Warlock v. Artificer...

[visigani]

Concerning the Tier system, maybe there's something i'm missing here...


But can't the Warlock do virtually everything the Artificer can? The Warlock can craft items using a UMD check in place of the spell.

This means the Warlock can duplicate/craft any type of wand, wondrous item, etc etc...

And this is the primary reason why Artificers are considered tier 1.... yet the Lock is Tier 4.

Am I missing something?

[TroubleBrewing]

And this is the primary reason why Artificers are considered tier 1.

That's what you're missing. It's not.

Obligatory reading before any discussion of tier can take place. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5070.0)

[true_shinken]

I advise you to read the artificer class carefully. They get crafting feats for free and they can make items two levels earlier than anyone else. Their infusions are also more powerful than warlock invocations.

[visigani]

That's what you're missing. It's not.

Obligatory reading before any discussion of tier can take place. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5070.0)

Pros: Artificers can, effectively, cast any spell in the game. The only thing remotely as broken as magic spells is magic items. And the artificer is really good at making and using magic items. -The_Mad_Linguist


And so can Warlocks... There are relatively few absolutely "must have" magic craft feats... and the Warlock can meet the caster levels potentially before he could even use the feats to make use of the item in question (i.e. he could get the craft wand feat based on the prereq before he could actually use the feat to craft the wand).


At level 20 both the Artificer and the Warlock could concievably craft any item in the DMG... and use that ability to cast any spell in the game.


So, where's the vast gulf of difference? Sure it's EASIER for the Artificer, I don't dispute that. However, in terms of what is "possible"... both have the same potential at the end of the day.

[true_shinken]

Pros: Artificers can, effectively, cast any spell in the game. The only thing remotely as broken as magic spells is magic items. And the artificer is really good at making and using magic items. -The_Mad_Linguist


And so can Warlocks... There are relatively few absolutely "must have" magic craft feats... and the Warlock can meet the caster levels potentially before he could even use the feats to make use of the item in question (i.e. he could get the craft wand feat based on the prereq before he could actually use the feat to craft the wand).


At level 20 both the Artificer and the Warlock could concievably craft any item in the DMG... and use that ability to cast any spell in the game.


So, where's the vast gulf of difference? Sure it's EASIER for the Artificer, I don't dispute that. However, in terms of what is "possible"... both have the same potential at the end of the day.
What you don't understand is that the Artificers get infusions that effectively cast spells instead of having to craft an item. They can add metamagic to items (on the fly). They can add abilities to weapons/armor on the fly. With Metamagic Spell Trigger, they can cast most spells on the fly, it just costs a bit of XP - and with craft reserve, he is still ahead of the warlock.

Dude, I'm a huge fan of warlocks. I have a handbook on them. But artificers are just more powerful. Again, I advise you to read the class carefully. Or read one of the handbooks.

[Killer Angel]

And this is the primary reason why Artificers are considered tier 1
That's what you're missing. It's not.

Obligatory reading before any discussion of tier can take place. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5070.0)

:smallconfused: There's something I don't understand... in the link you've posted, artificer is listed in tier 1, and you seem to dispute that. Unless I'm reading wrong your post.

edit 1: ah, maybe you were refering to the "primary reason". :smallredface:

edit 2: ninja'd by Boci in my edit 1 :smalltongue:

[Boci]

:smallconfused: There's something I don't catch... in the link you've posted, artificer is listed in tier 1, and you seem to dispute that. Unless I'm reading wrong your post.

He was saying the OP's reason for assuming why the artificer was tier 1 was wrong.

One thing that always bugged me on this subject was how much sooner the warlock got the ability to take a 10 on UMD.

[Telonius]

Versatility is the key. With his class features, Artificer has more options than the Warlock. He gets access to all Infusions, rather than having to choose a few Invocations. Craft Homunculus alone can give him a horde of helpers/minions. (Warlock can get minions too, but they tend to be hunted down by good Clerics and require a steady supply of brains).

It is true that Warlock can get some things that nobody else can. Most diplomancer builds have at least a level or two, for Beguiling Influence. (Untyped bonuses are always very precious and sought-after). And one of the Warlock's biggest strengths is its endurance. If you're in a "no-downtime" situation, he'll outlast the Vancian spellcasters, one of the few magick-y classes that can. However, that's a very unusual situation.

Both of the classes are able to craft just about any spell in the game, but Artificer does it at lower cost in XP, time, and gold, and gets (basically) all the feats for free. He can also do this from level 1 on. Warlock has to use a very limited supply of Feats to get a craft feat at all. If he gets one, he has to wait until level 12 to make full use of it. It's a nice ability, and can certainly help out, but it doesn't make up for the power difference, especially when things like Metamagic Spell Trigger are considered.

So to go to the Tier definitions ...


Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength.

IMO, Warlock is right in between those two tiers. Parts of each description fit them. But they're certainly not Tier 1 or 2 - the absence of Swift casting alone guarantees that.

EDIT: That might be the piece of the puzzle that's missing for the OP - metamagic. A character that can cast spells in combination is far more dangerous than a character that has to cast only one spell in a round. With Artificer, this is possible (though it can be expensive). With Warlock, not so much.

[Luckmann]

If I may butt in here for a quick question to the resident Artificers;

I have no experience and virtually no knowledge of the 3.5 Artificer. How does it compare to the Pathfinder Artificer? Is it solid, or would I be better off doing a 3.5->PF conversion of my own, or picking up a custom one somewhere?

[Godskook]

And healers can cast gate! They must be tier 1 too!

-------------------

The above statement is wrong cause the tier is a full-spectrum diagnosis, not a lvl 20 comparison. Sure warlocks get the ability to craft, but they get it at level *12*. Realistically, you're talking 3 feats, max, that you can take as a warlock to craft with(cause why would you grab one earlier?), and most of that happens in the last 5 levels of the game. Otoh, most games take place at far earlier levels, between levels 1-10 typically, with many more never surpassing level 6(blame E6 for that). This means that many warlocks will *NEVER* get that class feature. Artificers can do their crafting starting at basically the same levels they get the corresponding feats, and can 'eat' vendor trash at level 5. So compare, artificers are competent crafters as early as level 1(reasonably level 3-6), while warlocks don't come online till level 12. Even still, the Artificer has been grabbing feats left and right since level 1 to improve his craft, while most warlocks probably shouldn't even bother getting more than 1 or 2 crafting feats, and even if they do 'load up', they've got no bonus feats to grab them with, while the Artificer gets ~14 bonus feats specifically devoted to crafting.

[Telonius]

If I may butt in here for a quick question to the resident Artificers;

I have no experience and virtually no knowledge of the 3.5 Artificer. How does it compare to the Pathfinder Artificer? Is it solid, or would I be better off doing a 3.5->PF conversion of my own, or picking up a custom one somewhere?

I don't know much about the PF version, but in regular 3.5, Artificer is generally considered one of the strongest classes in the game, on par with the Wizard, Druid, and Cleric.

[NineThePuma]

If I may butt in here for a quick question to the resident Artificers;

I have no experience and virtually no knowledge of the 3.5 Artificer. How does it compare to the Pathfinder Artificer? Is it solid, or would I be better off doing a 3.5->PF conversion of my own, or picking up a custom one somewhere?

The Pathfinder Artificer is very different, and is more of a gadget master, with a focus on skill monkey.

[Veyr]

If I may butt in here for a quick question to the resident Artificers;

I have no experience and virtually no knowledge of the 3.5 Artificer. How does it compare to the Pathfinder Artificer? Is it solid, or would I be better off doing a 3.5->PF conversion of my own, or picking up a custom one somewhere?
If you're referring to the third party PF Artificer (Paizo has not, to my knowledge, released their own), it is, if anything, more broken than the 3.5 version. You're talking about the one with Wierd Science or something, right?

[Draz74]

It is true that Warlock can get some things that nobody else can. Most diplomancer builds have at least a level or two, for Beguiling Influence. (Untyped bonuses are always very precious and sought-after). And one of the Warlock's biggest strengths is its endurance. If you're in a "no-downtime" situation, he'll outlast the Vancian spellcasters, one of the few magick-y classes that can. However, that's a very unusual situation.

Funny that you should pick those two examples as unique Warlock features, since they apply equally to the Dragonfire Adept. :smalltongue:

[Big Fau]

And healers can cast gate! They must be tier 1 too!

-------------------

The above statement is wrong cause the tier is a full-spectrum diagnosis, not a lvl 20 comparison. Sure warlocks get the ability to craft, but they get it at level *12*. Realistically, you're talking 3 feats, max, that you can take as a warlock to craft with(cause why would you grab one earlier?), and most of that happens in the last 5 levels of the game. Otoh, most games take place at far earlier levels, between levels 1-10 typically, with many more never surpassing level 6(blame E6 for that). This means that many warlocks will *NEVER* get that class feature. Artificers can do their crafting starting at basically the same levels they get the corresponding feats, and can 'eat' vendor trash at level 5. So compare, artificers are competent crafters as early as level 1(reasonably level 3-6), while warlocks don't come online till level 12. Even still, the Artificer has been grabbing feats left and right since level 1 to improve his craft, while most warlocks probably shouldn't even bother getting more than 1 or 2 crafting feats, and even if they do 'load up', they've got no bonus feats to grab them with, while the Artificer gets ~14 bonus feats specifically devoted to crafting.

This.

The Tier system looks primarily at levels 3rd-12th, with a peripheral view on levels 1/2 and 13+. The fact that the Artificer has his crafting abilities throughout each of those levels puts him above the Warlock, which only has the Crafting abilities at 11th+.

The other factor is that the Artificer is able to craft higher-level items at lower levels. That 2 level difference can save the party, since you can afford Resurrection effects not only cheaply, but sooner.

[MeeposFire]

Warlocks also can't metamagic wands like an artificer can. An artificer can kill essentially anything with one wand in a pinch. Granted it will use up the 50 charges all at once but man it is fun to one shot a great wyrm dragon with one wand in a round.

[Divide by Zero]

Funny that you should pick those two examples as unique Warlock features, since they apply equally to the Dragonfire Adept. :smalltongue:



Well, if we're picking that particular nit, then Binder and Incarnate/Totemist do it even better :smalltongue:

[visigani]

Warlocks also can't metamagic wands like an artificer can. An artificer can kill essentially anything with one wand in a pinch. Granted it will use up the 50 charges all at once but man it is fun to one shot a great wyrm dragon with one wand in a round.



Actually... the Warlock can QUALIFY for item creation feats at the appropriate level... so they don't just get three item creation feats.


But a Warlock can create an empowered, maximized, quickened wand of fireballs... and doesn't need to know any of the feats outside of craft wand.

An empowered maximized and quickened fireball is still an arcane spell. And it states nowhere (unlike the artificer) that the UMD check of the Warlock cannot be used to duplicate feats other than than item creation.

In fact, it doesn't even state you cannot cast EPIC spells using this check. However, what we're talking about isn't an epic spell, merely a 12th level one (which the Warlock can most c ertainly do ebcause the check specifically states that he can substitute this UMD check in place of a spell he doesn't know or cannot cast).

In order to imbue a magic item with a 12th level spell would require the warlock beat a 27 DC UMD check.

He can do this by the time he gets this feat and has about +3 or so to his charisma modifier.

This is because he can take 10 on the UMD check to create the item.

[MeeposFire]

Actually... the Warlock can QUALIFY for item creation feats at the appropriate level... so they don't just get three item creation feats.


But a Warlock can create an empowered, maximized, quickened wand of fireballs... and doesn't need to know any of the feats outside of craft wand.

An empowered maximized and quickened fireball is still an arcane spell. And it states nowhere (unlike the artificer) that the UMD check of the Warlock cannot be used to duplicate feats other than than item creation.

In fact, it doesn't even state you cannot cast EPIC spells using this check. However, what we're talking about isn't an epic spell, merely a 12th level one (which the Warlock can most c ertainly do ebcause the check specifically states that he can substitute this UMD check in place of a spell he doesn't know or cannot cast).

In order to imbue a magic item with a 12th level spell would require the warlock beat a 27 DC UMD check.

He can do this by the time he gets this feat and has about +3 or so to his charisma modifier.

This is because he can take 10 on the UMD check to create the item.

A warlock cannot create that wand because a wand is restricted to 4th level spells and that spell is way over level 4.

Also the artificer isn't making a wand that can do this. He is using a basic wand such as an acid orb wand (which he could have made though it is not required) and using his ability to add metmagic to a wand on the fly to make a twinned, repeated, maximized, empowered, etc orb spell. A straight warlock cannot do that.

[olentu]

Actually... the Warlock can QUALIFY for item creation feats at the appropriate level... so they don't just get three item creation feats.


But a Warlock can create an empowered, maximized, quickened wand of fireballs... and doesn't need to know any of the feats outside of craft wand.

An empowered maximized and quickened fireball is still an arcane spell. And it states nowhere (unlike the artificer) that the UMD check of the Warlock cannot be used to duplicate feats other than than item creation.

In fact, it doesn't even state you cannot cast EPIC spells using this check. However, what we're talking about isn't an epic spell, merely a 12th level one (which the Warlock can most c ertainly do ebcause the check specifically states that he can substitute this UMD check in place of a spell he doesn't know or cannot cast).

In order to imbue a magic item with a 12th level spell would require the warlock beat a 27 DC UMD check.

He can do this by the time he gets this feat and has about +3 or so to his charisma modifier.

This is because he can take 10 on the UMD check to create the item.

Hmmm so are you arguing that a spell modified by a metamagic feat is a new and completely separate spell from the original spell.

[visigani]

A warlock cannot create that wand because a wand is restricted to 4th level spells and that spell is way over level 4.

Also the artificer isn't making a wand that can do this. He is using a basic wand such as an acid orb wand (which he could have made though it is not required) and using his ability to add metmagic to a wand on the fly to make a twinned, repeated, maximized, empowered, etc orb spell. A straight warlock cannot do that.

If that were true you could not create a heightened version... but let's say it's a staff if it makes you happy.


The Warlock can make a Staff that can do all of the above and then some.


For real shenanigans... put it in a multiple use per day wondrous item.

[visigani]

Hmmm so are you arguing that a spell modified by a metamagic feat is a new and completely separate spell from the original spell.

I'm saying a spell modified by metamagic is still a spell. It states explicitly that the warlock can use that UMD check to duplicate ANY arcane or divine spell. So if anyone can cast that spell the Warlock can duplicate it.

[MeeposFire]

If that were true you could not create a heightened version... but let's say it's a staff if it makes you happy.


The Warlock can make a Staff that can do all of the above and then some.

So then the artificer makes the same staff for cheaper and then metamagic spell triggers the heck out of that. Anything you can do the artificer does better because the artificer can make the same thing and then boost it afterwords. The warlock can only make stuff.

Also you can heighten spell and put it into a wand but the end result going into the wand must be level 4 or lower.

[Godskook]

Actually... the Warlock can QUALIFY for item creation feats at the appropriate level... so they don't just get three item creation feats.

Except what reason would you give a DM for why you took a crafting feat at level 6? Or 9? There's really no point prior to level 12, and there are DMs that will probably cry foul that you're grabbing feats you couldn't plausibly benefit from.


Hmmm so are you arguing that a spell modified by a metamagic feat is a new and completely separate spell from the original spell.

For the purpose of item creation, it is treated as a higher level spell. Complete with an increase in price.

[visigani]

So then the artificer makes the same staff for cheaper and then metamagic spell triggers the heck out of that. Anything you can do the artificer does better because the artificer can make the same thing and then boost it afterwords. The warlock can only make stuff.

Also you can heighten spell and put it into a wand but the end result going into the wand must be level 4 or lower.

It's not a question of 'cheaper' it's a question of whether or not you can make it.

Again, let's say it's not a wand... let's say it a Gemstone that casts maximized fireballs.. five times per day. Anyone can use it, not just the Artificer.

Simply being "cheaper" is nice... but it's a question of what the lock can do with the item he can create.... and he can create any magical item and he can make that magical item do pretty much anything.

[visigani]

Except what reason would you give a DM for why you took a crafting feat at level 6? Or 9? There's really no point prior to level 12, and there are DMs that will probably cry foul that you're grabbing feats you couldn't plausibly benefit from.



For the purpose of item creation, it is treated as a higher level spell. Complete with an increase in price.

I don't really have to give him a reason, do I? Unless we're all suddenly into the DM actively circumventing the rules in order to prevent my character from gaining a feat that has no immediate benefit?

Which is bizarre considering how incredibly lax the DM is in handing out feats, abilities, access to spells and resources for other "optimized" characters.

[Greenish]

It's not a question of 'cheaper' it's a question of whether or not you can make it.Wealth is a limited resource.

[olentu]

Except what reason would you give a DM for why you took a crafting feat at level 6? Or 9? There's really no point prior to level 12, and there are DMs that will probably cry foul that you're grabbing feats you couldn't plausibly benefit from.



For the purpose of item creation, it is treated as a higher level spell. Complete with an increase in price.


I'm saying a spell modified by metamagic is still a spell. It states explicitly that the warlock can use that UMD check to duplicate ANY arcane or divine spell. So if anyone can cast that spell the Warlock can duplicate it.

Ah but if it is not a new spell then comes the question of can it be copied. As I recall a warlock can use use magic device in place of a spell and do note that is the only thing I recall. Now the if a spell modified by a metamagic feat is not a new spell then it can not be chosen as the spell that the use magic device check is being used in place of since it is exactly the same spell as it is.

Now then let us consider the section from the DMG relating to metamagic feats in an item. As I recall the DMG says that a caster can use metamagic feats to place a spell in an item at a higher level. So from that it would seem that the caster must use the feat in question so unless you let people use feats they do not actually have one must have the feat.

So barring misremembering, something I have forgotten, or some other source of evidence you must be arguing that spells modified by metamagic feats are completely separate spells from the originals if you argue for this to work or you are arguing that anyone can use any feat without having to have taken the feat in question.

[visigani]

...you are arguing that anyone can use any feat without having to have taken the feat in question.


Negative. I'm arguing that the Warlock can use this UMD check to simulate the casting of any arcane spell and further, is not specifically barred from simulating the of casting spells modified by metamagic in doing so, unlike the Artificer who is.


A 12th level fireball is still an arcane spell. Simple as that. No getting around it. No weaseling out of it.

It's an arcane spell.

The Warlock can duplicate any arcane spell. A heavily modified car is still a car until you modify it to the point where it is no longer a car at all. A heavily modified spell is still a spell.

It does not say the Warlock can duplicate any unmodified spell. It says the Warlock can duplicate any Arcane or Divine spell. Any. This means limited wish, wish, time stop, miracle, you name it. This means any arcane or divine spell modified by any metamagic feat because those spells are still arcane or divine spells.

The Warlock can imbue a Gem with "Miracle" and use it to cast Miracle once per day. Or make multiple gemstones to that can cast Miracle once per day.

[Godskook]

I don't really have to give him a reason, do I? Unless we're all suddenly into the DM actively circumventing the rules in order to prevent my character from gaining a feat that has no immediate benefit?

For some DMs, yes you do, and the fact that Warlock doesn't offer any real point to taking the feats isn't just a handicap when dealing with the DM, its also a handicap in such games, when you're 1-5 feats 'behind' the party cause you spent them on crafting feats that won't be usable till you get your lvl 12 ability.


Which is bizarre considering how incredibly lax the DM is in handing out feats, abilities, access to spells and resources for other "optimized" characters.

Bwuh?!? That's kind of a straw-man argument there, man.

[visigani]

For some DMs, yes you do, and the fact that Warlock doesn't offer any real point to taking the feats isn't just a handicap when dealing with the DM, its also a handicap in such games, when you're 1-5 feats 'behind' the party cause you spent them on crafting feats that won't be usable till you get your lvl 12 ability.



Bwuh?!? That's kind of a straw-man argument there, man.

Says the guy who is proposing the DM who would grant any artificer any feat under the sun in order to become optimized but that same DM would take an extremely dim view of a Warlock who wanted to take a feat that would not have any significant impact on the character at all at the time of selecting.


It's a bizarre thing, it's like a religion. Again, in optimization a Wizard is given any spell, access to any item, any feat, any alternate class feature...

but suddenly the Warlock I'm proposing is required to state WHY they're taking a feat... and justify it no less.... for a feat they meet the prerequisites for no less.

[Greenish]

Says the guy who is proposing the DM who would grant any artificer any feat under the sun in order to become optimizedOh, neat tactic, your previous strawman looks much more solid now when compared to this. :smallcool:

[visigani]

Oh, neat tactic, your previous strawman looks much more solid now when compared to this. :smallcool:

You keep calling it a strawman but it doesn't change the fact that it's the truth.

What is your justification for the DM denying the player access to the feat?

[olentu]

Negative. I'm arguing that the Warlock can use this UMD check to simulate the casting of any arcane spell and further, is not specifically barred from simulating the of casting spells modified by metamagic in doing so, unlike the Artificer who is.


A 12th level fireball is still an arcane spell. Simple as that. No getting around it. No weaseling out of it.

It's an arcane spell.

The Warlock can duplicate any arcane spell. A heavily modified car is still a car until you modify it to the point where it is no longer a car at all. A heavily modified spell is still a spell.

It does not say the Warlock can duplicate any unmodified spell. It says the Warlock can duplicate any Arcane or Divine spell. Any. This means limited wish, wish, time stop, miracle, you name it. This means any arcane or divine spell modified by any metamagic feat because those spells are still arcane or divine spells.

The Warlock can imbue a Gem with "Miracle" and use it to cast Miracle once per day. Or make multiple gemstones to that can cast Miracle once per day.

Again unless the spell modified by a metamagic feat is a different spell then the original the use magic device check only substitutes for the spell and one can not specify that it is or is not a modified version of the same. So you must be arguing that a spell modified by a metamagic feat is a different spell than one that is not.

Or perhaps you are arguing that since it does not say you can not then you can. Hmm I suppose it could be this but if that is the case then I see no reason to bother bringing this into a discussion on the relative power of anything since fighters with laser eyes makes the point moot.

Edit: And note in reference to the you can because it does not say you can't what i mean is you saying that you can treat spells as modified by metamagic feats as separate spells then their unmodified version specifically for the use of the ability imbue item. This is basically arguing that the spells are actually separate spells but only for the purposes of imbue item and nothing else at all ever because imbue item does not say it does not have this special and unwritten power.

[visigani]

Again unless the spell modified by a metamagic feat is a different spell then the original the use magic device check only substitutes for the spell and one can not specify that it is or is not a modified version of the same. So you must be arguing that a spell modified by a metamagic feat is a different spell than one that is not.

Or perhaps you are arguing that since it does not say you can not then you can. Hmm I suppose it could be this but if that is the case then I see no reason to bother bringing this into a discussion on the relative power of anything since fighters with laser eyes makes the point moot.



You're actually asking me if something changed is the exact same thing as something that is unchanged?

[Boci]

You keep calling it a strawman but it doesn't change the fact that it's the truth.

What is your justification for the DM denying the player access to the feat?

1. Since you cannot craft magical items, what does taking a feat that allows you to craft magical items represent in your characters actions?

2. Why is your character taking a feat that will only be useful later? They do not know the adventure continues until level 15.

[Godskook]

What is your justification for the DM denying the player access to the feat?

Can't use the feat at the level when you take the feat. Its called metagaming.

[visigani]

1. Since you cannot craft magical items, what does taking a feat that allows you to craft magical items represent in your characters actions?

2. Why is your character taking a feat that will only be useful later? They do not know the adventure continues until level 15.



Those are questions, not reasons for denying a character the ability to take the feat. The character meets the prerequisites.

So do you have any reason for denying the player a feat they meet the prereqs to or not? Other than it's 'metagame'?

In which case my fluff response is that the character has hidden potential to craft items of vast untold power that just hasn't been unlocked yet. Power on the tip of his tongue, so to speak and then it all comes rushing out once he hits 12th lvl.

[visigani]

Can't use the feat at the level when you take the feat. Its called metagaming.

See above.

[Boci]

Those are questions, not reasons for denying a character the ability to take the feat. The character meets the prerequisites.

So do you have any reason for denying the player a feat they meet the prereqs to or not? Other than it's 'metagame'?

In which case my fluff response is that the character has hidden potential to craft items of vast untold power that just hasn't been unlocked yet. Power on the tip of his tongue, so to speak and then it all comes rushing out once he hits 12th lvl.

That would work for me, but I have a feeling I am in the minority on that.

[olentu]

You're actually asking me if something changed is the exact same thing as something that is unchanged?

I am asking you if you are arguing that they are different spells. I mean clearly not all spells manifest in exactly the same way even though they are the same spell. A spell cast by a higher level caster does not have the same effect as one cast by a lower level caster but that does not mean they are not the same spell and similarly with this.

[Greenish]

You keep calling it a strawman but it doesn't change the fact that it's the truth.Really? When did Godskook say that DM will allow the artificer to take any feat under the sun?

No, strawman is when you misrepresent the opponents point of view in order to make arguing with it easier.


As for the specific question, I see no problem with the warlock taking the feats, aside from the fact that he'll be hurting for several levels for having burnt his feats on something with no benefit (yet).

Of course, just because a high-ish level warlock can with effort get close to one of the tricks of a tier 1 class doesn't really mean that warlocks are tier 1, or even close. :smallamused:

[visigani]

I am asking you if you are arguing that they are different spells. I mean clearly not all spells manifest in exactly the same way even though they are the same spell. A spell cast by a higher level caster does not have the same effect as one cast by a lower level caster but that does not mean they are not the same spell and similarly with this.

For the sake of argument, let's say it's the exact same spell. Let's say a fireball modified by any number of factors is still a fireball spell.

Then, can the Warlock not cast that version of the spell? If a warlock can, using your own logic, imbue an item with X caster level (because it never says he must simulate a casting of the lowest possible level) of his choice, could he not then modify it with X feat of his choice? Again, it never says the Warlock cannot.

If a fireball cast at caster level 12 is still a fireball, and a fireball modified using empower spell is still a fireball is there any reason the Warlock cannot duplicate that version of the spell when crafting a magic item?

According to the text? No, he is not required to have any feat other than the item creation feat and is not required by text to make a UMD check to duplicate any other feat. If he wants to modify that spell (such as increase the caster level), he may. There is absolutely nothing in the text that states otherwise.

He may cast any version of that arcane spell, whether it's an arcane spell with increased caster level or an arcane spell modified by a metamagic feat... because in either instance... they're still an arcane spell.

[NineThePuma]

But could a level 12 warlock cast a spell at CL 20?

[olentu]

For the sake of argument, let's say it's the exact same spell. Let's say a fireball modified by any number of factors is still a fireball spell.

Then, can the Warlock not cast that version of the spell? If a warlock can, using your own logic, imbue an item with X caster level (because it never says he must simulate a casting of the lowest possible level) of his choice, could he not then modify it with X feat of his choice? Again, it never says the Warlock cannot.

If a fireball cast at caster level 12 is still a fireball, and a fireball modified using empower spell is still a fireball is there any reason the Warlock cannot duplicate that version of the spell when crafting a magic item?

According to the text? No, he is not required to have any feat other than the item creation feat and is not required by text to make a UMD check to duplicate any other feat. If he wants to modify that spell (such as increase the caster level), he may. There is absolutely nothing in the text that states otherwise.

He may cast any version of that arcane spell, whether it's an arcane spell with increased caster level or an arcane spell modified by a metamagic feat... because in either instance... they're still an arcane spell.

You can You can chose caster level because the DMG says that for scrolls, potions, and wands you can chose the caster level (within appropriate limitations of course) so there is no problem with that. I would write more but see below.


Considering your last bit this seems to be a case of you can because it does not say you can not. To that I will reply that if you are taking that position I will I concede that this makes you correct but this also makes warlocks the worst class since imbue item and in fact all their class features cause them to die without possibility of resurrection since it does not say that they don't.

[TroubleBrewing]

... all their class features cause them to die without possibility of resurrection since it does not say that they don't.

Nice. I see what you did there. :smalltongue:

It does sound like that's your argument here, OP.

What's more important, just because Warlocks "can" replicate one ability of a Tier 1 class, doesn't mean they are Tier 1. By this logic, Monks are also Tier 1 because they can cross-class UMD and cast spells like Wizards.

[shadow_archmagi]

Let's compare:

-Utility-
At 12th level, a Warlock knows 7 invocations. These are combat abilities which will range from "Will save or be Shaken" to "Black Tentacles."

At 12th level, an Artificer has access to 5 levels of his infusions, which include such notables as "Cast any spell of 4th level or lower" to "+4 deflection bonus for the whole party" and "Give anyone any armor enchantment they want, or any weapon enchantment up to +3"

So, let's imagine that the party wants to explore the grand canyon, hunt some winged elves for sport, hijack an airship, and then play topless volleyball on a cloud. The artificer can not only iron their shirts, but also give them the power to fly. The Artificer will, of course, need a minute per shirt. Also, things will go horribly, tragically wrong when it comes time for topless volleyball. But such is the price of being an adventurer.

The Warlock, on the other hand, can, at best, fly himself in, if he chose fly as something he could do. It's an all or nothing gig. Also, her flight has a duration, so she'll keep on suddenly plummeting downward in the middle of topless volleyball.
-



-Damage-
The Artificer is Medium BAB, and the Warlock is Medium BAB. Likewise, they both have a D6 hit die. So nothing to choose between them so far.

Now that, at 12th level, the Warlock is throwing around bolts of eldritch power that deal 6D6. Not bad! If the Warlock chose, earlier on in life, to take one of the Blast enchantments, that could even be 6d6 area of effect! That's an average of 21 damage per shot!

Now, the Artificer, if he's toting around a basic Wand of Fireball, it's only dealing 5D6, and it's costing him 100 gold per shot (75 if he took the 25% off feat). So, so far, it's looking like the Warlock is a cheaper and better blaster.

But with actual WBL, he'll have 88,000 GP at this point. For the low price of 9000 (6750 with the feat) he can tote a wand of scorching ray. For three 4d6 rays. If he's willing to drop a third level infusion to give metamagic to the wand (at no cost beyond the use of an infusion), that can just be 72 damage.

Also, at level 12, the Artificer has just gained the power to add a metamagic to scrolls he casts. So he can Twin his debuffs if he wants.

(Disclaimer): I've never played a warlock. I'm sure that there's lots of ways to boost their damage by quite a bit. But keep in mind that the extent of the optimization on the artificer side was "What if he casts the 'do lots more damage' spell, so I'm equally certain that artificer damage can become silly."





-Item Crafting-
Warlocks can craft as if they knew all the spells.
Artificers can craft as if they knew all the spells.

So far, nothing to choose between them.

Artificers get all the crafting feats for free
Artificers get lots of bonus feats that can be spent on special artificer crafting enhancement feats.
Artificers get a special reserve of XP so they can craft without falling behind.




-Summary-

While it is true that Warlocks can craft any item, Artificers can craft the item at less cost. (No feat cost, reduced GP cost, time cost is alleviated by a Dedicated Wright, XP is soaked by craft reserve.)

While it is true that Warlocks can craft any item, Artificers get all sorts of nifty things to do with the item.

It's like comparing Iron Man and the Batman. They're both quite intelligent, and can build mad science, but somehow one of them seems to get quite a lot more mileage out of technology.

[visigani]

Nice. I see what you did there. :smalltongue:

It does sound like that's your argument here, OP.

What's more important, just because Warlocks "can" replicate one ability of a Tier 1 class, doesn't mean they are Tier 1. By this logic, Monks are also Tier 1 because they can cross-class UMD and cast spells like Wizards.



Actually, Warlocks have a +1 on Artificers... they can mimic any metamagic feat.... and any spell level.

Automatic Quicken Spell. Applies the quicken spell feat without an increase in level. An arcane spell modified by Automatic Quicken Spell is still an Arcane spell. Regardless of if the feat is epic or not, there's no prohibition on its use RAW save for DM fiat.



To address the "it doesn't say they can't so they can", it specifically says in OTHER classes with similar abilities (see: artificer) that they cannot duplicate metamagic feats and so forth.

There's no such prohibition for the Warlock.

The warlock need only be able to beat a DC based on the spell level to be cast for any arcane or divine spell.

A spell modified by automatic quicken spell is indeed an arcane spell, yet there's no modifier to increase the spell's level.

Consequently, you could cast a wand of automatically quickened fireballs.... in fact... and here's where it gets juicy... ANYONE who could normally cast that spell could benefit from it.

The Warlock could hand the wand to his friendly wizard and say "have at it".



and where it gets REAL interesting... is when you take into account the fact that arcane spells modified by metamagic that are themselves "modified" are still arcane spells.

Arcane Thesis, and Incantrix... I'm looking at you.

[Telonius]

Says the guy who is proposing the DM who would grant any artificer any feat under the sun in order to become optimized but that same DM would take an extremely dim view of a Warlock who wanted to take a feat that would not have any significant impact on the character at all at the time of selecting.


It's a bizarre thing, it's like a religion. Again, in optimization a Wizard is given any spell, access to any item, any feat, any alternate class feature...

but suddenly the Warlock I'm proposing is required to state WHY they're taking a feat... and justify it no less.... for a feat they meet the prerequisites for no less.

The difference is that the DM allows the Artificer "any feat under the sun" to be optimized ... because that's what the Artificer gets as class features. It's right in the table and in the text - he gets all of the craft feats without having to do anything special to get them. He gets bonus feats that will let him craft stuff faster and cheaper. He gets metamagic spell trigger and metamagic spell completion, which Warlock just can't get. He can craft anything (given time, gold, and XP). No matter what feat the Warlock takes to help his crafting, the Artificer already has it, no matter what the Artificer picks for his regular every-three-level feats. Artificer could pick Toughness for all of his regular feats, and he'd still be ahead in terms of crafting. No matter what spells the Warlock wants to craft or put in an item, the Artificer has already done that and three other things besides. All the Artificer has to do to get all of this, is stay alive and keep his Use Magic Device maximized. This is not a matter of cheese or optimization or metagaming - it's just what the Artificer does.

[visigani]

The difference is that the DM allows the Artificer "any feat under the sun" to be optimized ... because that's what the Artificer gets as class features. It's right in the table and in the text - he gets all of the craft feats without having to do anything special to get them. He gets bonus feats that will let him craft stuff faster and cheaper. He gets metamagic spell trigger and metamagic spell completion, which Warlock just can't get. He can craft anything (given time, gold, and XP). No matter what feat the Warlock takes to help his crafting, the Artificer already has it, no matter what the Artificer picks for his regular every-three-level feats. Artificer could pick Toughness for all of his regular feats, and he'd still be ahead in terms of crafting. No matter what spells the Warlock wants to craft or put in an item, the Artificer has already done that and three other things besides. All the Artificer has to do to get all of this, is stay alive and keep his Use Magic Device maximized. This is not a matter of cheese or optimization or metagaming - it's just what the Artificer does.



Except the Warlock can emulate any metamagic feat, even any MODIFIED metamagic feat in the game.

The Artificer can't.


The text SPECIFICALLY states he can use a UMD check in place of a spell "he doesn't know or can't cast"

[drakir_nosslin]

To the OP; say that your argument for warlock crafting is ok:d by the DM (I can see your reasoning, but I don't think that pretty much anyone would allow it but hey, we go by RAW here. The awesomeness with the artificer OTOH is perfectly legal, so no problem there) it still doesn't make the Warlock a Tier 1.

It's too limited in over half the game (until lvl 12) and late game you still can't produce as much as the artificer for the same price, or contribute on the same level. An artificer don't even need downtime to craft, she uses a dedicated wright for that meaning no downtime, something that the warlock is going to need a lot of to be competing. And, if we're comparing two dedicated crafters the artificer will easily outproduce the warlock, leaving the lock far behind in WBL.

[Telonius]

Automatic Quicken Spell. Applies the quicken spell feat without an increase in level. An arcane spell modified by Automatic Quicken Spell is still an Arcane spell. Regardless of if the feat is epic or not, there's no prohibition on its use RAW save for DM fiat.


Which would be great, if Automatic Quicken Spell were a metamagic feat. It's not.

[Boci]

@visigani: Why does the warlock's ability to apply any metamagic to any spell mean so much? Sure its kinda useful, but as a general rule spell + MM is weaker than an unmetamagicked spell from the new level. Plus you are relying on the construction of staffsa, which are frigging expensive. An artificer can keep costs down by mostly sticking with wands.

[Veyr]

A staff with a single spell in it costs exactly as much as a wand of a spell the same level would cost, provided the spell's Caster Level is 8 or higher. You could actually save money by crafting a Staff of Rope Trick at CL 8, and applying your own (9+) CL to it (750 * 8 * 2 = 12,000); it will be cheaper than a Wand of CL 9 Rope Trick (750 * 9 * 2 = 13,500) (a Wand of CL 5 Extended Rope Trick is cheaper still, though, at 750 * 5 * 3 = 11,250). The two use the same formula.

There is something of an issue in that no staff WotC has ever printed has ever had just a single spell in it. To the best of my knowledge, there's no rule that you have to put multiple spells in there, but it seems quietly assumed that all staves have multiple spells. This is not quite as convenient.

[drakir_nosslin]

A staff with a single spell in it costs exactly as much as a wand of a spell the same level would cost, provided the spell's Caster Level is 8 or higher. You could actually save money by crafting a Staff of Rope Trick at CL 8, and applying your own (9+) CL to it (750 * 8 * 2 = 12,000); it will be cheaper than a Wand of CL 9 Rope Trick (750 * 9 * 2 = 13,500) (a Wand of CL 5 Extended Rope Trick is cheaper still, though, at 750 * 5 * 3 = 11,250). The two use the same formula.

There is something of an issue in that no staff WotC has ever printed has ever had just a single spell in it. To the best of my knowledge, there's no rule that you have to put multiple spells in there, but it seems quietly assumed that all staves have multiple spells. This is not quite as convenient.

Yea, but the artificer don't need to craft a staff in order to apply metamagic to a spell that would normally go in a wand. The warlock does, thereby increasing the cost to get the same effect.

[visigani]

Which would be great, if Automatic Quicken Spell were a metamagic feat. It's not.

It does, however, modify an already existing metamagic feat...

[shadow_archmagi]

There is something of an issue in that no staff WotC has ever printed has ever had just a single spell in it. To the best of my knowledge, there's no rule that you have to put multiple spells in there, but it seems quietly assumed that all staves have multiple spells. This is not quite as convenient.

Well, if I remember my staff crafting rules, every spell after the most expensive two is half off? So a Staff of Fireball, Fabricate, Fly, and Disguise Self would be a lot cheaper than a Staff of Fabricate and three wands.


Except the Warlock can emulate any metamagic feat, even any MODIFIED metamagic feat in the game.

Consequently, you could cast a wand of automatically quickened fireballs.... in fact...


1. I don't know many DM's who would accept "Emulate any spell" to include "Quickened-Maximized Magic Missile"

2. That's not really a big benefit.

2a.For one thing, Quicken doesn't actually help on wands, because it's a standard action to activate a wand.

2b. An artificer who grabs metamagic feats can make a Maximized wand/staff too. There just isn't really a good reason to.

2c. A staff of Maximized Fireball at CL 10 is 6x10x375, for a total price of 22500. That's 60 damage a shot, for 450 gp per point of damage.

A wand of Fireball, at CL 10, is 3x10x375, for a total price of 11250. Slap on an infusion, and it's now Maximized. Same damage output, half the price.

Alternatively, use the metamagic class feature to burn an extra 3 charges per shot, and that's 900 GP a shot. Admittedly, not as gold efficient, but you can do it before 12th level.


EDIT: The point here, once again, is that you're sort of arguably on par with Artificer in one way after jumping through the questionable loophole. Perhaps the best analogy that you're saying that you should be considered a god because *if* you have a jet fighter, you can go as fast as Thor. It's not just the speed; there's the hammer and the lightning and the mythology too. Warlocks just don't bring as much to the party.



You could actually save money by crafting a Staff of Rope Trick at CL 8, and applying your own caster level


EDIT2: Wait, what's this about using your own caster level with a staff? How does that work? I just checked the SRD and don't see anything about it...

[Veyr]

Yea, but the artificer don't need to craft a staff in order to apply metamagic to a spell that would normally go in a wand. The warlock does, thereby increasing the cost to get the same effect.
Correct, insofar as that raises the spell's level. The fact that it's a staff doesn't matter though (since if the spell's level is 4th or less, you can make a Wand and avoid the CL 8 minimum on Staves, and if it's 5th or higher and you can't make a Wand, you can make a Staff for exactly what a hypothetical Wand of that level would have cost, plus additional benefits).

[Telonius]

Yea, but the artificer don't need to craft a staff in order to apply metamagic to a spell that would normally go in a wand. The warlock does, thereby increasing the cost to get the same effect.

They don't need to craft the staff in order to apply metamagic, but they do need the feat in order to apply metamagic. visigani's argument hinges on the Warlock not needing to have the metamagic feat, in order to craft an item of metamagic spell. (For example, putting a Quickened spell into a wand or staff). That's also the point of bringing the Epic feat into discussion - it's a potential way of being able to make Quickened Wands of True Strike (for example) without paying anything extra for it. (Who knows, maybe they're even partially charged).

Spell trigger (either wands or staffs) has to be used, because the UMD check on scrolls would require something absurd. With spell trigger, it's a flat 20, which is trivial to get at level 12. Not that you couldn't optimize for UMD, but it makes it trickier.

[visigani]

Yea, but the artificer don't need to craft a staff in order to apply metamagic to a spell that would normally go in a wand. The warlock does, thereby increasing the cost to get the same effect.



Doesn't the artificer need to know the metamagic feat in question? I believe he does.


Regardless, this is the juicy part about the Warlock...


You could cast an Enlarged (+1 spell level), Extended(+1), Silent(+1), Still(+1), Scupted (+1) Arcane Thesis'd spell without increasing the level of the spell.

Why? Because the Warlock doesn't know or cannot cast that spell. So he can roll for UMD to put it in a wand.

Do the same thing with persistant spell, arcane thesis, and easy metamagic.... and any other metamagic modifiers you can think to toss on there.


The question is "Can the Warlock cast this arcane spell?"... if the answer is No then he can make a UMD check to put it in a craftable item.

And this doesn't just mean SRD arcane spell. This means ANY arcane spell and ANY divine spell at ANY level that it can be cast.

Can a warlock cast this maximized empowered heightened energy substituted fireball? No. Then he can make a UMD check to put it in an item.

[Veyr]

You still have to pay for the increased level.

[visigani]

EDIT2: Wait, what's this about using your own caster level with a staff? How does that work? I just checked the SRD and don't see anything about it...

Staffs use the stats of the caster in question...

i.e. if you cast a fireball from a staff it uses your int/cha modifier to determine the DC.

(if I recall correctly)

[visigani]

You still have to pay for the increased level.

Not if those increased levels don't count. The price is based on the level of the spell in question. If I have a superduper metamagiced spell.. but that metamagic is negated by metamagic modifiers... then the spell largely remains the same level... hence there's no bump in cost for the Enlarged , Extended, Silent, Still, Scupted Arcane Thesis'd spell.


And then ****e gets crazy when you factor in "Earth Spell" and things like that.

[shadow_archmagi]

Staffs use the stats of the caster in question...

i.e. if you cast a fireball from a staff it uses your int/cha modifier to determine the DC.

(if I recall correctly)

Hm! I always missed that. No big deal, because I've never actually had a character who made a staff, on account of most games I've been in ending up below 12th level.

I've learned something new!

EDIT: Stilled and Silenced won't actually help, since you're casting the spell from an item anyway.

Enlarged and Extended isn't bad, though.

[visigani]

Hm! I always missed that. No big deal, because I've never actually had a character who made a staff, on account of most games I've been in ending up below 12th level.

I've learned something new!

EDIT: Stilled and Silenced won't actually help, since you're casting the spell from an item anyway.

Enlarged and Extended isn't bad, though.

You forgot sculpt. Hello Staff of Widened, Sculpted, Extended of Antimagic.... Cloud Kill.. Reverse Gravity...Incendiary Cloud...

[tonberrian]

Arcane Thesis is not a metamagic feat. Straight Warlock can't qualify for it. It doesn't even modify the metamagic feats you're applying it to (in fact, neither does Automatic Quicken spell - it specifies that you may cast spells as quickened spells; also, note "cast" - nothing about items).

[Big Fau]

This is because he can take 10 on the UMD check to create the item.

Warlocks aren't capable of doing this at 1st level without spending their own feats (the Artificer gets those feats for free). That's the difference.


You keep calling it a strawman but it doesn't change the fact that it's the truth.

What is your justification for the DM denying the player access to the feat?

I'll give you one thing: It isn't a Strawman. What you are doing is a completely different brand of logical fallacy. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out WHICH though.


Not if those increased levels don't count. The price is based on the level of the spell in question. If I have a superduper metamagiced spell.. but that metamagic is negated by metamagic modifiers... then the spell largely remains the same level... hence there's no bump in cost for the Enlarged , Extended, Silent, Still, Scupted Arcane Thesis'd spell.

You don't qualify for Arcane Thesis. In fact, you don't qualify for MANY metamagic reducers.

[visigani]

Warlocks aren't capable of doing this at 1st level without spending their own feats (the Artificer gets those feats for free). That's the difference.



I'll give you one thing: It isn't a Strawman. What you are doing is a completely different brand of logical fallacy. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out WHICH though.



You don't qualify for Arcane Thesis. In fact, you don't qualify for MANY metamagic reducers.



and that THE POINT.


You don't NEED TO QUALIFY.

The ONLY thing that needs to happen is that the spell itself can be modified in such a fashion. That's it, that's all.

In fact, the text AS WRITTEN says... and I QUOTE...

""in place of a required spell he doesn't know or can't cast".

Can he cast a spell that's been modified by arcane thesis?

NO.

Roll UMD.



And THEN we talk about "divine metamagic".



Can the Warlock cast Righteous Might modified by Divine Metamagic: Persistant Spell?

No.

Roll UMD.

[Big Fau]

and that THE POINT.


You don't NEED TO QUALIFY.

The ONLY thing that needs to happen is that the spell itself can be modified in such a fashion. That's it, that's all.

In fact, the text AS WRITTEN says... and I QUOTE...

""in place of a required spell he doesn't know or can't cast".

Can he cast a spell that's been modified by arcane thesis?

NO.

Roll UMD.

Except Arcane Thesis'd Fireball isn't a spell in and of itself: It's a spell being modified by a (non-metamagic) feat. They are not treated as different spells.



Modifying a spell does not make it a new spell. It makes it a modified spell. And you can't copy a modified spell.

[Telonius]

The ONLY thing that needs to happen is that the spell itself can be modified in such a fashion. That's it, that's all.


By that logic, a Warlock is essentially Pun-Pun.

Pun-Pun gives himself the ability to cast "Ascend to Pun-Pun-hood" as a level-zero spell. Warlock doesn't have it on his list. UMD, instant Pun-Pun.

When accepting a premise results in things like this, it's usually a good sign that either the premise is bad, or that it's a broken bit of rules exploit. It is not a sign that Warlock is the same utility as Artificer.

[visigani]

By that logic, a Warlock is essentially Pun-Pun.

Pun-Pun gives himself the ability to cast "Ascend to Pun-Pun-hood" as a level-zero spell. Warlock doesn't have it on his list. UMD, instant Pun-Pun.

When accepting a premise results in things like this, it's usually a good sign that either the premise is bad, or that it's a broken bit of rules exploit. It is not a sign that Warlock is the same utility as Artificer.

Except the spell must already exist.

[visigani]

Except Arcane Thesis'd Fireball isn't a spell in and of itself: It's a spell being modified by a (non-metamagic) feat. They are not treated as different spells.



Modifying a spell does not make it a new spell. It makes it a modified spell. And you can't copy a modified spell.



Can any caster on the planet put a spell modified by arcane thesis into a wand?

All indications say yes... because a caster can modify a spell while putting it into a wand... and that casters metamagic is in turn modified.


So when the original caster casts extended invisibility into a wand, and that invisibility has been modified by arcane thesis... well, you see where this is going.

[Big Fau]

Ok, I'm just going to clarify something: What you are trying to do is outside the boundary of the Warlock's Deceive Item ability. The Deceive Item ability allows you to mimic SPELLS, not FEATS. You cannot make a check to mimic the effects of a feat when crafting an item.

This is what separates a Warlock from an Artificer: The Artificer can learn metamagic feats, then apply them after crafting the item, without increasing the cost of that item (actually, doing so decreases the value of the item in question dramatically).

Whether or not you can craft a metamagic'd item AT ALL (as either class) requires two things: Knowing the Metamagic Feat in question and the DM's permission to do so (since doing so falls under Custom Magic Item Creation, since none of the Wands/Staves have Quickened Spells, for example).

[tonberrian]

Even with these shenanigans, an Artificer can, with less opportunity cost or questionable interpretations, make cheaper items earlier and nearly match whatever you come up with. Furthermore, the Artificer's tricks work on items that he's bought or looted, which your shenanigans do not. Furthermore, the Artificer's infusions beat the Warlock's invocations and other class features hands down. And to top it off, the Artificer gets trapfinding and generally more skillpoints a level.

[Big Fau]

Even with these shenanigans, an Artificer can, with less opportunity cost or questionable interpretations, make cheaper items earlier and nearly match whatever you come up with. Furthermore, the Artificer's tricks work on items that he's bought or looted, which your shenanigans do not. Furthermore, the Artificer's infusions beat the Warlock's invocations and other class features hands down. And to top it off, the Artificer gets trapfinding and generally more skillpoints a level.

Right. The Artificer has been crafting items for 11 levels by the time the Warlock even starts, which makes all of the difference in the long run.

[OracleofWuffing]

In fact, the text AS WRITTEN says... and I QUOTE...

""in place of a required spell he doesn't know or can't cast".

Hmm... It appears that, after the full-stop in your quote, the text continues to say, "If the check succeeds, the warlock can create the item as if he had cast the required spell." The added emphasis is important.


Creating Wands
To create a magic wand, a character needs a small supply of materials, the most obvious being a baton or the pieces of the wand to be assembled. The cost for the materials is subsumed in the cost for creating the wand—375 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster. Wands are always fully charged (50 charges) when created.

The creator must have prepared the spell to be stored (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any focuses the spell requires.

As you can see, the rules for creating wands states that you must have the required spell prepared. Since Imbue Item treats the spell for which you're rolling as you casting the spell, it appears you cannot make a Wand with a successful UMD check, because you do not have and never had the required spell prepared.

:smallfrown: ... Warlocks just suddenly became a lot less cool to me.

[Veyr]

visigani: You are correct that a metamagic'd spell is a different spell. You can put Empowered Fireball in a Wand as a 5th level spell, because that's what it is.

However, Arcane Thesis, Easy Metamagic, Practical Metamagic, Metamagic School, et al., are not Metamagic feats. They are General feats, and they change the caster. They give the caster the ability to cast spells more easily than he normally could.

There is no such thing as an Arcane Thesis Empowered Fireball — only an Empowered Fireball cast by someone who has Arcane Thesis (Fireball).

The only one you're likely to have any luck with is Sanctum Spell, which... I would flat-out ban in any game I run, no matter who is using it.

[Telonius]

Ok, I'm just going to clarify something: What you are trying to do is outside the boundary of the Warlock's Deceive Item ability. The Deceive Item ability allows you to mimic SPELLS, not FEATS. You cannot make a check to mimic the effects of a feat when crafting an item.

That's exactly the issue that's at hand. Visigani's (basically) arguing that Quickened Fireball is a distinct spell from Fireball, Widened Flamestrike is distinct from Flamestrike, and so on.

[tonberrian]

That's exactly the issue that's at hand. Visigani's (basically) arguing that Quickened Fireball is a distinct spell from Fireball, Widened Flamestrike is distinct from Flamestrike, and so on.

So would a Sorcerer have to learn Maximized Fireball in order to cast Fireball with the Maximized Spell feat applied? Seems like nonsense.

[Veyr]

That's exactly the issue that's at hand. Visigani's (basically) arguing that Quickened Fireball is a distinct spell from Fireball, Widened Flamestrike is distinct from Flamestrike, and so on.
If that were the case, I'd agree with him (at least by RAW). He's correct that those are spells that can be put into magic items (by anyone who knows how to make them, which the Warlock does by virtue of Imbue Item, ignoring Oracle of Wuffing's reading for the moment).

However, that's not what he's arguing, or at least, not only that. He's also arguing that things like Arcane Thesis (which is not Metamagic) work, which they very certainly do not.

[OracleofWuffing]

(by anyone who knows how to make them, which the Warlock does by virtue of Imbue Item, ignoring Oracle of Wuffing's reading for the moment)
That's okay, I kinda want my reading to be wrong for the moment, too.

vvv Yeah, I know, but, RAW-wise, there's a difference between casting a spell and preparing a spell, right?

[The Shadowmind]

Hmm... It appears that, after the full-stop in your quote, the text continues to say, "If the check succeeds, the warlock can create the item as if he had cast the required spell." The added emphasis is important.


As you can see, the rules for creating wands states that you must have the required spell prepared. Since Imbue Item treats the spell for which you're rolling as you casting the spell, it appears you cannot make a Wand with a successful UMD check, because you do not have and never had the required spell prepared.

:smallfrown: ... Warlocks just suddenly became a lot less cool to me.

If you go by the reading then the Warlock, despite having a class feature that says you can make magic items, can't make magic items, since all the creating magic item rules(in the SRD at least) have the prepared or know wording.

[visigani]

And my argument is that these "spells" are indeed spells.

An "Empowered Fireball" is indeed a spell, and as there is ZERO indication based on imbue item that you cannot cast a metamagagicked version of a spell... it can be surmised (especially since other crafters with similar class features ARE prohibited in such a fashion) that you can cast such a spell.


What breaks it all wide open is when, if you can cast a metamagicked version of a spell... can you cast a MODIFIED metamagicked version of the spell.

If you cannot, why not?

Nothing in the rules states you cannot. The ONLY requirement is that the Warlock is unable to cast the spell himself.

Everything else allows a UMD check.

As arcane thesis MODIFIES the metamagic feat itself... possibly through the caster... but the end result is a change in the spell being cast.

An Invisibility spell produced by a caster with Arcane Thesis: Invisibility is inherently different from an Invisibility Spell cast by a caster without Arcane Thesis. It is either a modification of the spell, or an entirely new spell.

In either instance the Warlock may duplicate the effect.

[Veyr]

visigani: You are wrong. I've already delineated why. The rules are quite clear: there is no such thing as an Arcane Thesis Empowered Fireball. That spell does not exist, and therefore the Warlock cannot create an item of it through UMD. Period. Your entire case hinged on the existence of the spell and the clause in the Warlock's Imbue Item feature that specified any spell. But you've gone past spells that actually exist into spells that do not.

[Greenish]

Now, the Artificer, if he's toting around a basic Wand of Fireball, it's only dealing 5D6, and it's costing him 100 gold per shot (75 if he took the 25% off feat). So, so far, it's looking like the Warlock is a cheaper and better blaster.

But with actual WBL, he'll have 88,000 GP at this point. For the low price of 9000 (6750 with the feat) he can tote a wand of scorching ray. For three 4d6 rays. If he's willing to drop a third level infusion to give metamagic to the wand (at no cost beyond the use of an infusion), that can just be 72 damage.
Persist Unfettered Heroism from a Minor Schema, then use Wand Surge to power the wands (and staves).

[OracleofWuffing]

An "Empowered Fireball" is indeed a spell,
:smallconfused: Then, where's its spell description?

[visigani]

Wuffing, you need to read the text from Complete Arcane. Makes it pretty clear.



Regardless... Divine Metamagic: Persistant Spell Righteous Might wands...


Divine Metamagic: Persistant Spell only activates after the turn undead uses have been spent.

Consequently the Warlock would not need to spend turn undead uses.

You spend the uses, you get the effect the "effect" is the spell. In order to unlock the effect a cleric must spend the turn undead uses.

However, the actual spell itself requires no expenditure of turn undead uses.


Consequently if a Cleric can use DMM: Persist to modify a spell.. a Warlock can too.... and he doesn't need to spend turn undead because he's not duplicating the feat... he's duplicating the spell MODIFIED by the feat.

And that spell has no increase in spell level....

[tonberrian]

Wuffing, you need to read the text from Complete Arcane. Makes it pretty clear.



Regardless... Divine Metamagic: Persistant Spell Righteous Might wands...


Divine Metamagic: Persistant Spell only activates after the turn undead uses have been spent.

Consequently the Warlock would not need to spend turn undead uses.

You spend the uses, you get the effect the "effect" is the spell. In order to unlock the effect a cleric must spend the turn undead uses.

However, the actual spell itself requires no expenditure of turn undead uses.


Consequently if a Cleric can use DMM: Persist to modify a spell.. a Warlock can too.... and he doesn't need to spend turn undead because he's not duplicating the feat... he's duplicating the spell MODIFIED by the feat.

And that spell has no increase in spell level....

Fine. How is this meaningfully better than what the Artificer can do?

[OracleofWuffing]

Wuffing, you need to read the text from Complete Arcane. Makes it pretty clear.
I believe I already quoted word-for-word some text from Complete Arcane, so please, feel free to clarify that point.

[visigani]

Fine. How is this meaningfully better than what the Artificer can do?

Really? How is persisting every arcane or divine in existence without an increase in spell level useful?

If it applies to persistence it applies to EVERY metamagic feat.

The Warlock can add EVERY SINGLE METAMAGIC FEAT to a spell on a wand... and not increase its spell level...

Add every divine metamagic: X metamagic feat (DMM: Extend, DMM: Maximize, DMM: Persist, DMM: Sculpt, DMM: Whatever...)

and it still stays the exact same level it always has.

Because you're duplicating a spell modified by all of these factors... but the end result is a spell that has no change in spell level.


And you're asking me how that's not significant?

[Veyr]

Regardless... Divine Metamagic: Persistant Spell Righteous Might wands...

Divine Metamagic: Persistant Spell only activates after the turn undead uses have been spent.

Consequently the Warlock would not need to spend turn undead uses.

You spend the uses, you get the effect the "effect" is the spell. In order to unlock the effect a cleric must spend the turn undead uses.

However, the actual spell itself requires no expenditure of turn undead uses.

Consequently if a Cleric can use DMM: Persist to modify a spell.. a Warlock can too.... and he doesn't need to spend turn undead because he's not duplicating the feat... he's duplicating the spell MODIFIED by the feat.

And that spell has no increase in spell level....
No. You are wrong. This is not how the rules work. Again, Divine Metamagic is not a Metamagic feat.

[Greenish]

And you're asking me how that's not significant?No, he's asking you how is that meaningfully better than what artificers can do (really, it was in the quote, you're supposed to read those).

You're asking "how is that not significant?"

[tonberrian]

Really? How is persisting every arcane or divine in existence without an increase in spell level useful?

If it applies to persistence it applies to EVERY metamagic feat.

The Warlock can add EVERY SINGLE METAMAGIC FEAT to a spell on a wand... and not increase its spell level...

Add every divine metamagic: X metamagic feat (DMM: Extend, DMM: Maximize, DMM: Persist, DMM: Sculpt, DMM: Whatever...)

and it still stays the exact same level it always has.

Because you're duplicating a spell modified by all of these factors... but the end result is a spell that has no change in spell level.


And you're asking me how that's not significant?

Yes. How is it significantly better than what the Artificer already does, when merely being able to duplicate any spell can already solve every encounter? Especially when the Artificer has been doing this for 11 levels already and can apply his tricks to loot.

[visigani]

Yes. How is it significantly better than what the Artificer already does, nhen merely being able to duplicate any spell can already solve every encounter? Especially when the Artificer has been doing this for 11 levels already and can apply his tricks to loot.

Does the artificer need to know the metamagic feat he's applying to the wand or stave in question?

[Boci]

Because you're duplicating a spell modified by all of these factors... but the end result is a spell that has no change in spell level.

Quote the rules that say you can do that. And no, the words "any spell" are not sufficient.

[drakir_nosslin]

And my argument is that these "spells" are indeed spells.

An "Empowered Fireball" is indeed a spell, and as there is ZERO indication based on imbue item that you cannot cast a metamagagicked version of a spell... it can be surmised (especially since other crafters with similar class features ARE prohibited in such a fashion) that you can cast such a spell.


What breaks it all wide open is when, if you can cast a metamagicked version of a spell... can you cast a MODIFIED metamagicked version of the spell.

If you cannot, why not?

Nothing in the rules states you cannot. The ONLY requirement is that the Warlock is unable to cast the spell himself.

Everything else allows a UMD check.

As arcane thesis MODIFIES the metamagic feat itself... possibly through the caster... but the end result is a change in the spell being cast.

An Invisibility spell produced by a caster with Arcane Thesis: Invisibility is inherently different from an Invisibility Spell cast by a caster without Arcane Thesis. It is either a modification of the spell, or an entirely new spell.

In either instance the Warlock may duplicate the effect.

Yea, I call shenanigans.
And it still doesn't put the warlock in tier 1, where the artificer stands even without very liberal interpretations of the rules.

[visigani]

No. You are wrong. This is not how the rules work. Again, Divine Metamagic is not a Metamagic feat.


No, Divine Metamagic is not... but Divine Metamagic DOES modify a spell.


A spell cast modified by divine metamagic (Because DMM modified the metamagic itself) is STILL a spell.

And it is a spell that can be duplicated.


There's nothing in the text that states the spell cannot be modified by any means, and it's already known that spells can be modified by metamagic. Further, spells can be modified by metamagic that itself has been modified.

This "version" of the spell is then the playdough the Warlock has to work with.

When the Warlock says "I want to cast Fireball" into the wand... it happens. When the warlock says "I want to cast Empowered Fireball" into the wand... it happens... and there's no meaningful reason why the Warlock cannot also say "I want to cast an Empowered Fireball modified by Divine Metamagic" into the wand.

DMm modifies the Metamagic. If you can use metamagic to create an item you can use modified metamagic to create the item... because the end result, the spell is what the warlock is duplicating.

He's not duplicating "Fireball" so much as duplic ating the result of the Fireball. He;s not casting the spell itself, he's emulating the casting of the spell.

This means that if anyone anywhere can possibly cast that spell while crafting an item he can.

because he's emulating the end result.

[tonberrian]

Does the artificer need to know the metamagic feat he's applying to the wand or stave in question?

Artificers can pick up all the best metamagic feats with just their bonus feats, and still have more to pick up other things, as well as getting the item creation feats for free while a Warlock has to spend almost half of his feats on them. Being able to craft the perfect staff for any one situation is nice, but you simply can't do that for even most situations, or you will certainly suffer from being lower level.

Artificers simply don't have that problem.

[visigani]

Quote the rules that say you can do that. And no, the words "any spell" are not sufficient.



Why not?


"This piece of paper tells me I can go into any room"
"Prove it, and don't tell me it's because that piece of paper tells you you can go into any room".


The hell kind of argument is that?

The Warlock can duplicate any spell. Any spell. If you can have any car on the lot that doesn't mean you can only have the red ones. It means you can have any car on the lot, even if some of them are green.

[visigani]

Artificers can pick up all the best metamagic feats with just their bonus feats, and still have more to pick up other things, as well as getting the item creation feats for free while a Warlock has to spend almost half of his feats on them. Being able to craft the perfect staff for any one situation is nice, but you simply can't do that for even most situations, or you will certainly suffer from being lower level.

Artificers simply don't have that problem.

Artificers don't get Divine Metamagic. Warlocks do.

Find me an artificer that can put every single available metamagic feat on a single wand without an increase in the spells level.

[Boci]

Why not?


"This piece of paper tells me I can go into any room"
"Prove it, and don't tell me it's because that piece of paper tells you you can go into any room".


The hell kind of argument is that?

The Warlock can duplicate any spell. Any spell. This means any version of that spell because that version is still a spell.

No it doesn't. It means any spell ever printed, and presumable metamagiced versions of those spells. By your logic, quote me the rule that says the celestial badger I summon with SM I doesn't have 20 levels of wizard. It would still be a celestial badger.


Artificers don't get Divine Metamagic. Warlocks do.

Find me an artificer that can put every single available metamagic feat on a single wand without an increase in the spells level.

The arificer can make a wand for a spell as well, so why can't they make a wand of DMM (insert every metamagic) fireball. By your argument, its a spell.

[Greenish]

Artificers don't get Divine Metamagic. Warlocks do.Shame that warlocks don't get turning to power it. Since DMM only allows you to use turning attempts instead of higher level slots with a given metamagic feat, it doesn't automatically make it lower level.


Find me an artificer that can put every single available metamagic feat on a single wand without an increase in the spells level.Artificers don't have to put the feats in the wand.

[dextercorvia]

Artificers don't get Divine Metamagic. Warlocks don't either.

Find me an artificer that can put every single available metamagic feat on a single wand without an increase in the spells level.

Fixed that for you.

There is no difference between a spell modified by a metamagic feat and a spell modified by a cost mitigated metamagic feat. There is no allowance in the rules for mitigating the level cost of a metamagiced spell during item creation.

[tonberrian]

Artificers don't get Divine Metamagic. Warlocks do.

Find me an artificer that can put every single available metamagic feat on a single wand without an increase in the spells level.

Why is this better than just putting the metamagic you need on a wand without increasing the spell level?

Why is this better than being able to use spell trigger items indefinitely only by using a single daily charge and one infusion slot?

[Fox Box Socks]

The Warlock cannot even start crafting until he is level 12.

By that time, the Artificer will already have picked up all the metamagic feats he plans on using.

[Big Fau]

Does the artificer need to know the metamagic feat he's applying to the wand or stave in question?

The Artificer can emulate the spell the same way a Warlock can. If the Warlock can emulate metamagic'd spells, so can the Artificer.

[Veyr]

No, Divine Metamagic is not... but Divine Metamagic DOES modify a spell.
It does not. It modifies the caster's spell slots, Turn Undead uses, etc. But at no point is the spell different.

[Telonius]

Artificers don't get Divine Metamagic. Warlocks do.

Find me an artificer that can put every single available metamagic feat on a single wand without an increase in the spells level.

By your reading of the rules, would that mean a Cleric (with enough Nightsticks and a Craft feat) can do so as well? If so, then everybody but Cleric just got bumped down a tier, and I'll be spending my 750gp on a wand of Maximized Empowered Cure Light Wounds (crafted by a Cleric with DMM and a bunch of nightsticks).

[Greenish]

I'll be spending my 750gp on a wand of Maximized Empowered Cure Light Wounds (crafted by a Cleric with DMM and a bunch of nightsticks).Extended Persistent Lesser Vigor has better hp/gold ratio.

[Reluctance]

I don't feel like digging through the 3.5 Sage Advice/CS files at the moment, but I remember that CL boosts (most notably via domains) raise the cap for making items but still have to be paid for. Metamagic raises the cost of the item to an equivalent level, and IIRC sudden metamagic feats raise the effective level/cost of the item as if they were the mundane items. (SA/CS again.) IOWs, RAI is against item-based free lunches, and RAW has Wuffing's little hiccup. And that's granting that warlocks can make metamagic items without the requisite feat - they just have to pay full price.

[Telonius]

Find me an artificer that can put every single available metamagic feat on a single wand without an increase in the spells level.

If we're going for pure cheese -

ArtificerX/Cleric1, with Divine Metamagic, lots of nightsticks, and the Dark Chaos Shuffle.

[Yucca]

He's not duplicating "Fireball" so much as duplic ating the result of the Fireball. He;s not casting the spell itself, he's emulating the casting of the spell.

This means that if anyone anywhere can possibly cast that spell while crafting an item he can.

because he's emulating the end result.

And this is where you're making the mistake. If the warlock ability said it could duplicate any spell effect (end result in your words) then this line of logic would hold water. Because that seems to be what your advocating for.

You claim he can emulate any effect , and therefore if the spell can be modified to produce a different effect, then the warlock can emulate that. You missed/ignored the question earlier about whether or not a level 12 warlock could make a CL20 wand. Could he? It's a different effect, so could that be emulated?

Different spells can produce the same effect and different effects can be produced by a single spell.

"Different effects" =/= "different spells".

The warlock ability gives him the potential to emulate casting the spells, not the potential to emulate producing any spell effect.

[Luckmann]

Extended Persistent Lesser Vigor has better hp/gold ratio.
Extended Persistent?

WHY? :smalleek:

[Telonius]

Extended Persistent?

WHY? :smalleek:

Why not? It won't cost any extra, other than the nightstick investment.

[Luckmann]

Why not? It won't cost any extra, other than the nightstick investment."It lasts twice as long as forever, with no additional cost!" sounds like a shady sales pitch to me. :smalltongue:

[Veyr]

Persisted spells last 24 hours. Extended Persisted spells last 48 hours. The latter costs 1 Turn Undead attempt, and you already have the feat as a prereq. This effectively almost doubles the number of buffs you can have going at once.

[OracleofWuffing]

"It lasts twice as long as forever, with no additional cost!" sounds like a shady sales pitch to me. :smalltongue:
Yo dawg, I heard you liked long-lasting buffs, so I lengthened the amount of time a buff lasts while making that buff last longer...

[McSmack]

Okay, I'm missing the specific bit where it says that you can make magic items with metamagic feats already applied to them. Is it possible RAW to make a wand of Empowered Cure Light Wounds? I'm not saying it's not, I'm just saying I haven't seen a rule that allows that. Also I am away from books at the moment.

A Maximized Fireball is not a separate spell from Fireball. It's not even a higher level spell, it's a 3rd level spell that is more difficult to cast than regular 3rd level spells, and, as such, takes up a higher spell slot. A warlock can duplicate the specific spell, but nothing in the rules say that he can duplicate spell effects added by other feats/abilities.

That's like saying that if the warlock had an ability that allowed him to duplicate proficiency with a greatsword, he would be able to use Improved Critical and Weapon Focus/Specialization and get 4 attacks per round because hey, a fighter can make a greatsword do that!

Your argument falls apart because you make the assumption that 'any spell' means 'any spell + anything modifying that spell + other goodies'. That is not what the warlock ability says.

[IthroZada]

Okay, I'm missing the specific bit where it says that you can make magic items with metamagic feats already applied to them. Is it possible RAW to make a wand of Empowered Cure Light Wounds? I'm not saying it's not, I'm just saying I haven't seen a rule that allows that. Also I am away from books at the moment.

A Maximized Fireball is not a separate spell from Fireball. It's not even a higher level spell, it's a 3rd level spell that is more difficult to cast than regular 3rd level spells, and, as such, takes up a higher spell slot. A warlock can duplicate the specific spell, but nothing in the rules say that he can duplicate spell effects added by other feats/abilities.

That's like saying that if the warlock had an ability that allowed him to duplicate proficiency with a greatsword, he would be able to use Improved Critical and Weapon Focus/Specialization and get 4 attacks per round because hey, a fighter can make a greatsword do that!

Your argument falls apart because you make the assumption that 'any spell' means 'any spell + anything modifying that spell + other goodies'. That is not what the warlock ability says.
Magic Items and Metamagic Spells
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm


With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell’s higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn’t need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell.

It can be done, but I really would think you would need the actual metamagic feat to put it into the item in the first place.

[KoboldCleric]

Says the guy who is proposing the DM who would grant any artificer any feat under the sun in order to become optimized but that same DM would take an extremely dim view of a Warlock who wanted to take a feat that would not have any significant impact on the character at all at the time of selecting.

It's a bizarre thing, it's like a religion. Again, in optimization a Wizard is given any spell, access to any item, any feat, any alternate class feature...

but suddenly the Warlock I'm proposing is required to state WHY they're taking a feat... and justify it no less.... for a feat they meet the prerequisites for no less.

Two questions:

1. Isn't the point of the tier system to discuss/evaluate the average play experience of each class, not the height of optimisation of said class? Regardless of right or wrong by RAI or RAW, a big difference here is that the average guy who wants to be the dedicated crafter/ magical gadget fellow looks at the artificer class and see's exactly what he wants and often very quickly ends up dominating gameplay. The average person playing a Warlock is not making that decision in order to be a master crafter at levels 12+

2. Why does it seem to me like you're taking this so personally? Do you really think that optimization is comparable to "a cultural system that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values." Right in the tier thread faq it answers the question "why isn't [insert favourite class here] higher? It can do xyz as well as abc". No one is picking on you, the fact that most people disagree isn't a sign that we've given the wizard a moral and or spiritual highground here. It's mostly just a case of intent and typical practical function of the class not including the [ab? Or over?]use of an ability that otherwise sees play as a complementary class feature rather than one to build around.

[Luckmann]

Persisted spells last 24 hours. Extended Persisted spells last 48 hours. The latter costs 1 Turn Undead attempt, and you already have the feat as a prereq. This effectively almost doubles the number of buffs you can have going at once.

Really? I had no idea you could do that. Very well then. Carry on. :smallbiggrin:

[Veyr]

I didn't double-check the wording on Persist Spell (it's conceivable, though unlikely knowing Wizards, that they countered that within the feat), but I'm pretty sure it works.

[Alabenson]

I just double checked the Persistent Spell description in CA, and it says nothing regarding it being unable to stack with Extend Spell, which would indicate that this indeed would work.

[dextercorvia]

The problem lies not within the Persistent Spell text, but within the text of Extend Spell. Extend doubles the "normal" duration of the spell. Some DM's will let that fly, but RAW cuts fairly close to not there.

The second problem is that DMM is a Divine feat. You may only activate one divine feat per round. You can't have a DMM Persisted and Extended spell (or any other combination). You also can't use Divine spell power on a DMM'd spell.

[McSmack]

The problem lies not within the Persistent Spell text, but within the text of Extend Spell. Extend doubles the "normal" duration of the spell. Some DM's will let that fly, but RAW cuts fairly close to not there.

The second problem is that DMM is a Divine feat. You may only activate one divine feat per round. You can't have a DMM Persisted and Extended spell (or any other combination). You also can't use Divine spell power on a DMM'd spell.

Yeah that's a bit wonky. Technically speaking I'd assume that you're trying to use Divine Metamagic: Persist + Divine Metamagic: Extend. Which, ya, is not bueno because of the one feat per round rule. Poop. And trying to use the regular Extend Spell feat on the spell won't work because the Extend needs to be applied after the Persist, or else it's redundant.

Yeah can't see a way for that to work.

[Big Fau]

Metamagic Rod: Extend.



That sounds way more corny than I intended it to be.

[Optimator]

Well, things are supposed to follow in an order most beneficially for a player, right?

[Veyr]

Well, things are supposed to follow in an order most beneficially for a player, right?
Exactly what I was going to say.

Consider this: you apply the Persist Spell feat to the Divine Power spell, and thus have a Persisted Divine Power spell. It normally has a duration of 24 hours, and would normally require a 10th level spell slot.

You can then apply the Extend Spell feat to this spell, for an Extended Persisted Divine Power spell. Normally the Persisted Divine Power would last 24 hours, so the Extend Spell feat doubles this and gives you 48 hours. It also normally requires an 11th level spell slot.

[squeekenator]

A maximised fireball isn't a distinct spell, any more than a CL8 fireball, or a fireball cast at a goblin, or a fireball cast while underground by a drunk elven warmage. A fireball is a spell that can be modified by a variety of factors. Nowhere in any book do the rules even vaguely imply that adding a metamagic feat to a spell makes it an entirely new spell. Claiming that they do transcends the borders of exploiting loopholes, rockets through the boundaries of twisting the rules, soars over the lands of wishful thinking and finally lands within the realms of making s*** up. If maximised fireball is a spell then wizard with 20 divine ranks is a class. Because a wizard with divine ranks is different, right, so clearly it's a completely separate class.

[Divide by Zero]

Let's suppose that somehow that twisted interpretation of the rules works by RAW. So what? In what game are you going to get away with adding every metamagic feat in existence at once for free? The tiers are about practical use more than the theoretical upper limit.

[Big Fau]

Let's suppose that somehow that twisted interpretation of the rules works by RAW. So what? In what game are you going to get away with adding every metamagic feat in existence at once for free? The tiers are about practical use more than the theoretical upper limit.

And even then, the Artificer can still do the exact same thing 10 levels earlier.

[TroubleBrewing]

And even then, the Artificer can still do the exact same thing 10 levels earlier.

Aaaaaand /thread. Well done, gentlemen and ladies. I think we're done here.