Note: At this time, a friend has borrowed my Eberron Campaign Setting and Tome of Magic, so I am working clearly from memory. So if this idea is indeed wrong, then all you need to do is tell me so.
The idea: One of the Artificer's key abilities is his uncanny knack to eat magic items and turn them into XP for his Craft Reserve.
One of the Vestiges you can bind as early as 3rd level can grant you Enchanted Full Plate at your leisure.
Now, if this works, then the end result is an endless Craft Reserve with as little as a 6-8 level dip into Binder (horridly sub-par for the Infusions you will lose, but the pay-out it gives is indeed huge).
IIRC, there may be a clause in the Artificer's ability that prevents this. Again, I am working from memory, so I can be very wrong with this idea. But if I am right, then this can easily tear through the standard Infinite Cash idea.
If it doesn't, then oh well. Better luck next time SiFir.
Yep, its pretty abusive already, but its in the realm of un-practical / theoretical optimization, as no DM would allow this sort of trick to go down, unless Pun-Pun was in the party...
You can bind the vestige in question at 1st level, but it becomes +1 at 5th level. You could use some bloodline tricks to reduce that. The same armor also, RAW, could be re-summoned as a full-round action, taken off, and given / sold.
Yep, its pretty abusive already, but its in the realm of un-practical / theoretical optimization, as no DM would allow this sort of trick to go down, unless Pun-Pun was in the party...
Savnok's Influence from a bad binding check prevents you from removing the armor by RAW, unless you wish to take penalties each time it happens. A good check allows one to ignore this penalty though.
I know what you mean by it being broken wide open. I probably should have put this in TO then, but my instincts told me to put it here.
Still, infinite Craft Reserve is less-broken than infinite cash. At the very least, you are limited by your actual cash to craft items. But that too can be circumvented via spells.
Savnok's Influence from a bad binding check prevents you from removing the armor by RAW, unless you wish to take penalties each time it happens. A good check allows one to ignore this penalty though.
I know what you mean by it being broken wide open. I probably should have put this in TO then, but my instincts told me to put it here.
Still, infinite Craft Reserve is less-broken than infinite cash. At the very least, you are limited by your actual cash to craft items. But that too can be circumvented via spells.
This trick allows infinite cash and infinite craft reserve, though, which is over the top. Add in the Warforged, and... well, you get the picture.
This trick allows infinite cash and infinite craft reserve, though, which is over the top. Add in the Warforged, and... well, you get the picture.
Obviously, any DM would disallow the Infinite Cash shenanigans. And IIRC, either the RAW or the Errata states that you can never produce more than one item from any Vestige you have bound (the other winks out of existence if you try to). Either way, the infinite Reserve is less overpowered than infinite cash.
But it is fun to think about.
IIRC, there may be a clause in the Artificer's ability that prevents this.
After one day, the item is destroyed and the artificer adds the XP it took to create the item to his craft reserve
i think this is the clause you were thinking of.
None of these tricks work, according to RAW, because Craft Reserve =/= XP.
You only gain Craft Reserve points if someone spent XP to make the item. If you used Craft Reserve points to craft an item, and then used Retain Essence on that item, you would not gain any Craft Reserve points.
So, the "Tools of War" Warforged Substitution level from RoE would not work to gain infinite Craft Reserve either.
i think this is the clause you were thinking of.
None of these tricks work, according to RAW, because Craft Reserve =/= XP.
You only gain Craft Reserve points if someone spent XP to make the item. If you used Craft Reserve points to craft an item, and then used Retain Essence on that item, you would not gain any Craft Reserve points.
So, the "Tools of War" Warforged Substitution level from RoE would not work to gain infinite Craft Reserve either.
+1 Full Plate does take XP to create, you just aren't the one paying it. That's like saying a wand you purchased earlier in your career can't be dismantled into your Reserve because you didn't pay any XP to craft it.
+1 Full Plate does take XP to create, you just aren't the one paying it. That's like saying a wand you purchased earlier in your career can't be dismantled into your Reserve because you didn't pay any XP to craft it.
no it's not.
It doesn't say you have to be the one to pay it, it just says that whatever it cost to create that specific item is what you get. So it doesn't matter who crafted it, it just matters how much XP they spent on it.
I take this to mean that if you looted an Artificer's lab, you probably wouldn't be getting much XP from the stuff he crafted, unless he happened to go over his craft reserve for that level and had to spend some XP.
I interpret the phrase to be referring to the specific item. However, you could interpret it to be more general.
For example, lets say a Wizard named Quick Ben crafts a +1 Quarterstaff and names it "Oakdeath." Quick Ben has the Legendary Artisan feat. Thus, he spent 25% less XP to make it, than would the typical Wizard. Then, you happen to find it and use Retain Essence.
There are two options:
option 1: the referent of the phrase "that item" from the Retain Essence description is Oakdeath. Result: you gain the exact amount of XP Quick Ben spent on Oakdeath, which is base price * 1/4 * 1/25.
option 2: the referent of the phrase "that item" from the Retain Essence description is a +1 Quarterstaff. Result: you gain 1/25 the base price of a +1 weapon.
I think option 1 fits the RAW better, but ultimately it is probably a DM call. All in all, a DM can shoot down such tricks through RAW or RAI
None of these tricks work, according to RAW, because Craft Reserve =/= XP.
You only gain Craft Reserve points if someone spent XP to make the item. If you used Craft Reserve points to craft an item, and then used Retain Essence on that item, you would not gain any Craft Reserve points.
However, when creating items Craft Reserve is functionally equivalent to XP, as you are allowed to use the former for the latter in all cases. Would you like it if your DM said you couldn't break down a given item because it happened to have been made with someone's Craft Reserve? Breaking down a suit of Savnok's +1 armor for its (hypothetical) XP is just as valid as breaking down any other magic armor.
Would you like it if your DM said you couldn't break down a given item because it happened to have been made with someone's Craft Reserve?
If my DM could give me a good reason for it, I wouldn't be mad. I tend to support RAW unless it is in obvious error.
Also, they may be functionally equivalent for crafting, but they are still 2 entirely different things. I think the reason this clause was included in the Retain Essence text is to prevent abuses like this. Why not just say "when you use Retain Essence you gain 1/25 the base price of such an item in Craft Reserve points?"
no it's not.
It doesn't say you have to be the one to pay it, it just says that whatever it cost to create that specific item is what you get. So it doesn't matter who crafted it, it just matters how much XP they spent on it.
I take this to mean that if you looted an Artificer's lab, you probably wouldn't be getting much XP from the stuff he crafted, unless he happened to go over his craft reserve for that level and had to spend some XP.
I interpret the phrase to be referring to the specific item. However, you could interpret it to be more general.
For example, lets say a Wizard named Quick Ben crafts a +1 Quarterstaff and names it "Oakdeath." Quick Ben has the Legendary Artisan feat. Thus, he spent 25% less XP to make it, than would the typical Wizard. Then, you happen to find it and use Retain Essence.
There are two options:
option 1: the referent of the phrase "that item" from the Retain Essence description is Oakdeath. Result: you gain the exact amount of XP Quick Ben spent on Oakdeath, which is base price * 1/4 * 1/25.
option 2: the referent of the phrase "that item" from the Retain Essence description is a +1 Quarterstaff. Result: you gain 1/25 the base price of a +1 weapon.
I think option 1 fits the RAW better, but ultimately it is probably a DM call. All in all, a DM can shoot down such tricks through RAW or RAI
I do see where you are getting at. But there is nothing to indicate that the Vestige itself is incapable of spending the XP to create the armor. In fact, there is nothing supporting how the armor even exists. It is created through a magical effect which requires an investment of some kind (levels in Binder). If there is no proof that someone crafted it specifically, then the item is always assumed to use the bare minimum to meet the requirements for crafting it.
This is a ruling from the Magic Item section of the DMG, and is the basis behind all magic items that are not custom-made. The full plate granted by Savnok is assumed to be the standard bare-bones Full Plate, which means that it also qualifies for the Retain Essence ability to function on it.
All items, unless otherwise stated, use the bare minimum (baring outside sources) to create them. This is a commonly accepted rule that has applied to all pre-crafted magic items, and is the key behind spells such as Disjunction and Suppress Item. As such, it can be inferred that there was a minimum amount of XP expended to call Savnok's armor. It is just that a being beyond mortal nature is the one doing so.
If my DM could give me a good reason for it, I wouldn't be mad. I tend to support RAW unless it is in obvious error.
Also, they may be functionally equivalent for crafting, but they are still 2 entirely different things. I think the reason this clause was included in the Retain Essence text is to prevent abuses like this. Why not just say "when you use Retain Essence you gain 1/25 the base price of such an item in Craft Reserve points?"
The issue is that you don't know what the crafter paid for in unless you were the crafter. There are so many ways that you can mess with XP cost that it wouldn't be fair to do that, since the DM could just claim that with no "proof."
Aside from that, the DMG states that, unless you are improving an item or crafting a custom one, it's treated in all ways as having the bare minima needed to make it, including minimum XP.
EDIT: Dammit, ninja'd by Sinfire Titan. Great minds think alike and all that.
I do see where you are getting at. But there is nothing to indicate that the Vestige itself is incapable of spending the XP to create the armor. In fact, there is nothing supporting how the armor even exists. It is created through a magical effect which requires an investment of some kind (levels in Binder). If there is no proof that someone crafted it specifically, then the item is always assumed to use the bare minimum to meet the requirements for crafting it.
This is a ruling from the Magic Item section of the DMG, and is the basis behind all magic items that are not custom-made. The full plate granted by Savnok is assumed to be the standard bare-bones Full Plate, which means that it also qualifies for the Retain Essence ability to function on it.
All items, unless otherwise stated, use the bare minimum (baring outside sources) to create them. This is a commonly accepted rule that has applied to all pre-crafted magic items, and is the key behind spells such as Disjunction and Suppress Item. As such, it can be inferred that there was a minimum amount of XP expended to call Savnok's armor. It is just that a being beyond mortal nature is the one doing so.
I just don't think your logic follows. There is no reason to believe that in order for an item to come into existence someone must have spent XP on it.
Maybe Savnok has Artificer levels and he is using his craft reserve to pass out magical armor to all the binders that bind him?
Any assertion as to the origins of Savnok's Armor is pure speculation. As far as I can tell from the vestige description, there is no definitive statement as to the nature of Savnok's armor. Why should we even jump to the conclusion that such armor is physical in nature and can be removed and sold?
The standard procedure for spells that produce actual physical objects that can persist without maintaining the spell is that an XP cost is involved on behalf of the caster.
I think, in the absence of specific information in the description, it takes a much shorter logical leap to conclude that the armor is magical in nature and similar to armor that comes from spells of a similar level like Luminous Armor or Mage Armor, and thus, that it vanishes when you unbind Savnok or remove the armor.
The issue is that you don't know what the crafter paid for in unless you were the crafter. There are so many ways that you can mess with XP cost that it wouldn't be fair to do that, since the DM could just claim that with no "proof."
Aside from that, the DMG states that, unless you are improving an item or crafting a custom one, it's treated in all ways as having the bare minima needed to make it, including minimum XP.
EDIT: Dammit, ninja'd by Sinfire Titan. Great minds think alike and all that.
As a DM, I would say that any item would be treated as non-specific as long as you don't know the origins of the item. ex: "you find a non-descript +1 longsword in a goblin chief's possession."
However, we are talking here about items of which we do know the origin. We are talking about an infinite Craft Reserve loop based on an item that you created as a Warforged Artificer.
OAnd IIRC, either the RAW or the Errata states that you can never produce more than one item from any Vestige you have bound (the other winks out of existence if you try to).
I have no idea where that is coming from.
I just don't think your logic follows. There is no reason to believe that in order for an item to come into existence someone must have spent XP on it.
Maybe Savnok has Artificer levels and he is using his craft reserve to pass out magical armor to all the binders that bind him?
Any assertion as to the origins of Savnok's Armor is pure speculation. As far as I can tell from the vestige description, there is no definitive statement as to the nature of Savnok's armor. Why should we even jump to the conclusion that such armor is physical in nature and can be removed and sold?
The standard procedure for spells that produce actual physical objects that can persist without maintaining the spell is that an XP cost is involved on behalf of the caster.
I think, in the absence of specific information in the description, it takes a much shorter logical leap to conclude that the armor is magical in nature and similar to armor that comes from spells of a similar level like Luminous Armor or Mage Armor, and thus, that it vanishes when you unbind Savnok or remove the armor.
Even Deities can't ignore the XP cost for crafting magic items. That is my logic.
I have no idea where that is coming from.
Actually, it came from the one that grants you the mini-fortress at will. It said that you can only have one tower in existence at any given time from the ability. I was assuming they errataed Savnok and the others to have the same clause.
Actually, it came from the one that grants you the mini-fortress at will. It said that you can only have one tower in existence at any given time from the ability. I was assuming they errataed Savnok and the others to have the same clause.
That isn't the case. The 1 fortress at a time is written into that ability.
Even Deities can't ignore the XP cost for crafting magic items. That is my logic.
I wonder how long it would take 1000 Warforged Binders to make Savnok drop a level if they were spending all their time Binding Savnok, summoning the +5 armor, taking off the armor, unbinding Savnok, rebinding Savnok etc..
I wonder how long it would take 1000 Warforged Binders to make Savnok drop a level if they were spending all their time Binding Savnok, summoning the +5 armor, taking off the armor, unbinding Savnok, rebinding Savnok etc..
Its actually not Savnok that created the armor. The actual creator is never named, but the armor belonged to the mother of Hextor and Heironeous. A minor detail, but an interesting one, nevertheless.
As a vestige, Savnok isn't subject to laws that even the deities have to adhere to. They are bound by other laws that aren't ever outlined (we could argue that they are weaker than the gods, as gods don't have to answer to mere mortals unless they want to, but really there isn't enough definition). I doubt he has to pay XP into his items, but I also don't know that the items have any XP, either.
Another really stupid reason that it might not work: "Retain Essence (Su): At 5th level, an artificer gains the ability to salvage the XP from a magic item and use those points to create another magic item." OK, since when do items have XP? Really... this needs to be clarified. Otherwise, from a RAW argument, you can retain essence a thought bottle or an item that was permanently animated, awakened, and leveled up, and that's about it...
However, we are talking here about items of which we do know the origin. We are talking about an infinite Craft Reserve loop based on an item that you created as a Warforged Artificer.
First, I thought we were talking about Savnok's armor, not a Warforged crafting trick?
Second--take the armor off, put it next to another +1 armor, close your eyes, have someone rearrange them, and tell me which is Savnok's and which is not. Is there a detect invested XP spell I'm unaware of?
First, I thought we were talking about Savnok's armor, not a Warforged crafting trick?
Second--take the armor off, put it next to another +1 armor, close your eyes, have someone rearrange them, and tell me which is Savnok's and which is not. Is there a detect invested XP spell I'm unaware of?
Oh that's easy. You just Dismiss Savnok's armor, and call it again. Then you know exactly which one it is!
Does the text say anything about it being recreated if it's destroyed? What if you roll a 1 on your save and the armor is magically destroyed? Can Savnok recreate it?
It isn't clarified... It isn't ever explicitly talked about being unique, though it certainly is implied.
You could do a similar trick just binding Eurynome. Here the weapon isn't implied to be unique.
If you bind Asteroth (from Cityscape Web Enhancement), you can also have any item creation feat based on your EBL, as well.
This could be sick:
Artificer 5 / Binder 4 / Knight of the Sacred Seal 5 / Scion of Dantalion 3 / Major Bloodline 3
EBL of 21, Artificer CL (for crafting purposes to UMD prereq spells) of 10.
It still would need a lot of prereq spells (for anything over 5th level prereqs), but otherwise is pretty tight.
Oh that's easy. You just Dismiss Savnok's armor, and call it again. Then you know exactly which one it is!
Whose side are you on!?If you bind Asteroth (from Cityscape Web Enhancement), you can also have any item creation feat based on your EBL, as well.
This could be sick:
Artificer 5 / Binder 4 / Knight of the Sacred Seal 5 / Scion of Dantalion 3 / Major Bloodline 3
EBL of 21, Artificer CL (for crafting purposes to UMD prereq spells) of 10.
It still would need a lot of prereq spells (for anything over 5th level prereqs), but otherwise is pretty tight.
Ooh, that's nice as well. How could we make the most of that, I wonder?
OK, since when do items have XP? Really... this needs to be clarified. Otherwise, from a RAW argument, you can retain essence a thought bottle or an item that was permanently animated, awakened, and leveled up, and that's about it...
i believe this is clarified in the portion I quoted. "the XP from a magic item" is clarified as "the XP it took to create the item" later in the ability description.
First, I thought we were talking about Savnok's armor, not a Warforged crafting trick?
jwo brought up the infinite craft reserve trick in post #4. The reason I was discussing it was because i believe that both the Savnok and Tools of War tricks are impossible based on the RAW of the Retain Essence description that i quoted above. Retain Essence cannot suck XP out of an item if no XP was spent as part of its creation. No XP was spent in Savnok's Armor's creation, thus, no Retain Essence on it.
These seems to me to be an example of "the rules don't say we can't so lets assume we can." Unless there's something I missed, the rules don't say that you can't take off and sell Savnok's armor, but they don't say that you can either.
If you conclude from this that selling Savnok's armor is acceptable by RAW, then what is to stop you from doing the same thing with Mage Armor? It says right there in the description that Mage Armor is "an invisible but tangible field of force." So whats stopping you from going into a shop, proving that the armor does in fact exist, and then selling it for a hefty sum? It doesn't say in the Mage Armor description that you can't take it off.
My point of view is that Savnok's Armor is a spell effect that happens to resemble a suit of Full Plate, that is contingent on binding Savnok for its existence. Otherwise, you could just unbind Savnok after summoning the armor and bind a different vestige, while keeping the armor.
It just seems like one of those quacking duck situations. "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc it must be a duck." Savnok's Armor is only granted as a Vestige ability. You can summon and dismiss it at will. It gains power as your EBL increases. It doesn't cost XP to create.
What is there to make you conclude that it is a real item?
I must admit that I am new to ToM, so I am ignorant as to whether this has been argued and proven elsewhere. I'm just basing my line of argumentation on common sense and the spell mechanics that the Vestiges seem to be based on.
Ooh, that's nice as well. How could we make the most of that, I wonder?
Well, this subject is already over the top...
Asteroth's Master Craftsman ability doesn't actually say that you need anything other than the EBL in CL for the feat you want to pick (the prereq feats for the item creation feat you are choosing is NOT required, unlike the Chameleon's Floating feat), therefore you can actually choose to pick up epic feats.
Normally, making epic items is too expensive and time consuming for PCs, but with this trick a Warforged using the build above could actually build Epic Equipment as soon as he has the EBL=CL of the feat. Notice that Epic Crafting feats have no CL prereq required?
The main issue is boosting CL as high as possible to be able to make as many different items as possible.
So, working on that build...
Artificer 5 / Binder 2 / Ardent 1 / KoSS 5 / SoD 1 / Tenebrous Apostate 2 / Anima Mage 1 / Bloodline 3
Gets EBL of 25, same Artificer goodies, allowing some more items to be crafted. That allows armor up to a +8 bonus, which is ok at 20th, and lots of other stuff (all the other epic armor enhancements, for example).
i believe this is clarified in the portion I quoted. "the XP from a magic item" is clarified as "the XP it took to create the item" later in the ability description.
Oh, maybe you are right.
jwo brought up the infinite craft reserve trick in post #4. The reason I was discussing it was because i believe that both the Savnok and Tools of War tricks are impossible based on the RAW of the Retain Essence description that i quoted above. Retain Essence cannot suck XP out of an item if no XP was spent as part of its creation. No XP was spent in Savnok's Armor's creation, thus, no Retain Essence on it.
This makes sense... but we don't know if XP was used in crafting Savnok's Armor. It never says. Since there is no other mechanic in the game to get magical fullplate without spending XP to make it, it isn't unreasonable to assume that XP was used here as well. We just don't know.
If you conclude from this that selling Savnok's armor is acceptable by RAW, then what is to stop you from doing the same thing with Mage Armor? It says right there in the description that Mage Armor is "an invisible but tangible field of force." So whats stopping you from going into a shop, proving that the armor does in fact exist, and then selling it for a hefty sum? It doesn't say in the Mage Armor description that you can't take it off.
And thus ANOTHER infinite cash trick is born! Good jorb!
My point of view is that Savnok's Armor is a spell effect that happens to resemble a suit of Full Plate, that is contingent on binding Savnok for its existence. Otherwise, you could just unbind Savnok after summoning the armor and bind a different vestige, while keeping the armor.
Bad assumption. It IS full-plate. It just happens to wink out in an AMF.
What is there to make you conclude that it is a real item?
b/c it is a real item
.jwo brought up the infinite craft reserve trick in post #4. The reason I was discussing it was because i believe that both the Savnok and Tools of War tricks are impossible based on the RAW of the Retain Essence description that i quoted above.
Okay then; I don't think I've seen the Tools of War trick.
Retain Essence cannot suck XP out of an item if no XP was spent as part of its creation. No XP was spent in Savnok's Armor's creation, thus, no Retain Essence on it.
These seems to me to be an example of "the rules don't say we can't so lets assume we can." Unless there's something I missed, the rules don't say that you can't take off and sell Savnok's armor, but they don't say that you can either.
Ah, but you can take it off, as long as you made a good pact with Savnok. Right there in the description, I believe (but don't quote me on that; I don't have ToM on me at the moment).
If you conclude from this that selling Savnok's armor is acceptable by RAW, then what is to stop you from doing the same thing with Mage Armor? It says right there in the description that Mage Armor is "an invisible but tangible field of force." So whats stopping you from going into a shop, proving that the armor does in fact exist, and then selling it for a hefty sum? It doesn't say in the Mage Armor description that you can't take it off.
No, but (A) Savnok's does say you can take it off, and (B) mage armor is a field of force whereas Savnok's actually summons a physical suit of +1 armor.
My point of view is that Savnok's Armor is a spell effect that happens to resemble a suit of Full Plate, that is contingent on binding Savnok for its existence. Otherwise, you could just unbind Savnok after summoning the armor and bind a different vestige, while keeping the armor.
Summon monster also is a summons that is a spell effec; is the summoned monster just a spell effect as well? No; it just doesn't die if it's killed on the Material.
It just seems like one of those quacking duck situations. "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc it must be a duck." Savnok's Armor is only granted as a Vestige ability. You can summon and dismiss it at will. It gains power as your EBL increases. It doesn't cost XP to create.
What is there to make you conclude that it is a real item?
I must admit that I am new to ToM, so I am ignorant as to whether this has been argued and proven elsewhere. I'm just basing my line of argumentation on common sense and the spell mechanics that the Vestiges seem to be based on.
Again, summon monster is only a wizard spell, you can summon and dismiss the monster at will, and there are more powerful forms (I-IX) as you level, yet the monster is real. You don't know that it costs no XP, just that it doesn't cost you XP.
Well, this subject is already over the top...
Asteroth's Master Craftsman ability doesn't actually say that you need anything other than the EBL in CL for the feat you want to pick (the prereq feats for the item creation feat you are choosing is NOT required, unlike the Chameleon's Floating feat), therefore you can actually choose to pick up epic feats.
Normally, making epic items is too expensive and time consuming for PCs, but with this trick a Warforged using the build above could actually build Epic Equipment as soon as he has the EBL=CL of the feat. Notice that Epic Crafting feats have no CL prereq required?
The main issue is boosting CL as high as possible to be able to make as many different items as possible.
So, working on that build...
Artificer 5 / Binder 2 / Ardent 1 / KoSS 5 / SoD 1 / Tenebrous Apostate 2 / Anima Mage 1 / Bloodline 3
Gets EBL of 25, same Artificer goodies, allowing some more items to be crafted. That allows armor up to a +8 bonus, which is ok at 20th, and lots of other stuff (all the other epic armor enhancements, for example).
Very nice. I'll have to keep this in mind.
This makes sense... but we don't know if XP was used in crafting Savnok's Armor. It never says. Since there is no other mechanic in the game to get magical fullplate without spending XP to make it, it isn't unreasonable to assume that XP was used here as well. We just don't know.
There are spells that provide similar effects... But we do know. Since it never says that you have to spend XP to bind Savnok or benefit from this vestigial ability, it would make more sense to conclude that you aren't getting a magical item for free!!!
And thus ANOTHER infinite cash trick is born! Good jorb!
Now you're just being silly...
Bad assumption. It IS full-plate. It just happens to wink out in an AMF.
...
you realize you're helping my case here?
b/c it is a real item
NOOOOOOOOOO MY ARGUMENTS CRUMBLE IN THE FACE OF YOUR PLAYGROUND LOGIC!!!!!!!!!!!! I AM UNDONE!!!!!!!
This is a textbook example of RAW being twisted to suit the needs of the optimizer rather than functioning based on common sense and the generally accepted norms of the DnD magic system.
Why not just use Retain Essence on Mage Armor? I don't see anywhere in the rules that says this is not a valid target.
Ah, but you can take it off, as long as you made a good pact with Savnok. Right there in the description, I believe (but don't quote me on that; I don't have ToM on me at the moment).
No, but (A) Savnok's does say you can take it off, and (B) mage armor is a field of force whereas Savnok's actually summons a physical suit of +1 armor.
It doesn't say anywhere in the vestige description that you can take it off. Only that you can dismiss it as a full round action. Nor does it say that the armor is physical. Just because mage armor is invisible doesn't make it any less tangible.
Summon monster also is a summons that is a spell effec; is the summoned monster just a spell effect as well? No; it just doesn't die if it's killed on the Material.
Again, summon monster is only a wizard spell, you can summon and dismiss the monster at will, and there are more powerful forms (I-IX) as you level, yet the monster is real. You don't know that it costs no XP, just that it doesn't cost you XP.
Maybe Summon Monster is a good example. Its a spell that brings in a physical object. But there are limitations. Its clearly not a real monster. It doesn't give XP if killed. It doesn't carry loot. It can't be eaten for nourishment. You can't sell it...
This is actually a bad example for your argument... The friggin thing disappears at the end of the duration!
If Savnok's Armor is similar, then there's no reason to assert that it would not, likewise, disappear at the end of the duration of the binding! I would argue that since the only method the vestige description gives to remove the armor is through dismissal, that you CANNOT take it off and throw it on the ground, give it to a buddy, or sell it.
Mage armor -> "An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC."
Further -> "Unlike mundane armor, mage armor entails no armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, or speed reduction. Since mage armor is made of force, incorporeal creatures can’t bypass it the way they do normal armor."
Mage armor is not armor. It grants an armor bonus, but it is not armor.
On the other hand, let's look at Savnok's armor.
"At will as a full-round action, you can summon a suit of full-plate armor, which appears about your body."
When you summon something, you bring a real, tangible object/creature from another plane to your plane. You are therefore summoning real, tangible armor. (Armor is something that can be removed, hence you can remove this) It is not an effect. It is ARMOR.
The armor is real. And if your EBL is high enough, the armor is magical too. Therefore, using DMG rules for magical armor (which trumps other sources, btw) the magical armor was created using XP. Therefore you can use the artificer to destroy it and add to your craft.
Now, here's where it gets tricky, once you destroy the item, unless I'm mistaken, it will still be masterwork full-plate. What do you do then? You spend another full round to unsummon it. Then you resummon NEW armor, which, based on your EBL is magical and you rinse and repeat.
It's cut and dry RAW. No one would allow it, but it is feasible.
The only reason it winks out in an AMF is b/c you lose the benefits of any vestige in an AMF. The armor is real, though, but the benefit of the full-plate is lost. The same thing happens when you choose not to bind Savnok. I know this leads to some weird questions, if selling / destroying the full-plate, but there it is.
I have to jump in here. Grundle, I may agree with you that this should not be possible, but RAW it is.
Mage armor -> "An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC."
Further -> "Unlike mundane armor, mage armor entails no armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, or speed reduction. Since mage armor is made of force, incorporeal creatures can’t bypass it the way they do normal armor."
Mage armor is not armor. It grants an armor bonus, but it is not armor.
On the other hand, let's look at Savnok's armor.
"At will as a full-round action, you can summon a suit of full-plate armor, which appears about your body."
When you summon something, you bring a real, tangible object/creature from another plane to your plane. You are therefore summoning real, tangible armor. (Armor is something that can be removed, hence you can remove this) It is not an effect. It is ARMOR.
The armor is real. And if your EBL is high enough, the armor is magical too. Therefore, using DMG rules for magical armor (which trumps other sources, btw) the magical armor was created using XP. Therefore you can use the artificer to destroy it and add to your craft.
Now, here's where it gets tricky, once you destroy the item, unless I'm mistaken, it will still be masterwork full-plate. What do you do then? You spend another full round to unsummon it. Then you resummon NEW armor, which, based on your EBL is magical and you rinse and repeat.
It's cut and dry RAW. No one would allow it, but it is feasible.
I see what you're getting at. But I still disagree. The Vestige description doesn't give us any information about the nature of the armor. It doesn't say whether its a real suit of armor in every way similar to a suit that you bought at the general store. It lists some features of it that are similar to a suit that you bought at a store, but it still never says that it is made out of Steel for example.
If you claim that it can be removed, sold, destroyed, enchanted, painted, etc. you are making an assumption concerning the nature of the armor and it is at that moment that you disembark from RAW. You are now entering the world of interpretation/RAI. The spell text is silent, and so you are making stuff up based on what you think it SHOULD be able to do.
So Mage Armor isn't armor? That doesn't mean you can't sell it! You can sell all sorts of things that aren't armor.
It doesn't say anywhere in the vestige description that you can take it off. Only that you can dismiss it as a full round action. Nor does it say that the armor is physical. Just because mage armor is invisible doesn't make it any less tangible.
But you are summoning a suit of armor, not conjuring armor of force or the like; generally any ability with "summon" brings a real thing/monster/etc. to you.
Maybe Summon Monster is a good example. Its a spell that brings in a physical object. But there are limitations. Its clearly not a real monster. It doesn't give XP if killed. It doesn't carry loot. It can't be eaten for nourishment. You can't sell it...
This is actually a bad example for your argument... The friggin thing disappears at the end of the duration!
Why isn't it real? It doesn't give XP if killed because the ability to summon is taken into account in the summoner's XP, and disappearing on death is nothing more than a fancy contingent plane shift effect.
If Savnok's Armor is similar, then there's no reason to assert that it would not, likewise, disappear at the end of the duration of the binding! I would argue that since the only method the vestige description gives to remove the armor is through dismissal, that you CANNOT take it off and throw it on the ground, give it to a buddy, or sell it.
But do you have to take it off to break it down into your Craft Reserve? Selling it is tangential to the original argument here; if you can get XP from it you're fine.
I was being silly earlier.
The only reason it winks out in an AMF is b/c you lose the benefits of any vestige in an AMF. The armor is real, though, but the benefit of the full-plate is lost. The same thing happens when you choose not to bind Savnok. I know this leads to some weird questions, if selling / destroying the full-plate, but there it is.
This seems to solidify my argument. The armor's continued existence is dependent on the binding of the Vestige. How can it be real armor if it disappears in an AMF?
But do you have to take it off to break it down into your Craft Reserve? Selling it is tangential to the original argument here; if you can get XP from it you're fine.
if you can't take it off, how could you think that it is real armor that would qualify as a target of Retain Essence?
it doesn't matter because it is not real armor.
no xp was spent to craft it because it was never crafted.
A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from
in the same way that you can't treat a summoned monster the way you treat a regular monster, you cannot treat a summoned object the way you treat a regular object.
I see what you're getting at. But I still disagree. The Vestige description doesn't give us any information about the nature of the armor. It doesn't say whether its a real suit of armor in every way similar to a suit that you bought at the general store. It lists some features of it that are similar to a suit that you bought at a store, but it still never says that it is made out of Steel for example.
If you claim that it can be removed, sold, destroyed, enchanted, painted, etc. you are making an assumption concerning the nature of the armor and it is at that moment that you disembark from RAW. You are now entering the world of interpretation/RAI. The spell text is silent, and so you are making stuff up based on what you think it SHOULD be able to do.
So Mage Armor isn't armor? That doesn't mean you can't sell it! You can sell all sorts of things that aren't armor.
Now you're just twisting things. Okay, so i roll treasure in the DMG. I roll a +1 full plate. Are you telling me it does not exist because it doesn't list every detail about the full plate? No. The vestige summons full plate. This full plate is like every other set of normal full plate. It grants armor bonus. Weighs 50 lbs, etc. If you are denying this, you are basically denying every mention of full plate in every book besides the PHB because none of those give reference to the specifics. You're trying to play a game of semantics.
When something is mentioned "A dire ape" "full plate" "50 pp" are you telling me that unless it specifies everything about it, it doesn't exist? That's frankly ludicrious. You can summon full plate. Not magical green goo that acts like full plate. Full Plate. That's what the text says, so RAW you summon
real.
tangible.
full plate.
And if you happen to summon magical full plate, good for you. The only argument you have is if you are using the variant summoning rules of the DMG, which would mean when you destroy it you can't get it back
Good thing that's not RAW either.Actually, now that I reconsider it, you just lose the ability to summon / dismiss the armor in an AMF... you don't actually lose the armor. I misspoke earlier. The armor's existance isn't part of the granted ability, just the ability to summon it.
Now you're just twisting things. Okay, so i roll treasure in the DMG. I roll a +1 full plate. Are you telling me it does not exist because it doesn't list every detail about the full plate? No. The vestige summons full plate. This full plate is like every other set of normal full plate. It grants armor bonus. Weighs 50 lbs, etc. If you are denying this, you are basically denying every mention of full plate in every book besides the PHB because none of those give reference to the specifics. You're trying to play a game of semantics.
When something is mentioned "A dire ape" "full plate" "50 pp" are you telling me that unless it specifies everything about it, it doesn't exist? That's frankly ludicrious. You can summon full plate. Not magical green goo that acts like full plate. Full Plate. That's what the text says, so RAW you summon
real.
tangible.
full plate.
And if you happen to summon magical full plate, good for you. The only argument you have is if you are using the variant summoning rules of the DMG, which would mean when you destroy it you can't get it back
Your argument is irrelevant because no one is claiming that those entires you listed are not real. Also, none of those things you listed differ in any way from their real counterparts.
This vestige is not saying: "you summon +1 full plate."
It says "you summon +1 full plate that you can summon and dismiss at will, but if you enter an AMF it disappears."
do you see the difference there? I am suggesting that we should not assume it is a real suit of armor when it possesses properties that are not typical of normal suits of armor.
if a book said "you come around the corner and see 50 PP bouncing on their edges and shooting fireballs at you" i would be inclined to suggest that it is not, in fact, real PP.
and could you clarify what you mean in your last paragraph? im not assuming any variant summoning rules here, im just copying what the SRD says about summoning.
I was referring to a summoning variant in the DMG that you when you cast a spell like summon monster 1, you only summon one specific thing, like Joe the celestial badger. That way you can go to his plane and equip him with items. That's irrelevant to this discussion, so we can just throw that out.
Anyways, I've made my point. It is crystal clear, you just don't like it so you don't want it to work.
if you can't take it off, how could you think that it is real armor that would qualify as a target of Retain Essence?
it doesn't matter because it is not real armor.
no xp was spent to craft it because it was never crafted.
You don't know it was never crafted, and you have no evidence that it was never crafted--that's your assumption.
in the same way that you can't treat a summoned monster the way you treat a regular monster, you cannot treat a summoned object the way you treat a regular object.
The only difference is that it goes back whence it came when the duration expires or it dies--it's still a living, breathing, walking creature (unless it's undead, of course) whether it's summoned, it's called, or it walks in from the next room.
It says "you summon +1 full plate that you can summon and dismiss at will, but if you enter an AMF it disappears."
do you see the difference there? I am suggesting that we should not assume it is a real suit of armor when it possesses properties that are not typical of normal suits of armor.
Any summoned things disappear in an antimagic field, whether they're real or not; the magic holding them there is suppressed, not the summoned item/monster itself.
This vestige is not saying: "you summon +1 full plate."
It essentially says exactly that.
It says "you summon +1 full plate that you can summon and dismiss at will, but if you enter an AMF it disappears."
I misspoke here; you do lose the vestige granted abilities when in an AMF, sure, but rereading it, the only ability you lose is the ability to summon/unsummon it; existing summoned armor is still there, not actually being a vestige granted ability.
Sorry for the confusion.
Its a similar idea to casting Gate: you couldn't do it in an AMF, but a creature brought in wouldn't wink out in an AMF.
edit: It does use the word "summon" though... would it wink out in an AMF? I really don't play a ton of high-level games, so I don't really deal w/ a lot of AMFs
You don't know it was never crafted, and you have no evidence that it was never crafted--that's your assumption.
The only difference is that it goes back whence it came when the duration expires or it dies--it's still a living, breathing, walking creature (unless it's undead, of course) whether it's summoned, it's called, or it walks in from the next room.
Any summoned things disappear in an antimagic field, whether they're real or not; the magic holding them there is suppressed, not the summoned item/monster itself.
This is what i'm trying to argue. Summoned Full plate is different than full plate!
If a summoned object functions in the same way, wouldn't the armor return to wherever it came from when the duration of the Binding ends?
How long do Vestiges last? Don't you have to rebind them every day? The Retain Essence description says "you must spend a day with the item." Since it takes a full round action to summon the armor, then its impossible to spend 24 hours with it.
checkmate. ;)
Thank you.To gain the powers that a vestige offers, a binder must agree to host it for a period of 24 hours. p. 8
Whether the binding check succeeds or fails, you gain the powers granted by the vestige for 24 hours. p.10
THAR
How long do Vestiges last? Don't you have to rebind them every day? The Retain Essence description says "you must spend a day with the item." Since it takes a full round action to summon the armor, then its impossible to spend 24 hours with it.
checkmate. ;)
Not so fast, Bobby Fisher. First off, when making magic items a day is usually considered to be 8 hours for crafting and such. That aside, if you bind Savnok at 8am sharp on Sunday, hold the armor for 23 hours 54 seconds, and make another successful binding check 8am sharp on Monday, Savnok stays there the full time, up to 47 hours 54 seconds without another check--it never states that you can't renew the pact before time is up and, in fact, players would be more likely to overlap durations given the regularity of their schedules.
And, should that not satisfy you, simply adding the Extend Supernatural Ability feat to summoning the armor may, although I am not completely sure, extend the time the armor stays to 48 hours; using time hop would arguably keep the armor "with you" for longer than 24 hours; and there are some other ways to get around the 24 hour limit.
I don't think you can bind something that is already bound. You would have to expel it first, and then you wouldn't have spent 24 hours with the item.
This was the same thing told to me by custserv (I was trying to have multiple Amon's bound for a true nuker). The exact quote and question is linked in the Consol Binder HB somewhere. There isn't a lot of basis for their ruling (just an "intended" argument).
One could use a Vestige Phylactery with Savnok in it, regardless: you'd have Savnok bound 24h+something less than 24h without interuption. Extend Su ability would work, too.
Stupidly, though, you lose the ability to call or dismiss the armor, RAW... it doesn't actually vanish when you aren't bound to Savnok (you only lose the ability to summon/dismiss more).
The whole argument is silly, though, as everyone's agreed. Its not practical.
Its like this:
if you chopped off a monster's arm and ran away with it, and then later the monster died, the arm would disappear also.
I know the DnD rules don't really discuss such things explicitly, but it seems like common sense to me.
Actually the precedent for that wouldn't follow. When you are polymorphed into a troll and your arm gets chopped off, the arm remains a troll arm, regardless of what happened to you. It's no longer a creature at that point, and more specifically, no longer part of the creature which is bound by the rules of summoning.
This never made a lot of sense to me, though...
In D&D, if a continuous magic effect's target is no longer legal, the magical effect is still on it; it doesn't recheck its target continuously for legality.
In this case, the arm was still in troll form as the result of a polymorph, even if you normally couldn't polymorph a severed arm; it would follow (to me) that once the duration expired, so would the troll arm's existence as a troll arm.
I'm not trying to argue for or against this trick, but am trying to get to the RAW of it, for my own education.
*******
But these rules don't translate to the Savnok trick. I no longer think the armor is magical, but rather a real item summoned over that might have some enhancement / bonus depending on EBL (just like regular full plate). There's no duration listed, unlike with other vestiges that summon things. That's the broken part.
When you polymorph into a troll and your arm gets cut off, the arm remains a troll arm. When the spell ends and/or you die, the arm is still a troll arm, and now you or your body is minus one arm. It doesn't make all that much sense, but that's RAW for you sometimes
I don't think you can bind something that is already bound. You would have to expel it first, and then you wouldn't have spent 24 hours with the item.
I didn't mean you multiple-bind Savnok, but rather that you renew the pact before the duration runs out. Either way, we've passed that point, so....
Re: polymorph and remaining a troll: The spell description states specifically that a severed limb or the like remains in the polymorphed form thereafter, which overrides the general precedent that durations are checked once rather than continuously. Not common sense? Maybe, but it's RAW.