SorO's Enlightenment Series Discussion

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Nothing unexpected.

Artificers are t1 because they are broken, not because they are awesome. In games where DMs will say "I can't let you have x ability because you could do y to break the campaign" artificers kinda blow.

[SorO_Lost]

Artificers are t1 because they are broken, not because they are awesome. In games where DMs will say "I can't let you have x ability because you could do y to break the campaign" artificers kinda blow.

You act like you don't know me or something. I mean seriously. That's not even remotely close.

WBL is part of the rule set and if you acknowledge it like you should or handle 3rd Edition like the DMG told you, Crafting (no matter the bonuses) is useless and ignorable. And the sad truth is all pro-Artificer comments are based on them. So I pose this to you. Why are you and everyone else reversing things and pretending WBL is the house rule? Well, the answer is staring at you in the face. The Artificer blows skunks for pocket change. Short and sweet the Artificer's Infusion list is 90% based on numerical bonuses. Be it +4 to Str, material change to bypass DR for more damage, or Item Alteration shenanigans. His version of crowd-control is tossing up walls in the later levels, he has nothing for debuffing beyond suppressing a Dragonmark, he cannot summon/animate/dominate minions natively, he has no real problem solvers either and the guy f'ing fails in combat worse than a Core Cleric.

His key to versatility is single handedly based on his Spell Storing Infusion. The Skill Check on that alone prevents low level usage (1st lvl & 10cha = 90% fail / 40% nearly killed him self), it costs on each failed/success usage and the cost continues to scale upwards in an attempt to balance out with throwing around bigger XP rewards, and the actual selection rate is scaled entirely off your Artificer, and not Caster, level. PrCing out into a caster advancing Class improves cost but not usage. All the other T4s natively access problem solving, CC, debuffing, etc via ever progressing Spells or Class Features each without having to burn XP or risk Skill failures for attempting to use. And guess what, they can craft items too.

[linklord231]

The fact that the rules don't say whether characters with Item Creation feats should be held to the same wealth standards as characters without such feats is a huge, gaping hole in the 3.5 ruleset.  On the one hand, Wealth by Level is the general rule, and nothing about item creation feats directly contradicts it, so it would seem to stand.  On the other hand, a character invested one of his very, very limited feat slots (or class features) into that Item Creation feat - he should probably get some benefit out of it.  And besides, Table 5-1 (Character Wealth by Level) and the Wealth Comparisons table on DMG pg 54 are both explicitly guidelines, not hard and fast rules. 

Really, it boils down to this:  if the DM allows the Artificer to get double (or more!) his recommended character wealth for his level by using his class features, then the Artificer is probably in a much better Tier.  If the DM reduces the treasure found in encounters such that the Artificer has the same recommended character wealth as a non-item-crafter would, or does not allow the Artificer the time he needs to actually craft items, the Artificer would probably be in a much worse Tier. 

[FlaminCows]

The WBL table is only used to generate starting wealth. The book doesn't tell the DM to give the PCs less loot if they "break" WBL, and thus except during character creation "ignoring WBL" as you progress in the campaign is not a houserule at all, but the normal way of doing things. There are a lot of rules that deal with the PCs making money in some way other than killing things, such as running a business, using skills to earn money, haggling, stealing, taking a feat that gives you GP, and making magic items, so I don't think following the WBL chart is even RAI, let alone RAW.

In short: unless the DM is arbitrarily preventing characters from using their own abilities, of course the item crafter will have more money than WBL.

[SorO_Lost]

And besides, Table 5-1 (Character Wealth by Level) and the Wealth Comparisons table on DMG pg 54 are both explicitly guidelines, not hard and fast rules.

It wasn't funny when Balbosa butchered the language and it's not funny when you parrot it either. A guideline is literately defined as a rule, a principle of fundamental truth, or (all you're take away from this sentence) advice. But I don't know if you're aware of this, D&D is not legal text and the MtG staff does not write D&D rules. The DMG is literately a book advice, guidance, and suggestions on how to run a D&D game. Refuting a section of DMG rules based on it's advice is a road I'm not even going to humor. The mere suggestion of creates the concept that the poster has never opened the DMG and read how it handles it's content, and if you have never read the DMG who are they to say what is or isn't D&D? It's like owning set of Mahjong tiles and when joining a discussion talking about pung, all you can think of is they should draw a tile off the top because you have this silly idea that pung means "Go Fish".

Really, it boils down to this:  if the DM allows the a Class to get double (or more!) his recommended character wealth for his level by using his class features, then the Class is probably in a much better Tier.

Insightful, but

Character Wealth
One of the ways in which you can maintain measurable control on PC power is by strictly monitoring their wealth, including their magic items. Table 5–1: Character Wealth by Level is based on average treasures found in average encounters compared with the experience points earned in those encounters. Using that information, you can determine how much wealth a character should have based on her level.
The baseline campaign for the D&D game uses this “wealth by level” guideline as a basis for balance in adventures. No adventure meant for 7th-level characters, for example, will require or assume that the party possesses a magic item that costs 20,000 gp.

The DMG beat you to it.

My thread does not adhere to my houserules just as it does not mention nor yours. It, like this forum, adheres to WotC default. This includes the basis for balance that WBL brings. But even so, I am quite through in my work. If you humor the concept of removing WBL, or cannot grasp the concept like FlC, mindful not a single thing changes. The Artificer has no such rules that award him gold faster than crafting gold pieces, an act any NPC is capable of using. If you think you should award those freely provided Feats because the Artificer used them, them why do you not award the Wizard for his freely provided salt cows? It all boils back to a lengthy debate in which you do nothing but attempt to come up with a reason why the Artificer has more loot than anyone else, thus by extension more power than anyone else, because you want him to. Which conceptually applies to all topics of all Classes. The reek of useless biaist arguments is not one I will tolerate. I will stick to WotC's rules, Classes will be measured within D&D's standards which includes WBL.

I consider discussion on weather or not the rules on WBL should be removed closed and will ignore, and possible even request moderation of, comments that are dedicated to such. If you wish to discuss how effective you think the Artificer should be, then open a topic in the main D&D Discussion area and perhaps if you can stay off the topic of discussing your WBL houserules I'll join you there.

[Gazzien]

Nitpick: It's "Quantum", not "Quantanium"

[linklord231]

Calm down Soro, I agree with you.  The DMG flat out says that it's the DM's job to monitor the wealth of the player characters, making sure it is neither too low nor too high.  I was merely presenting an alternative point of view based on differing assumptions about the nature of the rules given in the sidebar on DMG pg 54. 

The WBL table is only used to generate starting wealth. The book doesn't tell the DM to give the PCs less loot if they "break" WBL, and thus except during character creation "ignoring WBL" as you progress in the campaign is not a houserule at all, but the normal way of doing things. There are a lot of rules that deal with the PCs making money in some way other than killing things, such as running a business, using skills to earn money, haggling, stealing, taking a feat that gives you GP, and making magic items, so I don't think following the WBL chart is even RAI, let alone RAW.

In short: unless the DM is arbitrarily preventing characters from using their own abilities, of course the item crafter will have more money than WBL.

Actually, the DMG does tell DMs to enforce WBL.  Soro quoted the relevant bits from pg 135, but it's even more obvious on pg 54:  "Your job is to compare the wealth gained from the encounters in your adventure with  the expected wealth gain shown on the table above. If your adventure has more treasure, reduce it. If your adventure has less treasure, plant enough treasure not related to encounters to match the value (see Other Treasure, below)."

So yeah, you really are supposed to give the players less treasure from encounters if they're using Item Creation or other "WBL breakers" to get more treasure than they're supposed to. 

On a marginally related topic (still connected to the Artificer, but not regarding the idea of WBL), Soro, your assessment leaves out an important part of the Artificer's abilities - the fact that he can craft scrolls of spells that aren't yet level-appropriate.  Since he acts as if his CL is 2 higher than his Artificer level, he gains "access" to spells that the Wizard can't even cast yet.  Is this enough to make the Artificer more powerful than the Bard?  Probably not, but it's definitely enough to be better than the Ranger or Spellthief. 

[SorO_Lost]

I'll humor that post, simply because I thought I covered things when I spoke of the Spell Storing Infusion before.

Since he acts as if his CL is 2 higher than his Artificer level, he gains "access" to spells that the Wizard can't even cast yet. ... Is this enough to make the Artificer more powerful than the Bard?  Probably not, but it's definitely enough to be better than the Ranger or Spellthief.

It's +2 to your Artificer Level for prerequisites, but if it duplicates a Spell Effect it uses your Caster Level. There two aspects to note there. The first is like Spell Storing it's based on your Artificer and not Caster Level. For example an Artificer 5 / Caster_Progressing_PrC 6 has a Crafting CL of 7, four levels lower than it should be and six levels lower than what you are attempting to bring to attention. For a Class dedicated to crafting items, being utterly unable to craft useful items is rather hampering isn't it? For that to remain on the table of discussion you can only speak of pure classed Artificers which means none of the higher than normal PrC abilities. Secondedly;

You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

You cannot use it to craft Wands, or Scrolls, or Potions, because you are incapable of casting the Spell as that +2 Bonus doesn't even apply in this area to begin with. And if you take duplicating a Spell Effect to include things like +4 Enhancement to Str is the same as Bull's Strength it gets even worse since it removes 90% of the possible items. So no, this ability isn't even remotely as good as you proclaim it is. It does the job of being a penalty better than it does at being a bonus.

And another point you need to consider. And how does the it measure? I mean I can't agree towards the concept that anything in T4 is stronger than the Spelltheif. Without direct DM limitations a well established ST can have a bag of subdued/helpless creatures providing him with a pool of infinite SLAs, up to 9th level Spells, and god knows what Supernatural Abilities (manipulate form?). The upper end of an ST is amazingly high, it's just the problem the ST has to deal with however is that next category does in fact have 9th level Spells and they can make full usage of Assume Supernatural Ability. In short they sing anything you can do I can do better endlessly at the ST. Just like the Artificer, whom has to contend with no less than three Versatile Spellcaster powered casters running an entire Spell Level ahead of normal. And they are not penalized for PrCing nor do they need 24 hours of preparation after the Spell is needed. The gap between the two categories is not to be taken lightly even if you think one Class is better than a couple it sits next to. I mean hell, even the Paladin casts Spells well above his CL/Spell_Progression thanks to DMM.

[Gazzien]

Er, Soro...? Nitpick, but if you (seemingly) hate artificers so much, why point out that the craft-XP option of Sacrifice is so good specifically for artificers?

[SorO_Lost]

Er, Soro...? Nitpick, but if you (seemingly) hate artificers so much, why point out that the craft-XP option of Sacrifice is so good specifically for artificers?

I don't hate the Artificer, I do how a dislike to how it was written through. Which made it a perfect candidate as it's the absolute opposite of the Monk. Where the Monk is seen weaker than every other Class but research yields some impressive rewards and further research (the exact action of mantis leap, how good shadow blend it) reveals even more amazing stuff. The Artificer is seen stronger than any Class in D&D and reading into the details not only showcases otherwise but reveals penalties and bad news at every single turn. Actually, all the intended entries are like that with some grand theme. Guess what FoL is, because it's not multiple attacks.

Also "eat your heart out" is an English idiom, it denotes one thing being superior to the other. In this case, Sacrificing creatures gives you free crafting XP rather than having to destroy your items (retain essence) or level up (craft reserve).

[Mithril Leaf]

Er, Soro...? Nitpick, but if you (seemingly) hate artificers so much, why point out that the craft-XP option of Sacrifice is so good specifically for artificers?

I don't hate the Artificer, I do how a dislike to how it was written through. Which made it a perfect candidate as it's the absolute opposite of the Monk. Where the Monk is seen weaker than every other Class but research yields some impressive rewards and further research (the exact action of mantis leap, how good shadow blend it) reveals even more amazing stuff. The Artificer is seen stronger than any Class in D&D and reading into the details not only showcases otherwise but reveals penalties and bad news at every single turn. Actually, all the intended entries are like that with some grand theme. Guess what FoL is, because it's not multiple attacks.

Also "eat your heart out" is an English idiom, it denotes one thing being superior to the other. In this case, Sacrificing creatures gives you free crafting XP rather than having to destroy your items (retain essence) or level up (craft reserve).

On the other hand, if you always have WBL, why would you care about destroying junk items that will continuously regenerate?

[linklord231]

It's +2 to your Artificer Level for prerequisites, but if it duplicates a Spell Effect it uses your Caster Level. There two aspects to note there. The first is like Spell Storing it's based on your Artificer and not Caster Level. For example an Artificer 5 / Caster_Progressing_PrC 6 has a Crafting CL of 7, four levels lower than it should be and six levels lower than what you are attempting to bring to attention. For a Class dedicated to crafting items, being utterly unable to craft useful items is rather hampering isn't it? For that to remain on the table of discussion you can only speak of pure classed Artificers which means none of the higher than normal PrC abilities.

You're right, and the obvious answer is "Don't PrC out".  That means no tricks like Ironsoul Forgemaster's triple normal advancement rate, but whatever.  Those tricks generally only work on Craft Magic Arms and Armor anyway, and having a high CL there isn't all that helpful. 

Secondedly;

You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

You cannot use it to craft Wands, or Scrolls, or Potions, because you are incapable of casting the Spell as that +2 Bonus doesn't even apply in this area to begin with. And if you take duplicating a Spell Effect to include things like +4 Enhancement to Str is the same as Bull's Strength it gets even worse since it removes 90% of the possible items. So no, this ability isn't even remotely as good as you proclaim it is. It does the job of being a penalty better than it does at being a bonus.

The Artificer ability explicitly contradicts this, so it trumps the general rule.  And why would you assume that anything that gives a +4 Enhancement Bonus to Str is duplicating Bull's Strength, and, even if you interpreted it that way, why would it remove 90% of the possible items you create?  I'm having trouble following your logic here.

[SorO_Lost]

The Artificer ability explicitly contradicts this, ... why would it remove 90% of the possible items you create?

Staffs, Scrolls, Potions, & Wands are already off limits. This only leaves you with Weapons, Armor, Rods, and Wondrous Items. And if take "If the item duplicates a spell effect" to go beyond "duplicates a spell" as it's additional wording implies, then it includes things like Bull's Rush and similar. Ability Enhancements are off the table, Enhancement Bonuses to Weapons are duplicating (Greater) Magic Weapon, Cloaks of Resistance duplication the Resistance line of Spells. Ring Freedom of Movement meet the Spell, Immunity to Energy Drain meet Death Ward, and so on. The must have items are completely off limits leaving you with nothing but oddities that people buy with their chump change.

Also the Artificer's ability does not explicitly contradict this.

For purposes of meeting item prerequisites, an artificer's effective caster level equals his artificer level +2. If the item duplicates a spell effect, however, it uses the artificer's actual level as its caster level.

It is quite explicit that you do not gain the +2 CL increase for duplication Spell Effects.

On the other hand, if you always have WBL, why would you care about destroying junk items that will continuously regenerate?

In the long run, yep breaking an item now is meaningless later on. Kind of like Character Death when you think about it. But I was explaining the concept and felt I had to hit on both points.

[Kasz]

On the Artificer debate I'd kick in: They have versatility, they're not confined to a single class spell list. That's pretty amazing, whilst any Cleric can make a scroll of any divine spell, any Archivist can eventually create a library to use as a spellbook and make scrolls from... but an artificer has that versatility without putting in any effort. No matter which side of the line your DM falls on the WBL debate.

In other news: For the Sacrifice option which is amazing, that really doesn't take much optimization does it?

It synergises well if you have Leadership (start a cult? sure) then use your followers to get that +2 for having 100 people attend... actually that's a thought.

In E6 for example, you could use a Sacrifice to get a Wish.

Max Ranks in Knowledge Religion = 9, let's say an int of 14 for +2. Maybe buff with a fox's cunning for +4.

9 ranks + 4(2+2) Int + 11 Insight + 20 Competance + 10 Circumstance + 2 Aid Another = 56

Circumstance:
Ritual taking 1 hour +1
On an alter +2
Desecrated site +1
More than 10 followers +1
More than 100 followers +1 (Leadership feat)
Sacrifice is tortured for a day before the ritual +1
Sacrifice loses extremities to a hungry demon prior to death +1 (Summon a Dretch, tell it to eat the sacrifice's hands... then use healing spells on the sacrifice. Ties in nicely with the torture part.)
Subject is good aligned +1 (have a follower with detect good locate targets.)
Subject has 1-5 HD +1 (easy to kidnap, you can get better sacrifices though for bigger bonuses)

Total: +10

So a total of +56 without trying hard at all, a few cleric spells for a knowledge religion check. Which means you hit a minimum of DC 57. Which is 7 over what you need for a Wish spell. Only thing "invested" is the Leadership feat... which is an amazing feat anyway. Also if you're not a Cleric, considering the spells are all Cleric 2, your cohort could be a Cleric and cast all the required spells for this... the only requirement for the entire thing is knowledge religion as a class skill... even if you had 8 INT you could make the DC 50 check.

If you can request lower down rewards then why not ask for greater magic weapons, Even with a 1HD commoner, a +5 weapon for a day is a good idea for the evil cult to get to prepare an attack... get a bigger HD creature and buff a whole raid...or at least the core fighters. Combined with 24 hrs of Divine Power for everyone too for a second sacrifice in a different temple (like Soro suggested, extradimensional space.) Or maybe you can add together a 15 check reward and a 40 check reward?

As for crafting You can hit a DC 60 check easily. That's 180xp or 300gp off an item. Not fantastic, but when you can do it every day... lots of free items, maybe even trap the sacrifice's soul for an extra 10xp.
You could theoretically hit DC 76 and get 228xp and 380gp, but that's risky unless you have a way to auto roll a 20. Maybe use a Limited Wish spell for an item that allows you to take 20 on sacrifice checks

I think I'll be using Sacrifices in my E6 Campaign, there's an evil Hextor cult trying to start a war and they need all the help they can get. Ritual Sacrifice to Hextor will probably be a gladiatorial pit.

[linklord231]

Also the Artificer's ability does not explicitly contradict this.

For purposes of meeting item prerequisites, an artificer's effective caster level equals his artificer level +2. If the item duplicates a spell effect, however, it uses the artificer's actual level as its caster level.

It is quite explicit that you do not gain the +2 CL increase for duplication Spell Effects.

If you read the rest of the paragraph, it clarifies what is meant by the red text. 

"Thus, a 3rd-level artificer can make a scroll of fireball. since the minimum caster level for fireball is 5th. He pays the normal cost for making such a scroll with a caster·level of 5th: 5 X 3 X 12.5 = 187 gp and 5 sp. plus 15 XP. But the scroll's actual caster level is only 3rd, and it produces a weak fireball that deals only 3d6 points of damage."

For the purposes of meeting the prerequisites to create a scroll of fireball (those being CL 5, and the Scribe Scroll feat), his CL is treated as being 2 higher than his artificer level (3 +2 = 5), so he qualifies.  However, since the item in question is duplicating a spell effect, it uses his "real" caster level ( ) of 3rd when determining variables in the spell that depend on caster level such as range and damage. 

Now, I'm sure your counterargument is going to be something along the lines of "but the example is wrong and should be disregarded if it contradicts the rules text!"  And my answer is, does it contradict the text?  You seem to be reading the red text as "If the item duplicates a spell effect, however, it uses the artificer's actual level as its caster level [for the purposes of meeting prerequisites]."  That might make sense given the context, but it by no means is the only way for that sentence to be read.  They could be two entirely separate clauses, to be used at different times in the item creation process.  When you first sit down to see if you can possibly make the item, you treat your CL as 2 higher.  Then, for every other use of CL in the spell, you don't get the +2.  Since that's a similarly valid reading grammatically, we default to the example text to see which one is correct.

[SorO_Lost]

Now, I'm sure your counterargument is going to be something along the lines of "but the example is wrong and should be disregarded if it contradicts the rules text!"

It's like you know me

Go back and read my post kthx.

You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

Yeah, Magic it's self says you cannot cast a 3rd level Spell with a CL of 3 so I could honestly care less what BS you sling incorrect example and none-existent text. Item Creation does not override Crafting Rules, and Item Creation does not override Spell Completion rules to override the rule of Magic. The rules do not agree with the example and that's simply all there is to it.

Oh, and @Kasz.
Yeah Sacrifice is broken as crap, I warned you.
Also the Spell Storing Infusion is 23 hours faster than Crafting a Scroll and works up to PrCing/8th level. I'm not saying pulling from some very exclusive and powerful Spell Lists is weak, but rather there are several means to expand your List and it's the comparisons count. Like Runestaffs allow any Arcane Spellcaster to cast any Arcane Spell and per DMG you can use Magic Items and other Spellcasters to meet Spell Prerequisites. Paladin & Ranger have immediate SotAO benefits, Spelltheif is literately designed to do this and so on. And when we go up in Tiers people start packing stuff like Limited Wish and Anyspell and even the Warlock jumps in saying he can do the same thing, but he also has his own inherent spammable 9th level equivalent Invocations on top of that. Not that I'd ever suggest taking Warlock to the 12th level, but you guys are dreading up every single aspect of the Artificer, fair is fair.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

hmm ... those 2 WBL quotes from the DMG, are 


Basically a (or the regular) permissive DM has been ignoring this altogether.

But an Active DM would have to make a WBL "adjustment" of some sort
with each and every item made or sold, and a small pile of feats too.
Feels kinda: for every action there's an equal but opposite reaction
... except those reactions have otherwise no guidelines at all.

Aristocrat 1 starts with more money, but loses it almost right away.
Mercantile Feat guys sells an item every level for less than written or has the money stolen, etc ...

[Arz]

Thing to note on your WBL argument is that the table is for an individual character. The DM awards loot to the group except in rare circumstances of individual rewards.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

  ... this WBL is an interesting idea rabbit hole to follow,
and it's own thread might be good, to not clutter SorO's.

[Unbeliever]

Actually, the DMG does tell DMs to enforce WBL.  Soro quoted the relevant bits from pg 135, but it's even more obvious on pg 54:  "Your job is to compare the wealth gained from the encounters in your adventure with  the expected wealth gain shown on the table above. If your adventure has more treasure, reduce it. If your adventure has less treasure, plant enough treasure not related to encounters to match the value (see Other Treasure, below)."

So yeah, you really are supposed to give the players less treasure from encounters if they're using Item Creation or other "WBL breakers" to get more treasure than they're supposed to. 

Your conclusion does not follow from the quoted text.  The bolded phrase indicates it.  All advice/guidelines/commentary in the quoted sections of the DMG refer to the treasure given as a reward from adventuring.  It does not refer to the use of characters' class abilities to acquire the tools of their trade. 

Put another way, if you're following the DMG's guidelines,  PCs should be receiving a certain income stream.  How they use that income stream is up to them.  Your job is just to keep the income stream within parameters. 

The alternative reading, proposed here, leads to absurdity.  It means that you are going to tally up all the PCs' equipment and check it against the WBL guidelines.  If it's too much, adjust accordingly.  If it's too little, do the same. 

That sounds reasonable, but it's actually absurd.  How do consumable items work?  I get 10,000 gp, I spend it on scrolls.  I burn through them all.  I get more wealth, right, to bring me back on par?  So, consumables are, in the long run ... free?  What about costly material components?  Who cares if I burned 1000s of gp worth of diamond dust, the DM will adjust things to "reimburse" us, right? 

That reading also renders a sizable number of feats (Ancestral Relic, Item Creation, Mercantile Background) and class abilities (Kensai, Samurai) utterly useless.  A Kensai's defining class ability now comes with the hidden penalty text "and your wealth will be reduced accordingly, really you should have just taken levels of Fighter." 

=><=