Artificer's Bonus Feats

[Slaved]

I don't see any good reason to think an artificer doesn't have a caster level equal to his class level. It doesn't say that he does, but neither does the wizard class description. It says he is not a spellcaster, but it also says that infusions function just like spells and follow all the rules for spells. I would have said the caster level mechanism was part of those rules.

But Infusions are not Spells, the Artificer a Spellcaster, the Artificer must use Use Magic Device on Spell Completion Items even if the Spell is on the Artificers Infusion List, and when making Magical Items the Artificer's Effective Caster Level is equal to the Artificer Class Level +2.

I know what you mean though. It could be that there was an Assumption made like the one you make here. Or it might mean that the Prerequisites of the Feats are listed as Bonus Feats because the Writer made the Assumption that Bonus Feats do not need to be Qualified for.

Attune Magic Weapon - normally level 5, you could get it at level 4. Doesn't seem too bad.

Craft Construct - normally level 5 (due to arms and armor prereq), you get at level 4. Not too bad.

Exceptional Artisan - no significant prereq, no problem

Extra Rings - normally level 12, you get at level 4. Sounds bad, but you probably wont be able to afford more than two rings until you're getting close to level 12 anyway. (Unless they are really wussy rings like featherfall etc, but then who cares?)

Extraordinary Artisan - no significant prereq, no problem

Legendary Artisan - no significant prereq, no problem

Wand Mastery - normally level 9, you could get at level 4. This one seems like the worst to me... the feat is (IMO) meant to make wands useful into higher levels, and risks making them broken at lower levels. Letting a 4th level character upgrade their wand of fireball from CL 5 to CL 7 and upping the save DC seems bad.


So of all of them, I'd say only Wand Mastery raises flags with me.

Thank you for your thoughts on the matter! Do you believe that Wands are Common enough at Level 4 to worry about it?

 

[jaelis]

Thank you for your thoughts on the matter! Do you believe that Wands are Common enough at Level 4 to worry about it?

Heck yeah... just 750 gp for a wand of magic missile, and a DC 20 UMD check. And this feat would double the damage output of that wand.

 

[Slaved]

Is 2d4+2 every other Round a Big Deal at Level 4? Rolling a Natural 1 would be Very Bad for the Character too!!

 

[jaelis]

Is 2d4+2 every other Round a Big Deal at Level 4? Rolling a Natural 1 would be Very Bad for the Character too!!

Why every other round? The UMD check? At level 4, and artificer should have +7 (ranks) maybe +2 (Cha), +3 (Skill Focus, worth it if starting at low level), +2 (for having activated the wand before) = +14. So he'll only fail 25% of the time. By level 6, it is up to +18 with the artisan bonus; that's probably when it becomes particularly an issue, since the artificer will be crafting her own wands.

Anyway, whether it is overpowered is a matter of opinion... what is clear is that it is certainly more powerful than doing 1d4+1 every other round, or as often as you think it will come up.

 

[Slaved]

I would not expect Skill Focus to be selected and I had not realized that there was a +2 Bonus for having Activated the Wand before! Where does it say that?? I have to remember that!!

You had said though that Wand Mastery was the one you were most worried about. I am just trying to see where would be a problem!

 

[jaelis]

I had not realized that there was a +2 Bonus for having Activated the Wand before! Where does it say that??

Actually, it doesn't... that bonus applies only for activating blindly, not in general. I just misremembered!

 

[Artoomis]

Yup... the phrase is used elsewhere (in the text of Polymorph, for example), and it seems likely that what the two sections refer to is the same thing, but there is more out there described as 'bonus feats' than just racial bonus feats.

Which is the source of the ambiguity Artoomis is claiming doesn't exist.

-Hyp.

There is no ambiguity, or, more correctly, any ambiguity is cleared by the context in which the term "bonus feat" is presented.

The reference to "bonus feats " for monsters is refering to individual bonus feats listed in a monster's description and not related to how that might work for class levels. Yes, it is in essence "racial bonus feats," even if not listed with that term. Context is important, and rules that are specific for monsters do not apply to characers. Not all the rules apply equally to both characters and monsters, even if the vast majority of them actualy do.

The context is:

Reading The Monster Entries
.
.
.
Each monster description is organized in the same general format, as outlined below.
.
.
.
Feats


The context is clear - bonus feats contained with a creature's description within the Monster manual.

It is most unfortunate that in many places WotC chose to use "creature" interchangably with "monster," however, it is pretty obvious (and not surprising) that they have mistakenly used the word "creature" for "monster" in many places, as can be devined from looking to the context of the use of the term.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There is no ambiguity.

Sure there is.

Remember the description of the Heavy Crossbow in the 3E PHB, p100?

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

Sure there is.

Remember the description of the Heavy Crossbow in the 3E PHB, p100?

-Hyp.

Relevance? Yes, that one was poorly done, but the way the rules was phrased made it was obvious how it applied.

The same is true here. It is (or should be) obvious that a description of how a "bonus feat" works for a monster has no applicability to characters.

I could go so far as to say that, taken as a whole, the default rule seems to be:

A specific bonus feat gets to be taken even if the prerequisites are not met

and

A choice of bonus feats may only be taken if the prerequisites are met

Of course, there are specific exceptions.

But even that is a bit of a stretch. The real default rule is that feats need to meet prerequisites to be taken unless specifically stated otherwise.

Since characters do not have Monster Entries, the rules about how bonus feats work when read in a Monster Entry do not necessarily apply to characters.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Relevance? Yes, that one was poorly done, but the way the rules was phrased made it was obvious how it applied.

The same is true here. It is (or should be) obvious that a description of how a "bonus feat" works for a monster has no applicability to characters.

Given 3E's design philosophy, I don't agree... something that works for monsters also works for characters.

If a character has a bonus feat by virtue of his race (like an elf, for example), it works just like a monster with a bonus feat by virtue of his race.

But even that is a bit of a stretch. The real default rule is that feats need to meet prerequisites to be taken unless specifically stated otherwise.

And we have a specific statement that bonus feats can be used even if the prerequisites are not met.

That statement is found in the Monster section, but as I alluded earlier, in 3E, the only place you could find that the Two-Weapon Fighting feat didn't apply to ranged weapons was not in the description of the feat; not in the description of two weapon combat; not in the description of ranged attacks or ranged weapons in general; it was found under the description of the crossbow.

Since characters do not have Monster Entries, the rules about how bonus feats work when read in a Monster Entry do not necessarily apply to characters.

And if we have a gnoll artificer, say?

-Hyp.