Fun Finds v4.0

[Demelain]

the artificer gets too many bonus feats, as said in the following...

An artificer gains every item creation feat at or near the level at which it becomes available for spellcasters.*snip*

this means you get many more feats than listed. They only name the PHB ones in the ability.
ex- Attune Gem, Craft Psionic Arms and Armor, etc.

the heckling using Bluff in Races of Stone is confusing, it wants your foe to make a Perform check vs. your Bluff check, but then takes a penalty based on how much your Bluff beats their Concentration check?!?
(I don't have the errata available on my phone to see if this is fixed)

How many instances of Exceptional/Legendary/Extraordinary Artisan does he get? They're Item Creation feats, IIRC. Does he get just one, applied to a feat of his choice - or one for every applicable feat?

Brain fart. Was thinking of Magical Artisan, which is not Item Creation.

[Bastian]

the artificer gets too many bonus feats, as said in the following...

An artificer gains every item creation feat at or near the level at which it becomes available for spellcasters.*snip*

this means you get many more feats than listed. They only name the PHB ones in the ability.
ex- Attune Gem, Craft Psionic Arms and Armor, etc.

the heckling using Bluff in Races of Stone is confusing, it wants your foe to make a Perform check vs. your Bluff check, but then takes a penalty based on how much your Bluff beats their Concentration check?!?
(I don't have the errata available on my phone to see if this is fixed)

The problem I see with that is the "near" clause. While they may actually get the feat by the literal reading, we don't know what level they actually get them. For all we know they could get all the feats at level 1000 because that is near to the level that spellcasters get them when looked at from a perspective broad enough perspective.

[Demelain]

the artificer gets too many bonus feats, as said in the following...

An artificer gains every item creation feat at or near the level at which it becomes available for spellcasters.*snip*

this means you get many more feats than listed. They only name the PHB ones in the ability.
ex- Attune Gem, Craft Psionic Arms and Armor, etc.

the heckling using Bluff in Races of Stone is confusing, it wants your foe to make a Perform check vs. your Bluff check, but then takes a penalty based on how much your Bluff beats their Concentration check?!?
(I don't have the errata available on my phone to see if this is fixed)

The problem I see with that is the "near" clause. While they may actually get the feat by the literal reading, we don't know what level they actually get them. For all we know they could get all the feats at level 1000 because that is near to the level that spellcasters get them when looked at from a perspective broad enough perspective.

Well, judging by the (I guess now "example") feats on the table, at-the-level. you meat the CL requirements. Every feat is gained at the level you meet its minimum CL (thanks to Wand being errata'd), and if your DM doesn't throw a book at you for pointing this out, that's the most likely level you'd pick them up.

Now, here's a question: do you bypass other requirements for the feat? For example, Craft Fiendish Graft requires you to be a fiend.

[zook1shoe]

Partial ninja

it doesn't say you bypass the prerequisites besides the inability to cast arcane or divine spells, so you wouldn't.

the "near" would apply to the listed feats that aren't at the CL required, like Brew Potion (1 level early).

also, you only get feats that have a CL prereq (you don't get epic item creation feats, because they don't have a CL)


but do you keep getting the feats at that level if you're not taking artificer levels?

[Demelain]

Partial ninja

it doesn't say you bypass the prerequisites besides the inability to cast arcane or divine spells, so you wouldn't.

the "near" would apply to the listed feats that aren't at the CL required, like Brew Potion (1 level early).

also, you only get feats that have a CL prereq (you don't get epic item creation feats, because they don't have a CL)


but do you keep getting the feats at that level if you're not taking artificer levels?

I would say so. I'm reminded of the Warrior Skald PrC in this case - since it's tied to a CL requirement, I think you would get it whenever your Artificer CL meets the required CL.

A shame you don't bypass that racial limitation. I guess I still have to Bind+Ego Whip FoC Succubi until the graft Feathered Wings for me...
Truly, I am so put upon.


EDIT: Also, does Magical Artisan stack (that is, if I had Magical Artisan [Extraordinary Artisan] and Magical Artisan [Legendary Artisan], would I get both reductions)? If it does, what else besides the three Eberron Item Creation artisan feats can it be applied to that also applies to all or nearly all things you create?

[zook1shoe]

There are several graft types that don't have a racial prereq.

but a changeling w Racial Emulation could 'bypass' the racial prereq... Just emulate a incarnate half-golem babau (technically a humanoid fiend) for fiendish grafts.

[Kasz]

Unlimited loyal animal followers who can cause vile damage? Sure.

Touch of Hate

So it costs Violate Spell feat, which is a good decent feat anyway if you've got Spell Focus Evil, Evil domain and like Vile damage, etc.

This then allows you to "Once per tenday" turn an animal into a Beast of Bane. This happens "instantaneously" on a failed save and the beast "follows your commands."

The limit is HD equal or less than your cleric level. Monsters with more HD are immune.

Animals, poor will saves. Dire Animals, okay will saves... but generally nothing to write home about. You can steal a ranger's pet or a druids companion and turn it against them...but it uses the player's will save with it's own modifier.

So... Dire Animals and Ripping Loving Creatures from their masters... that's pretty good devious and enjoyable, but we also get to corrupt and buff them.

Add the Beast of Bane Template which is the Beast of Xvim Template (Monsters of Faerun, pg 85) but with 1 minor (yet awesome) change. note: The one I've found is 3.0 I don't think there's an updated version... if there is let me know.

In summary:
+1 HD - which increases saves/BaB/skills as appropriate.
Physical Attacks: Damage die increases.
Special Attacks: Damage die increases.
Frightful Presence (Ex): Lasts 5D6 rounds.
Feed (Su): Advance like a Barghest.
Smite Good (Su): 1/day but Vile damage
Special Qualities: Immune to Fear, Poison, Darkvision 60ft. Also gains DR based on HD... the DR is /+1 so I guess it'd just be DR 5 or 10 /magic.
Abilities: Int is raised to 3 if lower, +4 Charisma.
Alignment: changes to Lawful Evil.

If the HD increases enough to give an extra feat, improved natural attack would stack with the damage die increase.

There's no duration for created creatures, no expiry, no limit to how many you can have... It's a save or die, based on your strong stat, but instead of dying, you turn into a bigger, stronger ally.

Just strikes me as abusable... I mean, advance them by having them eat their kills... deal vile damage... increase damage die...

The best trick I could think of would be if the frightful presences of multiple beasts are allowed to stack. That'd be an instant win for a lot of encounters.

[Bastian]

the artificer gets too many bonus feats, as said in the following...

An artificer gains every item creation feat at or near the level at which it becomes available for spellcasters.*snip*

this means you get many more feats than listed. They only name the PHB ones in the ability.
ex- Attune Gem, Craft Psionic Arms and Armor, etc.

the heckling using Bluff in Races of Stone is confusing, it wants your foe to make a Perform check vs. your Bluff check, but then takes a penalty based on how much your Bluff beats their Concentration check?!?
(I don't have the errata available on my phone to see if this is fixed)

The problem I see with that is the "near" clause. While they may actually get the feat by the literal reading, we don't know what level they actually get them. For all we know they could get all the feats at level 1000 because that is near to the level that spellcasters get them when looked at from a perspective broad enough perspective.

Well, judging by the (I guess now "example") feats on the table, at-the-level. you meat the CL requirements. Every feat is gained at the level you meet its minimum CL (thanks to Wand being errata'd), and if your DM doesn't throw a book at you for pointing this out, that's the most likely level you'd pick them up.

Now, here's a question: do you bypass other requirements for the feat? For example, Craft Fiendish Graft requires you to be a fiend.

Partial ninja

it doesn't say you bypass the prerequisites besides the inability to cast arcane or divine spells, so you wouldn't.

the "near" would apply to the listed feats that aren't at the CL required, like Brew Potion (1 level early).

also, you only get feats that have a CL prereq (you don't get epic item creation feats, because they don't have a CL)


but do you keep getting the feats at that level if you're not taking artificer levels?

Trying to pretend near only applies to certain things, means something specific, or that things you claim as examples from the table actually are, doesn't actually change what it means by RAW (specifically the complete ambiguity). At this point both of you seem to be trying to argue a RAI meaning for the near clause so that rest of your RAW trick actually works.

[zook1shoe]

But how else do you determine when you get all the rest of the item creation feats? Your definition of 'near' is different than mine which is different from their list in the ability.

notice how ~1/2 the feats listed are at a different CL than the min?

the only logical way is to just use the listed CL, otherwise everyone would want something different.

also, the reason I think we need to exclude the ones w/o CL prereqs is because otherwise it would depend on too many factors to determine the level it is granted.

[Captnq]

An artificer gains every item creation feat as a bonus feat at or near the level at which it becomes available to spellcasters.

He gets Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat at 1st level, Brew Potion at 2nd level, Craft Wondrous Item at 3rd level, Craft Magic Arms and Armor at 5th level, Craft Wand at 7th level, Craft Rod at 9th level, Craft Staff at 12th level, and Forge Ring at 14th level.

So, we have two parts here. The first part and the second. Now, if we look at this section as a whole. RAI clearly indicates that the intent of the first part is fluff text. The meat of this is that you get scribe scroll, brew potion, blah blah blah. The intent was never to give you every creation feat ever, or they would have listed them all.

But by RAW, what we have here is an OR. At OR near. Not, at AND near. So, from a RAW point of view, the way it reads is, you get every item creation feat when you meet either of the conditions. In this case, since we cannot define "near" we can only meet the criteria of "at" and therefore, as it is read, you get every item creation feat at the level that it becomes available for other spellcasters.

[Bastian]

But how else do you determine when you get all the rest of the item creation feats? Your definition of 'near' is different than mine which is different from their list in the ability.

notice how ~1/2 the feats listed are at a different CL than the min?

the only logical way is to just use the listed CL, otherwise everyone would want something different.

also, the reason I think we need to exclude the ones w/o CL prereqs is because otherwise it would depend on too many factors to determine the level it is granted.

My point was you can't if you choose a RAW reading. "The only logical way" is not to bring RAI into a discussion that is trying to make a RAW trick work.

An artificer gains every item creation feat as a bonus feat at or near the level at which it becomes available to spellcasters.

He gets Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat at 1st level, Brew Potion at 2nd level, Craft Wondrous Item at 3rd level, Craft Magic Arms and Armor at 5th level, Craft Wand at 7th level, Craft Rod at 9th level, Craft Staff at 12th level, and Forge Ring at 14th level.

So, we have two parts here. The first part and the second. Now, if we look at this section as a whole. RAI clearly indicates that the intent of the first part is fluff text. The meat of this is that you get scribe scroll, brew potion, blah blah blah. The intent was never to give you every creation feat ever, or they would have listed them all.

But by RAW, what we have here is an OR. At OR near. Not, at AND near. So, from a RAW point of view, the way it reads is, you get every item creation feat when you meet either of the conditions. In this case, since we cannot define "near" we can only meet the criteria of "at" and therefore, as it is read, you get every item creation feat at the level that it becomes available for other spellcasters.

It isn't a matter of if you meet one of the requirements you get it, since they aren't worded as requirements. The sentence is a descriptive sentence saying when you get the feats and as a result of the "or" in this context it is indicating which time you get each feat at is undefined.

[Captnq]

It isn't a matter of if you meet one of the requirements you get it, since they aren't worded as requirements. The sentence is a descriptive sentence saying when you get the feats and as a result of the "or" in this context it is indicating which time you get each feat at is undefined.

I used to get paid vast sums of money to find loop holes in contracts. Trust me. It's a requirement for qualification.

You get X when you meet requirement A or B.

You get any given item creation feat when you are:
(A) "at" the level that any spellcaster would qualify for it,
OR
(B) "near" the level that any spellcaster would qualify for it.

We cannot define B. We can only define A. Therefore, you get it whenever you qualify for A. Nobody will ever get an item creation feat from qualification B.

Just because we cannot define B is besides the point. From a RAW point of view, we do not care if one can actually ever meet said requirements, just that the requirements exist. RAW has nothing to do with common sense. Everyone is getting bogged down in trying to figure out what "near" means when "near" is only one of two qualifications for defining when we get any given item creation feat.


A real world example:

When I used to work for fleet credit card services, we don't like charging off credit cards. It looked bad to our stock holders. Well, there was a program where the federal government allowed accounts less then 6 months past due to be hand-waived and brought "current" if they met 3 criteria. On the books, it was like printing money. But, the process was very difficult. The three criteria were difficult to reach.

However, I did something nobody else did. I actually read the original law. On one page, there was a typo. An "OR" instead of an "AND". The typo was on the original law passed by congress. That meant we only had to meet ONE criteria. I ran it by the lawyers and they were thrilled. Nobody had ever noticed the typo before. (It's a gift I have. Flaws just jump out at me, even if it's in a thousand page document.)

In one month I managed to create 743,000 dollars out of thin air. True, the money only existed for 30 to 65 days, but it didn't matter. I still got a bonus check of over six grand for my imaginary money. We got to tell the stock holders that we collected the money. Then I got my own department where all we did was create a rolling amount of imaginary money on the books. At any given time we created somewhere between 2 to 5 million dollars out of smoke and mirrors. All. Perfectly. Legal.

Then they over inflated the stock price and sold the company, firing everyone, including me. Over 6,000 people lost their jobs because of the word "or". Well, that and investing in Argentina right before the bank collapse. And Enron. And K-mart before the bankruptcy restructuring... Fleet Bank had some stupid people running it.

[Demelain]

But how else do you determine when you get all the rest of the item creation feats? Your definition of 'near' is different than mine which is different from their list in the ability.

notice how ~1/2 the feats listed are at a different CL than the min?

the only logical way is to just use the listed CL, otherwise everyone would want something different.

also, the reason I think we need to exclude the ones w/o CL prereqs is because otherwise it would depend on too many factors to determine the level it is granted.

My point was you can't if you choose a RAW reading. "The only logical way" is not to bring RAI into a discussion that is trying to make a RAW trick work.

And my point is that if your DM allows it in the first place you're going to get the feats as soon as you meet the minimum CL. Yes, he could rule that "near" means at CL 1000. But then he's basically just saying, "No, that's stupid and abusive and you can't have it."
If your DM is allowing this reading to begin with, the reading that's going to get used is "at".

[Bastian]

But how else do you determine when you get all the rest of the item creation feats? Your definition of 'near' is different than mine which is different from their list in the ability.

notice how ~1/2 the feats listed are at a different CL than the min?

the only logical way is to just use the listed CL, otherwise everyone would want something different.

also, the reason I think we need to exclude the ones w/o CL prereqs is because otherwise it would depend on too many factors to determine the level it is granted.

My point was you can't if you choose a RAW reading. "The only logical way" is not to bring RAI into a discussion that is trying to make a RAW trick work.

And my point is that if your DM allows it in the first place you're going to get the feats as soon as you meet the minimum CL. Yes, he could rule that "near" means at CL 1000. But then he's basically just saying, "No, that's stupid and abusive and you can't have it."
If your DM is allowing this reading to begin with, the reading that's going to get used is "at".

So what you saying is you can't really think of an argument so Theoretical DM. Stop trying to bring RAI into an argument about RAW.

It isn't a matter of if you meet one of the requirements you get it, since they aren't worded as requirements. The sentence is a descriptive sentence saying when you get the feats and as a result of the "or" in this context it is indicating which time you get each feat at is undefined.

I used to get paid vast sums of money to find loop holes in contracts. Trust me. It's a requirement for qualification.

You get X when you meet requirement A or B.

You get any given item creation feat when you are:
(A) "at" the level that any spellcaster would qualify for it,
OR
(B) "near" the level that any spellcaster would qualify for it.

We cannot define B. We can only define A. Therefore, you get it whenever you qualify for A. Nobody will ever get an item creation feat from qualification B.

Just because we cannot define B is besides the point. From a RAW point of view, we do not care if one can actually ever meet said requirements, just that the requirements exist. RAW has nothing to do with common sense. Everyone is getting bogged down in trying to figure out what "near" means when "near" is only one of two qualifications for defining when we get any given item creation feat.


A real world example:

When I used to work for fleet credit card services, we don't like charging off credit cards. It looked bad to our stock holders. Well, there was a program where the federal government allowed accounts less then 6 months past due to be hand-waived and brought "current" if they met 3 criteria. On the books, it was like printing money. But, the process was very difficult. The three criteria were difficult to reach.

However, I did something nobody else did. I actually read the original law. On one page, there was a typo. An "OR" instead of an "AND". The typo was on the original law passed by congress. That meant we only had to meet ONE criteria. I ran it by the lawyers and they were thrilled. Nobody had ever noticed the typo before. (It's a gift I have. Flaws just jump out at me, even if it's in a thousand page document.)

In one month I managed to create 743,000 dollars out of thin air. True, the money only existed for 30 to 65 days, but it didn't matter. I still got a bonus check of over six grand for my imaginary money. We got to tell the stock holders that we collected the money. Then I got my own department where all we did was create a rolling amount of imaginary money on the books. At any given time we created somewhere between 2 to 5 million dollars out of smoke and mirrors. All. Perfectly. Legal.

Then they over inflated the stock price and sold the company, firing everyone, including me. Over 6,000 people lost their jobs because of the word "or". Well, that and investing in Argentina right before the bank collapse. And Enron. And K-mart before the bankruptcy restructuring... Fleet Bank had some stupid people running it.

I need to do more thinking (and looking up the specifics of each word) to try to determine if you are indeed right but for now I'll concede that you are likely right.

[Demelain]

And my point is that if your DM allows it in the first place you're going to get the feats as soon as you meet the minimum CL. Yes, he could rule that "near" means at CL 1000. But then he's basically just saying, "No, that's stupid and abusive and you can't have it."
If your DM is allowing this reading to begin with, the reading that's going to get used is "at".

So what you saying is you can't really think of an argument so Theoretical DM. Stop trying to bring RAI into an argument about RAW.

More that I don't think there needs to be an argument because the +1000 CL interpretation doesn't make sense by any definition of "near" used in this context.
This is the sort of thing a DM is going to throw out the window or, in an intentionally high-power game, accept at face value.
I'm not making a RAW argument, and never stated that I was. I'm making a RAI argument in absence of a precise RAW definition of the phrase "or near".

[zook1shoe]

The option A option B seems to hit right imho

[ksbsnowowl]

From [Magic of Faerun], the spectral dagger is a 20kgp item that lets you use chill touch at will, and can be wielded as if it were a dagger (including iterative attacks). Fun for daggerspell mages, daggerspell shapers and invisible blades. It can't be thrown though, since the blade disappears when it leaves your hand.

The Spectral Dagger was included in the Magic Item Compendium, with a reduced cost of 6,400 gp.  Great for skirmishers and sneak attackers to always have a touch attack handy.  Doesn't really work well against undead, but then you were unlikely to be sneak attacking them anyways (ACF's and special feats aside).

[ksbsnowowl]

Unlimited loyal animal followers who can cause vile damage? Sure.

Touch of Hate

So it costs Violate Spell feat, which is a good decent feat anyway if you've got Spell Focus Evil, Evil domain and like Vile damage, etc.

This then allows you to "Once per tenday" turn an animal into a Beast of Bane. This happens "instantaneously" on a failed save and the beast "follows your commands."

The limit is HD equal or less than your cleric level. Monsters with more HD are immune.

Animals, poor will saves. Dire Animals, okay will saves... but generally nothing to write home about. You can steal a ranger's pet or a druids companion and turn it against them...but it uses the player's will save with it's own modifier.

So... Dire Animals and Ripping Loving Creatures from their masters... that's pretty good devious and enjoyable, but we also get to corrupt and buff them.

Add the Beast of Bane Template which is the Beast of Xvim Template (Monsters of Faerun, pg 85) but with 1 minor (yet awesome) change. note: The one I've found is 3.0 I don't think there's an updated version... if there is let me know.

In summary:
+1 HD - which increases saves/BaB/skills as appropriate.
Physical Attacks: Damage die increases.
Special Attacks: Damage die increases.
Frightful Presence (Ex): Lasts 5D6 rounds.
Feed (Su): Advance like a Barghest.
Smite Good (Su): 1/day but Vile damage
Special Qualities: Immune to Fear, Poison, Darkvision 60ft. Also gains DR based on HD... the DR is /+1 so I guess it'd just be DR 5 or 10 /magic.
Abilities: Int is raised to 3 if lower, +4 Charisma.
Alignment: changes to Lawful Evil.

If the HD increases enough to give an extra feat, improved natural attack would stack with the damage die increase.

There's no duration for created creatures, no expiry, no limit to how many you can have... It's a save or die, based on your strong stat, but instead of dying, you turn into a bigger, stronger ally.

Just strikes me as abusable... I mean, advance them by having them eat their kills... deal vile damage... increase damage die...

The best trick I could think of would be if the frightful presences of multiple beasts are allowed to stack. That'd be an instant win for a lot of encounters.

Beast of Xvim was updated as Beast of Bane in.... Cormyr: The Tearing of the Weave.  It no longer gets the bonus +1 HD, but will still advance by eating things.  I don't recall it being called out as doing vile damage, but could be mistaken.  Edit: I see now that the vile damage comes from the feat.

Also, in the Player's Guide to Faerun web enhancement, it has the updated DR for Beast of Xvim.  IIRC, its three tiers of DR become DR 5/Magic, DR 5/Silver, and DR 10/Silver and Magic.  Beast of Bane probably lists a similar type of DR, but I am away from my books at the moment.

Until I get to my books, this post notes a few of the differences between the BoX and BoB templates.

I basically homebrewed this ability onto a Barghest (without knowing of this feat), as the handwaived method of introducing Beasts of Xvim into my campaign world.  I put my 5th level gestalt PC's up against some Beast of Xvim Dire Wolves (IIRC, no more than one at a time, except perhaps at the climax).  They thought the 5d6 duration of the frightful presence was ... unfair.
(Do note that the Frightful Presence ability in the SRD/MM has no differentiation by HD; only that those with fewer HD than the creature with the Frightful Presence ability are affected.  This is unlike True Dragons, whose frightful presence ability only panics those of 4 HD or less, and merely causes others to become shaken.  The Beast of Xvim template specifies it causes Fright to all, which is almost as bad as being panicked.)

[awaken_D_M_golem]

the artificer gets too many bonus feats, as said in the following...

An artificer gains every item creation feat at or near the level at which it becomes available for spellcasters.*snip*

this means you get many more feats than listed. They only name the PHB ones in the ability.
ex- Attune Gem, Craft Psionic Arms and Armor, etc.

the heckling using Bluff in Races of Stone is confusing, it wants your foe to make a Perform check vs. your Bluff check, but then takes a penalty based on how much your Bluff beats their Concentration check?!?
(I don't have the errata available on my phone to see if this is fixed)

The problem I see with that is the "near" clause. While they may actually get the feat by the literal reading, we don't know what level they actually get them. For all we know they could get all the feats at level 1000 because that is near to the level that spellcasters get them when looked at from a perspective broad enough perspective.

  ... Is that "or" an XOR ?
Yeah that's ridiculous ; but don't the designers
assume Artificers will get to level 1000 anyway ?

  ... I bet the Psi-Arty doesn't get this juicy wording.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Unlimited loyal animal followers who can cause vile damage? Sure.
Touch of Hate

Beast of Xvim was updated as Beast of Bane in.... Cormyr: The Tearing of the Weave.
Also, in the Player's Guide to Faerun web enhancement, it has the updated DR for Beast of Xvim. 

So the Druid does it's version of diplomancing to get the animal to go along.