Some changes to the Artificer Infusion Roster [Archive] - Wizards Community

Some changes to the Artificer Infusion Roster [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Subtle Knife
02-03-07, 07:21 PM For some time, I've contemplated adding a few of the spells from the Spell Compendium to the Artificer infusion list, as well as removing a few infusions from the list that made little sense to me! Let me know if you disagree or have any other ideas!

SK

REMOVE FROM INFUSION LIST ADD TO INFUSION LIST
1st Dispel Ward (SC)
Golem Strike (SC)
Shieldbearer (SC)
Weapon Shift (SC)
Magecraft (ECS)
Blade of Blood (PHBII)
2nd Absorb Weapon (SC)
Lesser Energized Shield (SC)
Gembomb (SC)
Wood Shape (SC)
3rd Crumble (SC)
Diamondsteel (SC)
Energized Shield (SC)
Entangling Staff (SC)
Listening Coin (SC)
Stone Shape (SC)
4th Explosive Runes (PHB)
Glyph of Warding (PHB)
Sepia Snake Sigil (PHB)
Scattering Trap (PHBII)
5th Wall of Force Fantastic Machine (SC)
Force Chest (SC)
Explosive Rune Field (PHBII)
Toxic Weapon (PHBII)
6th Blade Barrier Awaken Construct (SC)
Greater Fantastic Machine (SC)
Gemjump (SC)
Wall of Gears (SC)
Greater Glyph of Warding (PHB)
Cabral
02-03-07, 08:15 PM I wouldn't remove magic stone, but I agree that wall of force and blade barrier don't fit for the artificer.
Cifer
02-04-07, 06:27 PM While we're at it, I would recommend adding Magecraft to it. It seems rather strange that a magewright is a better artificer than the, well, artificer at level one.
RogueElement
02-04-07, 07:45 PM While we're at it, I would recommend adding Magecraft to it. It seems rather strange that a magewright is a better artificer than the, well, artificer at level one.You got an "Amen!" from me!

I also especially like the additions of Wood/Stone Shape and Awaken Construct.
Subtle Knife
02-04-07, 08:27 PM I made a few alterations to this list, and wanted some further thoughts! I've always thought that Artificers would make excellent experts at inscribing runes, sigils and glyphs, and have included several spells related to these (short of adding the Symbol spells, which I'm still considering). Let me know if you agree or not!

SK
RogueElement
02-04-07, 09:23 PM I made a few alterations to this list, and wanted some further thoughts! I've always thought that Artificers would make excellent experts at inscribing runes, sigils and glyphs, and have included several spells related to these (short of adding the Symbol spells, which I'm still considering). Let me know if you agree or not!
I don't know if I immediately think of runes when I think of Artificers, but I see where you're coming from. You know what we need: a spell list feat like what Sorcerers get. Something like this:

Runesmith
Prerequisites: Ability to cast infusions. Decipher Script 4.
Benefits: The following infusions are added to your infusion list: Explosive Runes, Glyph of Warding, etc.
jaelis
02-04-07, 09:26 PM Always seemed to me they should get Flame Arrow.
androkguz
02-04-07, 10:20 PM You know what we need: a spell list feat like what Sorcerers get.

I agree, adding more infusions to a class that can do everything kind of scares me. The artificers already have a very wide infusions list that they can access spontaneusly and completely!
Personaly I would prefer to have the artificers be a little more specialized in some kind of things than being just able to potentially do anything, but since I haven't have to deal with them yet I think I can wait to see how to do that :P
strange_person
02-05-07, 12:01 AM Absorb Weapon doesn't really make sense to me.
Wrathamon
02-06-07, 04:21 PM I could see you making schemas with these "ancient" infusion or brand new ones that are keep secret by cannith, but I wouldnt add them to the "list" of infusions known automatically.

I play that anything not from the ECS must be found on a schema first and researched before the player can add it to their list. This is a interpretation of the section in the ECS about the infusion list and what they know.

Because they can spontaneously cast ALL their infusion from their list and do not have to prepare (wizard, cleric) any or select a subset (sorcerer), making that list limitless is risky for a power creep that the artificer doesnt need.
Cifer
02-06-07, 05:53 PM Because they can spontaneously cast ALL their infusion from their list and do not have to prepare (wizard, cleric) any or select a subset (sorcerer), making that list limitless is risky for a power creep that the artificer doesnt need.
So do the beguiler, the Dread Necromancer and the Warmage.
strange_person
02-06-07, 07:17 PM So do the beguiler, the Dread Necromancer and the Warmage.

But CharOp has never gone berzerk with misinterpreting those classes, so nobody complains.
Wrathamon
02-06-07, 08:01 PM So do the beguiler, the Dread Necromancer and the Warmage.

and what is your point?

adding spells to their list would be the same issue?
Vharuck
02-06-07, 08:02 PM So do the beguiler, the Dread Necromancer and the Warmage.

And such, in the Spell Compendium, the text advises extreme caution when adding spells to the lists of such classes. It explicitly states that the size of their lists is a major class balance function.
Warforged Goblin
02-06-07, 08:22 PM I suggest silverbeard.

"I grab the sorcerer's goatee and use my infusion..."

Hmmmm, I guess you'd have to have a beard already though...
Subtle Knife
02-17-07, 09:20 AM Perhaps something like this?

Artifice of Runes
The lines between sketching sigils and artifice are blurred at best; you have studied this form of magic and incorporate it into your roster of infusion available.

Prerequisites: Ability to use Artificer Infusions, Artificer Knowledge class skill

Benefits: Your advanced study of runes and sigils provides you with the following infusions known: 1st - Dispel Ward (SC); 4th - Explosive Runes (PHB), Glyph of Warding (PHB), Sepia Snake Sigil (PHB), 6th - Greater Glyph of Warding.

Artifice of Stone
You have studied how one might manipulate stone, manipulating it and infusing it with great power.

Prerequisites: Ability to use Artificer Infusions, Artificer Knowledge class skill

Benefits: Your advanced study of stone and gems provides you with the following infusions known: 2nd - Gembomb (SC); 3rd - Crumble (SC), Stoneshape (PHB), 6th - Gemjump (SC)

Artifice of Construct
You have probed the depths of the artifice of constructs of all sorts, provising you with a deeper mystical insight into their manipulation.

Prerequisites: Ability to use Artificer Infusions, Artificer Knowledge class skill

Benefits: Your advanced study of constructs provides you with the following infusions known: 1st - Golem Strike (SC); 5th - Fantastic Machine (SC); 6th - Greater Fantastic Machine (SC), Gemjump (SC), Wall of Gears (SC)

Any comments or criticisms?
SK
Cifer
02-19-07, 09:11 PM Well, artificers have only few feats to spare as is...
RogueElement
02-19-07, 09:20 PM I think it's great though because the only feat that affects their infusions is Rapid Infusion.
jonci
02-21-07, 07:28 PM Well I definately agree that Magecraft needs to be an Artificer infusion. A crafting class that doesn't have a spell designed to help crafters? Without it being an Artificer infusion, you have a make enough scrolls to get the week benefit. Later on you can go with a wand, or with the Etch Schema feat, make a minor schema. But that is way down the line for an Artificer to wait.

And since the spell is "Target: You", you can't even pay someone to cast it on you.
Elderich
02-26-07, 01:08 PM If all the Magic Weapon spells make sense,

And if the natural weapon augmentation spell chain makes sense,

Then why does the artificer not have magic fang?

I always thought skillfull? (Makes you skilled in the weapon you wield) from the SC made sense.
strange_person
02-26-07, 04:43 PM Then why does the artificer not have magic fang?

Infusions can't target creatures.

If it was a version of Magic Fang that only worked on Constructs, that would be fine.
Cabral
02-26-07, 09:24 PM Infusions can't target creatures.

If it was a version of Magic Fang that only worked on Constructs, that would be fine.
If artificers had a Magic Fang infusion, it would inherently be one that only worked on Constructs. ;)
Wrathamon
02-26-07, 09:51 PM If artificers had a Magic Fang infusion, it would inherently be one that only worked on Constructs. ;)

Then it wouldnt be Magic Fang. it would be a new infusion.
strange_person
02-27-07, 12:42 AM Exactly.
Elderich
02-27-07, 03:34 PM Um, guys, did I miss something? Or did you?
NATURAL WEAPON AUGMENTATION, LESSER
As personal natural weapon augmentation, but the spell can be cast on one natural weapon of any creature.Not limited to constructs.
strange_person
02-27-07, 04:21 PM Oh.

That's weird.

I haven't got RoE, so I can't really comment.
Cabral
02-28-07, 01:12 AM Then it wouldnt be Magic Fang. it would be a new infusion.
You mean like Shield of Faith? Same situation (creature touched) limited by the nature of infusions.

IMO, the easiest errata for the natural weapon augmentation is to make it construct or object touched. You can target constructs directly, or you can imbue a item to provide the benefit to the wearer for the duration of the infusion.
Elderich
02-28-07, 12:29 PM You mean like Shield of Faith? Same situation (creature touched) limited by the nature of infusions.

IMO, the easiest errata for the natural weapon augmentation is to make it construct or object touched. You can target constructs directly, or you can imbue a item to provide the benefit to the wearer for the duration of the infusion.Why Errata it? Is something wrong with it?
Wrathamon
02-28-07, 03:37 PM You mean like Shield of Faith? Same situation (creature touched) limited by the nature of infusions.

IMO, the easiest errata for the natural weapon augmentation is to make it construct or object touched. You can target constructs directly, or you can imbue a item to provide the benefit to the wearer for the duration of the infusion.

There already is an infusion that does this... and it isnt magic fang.

Hense, it would be a new infusion... which it is.
Cabral
03-01-07, 12:19 AM Why Errata it? Is something wrong with it?
Uhm ... no. Don't know why I thought it said "natural weapon touched" ... my apologies. :embarrass
Elderich
03-01-07, 03:19 PM There already is an infusion that does this... and it isnt magic fang.

Hense, it would be a new infusion... which it is.I do not understand your post. If you have time please clarify for me. Thanks!
Wrathamon
03-01-07, 05:35 PM I do not understand your post. If you have time please clarify for me. Thanks!

there is an infusion in the RoE that does what you are asking. So making magic fang only work on constructs is not needed.

I said that magic fang working on constructs would be a new infusion and not magic fang... it is a new infusion so there is no need to make magic fang an infusion since there is already something that serves that purpose.

sorry for the confusion
Cabral
03-01-07, 06:58 PM there is an infusion in the RoE that does what you are asking. So making magic fang only work on constructs is not needed.

No, there isn't. Natural weapon augmentation only adds a special property to a natural weapon. It does not add an enhancement bonus.
OneWinged4ngel
03-01-07, 11:31 PM I add "Make Whole" as a 1st level infusion. It seemed strange that they could repair warforged, but not items. Surprised no one suggested this yet.
Subtle Knife
03-02-07, 07:32 AM I add "Make Whole" as a 1st level infusion. It seemed strange that they could repair warforged, but not items. Surprised no one suggested this yet.

That does make sense! I'll add it to the list!
SK
Elderich
03-02-07, 01:23 PM but no magic fang?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Subtle Knife 02-03-07, 07:21 PM	For some time, I've contemplated adding a few of the spells from the Spell Compendium to the Artificer infusion list, as well as removing a few infusions from the list that made little sense to me! Let me know if you disagree or have any other ideas! SK REMOVE FROM INFUSION LIST ADD TO INFUSION LIST 1st Dispel Ward (SC) Golem Strike (SC) Shieldbearer (SC) Weapon Shift (SC) Magecraft (ECS) Blade of Blood (PHBII) 2nd Absorb Weapon (SC) Lesser Energized Shield (SC) Gembomb (SC) Wood Shape (SC) 3rd Crumble (SC) Diamondsteel (SC) Energized Shield (SC) Entangling Staff (SC) Listening Coin (SC) Stone Shape (SC) 4th Explosive Runes (PHB) Glyph of Warding (PHB) Sepia Snake Sigil (PHB) Scattering Trap (PHBII) 5th Wall of Force Fantastic Machine (SC) Force Chest (SC) Explosive Rune Field (PHBII) Toxic Weapon (PHBII) 6th Blade Barrier Awaken Construct (SC) Greater Fantastic Machine (SC) Gemjump (SC) Wall of Gears (SC) Greater Glyph of Warding (PHB)
Cabral 02-03-07, 08:15 PM	I wouldn't remove magic stone, but I agree that wall of force and blade barrier don't fit for the artificer.
Cifer 02-04-07, 06:27 PM	While we're at it, I would recommend adding Magecraft to it. It seems rather strange that a magewright is a better artificer than the, well, artificer at level one.
RogueElement 02-04-07, 07:45 PM	While we're at it, I would recommend adding Magecraft to it. It seems rather strange that a magewright is a better artificer than the, well, artificer at level one.You got an "Amen!" from me! I also especially like the additions of Wood/Stone Shape and Awaken Construct.
Subtle Knife 02-04-07, 08:27 PM	I made a few alterations to this list, and wanted some further thoughts! I've always thought that Artificers would make excellent experts at inscribing runes, sigils and glyphs, and have included several spells related to these (short of adding the Symbol spells, which I'm still considering). Let me know if you agree or not! SK
RogueElement 02-04-07, 09:23 PM	I made a few alterations to this list, and wanted some further thoughts! I've always thought that Artificers would make excellent experts at inscribing runes, sigils and glyphs, and have included several spells related to these (short of adding the Symbol spells, which I'm still considering). Let me know if you agree or not! I don't know if I immediately think of runes when I think of Artificers, but I see where you're coming from. You know what we need: a spell list feat like what Sorcerers get. Something like this: Runesmith Prerequisites: Ability to cast infusions. Decipher Script 4. Benefits: The following infusions are added to your infusion list: Explosive Runes, Glyph of Warding, etc.
jaelis 02-04-07, 09:26 PM	Always seemed to me they should get Flame Arrow.
androkguz 02-04-07, 10:20 PM	You know what we need: a spell list feat like what Sorcerers get. I agree, adding more infusions to a class that can do everything kind of scares me. The artificers already have a very wide infusions list that they can access spontaneusly and completely! Personaly I would prefer to have the artificers be a little more specialized in some kind of things than being just able to potentially do anything, but since I haven't have to deal with them yet I think I can wait to see how to do that :P
strange_person 02-05-07, 12:01 AM	Absorb Weapon doesn't really make sense to me.
Wrathamon 02-06-07, 04:21 PM	I could see you making schemas with these "ancient" infusion or brand new ones that are keep secret by cannith, but I wouldnt add them to the "list" of infusions known automatically. I play that anything not from the ECS must be found on a schema first and researched before the player can add it to their list. This is a interpretation of the section in the ECS about the infusion list and what they know. Because they can spontaneously cast ALL their infusion from their list and do not have to prepare (wizard, cleric) any or select a subset (sorcerer), making that list limitless is risky for a power creep that the artificer doesnt need.
Cifer 02-06-07, 05:53 PM	Because they can spontaneously cast ALL their infusion from their list and do not have to prepare (wizard, cleric) any or select a subset (sorcerer), making that list limitless is risky for a power creep that the artificer doesnt need. So do the beguiler, the Dread Necromancer and the Warmage.
strange_person 02-06-07, 07:17 PM	So do the beguiler, the Dread Necromancer and the Warmage. But CharOp has never gone berzerk with misinterpreting those classes, so nobody complains.
Wrathamon 02-06-07, 08:01 PM	So do the beguiler, the Dread Necromancer and the Warmage. and what is your point? adding spells to their list would be the same issue?
Vharuck 02-06-07, 08:02 PM	So do the beguiler, the Dread Necromancer and the Warmage. And such, in the Spell Compendium, the text advises extreme caution when adding spells to the lists of such classes. It explicitly states that the size of their lists is a major class balance function.
Warforged Goblin 02-06-07, 08:22 PM	I suggest silverbeard. "I grab the sorcerer's goatee and use my infusion..." Hmmmm, I guess you'd have to have a beard already though...
Subtle Knife 02-17-07, 09:20 AM	Perhaps something like this? Artifice of Runes The lines between sketching sigils and artifice are blurred at best; you have studied this form of magic and incorporate it into your roster of infusion available. Prerequisites: Ability to use Artificer Infusions, Artificer Knowledge class skill Benefits: Your advanced study of runes and sigils provides you with the following infusions known: 1st - Dispel Ward (SC); 4th - Explosive Runes (PHB), Glyph of Warding (PHB), Sepia Snake Sigil (PHB), 6th - Greater Glyph of Warding. Artifice of Stone You have studied how one might manipulate stone, manipulating it and infusing it with great power. Prerequisites: Ability to use Artificer Infusions, Artificer Knowledge class skill Benefits: Your advanced study of stone and gems provides you with the following infusions known: 2nd - Gembomb (SC); 3rd - Crumble (SC), Stoneshape (PHB), 6th - Gemjump (SC) Artifice of Construct You have probed the depths of the artifice of constructs of all sorts, provising you with a deeper mystical insight into their manipulation. Prerequisites: Ability to use Artificer Infusions, Artificer Knowledge class skill Benefits: Your advanced study of constructs provides you with the following infusions known: 1st - Golem Strike (SC); 5th - Fantastic Machine (SC); 6th - Greater Fantastic Machine (SC), Gemjump (SC), Wall of Gears (SC) Any comments or criticisms? SK
Cifer 02-19-07, 09:11 PM	Well, artificers have only few feats to spare as is...
RogueElement 02-19-07, 09:20 PM	I think it's great though because the only feat that affects their infusions is Rapid Infusion.
jonci 02-21-07, 07:28 PM	Well I definately agree that Magecraft needs to be an Artificer infusion. A crafting class that doesn't have a spell designed to help crafters? Without it being an Artificer infusion, you have a make enough scrolls to get the week benefit. Later on you can go with a wand, or with the Etch Schema feat, make a minor schema. But that is way down the line for an Artificer to wait. And since the spell is "Target: You", you can't even pay someone to cast it on you.
Elderich 02-26-07, 01:08 PM	If all the Magic Weapon spells make sense, And if the natural weapon augmentation spell chain makes sense, Then why does the artificer not have magic fang? I always thought skillfull? (Makes you skilled in the weapon you wield) from the SC made sense.
strange_person 02-26-07, 04:43 PM	Then why does the artificer not have magic fang? Infusions can't target creatures. If it was a version of Magic Fang that only worked on Constructs, that would be fine.
Cabral 02-26-07, 09:24 PM	Infusions can't target creatures. If it was a version of Magic Fang that only worked on Constructs, that would be fine. If artificers had a Magic Fang infusion, it would inherently be one that only worked on Constructs. ;)
Wrathamon 02-26-07, 09:51 PM	If artificers had a Magic Fang infusion, it would inherently be one that only worked on Constructs. ;) Then it wouldnt be Magic Fang. it would be a new infusion.
strange_person 02-27-07, 12:42 AM	Exactly.
Elderich 02-27-07, 03:34 PM	Um, guys, did I miss something? Or did you? NATURAL WEAPON AUGMENTATION, LESSER As personal natural weapon augmentation, but the spell can be cast on one natural weapon of any creature.Not limited to constructs.
strange_person 02-27-07, 04:21 PM	Oh. That's weird. I haven't got RoE, so I can't really comment.
Cabral 02-28-07, 01:12 AM	Then it wouldnt be Magic Fang. it would be a new infusion. You mean like Shield of Faith? Same situation (creature touched) limited by the nature of infusions. IMO, the easiest errata for the natural weapon augmentation is to make it construct or object touched. You can target constructs directly, or you can imbue a item to provide the benefit to the wearer for the duration of the infusion.
Elderich 02-28-07, 12:29 PM	You mean like Shield of Faith? Same situation (creature touched) limited by the nature of infusions. IMO, the easiest errata for the natural weapon augmentation is to make it construct or object touched. You can target constructs directly, or you can imbue a item to provide the benefit to the wearer for the duration of the infusion.Why Errata it? Is something wrong with it?
Wrathamon 02-28-07, 03:37 PM	You mean like Shield of Faith? Same situation (creature touched) limited by the nature of infusions. IMO, the easiest errata for the natural weapon augmentation is to make it construct or object touched. You can target constructs directly, or you can imbue a item to provide the benefit to the wearer for the duration of the infusion. There already is an infusion that does this... and it isnt magic fang. Hense, it would be a new infusion... which it is.
Cabral 03-01-07, 12:19 AM	Why Errata it? Is something wrong with it? Uhm ... no. Don't know why I thought it said "natural weapon touched" ... my apologies. :embarrass
Elderich 03-01-07, 03:19 PM	There already is an infusion that does this... and it isnt magic fang. Hense, it would be a new infusion... which it is.I do not understand your post. If you have time please clarify for me. Thanks!
Wrathamon 03-01-07, 05:35 PM	I do not understand your post. If you have time please clarify for me. Thanks! there is an infusion in the RoE that does what you are asking. So making magic fang only work on constructs is not needed. I said that magic fang working on constructs would be a new infusion and not magic fang... it is a new infusion so there is no need to make magic fang an infusion since there is already something that serves that purpose. sorry for the confusion
Cabral 03-01-07, 06:58 PM	there is an infusion in the RoE that does what you are asking. So making magic fang only work on constructs is not needed. No, there isn't. Natural weapon augmentation only adds a special property to a natural weapon. It does not add an enhancement bonus.
OneWinged4ngel 03-01-07, 11:31 PM	I add "Make Whole" as a 1st level infusion. It seemed strange that they could repair warforged, but not items. Surprised no one suggested this yet.
Subtle Knife 03-02-07, 07:32 AM	I add "Make Whole" as a 1st level infusion. It seemed strange that they could repair warforged, but not items. Surprised no one suggested this yet. That does make sense! I'll add it to the list! SK
Elderich 03-02-07, 01:23 PM	but no magic fang?