Artificer Infusions [Archive] - Wizards Community

Artificer Infusions [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
TrinityPower
05-07-07, 06:22 AM Does anyone know where I can find a comprehensive list of artificer Infusions and their effects?
Celas Evriamytholin
05-08-07, 01:41 PM By comprehensive you mean as complete as possible?

The entire list is of course in the Eberron Campaign Setting, but it sounds like you want an online source.

Could you be more specific? =)
jaelis
05-08-07, 02:13 PM "Spooky unknown website" has a list.
Loki5654
05-08-07, 02:43 PM Crystal Keep d20 has a list.
That whole site is one giant copyright violation.

To the OP: Since infusions are not part of the SRD and not covered under the OGL, any complete online listing is a violation of Wizards' copyright. If you want a legal source, you'll have to use the book(s).
jaelis
05-08-07, 03:02 PM That whole site is one giant copyright violation.

I don't think that listing the names and a short description is a violation. And "Spooky website" does have such a list.
Witch
05-08-07, 03:03 PM That whole site is one giant copyright violation.
WotC doesn't seem to care or be able to intervene, given the age of that site.

And I think this has to do with the fact that it's not a copyright violation, namely:

Copyright law covers only the form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work.

Crystal Keep alters the form.
Loki5654
05-08-07, 03:13 PM I don't think that listing the names and a short description is a violation. And Crystal Keep does have such a list.
The so-called "short description" provides enough information so that a person need not purchase the book.

This is a short description:
Charm Person: Makes one person your friend.
This is not:
Charm Person
Enchantment (Charm) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One humanoid creature
Duration: 1 hour/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.

The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
Witch
05-08-07, 03:15 PM *wink wink* at Loki. That's not how Crystal Keep does it. They alter the form, which renders copyright law inapplicable. Might want to actually check the site.
Loki5654
05-08-07, 03:20 PM WotC doesn't seem to care or be able to intervene, given the age of that site.
I can't control what the Wizards' legal team chooses to go after. Just because they haven't gotten in trouble yet doesn't make it legal.
Crystal Keep alters the form.
You can't seriously believe that.

If that were true, I could print out and sell my own copies of the PHB and not get in trouble because I used a different font.
Witch
05-08-07, 03:23 PM That'd be debatable in regards to font. My suspicions with regards to Wizards' stance on Crystal Keep, on the other hand, is that they don't know if they can win a lawsuit against the site owners, because the form is significantly different.

For example, the format of a spell at Crystal Keep:

Charm Person(PH p209)
<Ench(charm)[mind], VS, 1StdAct, Close-range,
1hr/lvl, WillNeg, SR applies>
– One Humanoid considers the caster its ally.
Anything the casters says or does will be
treated the same way as if a close friend has
done it.
If the target is in a threatening situation when
the spell is cast, it gets a +5 on the save. Any
threats from the caster or his/her allies after
the spell is in effect breaks the charm.

That's a lot more alteration than the font, to the point where the entire method of presentation is altered.
jaelis
05-08-07, 03:25 PM The so-called "short description" provides enough information so that a person need not purchase the book.

Do you know of another place where a list legitimate short description can be found? I'm not trying to argue that what "spooky website" does is legit, I'm just saying it is the only place I know that has a complete list of infusions.
Loki5654
05-08-07, 03:29 PM That's a lot more alteration than the font, to the point where the entire method of presentation is altered.
But it provides the exact same information.

Even the creators of CrystalKeep admit they are infringing:
This site is littered with the use of company names, product names, trademarked names, and trademarked or copyrighted images. The use of any such on this site should not be considered a challenge to those trademarks or copyrights.
Translation: "We know this is copyrighted information, and we know what we're doing is wrong and can get us in trouble, but...c'mon, please don't sue us."
Witch
05-08-07, 03:31 PM But it provides the exact same information.
So? I repeat:

Copyright law covers only the form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work.

I don't think they'd still be functioning if they were inflicting on copyright - not with the effort people take in order to ensure their copyright isn't inflicted upon.
Loki5654
05-08-07, 03:33 PM Do you know of another place where a list legitimate short description can be found? I'm not trying to argue that what Crystal Keep does is legit, I'm just saying it is the only place I know that has a complete list of infusions.
Well, the books for one.
Loki5654
05-08-07, 03:35 PM I don't think they'd still be functioning if they were inflicting on copyright - not with the effort people take in order to ensure their copyright isn't inflicted upon.
Your still saying "They haven't gotten caught yet, that makes it legal!" Which is a poor argument.

Where are you getting that quote from, anyway? It completely denies the existance of intellectual property.
jaelis
05-08-07, 03:36 PM Well, the books for one.

Ah, but which books? I think it is entirely fair use to provide a list of what infusions are in what books, just like WotC itself does for spells, feats, and invocations. Asking for such a thing is not at all unreasonable.
Witch
05-08-07, 03:37 PM Where are you getting that quote from, anyway?
Wikipedia :(
Loki5654
05-08-07, 03:41 PM Wikipedia :(
Hold on, let me stop laughing :rolleyes:

Wikipedia is not a valid source.
Loki5654
05-08-07, 03:43 PM Ah, but which books? I think it is entirely fair use to provide a list of what infusions are in what books, just like WotC itself does for spells, feats, and invocations. Asking for such a thing is not at all unreasonable.
No, it is not unreasonable. But CrystalKeep gives them much more than that. It doesn't just give them a short description, it gives them the whole description.

Analogy: The OP has asked for a picture of a pile of money, you've told him where he can steal an actual pile of money. Not only have you given him much more than he asked for, you've encouraged him to do something illegal as well.
Witch
05-08-07, 03:44 PM Luckily, Wikipedia also provides sources.

Does copyright protect an author's creative ideas?

No. Copyright shelters only fixed, original and creative expression, not the ideas or facts upon which the expression is based. For example, copyright may protect a particular song, novel or computer game about a romance in space, but it cannot protect the underlying idea of having a love affair among the stars. Allowing authors to monopolize their ideas would thwart the underlying purpose of copyright law, which is to encourage people to create new work.

For similar reasons, copyright does not protect facts -- whether scientific, historical, biographical or news of the day. Any facts that an author discovers in the course of research are in the public domain, free to all. For instance, anyone is free to use information included in a book about how the brain works, an article about the life and times of Neanderthals or a TV documentary about the childhood of President Clinton -- provided that that they express the information in their own words.

Facts are not protected even if the author spends considerable time and effort discovering things that were previously unknown. For example, the author of the book on Neanderthals takes ten years to gather all the necessary materials and information for her work. At great expense, she travels to hundreds of museums and excavations around the world. But after the book is published, any reader is free to use the results of this ten year research project to write his or her own book on Neanderthals -- without paying the original author.
- http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-a.html#1
allenchan
05-08-07, 03:49 PM If that were true, I could print out and sell my own copies of the PHB and not get in trouble because I used a different font.

I could have sworn Ive seen "pocket phbs" which were 3rd party and exactly that. :confused:
Loki5654
05-08-07, 03:58 PM Luckily, Wikipedia also provides sources.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-a.html#1
All right, but take a look at the four points federal judges use to determine "fair use" (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html):
1. The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use
When they say "transformitive" they mean "Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning". Since CK just rearranges the existing information, they do not add new expression or meaning.
Point 1: FAIL
2. The Nature of the Copyrighted Work
If you were reproducing the recipe for the cure for cancer, you might get away with Fair Use. Copying the rules for a game you didn't create doesn't fall under the category of "benefitting the public through dissemination of information".
Point 2: FAIL
3. The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken
In short, the less you take the safer you'll be. Since CK took the whole thing...
Point 3: FAIL
4. The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market
This is the big one. By reproducing the D&D rules in their complete form, they have the potential to significantly damage WoTC's potential market.
Point 4: MAJOR FAILURE

This is just what's obvious to me. I'm sure a federal judge could give you many, many, many more reasons why what CK is doing is wrong.
Loki5654
05-08-07, 03:59 PM I could have sworn Ive seen "pocket phbs" which were 3rd party and exactly that. :confused:
If they were published without WoTC's permission, they are just as illegal.

Additional: The "pocket PHBs" appear to just be copies of the SRD. So they don't contain any non-OGL material and are thus, legal.
jaelis
05-09-07, 01:16 PM I have to take it all back... IMarvinTPA's site (http://www.imarvintpa.com/dndLive/FindSpell.php)has infusions, and is much more reasonable regarding copyright respect.
Loki5654
05-09-07, 01:26 PM I have to take it all back... IMarvinTPA's site (http://www.imarvintpa.com/dndLive/FindSpell.php)has infusions, and is much more reasonable regarding copyright respect.
Only slightly more reasonable, though. Sure, you can select the option to just give the short description of the spell (they call it "lite deatils"), but you can also get the full description. Everything highlighted in pink is (by the site's own admission) is "closed content reproduced without permission". Which is just another way of saying "stolen".
jaelis
05-09-07, 01:30 PM Uh, did you look at what the "full description" tells you for a non-OGL spell? Here's an example

Name Lesser Armor Enhancement
School Transmutation
Level Artificer 1
Version Ebberon
Sources Eberron Campaign Setting on page 109
Short Description

Armor or shield gains special ability with +1 bonus market price modifier.

Source Copyright: Eberron Campaign Setting Copyright 2004, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Keith Baker, Bill Slavicsek, James Wyatt

The Closed content displayed above has been reproduced without permission from the copyright holder.

This seems entirely in line with the standard "short descriptions" that WotC uses. (I would guess they are the same, though I didn't check.) It is certainly not enough information to use the spell in a game, and I can't imagine anyone at WotC objecting to it.
Loki5654
05-09-07, 01:38 PM Uh, did you look at what the "full description" tells you for a non-OGL spell? Here's an example

This seems entirely in line with the standard "short descriptions" that WotC uses. (I would guess they are the same, though I didn't check.) It is certainly not enough information to use the spell in a game, and I can't imagine anyone at WotC objecting to it.
Hmm, apparently I was dazzled (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dazzled) by the full SRD descriptions and didn't look close enough at the non-SRD ones to see they didn't give as much info.

Withdrawn (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#withdraw).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TrinityPower 05-07-07, 06:22 AM	Does anyone know where I can find a comprehensive list of artificer Infusions and their effects?
Celas Evriamytholin 05-08-07, 01:41 PM	By comprehensive you mean as complete as possible? The entire list is of course in the Eberron Campaign Setting, but it sounds like you want an online source. Could you be more specific? =)
jaelis 05-08-07, 02:13 PM	"Spooky unknown website" has a list.
Loki5654 05-08-07, 02:43 PM	Crystal Keep d20 has a list. That whole site is one giant copyright violation. To the OP: Since infusions are not part of the SRD and not covered under the OGL, any complete online listing is a violation of Wizards' copyright. If you want a legal source, you'll have to use the book(s).
jaelis 05-08-07, 03:02 PM	That whole site is one giant copyright violation. I don't think that listing the names and a short description is a violation. And "Spooky website" does have such a list.
Witch 05-08-07, 03:03 PM	That whole site is one giant copyright violation. WotC doesn't seem to care or be able to intervene, given the age of that site. And I think this has to do with the fact that it's not a copyright violation, namely: Copyright law covers only the form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work. Crystal Keep alters the form.
Loki5654 05-08-07, 03:13 PM	I don't think that listing the names and a short description is a violation. And Crystal Keep does have such a list. The so-called "short description" provides enough information so that a person need not purchase the book. This is a short description: Charm Person: Makes one person your friend. This is not: Charm Person Enchantment (Charm) [Mind-Affecting] Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Target: One humanoid creature Duration: 1 hour/level Saving Throw: Will negates Spell Resistance: Yes This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw. The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
Witch 05-08-07, 03:15 PM	wink wink at Loki. That's not how Crystal Keep does it. They alter the form, which renders copyright law inapplicable. Might want to actually check the site.
Loki5654 05-08-07, 03:20 PM	WotC doesn't seem to care or be able to intervene, given the age of that site. I can't control what the Wizards' legal team chooses to go after. Just because they haven't gotten in trouble yet doesn't make it legal. Crystal Keep alters the form. You can't seriously believe that. If that were true, I could print out and sell my own copies of the PHB and not get in trouble because I used a different font.
Witch 05-08-07, 03:23 PM	That'd be debatable in regards to font. My suspicions with regards to Wizards' stance on Crystal Keep, on the other hand, is that they don't know if they can win a lawsuit against the site owners, because the form is significantly different. For example, the format of a spell at Crystal Keep: Charm Person(PH p209) <Ench(charm)[mind], VS, 1StdAct, Close-range, 1hr/lvl, WillNeg, SR applies> – One Humanoid considers the caster its ally. Anything the casters says or does will be treated the same way as if a close friend has done it. If the target is in a threatening situation when the spell is cast, it gets a +5 on the save. Any threats from the caster or his/her allies after the spell is in effect breaks the charm. That's a lot more alteration than the font, to the point where the entire method of presentation is altered.
jaelis 05-08-07, 03:25 PM	The so-called "short description" provides enough information so that a person need not purchase the book. Do you know of another place where a list legitimate short description can be found? I'm not trying to argue that what "spooky website" does is legit, I'm just saying it is the only place I know that has a complete list of infusions.
Loki5654 05-08-07, 03:29 PM	That's a lot more alteration than the font, to the point where the entire method of presentation is altered. But it provides the exact same information. Even the creators of CrystalKeep admit they are infringing: This site is littered with the use of company names, product names, trademarked names, and trademarked or copyrighted images. The use of any such on this site should not be considered a challenge to those trademarks or copyrights. Translation: "We know this is copyrighted information, and we know what we're doing is wrong and can get us in trouble, but...c'mon, please don't sue us."
Witch 05-08-07, 03:31 PM	But it provides the exact same information. So? I repeat: Copyright law covers only the form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work. I don't think they'd still be functioning if they were inflicting on copyright - not with the effort people take in order to ensure their copyright isn't inflicted upon.
Loki5654 05-08-07, 03:33 PM	Do you know of another place where a list legitimate short description can be found? I'm not trying to argue that what Crystal Keep does is legit, I'm just saying it is the only place I know that has a complete list of infusions. Well, the books for one.
Loki5654 05-08-07, 03:35 PM	I don't think they'd still be functioning if they were inflicting on copyright - not with the effort people take in order to ensure their copyright isn't inflicted upon. Your still saying "They haven't gotten caught yet, that makes it legal!" Which is a poor argument. Where are you getting that quote from, anyway? It completely denies the existance of intellectual property.
jaelis 05-08-07, 03:36 PM	Well, the books for one. Ah, but which books? I think it is entirely fair use to provide a list of what infusions are in what books, just like WotC itself does for spells, feats, and invocations. Asking for such a thing is not at all unreasonable.
Witch 05-08-07, 03:37 PM	Where are you getting that quote from, anyway? Wikipedia :(
Loki5654 05-08-07, 03:41 PM	Wikipedia :( Hold on, let me stop laughing :rolleyes: Wikipedia is not a valid source.
Loki5654 05-08-07, 03:43 PM	Ah, but which books? I think it is entirely fair use to provide a list of what infusions are in what books, just like WotC itself does for spells, feats, and invocations. Asking for such a thing is not at all unreasonable. No, it is not unreasonable. But CrystalKeep gives them much more than that. It doesn't just give them a short description, it gives them the whole description. Analogy: The OP has asked for a picture of a pile of money, you've told him where he can steal an actual pile of money. Not only have you given him much more than he asked for, you've encouraged him to do something illegal as well.
Witch 05-08-07, 03:44 PM	Luckily, Wikipedia also provides sources. Does copyright protect an author's creative ideas? No. Copyright shelters only fixed, original and creative expression, not the ideas or facts upon which the expression is based. For example, copyright may protect a particular song, novel or computer game about a romance in space, but it cannot protect the underlying idea of having a love affair among the stars. Allowing authors to monopolize their ideas would thwart the underlying purpose of copyright law, which is to encourage people to create new work. For similar reasons, copyright does not protect facts -- whether scientific, historical, biographical or news of the day. Any facts that an author discovers in the course of research are in the public domain, free to all. For instance, anyone is free to use information included in a book about how the brain works, an article about the life and times of Neanderthals or a TV documentary about the childhood of President Clinton -- provided that that they express the information in their own words. Facts are not protected even if the author spends considerable time and effort discovering things that were previously unknown. For example, the author of the book on Neanderthals takes ten years to gather all the necessary materials and information for her work. At great expense, she travels to hundreds of museums and excavations around the world. But after the book is published, any reader is free to use the results of this ten year research project to write his or her own book on Neanderthals -- without paying the original author. - http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-a.html#1
allenchan 05-08-07, 03:49 PM	If that were true, I could print out and sell my own copies of the PHB and not get in trouble because I used a different font. I could have sworn Ive seen "pocket phbs" which were 3rd party and exactly that. :confused:
Loki5654 05-08-07, 03:58 PM	Luckily, Wikipedia also provides sources. http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-a.html#1 All right, but take a look at the four points federal judges use to determine "fair use" (http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html): 1. The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use When they say "transformitive" they mean "Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning". Since CK just rearranges the existing information, they do not add new expression or meaning. Point 1: FAIL 2. The Nature of the Copyrighted Work If you were reproducing the recipe for the cure for cancer, you might get away with Fair Use. Copying the rules for a game you didn't create doesn't fall under the category of "benefitting the public through dissemination of information". Point 2: FAIL 3. The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken In short, the less you take the safer you'll be. Since CK took the whole thing... Point 3: FAIL 4. The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market This is the big one. By reproducing the D&D rules in their complete form, they have the potential to significantly damage WoTC's potential market. Point 4: MAJOR FAILURE This is just what's obvious to me. I'm sure a federal judge could give you many, many, many more reasons why what CK is doing is wrong.
Loki5654 05-08-07, 03:59 PM	I could have sworn Ive seen "pocket phbs" which were 3rd party and exactly that. :confused: If they were published without WoTC's permission, they are just as illegal. Additional: The "pocket PHBs" appear to just be copies of the SRD. So they don't contain any non-OGL material and are thus, legal.
jaelis 05-09-07, 01:16 PM	I have to take it all back... IMarvinTPA's site (http://www.imarvintpa.com/dndLive/FindSpell.php)has infusions, and is much more reasonable regarding copyright respect.
Loki5654 05-09-07, 01:26 PM	I have to take it all back... IMarvinTPA's site (http://www.imarvintpa.com/dndLive/FindSpell.php)has infusions, and is much more reasonable regarding copyright respect. Only slightly more reasonable, though. Sure, you can select the option to just give the short description of the spell (they call it "lite deatils"), but you can also get the full description. Everything highlighted in pink is (by the site's own admission) is "closed content reproduced without permission". Which is just another way of saying "stolen".
jaelis 05-09-07, 01:30 PM	Uh, did you look at what the "full description" tells you for a non-OGL spell? Here's an example Name Lesser Armor Enhancement School Transmutation Level Artificer 1 Version Ebberon Sources Eberron Campaign Setting on page 109 Short Description Armor or shield gains special ability with +1 bonus market price modifier. Source Copyright: Eberron Campaign Setting Copyright 2004, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Keith Baker, Bill Slavicsek, James Wyatt The Closed content displayed above has been reproduced without permission from the copyright holder. This seems entirely in line with the standard "short descriptions" that WotC uses. (I would guess they are the same, though I didn't check.) It is certainly not enough information to use the spell in a game, and I can't imagine anyone at WotC objecting to it.
Loki5654 05-09-07, 01:38 PM	Uh, did you look at what the "full description" tells you for a non-OGL spell? Here's an example This seems entirely in line with the standard "short descriptions" that WotC uses. (I would guess they are the same, though I didn't check.) It is certainly not enough information to use the spell in a game, and I can't imagine anyone at WotC objecting to it. Hmm, apparently I was dazzled (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dazzled) by the full SRD descriptions and didn't look close enough at the non-SRD ones to see they didn't give as much info. Withdrawn (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#withdraw).