Artificer; a class running wild?

[Sue Bloodbucket]

puhhh...

that was a hole bunch of input pals.
i will see what we make of it.

thanks for your support!


regards
Sue

 

[Timeboxer]

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."

That would be for when there's a non-spell requirement for a magic item, for e.g., "Creator must be good," or some such thing. We're still talking about prerequisites for the item itself, you see. The artificer doesn't have to actually UMD the prerequisites for the spell; the artificer has to UMD the prerequisites for the magic item. This is a subtle but important difference. It means that when the artificer makes a UMD check, you only need one per magic item prerequisite. Spell prerequisites don't even begin to enter the picture, and I see nothing that suggests that it would, as, again, we have established that "prerequisite" is shorthand for "magic item prerequisite".

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

Yes, that would be my attempt at choosing an arbitrary example. There are three UMD checks, one for cure light wounds, one for neutralize poison, and one for remove disease.

To pull your clause back in, let's say your evil artificer wants to create celestial armor: Faint transmutation [good]; CL 5th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, creator must be good, fly; Price 22,400 gp; Cost 12,550 gp + 1,004 XP.

In this case, there are two magic item prerequisites: "creator must be good", and "fly". Therefore, you roll Use Magic Device twice: once to emulate fly, and another to emulate having a good alignment -- and it's only at that point does your sentence come into play.

 

[Timeboxer]

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"

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 ?

Spell-like abilities function just like spells and follow all the rules for spells. Maybe they do so because they actually are spells?

Infusions, by the way, appear to be more or less spell-like abilities (obviously, since "They function just like spells", ECS 31), although it's not explicitly stated. But they're not spells, else they would just be called "spells." Infusions aren't spent to create magic items, however, not least in part because, again, "An artificer's infusions do not meet spell prerequisites for creating magic items" (ECS 32).

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 .

"An infusion can be dispelled, it will not function in an antimagic area..." (ECS 31)

 

[drnuncheon]

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.

But then he wouldn't be using the artificer crafting ability, so he'd have to be a 12th level caster in that other class, and it would need to have disintegrate as a spell...so it would sort of defeat the purpose of having the artificer levels at all.

See, the artificer's caster level for meeting item creation prerequisites is equal to his artificer level+2. Practiced spellcaster won't help with that, because it's not related to what infusions you can cast at all.

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.

Well, considering that artificers create magic items without having to know the spells involved - I'd say they already "contradict the entire canon of the remaining magic item creation rules". Since the one example is all we've got, I'm going to give it more weight than rules that were written before the artificer class, that could not possibly take the artificer class into account.

J