Does Versatile Spellcaster and Memento Magica work with Artificer Infusions?

[RoboEmperor]

----------

[Necroticplague]

Yes. This clause is incredibly permissive when it comes to these.

An artificer is not a spellcaster, but he does have the ability to imbue items with magical infusions. Infusions are neither arcane nor divine; they are drawn from the artificer infusion list (see Chapter 5: Magic). They function just like spells and follow all the rules for spells

[ezekielraiden]

I stand by my previous assertions. They cannot be used with Infusions; the rules cited for saying they work this way do not mean what people are reading them as saying. They mean that Infusions create effects as spells do, and are subject to dispelling and AMF like spells are. But both explicit and implicit evidence clearly demonstrates they are not spells, nor spell slots.


Infusions: An artificer is not a spellcaster, but he does have the ability to imbue items with magical infusions. Infusions are neither arcane nor divine; they are drawn from the artificer infusion list (see Chapter 5: Magic). They function just like spells and follow all the rules for spells. For example, an infusion can be dispelled, it will not function in an antimagic area, and an artificer must make a Concentration check if injured while imbuing an item with an infusion.

(Emphasis added.) An artificer is not a spellcaster: therefore, the things they produce are not spells, they simply have the effect of spells. Furthermore, the infusions an artificer produces are not even arcane or divine, which automatically cuts them off from things that depend on something being one of those two things.


An artificer cannot automatically use a spell trigger or spell completion item if the equivalent spell appears on his infusion list. For example, an artificer must still employ the Use Magic Device skill to use a wand of light, even though light appears on his infusion list.

Knowing an infusion does not mean knowing the spell, and the character must still emulate the ability to cast the spell. If Infusions truly worked in ALL ways like spells, this would not be the case.

Versatile Spellcaster explicitly requires that you have the ability to spontaneously cast spells. Infusions are not spells; therefore, Versatile Spellcaster cannot be applied to them.

Mementos Magica explicitly require that you have spell slots--spontaneous ones, at that. Artificers do not have spell slots, they have infusions. Therefore, you have nothing to use a memento magica *on*. It doesn't matter that infusions behave like spells when used; it matters that infusions are not spell slots.

If Infusions worked the way you are arguing, then every class which advanced spell slots and spells per day would also, automatically, be usable to advance infusions per day as well. But that is not the case. A class must explicitly specify that it can be used to advance infusions in order to do so. Therefore, it is not true that just because "infusions follow all the rules for spells," they work with all things that specify spells or spell effects.

[ezekielraiden]

@ezekielraiden

I think it's clear without a doubt here that Artificers qualify for every single spellcaster thing. RAW explicitly declares they can qualify for feats that have spellcasting requirements and prestige classes that have spellcasting requirements as long as those requirements are not restricted to Arcane or Divine.

If we apply your logic here then Artificers shouldn't be able to qualify for PrCs and Feats that require spellcasting, but that is not the case.

They don't inherently qualify for them; exceptions are made, which you've cited. Note how if something requires arcane or divine casting, the artificer doesn't qualify, something I concluded on my own without reading the relevant rules text.

If I have to boil it all.down to two assertions, they are:
Versatile Spellcaster enables you to do a thing with spell slots. Infusions are not spell slots, explicitly, and thus Versatile Spellcaster doesn't help.

Mementos magica restore the energy of an expended spontaneous spellcaster's spell slot (of a defined level), but because Artificers are not spontaneous casters and have no such slot to be restored, mementos magica don't help them.

It is 100% fine for you to rule that in your fame they work that way. It's also fine to argue that even if they don't, some item should. But you cannot refill a thing you don't have (spell slots), nor expend a thing you don't have (spell slots) to get some other thing you don't have (higher level spell slots). You don't have the things, and thus you can't do the action to them. It's that simple.

[Goaty14]

...You're taking examples of rules that allow the artificer to bypass specific requirements and then justifying the existence of a house rule that allows you to bypass general requirements, is what I'm seeing. Nothing that you've mentioned specifically say that artificers can use infusions like spells. Just because the Player's Guide to Eberron says the artificer can bypass the requirements for an epic feat, doesn't mean that the artificer meets the requirement for an epic feat. Likewise, qualifying for PrCs means he can qualify for PrCs, but not that he has the prerequisites for them.

Oh, and read the part that you quoted in MoE "infusions aren't spells".


An artificer is not a spellcaster, but he does have the ability to imbue items with magical infusions. Infusions are neither arcane nor divine; they are drawn from the artificer infusion list (see Chapter 5: Magic). They function just like spells and follow all the rules for spells

Except they aren't spells, which are required for the aforementioned feat/spell. Even though infusions act like spells (i.e follow the rules for them), they're not spells, and thus don't work. If WotC intended for infusions to be spells, then they would name them as such and dump the massive amount of redundant text that ensues.

Logical Reasoning:
-Facts:
1) Artificer can qualify for Improved Spellcasting.*
2) Artificer can qualify for PrCs with nonspecific spellcasting.*
3) "Infusions" != "Spells"
-Arguments:
1) Can Artificer use Versatile Spellcasting?
--Does "Versatile Spellcasting" == "Improved Spellcasting"? No
--Is Versatile Spellcasting a PrC that requires nonspecific spellcasting? No
--Is an infusion a spell? No
----Thus, the artificer can't use Versatile Spellcasting.
2) Can Artificer use Memento Magica?
--Does "Versatile Spellcasting" == "Memento Magica"? No
--Is Versatile Spellcasting a PrC that requires nonspecific spellcasting? No
--Is an infusion a spell? No
----Thus, the artificer can't use Memento Magica.

*Though it doesn't meet the prerequisites, for which the artificer just substitutes with his own CL.

TL;DR Your specific examples do not extend to the rest of the spellcasting rules and prerequisites.

[weckar]

If a functions like b in every form and is indistinguishable from b, it is b.
Walks like a duck, basically.

[Goaty14]

If a functions like b in every form and is indistinguishable from b, it is b.
Walks like a duck, basically.

Except that's not RAW, which I think is what the thread's arguments are based around. If a feat was made that copied Cleave, description and all (except for the name), you wouldn't be able to qualify for things that required Cleave without specific text saying otherwise.

And no, infusions don't work like spells exactly, such as the text that says only items and constructs can be targeted with infusions.

[ezekielraiden]

If a functions like b in every form and is indistinguishable from b, it is b.
Walks like a duck, basically.

Infusions are quite distinguishable from spells. Apart from the targeting difference, they are always neither arcane nor divine (whereas, AFAIK, spells must be one of those things), they allow no saving throw ever (clearly not true of spells), and knowing an infusion does not qualify a character for being automatically able to use spell trigger and spell completion items (meaning Artificers must roll UMD just like a Rogue attempting to use a wand or scroll).

That plus the targeting difference and the "class advancing a spellcasting progression does not guarantee advancing infusion progression" thing makes five explicit rule differences between them.

Plus, y'know, the fact that the book repeatedly and explicitly says infusions aren't spells.

Edit: @RoboEmperor I am glad that I was able to help you refine your reasoning, and that you at least recognize the validity of my argument, while still maintaining that yours holds. That was very gracious and I wanted to explicitly thank you for that. Not enough people are polite enough to admit that sort of thing and it needs to be encouraged everywhere it happens.

[Necroticplague]

We are disagreeing whether Infusions = Spells except where noted, or whether Infusions =/= Spells except where noted.

I am saying its the former, you guys are saying it's the latter, that's it. I believe the RAW supports the former, while you guys are saying it doesn't.

In which case, the argument has become intractable, as no amount of examples can counter the central premises of either, as these would be under 'as noted' under both frameworks, and the ability itself has text that supports both.

[Goaty14]

OK, here's the question: Are you looking for an argument from a RAW perspective or not? That the original question was in the RAW thread suggests the former, but you keep bringing up things like "the text suggests", "it should be this way", etc.

If this is for RAW, then refer yourself to post #7 (mine). If this is not about RAW, and RAI instead, then it's an unwinnable argument and the true answer is to ask your DM for his/her ruling.


We are disagreeing whether Infusions = Spells except where noted, or whether Infusions =/= Spells except where noted.

If it's the former, then how is it that you've only been able to find examples where the latter is true (a feat/ability explicitly qualifying infusions as spells), but nothing of the former (a feat/ability explicitly disqualifying infusions as spells). Odd, because you're using the examples where the former isn't true... to argue that the former is true??? :confused:

[ezekielraiden]

Okay I know we had reached "agree to disagree" points but... you've said something that does not actually agree with your example.


All Spellcasting PrCs advance infusions, infusions let you qualify for PrCs, and the PrC's class features that affect spellcasting affect infusions.

Where does it say that that advancement occurs? I haven't seen that anywhere, and that would be a huge blow to my argument. Instead, in the rules text you quoted, it says:

An artificer can qualify for prestige classes with spellcasting level requirements (as long as they do not specifically require arcane or divine casting), even though his infusions
aren’t spells. Prestige classes with caster level requirements are also well suited to the artificer. An artificer’s caster level for his infusions fulfills this requirement.

No mention of "advancement," only qualification for *caster level* requirements, and even then only if they are generic, not specifically arcane or divine. How are you getting that this equates to advancement?

[ezekielraiden]

Note, however, the phrasing. At every turn it reiterates, you do not cast spells, you are not a spell caster, your infusions are not spells. It even calls out this interaction with generic "+1 level of existing spellcasting class" as "specific." This is not a generic rule reflecting all stuff. Every bit of circumstantial evidence points to this being done as exceptions to old rules, not old rules applying with 100% generality except where expressly forbidden.

[ezekielraiden]

So, do Artificers cast spontaneous spells?

[Goaty14]

That is my argument. The only way I'm wrong is, again, if the two examples I'm relying heavily on are just special exceptions which i believe they are not since they do not defy the "old rules" as you put it.

Except for every other feat that artificers qualify for (under your reading, that is) not having the same text that your examples have, thus possibly showing that your specific examples are just specific examples and not indicative of how the rules are supposed to be interpreted?

[gogogome]

So basically Artificers are non-arcane non-divine spellcasters with 0 spells known. They can cast "spells" and have a maximum level of "spells" they can cast so they can qualify for PrCs and feats that require "ability to cast xth level spells" and advance "spellcasting" but that's as far as it goes.

I've always ruled it this way. I think you did a good job organizing and proving this so thanks.


Everything said about infusions in the ECS are general rules. Magic of Eberron's rule about PrC qualifications is also a general rule about infusions. Why you claim that Improved Spell Capacity, which adheres to all of these general rules to a tee, is a special interaction and not an example of these general rules in play is beyond me especially since d&d does not differentiate requirement qualification between classes and feats, but whatever, this is as far as the discussion can go without an official statement from WotC.

I think this part is completely accurate. If you can qualify for PrCs with infusions you can qualify for feats with infusions and improved spell capacity is an official example of such a thing.