling yourself wrong. I'm also saying that having UMD devices don't make you superpowerful. Your very posts are saying you restricted yourself in what you could do because you didn't have a high UMD skill. Exactly how I would play. But that's not rules...that's play style. Er, no. Go back and show me where I said that. I said UMD checks weren't an issue because I had neither the gold nor the downtime to make magic items that were outside my reach, and because if I did they would likely be wasted -- in a world of sharply limited resources you get more bang for your buck with low-level utility stuff. You even agree that there is a lot of stuff you couldn't do because you were not optimized...it was your play style. That's what, a Stormwind fallacy? Er, no. I would be committing the Stormwind Fallacy if I said that the reason I was underoptimized was because I was a good roleplayer, because roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive. All I'm saying is that my playstyle, which I consider quite effective, did not necessitate the use of difficult UMD checks. And that soon enough no UMD checks were difficult, anyway. Nice try, though. Elderich COULD do all that stuff, and the one thing he had you didn't was +UMD. He could even do it with base 9th level spells. You are saying he's wrong, despite the fact he could do stuff you obviously couldn't...and it made all the difference in his capabilities. Well, he also probably had lots of downtime, and gold, and the ability to craft 9th level spells in the first place (we ended at right around level 15, not much time to attempt 9th-level scroll crafting). You won't even take the time to do the basic math calculation unless it supports you. +6 Cha item, + Circl of Persuasioin = 40k GP. =+6 mod to UMD. 40k buys a +20 UMD device. The exact same investment. 'Additional funds?' If +20 UMD devices exist. First you say +UMD doesn't exist by default, now you say +20 devices do? The latter seems a bigger reach than the former. And it was only a +2 cloak of Cha. Because that's all I needed. By the END OF THE GAME, you were using Metamagic Scroll. Not at the level you gained it. It was basically out of reach. YOUR OWN WORDS. Eld, I'm inferring, was using it much, much sooner...and INSISTED on needing +UMD to meet the DC's because of it! *shrug* I didn't need metamagic scroll completion, was the thing. We were killing proper-CR monsters just fine without needing whatever the hell I'd be metamagic'ing. (Seriously, what? Maximized flame strike? Overkill, and very expensive overkill if you end up not needing it. The thing about being an Artificer is that if every spell costs money you avoid very expensive spells you may never use.) And you specifically avoid the subject of just how often you failed with UMD checks, unless you never attempted stuff without a certaintude level of success. *shrug* Not really. I don't remember actually failing a crucial check except one item crafting at around level 6 I AP'd my final check on. IF you played that way, then a +UMD device would have altered your play style, because you could have attempted stronger things, like Metamagic Scroll, for no additional cost. Yeah, maybe, if it was ever worth it to make a really expensive scroll for the sake of metamagic'ing it. You make it seem like the DM is going to shaft your gold if you use class abilities. The fact is, the Artificer leverages his gold better then any other class, and has the entire party to draw on for gold to bolster his resources. If the DM arbitrarily starts restricting his gold becuase he's making stuff, then the Artificer is being penalized for being his own class. ...If someone tries to cheese up the Artificer by using unlimited downtime and gold in order to make him unstoppable, then frankly he *should* be "shafted". Nowhere in the DMG does it make it a safe or okay assumption to give a character unlimited time to craft -- in fact, time limits are a crucial part of balancing an adventure. So is restricting how much wealth each individual character has. Being able to create a magical item using any spell in the game is hugely powerful. Ergo, the Artificer is considered on a par with a Wizard on the CharOpt boards. Okay, fine. Maybe. I'm not a CharOp gearhead. So what? Does it break the game that much to let the Artificer do some things slightly more reliably at a slightly earlier level? I'm starting to think this isn't really an argument about +UMD at all, but about the viability of +20 or +30 skills items. (A +20 Hide item for a Rogue, if you'd really let her get one as soon as she could afford it, would make her devastating against enemies of her own CR, and basically destroy the balance of the game.) All this time when I've been saying +UMD items I've meant the equivalent of the ring of jumping or ring of improved jumping, neither of which is the kind of juggernaut some sort of hypothetical +30 to UMD would be. In any case, though, even if you never fail UMD checks, I fail to see how hard it would be for the DM to balance your character by limiting your gold and downtime, which is what everyone says when people complain about the Artificer (or any crafting character). So, forgive me when I say, you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying and letting it sink in. You are just making up arguments against it because I'm the one posting. I reiterate my post and my point. This, then, is and has been my entire contention from the start of this argument...+UMD changes the entire way an Artificer is built and what he is capable of, from stat allocation to directing gold resources to making use of the higher end class abilties AND making certainty of Crafting and other such feats. You know, Elderich and Cabral really were right. Which is funny, since I've been dealing with you longer than they have. Your own examples repeatedly prove this point, contrasted with Elderich's style of play and simple numbers logic. And both of you are disputing this statement. The fact that you play a restrained style does NOTHING to change the fact that, mechanically, +UMD changes a great deal about what is possible for the class. And still you dispute it. Stormwind Fallacy, trying to make play style justify lack of rules exploiting. Er, what? I mean, I'm guessing you spend a lot more time on the boards than playing, which is why you get rules and such wrong so often, but now you're getting common boards expressions wrong, too? The Stormwind Fallacy is the fallacy that being a good optimizer makes you a poor roleplayer, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with "making play style justify lack of rules exploiting" (nice grammar, by the way). I never claimed my character was a richly roleplayed character or that I cared a whole lot about his backstory, such that I neglected his optimization. I really did try to do what struck me as the best possible move at each point, though I confess I didn't obsess about it to the point that I thought of creating a +UMD item rather than simply buying items in the DMG. When I did, I bought one, and I didn't see my playstyle change dramatically. And I don't think it would've, if I'd never had to make UMD checks, because I never felt like I had infinite gold to play with and that I could lay up a store of scrolls that it might be useful to metamagic at this point or that. And you go petty on me to boot. Again. So I could be petty back and point out that you can't even quote me properly above by putting all my words in blocks to differentiate them from your own. I, annoying as I get in my style, do at least do that. Argh. Yeah, I guess there's something about you that makes people lose their patience, ael. Can't imagine what it would be. I guess we're all just petty, petty immature people on the boards and you're the lone exception.
ArcTan 01-26-07, 02:57 AM	As to being wrong...hey, so be it. Believe what you like. But I'm not wrong here by a long shot. Have you considered that just because the people who actually support what I say have come in late to the argument, doesn't mean that you're right? ===Aelryinth Out of curiosity, ael, who the hell are you talking about? People in this thread? I don't see anyone actually taking your side in the last few pages. Glug just chimed in about how this thread was dumb, and, I guess, took your side talking about how Artificers can generate infinite piles of gold given time. eRaz0r came in to comment on how the designers originally thought Cha was an Artificer's *primary* stat, thus proving that designer intent and actual mechanics rarely line up; he then disagreed with you about the check necessary to activate a staff, then disagreed with you and agreed with me about whether it costs more money to be an Artificer or a Wizard ("usage costs"), then said a few things about Artificers still having their advantages and Stafficers being obviously broken. I don't see where either of them actually take your side on +UMD items needing to be banned because they break the Artificer class. If either of them wants to do so, of course, they're welcome.
ArcTan 01-26-07, 02:59 AM	And finally, FWIW, anyone who wants to come in "late to the thread" at ael's express invitation to join the pile-on can do so without me. I think my points have been adequately made, as have everyone else's, and I think it's been adequately proven that aelryinth doesn't ever admit he's wrong.
Elderich 01-26-07, 02:26 PM	Oh, and for the record I do not think I ever said how I played at all. And the CO Board might reject aelryinth speaking for them. As well, aelryinth has told us he is not currently playing 3.x. and he has several advanced educational degrees. This might be important to the reader.
MiscDebris 01-26-07, 02:58 PM	We're all here for the Artificer, right? We want to help new players understand how one works? Scenerio: Lets say we have a newbie that just bought his shiny new ECS, and promptly fell in love with the artificer. Being the educated gamer type, that person drops artificer and guide into Google and finds this thread, being the first one that shows up. "Wow, 21 pages! There must be alot of information on the artificer!" Thus, the poor unsuspecting player begins to read the thread. The player struggles through the first argument, and MAYBE the second. That player may begin wondering how this is a guide. Or they may think that the class is too complicated to understand and that their DM may have issue with it. They may just go and play something else. Lets keep this thread a guide and show all sides and possibilities. If there is a debate over something, even if it's artificer related, please make a new thread, debate it out, and post the results here.
Cabral 01-26-07, 03:06 PM	Let's see. Level 6, 9 ranks. 18 Cha? +4 = 13. +2 booster, Circlet...+17. Skill Focus UMD? +20. magical Artisan? +2. That's a minimum check of 23, not +23. Maybe a +4 Cha boost. Let's see. We were just starting out in Eberron and took the ECS's advice of Setting Charisma as the primary and Intelligence as secondary. So yes, her Charisma was likely 18 (+4). 9 ranks (+9) Circlet of Persuasion (+3) She had no other charisma boosters. She likely had Magical Aptitude (+2) and maybe skill focus (+3) Artificer's Artisan bonus for items that she can make (+2) That's a base 18 - 21 plus 2 (20 -23) for items she can create. It think only an additional +2 with scrolls from spellcraft. And she still had a further +5 bonus available via the skill enhancement infusion. Regardless, it illustrates my point. It illustrates that my wife had a very high bonus. Nothing more. If she had a +9 item, her bonus would've been 9 points higher. a +90 item? 90 points higher. And a single +9 booster to UMD would have cost less then the Circlet+Cloak of Cha, replaced both, AND she could have replaced her two UMD feats, giving her two open slots. Wow. I'll tell her she was playing her character wrong because she could have saved two feats.
Elderich 01-26-07, 03:15 PM	We're all here for the Artificer, right? We want to help new players understand how one works? Scenerio: Lets say we have a newbie that just bought his shiny new ECS, and promptly fell in love with the artificer. Being the educated gamer type, that person drops artificer and guide into Google and finds this thread, being the first one that shows up. "Wow, 22 pages! There must be alot of information on the artificer!" Thus, the poor unsuspecting player begins to read the thread. Hopefully that player would have read the first post, downloaded the guide, and away they went. And remember, just like the last thread, it is only one poster who will not take debates to new threads. What would one do when the volumes on information is at best house rules, and possibly totally incorrect?
ORC_Tuhteth 01-26-07, 03:22 PM	Guys, you know the rules. Make your posts about the subject of the thread, not one another. Don't say you're ignoring someone, don't point out all the faults you perceive in someone else's posting style, and don't talk down to one another. (Yeah, I know that last one might be hard sometimes. :) ) I really don't want to have to lock the thread, but that's where this is headed if this keeps up.
MiscDebris 01-26-07, 03:26 PM	And remember, just like the last thread, it is only one poster who will not take debates to new threads. What would one do when the volumes on information is at best house rules, and possibly totally incorrect? I don't believe it is one person. Fire needs more than one thing to burn. Several people are involved in this 'argument.' Else it's just one person yelling and ranting. Neither side is going to convince the other that they are right. If you cannot be swayed, believe enough in your interpretation to understand that someone might not agree with you. Accept it and move on.
MiscDebris 01-26-07, 03:29 PM	We've had some books come out that I don't believe we've discussed from the Artificer perspective just yet. Yes, this is my attempt at a subject change. So what's good for the Artificer in Complete Scoundrel, the Fienddsh Codexes, Complete Mage, or for those psionic Artificers, Complete Psionics?
Cabral 01-26-07, 03:46 PM	Hopefully that player would have read the first post, downloaded the guide, and away they went. By the way, disagree as I might with some points, you did an awesome job and thanks for the resource. :D
glug 01-26-07, 04:22 PM	We've had some books come out that I don't believe we've discussed from the Artificer perspective just yet. Yes, this is my attempt at a subject change. So what's good for the Artificer in Complete Scoundrel, the Fienddsh Codexes, Complete Mage, or for those psionic Artificers, Complete Psionics? I only have Complete Psi out of that list personally. I don't see much in the way of artificer specific loving there. What I'm looking forward to (even though I swapped out my artificer in the game I was playing) is the Magic Item Compendium (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/107627200) in March. Woot! That should be all the artificer needs. More fun things to make!
awaken_D_M_golem 01-26-07, 04:59 PM	soo ... anyone want to take a *very* short break in the action, and take a look see at my pricing question on : page 21 , post # 606. pretty please :bigeyes:
aelryinth 01-26-07, 05:05 PM	Let's see. We were just starting out in Eberron and took the ECS's advice of Setting Charisma as the primary and Intelligence as secondary. So yes, her Charisma was likely 18 (+4). 9 ranks (+9) Circlet of Persuasion (+3) She had no other charisma boosters. She likely had Magical Aptitude (+2) and maybe skill focus (+3) Artificer's Artisan bonus for items that she can make (+2) That's a base 18 - 21 plus 2 (20 -23) for items she can create. It think only an additional +2 with scrolls from spellcraft. And she still had a further +5 bonus available via the skill enhancement infusion. It illustrates that my wife had a very high bonus. Nothing more. If she had a +9 item, her bonus would've been 9 points higher. a +90 item? 90 points higher. Wow. I'll tell her she was playing her character wrong because she could have saved two feats. Actually, she was playing her character RIGHT. But misinterpret me all you like. In addition, I was REPLACING items, not ADDING items, a distinction you are failing to make, and in doing so, saving money. I was also pointing out that if you allow +UMD, her character could have been BETTER...not Uber, not broken, but clearly and unequivocially better...just with that very minor change. It's that powerful a change. And then you rip on me for pointing out that her style of play doesn't optimize mechanics, which IS a Stormwind Fallacy (part of the Fallacy is that Optimizers can't roleplay, and the other is that role playing will automatically balance a class from a rules mechanics standpoint). Just like Natural Spell does for druids. And THAT is why you don't need +UMD. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-26-07, 05:06 PM	By the way, disagree as I might with some points, you did an awesome job and thanks for the resource. :D Congratulate Edyminion, not Eld. Edyminion created and contributes, Eld just criticizes. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 01-26-07, 05:13 PM	soo ... anyone want to take a *very* short break in the action, and take a look see at my pricing question on : page 21 , post # 606. pretty please :bigeyes: A Dorje is a wand, right? Here's how you handle it. The minimum manifester level base for the effect you want is 7, right? (A 4th level power) He could make it at 5th. His costs are all computed as if it were made at 7th level (375 x level of effect x caster level). This is time, gold, and XP. However, the ACTUAL level of the dorje is level 5. He has a 'knockoff' wand. If xp is burned per spell/effect, then you have to pay the xp for 50 uses of that spell to make the dorje. If xp cost is shared with someone else, you determine the final amount of xp burned (1/25 of gold cost) and split it in two. ===Aelryinth
awaken_D_M_golem 01-26-07, 05:44 PM	Thanks Aelryinth for the reply. i'm'n'a time crunch over here but ... link power metapsionic feat is sort of like rapid spell metamagic. you add the 1st level power's cost to the 4th level power's cost , but the earliest it'd be available is 8th -fester level. hence , the 1x8 plus 4x8. so ... 375 X 5 X 8 is the simplified cost , but not including the 50 XP in the original -festing and as per Arty rules , the actual level is 6th. so a receiver of the item being activated who is not the Arty would still have to pay 25 XP i think i'm getting it ?!
aelryinth 01-26-07, 06:10 PM	I'm not sure of where the 50 xp you are talking about is from. is that an xp cost for manifesting the spell? If so, it has to be paid, 50 xp per charge, when you make the wand. the reciever does not pay it...it has to be paid 'up front'. ===Aelryinth
Cabral 01-27-07, 03:45 AM	Hey - an Artificer , sub-species Psionic , pricing question : I just lost the post with all the exact pricing worked out, but from memory the cost to create would be 6,000 gp 450 xp and 1250 xp for manifesting xp cost times 50 charges. Double the last part if you build the full 50 xp cost into the item. I'm not sure what powers you are trying to build into the item, but they sound like a Bad Idea (TM) and I likely would not allow the item in my games. If I did, I would have the creator pay 25 xp per charge and the recipient pay 25 xp when it is manifested. He should be able to make it at 6th level. Due to the way psionics differ from spells, it's hard to tell, but I'd say that's the likely intent. So, what powers are you trying to Dorjicize?
Cabral 01-27-07, 04:02 AM	I was also pointing out that if you allow +UMD, I did allow them. If she cast skill enhancment, she could have a +5 UMD item. And then you rip on me for pointing out that her style of play doesn't optimize mechanics, which IS a Stormwind Fallacy (part of the Fallacy is that Optimizers can't roleplay, and the other is that role playing will automatically balance a class from a rules mechanics standpoint). The Stormwind and Oberoni fallacies have been explained to you. If you don't understand the concepts, avoid using them. When you use them incorrectly it undermines your position and general credibility. It's not the Stormwind Fallacy because I didn't mention any connection between roleplaying and balance or optimization. Actually, I didn't even mention roleplaying at all. What I did do was stare in shock as when, I tried to engage in civil small talk by passing on a bit of info on my wife's character, you ripped it apart for fuel for your arguments. Really, if you're try to twist everything into an argument, there's no point in talking about anything with you anymore. So are you going to be civil and debate what's up for debate and treat some things (primarily those that begin with "wife's") as off-limits for dissection?
ArcTan 01-27-07, 02:16 PM	And then you rip on me for pointing out that her style of play doesn't optimize mechanics, which IS a Stormwind Fallacy (part of the Fallacy is that Optimizers can't roleplay, and the other is that role playing will automatically balance a class from a rules mechanics standpoint). I've never heard that "corollary" of Stormwind before, nor do I exactly see how it applies here. It seems like you're mixing up the Stormwind and Oberoni Fallacies. The Oberoni Fallacy is the fallacy that a problem within the rules isn't really a problem because it "never comes up" because a DM "can always houserule it". The Stormwind Fallacy has *nothing* to do with rules balance, usually -- it comes up when people are discussing gaming group composition and whether one playstyle or another is problematic for the game. in any case, it's an inappropriate use of Stormwind, because it has nothing to do with "roleplaying". The Stormwind Fallacy would say that to be a good roleplayer I have to purposely gimp myself by saying "I'm going to put some ranks in Profession" at a certain level -- it says *nothing* about whether or not the game is more balanced if people do so. In fact, the Stormwind Fallacy is the fallacy of stating that roleplayers are unconcerned with balance, since it views "thinking mechanically" as distinct from "thinking like your character". People who commit the Stormwind Fallacy don't say that they're making their Fighter take cross-class ranks in Profession because this makes the Fighter more balanced relative to Wizards and Clerics -- they say they do so because they want to play their Fighter "realistically" and don't care about how effective they are in combat. Saying that an Artificer should be played a certain way because that was clearly the intention of the designers, and that other playstyles should be discouraged or openly banned by houserule... isn't a fallacy at all. It may, in fact, be *true*. (It's certainly true that the original balance of the Cleric as a class did not take Divine Metamagic into account, for instance.) This isn't an "Oberoni Fallacy", either -- I would only be committing the Oberoni Fallacy if I said there's no problem with the Artificer class as written because we should assume that DMs will always impose limitations that don't exist in the rules to balance it. (This is, in fact, the opposite of what I'm saying -- I'm saying that the Artificer *is* balanced as long as you don't *introduce* things that don't exist in the rules.)
awaken_D_M_golem 01-27-07, 03:42 PM	Hey Aelryinth , thanks for your second reply. Hey Cabral , thanks for your reply , second post back. ooo , and ArcTan , I figured out which smiley face is most like your name : :rofl: , just 2 quarters of it. Yeah, there's alot of psionic-X syndrome in the translation of the Artificer into psi-Arty. And being a Psi- guy , I don't really like it , but got intrigued in spite of it. The power in question is Psychic Reformation. Linky! (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/psychicReformation.htm) It was more or less ... use-less-ified ... to coin a word , by phb2 retraining , and in any case , its massively less powerful than Shun The Dark Chaos. The only use I found for psy-ref , now , is virtual feats and the psi-Arty. Psy-ref with link power meta-'magic' , allows a Tear Down of 2 rounds instead of 10 minutes. So a 6th level psi-Arty can be three builds at the same time : 1st-ly is just like "The Big Guy Is With Me" build that Scion of Coldshard posted on the 100^10 challenge 2nd-ly is a lesser Artificer with less choices 3rd-ly is a feat/skill/power into anything , temporary build. Think a quick change lesser Chameleon. yep , its alot to keep track of. above 10th level ... the dorje's allow higher 'caster' levels than the regular Arty , but you have to pay for it. interestingly , a one level dip into DivineMind - a normally pathetic class , would add 5 more virtual feats to the mix , And ! magic mantle ups cross-class skill points in UMD or UPD up to *class* skill point level. Weirdly , then a psi-Arty can UMD as well as an Arty. I've no idea how to take advantage of this. My guess is a version of LoP's Endless Spells would allow an Action Point to trigger the dorje/'wand' , consequently ... the PsiCrystal-ificer , DelayedBlast-ificer , WeirdCham-ificer ... rolled into one ... The Psi-Gumbo-ificer :D
Cabral 01-27-07, 04:08 PM	The power in question is Psychic Reformation. Linky! (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/psychicReformation.htm) It was more or less ... use-less-ified ... to coin a word , by phb2 retraining , and in any case , its massively less powerful than Shun The Dark Chaos. The only use I found for psy-ref , now , is virtual feats and the psi-Arty. I don't think PHB2 makes it useless. Just less useful. :) I'm not familiar with the Embrace the Dark Chaos/Shun the Dark Chaos combo so I can't really comment. As for Psychic Reformation, yup, I would never allow that as an item, at least not an item via the standard pricing guidelines.
aelryinth 01-27-07, 07:34 PM	ah, righteous indignation. If you posted the build, Cabral, you were inviting commentary. You glossed right over the fact that I APPROVED of your wife's build, and went right to the part that you didn't like. If all of the commentary wasn't to your liking, you shouldn't have posted anything. That way, you never have to worry about being put off by comments, you see? And then naturally you ignored the thrust of the commentary you didn't like, posted right there as the most minor of revisions, as to the power of +UMD's. You simply dwell on the fact you didn't think I should have posted it. I didn't 'recommend' she change anything. I pointed out the power of that little change and what it made possible...and that's why I wouldn't allow it, not why you should. And, of course, you over-reacted and chose to take offense. And FYI, the +UMD devices we've been talking about all this time provide their bonuses all the time, and are Competence items. Skill Enhancement provides Circumstance bonuses that vary by level, and last ten minutes a level, making it a Buff Spell, and not useful in crafting, among other things. Happily, it's a very quick buff spell. As for Oberoni and Stormwind, eh. What I get out of the arguments they sum up might be more extensive then what you do. YMMV. I like them both. Keep preaching them down at me as I walk over and past you. ===Aelryinth
Cabral 01-28-07, 02:30 AM	ah, righteous indignation. If you posted the build, Cabral, you were inviting commentary. I told you that discussions of the merits of +UMD item were off limits with me. I posted the source of the bonuses because you made a guess and it was not directly the aforementioned off-limit topic. You picked it apart for fuel for a topic that I said I did not wish to discuss with you. If you had commented that her charisma served her will for using diplomacy to negotiate better prices, I would not have been upset. Now drop it. Fast and permanently.
aelryinth 01-28-07, 03:23 AM	You are presuming to give me orders on a public messageboard? I suggest you stay off the topic or leave, I am under absolutely no obligation to do so, and you certainly aren't going to compel me to do so. ===Aelryinth
yrogerg 01-28-07, 11:23 AM	You are presuming to give me orders on a public messageboard? I suggest you stay off the topic or leave, I am under absolutely no obligation to do so, and you certainly aren't going to compel me to do so. ===Aelryinth Honestly, if you were discussing my wife, I'd presume the same. Pursuing this argument isn't going to be productive, and will end with this thread getting locked, so I'm going to suggest that both of you drop it.
eRaz0r 01-29-07, 06:46 PM	A Staff isn't a wand. For a staff, to use the higher caster level spells and stuff, you actually have to emulate the caster level minimum of the effect. I could be wrong on this point, but triggering a wand and a staff are indeed two different things, because staves have mutable caster level and stats. I believe that by doing the proper emulation, an Artificer can use a staff using his OWN stat and his OWN caster level...as opposed to the Caster level of the Check. Unfortunately, a strict reading of the UMD skill implies otherwise. I realise that this is a contentious point on the CharOpt boards, mostly because of the stafficer silliness. However, the SRD and the text in the players handbook specifically says Use a Wand Normally, to use a wand, you must have the wand’s spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill also applies to other spell trigger magic items, such as staffs. (emphasis added) You don't get to emulate a higher caster level or ability score or anything of the sort. You use it with the minimum CL and DC that are built into the staff upon creation. The CL of the staff is whatever it was crafted at, or your own CL if it's higher, and the DCs are the minimum unless your own attribute is higher. Depending on the generosity of your DM, you'd only get to use your own CL if it's in the style (arcane/divine) of the staff in question. That's it. UMD Check DC =20 and you can fire off the staff. Only a broken interpretation of the skill allows any more than that.
eRaz0r 01-29-07, 08:35 PM	Yeah, but people are ignoring there's a finite limit to how many times you are going to use any one spell, so the 'advantage' of endless recasting is considerably less then they purport. If a spell truly needs to be endlessly recast, then the Artificer can also make a one time investment and presto! he's an endless recaster, too! Yes, there's a limit to the number of times that a wizard might cast a given spell - but that limit can reach many times more than 50 in a given campaign. As you say, there *is* the possibility that the DM will allow infinite use wondrous items. I find these things require some care to adjudicate, and are game-dependant. Actually, many of the comparisons between Artificers and Wizards are game/dm dependant. In some games, the wizard doesn't always have the opportunity to jaunt over to the local Scroll shoppe and pick up any spell he wants and scribe it into his spellbook - he's stuck with the 2 free spells per level, and a few carefully chosen ones that the DM thinks ought to be available for sale. In some games, the Artificer is constrained to only published items, and can't make up whatever wondrous item he wants (meaning more reliance on scrolls, and hence, more cost). 1) That's assuming we are talking scrolls, and not infinitely reusable magic items, or charged items, or Spell Storing Item. Scrolls are one shot special case items. Items that need to be cast a lot are wands and toys. And Spell-Storing Device is ALWAYS handy. and always costs XP, and takes some time to cast, and the XP is lost if you don't cast it, and it has a high UMD DC.. The artificer carries his arsenal. The mage has only his spells in memory, and his 'arsenal' is his spellbook...if he has the time to study. Wizards can't buy magic items ? The thing is, the wizard *can* own wands and "toys" too. If he takes a couple of Item Creation Feats he can also make his own for comparable costs (not nearly as well, of course, and constrained by his other resources, like spells known, number of feats etc). The Artificer is definitely more flexible in some respects, but I suspect that, over the course of a campaign, those times when the Artificer is well prepared for a foe (by being able to make items) means that the Wizard is well prepared also (by being able to purchase and prepare spells). When the Wizard is surprised having only his "normal" prepared spell list, the Artificer is similarly unprepared. He'll have to spend an action point to cast an infusion such as Weapon Aug, or Spell Storing Item or fall back on his "usual" arsenal of existing items... (items which the Wizard can also buy or make to supplement *his* usual arsenal of prepared spells) Six of one.. half a dozen of the other in my book. 2) The Artificer has access to any spell, divine or arcane. He can choose the best spell for the job...which is usually better then 2-3 'crude' spells applied to 'try' to address the situation. having the perfect tool for the job is a good thing. Sure he can - under duress (action points).. If he's always making items of "just the right spell" for any situation ahead of time, he's going to run out of room in his Bag of Holding IV... His flexibility is usually time-constrained. Pulling out just the right spell 3 rounds after combat's over doesn't help anyone. 3) The Party's gold is the Artificer's gold. He can make toys for ANYONE. And the more gold they give him to make toys, the more THEY profit. Provided he has enough Craft Reserve or doesn't mind trailing a level or two behind the other PCs. 4) With homonculi to make your items for you WHILE you are adventuring, time becomes a non-issue, too. Not really. You can still only make one magic item at a time, you just don't have to be locked in a room to do it. Time is still a factor on when you get the items, even if you get to enjoy yourself adventuring in the meantime. Oh, and if the BBEG destroys your Dedicated Wright, you've lost the money and the XP you put into it. The Sorcerer is versatile *in combat* - spontaneous casting is king there... of all the spells you know, you can choose exactly the right one for the situation! The Wizard is versatile *each Day* - preparation is king when you can guess what's coming. You can tailor your list to the coming encounters. Fantastic. (The Cleric is even more versatile than the wizard, although some might argue that divine spells tend to lag behind the arcane spells in sheer power) The Artificer is a little different. He has elements of in-combat versatility with his infusions (although many of them are 1 minute casts, meaning Action Points or advance warning). He also has elements of long-range versatility, since he can make pretty much anything - with enough time. His "daily" versatility is actually a little behind the Wizard and CoDzilla, IMHO. I'm not disputing your points...I'm just saying I DID take all of that into account, and found it was a non-issue. This entire versatility issue is one of the reasons the Artificer is considered a top 3 class (CoDAzilla?) I realize you discount these differences as a non-issue, but I think it's a matter of different perspectives. I see the Artificer as a great class, a potentially very powerful class, but one that requires the DM's complicity more than many others to reach that power. The Wizard is in a similar boat : you can face a DM that never lets you find the scrolls to scribe that you want, constantly threatens/steals/destroys your spell-book, or sunders your material component pouch in every fight, or whatever. The Artificer has even greater item/gold/time dependancy issues.
aelryinth 01-29-07, 10:43 PM	I'll make a couple counterpoints: The Artificer might be dependent on down time, but the very idea of his class is about making down time work for him. If you aren't given down time, you may as well not have craft reserve...it'll never get used. The mage doesn't profit from downtime unless he has Crafter feats or is selling spells. He is also tremendously vulnerable to loss of his spellbook...a vulnerability the Artificer simply does not share. Both he and the Artificer share preparation ability...except the Wizard has to do it at the beginning of the day. The Artificer can do it with simply minutes...and should play to emphasize that strength. The Wizard can't tailor to a situation as finely as an Artificer without a really unbalanced selection of spells...but he can use the spells he has on hand very quickly. The sorceror, of course, can't prepare at all, except for the campaign as a whole. He can round hole-square peg like nobody else, however, and do it a lot. In a campaign that allows no down time, ability to customize magic items, hugely restricts gold flow and the like, the Artificer is just as poorly off as the Wizard who can never find a spell needed and keeps getting his spell book stolen...or as out of place as the Fighter in a high magic world where he simply can't do anything without having to spend gold on more and more toys. In an average campaign, the Artificer is a very powerful class choice. ===Aelryinth
yrogerg 01-29-07, 11:21 PM	Both he and the Artificer share preparation ability...except the Wizard has to do it at the beginning of the day. ===Aelryinth No, a Wizard *can* do it later As we've already said in this thread, a Wizard can prepare up to a quarter of his spell list in 15 minutes.
aelryinth 01-29-07, 11:36 PM	No, a Wizard *can* do it later As we've already said in this thread, a Wizard can prepare up to a quarter of his spell list in 15 minutes. You are complaining about having one minute to do a buff, and now y ou need 15? Uhm, sorry, don't consider it a strength of the class all that much. You still need a lot more time then an arti...and still have to have the right spell in your book. ===Aelryinth
yrogerg 01-29-07, 11:49 PM	You are complaining about having one minute to do a buff, and now y ou need 15? Uhm, sorry, don't consider it a strength of the class all that much. You still need a lot more time then an arti...and still have to have the right spell in your book. ===Aelryinth It means that when it comes to utility spells, a Wizard with one or two spell slots open still beats all, particularly since the drawback of being combat-centric is that there's seldom a huge difference between one minute and 15, in D&D terms, and it doesn't cost the Wizard anything (in terms of XP or gold) to fill those empty spell slots when needed.
ArcTan 01-30-07, 12:28 AM	I'll make a couple counterpoints: The Artificer might be dependent on down time, but the very idea of his class is about making down time work for him. If you aren't given down time, you may as well not have craft reserve...it'll never get used. Yeah. Exactly. The less downtime you have, the less powerful the Artificer is. High-downtime campaigns benefit the Artificer. Low-downtime campaigns benefit other classes (most notably the Sorcerer, who doesn't need to go shopping to get new spells). The mage doesn't profit from downtime unless he has Crafter feats or is selling spells. Or unless he needs to research spells or go shopping for them, neither of which should take a trivial amount of time once the spell level reaches a certain point. He is also tremendously vulnerable to loss of his spellbook...a vulnerability the Artificer simply does not share. When was the last time you saw a campaign hinge on spellbook theft? DMs who do this are just being jerks, since the spellbook is an all-or-nothing determinant of a Wizard's power. It's like saying holy symbols are a Cleric's balancing factor, despite all the evidence from gameplay. FWIW, even if spellbook theft is a factor, Wizards have a number of ways of getting around this. It's pretty much what the spell Leomund's secret chest exists for. Both he and the Artificer share preparation ability...except the Wizard has to do it at the beginning of the day. The Artificer can do it with simply minutes...and should play to emphasize that strength. ...And has to pay an XP cost and use up an infusion to do it. And this preparation can be negated by a targeted dispel. And can't ever do it with spells greater than level 4. And the Wizard can do it later in the day anyway, with 15 minutes' warning. The Wizard can't tailor to a situation as finely as an Artificer without a really unbalanced selection of spells...but he can use the spells he has on hand very quickly. *shrug* Artificers "finely tailoring" spells hasn't been that much of an issue in my campaigns, but that's because said campaigns usually don't seem to import a ridiculous number of splatbook spells. I personally would require an Artificer to research a spell from Spell Compendium before using it, just the same as a Wizard or Sorc. In order to *really* finely tailor a spell to a situation that's just come up, an Artificer needs to spend Action Points, and even then wastes two actions preparing the spell before using it. In other situations, an Artificer really has no special advantage over a Wizard with this kind of thing, since the difference between one minute and 15 minutes (stuff that happens in a "matter of minutes" rather than a "matter of rounds") is rarely a big deal. The sorceror, of course, can't prepare at all, except for the campaign as a whole. He can round hole-square peg like nobody else, however, and do it a lot. Generally I've found Artificers have to round-hole-square-peg about the same way Sorcerers do, because their access to spells is limited in pretty much the same way. In a campaign that allows no down time, ability to customize magic items, hugely restricts gold flow and the like, the Artificer is just as poorly off as the Wizard who can never find a spell needed and keeps getting his spell book stolen...or as out of place as the Fighter in a high magic world where he simply can't do anything without having to spend gold on more and more toys. *shrug* Lots of downtime isn't the equivalent of never being able to find a spell. (The amount of downtime an Artificer needs to make all the magic items he could possibly make is huge compared to the amount of time a Wizard should need to find all but the rarest spell scrolls.) And stealing a spellbook isn't really the same thing as simply telling the Artificer he doesn't have a year to craft in between encounters.
Elderich 01-30-07, 03:29 PM	Regarding Downtime... Remembering the Dedicated Wright, there is no need for any character with a crafting feat(s) to be handycapped by lack of down time. Aslo note. Assuming (Per DMG) ~14 encounters per level, and ~4 encounters per day Then 14 (Encounters per level) * 20 (th level) =280 encounters 280 Encounters/4 encounters per day= 70 days of adventuring to reach 20th level. From 1st to 20th in 70 days So I think it is safe to assume some down time in an adventures lifetime. Now I have not read the thread since my last post, it's volume exceeds my capacity/desire to keep up.
Elderich 01-30-07, 03:40 PM	Guys, you know the rules. Make your posts about the subject of the thread, not one another. Don't say you're ignoring someone, don't point out all the faults you perceive in someone else's posting style, and don't talk down to one another. (Yeah, I know that last one might be hard sometimes. :) ) I really don't want to have to lock the thread, but that's where this is headed if this keeps up.Why not just ban the single offending poster? Why lock the whole post because ONE poster is using personal attacks? Why not warn the ONE user to stop the offending behavior?
WizO_Sith 01-31-07, 06:34 PM	Why not just ban the single offending poster? Why lock the whole post because ONE poster is using personal attacks? Why not warn the ONE user to stop the offending behavior? Because it's not a single poster.
aelryinth 01-31-07, 09:19 PM	Oh, the fun comments I could make with this. Any hoo, Capral, did you ever go back and congratulate Edyminion on making this handbook, or you still crediting Elderich with Edy's good work? ===Aelryinth
Cabral 01-31-07, 10:31 PM	Any hoo, Capral, did you ever go back and congratulate Edyminion on making this handbook, or you still crediting Elderich with Edy's good work? It was I who made that error, not Capral. No, I have not corrected the post as I felt it was unnecessary as the sentiment was conveyed, nonetheless. Since you have felt it neccessaary to "call me out" on it, let me say, Thank you Edymnion (Who's Edyminion?) for this effort. Also thank you to the many who contributed accurate rules discussion to this thread.
Elderich 02-01-07, 12:57 PM	Because it's not a single poster.Only one poster here has made personal attacks since the last time you cut a bunch of posts out of this thread?
Edymnion 02-03-07, 03:31 PM	I'll just say this. Sith, if you do end up locking this, could you delete everything after the actual guide portion and leave it stickied? I would like to think that this is still a useful resource to have up, even if it did go off topic pretty much after the first page (as the topic was helping new players learn the artificer ropes, not debating obscure balance points).
aelryinth 02-03-07, 07:18 PM	Given the expansions and clarifications of rules, I'd just refine and repost the Guide, Edy. Then the drama becomes a non-issue. ===Aelryinth
Edymnion 02-03-07, 07:34 PM	Given the expansions and clarifications of rules, I'd just refine and repost the Guide, Edy. Then the drama becomes a non-issue. ===AelryinthYeah, thats probably what I need to do. Which means I'll need to take a day off to read through the whole thing, take notes on the good ideas, fix it all up, etc. I'll see about working up the nerve to do that tomorrow. Heh, or I might just download the thread, put it on my thumb drive, and do it at work. :P
aelryinth 02-04-07, 12:18 AM	Yeah, thats probably what I need to do. Which means I'll need to take a day off to read through the whole thing, take notes on the good ideas, fix it all up, etc. I'll see about working up the nerve to do that tomorrow. Heh, or I might just download the thread, put it on my thumb drive, and do it at work. :P Because you've made it such a good source, I'd also expand it a bit beyond just an Eberron guideline, now. While this isn't the Artificer Optimizer thread for uber builds, no reason you can't use some other sources. ===Aelryinth
Cabral 02-04-07, 12:10 PM	Sorry, to break up the ominous 666 replies, but I found a 3.5 bonus UMD item/creature. A one-handed weapon familiar, from the warforged artificer racial substitution level, grants a +3 unnamed bonus on UMD checks. You may wish to include this under the warforged race (with the penalty to charisma, that nets the warforged race a +2 bonus on UMD).
aelryinth 02-04-07, 03:58 PM	Sorry, to break up the ominous 666 replies, but I found a 3.5 bonus UMD item/creature. A one-handed weapon familiar, from the warforged artificer racial substitution level, grants a +3 unnamed bonus on UMD checks. You may wish to include this under the warforged race (with the penalty to charisma, that nets the warforged race a +2 bonus on UMD). That's effectively a class feature, not an item, and I'm sure sub levels will be part of his advice. They sure feature in on the Char Opt builds a lot for warforged. ===Aelryinth
Cabral 02-04-07, 05:49 PM	Technically, it's an item granted by a class feature. Seeing as how it affects your item choices (by tying up gp), I think it should be evaluated in that light. Seeing as it's specific to Warforged, the racial discussion would be the best place to mention it. In mentioning +UMD items (circlet of persuasion, rod of mimicry, admiral's bicorn, Skill Enhancment infusion), it should be noted that they are all (I think) competence bonuses and thus don't stack with each other. As an aside, I only consider the circlet (and infusion) worth it for an artificer. The rod is a bit pricey (30k) for +10 UMD, and the bicorn even more so (50k or 60k or more), for a slightly higher bonus (+5) than the circlet and a bunch of seafaring related abilities. Perhaps a house Lyrander Artificer would enjoy it, but for other artificers, it's too much.
aelryinth 02-04-07, 10:55 PM	Technically, it's an item granted by a class feature. Seeing as how it affects your item choices (by tying up gp), I think it should be evaluated in that light. Seeing as it's specific to Warforged, the racial discussion would be the best place to mention it. In mentioning +UMD items (circlet of persuasion, rod of mimicry, admiral's bicorn, Skill Enhancment infusion), it should be noted that they are all (I think) competence bonuses and thus don't stack with each other. As an aside, I only consider the circlet (and infusion) worth it for an artificer. The rod is a bit pricey (30k) for +10 UMD, and the bicorn even more so (50k or 60k or more), for a slightly higher bonus (+5) than the circlet and a bunch of seafaring related abilities. Perhaps a house Lyrander Artificer would enjoy it, but for other artificers, it's too much. Technically, most of these do stack. The Tricorn is basically a 'higher end' version of the circlet, and uses the same language. So, no stacking. however, the Rod you mentioned I believe gives a bonus to UMD skill checks, not to Charisma Checks, and would probably stack. The Skill Enhancement infusion is a Circumstance bonus, and definitely stacks. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 02-04-07, 10:58 PM	Btw, if anyone wants to read a great story by one of my favorite comic artists, Phil Foglio, here's a link to a story that could be the model for an Artificer's only campaign. The primary characters are ALL Artificers. And if you ever had questions about why charisma is important to them, this comic just oozes flavor for what Artificers can do. http://www.studiofoglio.com/index.php4 You want to read the Girl Genius stories...both of them! one is a reposting of the series which came out in comic form, the other is due to be published and heretofor has only been seen on the web. Enjoy! ===Aelryinth
Cabral 02-05-07, 12:50 AM	Technically, most of these do stack. The Tricorn is basically a 'higher end' version of the circlet, and uses the same language. So, no stacking. however, the Rod you mentioned I believe gives a bonus to UMD skill checks, not to Charisma Checks, and would probably stack. The Skill Enhancement infusion is a Circumstance bonus, and definitely stacks. ==Aelryinth No actually, UMD is a charisma check. So, +3 competence bonus and +10 competence bonus equals a total of +10 competence. If they were both circumstance bonuses, they'd likely stack, depending on your DM's interpretation of "from the same circumstance". It doesn't matter how the bonus got added to the check, just what the bonus is. That said, lets look at three hypothetical bonus items: a cloak of charisma +2 (not so hypothetical; +2 enhancement bonus to charisma), a +3 enhancement bonus to cha checks circlet, and a +4 enhancement bonus to UMD checks gloves. Let's ignore that the fact that two of these items don't make a lot of sense. :D adding these 3 items adds a total of +5 to UMD checks (cloak +gloves). The cloak adds its bonus to the charisma stat not checks so whether it stacks with the other items never comes into question. The circlet adds +3 to UMD checks because UMD is a charisma check. The gloves adds +4 to just UMD checks, because the two items both provide a bonus that doesn't stack with itself, only the higher takes effect.
RogueElement 02-05-07, 05:42 PM	What book is the rod of mimicry and admiral's bicorn?
Cabral 02-05-07, 07:55 PM	What book is the rod of mimicry and admiral's bicorn? Arm & Equipment Guide (3.0) and Stormwrack respectively. If you're looking to twink out an artificer, I strongly suggest skipping the bicorn.
Rangerman 02-08-07, 12:46 AM	I was wondering about the Feat Double Wand Wielder. Is this a viable option for the Artificer? I've not seen it mentioned concerning the "Blastificer" builds I've seen on the boards. Sorry if this is mentioned else where.
Elderich 02-08-07, 07:17 PM	I was wondering about the Feat Double Wand Wielder. Is this a viable option for the Artificer? I've not seen it mentioned concerning the "Blastificer" builds I've seen on the boards. Sorry if this is mentioned else where.it is in this thread a bunch of times. You might try downloading this thread and searching it offline.
aelryinth 02-09-07, 03:44 PM	Dual Wand Wielder falls in a 'grey zone' for Eberron. In Eberron, the only class to get dual wands was supposed to be the Cannith Wand Adept. The Dual Wand Wielder feat is actually better then the CWA class ability. If you want Dual Wand Wielder, it is suggested you make it only taught at Cannith, and replace the CWA ability with the same ability. ==Aelryinth
JJeff 02-11-07, 05:53 PM	Sorry if this are questions that have already been answered, but I don't seem to be able to find out. a) Can an artificer build slots for his homunculus so that it can use magic items? b) Can an artificer quicken a wand at 6th level? Normally wands have an activation time of 1 std action. Please see artificer metamagic spell trigger description (ECS 32) and DMG 283 (last line) - DMG 284 (first line). The ECS has an example that specifies quickening a wand, but the rulings of using a wand in the DMG requiring a standard action minimum should stand, right? You are metamagic-ing the spell, which should not change the ruling of "time of activating a spell-trigger item".
Cabral 02-11-07, 08:26 PM	a) Can an artificer build slots for his homunculus so that it can use magic items? A homunculus is a creature and has the normal slots available, though some homunculus may have forms that prevent them from using certain magic items. An Iron Defender can't really wield weapons, and a Packmate may have difficulty with robes and armor. b) Can an artificer quicken a wand at 6th level? Normally wands have an activation time of 1 std action. Please see artificer metamagic spell trigger description (ECS 32) and DMG 283 (last line) - DMG 284 (first line). The ECS has an example that specifies quickening a wand, but the rulings of using a wand in the DMG requiring a standard action minimum should stand, right? You are metamagic-ing the spell, which should not change the ruling of "time of activating a spell-trigger item". This is debated. Short answer: Ask your DM. :D Long answer: Uhm ... I'm not sure. :D
aelryinth 02-11-07, 08:42 PM	Yes, you can use Metamagic Item or Metamagic Spell Trigger to Quicken an appropriate item if you have the feat. It's used as an example right in the book. Be aware of the limitations of a construct, but yes, if it has the appropriate limbs it could equip items. Activating them might be a little harder. ===Aelryinth
Cabral 02-11-07, 08:49 PM	Yes, you can use Metamagic Item or Metamagic Spell Trigger to Quicken an appropriate item if you have the feat. It's used as an example right in the book. If the rules contradict the example, the rules win. The fact that it is used as an example isn't proof that it works. That said, I'm short on time lately so I'll leave it to someone else to provide the concrete, or as close as it gets, reference one way or the other.
JJeff 02-11-07, 10:34 PM	A homunculus is a creature and has the normal slots available, though some homunculus may have forms that prevent them from using certain magic items. An Iron Defender can't really wield weapons, and a Packmate may have difficulty with robes and armor. This is debated. Short answer: Ask your DM. :D Long answer: Uhm ... I'm not sure. :D Understood and thanks. The problem is: I AM the DM..... and I can't make up my mind.
yrogerg 02-11-07, 10:52 PM	Understood and thanks. The problem is: I AM the DM..... and I can't make up my mind. Playtest it. See if it feels broken to you. If not, allow it to work; it won't hurt anything.
Cabral 02-12-07, 12:07 AM	Understood and thanks. The problem is: I AM the DM..... and I can't make up my mind. Okay, quick check, so I may have missed something. From the SRD: "However, the casting time of a spell is the time required to activate the same power in an item, regardless of the type of magic item, unless the item description specifically states otherwise." followed by "Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast, however, has a longer casting time than 1 standard action, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.)" I think the Spell Compendium states using a spell from wand always takes at least a standard action, making wands of featherfall and wraithstrike pretty gimp. That should be what the rules say. If your players aren't abusive, allowing quickened wands shouldn't have a noticeable effect.
JJeff 02-12-07, 02:44 AM	Any official word? I'm trying to figure out if, RAI, the artificer is meant to be able to bypass the spell-trigger limitation of "standard action to activate" with a quicken and his Meta-magic spell-trigger ability.
Edymnion 02-12-07, 12:38 PM	Any official word? I'm trying to figure out if, RAI, the artificer is meant to be able to bypass the spell-trigger limitation of "standard action to activate" with a quicken and his Meta-magic spell-trigger ability.Actually, I had this pointed out to me, the DMG does in fact mention a Quickened spell in a wand being activatable as a free action.
Cabral 02-12-07, 07:21 PM	Actually, I had this pointed out to me, the DMG does in fact mention a Quickened spell in a wand being activatable as a free action. "Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal. For example, a caster could heighten a spell's level to increase its effectiveness, or quicken a spell to allow it to be used as a free action." Note that it says items, not wands. Since wands has an explicit (perhaps unitended; no telling) minimum activation time of a standard action, it's debatable whether you can quicken a spell in a wand. I've heard that the Spell Compendium says activating a wand with a spell that has an activation time of 1 swift action (ie, wraithstrike or a quickened spell) still requires a minimum of a standard action. Since I don't own the book, I can't be positive that it says this or that it is worded as I have worded it. Since the primary source (the DMG) is unclear (as to whether the wand's activation time is meant to be an absolute minimum or just a "unless noted otherwise"), if the Spell Compendium does indeed ban swift action wands, well that's the RAW and likely the RAI. (Or at least, the RAI to compensate for some of WotC's new spells and abilities ;))
JJeff 02-12-07, 08:00 PM	I understand. But the fact is that the wording for Artificer is that he applies the metamagic feat to the spell-trigger item. Not the spell, the spell-trigger item. It is like the Artificer gives the item the ability to be activated as a swift action, but not affecting the spell. Thus does this mean that the spell is not a quickened one, and thus is not affected by the SpC ruling? Or am I just trying to hard to look for a reason the author of the ECS did what he did.
Elderich 02-13-07, 03:39 PM	Since wands has an explicit (perhaps unitended; no telling) minimum activation time of a standard action, it's debatable whether you can quicken a spell in a wand.Note that primary source for magical items is the DMG, until perhaps the magical item book comes out in march. Thus the DMG rule should take precedence. Also note that SC is not even a magical item source, so a rule about magical items should not be located there. The Sage has argued quite eloquently against the rule in the FAQ, which should take precidence over the SC. If such an important change to magical item activation were to take place it should be in the FAQ, or an addendum/errata to the DMG.
Cabral 02-14-07, 08:11 AM	It's primary source, I agree. However, it's not clear whether the fist clause overrides the wand description. I also agree it should be clarified in the FAQ. I understand. But the fact is that the wording for Artificer is that he applies the metamagic feat to the spell-trigger item. Not the spell, the spell-trigger item. It is like the Artificer gives the item the ability to be activated as a swift action, but not affecting the spell. Then an empowered wand of fireball would increase the damage of the wand, but not affect the spell. The infusion applies the metamagic feat to the spell in the item. It then functions, as if it were created with that feat (without increasing the spell's level), for anyone who uses the wand. Compare to personal weapon augmentation.
Edymnion 02-14-07, 12:41 PM	The DMG says items, not wands, this is true. But the Artificer specifically says they can apply metamagic to a spell trigger item, not specifically a wand. So, the only two logical choices we have from this are: An artificer putting Quicken on a wand does indeed benefit from the reduced activation time, as a wand is a spell-trigger item. The artificer cannot use *ANY* metamagic trigger on any wand, because a wand is not an item.Take your pick on which one you prefer, but it has to go both ways. Either a wand is an item, or it is not, you can't pick and choose when it's convenient for you.
ArcTan 02-14-07, 09:13 PM	The DMG says items, not wands, this is true. But the Artificer specifically says they can apply metamagic to a spell trigger item, not specifically a wand. So, the only two logical choices we have from this are: An artificer putting Quicken on a wand does indeed benefit from the reduced activation time, as a wand is a spell-trigger item. The artificer cannot use *ANY* metamagic trigger on any wand, because a wand is not an item.Take your pick on which one you prefer, but it has to go both ways. Either a wand is an item, or it is not, you can't pick and choose when it's convenient for you. Er, what is a wand if not an item? It's in the section "Magic Items" of the DMG. It follows item pricing guides. It's listed under "items" in stat blocks. Perhaps more relevantly, what kind of spell trigger items exist that aren't wands?
ChristopherGroves 02-14-07, 09:45 PM	Schema?
yrogerg 02-14-07, 09:55 PM	Schema? Staffs.
ArcTan 02-15-07, 12:04 AM	Staffs. Touche.
OmNefarious 02-15-07, 11:47 AM	I have a question. I have asked this before but can longer find my topic I made for it (didnt "subscribe"). I have a PC who is a Daelkyr Half-Blood Artificer (yeah kinda weird) who is curious to know if he can use the Personal Natural Weapon Augmentation infusion to imbue his symbiont, Throwing Scarab, with enhancements such as bane or keen. Can he do this? I think it is ok because the TS is something he is born with and is dependant on. I consider that is what should make a natural weapon a natural weapon. He has also asked if can he use this infusion to imbue the mindblade of our Soulknife. I dont think he can since the mindblade comes from the mind and he really doesnt have access to the SK's mind. Can he do this as well? Thanks for your help for whoever answers this. And yes I will mark this for notification.
Edymnion 02-15-07, 12:37 PM	Oh, and for the record, I am officially requesting input for what goes into the Artificer Guide 3.0, but I made another thread for it so conversations don't get mixed up. It can be found over here: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=792374
Cabral 02-16-07, 08:03 AM	The DMG says items, not wands, this is true. But the Artificer specifically says they can apply metamagic to a spell trigger item, not specifically a wand. So, the only two logical choices we have from this are: An artificer putting Quicken on a wand does indeed benefit from the reduced activation time, as a wand is a spell-trigger item. The artificer cannot use *ANY* metamagic trigger on any wand, because a wand is not an item.Take your pick on which one you prefer, but it has to go both ways. Either a wand is an item, or it is not, you can't pick and choose when it's convenient for you. A Sorcerer can apply metamagic feats to spells. So, the only two logical choices we have from this are: A sorcerer applying quicken to a spell does indeed benefit from a reduced casting time. A sorcerer cannot use *ANY* metamagic on any spells. In both cases, Quicken is ineffective because there is a minimum casting time on wands and sorcerer spells. Most, if not all other metamagic work just fine.
Edymnion 02-16-07, 08:32 AM	A Sorcerer can apply metamagic feats to spells. So, the only two logical choices we have from this are: A sorcerer applying quicken to a spell does indeed benefit from a reduced casting time. A sorcerer cannot use *ANY* metamagic on any spells. In both cases, Quicken is ineffective because there is a minimum casting time on wands and sorcerer spells. Most, if not all other metamagic work just fine.Except that this is a faulty argument, because we have, plainly written, that "Any metamagic used by an artificer increases the casting time". Its explicitly stated to be an exception. And the wording in the DMG also appears to be an exception to the standard casting time rule for a wand, as it specifically mentions using Quicken on a spell trigger item, and gaining the reduced activation time. Plus, the basis for mine is that people are actively trying to interpret the DMG as saying that the reduced activation time applies to items, and that it doesn't specifically say wands, thereby implying that a wand is not an item. For your analogy to work, you would have to have said that the Sorcerer can only apply metamagic to magic spells, and the book only says he gets spells, so he could either apply any metamagic to anything he can cast (which he can), or he cannot apply metamagic to anything because he doesn't specifically cast "magic spells", only "spells".
ArcTan 02-16-07, 11:24 AM	Plus, the basis for mine is that people are actively trying to interpret the DMG as saying that the reduced activation time applies to items, and that it doesn't specifically say wands, thereby implying that a wand is not an item. Yeah, except the same book explicitly defines a wand as a certain kind of spell trigger item, so that argument's kind of up the creek.
OmNefarious 02-16-07, 12:40 PM	So does no one have an answer for my question? I just need to know if a Daelkyr-Half Blood Artificer can use the infusion Personal, Weapon Augmentation on his symbiont (a throwing scarab). Is it possible? I believe his symbiont counts as a natural weapon since he was born with it and his life depends on even though the symbiont is a seperate being.
aelryinth 02-16-07, 04:47 PM	So does no one have an answer for my question? I just need to know if a Daelkyr-Half Blood Artificer can use the infusion Personal, Weapon Augmentation on his symbiont (a throwing scarab). Is it possible? I believe his symbiont counts as a natural weapon since he was born with it and his life depends on even though the symbiont is a seperate being. I'd personally have no problem with it...if it's allowed to function on living beings/hands. I'm not sure personal weapon aug can function on non-construct beings, however. If an Artificer could infuse his hands with the Aug, then the half blood should be able to infuse his symbiont. ==Aelryinth
Edymnion 02-16-07, 04:50 PM	If your DM allows it, I believe it was MoE that had an infusion that could work on natural weapons. I know I don't allow it because it breaks the first rule of infusions, you can't cast them on anything but objects, and a natural weapon is not an object. But, if your DM allows that infusion tree, it should work.
Cabral 02-16-07, 08:23 PM	Except that this is a faulty argument, because we have, plainly written, that "Any metamagic used by an artificer increases the casting time". Its explicitly stated to be an exception. And the wording in the DMG also appears to be an exception to the standard casting time rule for a wand, as it specifically mentions using Quicken on a spell trigger item, and gaining the reduced activation time. I'm late so some quick counters: 1. The wand specific entry contradicts the general entry concerning metamagic and items therefore the wand entry trumps the general rule. 2. Actual rules trump examples, therefore wands can be quickened, but they still take a standard action to use.
OmNefarious 02-20-07, 10:20 AM	Ok forgot to add "Natural" to the whole list there. Sorry I got people confused. But I found out I over looked something. I checked the symbiont pages and found out that anytime a symbiont's host casts a spell, spell-like abiltiy, or anything of the like (including infusions I believe) it also affects the symbiont. So yes an Artificer with a symbiont could cast a Personal, Natural Weapon Augmentation on himself and it would affect his symbiont. Just gotta look at the books a little bit better. Thanks for everyones help that well...helped
Elderich 02-20-07, 12:00 PM	In both cases, Quicken is ineffective because there is a minimum casting time on wands and sorcerer spells. Most, if not all other metamagic work just fine.There is no minimum casting time on wands. The Spell compendium cannot errata the DMG on Items.
Edymnion 02-20-07, 12:43 PM	There is no minimum casting time on wands. The Spell compendium cannot errata the DMG on Items.Actually, it can. The official errata on polymorph went through several phases, all of which were in non-core books. If you get two differant copies of the same rule printed up in a book, the latest printing is considered to be the most correct.
Elderich 02-20-07, 02:01 PM	Actually, it can. The official errata on polymorph went through several phases, all of which were in non-core books. If you get two different copies of the same rule printed up in a book, the latest printing is considered to be the most correct.I understand what you are saying. But if you look at the beginning of any errata file we see primary sources trump secondary sources. Thus you may not update a primary source in a secondary source, as the primary ALWAYS has precedence even if it is really OLD. You may update one secondary source with a newer secondary. Do you agree? Now I THINK WotC really does not care about there own rules, but that is AFAIK, how it is supposed to work.
Edymnion 02-20-07, 06:22 PM	I understand what you are saying. But if you look at the beginning of any errata file we see primary sources trump secondary sources. Thus you may not update a primary source in a secondary source, as the primary ALWAYS has precedence even if it is really OLD. You may update one secondary source with a newer secondary. Do you agree?No, I do not agree. There is a differance between a casual conflict of rules and one book specifically and explicitely changing a rule. I believe PHB2 has the latest official version of the Polymorph line in it, and it isn't core. The only point of debate here is if the new rule is intentionally overwriting the old one (polymorph specifically says it is updating the old rule), or if it is an accidental conflict, in which case the core book precidence takes over.
yrogerg 02-20-07, 10:01 PM	No, I do not agree. There is a differance between a casual conflict of rules and one book specifically and explicitely changing a rule. I believe PHB2 has the latest official version of the Polymorph line in it, and it isn't core. The only point of debate here is if the new rule is intentionally overwriting the old one (polymorph specifically says it is updating the old rule), or if it is an accidental conflict, in which case the core book precidence takes over. Err, yes and no. The PHB II "strongly suggests" replacing the Polymorph tree with its own variant subschool, and says that its own rule *should* replace Polymorph if it is used, but being a secondary source, that's all it *can* do. It certainly doesn't make Polymorph not exist: it's toothless to "truly" erase old rules, it can only suggest alternatives. Completely rewriting the rules requires a new edition, even if it's only a "partial" edition change as with 3.5 The fact remains that the spells Polymorph, PAO and Shapechange, by default, still exist, even if the round of errata to the (first) PHB was intended to minimize the footprint of those spells. In fact, come to think of it, the Polymorph Subschool isn't even OGL. :P
Cabral 02-21-07, 08:35 AM	There is no minimum casting time on wands. The Spell compendium cannot errata the DMG on Items. The DMG implies there is. I think some of the revisions have been done in second hand books to avoid including the errata in the SRD and making it available to 3rd party d20 producers thereby increasing the sales of the books containing the errata. That's just a theory though.
Elderich 02-21-07, 04:34 PM	The DMG implies there is.The DMG implies that casting a sell from a trigger item should take as long as the spell does. Again the Sage has argues this quite eloquently.I think some of the revisions have been done in second hand books to avoid including the errata in the SRD and making it available to 3rd party d20 producers thereby increasing the sales of the books containing the errata. That's just a theory though.I think there are reasons they do what they do. All the ones I can think of reflect poorly on WotC.
Cabral 02-21-07, 07:49 PM	The DMG implies that casting a sell from a trigger item should take as long as the spell does. Again the Sage has argues this quite eloquently. I can be surprising what the Sage argues eloquently or not. ;) Activation Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast, however, has a longer casting time than 1 standard action, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.) So, a wand requires a standard action to use unless the spell requires longer. The Spell Errata Compendium just clarified/reinforced this.
glug 02-22-07, 11:43 AM	Well, by the SRD, it just says that it's usually a std action. It then adds in parenthesis that if the spell takes longer to cast, the wand takes longer to use. That would almost imply the inverse.. that if a spell can be cast quicker, the wand can be used quicker.. and thus a quickened spell in a wand can be cast swiftly.
Elderich 02-23-07, 07:13 PM	So, a wand requires a standard action to use unless the spell requires longer. The Spell Errata Compendium just clarified/reinforced this.Not quite. The DMG also says that a quickened spell effect is a Free Action. Thus it is suggesting/stating (IMHO) if a spell casting time is LESS than a standard action (quickened), the items activation time becomes that lesser amount. I think quicken was the only way to get a faster casting spell when this was written (no swift or immediate spells at this point.) In this context, it seems to me, the SC is entirely incorrect to suggest what it does. As I see it the DMG says activating a Spell Trigger Item is a stand action, or longer, or less, depending on the casting time of the spell. I could be convinced otherwise, but I haven't seen a good game balance/rule reason to.
Cabral 02-23-07, 07:23 PM	Not quite. The DMG also says that a quickened spell effect is a Free Action. A quickened spell is a Free/Swift action. ... unless cast by a sorcerer. A quickened spell effect is a Free/Swift action. ... unless cast from a wand. The specific rule overrides the general, not vice-versa. Now, feel free to argue that the wand rule is a clarification upon a rule, not a rule. That's an easier argument. :D Without the Spell Compendium, there's not much material to support a counter.
Elderich 02-23-07, 08:07 PM	A quickened spell effect is a Free/Swift action. ... unless cast from a wand.My point is the DMG Sepcificaly contradicts this. The DMG says a quickend spell effect from a wand is a free action.
spikegif 02-23-07, 11:41 PM	My point is the DMG Sepcificaly contradicts this. The DMG says a quickend spell effect from a wand is a free action. Where in the DMG is this stated? I do want to get in the middle of this, just looking for the correct answer. spikegif
Cabral 02-24-07, 01:58 AM	My point is the DMG Sepcificaly contradicts this. The DMG says a quickend spell effect from a wand is a free action. The DMG says a quickened spell effect from an item is a free action. It says this in the overview section, thus establishing a general rule. Without taking the position that the activation entry of the wand section is a clarification of the spell trigger entry activation method and claiming that the Spell Compendium cannot clarify the activation rules because the DMG is a primary source and the SC is a secondary source, you are stuck with wands require a minimum of a standard action to use. As we're primarily going back on forth, let me say that I don't think your view is invalid, nor do I think it is broken. I simply think the "official" rules interpretation is the one I stated.
Werebat 02-24-07, 01:22 PM	Wow -- excellent thread, Edymnion, thanks for all the work. One suggestion -- as far as races go, I think goblins make pretty good artificers. Goblins are pretty good at a lot of things but in Eberron they are much more of a playable race than in most other campaign settings. True, they have that -2 to Cha hit, but it's more or less balanced out by the +2 to Dex (both of these stats seem roughly equal in utility for the Artificer). Darkvision is always nice, small size is a bonus for the artificer as you point out, and the goblin's 30 foot movement rate for a small character is not to be underestimated. If I play an artificer in the near future, I'm pretty sure it will be a goblin. - Ron ^*^
Elderich 02-26-07, 11:22 AM	The DMG says a quickened spell effect from an item is a free action. It says this in the overview section, thus establishing a general rule. Without taking the position that the activation entry of the wand section is a clarification of the spell trigger entry activation method and claiming that the Spell Compendium cannot clarify the activation rules because the DMG is a primary source and the SC is a secondary source, you are stuck with wands require a minimum of a standard action to use.Fair enough. I think you missed that the wand section does not have rules for Meta Magic spell effects in a wand, thus the general rule has not been overruled, and holds for wands. And while many such discussions are rather offensive, I much appreciate your civility, Cabral.
Edymnion 02-26-07, 12:24 PM	Wow -- excellent thread, Edymnion, thanks for all the work. One suggestion -- as far as races go, I think goblins make pretty good artificers. Goblins are pretty good at a lot of things but in Eberron they are much more of a playable race than in most other campaign settings. True, they have that -2 to Cha hit, but it's more or less balanced out by the +2 to Dex (both of these stats seem roughly equal in utility for the Artificer). Darkvision is always nice, small size is a bonus for the artificer as you point out, and the goblin's 30 foot movement rate for a small character is not to be underestimated. If I play an artificer in the near future, I'm pretty sure it will be a goblin. - Ron ^*^Oh yeah, totally. I just wanted to limit things to the PHB/ECS races, although the goblin is totally doable. I just love the image of the goblin sewer rat artificer. He's the guy that picks through your garbage to find bits and pieces of things, and cobbles together magical goodies. Gobbo Artificer even comes with a built in catch phrase, "You'd be surprised what people just throw away!". Give him the Artisan feat to reduce the gp required, and say he's using trash for building materials, which is why he can do it cheaper than everybody else. Yeah, I've had one of these guys on the back burner for months waiting for a chance to come out.
glug 02-26-07, 01:05 PM	Oh yeah, totally. I just wanted to limit things to the PHB/ECS races, although the goblin is totally doable. I just love the image of the goblin sewer rat artificer. He's the guy that picks through your garbage to find bits and pieces of things, and cobbles together magical goodies. Gobbo Artificer even comes with a built in catch phrase, "You'd be surprised what people just throw away!". Give him the Artisan feat to reduce the gp required, and say he's using trash for building materials, which is why he can do it cheaper than everybody else. Yeah, I've had one of these guys on the back burner for months waiting for a chance to come out. I'm totally re-rolling my artificer, now that I've got a handle on the setting and see no problem with gobbos players =)
Cabral 02-26-07, 09:41 PM	And while many such discussions are rather offensive, I much appreciate your civility, Cabral. Thank you, for the comment and your own civility. I come here to relax and endulge in debate so moments like these are a true joy. :)
Edymnion 02-28-07, 06:05 PM	I'm totally re-rolling my artificer, now that I've got a handle on the setting and see no problem with gobbos players =)Yup, they're still considered second class citizens, but they are citizens.
awaken_D_M_golem 02-28-07, 07:09 PM	Hey guys , a minor question : The caster level for Wand Surge feat is a minimum of 3rd level. And the Artificer gets the +2 level thingy. So can an Arty wand surge at level 1 , or do they have to wait for 3rd level ? thanks ahead of time.
Cabral 03-01-07, 12:23 AM	The +2 caster level is for creating items only.