Standard Artificer VS Psionic Artificer

[ColorBlindNinja]

I have almost universally heard the Psionic Artificer described as tier 0 and better than the standard Artificer in nearly every way.

But I was reading this thread and came across the following quote: (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?427628-Disregard-Money-Acquire-Buff-Spells-Artificers-without-the-Artifice&p=19528705#post19528705)



Psionic Artificer (MoE p.42): Normally, the psionic artificer is considered even more broken than a normal artificer if you combine their crafting abilities with the existence of Spell-to-Power Erudites, a liberal reading of the ardent's Magic Mantle, and similar things. This alternate class changes several things about the normal artificer:

Item Creation cannot be used to emulate spells, and can now be used to emulate powers. This is still amazing (especially if you have an erudite on hand to provide spells as powers), but we're choosing to ignore it.
Your infusions list is changed to have all references of "spells" and "magic" to "powers" and "psionics." Spell-storing item becomes power-storing item, metamagic item becomes metapsionic item, and the like. This is not good for a noncrafting artificer, because it means that they cannot apply Persistent Spell to their temporary wands. Persistent Power is a feat that exists in the 3.0 Psionics Handbook, but it was not updated when that book stopped being the most recent psionics rules, so unless your DM updates it for you per the DMG's guidelines regarding 3.0 material, psionic artificer is a terrible ACF to take. If the DM does, then psionic artificer is a decent choice, because there are a lot of useful powers, but it's not nearly as good as the spellcasting one.

Also, one important thing to note about the psionic artificer's infusions is that they are still infusions. They use metamagic feats still (since the psionic change only applies to the infusions themselves, not the mechanic of casting them), they're arguably still counted as spells, and the psionic artificer can still craft alchemical items.
Your bonus feats swap to the psionic version, and you can no longer take metamagic feats as a bonus feat.
Metamagic Spell Trigger becomes Metapsionic Power Trigger, which is worse than Metamagic Spell Trigger because there aren't as useful metapsionics as there are metamagics, and the most common use of the ability (blasting) lacks the power of orb spells to carry it.
Metamagic Spell Completion becomes Metapsionic Power Completion is similar, except that it now cannot be used on minor schemas, as it only works on power completion items such as power stones, and minor schemas do not have a psionic analogue. In addition, unless the DM allows material from the 3.0 Psionics Handbook, you can't persist anything anyway.

Overall, psionic artificer is not a good choice for a buff-focused noncrafting artificer in most cases. However, there is a situation where it can be good: a RAW reading of the ardent's Magic Mantle, from Complete Psionic. If your DM allows you to use it as written and ignore the sentences of the ability that don't do anything to the rules, but establish its RAI, then the psionic artificer is a gold choice, as it can now use metamagic feats with powers, metapsionic feats with spells, and otherwise treats magic as psionics and vice-versa. In any other situation, I would not recommend using this alternate class, because it loses too much of the power infusions carry for very little reward unless you're using its crafting abilities.


Are the benefits that the Psionic Artificer offers better than being able to use Minor Schema?

Is it worth taking a 1 level dip in Ardent/Erudite to snag Magic Mantle for Psionic Artificer rather than taking 20 levels in the standard Artificer class?

I also would appreciate any other reasons that the Psionic Artificer is better than its standard counterpart.

Thanks!

[Silva Stormrage]

There is a line in MIC (I forgot which page exactly) which basically states that psionic characters can craft any magic item as psionic items by swapping in a "similar" psionic power to the prerequiste mage spell. This line was added because they put effectively no psionic items in that book and they wanted psions to be able to craft some of the items in the book.

So essentially a psionic artificer can craft every item in the game, psionic and magic from the start without having to deal with any mantle cheese.

So yes everything the regular artificer can do a psionic artificer can do better (Assuming persistent power is translated to 3.5).

[Troacctid]

Well, no. A psionic artificer has a really hard time making scrolls and wands of spells that don't have psionic versions. They're actually a lot more limited. I would say they are substantially weaker than the standard artificer, probably by more than half a tier.

[ColorBlindNinja]

There is a line in MIC (I forgot which page exactly) which basically states that psionic characters can craft any magic item as psionic items by swapping in a "similar" psionic power to the prerequiste mage spell. This line was added because they put effectively no psionic items in that book and they wanted psions to be able to craft some of the items in the book.

So essentially a psionic artificer can craft every item in the game, psionic and magic from the start without having to deal with any mantle cheese.

So yes everything the regular artificer can do a psionic artificer can do better (Assuming persistent power is translated to 3.5).

Can they use Minor Schema? I was under the impression that they can't because it's a spell completion item.


Well, no. A psionic artificer has a really hard time making scrolls and wands of spells that don't have psionic versions. They're actually a lot more limited. I would say they are substantially weaker than the standard artificer, probably by more than half a tier.

Really?

Can't they use that line in the Magic Item Compendium to make magic items with their Psionic equivalents (both in powers and feats)?

EDIT:



For the purpose of meeting item prerequisites, a character who has the Craft Psionic Arms and Armor feat is treated as having Craft Magic Arms and Armor. Likewise, a character who has Craft Universal Item meets the feat prerequisite for items that require Craft Wondrous Item. If an item includes a spell prerequisite, but the effect of the item does not directly implement that spell, then a psionic power of similar flavor can be substituted. If the item replicates a spell effect, then only the psionic version of that spell or a psionic power that replicates the same effect can be used to satisfy the prerequisite.

And can't the Psionic Artificer get access to spells via the Erudite Spell to Power?

[Troacctid]

Really?

Can't they use that line in the Magic Item Compendium to make magic items with their Psionic equivalents (both in powers and feats)?
Only if a psionic equivalent exists.


And can't the Psionic Artificer get access to spells via the Erudite Spell to Power?
Do you mean can they use a class feature that they don't have? No. They don't have the ability to convert spells to powers. Only erudites can gain that ability.

[Silva Stormrage]

Only if a psionic equivalent exists.



Thats not really true. If there is not direct psionic equivalent it explicitly lets you substitute a power of similar "Flavor". What that means is up to the DM but it seems like you can get away with crafting MOST magic items with that. I mean there are some where you can't (Things requiring eldritch blast are explicitly called out as an example of things you need someone else's assistance for).

The exact line of the text (MiC 232) "If the item includes a prerequisite but the effect of the item does not directly implement that spell a power of similar flavor can be substituted." The example it gives is using energy burst to craft a necklace of fireballs. Clearly when they mean directly implement a spell they mean like a scroll or something along those lines as the Necklace of Fireball is pretty much just a necklace that causes fireball explosions as the spell.

So it does appear I was a bit incorrect, as there are things that the artificer can do that the psionic one can't. Still the psionic artificer is certainly not weaker than the regular artificer unless you remove or don't update persistent power.

One of the big tricks that Psionic Artificers can do that regular artificers can't do is that they can craft wand equivalents (Dorjes) that can go up to 9th level spells instead of being limited to 4th level ones like regular wands.

This allows you to pull off things like persisted timeless body which is just hilariously gamebreaking. Psionic powers also generally tend to be stronger on a level per level basis due to augmentations. This can mess with the actual crafting cost a bit, a dorje of minor creation costs 750 GP without reducers because it's a 1st level psionic power. Energy ray is a great damaging option which is a 1st level power while artificers would need to pull out the much higher level orb spells to compete.

[Troacctid]

Thats not really true. If there is not direct psionic equivalent it explicitly lets you substitute a power of similar "Flavor". What that means is up to the DM but it seems like you can get away with crafting MOST magic items with that. I mean there are some where you can't (Things requiring eldritch blast are explicitly called out as an example of things you need someone else's assistance for).

The exact line of the text (MiC 232) "If the item includes a prerequisite but the effect of the item does not directly implement that spell a power of similar flavor can be substituted." The example it gives is using energy burst to craft a necklace of fireballs. Clearly when they mean directly implement a spell they mean like a scroll or something along those lines as the Necklace of Fireball is pretty much just a necklace that causes fireball explosions as the spell.
Right. You can't make wands or scrolls, like I said. And those are a huge part of the normal artificer's power level. You also lose access to spell-storing item, which is probably the most powerful infusion on the list, and replace it with power-storing item, which is a lot worse.


One of the big tricks that Psionic Artificers can do that regular artificers can't do is that they can craft wand equivalents (Dorjes) that can go up to 9th level spells instead of being limited to 4th level ones like regular wands.
Regular artificers can do that too. 'S called a staff, yo.

[Silva Stormrage]

Regular artificers can do that too. 'S called a staff, yo.

You know I somehow always forget that staves work like that. I have no idea why.

But okay I think I get both of our positions, I was thinking you were simply stating that psionic artificers could only craft items where there was an exact psionic power replicating the spell in question. I have stepped back a bit from my initial position of anything artificers can do psionic can do better but I don't think that Psionic artificers are weaker than regular ones. They still have access to a good chunk of what artificers can do and also have access to all the myriad different tricks psionics can pull off in addition to that.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Only if a psionic equivalent exists.

The text is pretty broad about what qualifies as an "equivalent".

EDIT:



For example, a character can create a helm of teleportation using psionic teleport as a power prerequisite, or energy burst as a power to create a necklace of fireballs.




Do you mean can they use a class feature that they don't have? No. They don't have the ability to convert spells to powers. Only erudites can gain that ability.

The mere existence of Erudite Spell to Power means that spells exist as Psionic powers in the campaign world. That means the Psionic Artificer can gain access to them.

EDIT 2: Actually, the existence of spells as powers should render the entire "Psionic Equivalent" bit moot, since there are powers that are spells.

[Troacctid]

The text is pretty broad about what qualifies as an "equivalent".
Items that duplicate spells exactly require an identical psionic power. So let's take something simple, a wand of lesser vigor. What's the psionic equivalent? Of course that's for healing. Maybe we want a debuff. Let's craft a wand of stolen breath and a wand of web. Toss in a wand of nerveskitter and resurgence. And for some utility scrolls, let's take magecraft, mount, summon nature's ally IV, lesser planar binding, magic circle against evil, ray of resurgence, transference, animate dead, glibness, and favor of the martyr. Psionic equivalents?

See, the problem is that regular artificers have access to the spell list of every spellcasting class in the game. Psionic artificers effectively have access to one spell list and a handful of domains.


The mere existence of Erudite Spell to Power means that spells exist as Psionic powers in the campaign world. That means the Psionic Artificer can gain access to them.
In no way does it mean that. Psionic artificers have no mechanism to convert spells to powers. Only erudites can do that. If a single lyric thaumaturge somewhere in Zilargo adds a wizard spell to her bard spell list, does that magically allow every bard in Eberron to take that spell as a bard spell too? No. Same thing here.


EDIT 2: Actually, the existence of spells as powers should render the entire "Psionic Equivalent" bit moot, since there are powers that are spells.
That's great for those specific powers. If you need grease or dimension door then I'm very happy for you. But you're still weaker than a regular artificer.

[Doctor Awkward]

In no way does it mean that. Psionic artificers have no mechanism to convert spells to powers. Only erudites can do that. If a single lyric thaumaturge somewhere in Zilargo adds a wizard spell to her bard spell list, does that magically allow every bard in Eberron to take that spell as a bard spell too? No. Same thing here.

Essentially it works the same way as regular artificers nab spells off of lower level lists.

Take, for example, ranger, which has wind wall as a 2nd level divine spell. If a ranger were to take the Craft Wand feat, he could make a wand of wind wall with a caster level of 4 for 6,000 gp, instead of 9,000 it would cost a wizard to make it.

An artificer can do the exact same thing. The player simply says, "I am making a Use Magic Device check to emulate the spell wind wall as an 8th-level ranger to meet the prerequisites for this wand." And thanks to the ECL bonus Item Creation feature, he can do this at level 6.

Now look at the trapsmith prestige class from Dungeonscape. They cast arcane spells as a bard does, and their list includes haste as a 1st-level spell. If one were to take the Scribe Scroll feat, then she could create a 1st-level arcane scroll of haste with a caster level of 1.

An artificer could do the same thing, this time by saying he is emulating the haste spell as a 1st-level trapsmith. He can do this at level 1. It wouldn't serve much purpose at level 1 since it would only last for one round, but a wand made at level 3 or 4 with haste as a 1st-level spell would massively reduce the cost.

Both of these methods are contingent on your campaign world containing either rangers or trapsmiths. If it exists, the artificer can duplicate it.

Now consider a Spell to Power Erudite with the Craft Djore feat. He has bargained with a trapsmith to add the haste spell as a 1st-level power to his repertoire. He then crats a djore of haste as a 1st-level power at his manifester level.

A psionic artificer can do the exact same thing by emulating the power requirement as the Spell-to-Power Erudite would.

If a method to craft something potentially exists in the campaign world, the artificer can duplicate it by simply asserting that he is doing so. And that's one of the things that makes them broken.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Items that duplicate spells exactly require an identical psionic power.

Then why was the example given Energy Ball subbing for Fireball?


In no way does it mean that. Psionic artificers have no mechanism to convert spells to powers. Only erudites can do that. If a single lyric thaumaturge somewhere in Zilargo adds a wizard spell to her bard spell list, does that magically allow every bard in Eberron to take that spell as a bard spell too? No. Same thing here.




A psionic artificer cannot emulate spells to create magic items. When a psionic artificer emulates a power for item creation, he uses his Use Psionic Device skill (rather than Use Magic Device).

The Psionic Artificer does not have a list of powers she knows. She emulates preexisting powers to make items. If a spell exists as a power, what's stopping her from emulating it (since she has no powers known list)?



That's great for those specific powers. If you need grease or dimension door then I'm very happy for you.

Again, the text seems to be a lot more liberal as to what powers can substitute for spells.



But you're still weaker than a regular artificer.

It's strange that you say that when nearly everything else I've read indicates that the general consensus is the opposite.

Why-is-Psionic-Artificer-broken (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?275430-Why-is-Psionic-Artificer-broken)
Psionic-artificer (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?143205-Psionic-artificer)

EDIT: Doctor Awkward's explanation is more detailed than mine. :smallredface:

[Troacctid]

Essentially it works the same way as regular artificers nab spells off of lower level lists.

Take, for example, ranger, which has wind wall as a 2nd level divine spell. If a ranger were to take the Craft Wand feat, he could make a wand of wind wall with a caster level of 4 for 6,000 gp, instead of 9,000 it would cost a wizard to make it.

An artificer can do the exact same thing. The player simply says, "I am making a Use Magic Device check to emulate the spell wind wall as an 8th-level ranger to meet the prerequisites for this wand." And thanks to the ECL bonus Item Creation feature, he can do this at level 6.

Now look at the trapsmith prestige class from Dungeonscape. They cast arcane spells as a bard does, and their list includes haste as a 1st-level spell. If one were to take the Scribe Scroll feat, then she could create a 1st-level arcane scroll of haste with a caster level of 1.

An artificer could do the same thing, this time by saying he is emulating the haste spell as a 1st-level trapsmith. He can do this at level 1. It wouldn't serve much purpose at level 1 since it would only last for one round, but a wand made at level 3 or 4 with haste as a 1st-level spell would massively reduce the cost.

Both of these methods are contingent on your campaign world containing either rangers or trapsmiths. If it exists, the artificer can duplicate it.
It's correct that spells can have different levels for different spell lists, yes. That's not the same thing as having a special ability to add a spell to a spell list it isn't normally on.


Now consider a Spell to Power Erudite with the Craft Djore feat. He has bargained with a trapsmith to add the haste spell as a 1st-level power to his repertoire. He then crats a djore of haste as a 1st-level power at his manifester level.

A psionic artificer can do the exact same thing by emulating the power requirement as the Spell-to-Power Erudite would.
Wrong. It's not a 1st level power for anyone other than the erudite, who has a special ability that allows it to count as a power for them. One lyric thaumaturge learning a wizard spell as a bard spell doesn't make that spell a bard spell for every bard, and one erudite learning a spell as a power doesn't make that spell a power for every psionic character.


If a method to craft something potentially exists in the campaign world, the artificer can duplicate it by simply asserting that he is doing so. And that's one of the things that makes them broken.
That's incorrect. You can only duplicate what the rules say you can duplicate: prerequisites.


Then why was the example given Energy Ball subbing for Fireball?
Because energy ball is the psionic equivalent of fireball.


The Psionic Artificer does not have a list of powers she knows. She emulates preexisting powers to make items. If a spell exists as a power, what's stopping her from emulating it (since she has no powers known list)?
If a spell exists as a bard spell somewhere, what's to prevent other bards from learning it anywhere? The fact that it's only a bard spell for that one bard.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Because energy ball is the psionic equivalent of fireball.

Even though it can deal different damage besides fire? If Energy Ball counts as the Psionic equivalent of Fireball, that implies that "equivalents" are rather broad.



If a spell exists as a bard spell somewhere, what's to prevent other bards from learning it anywhere? The fact that it's only a bard spell for that one bard.

Bards have a fixed spell list, Artificers do not.

[Falontani]

QUICK THING
A wizard that is a geomancer may scribe a divine spell as a wizard spell given their geomancer level is high enough. This version of the spell (whether usually on the wizard list or not) is considered a wizard spell. It is not generally on the wizard list so a wizard leveling up may not acquire it. However through the use of the wizard's spellbook he may scribe wizard scrolls into his spellbook to effectively learn them. This does allow wizards to learn spells not on their list.

If the lyric thaumaturge learns a wizard spell not on the bard list it effects no one. If said thaumaturge created a wand of said spell, any bard would be able to use the wand as it is a bard wand.

[Doctor Awkward]

It's correct that spells can have different levels for different spell lists, yes. That's not the same thing as having a special ability to add a spell to a spell list it isn't normally on.


Wrong. It's not a 1st level power for anyone other than the erudite, who has a special ability that allows it to count as a power for them. One lyric thaumaturge learning a wizard spell as a bard spell doesn't make that spell a bard spell for every bard, and one erudite learning a spell as a power doesn't make that spell a power for every psionic character.


That's incorrect. You can only duplicate what the rules say you can duplicate: prerequisites.

That's exactly the point.

A Spell to Power Erudite adds the haste spell to his repertoire as a 1st-level power by getting it from a trapsmith. He then takes the Imprint Stone feat to craft a power stone of haste. Because he knows haste as a 1st-level power, it goes into the stone as a 1st-level power, with the manifester level at whatever he wants up to his maximum level.

There now exists in the world a power stone of haste with a manifester level of 1. The prerequisites to create this specific stone are the Imprint Stone feat and knowing haste as a 1st-level power.

The psionic artificer can craft this item. He does so by using the Imprint Stone feat, and making a Use Psionic Device check to emulate the haste power as a 1st-level Spell to Power Erudite who added it to his repertoire from a trapsmith to meet the power prerequisite for crafting the item. He then rolls a UPD check of 21, spends his money and experience, and crafts the stone.

The only time that a psionic artificer cannot do this is if the Spell to Power Erudite also cannot do it. If either Spell to Power Erudites and trapsmiths do not exist in the campaign world, then he cannot do it.

The above is true for every possible item that can conceivably be crafted. If an item exists in the campaign world, the artificer can create it by making the appropriate UMD/UPD check to meet the spell prerequisites in the same way that the item's original creator did.

[Troacctid]

Even though it can deal different damage besides fire? If Energy Ball counts as the Psionic equivalent of Fireball, that implies that "equivalents" are rather broad.
It's clearly the equivalent power. 20-foot radius of fire damage with long range, Reflex half, SR: Yes.


QUICK THING
A wizard that is a geomancer may scribe a divine spell as a wizard spell given their geomancer level is high enough. This version of the spell (whether usually on the wizard list or not) is considered a wizard spell. It is not generally on the wizard list so a wizard leveling up may not acquire it. However through the use of the wizard's spellbook he may scribe wizard scrolls into his spellbook to effectively learn them. This does allow wizards to learn spells not on their list.

If the lyric thaumaturge learns a wizard spell not on the bard list it effects no one. If said thaumaturge created a wand of said spell, any bard would be able to use the wand as it is a bard wand.
This is incorrect, actually. Spell trigger activation only cares about whether the spell in the wand is on your class spell list, regardless of who crafted it. A wand of lesser restoration crafted by a paladin can be used by anyone with lesser restoration on their list.


That's exactly the point.

A Spell to Power Erudite adds the haste spell to his repertoire as a 1st-level power by getting it from a trapsmith. He then takes the Imprint Stone feat to craft a power stone of haste. Because he knows haste as a 1st-level power, it goes into the stone as a 1st-level power, with the manifester level at whatever he wants up to his maximum level.

There now exists in the world a power stone of haste with a manifester level of 1.
Yes, so far so good, but...


The psionic artificer can craft this item. He does so by using the Imprint Stone feat, and making a Use Psionic Device check to emulate the haste power as a 1st-level Spell to Power Erudite who added it to his repertoire from a trapsmith to meet the power prerequisite for crafting the item.
...here's where it goes wrong. He can't emulate the haste power because haste isn't a power for him, it's a spell. Haste is only a power for the erudite who originally learned it.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It's clearly the equivalent power. 20-foot radius of fire damage with long range, Reflex half, SR: Yes.

Except it can deal other damage types that Fireball can't.



Right. Similarly, if an erudite were to craft a dorje of a spell, then anyone could use UPD to activate it—but a psionic artificer couldn't have crafted that same dorje, because the spell is only a power for that particular erudite.

That doesn't follow. If anyone can use UPD to activate it, why can't an Psionic Artificer use her UPD to emulate it?

That same Erudite can teach that spell that he converted into a power to another Manifester via Psychic Chirurgery (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/psychicChirurgery.htm).

It is now a Psionic power. Otherwise, you couldn't activate it via UPD in the first place.

[Troacctid]

Except it can deal other damage types that Fireball can't.
Yeah, but it's clearly the equivalent. And for a necklace of fireballs, you only need the fire damage anyway.


That doesn't follow. If anyone can use UPD to activate it, why can't an Psionic Artificer use her UPD to emulate it?
Because dorjes are power trigger items, and the rules for power trigger items allow you to make a UPD check to activate them.


That same Erudite can teach that spell that he converted into a power to another Manifester via Psychic Chirurgery (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/psychicChirurgery.htm).
Yes, because the text of psychic chirurgery specifically allows it. Similarly, if you got the erudite to help you in the crafting, then you could totally have them supply the prerequisite.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Yeah, but it's clearly the equivalent. And for a necklace of fireballs, you only need the fire damage anyway.

Really, at this point it's moot.



Because dorjes are power trigger items, and the rules for power trigger items allow you to make a UPD check to activate them.

But you can only store powers in Dorjes. If the spell converted to a power can be stored in one, it follows that it is now a power.



Yes, because the text of psychic chirurgery specifically allows it.

The text allows for you to teach another Manifester a power.


Similarly, if you got the erudite to help you in the crafting, then you could totally have them supply the prerequisite.

If the spell exists as a power, then the Psonic Artificer can emulate it because they can emulate all powers.

This isn't like class spell lists. If a spell is available to one character as a power, than it is a power, period.

Similarly, if a spell is available to an Arcane caster, it is an Arcane spell and can be legally stored in Eternal Wands.

[Doctor Awkward]

He can't emulate the haste power because haste isn't a power for him, it's a spell. Haste is only a power for the erudite who originally learned it.

Wind wall isn't a spell for a normal artificer either.
Neither is haste.

It doesn't have to be a spell or power for the artificer. It just has to be a spell or power for someone.

If anyone can do it, the artificer can do it also. The artificer is doing it exactly the same way as the person they are copying.

[Troacctid]

But you can only store powers in Dorjes. If the spell converted to a power can be stored in one, it follows that it is now a power.
Yes, it's a power for the erudite who crafted the item, which is why they were able to craft it. Nobody else has the ability to convert it to a power.


The text allows for you to teach another Manifester a power.
And it's a power for you, and you're the one manifesting psychic chirurgery. The specific text of the power then allows you to teach it to someone else.


If the spell exists as a power, then the Psonic Artificer can emulate it because they can emulate all powers.

This isn't like class spell lists. If a spell is available to one character as a power, than it is a power, period.
How is it not like class spell lists? "If a spell is available to one character as a bard spell, then it is a bard spell, period." Right?


Wind wall isn't a spell for a normal artificer either.
Neither is haste.
Of course they are. They're still spells. They're just not on the artificer's class spell list.


If anyone can do it, the artificer can do it also. The artificer is doing it exactly the same way as the person they are copying.
You don't copy a person when you craft an item. You can't be like, "I'm gonna craft this item, but I'm going to craft it as if I were Aerekka the Epic Wizard, who has Legendary Artisan, Extraordinary Artisan, Efficient Item Creation, and the Disciple of Boccob ACF." Item creation does not work that way.

[ZamielVanWeber]

A simple advantage psionic has over regular is their wands aka dorjes go up to 9th, which is extremely good for making UMD checks and not having any issues with stats being too low.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Yes, it's a power for the erudite who crafted the item, which is why they were able to craft it. Nobody else has the ability to convert it to a power.


And it's a power for you, and you're the one manifesting psychic chirurgery. The specific text of the power then allows you to teach it to someone else.


How is it not like class spell lists? "If a spell is available to one character as a bard spell, then it is a bard spell, period." Right?

Okay, at this point, I think we're talking past each other. I'm going to drop to line of of debate.


A simple advantage psionic has over regular is their wands aka dorjes go up to 9th, which is extremely good for making UMD checks and not having any issues with stats being too low.

True.

EDIT: Couldn't a regular Artificer use a Greater Glyph Seal?

But I was also thinking that standard Artificers can use Wand Surge combined with Unfettered Heroism to get infinite use wands.

[Doctor Awkward]

Yes, it's a power for the erudite who crafted the item, which is why they were able to craft it. Nobody else has the ability to convert it to a power.

And the artificer is meeting the spell prerequisite in exactly the same way as the Spell to Power erudite is. Instead of using one of his known powers, he is making a UPD check.



You don't copy a person when you craft an item. You can't be like, "I'm gonna craft this item, but I'm going to craft it as if I were Aerekka the Epic Wizard, who has Legendary Artisan, Extraordinary Artisan, Efficient Item Creation, and the Disciple of Boccob ACF." Item creation does not work that way.

Correct. Item Creation specifically cannot be used to meet feat requirements. Only power prerequisites, and nonpower perquisites other than feats and skills.

"A [psionic] artificer can create a [psionic] item even if he does not have access to the [powers] that are prerequisites for the item. The artificer must make a successful Use [Psionic] Device check (DC 20 + [manifester] level) to emulate each [power] normally required to create the item."

To create a power stone of haste at caster level 1 requires normally requires haste as a 1st-level power known. A psionic artificer makes a UPD check to emulate that power to meet that prerequisite as a Spell to Power erudite would.

In exactly the same way a normal artificer would emulate the spell as a trapsmith would.

How is this unclear?

[Troacctid]

Correct. Item Creation specifically cannot be used to meet feat requirements. Only power prerequisites, and nonpower perquisites other than feats and skills.

"A [psionic] artificer can create a [psionic] item even if he does not have access to the [powers] that are prerequisites for the item. The artificer must make a successful Use [Psionic] Device check (DC 20 + [manifester] level) to emulate each [power] normally required to create the item."

To create a power stone of haste at caster level 1 requires normally requires haste as a 1st-level power known. A psionic artificer makes a UPD check to emulate that power to meet that prerequisite as a Spell to Power erudite would.

In exactly the same way a normal artificer would emulate the spell as a trapsmith would.

How is this unclear?
"A dorje is a slender crystal that contains a single power."

Haste isn't a power. The only way to treat it as a power is with a class feature that you don't have and can't emulate.

The erudite can do it because they do have the ability to treat it as a power. You don't.

[ColorBlindNinja]

A one level dip into either Ardent or Erudite (mantled variant) to pick up Magic Mantle would allow for total transparency.

Is this dip worth it? Or does it delay the Psionic Artificer's advancement too much?

[Troacctid]

A one level dip into either Ardent or Erudite (mantled variant) to pick up Magic Mantle would allow for total transparency.
Magic Mantle only allows for normal transparency. In fact it references the normal transparency rules directly. It would not affect the artificer's crafting abilities in any meaningful way.

[Doctor Awkward]

"A dorje is a slender crystal that contains a single power."

Haste isn't a power. The only way to treat it as a power is with a class feature that you don't have and can't emulate.

The erudite can do it because they do have the ability to treat it as a power. You don't.

Haste also isn't a 1st-level spell either, unless trapsmiths exist.

The only way to treat it as a 1st-level spell is by emulating it the same way a trapsmith would if they were using it as a prerequisite to craft an item.
If trapsmiths exist, haste can be a 1st-level spell.


Benefit: You add Spellcraft to your class skill list, which allows you to attempt to convert an arcane spell into a power you can add to your repertoire.
...
Because the spells are now effectively psionic powers, they are no longer affected by metamagic feats. However, metapsionic feats can affect them as they would a psionic power.

Erudites aren't "treating" spells as though they are powers. The spells are becoming powers. These spells are only "treated" as discipline powers for the purposes of learning it. A Spell to Power erudite applies the same mechanics they use for learning discipline powers to learning spells. After they have learned them, they are now powers.

If Spell to Power erudites exist, haste can be a 1st-level power. And a psionic artificer can emulate that power for the purposes of meeting crafting prerequisites.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Magic Mantle only allows for normal transparency. In fact it references the normal transparency rules directly. It would not affect the artificer's crafting abilities in any meaningful way.

That is incorrect. Magic Mantle states that it enables transparency, but that's not what it does:



In addition, you always treat magic and psionics as identical.

That is not the same as:



Though not explicitly called out in the spell descriptions or magic item descriptions, spells, spell-like abilities, and magic items that could potentially affect psionics do affect psionics.

When the rule about psionics-magic transparency is in effect, it has the following ramifications.

Spell resistance is effective against powers, using the same mechanics. Likewise, power resistance is effective against spells, using the same mechanics as spell resistance. If a creature has one kind of resistance, it is assumed to have the other. (The effects have similar ends despite having been brought about by different means.)

All spells that dispel magic have equal effect against powers of the same level using the same mechanics, and vice versa.

The spell detect magic detects powers, their number, and their strength and location within 3 rounds (though a Psicraft check is necessary to identify the discipline of the psionic aura).

Dead magic areas are also dead psionics areas.

These are not the same, at all.

[Troacctid]

Haste also isn't a 1st-level spell either, unless trapsmiths exist.

The only way to treat it as a 1st-level spell is by emulating it the same way a trapsmith would if they were using it as a prerequisite to craft an item.
If trapsmiths exist, haste can be a 1st-level spell.

Erudites aren't "treating" spells as though they are powers. The spells are becoming powers. These spells are only "treated" as discipline powers for the purposes of learning it. A Spell to Power erudite applies the same mechanics they use for learning discipline powers to learning spells. After they have learned them, they are now powers.

If Spell to Power erudites exist, haste can be a 1st-level power. And a psionic artificer can emulate that power for the purposes of meeting crafting prerequisites.
This is wrong because spells inherently have different levels on different lists. Haste is a 3rd level spell for sorcerers, wizards, and bards, a 3rd level spell in the Time domain, a 3rd level spell for a bunch of prestige classes, and a 1st level spell for trapsmiths. That's a true fact about the haste spell. What's not an inherently true fact about the haste spell is that it's a 3rd level adept spell because one adept took levels in hexer, a 3rd level cleric spell because this one cleric used the arcane disciple variant, or a 1st level psionic power because an erudite somewhere had psychic nookie with a trapsmith one time—because those are exceptions created by specific abilities that only apply to the character that has them.


That is incorrect. Magic Mantle states that it enables transparency, but that's not what it does:

That is not the same as:

These are not the same, at all.
You have to look at the whole paragraph.

In addition, you always treat magic and psionics as identical. Therefore, powers such as dispel psionics work for both magic and psionics. Most campaigns already treat them in this manner, so this mantle is most useful in campaigns where they are considered different systems.

[ColorBlindNinja]

You have to look at the whole paragraph.

It doesn't matter, that's just an example.

Treating magic & psionics as identical is not the same thing as magic psionic transparency.

[Doctor Awkward]

those are exceptions created by specific abilities that only apply to the character that has them.


It applies to both the character that has them, and artificers. Artificers emulate the spell or power prerequisites to craft items in question to fulfill prerequisites for item creation in exactly the same way as those characters fulfill the prerequisite for item creation because that's what the verb emulate means: "match or surpass (a person or achievement), typically by imitation."

[Troacctid]

It applies to both the character that has them, and artificers. Artificers emulate the spell or power prerequisites to craft items in question to fulfill prerequisites for item creation in exactly the same way as those characters fulfill the prerequisite for item creation because that's what the verb emulate means: "match or surpass (a person or achievement), typically by imitation."
Let's explore the implications of that, then. Say no erudite on the planet has ever had psychic nookie with an artificer. Haste is not a 1st level psionic power. No psionic artificer can craft items of it.

One day, an erudite in a remote mountain range in Adar meets a trapsmith and they do the psionic tango. Now, suddenly, every psionic artificer from Argonnessen to Aerenal instantly gains the ability to craft items of 1st level psionic haste. Do I have this right?

[Crichton]

Let's explore the implications of that, then. Say no erudite on the planet has ever had psychic nookie with an artificer. Haste is not a 1st level psionic power. No psionic artificer can craft items of it.

One day, an erudite in a remote mountain range in Adar meets a trapsmith and they do the psionic tango. Now, suddenly, every psionic character from Argonnessen to Aerenal instantly gains the ability to craft items of 1st level psionic haste. Do I have this right?

Well, not every psionic character. Just Psionic Artificers (who think to attempt it), and any other characters who get their hands on a power stone of it(presumably crafted by your hypothetical erudite, or a subsequent psionic artificer. These things snowball) and have the ability to learn powers from stones (ie other Erudites, StP or not), and also have the requisite item crafting feats.

[Doctor Awkward]

Let's explore the implications of that, then. Say no erudite on the planet has ever had psychic nookie with an artificer. Haste is not a 1st level psionic power. No psionic artificer can craft items of it.

One day, an erudite in a remote mountain range in Adar meets a trapsmith and they do the psionic tango. Now, suddenly, every psionic artificer from Argonnessen to Aerenal instantly gains the ability to craft items of 1st level psionic haste. Do I have this right?

More like, one day in campaign world X, some time in history after the dawn of creation Spell to Power erudites appeared, and one of them bargained with a trapsmith to gain haste as a 1st-level power known.

Psionic artificers, aware that such a thing exists, emulate that power in order to create items.

If this has not happened (StP erudites and/or trapsmiths do not exist in Campaign World X), then psionic artificers cannot do this thing.

That's how it works.

[Troacctid]

More like, one day in campaign world X, some time in history after the dawn of creation Spell to Power erudites appeared, and one of them bargained with a trapsmith to gain haste as a 1st-level power known.

Psionic artificers, aware that such a thing exists, emulate that power in order to create items.

If this has not happened (StP erudites and/or trapsmiths do not exist in Campaign World X), then psionic artificers cannot do this thing.

That's how it works.
Isn't this the same as what I said, just later in the timeline?

[Crichton]

Y'all are forgetting the more likely situation: greed. An enterprising young Trapsmith who picks up Scribe Scroll and starts flooding the market with low-CL haste scrolls for a quick profit, making it far easier for your StP Erudite to pick one up and learn it, without ever needing to encounter a Trapsmith at all.

[Doctor Awkward]

Isn't this the same as what I said, just later in the timeline?

On a second read through, yeah, they are pretty much the same. Just that, by the time the player characters roll around, you can safely assume that thing has already occurred at some point in history.

If you want to run with different fluff, then I guess you could tell your player, "No one's ever tried that thing before. You would be the first." and then explore a story about it from there.

[ColorBlindNinja]

So, is taking a one level dip in Ardent/Erudite for a Psionic Artificer a sound idea?

[Cosi]

So, is taking a one level dip in Ardent/Erudite for a Psionic Artificer a sound idea?

Who the hell knows? Everything involving Erudite and Psionic (or for that matter regular) Artificers, and I think the best Ardent tricks, basically amounts to "ask your DM". All Erudite really does in this situation is change things from your DM saying "no, you can't do that because no Erudite has brain-licked a Trapsmith" to "no, you can't do that because you can't find a Trapsmith to brain-lick". It still all comes down to what classes exist and what arbitrary power-ups your DM will allow you to have on the basis of those classes existing.

The Artificer is a terrible class for the game, because the only thing it adds to the game is allowing you to get unbalanced amounts of power in exchange for winning an argument with your DM about what exists in the campaign setting. That is so indescribably terrible that I have no comprehension how people think the class is a good idea to use at all.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Who the hell knows? Everything involving Erudite and Psionic (or for that matter regular) Artificers, and I think the best Ardent tricks, basically amounts to "ask your DM". All Erudite really does in this situation is change things from your DM saying "no, you can't do that because no Erudite has brain-licked a Trapsmith" to "no, you can't do that because you can't find a Trapsmith to brain-lick". It still all comes down to what classes exist and what arbitrary power-ups your DM will allow you to have on the basis of those classes existing.

Well, this is a theoretical exercise.


The Artificer is a terrible class for the game, because the only thing it adds to the game is allowing you to get unbalanced amounts of power in exchange for winning an argument with your DM about what exists in the campaign setting. That is so indescribably terrible that I have no comprehension how people think the class is a good idea to use at all.

Ouch, harsh.

I was under the impression that the standard Artificer is mostly independent.

Or were you talking about the availability of obscure magic items (the aforementioned Trapsmith)?

EDIT: What if you have an Erudite Spell to Power and a Psionic Artificer in the same party? Is that any better?

[Cosi]

Well, this is a theoretical exercise.

I get that. But ultimately the answer to the question "can a Psionic Artificer emulate StP'd spell" is "he can if your DM says the spell has been StP'd at some point", and the answer to "can an Erudite StP 1st level haste" is "he can if your DM says he meets a Trapsmith". It all comes down to "ask your DM either way".


I was under the impression that the standard Artificer is mostly independent.

The standard Artificer has the worst casting mechanic in the entire game. In exchange, he gets the best spell list in the entire game. This is a pretty terrible trade if you are doing anything remotely fair, because even a +2 levels you struggle to do anything effective before the game starts to break down (at 1st level with maximum investment you have a slightly better than 50% chance of activating a scroll which will have a DC between two and four points lower than the Wizard's spells). The traditional answer to this is to point to the various obscure lists with low level spells, but that's ultimately really dumb because your DM can just not have Trapsmiths exist. Seriously, when have you ever seen someone mention Trapsmith unless it was to get 1st level haste?

[ColorBlindNinja]

I get that. But ultimately the answer to the question "can a Psionic Artificer emulate StP'd spell" is "he can if your DM says the spell has been StP'd at some point", and the answer to "can an Erudite StP 1st level haste" is "he can if your DM says he meets a Trapsmith". It all comes down to "ask your DM either way".

Okay.


The standard Artificer has the worst casting mechanic in the entire game. In exchange, he gets the best spell list in the entire game. This is a pretty terrible trade if you are doing anything remotely fair, because even a +2 levels you struggle to do anything effective before the game starts to break down (at 1st level with maximum investment you have a slightly better than 50% chance of activating a scroll which will have a DC between two and four points lower than the Wizard's spells).

What level do you think the Artificer would become viable?


The traditional answer to this is to point to the various obscure lists with low level spells, but that's ultimately really dumb because your DM can just not have Trapsmiths exist. Seriously, when have you ever seen someone mention Trapsmith unless it was to get 1st level haste?

Why, to get level 1 Dispel Magic of course! :smallwink:

Also, do you think the Psonic Artificer better than the vanilla version of the class?

[Doctor Awkward]

(at 1st level with maximum investment you have a slightly better than 50% chance of activating a scroll which will have a DC between two and four points lower than the Wizard's spells).

Nonsense.

At 1st level a human artificer can have 4 ranks in UMD, +2 from ability score, +3 from Skill Focus, +2 from Magical Aptitude, +2 from a Masterwork Tool, +2 Artisan Bonus because because he has the scribe scroll feat for a total of 15. This succeeds on a 1st-level scroll on a 6 or higher.

At 2nd level he gets another +2 to scrolls from having 5 ranks in Spellcraft and another +2 from 5 ranks in Knowledge: arcana. He now succeeds on 2nd level spells on a 3 or higher.

At 3rd level he gets Craft Wondrous Item, and he start looking into can look into crafting himself a competence bonus UMD tool. Or he can wait until level 4 and when he takes Extraordinary Artisan to save himself some money. And he can then look into retraining his first level feats into something more long term. Or wait until he can afford a Psychic Reformation.

Up until about level 5 or 6 he'll be standing in the back with his crossbow, like every other spellcaster would, but they are perfectly viable from level 1, thanks mostly to Personal Weapon Augmentation.

[Troacctid]

On a second read through, yeah, they are pretty much the same. Just that, by the time the player characters roll around, you can safely assume that thing has already occurred at some point in history.

If you want to run with different fluff, then I guess you could tell your player, "No one's ever tried that thing before. You would be the first." and then explore a story about it from there.
Great. So then now we can hopefully agree that that makes no damn sense.

[ZamielVanWeber]

EDIT: Couldn't a regular Artificer use a Greater Glyph Seal?

But I was also thinking that standard Artificers can use Wand Surge combined with Unfettered Heroism to get infinite use wands.

Once you are splat diving heavily enough the class loses effectiveness. Assuming the artificer happens to know techniques developed by aboleths, for aboleths, is just risky for all but the most permissive DMs. Truth be told both spreadsheets classes are so strong that the difference is purely theoretical. In this case it really does come down to the player.

[Doctor Awkward]

Great. So then now we can hopefully agree that that makes no damn sense.

Why doesn't it make sense that the class that specializes in crafting magic items would spend the majority of their off-camera time studying ever more esoteric methods of item creation?

Rogues continue to study the anatomy of horrific nightmare creatures to work out the most effective place to stab them. This is reflected in extra sneak attack dice automatically appearing as they level.

Wizards are assumed to conduct extensive research to increase their understanding of the workings of arcane magic. This is why new spells simply appear in their spellbook as they level.

Why does that make sense but artificers don't?

[radthemad4]

At 1st level a human artificer can have 4 ranks in UMD, +2 from ability score, +3 from Skill Focus, +2 from Magical Aptitude, +2 from a Masterwork Tool, +2 Artisan Bonus because because he has the scribe scroll feat for a total of 15. This succeeds on a 1st-level scroll on a 6 or higher.

Be an Azurin. Take Shape Soulmeld: Mages Spectacles (4 + 2 x essentia to UMD) and Skill Focus: UMD. Put your 1 essentia from being an Azurin into Mages Spectacles.


Cha Mod 2
Ranks 4
Skill Focus: UMD 3
Mages Spectacles 6
Masterwork Tool 2
Artisan Bonus 2
Total 19

I'm not a fan of Artificers, but just wanted to mention Mages Spectacles

[ColorBlindNinja]

Great. So then now we can hopefully agree that that makes no damn sense.

Pretty common for RAW.


Once you are splat diving heavily enough the class loses effectiveness.

And here I thought that cherry picking spells from obscure prestige classes was one of the Artificer's strengths.


Assuming the artificer happens to know techniques developed by aboleths, for aboleths, is just risky for all but the most permissive DMs.

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? :smallconfused:

Glyph Seals have nothing to do with Aboleths, they're wondrous item in the Magic Item Compendium (Pg. 161).

EDIT 2: I see, you confused them with Master Glyph from Lords of Madness. They're not the same thing.

They're based off of the spell Glyph of Warding (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glyphOfWarding.htm).

EDIT:


Be an Azurin. Take Shape Soulmeld: Mages Spectacles (4 + 2 x essentia to UMD) and Skill Focus: UMD. Put your 1 essentia from being an Azurin into Mages Spectacles.


Cha Mod 2
Ranks 4
Skill Focus: UMD 3
Mages Spectacles 6
Masterwork Tool 2
Artisan Bonus 2
Total 19

I'm not a fan of Artificers, but just wanted to mention Mages Spectacles

Thanks for the suggestion.

[Troacctid]

Why doesn't it make sense that the class that specializes in crafting magic items would spend the majority of their off-camera time studying ever more esoteric methods of item creation?

[...]

Why does that make sense but artificers don't?
Artificers make perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is the notion that one psionic character learning a power would fundamentally change the nature of magic in the world such that artificers all around the globe can instantly gain access to that power as well. Remember, psionics are pretty consistently described in the books as drawing power from the user's own personal mental energy, which should make each individual manifester totally self-contained. This scenario is a pretty clear violation of existing lore IMO.

Furthermore, it still fails the lyric thaumaturge analogy. If one erudite learning a spell as a power unlocks it as a power for the whole universe, then why doesn't one lyric thaumaturge learning a wizard spell as a bard spell unlock it as a bard spell for the whole universe? If such abilities aren't limited to the character with the ability, then what's the difference?


Pretty common for RAW.
The dysfunctional rules thread has a policy that if there's multiple valid interpretations of a rule, it's not a dysfunctional rule unless all of those interpretations are dysfunctional—in other words, there's no need to invent a dysfunction when you can simply read the text in a way that works.

I suggest applying the same principle here.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The dysfunctional rules thread has a policy that if there's multiple valid interpretations of a rule, it's not a dysfunctional rule unless all of those interpretations are dysfunctional—in other words, there's no need to invent a dysfunction when you can simply read the text in a way that works.

I suggest applying the same principle here.

No, I take the most straightforward interpretation of a rule, not which one makes the most sense.

[Doctor Awkward]

Artificers make perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is the notion that one psionic character learning a power would fundamentally change the nature of magic in the world such that artificers all around the globe can instantly gain access to that power as well.

Because you are approaching it from the wrong mindset.

You are assuming this occurrence is something that happens during the lifetime of the psionic artificer, when you should be assuming that spell to power erudites and psionic artificers have existed in the campaign world for many generations prior to the start of the campaign and everything the players want to do has already been tried before. The knowledge has had plenty of time to disseminate throughout the world, or at least be accessible enough that a psionic artificer can make a concerted (off-camera) effort to uncover it.

If you don't want to run the game that way there's nothing wrong with telling the player, "You can't find any information like what you are asking. You might be the first person to try doing this." Or, if you want to Rule Zero the whole thing, "No, spell to power erudites do not exist in my campaign world. You can't do the thing you want to do."

I want to highlight the italicized sentence in particular: why is it so hard to accept that the presence of a being as radical as a spell to power erudite could potentially alter the nature of a campaign world on a fundamental level?


Furthermore, it still fails the lyric thaumaturge analogy. If one erudite learning a spell as a power unlocks it as a power for the whole universe, then why doesn't one lyric thaumaturge learning a wizard spell as a bard spell unlock it as a bard spell for the whole universe? If such abilities aren't limited to the character with the ability, then what's the difference?

Because bards don't emulate previously existing bards when picking their spells known, or meeting prerequisites for crafting magic items.

Artificers do.



The dysfunctional rules thread has a policy that if there's multiple valid interpretations of a rule, it's not a dysfunctional rule unless all of those interpretations are dysfunctional—in other words, there's no need to invent a dysfunction when you can simply read the text in a way that works.

I suggest applying the same principle here.

There's no reason at all to limit such a principle to "dysfunctional rules".
That's how the rules are always meant to be read.

[Troacctid]

Because you are approaching it from the wrong mindset.

You are assuming this occurrence is something that happens during the lifetime of the psionic artificer, when you should be assuming that spell to power erudites and psionic artificers have existed in the campaign world for many generations prior to the start of the campaign and everything the players want to do has already been tried before. The knowledge has had plenty of time to disseminate throughout the world, or at least be accessible enough that a psionic artificer can make a concerted (off-camera) effort to uncover it.

If you don't want to run the game that way there's nothing wrong with telling the player, "You can't find any information like what you are asking. You might be the first person to try doing this." Or, if you want to Rule Zero the whole thing, "No, spell to power erudites do not exist in my campaign world. You can't do the thing you want to do."
Canonically speaking, artificers are a relatively recent development in Eberron that arose during the Last War (<100 years ago), and psionic artificers are an even more recent development that came about some time afterwards. Psionics are still uncommon in most of Khorvaire—people know it exists, but it's considered exotic. So it's overwhelmingly likely that such an occurrence would occur in the psionic artificer's lifetime, if at all.


I want to highlight the italicized sentence in particular: why is it so hard to accept that the presence of a being as radical as a spell to power erudite could potentially alter the nature of a campaign world on a fundamental level?
Because it has a lot of strange repercussions beyond that that challenge some core assumptions about erudites, artificers, and the way psionics function in the setting, as well as contradicting established themes and lore.


Because bards don't emulate previously existing bards when picking their spells known, or meeting prerequisites for crafting magic items.

Artificers do.
Do bards not choose their spells known off the bard spell list? Does lyric thaumaturge not add spells to the bard spell list? Heck, bards even have a robust formal education system seen in the various colleges where they literally learn spells from other bards.

[Cosi]

What level do you think the Artificer would become viable?

It's basically entirely dependent on your tolerance for cheese. The Artificer basically operates by poking a known-broken system -- magic item creation, and particularly custom item creation -- in ways that make it even more broken and hoping you manage to hit the sweet spot of what your DM will tolerate. Infusions are generally pretty crap, but there are some sweet spots. I suspect you would probably end up with a vaguely worthwhile character at around 8th level, but there's basically no difference between "things you need to do to be viable" and "things that are horribly broken". You can make something vaguely mechanically competent, but the class is still crap.


Nonsense.

That doesn't really seem like "nonsense" so much as "I was too hasty to use the word 'maximum'". You're spending two feats -- which the majority of characters cannot do -- and you still only get to 75% success at activating your abilities. You know how often the Wizard succeeds at activating his abilities? 100% of the time.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It's basically entirely dependent on your tolerance for cheese. The Artificer basically operates by poking a known-broken system -- magic item creation, and particularly custom item creation -- in ways that make it even more broken and hoping you manage to hit the sweet spot of what your DM will tolerate.

So a ton of power in theory, but not so much in practice.


Infusions are generally pretty crap, but there are some sweet spots. I suspect you would probably end up with a vaguely worthwhile character at around 8th level, but there's basically no difference between "things you need to do to be viable" and "things that are horribly broken". You can make something vaguely mechanically competent, but the class is still crap.

Level 8 is, honestly a really long time for a class flounder in mediocrity.


That doesn't really seem like "nonsense" so much as "I was too hasty to use the word 'maximum'". You're spending two feats -- which the majority of characters cannot do -- and you still only get to 75% success at activating your abilities. You know how often the Wizard succeeds at activating his abilities? 100% of the time.

Would being an Azurin with Shape Soulmeld (Mage's Spectacles) be a better investment? Or is that still too many burned character resources?

[Doctor Awkward]

Canonically speaking, artificers are a relatively recent development in Eberron that arose during the Last War (<100 years ago), and psionic artificers are an even more recent development that came about some time afterwards. Psionics are still uncommon in most of Khorvaire—people know it exists, but it's considered exotic. So it's overwhelmingly likely that such an occurrence would occur in the psionic artificer's lifetime, if at all.

I'm not sure where you are getting that information, but most of the material in the Eberron line says quite differently.

House Cannith, which pioneered modern artifice, has a recorded history stretching back over 2,500 years. In the Eberron Player's Guide, it states that magic has long formed the foundation of Khorvaire society, and you can find the sentence, "For millennia, wizards, sorcerers, clerics, artificers, adepts, and magewrights have brought their talents to bear on the challenges and dangers of the world around them." It also states that expeditions to Xen'drik have uncovered relics that suggest something analogous to modern artificers must have existed on that continent in ancient times, which stretch back over forty thousand years.

Furthermore, psionics in Khorvaire are not a recent development either. The Inspired ruled Sarlona for nearly 1,500 years, and after over three hundred years of conflict that preceded that when Dal Quor spirits first contacted the monks of Adar. Secrets of Sarlona says quite explicitly on page 9 that, "Adventurers might have no recourse but to travel to Sarlona to learn certain psionic arts. The traditions of the psychic warrior could have found their way to Khorvaire, but perhaps the divine mind and other classes of Complete Psionic are still hidden in Sarlona."

It's far less believable in that many eons of history that such a series of events has never once occurred. The idea that a kalashtar from Adar might have fled from the Inspired at some point before the start of the Last War is far more likely than not.


And even if what you were suggesting were the case, that's not a compelling reason to be completely married to the history or meta-plot. Uncommon does not mean impossible unless you want it to be. There's plenty of official information (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20060925a) about how to utilize psionics in Eberron without ever travelling to Sarlona.



Because it has a lot of strange repercussions beyond that that challenge some core assumptions about erudites, artificers, and the way psionics function in the setting, as well as contradicting established themes and lore.

Yeah, it does.
In most of my regular games, we call that "the fun part".



Do bards not choose their spells known off the bard spell list?
Yes?

Does lyric thaumaturge not add spells to the bard spell list?
For that character sure.

Again, bards aren't emulating other characters when they learn spells. They learn them on their own.


Heck, bards even have a robust formal education system seen in the various colleges where they literally learn spells from other bards.
Sounds like a great place to go to maybe learn how to become a lyric thaumaturge.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Does anyone have any general advice for playing an Artificer? Besides hoping that the setting has Trapsmiths, that is. :smallwink:

[kkplx]

Google artificer or zeroficer handbook, create a new excel file with at least 5 tabs, and enjoy.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Google artificer or zeroficer handbook, create a new excel file with at least 5 tabs, and enjoy.

But I did that already. :smallbiggrin: