Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Timlagor 09-14-06, 12:51 AM	Was the rule for what Artificers can craft a deliberate attempt to rebalance the class or an oversight? Under the base rules (ECS), an Artificer has a good chance of being able to craft magic items two levels before the class that would traditionally do so (albeit a weaker version where CL matters to the function of the item) and should be confident of crafting them by the same level. Limitting crafting to CL= ranks / 2 however puts the Artificer considerably behind (from second level onwards) and getting further behind all the time. (11th level for something a Wizard crafts at 7th; 15th for Wiz 9th etc) This is not a complaint but it does look like it could be an accident so I want to check. (and I didn't get a reply to the e-mails I sent -probably to inappropriate addresses)
Marcus Majarra 09-14-06, 01:08 AM	I believe the change was deliberate, as Artificers would otherwise end up with almost twice as much equipment as a character of equal level (assuming Extraordinary Artisan).
Timlagor 09-14-06, 02:12 AM	1) Isn't that the point of the class? 2) the rule I'm referring to has nothing whatsoever to do with the EV of the character. It only affects how powerful the individual items that can be crafted are.
Gargoyle117 09-14-06, 01:33 PM	I am with Timlagore. I do not really see the reason for the change. At the very least, the Artificer should be the same as other classes, not behind. This method whould seem to ensure that the Artificer is dragging around a horde of low level magic items, since they get increased EV from their Craft Reserve and Craft Skills. That does not make too much sense either. I can see that as just as unbalancing as one higher level item. I'm curious to know if this is intentional or not, and if so, why. Thanks, Dom
pedr 09-14-06, 01:45 PM	It's interesting to note that the MoH CS has a different rule. There, artificers don't seem to be limited at all in what they can create. They simply have to keep maximum ranks in UMD: In order for artificers to benefit from their item creation feats they must maintain the maximum possible ranks in Use Magic Device, but do not need to succeed in any Use Magic Device checks to gain their benefit. Artificers are not limited to creating items like other classes. They may create items that utilize spells that not appearing [sic] on their spell lists thanks to thier class and Use Magic Device ranks.
Gurrangatch 09-30-06, 02:34 PM	I would just like to point out that limiting the CL requirement an Artificer can meet to 1/2 UMD ranks makes many of his item creation feats useless until near-epic or epic level. For instance, I believe the lowest CL requirement for any rod is 9th level. This means that an Artificer would be unable to "craft" (re: buy at a discount in this campaign) any rods until at least 15th level. Yet he gets Craft Rod at 9th level?! The same problem arises with staves, the feat is aquired at level 12 but the lowest CL requirement for a staff is 8. An artificer would be unable to craft even those lowest level staffs until 13th level. More importantly most rods and staves have a CL requirement of 12 or higher. This would prevent an Artificer from ever creating those items as he would have to have 24+ ranks in UMD which is not possible until epic level. Although I realize correcting this (percieved) error may not be your number one priority I would encourage you to make a statement about it soon. I would be unlikely to ever play or encourage someone to play an artificer because of this error even though it is unlikely to matter till later levels. Why invest your time in a character that is riddeled with odd rules restrictions? This is unfortunate because the Artificer is one of the new Eberron unique features that could otherwise encourage people's interest in Xen'drik Expeditions.
Randall Montgomery 10-02-06, 11:01 AM	As someone who plays an Artificer in MoH, I agree that this seems to be a horrendious oversight. The entire point of the Artificer is that they have a crapload of magical items they can craft for themselves, which balances out the fact that there infusions are almost entirely buffs that can't be cast out of combat, they have a weaker BAB progression and use of armor, and they get no other special abilities to speak of. Under the current rules, I just can't see an Artificer as a viable class selection in Xendrik, and I wholehartedly agree that this change needs to be reconsidered. PS - While I'm not necessarilly an objective observer, from my experience in MoH playing a Warforged Fighter 4/ Artificer 6, I haven't seen anything indicating my character is significantly overpowered compared to anyone else in the group due to the magical items I have. While I do have more than everyone else, some of the other abilities I've lost have definitely helped balance things out.
Gurrangatch 10-10-06, 12:21 AM	I would really be interested to know if this had been considered in the new CS. The way the artificer works is probably going to make or break whether I play a character in the campaign, having played many of the other classes in "core" DnD the artificer is one of the main attractions of Eberron. It's a completely new class mechanic that would be interesting to try. It would be extremely dissapointing if this class was crippled by a ruling that was not well thought out.
Timlagor 10-10-06, 05:04 AM	I'm not convinced it's really crippling: you just end up with a lot of weaker items. Wands (& scrolls & staves) are sufficiently expensive that we're unlikely to be getting the really potent ones early anyway ..and we can still metamagic them. Don't overlook the fact that the freedom to blow through the wands you do have knowing that there will be zero consequence in your next adventure is a strong force in the other direction. I do think this particular rule is a bad idea and clearly it's a big 'nerf' but I'm not convinced that it's truly crippling. -if it was a deliberate attempt to rebalance rather than an oversight then I don't think it will work in the way intended either. The brute expense of consumables in this campaign is a much better balancing factor though it does cause some odd distortions (making many things completely unaffordable at low levels and essentially free later -though EV presumably goes up in line with expected character wealth rather than expected character income: some consumable use and equipment losses are assumed in normal campaigns)
haferka 10-11-06, 10:39 PM	I dont like the rule. If you feel like preventing them from crafting items beyond the level of a strait class spellcasters, limit them a to their Artificer Level.
Sianger 10-12-06, 09:59 AM	Well, if cost would prevent an artificer from crafting powerful items like staves until much later anyway, why is there a need for this rule? [Besides, cutting down costs is the whole point of being able to craft things, and also of Extraordinary Artisan :D ] Furthermore, this rule prevents artificers from creating [relatively] low-cost, high-caster-level items, such as a scroll of invisibility at caster level 7, for instance, or a wand of fireball at CL 10. Which is, in my opinion, a far more serious nerf than not being able to craft staves and rings till later.
Timlagor 10-12-06, 10:21 AM	I was mostly talking about wands and thinking Primariy of CL9 Scorching Ray (11 with wand Mastery) and Empowered Scorching Ray. I haven't worked out the prices. No one seems to be defending the rule as it stands. The new CS is about to come out though so we will see...
Gurrangatch 10-14-06, 02:48 AM	I just played in my first event in my area and I ended up not choosing to play an artificer because of the uncertainty of this rule. When it came down to it, an Artificer is just a really poor choice the way the item creation rules work currently. If the intention is to prevent people from playing Artificers then it is certaintly working. However, making a class a bad choice (and to me that makes it not fun), is a bad way to encourage people to play in the RPGA. With the current increase on the gp cost of consumable items an Artificer already suffers enough. Basically if it costs 5x as much to buy a consumable item that you create and if in your area each event will always only have one session then it's not a very good idea to buy any consumable items is it? It seems like this would already limit many choices, why should I buy a 50 charge wand for five times the price each event if I am only going to get to use it a few times (in an Artificers case with Extraordinary Artisan, x2 price). The only time I can see multiple sessions being run in one event is maybe a couple times a year; Cons (which many people cannot attend), and maybe at Gameday or other major events that are few and far between. Otherwise each day will only have one session in the evening, when the most people are availabe. On a side note, is there any timeline that we can see for the new Campaign Standards, I feel like players are not really understanding the current one without heavy explanation from experienced players/DMs because of the incompleteness of the current CS.
Timlagor 10-17-06, 03:21 PM	The new CS is due any time. It was going to come out earlier but sadly one of the Factionmasters was affected by a disaster. The document is currently with the factionmasters and will be availabel for player review in the near future.
Butterface 10-17-06, 05:06 PM	I've heard through the grapevine that artificers are getting buffed in the new CS. Or, fixed from the current condition rather. :cool:
Sianger 10-22-06, 07:49 PM	From the new CS... "You may... [use item creation feats]... in the case of artificers, [if] the item's caster level is equal to or less [sic] the artificer's ranks in Use Magic Device minus three." Sounds much better.
Gurrangatch 10-22-06, 08:22 PM	Artificer/Rogue multiclass here I come.