Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RealAlHazred" data-source="post: 6749813" data-attributes="member: 25818">Originally posted by rampant:Look, the simple fact is that Access to unlimited spell knowledge even in potential is bad. So Yes my artificer model learned more spells baseline than yours did but he wasn't allowed to expand on them. Your model allows them to learn new spells like a wizard but draws from all class lists. If SSI is going to be a BASIC CORE CLASS feature like you keep trying to make it, you're going to have to alter it so it functions in that context. If you want it to work like it did in the past make it a first level infusion, set up artificers to use infusions form the get go, and just keep it off the core features list. Look at the arcane trickster, mage hand was heavily modified before it was allowed to be a core feature of a SUB-CLASS, and it was a good spell to start with. You've gone to a lot of trouble to try too make it a core feature when you'd be able to keep it more like you want it if you move it back over to being a simple infusion. Giving the party the option to cast a few spells no more makes them magicians than handing a soldier a grenade makes them a demolitions expert. The whole point of the artificer is that he can use modern techniques like force multiplication. 3e version went overboard, but the craft reserve concept makes a great limiter, as does restricting spell knowledge. That said I have no real complaint about them being able to cast normally, as long as the spell knowledge has hard limits. The trick is they need to do something beyond merely casting, and being able to transfer their spells to other characters is a great archetype appropriate way to do that. As long as there's a limit (nuking the concentration spell trick, and using spell slots, and craft reserve keeping a limit on how many you can hand out at once).</blockquote>

Verification