New (Original) Infusion - Feedback Requested [Archive] - Wizards Community

New (Original) Infusion - Feedback Requested [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Galen_Michael
08-11-04, 01:53 PM Curse Item
Transmutation
Level: Artificer 2
Components: S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: Magic item touched
Duration: 10 minutes/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (object)

The artificer transmutes the properties of a single magic item so that it provides a penalty rather than a bonus of the appropriate type. Only magical bonuses are affected by this infusion; other special qualities remain intact.

For example, an artificer who casts this infusion on a +3 flaming keen longsword would transmute the weapon into a -3 flaming keen longsword. The wielder of the longsword would suffer a -3 enhancement penalty to attack and damage rolls, but the weapon would still deal +1d6 additional fire damage on a successful hit and still threaten a critical hit on a natural 17-20.

Also, the weapon would still be masterwork, providing a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls, for a net modifier of -2 on attack rolls.

This infusion cannot affect sacred or profane bonuses.
_______

I used a weapon as the example in the description, but the infusion could also be used to cause a cloak of resistance to bestow a resistance penalty to saving throws or a ring of protection to bestow a deflection penalty to armor class, etc.

I used the enhancement alteration and energy alteration infusions as a guideline to determine the appropriate components, casting time, range, target, duration, saving throw, and spell resistance for this infusion. Unlike those infusions, this infusion has a casting time of only 1 action (instead of 1 round) because I see it being most useful in combat.

The part about scared and profane bonuses I picked up from item alteration.

As an interesting side note, although not readily apparent, this infusion essentially "scales up" in power as you increase in level (like magic missile or scorching ray). At low levels, you will typically only be transmuting very low bonuses (+1 to +2), giving your opponent what amounts to a -2 to -4 net (loss of bonus plus addition of penalty) modifier. However, at higher levels, you will encounter NPCs with better magic items (maybe +3 to +4), resulting in a much more effective spell (a net modifier of -6 to -8).

Granted, your opponent could always just drop the item, effectively cutting the net modifier in half (loss of bonus only), but only if they are able to determine what you have done to their item. Even so, removing cursed armor in the middle of combat would pose its own set of problems ;)

Anyway, please post your feedback on what works and what doesn't. I'm most uncertain about spell level, casting time and duration, so any comments on those aspects of the infusion would be especially appreciated.

Thanks!

Galen
ChronosCrow
08-11-04, 03:39 PM Hhhhmmm, I'd say that there needs to be a control on the variable. The variable is the fact that the artificer can tunr around a +1 to a -1 and a +5 to a -5 with the same infusion at the lowest level.
JDubTrafficGod
08-11-04, 03:52 PM I agree with chronos, or at the very least bump the spell level up a little higher.
Galen_Michael
08-11-04, 03:57 PM Originally posted by ChronosCrow
Hhhhmmm, I'd say that there needs to be a control on the variable. The variable is the fact that the artificer can tunr around a +1 to a -1 and a +5 to a -5 with the same infusion at the lowest level.
Fair enough. I could definitely see that as an issue.

Just to play devil's advocate, however: Scorching ray is only a 2nd-level spell, and it allows you to eventually do up to 12d6 fire damage (ranged touch attack, no save). Magic missile is only a 1st-level spell that lets you eventually do 5d4+5 force damage (no save). These are a couple examples of low-level spells that allow for pretty major effects. Never the less, the infusion may still be unbalanced as written.

How would you solve this challenge? Would you recommend lesser, standard, and greater versions that allow you to affect progressively higher bonuses? Increase the spell level? Or something else?

Thanks again for the feedback!

Galen
ChronosCrow
08-11-04, 04:31 PM Originally posted by Galen_Michael

Just to play devil's advocate, however: Scorching ray is only a 2nd-level spell, and it allows you to eventually do up to 12d6 fire damage (ranged touch attack, no save). Magic missile is only a 1st-level spell that lets you eventually do 5d4+5 force damage (no save). These are a couple examples of low-level spells that allow for pretty major effects. Never the less, the infusion may still be unbalanced as written.
Galen

Well, that's exactlly my point, EVENTUALLY. As it stands the spell lets you do it all, those other spells you referenced let you do things eventually over time. As far as, fixing that problem I'm not sure quite yet, i'm a bit busy right now. I'll give it thought though. I'd advise somekind of line like the spells you referenced how the spell lets you affect more enhancements per level starting at -1 going up to -5.
Galen_Michael
08-11-04, 04:51 PM Originally posted by ChronosCrow
Well, that's exactlly my point, EVENTUALLY. As it stands the spell lets you do it all, those other spells you referenced let you do things eventually over time. As far as, fixing that problem I'm not sure quite yet, i'm a bit busy right now. I'll give it thought though. I'd advise somekind of line like the spells you referenced how the spell lets you affect more enhancements per level starting at -1 going up to -5.
Ok, I follow you. I was thinking of entirely separate (but related) progressive infusions, like the weapon augmentation infusions, but limiting the infusion by caster level would be an even better solution.

I had just sort of assumed that no low-level party would be running up against opponents wielding more than +1 or +2 items, but the infusion as written doesn't expressly prohibit a low-level caster from affecting a high-level magic item.

Maybe adding the following to the spell would work:

"You may only affect items with a bonus equal to 1/3 of your caster level or less. If you attempt to affect an item with a higher bonus, the infusion fails."

Or alternatively (same effect, different wording):

"You may only affect items with a +1 bonus, +1 for every three levels beyond 3rd. If you attempt to affect an item with a higher bonus, the infusion fails."

This allows you to affect +1 magic items right away, +2 at 6th level, +3 at 9th, +4 at 12th, and +5 at 15th.

Or do you think +1 every 4 levels (maxing at +5 at 20th level) would be more appropriate?

Regardless, good idea. Thanks again!

Galen
heridfel
08-11-04, 09:49 PM Don't forget, you have to touch the weapon/armor/whatever. So you have a touch attack against a shield or suit of armor, but weapons are more difficult to touch (at least while not getting hit).That makes it harder to use against a weapon, basically a disarm or sunder attempt. I might take off the penalty for using a light weapon to disarm/sunder, but that still leaves most artificers with an AoO (or two, if the opponent has Combat Reflexes) to deal with before trying to use the infusion.

I would say that you need Improved Unarmed Strike to avoid the AoO from attacking unarmed if you attack a weapon, even though you're using a touch spell. Most spells like that assume that you don't try to grab the person's weapon... :rolleyes:

I'll leave more experienced DMs to decide on whether the infusion gets too powerful too fast, or just too powerful in general. My feeling is that it does, because you not only take away the benefit, but also provide a penalty. I might just have it take away +1, with an +1 for every 3 levels above 3, to a maximum of -5. That's still really powerful for a second-level infusion that lasts the whole battle.
Galen_Michael
08-11-04, 10:20 PM Excellent point on the Attack of Opportunity herdifel, in addition to bringing up the very valid point of how you would actually resolve the mechanics of just touching (not grabbing or sundering) an object carried or worn by an opponent. While an AoO could be seen as a balancing factor, my inclination would be to simplify the process by adding the following:

"You must succeed at a regular, unarmed melee (not touch) attack roll to touch an item carried or worn by an opponent in combat. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity."

Requiring an actual melee (as opposed to melee touch) attack roll means success is still far from certain, but doesn't make the spell as difficult to get off as an attack of opportunity or opposed attack roll (at a -4 penalty) would.

Is this simplfying things too much? Should the touch rules default to the rules for disarming (grabbing) or sundering an item?

Thanks for your insights!

Galen

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Galen_Michael 08-11-04, 01:53 PM	Curse Item Transmutation Level: Artificer 2 Components: S Casting Time: 1 action Range: Touch Target: Magic item touched Duration: 10 minutes/level Saving Throw: Will negates (object) Spell Resistance: Yes (object) The artificer transmutes the properties of a single magic item so that it provides a penalty rather than a bonus of the appropriate type. Only magical bonuses are affected by this infusion; other special qualities remain intact. For example, an artificer who casts this infusion on a +3 flaming keen longsword would transmute the weapon into a -3 flaming keen longsword. The wielder of the longsword would suffer a -3 enhancement penalty to attack and damage rolls, but the weapon would still deal +1d6 additional fire damage on a successful hit and still threaten a critical hit on a natural 17-20. Also, the weapon would still be masterwork, providing a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls, for a net modifier of -2 on attack rolls. This infusion cannot affect sacred or profane bonuses. _______ I used a weapon as the example in the description, but the infusion could also be used to cause a cloak of resistance to bestow a resistance penalty to saving throws or a ring of protection to bestow a deflection penalty to armor class, etc. I used the enhancement alteration and energy alteration infusions as a guideline to determine the appropriate components, casting time, range, target, duration, saving throw, and spell resistance for this infusion. Unlike those infusions, this infusion has a casting time of only 1 action (instead of 1 round) because I see it being most useful in combat. The part about scared and profane bonuses I picked up from item alteration. As an interesting side note, although not readily apparent, this infusion essentially "scales up" in power as you increase in level (like magic missile or scorching ray). At low levels, you will typically only be transmuting very low bonuses (+1 to +2), giving your opponent what amounts to a -2 to -4 net (loss of bonus plus addition of penalty) modifier. However, at higher levels, you will encounter NPCs with better magic items (maybe +3 to +4), resulting in a much more effective spell (a net modifier of -6 to -8). Granted, your opponent could always just drop the item, effectively cutting the net modifier in half (loss of bonus only), but only if they are able to determine what you have done to their item. Even so, removing cursed armor in the middle of combat would pose its own set of problems ;) Anyway, please post your feedback on what works and what doesn't. I'm most uncertain about spell level, casting time and duration, so any comments on those aspects of the infusion would be especially appreciated. Thanks! Galen
ChronosCrow 08-11-04, 03:39 PM	Hhhhmmm, I'd say that there needs to be a control on the variable. The variable is the fact that the artificer can tunr around a +1 to a -1 and a +5 to a -5 with the same infusion at the lowest level.
JDubTrafficGod 08-11-04, 03:52 PM	I agree with chronos, or at the very least bump the spell level up a little higher.
Galen_Michael 08-11-04, 03:57 PM	Originally posted by ChronosCrow Hhhhmmm, I'd say that there needs to be a control on the variable. The variable is the fact that the artificer can tunr around a +1 to a -1 and a +5 to a -5 with the same infusion at the lowest level. Fair enough. I could definitely see that as an issue. Just to play devil's advocate, however: Scorching ray is only a 2nd-level spell, and it allows you to eventually do up to 12d6 fire damage (ranged touch attack, no save). Magic missile is only a 1st-level spell that lets you eventually do 5d4+5 force damage (no save). These are a couple examples of low-level spells that allow for pretty major effects. Never the less, the infusion may still be unbalanced as written. How would you solve this challenge? Would you recommend lesser, standard, and greater versions that allow you to affect progressively higher bonuses? Increase the spell level? Or something else? Thanks again for the feedback! Galen
ChronosCrow 08-11-04, 04:31 PM	Originally posted by Galen_Michael Just to play devil's advocate, however: Scorching ray is only a 2nd-level spell, and it allows you to eventually do up to 12d6 fire damage (ranged touch attack, no save). Magic missile is only a 1st-level spell that lets you eventually do 5d4+5 force damage (no save). These are a couple examples of low-level spells that allow for pretty major effects. Never the less, the infusion may still be unbalanced as written. Galen Well, that's exactlly my point, EVENTUALLY. As it stands the spell lets you do it all, those other spells you referenced let you do things eventually over time. As far as, fixing that problem I'm not sure quite yet, i'm a bit busy right now. I'll give it thought though. I'd advise somekind of line like the spells you referenced how the spell lets you affect more enhancements per level starting at -1 going up to -5.
Galen_Michael 08-11-04, 04:51 PM	Originally posted by ChronosCrow Well, that's exactlly my point, EVENTUALLY. As it stands the spell lets you do it all, those other spells you referenced let you do things eventually over time. As far as, fixing that problem I'm not sure quite yet, i'm a bit busy right now. I'll give it thought though. I'd advise somekind of line like the spells you referenced how the spell lets you affect more enhancements per level starting at -1 going up to -5. Ok, I follow you. I was thinking of entirely separate (but related) progressive infusions, like the weapon augmentation infusions, but limiting the infusion by caster level would be an even better solution. I had just sort of assumed that no low-level party would be running up against opponents wielding more than +1 or +2 items, but the infusion as written doesn't expressly prohibit a low-level caster from affecting a high-level magic item. Maybe adding the following to the spell would work: "You may only affect items with a bonus equal to 1/3 of your caster level or less. If you attempt to affect an item with a higher bonus, the infusion fails." Or alternatively (same effect, different wording): "You may only affect items with a +1 bonus, +1 for every three levels beyond 3rd. If you attempt to affect an item with a higher bonus, the infusion fails." This allows you to affect +1 magic items right away, +2 at 6th level, +3 at 9th, +4 at 12th, and +5 at 15th. Or do you think +1 every 4 levels (maxing at +5 at 20th level) would be more appropriate? Regardless, good idea. Thanks again! Galen
heridfel 08-11-04, 09:49 PM	Don't forget, you have to touch the weapon/armor/whatever. So you have a touch attack against a shield or suit of armor, but weapons are more difficult to touch (at least while not getting hit).That makes it harder to use against a weapon, basically a disarm or sunder attempt. I might take off the penalty for using a light weapon to disarm/sunder, but that still leaves most artificers with an AoO (or two, if the opponent has Combat Reflexes) to deal with before trying to use the infusion. I would say that you need Improved Unarmed Strike to avoid the AoO from attacking unarmed if you attack a weapon, even though you're using a touch spell. Most spells like that assume that you don't try to grab the person's weapon... :rolleyes: I'll leave more experienced DMs to decide on whether the infusion gets too powerful too fast, or just too powerful in general. My feeling is that it does, because you not only take away the benefit, but also provide a penalty. I might just have it take away +1, with an +1 for every 3 levels above 3, to a maximum of -5. That's still really powerful for a second-level infusion that lasts the whole battle.
Galen_Michael 08-11-04, 10:20 PM	Excellent point on the Attack of Opportunity herdifel, in addition to bringing up the very valid point of how you would actually resolve the mechanics of just touching (not grabbing or sundering) an object carried or worn by an opponent. While an AoO could be seen as a balancing factor, my inclination would be to simplify the process by adding the following: "You must succeed at a regular, unarmed melee (not touch) attack roll to touch an item carried or worn by an opponent in combat. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity." Requiring an actual melee (as opposed to melee touch) attack roll means success is still far from certain, but doesn't make the spell as difficult to get off as an attack of opportunity or opposed attack roll (at a -4 penalty) would. Is this simplfying things too much? Should the touch rules default to the rules for disarming (grabbing) or sundering an item? Thanks for your insights! Galen