Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JulesLetters 10-10-06, 01:27 PM	The example for a Minor Schema (from Magic of Eberron) is one that allows usage of Continual Flame. The text specifically states that spells in (on?) a schema cannot have costly material components, costly focii, or an XP cost. It goes on to say how street lamps could quickly be made like this... So what's going on? Is this an error, or a special case? Even if the spell was Continual Light, that has a costly focus. I really would love to have a Minor Schema for Continual Flame, but I'm not sure which way this is supposed to go. Any insights? (First posted on the D&D general boards)
Calestin Kethal 10-10-06, 02:43 PM	While it's not official, my GM and I discussed it when it popped up when we started our current campaign. After reading all the attendant information, we decided that "costly" in this case, was anything over 100gp. Cause in the grand scheme of spells, 100gp is kinda chump.
JulesLetters 10-10-06, 03:26 PM	Doesn't this validate things like Restoration, Identify (woo!), Wall of Iron, Create Undead, Curse Water, Bless Water, Permanent Image, Illusory Script, Phantom Trap, Legend Lore Mostly I'm worried about Identify, Restoration, Create Undead, and Wall of Iron. Legend Lore can be a bit much too. Sure, all of this is only once per day, but I think a sensible person would buy (or make) a Schema of Identify and save hundreds of GP every time they find a new item. It seems to go against the usual 'nothing for free' business. Then again, I suppose it's been broken before. I'll definately keep the idea in mind, because I do like it from a game standpoint, even if I don't like it from a mechanics standpoint. :D Thanks for the advice! :)
Euangelion 10-10-06, 03:35 PM	Yeah, it's probably errata, but if you want to go with the 100 gp limit, why not? It's your game.
Calestin Kethal 10-10-06, 04:08 PM	Doesn't this validate things like Restoration, Identify (woo!), Wall of Iron, Create Undead, Curse Water, Bless Water, Permanent Image, Illusory Script, Phantom Trap, Legend Lore Mostly I'm worried about Identify, Restoration, Create Undead, and Wall of Iron. Legend Lore can be a bit much too. Sure, all of this is only once per day, but I think a sensible person would buy (or make) a Schema of Identify and save hundreds of GP every time they find a new item. Yes, cost wise, it validates everything else on your list. But we were doing it on a case by case basis, depending on use and potential abuse of the schema and the spell in question, the baseline was 100gp. The specific choice was made for identify. Identify 1/day isn't all that over the top. Some of the other spells might be. Heck even wall of iron isn't bad assuming you're not breaking it down to sell. :rolleyes: It would vary by game, so YMMV. edit: And depending on the game, just how rare/common is the knowledge of making a schema? Sure, it's a feat, but it doesn't mean that's it's a common feat, especially with a caster level of 10 as the prereq.
Forged_Fury 10-11-06, 07:41 AM	Sure, all of this is only once per day, but I think a sensible person would buy (or make) a Schema of Identify and save hundreds of GP every time they find a new item. Well, an Artificer could create a schema of Identify by emulating the 2nd Level Divine Spell, which requires no costly material component. This would raise the general price of the schema, but allows it to happen anyway. -FF
Euangelion 10-11-06, 04:21 PM	Or have someone with the Least Mark of Finding (identify) produce it for you!
DarkPawn 10-11-06, 05:26 PM	Well, an Artificer could create a schema of Identify by emulating the 2nd Level Divine Spell, which requires no costly material component. This would raise the general price of the schema, but allows it to happen anyway. -FF What is this Divine Spell called that emulates Identify? Just curious, new to 3.5 and this strikes me as kind of odd and belittling to arcanists.
travellersside 10-11-06, 06:41 PM	What is this Divine Spell called that emulates Identify? Just curious, new to 3.5 and this strikes me as kind of odd and belittling to arcanists. It's called Identify. It doesn't emulate the spell - it is the spell. You get it as the second level spell in the Magic domain, although it's likely to be in a couple of others. Clerics of Aureon rejoice. You see, Identify only costs you a pearl if you're casting it as an arcane caster. That's why it's an arcane material component - if you cast it as a non-arcane, you don't need it. Incidentally, Artificers don't cast spells, they have infusions that are specifically non-arcane (and non-divine). So, since they've got Identify as a first level infusion... it's free too. You only pay if it's arcane.
Tyryt 10-11-06, 07:41 PM	travelsersside is correct, artificer infusions that are the same as others spells (anything on their list that is not solely an infusion) do not require the arcane material component. There is a FAQ on that very subject here-abouts somewhere, it was pretty recent. In light of that, however, some GMs are still requiring them for some spells (such as the aforementioned Identify). Another nifty thing to keep in mind, is that the Etch Schema feat allows you to make a Schema of ANY spell or infusion (says so right in the feat), however, only Minor Schemas have so far been detailed, so if you want to make regular schemas, Greater Schemas and Patterns, you'll need to work out the rules yourself. :)
DarkPawn 10-12-06, 01:00 AM	You see, Identify only costs you a pearl if you're casting it as an arcane caster. That's why it's an arcane material component - if you cast it as a non-arcane, you don't need it. :confused: I never realized this. This seems kind of a gross injustice to arcane spell casters. Why would a wizard or sorceror need to spend 100gp per identify when an artificer and cleric can do it for free? Shouldn't identifying magical items still be more of an arcane spell caster specialty?
Calestin Kethal 10-12-06, 03:08 AM	Shouldn't identifying magical items still be more of an arcane spell caster specialty? In theory, it still is... sort of. Think of it this way: If you have 100 wizards, 100 sorcerers, 100 clerics, and 100 artificers all gathered in a room, how many of them have the ability to use identify via spellcasting, infusions, or spell completion items (such as scrolls and schemas) without resorting to UMD (use-mangle device)? All the wizards, all the sorcerers, all the artificers, but only clerics with the Magic Domain. In theory there are more total sorcerers and wizards capable of identify than there are total artificers and clerics. So, still more of an arcane caster specialty. Your game may vary these (loose) theories dramatically. :)
DarkPawn 10-12-06, 04:03 AM	In theory, it still is... sort of. Think of it this way: If you have 100 wizards, 100 sorcerers, 100 clerics, and 100 artificers all gathered in a room, how many of them have the ability to use identify via spellcasting, infusions, or spell completion items (such as scrolls and schemas) without resorting to UMD (use-mangle device)? All the wizards, all the sorcerers, all the artificers, but only clerics with the Magic Domain. In theory there are more total sorcerers and wizards capable of identify than there are total artificers and clerics. So, still more of an arcane caster specialty. Your game may vary these (loose) theories dramatically. :) Gotcha and I agree with your loose statistical data. I just think it is kind of a shaft for them to pay 100 gp when the other classes don't. When did they change spell components to only arcane use? I could have sworn 2nd Edition had just as many components for clerics.
travellersside 10-12-06, 04:11 AM	They didn't. It's just that some components are marked as arcane only, or for that matter, divine only. They're in a minority though. What's irritating is how pointless most of them are, which is understandable if you just bear the history in mind: When they were originally proposed, way back in the early editions :) they were entirely optional - it said so clearly in the introduction to the spellcasting chapter "optional Rule", it said. Which is why they're all essentially bad puns - they were intended to raise a smile. Now they're compulsory, and to be honest, I don't think that anybody found them funny anyway. Me? I'm happy enough to still class them as optional, and to opt out ;)
Calestin Kethal 10-12-06, 04:39 AM	I don't think that anybody found them funny anyway. I dunno, the original component for detect thoughts was a penny. How can you not smile? A penny for your thoughts.... And yes, I agree that the pearl for identify is excessive. At least casters don't have to find and eat live goldfish anymore.
travellersside 10-12-06, 07:56 AM	I dunno, the original component for detect thoughts was a penny. How can you not smile? A penny for your thoughts.... ;) Well, since the game only had metallic coinage - copper, silver, electrum, gold & platinum - evidently there was no such thing as a penny, and thus the spell could never be cast! ;)
glug 10-12-06, 08:50 AM	Shouldn't identifying magical items still be more of an arcane spell caster specialty? On the contrary, it makes sense for artificers to have the easiest methods of identifying items. They spend their life learning how to manipulate powerful effects into and out of mundane items. They know their way around how things work (magic or otherwise) better than anyone, and for them, identifying the true nature of an item is not something which should require a ritual, some magical energy, and some costly pearl. It's something which requires a bit of study and recognition.
Forged_Fury 10-12-06, 09:17 AM	Seconding Glug here. If you think about it, Artificers receive all of the Magical Crafting Feats for free... so they probably know a thing or two about the inner workings of the things. -Forged_Fury
DarkPawn 10-12-06, 03:46 PM	On the contrary, it makes sense for artificers to have the easiest methods of identifying items. They spend their life learning how to manipulate powerful effects into and out of mundane items. They know their way around how things work (magic or otherwise) better than anyone, and for them, identifying the true nature of an item is not something which should require a ritual, some magical energy, and some costly pearl. It's something which requires a bit of study and recognition. I couldn't disagree with you more. Artificers have no clue how "real" magic works. They emulate and manipulate but don't grasp the real framework. An artificer makes a magic wand and still has to make UMD checks every time he wants to use it. The reason is, even though he made it, he really has no clue how it really works. Again he manipulates and emulates magic but it is not the same thing as really understanding it. So why all of a sudden would an artificer have an easier time identifying an arcane or divine created magical item better then a wizard or cleric respectively? They shouldn't...plain and simple.
darkthought 10-12-06, 04:57 PM	I couldn't disagree with you more. Artificers have no clue how "real" magic works. They emulate and manipulate but don't grasp the real framework. An artificer makes a magic wand and still has to make UMD checks every time he wants to use it. The reason is, even though he made it, he really has no clue how it really works. Again he manipulates and emulates magic but it is not the same thing as really understanding it. So why all of a sudden would an artificer have an easier time identifying an arcane or divine created magical item better then a wizard or cleric respectively? They shouldn't...plain and simple. I will disagree here, and this is basically my opinion on magic, in which parts of it have been stolen from these boards, Eberron, and my own musings. Artificers know EXACTLY how magic works. Or at least they think they do. (To be perfectly honest, all casters think they know how it exactly works, nevermind that any two Magic Missle spells will be cast differently by any two wizards.) Artificers know the underlying foundation of magic. They know the pattern, the formula, the equation of the thing. That's why the can make magic items, both arcane and divine, without having to know the spells. They "tweak" the pattern by using known formulas to get the desired result. UMD for an artificer is a skill, just like advanced calculus is a skill. Wizards know the ART of magic. Speaking the correct words (for that caster) and waving your hand in the right pattern creates the desired result. They are able to instill their art into object using the methods they that know. Thus, the requirement to have knowlege of a spell, or a scroll of the spell to make a magic item. Sorcerers are different than wizards in that they know the spell, and practice the art, except that they don't need to learn it as a wizard does, they instinctively know it. The difference I like to think of is that a sorcerer is someone who's naturally talented. Like an artist who can draw very well without having to take art classes. A wizard has to study, and so they're the artist who's taken the art classes and do not have the natural instincts. Divine magic is different, in that it's more of a prayer for intercession of your god / nature / supernatural force. That comes from faith, and the knowledge of the words and motions comes from that faith. The power and fundamentals are the same as arcane, except it's harnessed differently. Psionics are a strange animal. It's not magic, but harnesses the same power. I consider it the difference between base-10 math and base 16 math. The number 32 in base-10 is 20 in base-16. They're different, but are equal.
DarkPawn 10-12-06, 05:41 PM	I will disagree here, and this is basically my opinion on magic, in which parts of it have been stolen from these boards, Eberron, and my own musings. Artificers know EXACTLY how magic works. Or at least they think they do. (To be perfectly honest, all casters think they know how it exactly works, nevermind that any two Magic Missle spells will be cast differently by any two wizards.) Artificers know the underlying foundation of magic. They know the pattern, the formula, the equation of the thing. That's why the can make magic items, both arcane and divine, without having to know the spells. They "tweak" the pattern by using known formulas to get the desired result. UMD for an artificer is a skill, just like advanced calculus is a skill. Wizards know the ART of magic. Speaking the correct words (for that caster) and waving your hand in the right pattern creates the desired result. They are able to instill their art into object using the methods they that know. Thus, the requirement to have knowlege of a spell, or a scroll of the spell to make a magic item. Sorcerers are different than wizards in that they know the spell, and practice the art, except that they don't need to learn it as a wizard does, they instinctively know it. The difference I like to think of is that a sorcerer is someone who's naturally talented. Like an artist who can draw very well without having to take art classes. A wizard has to study, and so they're the artist who's taken the art classes and do not have the natural instincts. Divine magic is different, in that it's more of a prayer for intercession of your god / nature / supernatural force. That comes from faith, and the knowledge of the words and motions comes from that faith. The power and fundamentals are the same as arcane, except it's harnessed differently. Psionics are a strange animal. It's not magic, but harnesses the same power. I consider it the difference between base-10 math and base 16 math. The number 32 in base-10 is 20 in base-16. They're different, but are equal. I will merely respond that Artificer's have to "emulate" magic. In order to do this, they have to make numerous checks. If they fail they fail to emulate the spell. This implies that the Artificer does not completely grasp how the spell works. If they did, like a wizard they wouldn't have to emulate a magic missile spell. No matter what level an Artificer is they have to make an UMD. Granted later they have an almost flawless chance of emulating a spell but they still can fail. With that said, one could definately argue that an artificer never completely understands the spell they are trying to emulate. Plain and simple, if you have to make a check to do it, you don't know how to do it. The dice add an element of skill and plain old luck. When you master a skill or completely understand it, you don't need skill or plain old luck anymore. You have the knowledge and nobody can take that away from you. This is my argument.
Calestin Kethal 10-12-06, 06:36 PM	;) Well, since the game only had metallic coinage - copper, silver, electrum, gold & platinum - evidently there was no such thing as a penny, and thus the spell could never be cast! ;) I'm sorry, I meant a copper piece. You do know that pennies (in the US at least) are made of copper? :)
trevg 10-12-06, 07:27 PM	The example for a Minor Schema (from Magic of Eberron) is one that allows usage of Continual Flame. The text specifically states that spells in (on?) a schema cannot have costly material components, costly focii, or an XP cost. It goes on to say how street lamps could quickly be made like this... So what's going on? Is this an error, or a special case? Even if the spell was Continual Light, that has a costly focus. I really would love to have a Minor Schema for Continual Flame, but I'm not sure which way this is supposed to go. Any insights? (First posted on the D&D general boards) I think the example in MoE is referring to 2 different types of schema. The first (the Cont Light example) is referred to as being a simple pattern ( a pattern being multiple schemas), while the spell examples are referred to as minor schemas and are subject to the indicated limitations. This is my interpretation however and yours may differ, but I am looking at the schemas as three different types of items Minor - The spell storing schemas described in MoE Moderate Schemas - Schemas or patterns allowing for minor magical modifications to existing spells (ex: allowing a magewright to create a hundred light stones with one casting of a continual light spell, or allowing a longsword +1 to be crafted using half exp or a break in the materials cost, or allowing wands of cure light crafted with the schema to be set with maximized etc) Major - A series of schema allowing for the creation of Warforged or the blowing up of countries. Just a thought Trevor
darkthought 10-12-06, 08:48 PM	I will merely respond that Artificer's have to "emulate" magic. In order to do this, they have to make numerous checks. If they fail they fail to emulate the spell. This implies that the Artificer does not completely grasp how the spell works. If they did, like a wizard they wouldn't have to emulate a magic missile spell. No matter what level an Artificer is they have to make an UMD. Granted later they have an almost flawless chance of emulating a spell but they still can fail. With that said, one could definately argue that an artificer never completely understands the spell they are trying to emulate. Plain and simple, if you have to make a check to do it, you don't know how to do it. The dice add an element of skill and plain old luck. When you master a skill or completely understand it, you don't need skill or plain old luck anymore. You have the knowledge and nobody can take that away from you. This is my argument. Nevermind they have infusions. They're making the skill check to make something permanent, not fire off a Fireball. A wizard is pulling a spell from memory, as opposed to pulling it out of nowhere. As for mastering a skill, there always ALWAYS some part of luck in it. Your materials might be bad and cause a failure, or you'll forget something. Humans are not perfect, and niether are wizards. If they totally mastered their arts, they wouldn't have a need to go past 1st level. They also wouldn't have to make an attack roll, or damage roll. Their mastery makes it an always hit, always max damage spell. There is no such thing as complete mastery. If there was, the Spellcraft skill would be unneeded. There's always room for improvement. Wizards are reciting from memory, while artificers, when creating magic items, ARE practicing a skill. Just like the cooper, alchemist, weaponsmith. I'd say the weaponsmith knows more about the weapon than the warrior that swings it. The warrior knows that the pointy side goes into the bad man in various ways, it cuts well, and looks nice. But the person who made it knows the type of metal, how long it took to forge it, how tough the steel should be, and how he made that cool design that runs down the length of the blade. I think there's a reason why House Cannith is known for its artificers and not its wizards. Again, I liken it to artists vs scientists. I cannot draw worth a crap, but I have friends who can make great illustrations without any preparation. But sit them infront of an Electron Microscope, and they sit there with a glazed look in their eyes. Put me on front of it, and I'll take some nice pictures for you, tell you what it's made out of, and possibly some 3-D stuff if the equipment allows. I've always respected wizards more than sorcerers, since they require work to do magic, instead of innate talent. I respect artificers more than wizards because to me, they are the scientists of magic. I think we just have a difference in opinion in the nature of magic. I see it as a science, and you see it as an art that the artificers are faking. Let's just agree to disagree.
DarkPawn 10-12-06, 11:41 PM	Nevermind they have infusions. They're making the skill check to make something permanent, not fire off a Fireball. A wizard is pulling a spell from memory, as opposed to pulling it out of nowhere. As for mastering a skill, there always ALWAYS some part of luck in it. Your materials might be bad and cause a failure, or you'll forget something. Humans are not perfect, and niether are wizards. If they totally mastered their arts, they wouldn't have a need to go past 1st level. They also wouldn't have to make an attack roll, or damage roll. Their mastery makes it an always hit, always max damage spell. There is no such thing as complete mastery. If there was, the Spellcraft skill would be unneeded. There's always room for improvement. Wizards are reciting from memory, while artificers, when creating magic items, ARE practicing a skill. Just like the cooper, alchemist, weaponsmith. I'd say the weaponsmith knows more about the weapon than the warrior that swings it. The warrior knows that the pointy side goes into the bad man in various ways, it cuts well, and looks nice. But the person who made it knows the type of metal, how long it took to forge it, how tough the steel should be, and how he made that cool design that runs down the length of the blade. I think there's a reason why House Cannith is known for its artificers and not its wizards. Again, I liken it to artists vs scientists. I cannot draw worth a crap, but I have friends who can make great illustrations without any preparation. But sit them infront of an Electron Microscope, and they sit there with a glazed look in their eyes. Put me on front of it, and I'll take some nice pictures for you, tell you what it's made out of, and possibly some 3-D stuff if the equipment allows. I've always respected wizards more than sorcerers, since they require work to do magic, instead of innate talent. I respect artificers more than wizards because to me, they are the scientists of magic. I think we just have a difference in opinion in the nature of magic. I see it as a science, and you see it as an art that the artificers are faking. Let's just agree to disagree. I don't have to agree to disagree because I actually see your point of view. I am not saying you're wrong. I agree with a lot of your views. It is nice when two people can have two different opinions. That is what makes this game one of the best. :)
DarkPawn 10-13-06, 12:13 AM	travelsersside is correct, artificer infusions that are the same as others spells (anything on their list that is not solely an infusion) do not require the arcane material component. There is a FAQ on that very subject here-abouts somewhere, it was pretty recent. Was just looking through Eberron Campaign Setting Errata and it kind of disagrees with this point. "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 requireseither an arcane focus or a divine focus, the artificer uses the arcane material component or arcane focus." So wouldn't this basically say very clearly that you need the 100 gp pearl to infuse identify?
JulesLetters 10-13-06, 09:53 AM	It's called Identify. It doesn't emulate the spell - it is the spell. You get it as the second level spell in the Magic domain, although it's likely to be in a couple of others. Clerics of Aureon rejoice. You see, Identify only costs you a pearl if you're casting it as an arcane caster. That's why it's an arcane material component - if you cast it as a non-arcane, you don't need it. Incidentally, Artificers don't cast spells, they have infusions that are specifically non-arcane (and non-divine). So, since they've got Identify as a first level infusion... it's free too. You only pay if it's arcane. Continual Flame still has a problem, though, because the material component isn't arcane-specific or divine-specific. Am I overlooking something? Was just looking through Eberron Campaign Setting Errata and it kind of disagrees with this point. "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 requireseither an arcane focus or a divine focus, the artificer uses the arcane material component or arcane focus." So wouldn't this basically say very clearly that you need the 100 gp pearl to infuse identify? Whoops. Which is more recent, the FAQ or the Errata? I'm off to peruse the website! Edit: Upon study, I come to the conclusion that while infusions are as stated as requiring the arcane material component or focus (I'm refering to the errata above), an artificer's infusions don't even qualify as spell prerequisites for crafting items (Last paragraph above Bonus Feats on page 32). Emulating the spell to be divine for the sake of item crafting is therefore valid (even if the item created isn't divine or arcane). So Identify does work after all! However, there's still trouble with Continual Flame, which requires a material component (not just an arcane one). Maybe an artificer doesn't need material components at all when making an item? There doesn't seem to be a mention of them under Item Creation (Ex)...
DarkPawn 10-13-06, 01:11 PM	Continual So Identify does work after all! You lost me here. The Errata is discussing casting infusions. It says if an infusion has a material component or divine focus you use the material component. So the identify infusion would require 100 gp pearl. Or am I missing something here?
glug 10-13-06, 01:49 PM	I like the warrior/weaponsmith analogy. Someone else had posted more flavorfully the mechanics of being an artificer, and I'm going to paraphrase it roughly here: An artificer knows how things work, inside and out. Magic items (other than spell completion/trigger items) are not duplicating a spell, but rather, having an effect which is quite similar to a spell. For example, Boots of Speed requires the haste spell when being created. The effect of Boots of Speed is that when they are 'activated', they increase your speed for a time. In order to create such an item, the effect of increased speed has to be imbued into the mundane boots. The standard way that this has been done is for a wizard or such to cast a haste spell, from memory or a scroll, and imbue that effect into the object. Bear in mind that this is an effect being produced and imbued into the object.. it is not the normal haste spell. You cannot target a pair of boots with a haste spell, nor will those boots suddenly be activatable for a minute a day, broken out however you like, every day. Now an artificer goes about this a completely different way. They look at the desired item... boots that imbue upon their caster an increased speed for a period of time each day when activated. And they know how such an effect can be created.. how the very substance of an item can be altered to produce the desired effect. And they work with that mundane item to produce that 'magical' result. When you and I are sitting in a room, pencils, paper and dice, we use a set of rules that allow for a UMD skill check to produce the desired effect with a difficulty class which is set in relation to the level of the spell that would typically be used to produce such an effect. However, it is apples and oranges "in game". Think of a necklace of beads being constructed, and suddenly going "ok guys, I need a big fiery explosion in a moment here, so that I can write the very essence of that idea to my 'DNA', and you'll be able to throw my beads to produce that same effect later". On the one hand, you can cast a fireball INTO the item, which consequently doesn't end up blowing up your lab. On the other hand, you can tinker and fiddle and manipulate the DNA directly so that the item knows what it needs to do. Hope tha makes sense.. As far as crafting with infusions goes, and the strange example used with a light spell, check out this thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=719742 And lastly, as far as the 100gp pearl goes with Identify... The FAQ and Sage Advice both said that you don't need it. The Eratta is official, however, and the FAQ and Sage Advice apparently tend to be horsecrap and wrong. That being said, I will never mention this to my DM, as I enjoy not having to blow a wad of cash every time I want to find out what something is.
JulesLetters 10-13-06, 01:51 PM	You lost me here. The Errata is discussing casting infusions. It says if an infusion has a material component or divine focus you use the material component. So the identify infusion would require 100 gp pearl. Or am I missing something here? Infusion-casting items can't be crafted. Yes, the Identify infusion would require a 100 gp pearl. No, making an item with Identify (spell, not infusion) would not cost you that, because you could duplicate it as a divine spell (spell level 2, mind)
DarkPawn 10-13-06, 02:34 PM	Infusion-casting items can't be crafted. Yes, the Identify infusion would require a 100 gp pearl. No, making an item with Identify (spell, not infusion) would not cost you that, because you could duplicate it as a divine spell (spell level 2, mind) The errata where it discusses what I posted is under "Infusions" not craft items. You're looking at it as a craft item thing, it is not. The artificer Identify infusion is a first level spell. The 2nd level identify is only for clerics with the magic domain. You don't pick which one you cast..there is no difference between the identify that a first level wizard can cast or the one a cleric with magic domain can cast. As a cleric you don't have to use arcane material components. That is obvious. However, it directly states in the errata that if there is an arcane focus or divine focus you use the arcane material components for the infusion. You don't pick to cast identify as divine or arcane as an artificer. I think that is clearly stated in the errata too. If you were going to allow an artificer to cast identify infusion you'd have to say it was a 2nd level infusion then...instead of a 1st level infusion. This is an exploitation of the rules though because nowhere does it say an artificer can pick to cast a spell as divine or arcane specifically. The artificer infusion is a 1st level spell, so it is obviously en par with the wizard version anyway.
JulesLetters 10-13-06, 03:08 PM	The errata where it discusses what I posted is under "Infusions" not craft items. You're looking at it as a craft item thing, it is not. The artificer Identify infusion is a first level spell. The 2nd level identify is only for clerics with the magic domain. You don't pick which one you cast..there is no difference between the identify that a first level wizard can cast or the one a cleric with magic domain can cast. As a cleric you don't have to use arcane material components. That is obvious. However, it directly states in the errata that if there is an arcane focus or divine focus you use the arcane material components for the infusion. You don't pick to cast identify as divine or arcane as an artificer. I think that is clearly stated in the errata too. If you were going to allow an artificer to cast identify infusion you'd have to say it was a 2nd level infusion then...instead of a 1st level infusion. This is an exploitation of the rules though because nowhere does it say an artificer can pick to cast a spell as divine or arcane specifically. The artificer infusion is a 1st level spell, so it is obviously en par with the wizard version anyway. I think this thread has diverged into two seperate topics, and I'm looking at one while you look at another. I feel I'm fairly mixed up. :) I'm speaking of Minor Schemas, and material components in the spells on them. An Artificer would cast exactly how you say. However, I'm talking about the creation of a magic item, and infusions don't go into magic items- spells do. Emulated spells, at that. Those aren't infusions at all, don't need to be specifically divine or arcane, and as a result the Artificer can choose between the better- divine or arcane- when emulating. I've likely drawn very poor conclusions here, but that's what I've gathered so far. :)
darkthought 10-13-06, 03:20 PM	I think this thread has diverged into two seperate topics, and I'm looking at one while you look at another. I feel I'm fairly mixed up. :) I'm speaking of Minor Schemas, and material components in the spells on them. An Artificer would cast exactly how you say. However, I'm talking about the creation of a magic item, and infusions don't go into magic items- spells do. Emulated spells, at that. Those aren't infusions at all, don't need to be specifically divine or arcane, and as a result the Artificer can choose between the better- divine or arcane- when emulating. I've likely drawn very poor conclusions here, but that's what I've gathered so far. :) Yes, my bad for derailing part of the topic. Had to rant about the nature of magic, imho. :)
DarkPawn 10-13-06, 03:50 PM	I think this thread has diverged into two seperate topics, and I'm looking at one while you look at another. I feel I'm fairly mixed up. :) I'm speaking of Minor Schemas, and material components in the spells on them. An Artificer would cast exactly how you say. However, I'm talking about the creation of a magic item, and infusions don't go into magic items- spells do. Emulated spells, at that. Those aren't infusions at all, don't need to be specifically divine or arcane, and as a result the Artificer can choose between the better- divine or arcane- when emulating. I've likely drawn very poor conclusions here, but that's what I've gathered so far. :) So what you're saying is if you're going to make a magical item with the "identify" ability, you could pick the divine version and not have to spend a 100 gp pearl. What I was refering to is actually casting the identify infusion, which requires a 100 gp pearl. Is this the confusion on my part?
JulesLetters 10-13-06, 04:17 PM	So what you're saying is if you're going to make a magical item with the "identify" ability, you could pick the divine version and not have to spend a 100 gp pearl. What I was refering to is actually casting the identify infusion, which requires a 100 gp pearl. Is this the confusion on my part? Both our parts, I'm afraid. However, yes, this conclusion is correct.
DarkPawn 10-13-06, 04:23 PM	Both our parts, I'm afraid. However, yes, this conclusion is correct. Well thanks for the help. I was a bit confused by some of these rules and new Errata. It is good to finally have it clarified. Now that I finally understand everything, they'll most likely add new errata. ;)
glug 10-13-06, 04:56 PM	=) I think they're slow to eratta, and quick to FAQ and Sage it. There are conflicting tidbits of information in all of those sources, but as someone pointed out to before, there are 100 people going over the eratta, while one person writes the FAQ and Sage Advice with no oversight or discussion. Customer Service is a crap shoot as well. So I think we're all on the same page now, right? 1- Using the 1st level 'Identify' infusion costs 100gp, per eratta. 2- Creating a scroll of identify (or using spell-storing item) would NOT require this if you are using the 2nd level divine spell. 3- Paying 100gp to identify things sucks. Show your DM the FAQ/Sage Advice where it says you don't need to, specifically with Identify =)
DarkPawn 10-13-06, 05:35 PM	=) I think they're slow to eratta, and quick to FAQ and Sage it. There are conflicting tidbits of information in all of those sources, but as someone pointed out to before, there are 100 people going over the eratta, while one person writes the FAQ and Sage Advice with no oversight or discussion. Customer Service is a crap shoot as well. So I think we're all on the same page now, right? 1- Using the 1st level 'Identify' infusion costs 100gp, per eratta. 2- Creating a scroll of identify (or using spell-storing item) would NOT require this if you are using the 2nd level divine spell. 3- Paying 100gp to identify things sucks. Show your DM the FAQ/Sage Advice where it says you don't need to, specifically with Identify =) I basically think that sums it up. I do have reservations about the item creation where you can take divine version and avoid the material components. Seems like a minor abuse of the rules to me. I'm not saying it is wrong per the official rules, just seems wrong to me. I think they need to officially make a ruling on arcane spells that can be casted as divine by their Domain type. It makes more sense that if it is an arcane spell that can be cast divine like Stoneskin, the artificer should use the arcane version. This is just my opinion though. I feel that letting an artificer get access to spells through domains, is basically taking an ability that only clerics have.
Elderich 10-14-06, 12:14 PM	The FAQ and ECS Errata disagree. The Errata is correct. See here... http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=708213
DarkPawn 10-14-06, 01:50 PM	The FAQ and ECS Errata disagree. The Errata is correct. See here... http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=708213 Are you posting this in response to me? What are you responding to? My last statement was an opinion about errata. I'm confused here.
Amara Trapspringer 03-16-07, 05:51 PM	Can anyone give ideas on decent/balanced Minor Schemas to award as treasure? Thank you:)
Cifer 03-18-07, 11:48 AM	I basically think that sums it up. I do have reservations about the item creation where you can take divine version and avoid the material components. Seems like a minor abuse of the rules to me. I'm not saying it is wrong per the official rules, just seems wrong to me. I think they need to officially make a ruling on arcane spells that can be casted as divine by their Domain type. On the other hand side the divine spell is one level higher, meaning the price for the schema goes up (second spell level compared to first, 3rd caster level against first). So instead of 1*1*400/2=200 you'd need to pay 2*3*400/2=1200 (+XP). It would take twelve identifications just to make up the price difference to normal casting/infusing and you can't just decide that because you've found three really cool items you're going to identify all of them within one day. Further, as has been said Etch Schema requires a tenth-level spellcaster. 100 gp expense is a pittance at that point. Can anyone give ideas on decent/balanced Minor Schemas to award as treasure? What does your party consist of? Buffs are always popular.
Amara Trapspringer 03-19-07, 04:46 PM	What does your party consist of? Buffs are always popular. All 3rd level PC's Human Artificer Human Cleric Warforged Fighter Gnome Sorcecer
Cifer 03-19-07, 10:54 PM	Well, noone will object to an [animal]'s [quality]. It's one less spell the casters have to prepare and your party could use about every ability: Strength, Dex and Con for the fighter and the cleric, Int for the artificer, charisma for all the casters.
Amara Trapspringer 03-22-07, 12:43 AM	Thanks!
Elderich 03-22-07, 06:35 PM	Are you posting this in response to me? What are you responding to? My last statement was an opinion about errata. I'm confused here.I was responding to the Identify infusion using the "100 GP pearl." That artificers infusion DOES NOT use the "100 GP pearl." One needs to read the errata carefully. 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.Note that this does not say "Artificer's ALWAYS USE the arcane material components." Is says only when a spell requires BOTH a Divine or an Arcane , use the arcane.