Did someone really think Extraordinary Artisan was balanced? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Did someone really think Extraordinary Artisan was balanced? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
thadrine
02-07-07, 07:57 AM A player built an Artificer for an upcoming game, and I am rather new to the Eberron setting. I saw the Extraordinary Artisan feat, and that you could take it multiple times. Thought wow that's great, we were starting out at 9th level, so he had a several page list of starting magical items. He took the feat 4 times, at which point I decided he should probably scrap the whole thing, since there is no way this can balanced, and the errata confirms.
How did anyone ever think that this could ever be balanced?
Is it fair to enforce errata rules?
He gave the argument that, why are we using a book, if we can not use the book?
Cifer
02-07-07, 08:06 AM The books of WotC are generally full of errors. Although there are some points where I definitely don't like the errata (the True Creation spelllike of the Heir of Syberis costing 1 XP per gold piece value would be one), in other cases, they are outright necessary.
The White Sorcerer
02-07-07, 08:20 AM Is it fair to enforce errata rules?

Yes.
PoeticJustice
02-07-07, 08:59 AM It's not an issue of errata. I've had to deal with this situation in one of my games and, if I recall correctly, although the table footnotes indicate that you can take that feat multiple times, the actual text of the feat does not. As the feat's actual text always takes precedence over the quick-reference table, it is correct to allow your player to take the feat only once.
Subtle Knife
02-07-07, 09:28 AM Sounds to me like he's being a smartass. Your the DM, enforce the rules as you deem necessary! If it is written in the official errata and you agree with it, he hasn't a leg to stand on.

SK
Ozymandias V.
02-07-07, 12:08 PM The player is just angry that he can't do something that is clearly horribly broken (so much so that he shouldn't be trying to do it in the first place). The feat itself, as has been stated, does not say you can take it multiple times. The feat's entry supercedes the table. Tell the player to kindly shut his noise hole.
thadrine
02-07-07, 03:59 PM Me and him both worked long and hard to build this character. Then when it all started stacking up, I became very concerned as how balanced this really was. Looked at the errata and sure enough, my worries were validated.
UnderworldLord
02-07-07, 07:25 PM I would go with what PoeticJustice said on this one.
Ph0eNiX
02-08-07, 01:11 AM "Fine, we can use the book. As the text of the feat (located on page 53) does not specifically state that you can take the feat multiple times, you can only select it once."

And thus, you don't even need to point to the errata. And, you don't even need to haul out the answer that text supercedes table (which is itself printed in a FAQ or Errata document by this point, I'm sure).
Salla
02-09-07, 02:31 AM Besides, even if they did stack, they wouldn't stack like that.

The first one knocks off 25%, leaving 75.
The second one knocks 25% off of THAT, leaving 56.25.
The third one knocks 25% off of that, leaving 42.1875
The fourth one knocks 25% off of that, leaving 31.640625.

But yes, enforcing errata is perfectly fair.
Artector
02-09-07, 10:38 PM Or you could really screw him and say it can be taken multiple times. Only they don't stack. Then let him take it 4 times.

YOU are the DM, tell him that its BS and that he can't take it 4 times.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
thadrine 02-07-07, 07:57 AM	A player built an Artificer for an upcoming game, and I am rather new to the Eberron setting. I saw the Extraordinary Artisan feat, and that you could take it multiple times. Thought wow that's great, we were starting out at 9th level, so he had a several page list of starting magical items. He took the feat 4 times, at which point I decided he should probably scrap the whole thing, since there is no way this can balanced, and the errata confirms. How did anyone ever think that this could ever be balanced? Is it fair to enforce errata rules? He gave the argument that, why are we using a book, if we can not use the book?
Cifer 02-07-07, 08:06 AM	The books of WotC are generally full of errors. Although there are some points where I definitely don't like the errata (the True Creation spelllike of the Heir of Syberis costing 1 XP per gold piece value would be one), in other cases, they are outright necessary.
The White Sorcerer 02-07-07, 08:20 AM	Is it fair to enforce errata rules? Yes.
PoeticJustice 02-07-07, 08:59 AM	It's not an issue of errata. I've had to deal with this situation in one of my games and, if I recall correctly, although the table footnotes indicate that you can take that feat multiple times, the actual text of the feat does not. As the feat's actual text always takes precedence over the quick-reference table, it is correct to allow your player to take the feat only once.
Subtle Knife 02-07-07, 09:28 AM	Sounds to me like he's being a smartass. Your the DM, enforce the rules as you deem necessary! If it is written in the official errata and you agree with it, he hasn't a leg to stand on. SK
Ozymandias V. 02-07-07, 12:08 PM	The player is just angry that he can't do something that is clearly horribly broken (so much so that he shouldn't be trying to do it in the first place). The feat itself, as has been stated, does not say you can take it multiple times. The feat's entry supercedes the table. Tell the player to kindly shut his noise hole.
thadrine 02-07-07, 03:59 PM	Me and him both worked long and hard to build this character. Then when it all started stacking up, I became very concerned as how balanced this really was. Looked at the errata and sure enough, my worries were validated.
UnderworldLord 02-07-07, 07:25 PM	I would go with what PoeticJustice said on this one.
Ph0eNiX 02-08-07, 01:11 AM	"Fine, we can use the book. As the text of the feat (located on page 53) does not specifically state that you can take the feat multiple times, you can only select it once." And thus, you don't even need to point to the errata. And, you don't even need to haul out the answer that text supercedes table (which is itself printed in a FAQ or Errata document by this point, I'm sure).
Salla 02-09-07, 02:31 AM	Besides, even if they did stack, they wouldn't stack like that. The first one knocks off 25%, leaving 75. The second one knocks 25% off of THAT, leaving 56.25. The third one knocks 25% off of that, leaving 42.1875 The fourth one knocks 25% off of that, leaving 31.640625. But yes, enforcing errata is perfectly fair.
Artector 02-09-07, 10:38 PM	Or you could really screw him and say it can be taken multiple times. Only they don't stack. Then let him take it 4 times. YOU are the DM, tell him that its BS and that he can't take it 4 times.