Post/Author/DateTime	Post
dr_traitor 05-25-07, 10:25 PM	Curious. The artificer can make them just fine, but they need a UMD roll every time they use them? Thinking of bending my artificer into a Wand Adept but can't see the logic in taking a class who's primary weapon requires an activation roll that comes with a 1 in 20 roll for failure (or worse) in addition to an attack roll every single time he'll be attacking. Does having a creation feat for an item provide the ability to use that item? If not, what does? I've looked specifically for proficiency for wands, staffs and rods for the classes in the PHB, but didn't find any mention of anyone being proficient. Where is this info written down (so i can show my DM)? Thanks, :confused:
Cifer 05-26-07, 04:23 AM	Does having a creation feat for an item provide the ability to use that item? No. If not, what does? You have to have the spell on your class list and it has to be arcane or divine, just as you are. Artificers are somewhat out of luck here: their magic items are neither, meaning that by RAW, even a wizard that takes the wand of fireball the artificer made would have to make a UMD check. However, I suggest you quit whining: The UMD check only has a DC of 20. That means that as soon as you somehow scramble together a bonus of +19 on your roll, you can't fail - it's a check, meaning you don't fail on a 1. Now how do you get that +19? To summarize: +2 for activating a magic item you have the creation feat for +2 for activating a magic item you already activated once before (always break in wands before first combat) possibly +5 for an item that ups your UMD (those are custommade, so you might have to ask your DM for permission to do one); otherwise, get a circlet of persuasion That leaves us with ten points missing which you have to fill in with a combination of UMD ranks and charisma bonus (the latter probably enhanced by a cloak of charisma).
Miss_Yersinia 05-26-07, 09:44 AM	...it's a check, meaning you don't fail on a 1. Normally, yes... but: Use Magic Device (Cha; Trained Only) [...] Try Again Yes, but if you ever roll a natural 1 while attempting to activate an item and you fail, then you can’t try to activate that item again for 24 hours. Sorry, but it's the price of an artificer... the random chance to botch his stuff. If you want guaranteed stuff, you need a full-fledged spellcaster.
yrogerg 05-26-07, 10:18 AM	Normally, yes... but: Sorry, but it's the price of an artificer... the random chance to botch his stuff. If you want guaranteed stuff, you need a full-fledged spellcaster. Right, but you need to roll a natural one and fail. The former does not necessarily cause the latter, and without a failure, there's no botch.
ArcTan 05-26-07, 10:27 AM	Right, but you need to roll a natural one and fail. The former does not necessarily cause the latter, and without a failure, there's no botch. Specifically, natural ones on all skill checks just count as adding +1 to the base check normally -- there's no such thing as "critting" for skill checks. An Artificer can easily get a UMD check high enough where many low-level UMD checks are auto-successes.
ArcTan 05-26-07, 10:28 AM	No. You have to have the spell on your class list and it has to be arcane or divine, just as you are. Artificers are somewhat out of luck here: their magic items are neither, meaning that by RAW, even a wizard that takes the wand of fireball the artificer made would have to make a UMD check. The FAQ says this is RAW *now*, because they decided Artificer scrolls are "neither arcane nor divine", because they thought letting Wizards scribe Artificer scrolls was overpowered for some reason, even though this is actually a really problematic hole in the rules if it's true. I prefer to just say Artificer scrolls are Wiz/Sor scrolls or Cleric scrolls, depending, and be done with it.
Runepriest 05-26-07, 11:26 AM	I prefer to just say Artificer scrolls are Wiz/Sor scrolls or Cleric scrolls, depending, and be done with it. With the restriction you can't copy it into a spellbook? It would make sense anyways.
dunkeykong 05-26-07, 11:58 AM	I would have to agree about the whining. The easiest answer is just take a level of Sorc or Wiz, depending on what score is higher, INT or CHA. Hell, even a level of bard or war mage would do it, depending on how much versatility you want. Or go Cleric and keep up a decent HD and BAB.
ArcTan 05-26-07, 12:07 PM	I would have to agree about the whining. The easiest answer is just take a level of Sorc or Wiz, depending on what score is higher, INT or CHA. Hell, even a level of bard or war mage would do it, depending on how much versatility you want. Or go Cleric and keep up a decent HD and BAB. Honestly, it's a wasted level. The 1-level dip into Wiz from Artificer is seriously a horrible idea. It's like a specialist Wizard dipping into Sorcerer to get access to his barred school. The benefit isn't at all worth the lag in your Artificer progression.
Edymnion 05-26-07, 12:43 PM	Curious. The artificer can make them just fine, but they need a UMD roll every time they use them? Thinking of bending my artificer into a Wand Adept but can't see the logic in taking a class who's primary weapon requires an activation roll that comes with a 1 in 20 roll for failure (or worse) in addition to an attack roll every single time he'll be attacking.As has been said, there is no automatic failure for skill checks. An Artificer only needs +19 to UMD before they literally are incapable of failing to activate a wand. Assuming a +3 from Charisma, a +2 from having the Craft Wand ability, and +2 from having activated that particular wand before, that means you only need 12 ranks in UMD to activate the wand every time. Thats only level 8. And don't forget that the artificer also eventually gets the ability to Take 10 on their UMD checks. Honestly, by the time you get into the PrC, it won't be a problem. Does having a creation feat for an item provide the ability to use that item? If not, what does? I've looked specifically for proficiency for wands, staffs and rods for the classes in the PHB, but didn't find any mention of anyone being proficient. Where is this info written down (so i can show my DM)?The only way to automatically use a wand is to have the spell it contains on your spell list. Thats it, there is no other way. You can activate it with a successful UMD check, and the bonuses to UMD checks are covered in the UMD skill entry in the PHB.Honestly, it's a wasted level. The 1-level dip into Wiz from Artificer is seriously a horrible idea. It's like a specialist Wizard dipping into Sorcerer to get access to his barred school. The benefit isn't at all worth the lag in your Artificer progression.Not really, it can be very useful, seeing as how the Artificer lacks any real high level class abilities. The delay is minimal, and it gives you the ability to do more than just wands. I covered it all in the guide in the multiclassing section though.
Runepriest 05-26-07, 02:42 PM	The best dip according to Edymions guide is cleric with magic domain.
dr_traitor 05-26-07, 04:24 PM	Well, except for the whining comments (didn't think i was whining...just asking a f$%king question...), thanks, :rolleyes:
dunkeykong 05-26-07, 05:09 PM	Well, except for the whining comments (didn't think i was whining...just asking a f$%king question...), thanks, :rolleyes: You have to expect a certain amout of crap when on these boards. im just simply filling up my qouta. Sorry to rib you for that, I can understand the question and its one that ive asked a few times myself.
Spooty 05-27-07, 12:01 PM	Sorry, where is the 'UMD DC of 20' rule? I thought that it was base 20 plus, at least, the level of the spell.
Kroog 05-27-07, 12:51 PM	The DC for the UMD check for artificers is much higher than the standard 20. To trigger the ability it's 20 + the caster level required to fire off that spell. So suddenly a wand of fireball (Caster min of 5) is a DC 25 check. That gets rediculous fast. Personally my warforged is set up thus at the moment. +2 mod from CHA. +3 from skill focus UMD (lame: yes. But when you fire off as many items and craft as much as an artificer SHOULD, it's needed. +4 from skill enhancment item. +2 from using a wand before. +2 from having the craft feat. +9 ranks. ____________ +22. Yeah... eventually it gets to the point where you can UMD anything, and by level 13 when you can take 10 on it... you'll go insane.
Kroog 05-27-07, 12:54 PM	And artificers still need to make UMD checks for spells that occur on his spell list.
Captain_Kobold 05-27-07, 04:41 PM	Whereabouts does it say that you get a +2 bonus on the UMD check to activate an item that you have used before? I've seen reference to this several times on the boards, but the only place I could find it in the SRD is only applicable to trying to activate the item blindly. Or is it an Artificer class ability?
Runepriest 05-27-07, 05:27 PM	Arty class ability.
garner_adam 05-27-07, 05:37 PM	Captain_Kobold, It's mentioned under "Activate Blindly" some people believe this bonus applies to all UMD rolls but in reality is only mentioned once under these circumstances.
gelalshawr 05-27-07, 06:06 PM	Arty class ability. wrong, just read through all the class abilities and don't see it anywhere, the +2 for using something you have the craft feat for is there, but not the +2 for activating something you have activated before.
Edymnion 05-27-07, 06:52 PM	Sorry, where is the 'UMD DC of 20' rule? I thought that it was base 20 plus, at least, the level of the spell.The DC for the UMD check for artificers is much higher than the standard 20. To trigger the ability it's 20 + the caster level required to fire off that spell.Whereabouts does it say that you get a +2 bonus on the UMD check to activate an item that you have used before?All of this is in the PHB, in the Skills section, in the Use Magic Device skill entry. Activating a wand is always a DC 20 check, reguardless of the level of the spell it contains, because all you are doing is "Emulate Class Feature" to fake having a spell list that contains the spell. Some of you are confusing using a scroll and using a wand, as the scroll requires caster level checks.
gelalshawr 05-27-07, 07:49 PM	@Edymnion Captain Kobold and garner adam are correct Edy, re-read the UMD section, the only time you get a +2 for activating an item with UMD is under the activate blindly rules Activate Blindly: Some magic items are activated by special words, thoughts, or actions. You can activate such an item as if you were using the activation word, thought, or action, even when you’re not and even if you don’t know it. You do have to perform some equivalent activity in order to make the check. That is, you must speak, wave the item around, or otherwise attempt to get it to activate. You get a special +2 bonus on your Use Magic Device check if you’ve activated the item in question at least once before.
Cifer 05-28-07, 05:40 AM	Activating a wand is always a DC 20 check, reguardless of the level of the spell it contains, because all you are doing is "Emulate Class Feature" to fake having a spell list that contains the spell. Some of you are confusing using a scroll and using a wand, as the scroll requires caster level checks. More specifically, it's that way because the table on page 85 of the PHB gives a flat 20 difficulty for activating a wand.
yrogerg 06-03-07, 11:28 PM	With the restriction you can't copy it into a spellbook? It would make sense anyways. Why's that? Before the Artificer, Wizards' spell lists were limited by what the DM said you could and couldn't find in a town or research yourselves. After the Artificers, they're limited by... what the DM said you could and couldn't find in a town or research yourselves. The only thing that's changed is that, instead of only applying this particular restriction to Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, Druids, Rangers, Paladins, Warmages, Assasins, Psions, Wilders, Psiwars, and so forth, DMs can apply this common-sense restrictions to Artificers (and Warlocks, for that matter), as well. And from a flavor perspective, you run into the issue that Artificers and Artifice-style magic is supposed to account for most of the magic items in the civilized areas of Eberron. If Artificers weren't able to create magic items that were useful to other characters... why are they making them?
Dragom 06-04-07, 02:18 AM	If Artificers weren't able to create magic items that were useful to other characters... why are they making them? An artificers cappacity to craft scrolls isn't limited to a spell book. He flat out doesn't have one. The have to find a copy of a spell to do anything is mostly a Wizard limitation. The common house rule is that a Wizard can use a scroll an Artificer has made for him (Being a Wizard spell) but that he can't copy it down into his book. (The excuse I would have used is that Artificer Spells aren't divided into the part you prepare ahead of time and part you cast latter making them unusable to a Wizard, unless he really wants to spend 15 minutes chanting and reading from their spell book and using an empty spell slot to cast Magic Missle) This makes scrolls a lot less useful for a Wizard if most Scrolls are crafted by Artificers and makes borrowing a spell book from an NPC or recieving a spell book in a defeated wizards treasure (no doubt filled with magical traps) much more important to a Wizard. The original problem was outlined by the example of a Wizard with the Leadership Feat getting an Artificer cohort and using this cohort to aquire every Wizard spell in the game. (Probably using 2-3 Aureon's Spellshards)
Gevouden 06-04-07, 04:55 AM	Why not just talk to your Dm to see if you cant work out a house rule that doesn't upset game balance . Anything that reduces the number of dice rolls tends to help streamline gaming sessions anyway. Most Dm`s (in my experience) are quite willing to work it out to make the game run smoother.
yrogerg 06-04-07, 06:28 AM	The original problem was outlined by the example of a Wizard with the Leadership Feat getting an Artificer cohort and using this cohort to aquire every Wizard spell in the game. (Probably using 2-3 Aureon's Spellshards) Right, and my point was that the only thing that keeps a Wizard with sufficient wealth from doing this anyway is DM restriction of what spells are available. Saying an Artificer doesn't know how to create a spell isn't really any different from saying that a Wizard can't find anyone who has the spell and that she can't successfully research it herself.
DBlizzard 06-04-07, 05:00 PM	Saying an Artificer doesn't know how to create a spell isn't really any different from saying that a Wizard can't find anyone who has the spell and that she can't successfully research it herself. Yes, it is different. The rules do not say that every spell must be available for purchase for a wizard. On the other hand, the rules specifically state that all an artificer needs to do is make a UMD roll to emulate each spell that goes into creating an item (and scrolls are items). One merely requires the DM controlling which resources are available in a given area, the other requires a change of the rules. While changing the rules are certainly within the purview of the DM, it is certainly a different beast and is something that should be told to the players before they start to play. Regardless of the DM's decision, the rules should work without too many hiccups of this sort as written. The change made was the most direct way of handling this.
yrogerg 06-04-07, 06:12 PM	Yes, it is different. The rules do not say that every spell must be available for purchase for a wizard. On the other hand, the rules specifically state that all an artificer needs to do is make a UMD roll to emulate each spell that goes into creating an item (and scrolls are items). By contrast, the rules *do* say that clerics may prepare any spells from the cleric list, druids from the druid list, rangers from the ranger list, paladins from the paladin list, assassins, bards, sorcerers, favored souls, all manifestors... Oh, and even wizards are free to research spells that they can't find, according to the DMG. So, once again, in order to restrict which spells are initially available to these spellcasters, you *do* need to exercise some degree of DM fiat. Extending this to Artificers and Warlocks is really just common sense.
yrogerg 06-04-07, 07:49 PM	Not only that, but your initial premise, Yes, it is different. The rules do not say that every spell must be available for purchase for a wizard. On the other hand, the rules specifically state that all an artificer needs to do is make a UMD roll to emulate each spell that goes into creating an item (and scrolls are items). is incorrect, anyway. The DMG not only specifically grants DMs the right, but it *strongly encourages* DMs to exercise their discretionary Veto power over any and all item crafting. A DM's no more obligated to allow an Artificer to craft an MDJ scroll than he is obligated to allow the same Artificer to craft an Apparatus of Qwalish, Animated Shields, Shadowstrike or Magebane swords, Soulfire Armor, Nightsticks, or Rods of Wonder.
DBlizzard 06-04-07, 11:43 PM	So, once again, in order to restrict which spells are initially available to these spellcasters, you *do* need to exercise some degree of DM fiat. Extending this to Artificers and Warlocks is really just common sense. However, there is a difference between saying "that spell doesn't exist in my game" (pretty standard) and saying "it exists, but I'm not letting you use it. I'm not saying that as a DM you can't do it, I'm saying it's different from saying a wizard can't find a spell. You stated it's not different, it is. Players usually have no problem with the second, many will have a problem with a DM arbitrarily saying "lots of spells exists that wizards can find and use, but I'm not letting artificers use many of them." Wizards should assume they might not necessarily be able to find any spell they want, when they want (assuming it exists in the campaign world). Artificers won't assume their class ability to emulate any spell required to create a magic item isn't going to work.
Fell 06-05-07, 04:31 AM	In Complete Mage there is a feat you should pickup. It's called familiar magic or something. Basically one you make a use magic device test to activate your wand once in a day you can simply activate it at will for the next 24 hours. That should make life easier on you.
yrogerg 06-05-07, 08:06 AM	However, there is a difference between saying "that spell doesn't exist in my game" (pretty standard) and saying "it exists, but I'm not letting you use it. I'm not saying that as a DM you can't do it, I'm saying it's different from saying a wizard can't find a spell. You stated it's not different, it is. Players usually have no problem with the second, many will have a problem with a DM arbitrarily saying "lots of spells exists that wizards can find and use, but I'm not letting artificers use many of them." Wizards should assume they might not necessarily be able to find any spell they want, when they want (assuming it exists in the campaign world). Artificers won't assume their class ability to emulate any spell required to create a magic item isn't going to work. What about Clerics, then? As I've pointed out repeatedly, they, by RAW, actually do have access to every Cleric spell ever written. Yet, it remains a position advanced by many people (KB included) that discovering "lost rituals" and "prayer books" remains an excellent way to incorporate splatbook spells into a campaign in an manner other than, "Suddenly, your faith gives you this random new ability". For artificers, it remains even less of a stretch, given that lost Schema that expand an artificer's ability are already a feature of the setting. I mean, seriously, what sense does it make if MDJ is an spell lost to antiquity that needs to be re-discovered before it can be used, if an Artificer can just emulate it from the get-go anyway? Even without discussing scrolls and spell books, doesn't that already defeat the purpose of restricting those spells? I'm not talking abut simply fiating out spells, here. I'm talking about allowing characters to find schema that tell them how to create spells and items, or allowing other circumstances, like extensive travel through the Shadow Plane, or actually seeing the effects of that mythical spell in person, finally, to expand an artificer's repertoire to include these higher-level spells or splatbook spells and items. Just like any other spellcaster.
DBlizzard 06-05-07, 05:00 PM	What about Clerics, then? As I've pointed out repeatedly, they, by RAW, actually do have access to every Cleric spell ever written. Yet, it remains a position advanced by many people (KB included) that discovering "lost rituals" and "prayer books" remains an excellent way to incorporate splatbook spells into a campaign in an manner other than, "Suddenly, your faith gives you this random new ability". For artificers, it remains even less of a stretch, given that lost Schema that expand an artificer's ability are already a feature of the setting. In my campaign, I have house rules about non-core spells for clerics (and classes with similar spellcasting ability). They can add 1 spell to their class list from a non-core source per level, and any they find during play. I have no problems with certain magic items being hidden knowledge. The issue I see is when you allow the wizard in the party to create item X if he has certain spells on his spell list, but not the artificer. If an artificer knows about spell X then he should be able to create a scroll of X, by the RAW. If you want something different, house rule it and tell your players in advance.
yrogerg 06-05-07, 06:47 PM	In my campaign, I have house rules about non-core spells for clerics (and classes with similar spellcasting ability). They can add 1 spell to their class list from a non-core source per level, and any they find during play. I have no problems with certain magic items being hidden knowledge. The issue I see is when you allow the wizard in the party to create item X if he has certain spells on his spell list, but not the artificer. If an artificer knows about spell X then he should be able to create a scroll of X, by the RAW. If you want something different, house rule it and tell your players in advance. (emphasis added) This being clarified, we are, in fact, on the same page here. The main issue here is that artificers not be an automatic channel to high-level and rare-to-the-setting spells that the wizard wouldn't be able to acquire normally. If that's settled, then it really isn't all that problematic if their scrolls can be scribed into spellbooks, is it?
DBlizzard 06-06-07, 01:21 AM	If that's settled, then it really isn't all that problematic if their scrolls can be scribed into spellbooks, is it? It can be. In most games the number of spells an artificer is likely to know about is pretty huge. However, with all this discussion, I expect a major issue has been missed. The ability of an artificer to create both divine and arcane spells can be a headache. Say he makes a simple scroll of detect magic. Is it arcane or divine? If he can do both, can he make the scroll both at the same time? If not, how many will remember to declare which it is (unless it's obvious based on the spell level)? If he forgets to declare, how do you deal with it at the table? What about spells that have differing effects if divine or arcane (admittedly, a headache even now)? What if he forgets to declare? Having them be neither solves a whole lot of minor issues (and creates a minor one), IMO.
ArcTan 06-08-07, 02:50 AM	However, there is a difference between saying "that spell doesn't exist in my game" (pretty standard) and saying "it exists, but I'm not letting you use it. I'm not saying that as a DM you can't do it, I'm saying it's different from saying a wizard can't find a spell. You stated it's not different, it is. So when you say "Well, you can't find a scroll of polymorph anywhere in town", what happens when the Wizard says "Then I use the Spell Research rules to research the polymorph spell or a spell that works just like it"? Then you just have to arbitrarily say that the Wizard's research check "fails", which isn't any different than saying the Artificier's UMD check to make the scroll of polymorph "fails", except that it's a lot more expensive for the Wizard. Players usually have no problem with the second, many will have a problem with a DM arbitrarily saying "lots of spells exists that wizards can find and use, but I'm not letting artificers use many of them." Wizards should assume they might not necessarily be able to find any spell they want, when they want (assuming it exists in the campaign world). Artificers won't assume their class ability to emulate any spell required to create a magic item isn't going to work. Honestly, if I've decided a spell from the PHB is going to exist in the game world, then I assume that any Wizard or Artificer who pays for it is going to get it. So what if the Artificer can eventually scribe all the scrolls for the Wizard? The Wizard could've eventually researched all those spells anyway. It still takes time and money, which is the important thing.
ArcTan 06-08-07, 02:52 AM	It can be. In most games the number of spells an artificer is likely to know about is pretty huge. However, with all this discussion, I expect a major issue has been missed. The ability of an artificer to create both divine and arcane spells can be a headache. Say he makes a simple scroll of detect magic. Is it arcane or divine? If he can do both, can he make the scroll both at the same time? It obviously can't be both. If not, how many will remember to declare which it is (unless it's obvious based on the spell level)? If he forgets to declare, how do you deal with it at the table? So don't let him forget to declare. Just like you don't forget to "declare" what version of detect magic you're buying when you go into a store to get a wand of it. Artificers always have to make a UMD check and it's always based on not only a specific spell but a specific spell *list*, because you're always emulating a specific class's spellcasting feature for the UMD check (Am I pretending to be a Bard? A Wizard? A Cleric? A Druid?). What about spells that have differing effects if divine or arcane (admittedly, a headache even now)? What if he forgets to declare? Having them be neither solves a whole lot of minor issues (and creates a minor one), IMO. Bah. I don't see what's so great about solving the problem "Sometimes Artificers forget to specify what something is" by saying "Now it's nothing at all". If nothing else, an Artificer scroll can't actually be worth the same *price* as an arcane or divine scroll anymore, because it's objectively less useful than either.
Elderich 06-08-07, 07:18 AM	Is it arcane or divine? If he can do both, can he make the scroll both at the same time? If not, how many will remember to declare which it is (unless it's obvious based on the spell level)? If he forgets to declare, how do you deal with it at the table?The Item creation rules REQUIRE one to declare AND note the source of the spell prerequisite in the item. As well the "Artificer Items not Arcane or divine" simply adds to the book keeping problem. Now if you find a scroll you CANNOT use it if an artificer made it, in addition to the arcane/divine source. We should note that Sharn;City of towers says a wizard can have any spell, if they join the wizards guild. And cheaper than an artificer can scribe it.