For the first time ever, I've banned a player class from my table

[reveal]

I'm probably doing the math wrong here. Best case scenario, I can get a artificer with two wands, empower spell and the Wand Adept prestige class up to 6 empowered scorching rays in one round (Wand Caster Level 11th) doing 6d6 points of damage each. In return the wand adept is burning 10 XP in the first round, 10 XP in the second round, then taking a full attack in the third round.

She cast the Artificer spell "Suppress Requirement" (Eberron book page 116) into each wand. This way, she didn't have to burn XP. Each wand had an empowered scorching ray already in it. She had the Twin Spell metamagic feat, so she applied that feat to each wand, for 12 empowered scorching rays.

 

[arwink]

She cast the Artificer spell "Suppress Requirement" (Eberron book page 116) into each wand. This way, she didn't have to burn XP. Each wand had an empowered scorching ray already in it. She had the Twin Spell metamagic feat, so she applied that feat to each wand, for 12 empowered scorching rays.

That may be your problem then. For starters, the spell description doesn't suggest that it suppresses the XP cost (class features, race, abiltiy score requirements and alignment are its limits). It will let you change the wands so the party fighter can use them, but not the XP cost of doing stuff to them. (I'm also willing to give someone willing to spend three rounds of combat and 1000 gp to set all this up some slack.)

Even then, the XP cost has nothing to do with the magic item - its a function of casting Power Surge infusion (which, on an already empowered wand, shoots up to 20 XP per casting). You also need a 20th level artificer to negate the 4 of the 5 charges needed every use in order to apply twin spell (+4 spell levels) to one of the wands.

It's still a lot of damage, but it's a pretty hefty cost.

 

[Aeson]

I guess I need to find an Eberron PBP and play an Artificer.

Is her character sheet availible?

 

[Seravin]

Um...
Speaking as a player of an artificer as well as an occasional DM, I would actually lay the blame more on the Double Wand Weilder feat rather than the class.

As a point of reference, the Eberron version of the DWW feat is a 3 level prestige class (Cannith Wand Adept) where the ability isn't gained until the 2nd level of the class and burns an additional 1d4 charges from each wand. The class itself requires four feats just to enter.

Also I believe the charge usage is off. While the DWW feat only burns 1 and 2 charges, the Metamagic Spell Trigger ability burns additional charges based on the number of spell levels the modified spell is increased.
The Twin Spell feat increases the spell by 4 levels, so your player should have burned 5 charges from the first wand and 6 charges from the second.

You said 'twinned' in your description so I'm assuming you mean Twin Spell as opposed to Split Ray. Split Ray has a level increase of zero in 3.0. I don't know that it was updated in 3.5 - but since it does what Twin Spell does (better - since you can target multiple people), I don't see why it doesn't have the same increase in cost.

That said, my only other comment is that artificers don't gain gold back for draining magic items - only XP's. She just saves on the XP burn as long as she uses Retain Essence on existing magic items.

I have two question though. Were the two wands crafted as Wands of Empowered Scorching Ray, or just Wands of Scorching Ray? It sounds like she cast Metamagic Item on the two wands to Empower them from your description, but I'm not sure.

My second question is what level were the wands crafted at? A base Wand of Scorching Ray would normally only fire one ray (even if empowered). So using Twin Spell on both wands should have given her a total of 4 rays. The wands certainly could have been built at a higher caster level, but that makes them cost more.

I'm currently playing a halfling artificer whose entire schtick has been that of an enchanted tailor. He makes clothes and only recently has started using/making wands. I'm having fun with him, but he's by far the weakest person in the party and he's currently a full level behind everyone because of previous XP expenditures as well as a death or two.

In your place, as a dm, I'd probably reconsider allowing 3 different sources of feats and classes to work together before I'd ban the class outright.
I admit I'm biased though.

 

[Deaths_Fist]

She cast the Artificer spell "Suppress Requirement" (Eberron book page 116) into each wand. This way, she didn't have to burn XP. Each wand had an empowered scorching ray already in it. She had the Twin Spell metamagic feat, so she applied that feat to each wand, for 12 empowered scorching rays.

Did you take into account that any metamagic feats she applies to her wands other than any they're enchanted with take extra charges equal to the number of spell slots they would've added? And it's not too far off to rule that since Double Wand Wielder takes two charges instead of one, any metamagic feats applied ought to cost double as well. Any artificer who really wants to blow stuff up is gonna burn through wands like a crack fiend through fresh rocks. Expensive habit, that one. 5 charges on each shot with the primary, and 10 charges on each shot of the scondary. Not to mention one has to roll the attack on each ray (12 attacks and you're bound to miss at least a few, each one knocking off a full 4d6 damage), and each ray has any energy resistance applicable applied to it. To get around the weaknesses there, your blastificer's gonna need Energy Substitution, which uses up another valuable feat slot. It's not as bad as it could be; just throw enemies at her with dodge, deflection, insight, or any other type of bonus to their AC that isn't Armor or Natural Armor. Just because her artificer was optimized doesn't mean it was broken. The DM always has a way around any PC's strengths.

 

[Digital Archon]

So, let's see what the problem might be:

1. Eberron.

2. The Artificer class.

3. The "Dual Wand Wield" feat, which sounds like it comes from a non-core book.

4. The player.

In my opinion, the problem is partly #3, but mostly #4. We have here the classic twink/munchkin player.

 

[Silveras]

A couple of quick observations:

1. Twin Spell is a non-core feat. Artificer is an Eberron-Core class. If the combination is a problem, it is more likely that the Twin Spell feat is the problem.
2. A quick reading of the Artificer class, it seems to me that using the Twin spell feat on the wands would use up 5 charges each time they were fired.
3. A quick reading of the Suppress Requirement spell does not seem like it would apply in this case. It sounds to me like it is intended to allow people who do not have a class, race, or other feature (like Turn Undead, or Sneak Attack) to use magic items that work mostly on those things. It specifically mentions race, class, feature, or ability score requirements as what it affects; I do not see anything about reducing XP expenditures that might come up.
4. ANY character MADE at 12th level is likely to much more optimized than characters played up from a lower level. In such cases, the PC did not have take sub-optimal Feats like Toughness to survive past 1st level, for example. Other features, especially ones that require book-keeping, are prone to the same kind of thing (the Artificer's XP pool, which does not carry over from level to level, seems an obvious candidate).

Just some thoughts.

To respond to the direct question, my games use 1st/2nd Edition policy: If I don't specifically approve its use, it is assumed NOT to be available.

 

[Seravin]

Now I'm confused. Why would she have been burning XP's to use normal wands?

Expensive wands too. Each one would have cost her 10,500gp to make unless she has Extraordinary Artisan. At five charges a pop to twin, she'd go through party cash way quick.

 

[Endur]

In your place, as a dm, I'd probably reconsider allowing 3 different sources of feats and classes to work together before I'd ban the class outright.
I admit I'm biased though.

I only allow one rule outside core rules per player. Prevents mixing and matching to find the most broken combo.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Yeah, it seems like there's about a half-dozen ways to fix this problem other than banning the class. It sounds like the 1 million d6 Hulking Hurler problem -- certain combinations of abilities provide unintended synergy that you don't want. I'd personally just fix the synergies.