Artificer; a class running wild?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sorry - coulda sworn we were discussin' the Cure Light Wounds spell, as above, which has no other prerequisites than Caster Level and "Knows the Spell."

The only thing precludin him from creating a scroll of disintegrate at 1st-level is, as you mention, the fact that he can't get his caster level high enough.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Infusion's specific rules FAIL to to say that artificers inscribe scrolls/create items without expending spells or infusions. Which means they are bound by the same rules for scribing scrolls (or creating any other item ) as are clerics, wizardsm druids or sorcererors, not to mention everybody else. Which require expenditure of a spell of the relevant level into the item being created.

They require expenditure of the EXACT spell listed in the prerequisites which the Artificer is completely incapable of doing (specific infusions cannot be used to provide prereqs - p.32). The spell is not cast but it is expended. This applies to all casting classes existing when the DMG 3.5 was printed.

Since Infusions only go to 6th, artificers would be precluded from making any item which requires a spell of higher level than 6th (before Epic). The description also fails to note this significant detail.

The example given of the artificer creating a fireball scroll at 3rd level would be incorrect by this interpretation given 3rd level infusions are not available until 5th level artificer. He would not be able to expend the 3rd level slot required.

Well the Sage has yet to address the many questions regarding to Artificer. Hopefully when Andy does the Eberron Sage Advice it will cover this and then make it to the FAQ.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Example . An artificer wants to create an item usually creatable by lawful clerics of 7th level, using a fourth level spell and possible only to elven clerics

Just to get the format down.
Uzagi's Example Widget
Prerequisites: 7th level caster, creator must be elven, creator must be lawful, creator must be 7th Cleric or higher, Generic 4th level spell

An artificer does not have cleric spells as part of his normal spellist : UMD check for cleric

This is not a proper check. This is included in the UMD check to the spell (which requires a UMD check which you did not list).

There is a check for emulating Cleric as a class, but only for this specific item. It has no bearing on emulating the specific spell.

The artificer does not have the required level for creating a specific item : another UMD check for level

Caster level cannot be emulated per the rule you quoted.

The artificer is not of the lawful alignment required to create said item : separate UMD check for alignment

An artificer coincidentally is also not an elf : separate UMD check for faking said racial requirement.

These two are correct.

Which infusion slot did you think should be expended for this item?

I still maintain that no infusion slot would be expended.

 

[UltimaGabe]

An Artificer, when creating an item, does not "turn his infusions into spells". Infusions an item creation are completely separate processes- thus, creating a magic item does not expend any of the Artificer's Infusions, and he is not limited by the levels of Infusions he can use. An Artificer could, for example, make a Scroll of Fireball at 3rd level, because (according to the Artificer description) an Artificer's caster level for meeting item prerequisites is his caster level +2. The scroll made in this case would do 3d6 damage. This possible, even though an Artificer can't use 3rd-level Infusions until a higher level, because his item creation ability is not dependant on his infusion ability whatsoever.

 

[Timeboxer]

Wow, this thread is like a huge ball of confusion. Let's see if I can help.

This would be four individual tests. Now where do the rules specify a different procedure ?

I don't think you understand entirely what it means by a "prerequisite" here. A prerequisite, in this case, would be one of the spells that is cast in the creation of the item ("Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions....", DMG 282). For instance, Keoghtom's ointment requires the spells cure light wounds, neutralize poison, and remove disease as prerequisites. The prerequisite here is "the requisite spells needed in order to create the magic item," not "the requisite abilities needed in order to cast the spell needed in order to create the magic item" ("An artificer can create a magic item even if he does not have access to the spells that are prerequisites for the item, ECS 32, my emphasis). So it's one UMD roll per spell. A scroll obviously needs one spell as its prerequisite.

Also, listen to what UltimaGabe said. Infusions aren't spent during item creation; in fact, "An artificer's infusions do not meet spell prerequisites for creating magic items," since they're not actually spells (ECS 32).
Essentially, for the purposes of magic item creation, an artificer can emulate any spell by succeeding at a UMD check, with the caveat that your emulated caster level for this purpose is your artificer level +2. In other words, no actual spell is being cast -- the casting of the spell is emulated by the UMD check. You can emulate any spell of arbitrarily high level if your artificer level is high enough.

Finally, I concur with everybody who said that it still takes a day to scribe a (single) spell onto a scroll. But see the infusion spell storing item, and fear the artificer.

 

[uzagi_akimbo]

They require expenditure of the EXACT spell listed in the prerequisites which the Artificer is completely incapable of doing (specific infusions cannot be used to provide prereqs - p.32). The spell is not cast but it is expended. This applies to all casting classes existing when the DMG 3.5 was printed.

Since Infusions only go to 6th, artificers would be precluded from making any item which requires a spell of higher level than 6th (before Epic). The description also fails to note this significant detail.

The example given of the artificer creating a fireball scroll at 3rd level would be incorrect by this interpretation given 3rd level infusions are not available until 5th level artificer. He would not be able to expend the 3rd level slot required.

Well the Sage has yet to address the many questions regarding to Artificer. Hopefully when Andy does the Eberron Sage Advice it will cover this and then make it to the FAQ.

The artificer can of course create a fireball scroll at 3rd level due to the circumstance that his caster level is always treated at +2 his actual level, with the exception of the actual spell's effect - hence the allusion to the "weak" 3D6 damage fireballs in the example given on page 32 EbCS. Supposing he had access to the spell through some means. But I fail to see how one shoddyily written example (for an entirely different rules question ) prooves that the artificer class can pen scrolls (or create other items ) far in excess of its own capabilities. Like say, a scroll of "disintegrate" (UMD roll of 31 - feasible with 8 skill ranks in UMD at 5th, synergy boni +2 from 5 ranks Spellcraft, +2 from 5 ranks Decipher Script, +2 from magical aptitude feat , Cha bonus of +3 or better, +3 from Skill focus feat (UMD) = +20 on UMD skill roll (before looking for a cheap CHA item, or a cha boosting spell ) , = 50% to write a "disintegrate" scroll. And with UMD +20, he faces no real problems to activate said spell from the scroll.

Market price = 1650 gp, creation cost half that (825 gp), and that is before even thinking about artificer creation feats. Pretty cheap for a using 6th level spells, 6 levels before the party's wizard gets access to them. It can also be safely assumed that any artificer will have invested into at least one Artifice feat (reducing the creation cost by 25% or 50% at 5th level ) by then. "Disintegrate" for 413 gp a pop sounds rather like a bargain to me....

Sole disadvantage - less spell penetration power than usual, often not too major a bother. Feeblemind (UMD 29) , Enervation (UMD 27), Flesh to Stone (UMD 31)..... pretty nice spells, which play all too well into an artificer's hands, if there wasn't actually a requirement for expending an infusion/spell of the appropriate level.
EVERY other class capable of scribing scrolls on the other hand has to have access to the spell to be written first. The artificer is supposed to get the feat for free AND without regard to actual access to spell slots of the level AND basically can emulate any spell he has conceivably heard of ? Let's take 3 levels in Artificer and stock up on the rest with rogue levels - far more effective, if no actual spell access is needed....
And no, scrolls have no actual prequisite level necessary for their creation, normally they are limited with regard to this by the actual caster level.

As for the limitation of the Artificer to create only such items as can be created with 6th level spells - what is the special relevance ? For one, how many items are there that require level 7 and higher spells in the first place ? And get created by PCs on anything like a regular base ?

Also a bard, ranger or paladin, along with many multi-classed chracters face the same problem, and hence, cannot create such items either. But that doesn't mean - because there is not a single line of rules that say so - that the artificer doesn't have to expend a spell slot/infusion (per day of creation) to do so. If he were exempt, don't you think they would have mentioned it specificially ?

Besides, like every other item creator he can fall back onto supplying the needed high level magic through access by another caster, or even through an item (DMG p. 283 ), like a "ring of three wishes", or a spell cast into an item of spell-storing. Because, he is not exempt from that option by the rules either.

 

[uzagi_akimbo]

I don't think you understand entirely what it means by a "prerequisite" here. A prerequisite, in this case, would be one of the spells that is cast in the creation of the item ("Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions....", DMG 282). For instance, Keoghtom's ointment requires the spells cure light wounds, neutralize poison, and remove disease as prerequisites. The prerequisite here is "the requisite spells needed in order to create the magic item," not "the requisite abilities needed in order to cast the spell needed in order to create the magic item" ("An artificer can create a magic item even if he does not have access to the spells that are prerequisites for the item, ECS 32, my emphasis). So it's one UMD roll per spell. A scroll obviously needs one spell as its prerequisite.

Hmm, what do you think the leading sentence of the following paragraph means then " an Artificer can also make Use Magic Device checks to emulate non-spell requirements, including alignment and race, using the normal DC for the skill."

The example I gave included the requirements cleric (opposed to bard, druid or whatever other class might have any single spell like "cure moderate wounds" on its list) , lawful and elf, none of which the example's artificer fulfilled, hence had to emulate. None of these are spell prequisites (except in some rare cases, like a "protection from chaos" ).

And we weren't talking about any specific item like "Keoghtons Ointment" but the general procedure of creating items through artifice

 

[drnuncheon]

But I fail to see how one shoddyily written example (for an entirely different rules question ) prooves that the artificer class can pen scrolls (or create other items ) far in excess of its own capabilities. Like say, a scroll of "disintegrate" (UMD roll of 31 - feasible with 8 skill ranks in UMD at 5th, synergy boni +2 from 5 ranks Spellcraft, +2 from 5 ranks Decipher Script, +2 from magical aptitude feat , Cha bonus of +3 or better, +3 from Skill focus feat (UMD) = +20 on UMD skill roll (before looking for a cheap CHA item, or a cha boosting spell ) , = 50% to write a "disintegrate" scroll.

1. I don't know many people that are willing to gamble XP on a 50/50 chance. On average, your scrolls would cost twice as much.
2. Even if he was willing to, he can't do disintegrate at 5th level, because it's a 6th level spell, requiring you to be an 11th level caster - and he's only treated as 7th level (5 levels +2 from the artificer ability)

So you're really only getting these scrolls at 2 levels before the wizard.

Market price = 1650 gp, creation cost half that (825 gp)

...doubled because half the time you'll fail...

and that is before even thinking about artificer creation feats.

Which max out at 25% for any given element (time, gold, XP) - check the errata, the table is in error and they cnanot be stacked.

But that doesn't mean - because there is not a single line of rules that say so - that the artificer doesn't have to expend a spell slot/infusion (per day of creation) to do so. If he were exempt, don't you think they would have mentioned it specificially ?

The artificer has no spell slots. Infusions are not spells. Therefore he can't expend a spell slot to create an item. Therefore, either the entire class and its creators are utterly stupid, or you're reading something wrong.

J

 

[uzagi_akimbo]

1. I don't know many people that are willing to gamble XP on a 50/50 chance. On average, your scrolls would cost twice as much.
2. Even if he was willing to, he can't do disintegrate at 5th level, because it's a 6th level spell, requiring you to be an 11th level caster - and he's only treated as 7th level (5 levels +2 from the artificer ability)

Should one be agreeing to your point of view - which I am not - but just for posterities sake, then by you view - unsupported by any rules in- or outside the EbCS , this could be quickly worked around by taking the "Practised spellcaster" feat (CD) and multiclassing four level in another class, gaining the best of two worlds. As for the XP-gamble... hmm 825 gp to create means ....hmmm all of 33 XP invested per scroll ? Now, for gaining a one shot 6th level spell into his grubby hands, I think any artificer would invest 33xp, even 66xp or 100xp if need be. Expecially as he gains 100xp as a crafting reserve first thing in 5th level
That is IF your point of view is correct - which I severely doubt. Especially without anything in the rules backing it besides that pretty jumbled example. If you think that this one example contradicts the entire canon of the remaining magic item creation rules, ok, that's your camapaign.

UMD failure chance can be lowered even further with some cheap magic items and spells aiding the artificer. Which he has even less of a problem cooking up. That quick skill modifier of +20 can very easily be made into something like +28 etc... I do not want to mention Action Points at this point right now, but these of course provide a more than fair chance to boost any UMD check which just failed by a few points.... Nawh, the poor Artificer isn't in too much of a hard place when creating scrolls.

Which max out at 25% for any given element (time, gold, XP) - check the errata, the table is in error and they cnanot be stacked.
J

I was aware of the errata, but assumed they left a 25% minimum chance of cost , instead of a 75% chance. They are still worth the investment. Thank for the clarification

The artificer has no spell slots. Infusions are not spells. Therefore he can't expend a spell slot to create an item. Therefore, either the entire class and its creators are utterly stupid, or you're reading something wrong.
J

What is it that makes people miss sentence number 3 from the Infusions descriptions on page 31 EbCS ?
"They function just like spells and follow all the rules for spells"

page 30 has a table of "infusions per level per day at each level of artificer
page 103 lists the artificer infusions under the heading of spells - and not, like for example the Warlock's Invocations (Completet Arcana), who ARE a distinctly different kind of power from a spell or like Psionic Powers (also something different, inexchangable with spells ) as a totally seperate entry. WotC doesn't, despite going down precisely that road with regard to every "new" form of magic since the XPH.

Maybe, they do so because they actually are spells, with some specific rules changing their possible targeting and casting duration ? As the infusion description states ? With the name infusion as a distinctive title to indicate their special rules of use - which do not inculde exceptions from item-creation rules ?

Overall, this is getting tiring though. As one may safely assume, that a Artificer will not usually go hunting bad guys/adventuring in the middle of an item creation process, and since he can basically only create a single item Per day, one might assume that it is merely a sophistic debate. I just start to wonder who will come up with the clever deduction that "if an infusion is not in fact a spell" - "and not a supernatural power either" - it might actually work within the area of an antimagic shell... etc etc etc etc .

 

[jodyjohnson]

The original poster is looking for a way to keep artificers from scribing a large number of spells per day.

Several posters including myself have reinforced the rule presented by the original poster that a magic item takes one day (8 hours of crafting) minimum (DMG p283).

In addition we have asserted that each spell scribed is a single item and is limited to one per day (when in doubt ignore the chart). This solves the issue - you cannot scribe more than one spell per day. This works equally well for all item creation scenarios.

Some DMs may rule differently.

In the case where they rule differently, the spells scribed per day is limited by spell slots available. Given this alternate interpretation espoused by Uzagi, Artificers would be restricted to infusion slots available to avoid the 40 spells/day situation.

It also has the side effect of preventing Artificers from emulating spells above 6th level which I do not believe was the intention.

However, while this works for Artificers, it does not solve the issue in regard to Warlocks (CA) which Uzagi has introduced.

While Invocations (spell-like abilities) lack the 'just like a spell' text, they do have levels which will allow us to expend an appropriate spell level for item creation. The difficulty is that there is no limit on invocations per day. They are useable at will.

While solving the problem situation for Artificers, the same scenario can come up with Warlocks emulating spells via UMD.

A situation which apparently never came up for the designers because I assert they intend that only one spell can be scribed per day at best.