(Ab)using an artifact.

[Gransoley]

To my knowledge there are some abilities, spell etc that requires an artifact, not a specific one but any artifact. Let's say there's a way to get a generic artifact, for the sake of the example it will literally do nothing. What can you do to it?
E.G. the 9th level spell from elder evil requires one, also the spell to tome travel from Towes of high sorcery.

[Doctor Despair]

For what it's worth, as I recall, a spell component pouch includes NI worthless artifacts ;)

[Gransoley]

I was going to deny that but RAW it actually does, marvelous (Insert SpongeBob rainbow meme).
Look at the poor me who was using the kender pouch from DL with some way to boost unnamed check and rerolls for the item.
GG

[Calthropstu]

For what it's worth, as I recall, a spell component pouch includes NI worthless artifacts ;)

It also contains ni spheres of annihilation. So any wizard reaching into his spell pouch automatically dies, no save no sr.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Artifacts only interact with 9th level spells, as far as I know. The easy one is of course Apocalypse from the Sky who uses one as a material component. But an artifact can also use as a weird protection against Disjunction. If you bear one with you, any one who tries to Disjunction you has 1% chance per caster level to have to make a DC 25 Will check or lose all spellcasting abilities and attract the attention and probably ire of a god.

Also, major artifacts are indestructible by definition. So you can use them to check a corridor or a door for traps. Who needs a skeleton when you have the Staff of Orcus? Or to hit something like a remorhaz or a Vow of Poverty character, which would destroy any regular weapon hitting them. Who needs a riverin hammer when you can hit someone on the head with an Orb of Dragonkind?

[Crazysaneman]

It also contains ni spheres of annihilation. So any wizard reaching into his spell pouch automatically dies, no save no sr.

I... don't think that's right. What spell requires a sphere of annihilation as a component? Please, do enlighten me.

PS
Not being smarmy, I am legitimately curious. I NEED this knowledge.

[Thurbane]

I... don't think that's right. What spell requires a sphere of annihilation as a component? Please, do enlighten me.

PS
Not being smarmy, I am legitimately curious. I NEED this knowledge.

SoA = artifact.

Spell listed above have artifacts as components.

The SoA is in there the same reason other artifacts are.

BTW, no sane table rules this way. If every artifact without a price existed in every SCP, then touching a SoA is probably one of the better outcomes you could expect. Plenty of intelligent artifacts would be doing their thing.

Then there's the whole size/wegiht issue: a SCP is not listed as a non-dimensional or extra-dimensional container (yes, SCP already contains NI amounts of common components, but I'm having a hard time imagining Heward's Mystical Organ or the Machine of Lum The Mad hanging off someone's waist).

SCP rules exist solely as an exercise in reducing bookkeeping of common components. They break verisimilitude if examined too closely as it is, let alone going down the insane road of assuming they are chock full of artifacts.

[ciopo]

Turns out the SCP foundation started for hiding the artifacts every dnd wizards had NI amounts of

[Crazysaneman]

SoA = artifact.

Spell listed above have artifacts as components.

The SoA is in there the same reason other artifacts are.

BTW, no sane table rules this way. If every artifact without a price existed in every SCP, then touching a SoA is probably one of the better outcomes you could expect. Plenty of intelligent artifacts would be doing their thing.

Then there's the whole size/wegiht issue: a SCP is not listed as a non-dimensional or extra-dimensional container (yes, SCP already contains NI amounts of common components, but I'm having a hard time imagining Heward's Mystical Organ or the Machine of Lum The Mad hanging off someone's waist).

SCP rules exist solely as an exercise in reducing bookkeeping of common components. They break verisimilitude if examined too closely as it is, let alone going down the insane road of assuming they are chock full of artifacts.

Ah I see what you meant what with it being an artifact without a cost. Missed the forest for the trees on that one, my bad.

Also, yes I agree. Under no circumstance would I allow players to pull "costless" artifacts out of a spell component pouch.

[unseenmage]

Tricking an enemy into using Disjunction on an artifact is always a fun time.

[Gransoley]

Just maximize the disjunction

[Beni-Kujaku]

Just maximize the disjunction

I don't think that's right. It's not the effect that is random, it's the chance that the artifact is affected. And even if it did, then you are assured to lose your spellcasting and make a god angry. Congrats?

[Vaern]

Tricking an enemy into using Disjunction on an artifact is always a fun time.
Doesn't disjunction hit everything in an area, meaning any spellcaster with a spell component pouch full of spheres of annihilation threatens to erase the casting abilities of anyone who throws a disjunction at them? And if the chance is per artifact and SCP contains a virtually infinite number of artifacts, isn't the chance effectively guaranteed?

[Doctor Despair]

... And if the chance is per artifact and SCP contains a virtually infinite number of artifacts, isn't the chance effectively guaranteed?

Yes, if it is ruled that way.

[unseenmage]

Doesn't disjunction hit everything in an area, meaning any spellcaster with a spell component pouch full of spheres of annihilation threatens to erase the casting abilities of anyone who throws a disjunction at them? And if the chance is per artifact and SCP contains a virtually infinite number of artifacts, isn't the chance effectively guaranteed?
Nah. Spells still need line of effect iirc.

[Darg]

Nah. Spells still need line of effect iirc.

Line of Effect is only from one square to another. Burst type effects (which disjunction is) can only be prevented by total cover. By the rules, whatever is in the pouch does not have total cover. The shatter spell will, well, shatter any object of a vulnerable type even in your bags.

[Calthropstu]

Line of Effect is only from one square to another. Burst type effects (which disjunction is) can only be prevented by total cover. By the rules, whatever is in the pouch does not have total cover. The shatter spell will, well, shatter any object of a vulnerable type even in your bags.

The game kinda breaks down here. A spell component pouch is not magical. As such, yhe moment it comes into being, the soa destroys the bag and anyone holding it. This ruling literally cannot exist.

However, if an artifact is in a bag on someone's person, it counts as "in their posession." Which is covered under disjunction specifically.

[Darg]

The game kinda breaks down here. A spell component pouch is not magical. As such, yhe moment it comes into being, the soa destroys the bag and anyone holding it. This ruling literally cannot exist.

However, if an artifact is in a bag on someone's person, it counts as "in their posession." Which is covered under disjunction specifically.

Well yeah, a spell component pouch is really silly if you take it too seriously. It's also 2lbs. Anything that weighs more than 2lbs can't possibly be in the pouch. Not taking physical limitations literally is like not requiring the move action to retrieve a component out of the pouch.


All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined. That is, spells and spell-like effects are separated into their individual components (ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does), and each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item. An item in a creature’s possession uses its own Will save bonus or its possessor’s Will save bonus, whichever is higher.

The mention of being in possession is so that you can differentiate between which will save bonus will be used.

[Crake]

For what it's worth, as I recall, a spell component pouch includes NI worthless artifacts ;)

By definition, artifacts are priceless, not worthless. Spell component pouches only have things worth less than 1gp within them, artifacts have a value so high it breaks out of the gp market. They are literally stated as being too valuable to price via conventional means, so this logic doesn't work, even if it is tongue in cheek.

[Gransoley]

By definition, artifacts are priceless, not worthless. Spell component pouches only have things worth less than 1gp within them, artifacts have a value so high it breaks out of the gp market. They are literally stated as being too valuable to price via conventional means, so this logic doesn't work, even if it is tongue in cheek.

It just happen that you're using a RAI interpretation of what the pouch does, let me send the proper quote
"A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components except for those components that have a specific cost"
Priceless is not a specific cost, it doesn't matter if it's priceless worthless or simply unknown.

[Crake]

It just happen that you're using a RAI interpretation of what the pouch does, let me send the proper quote
"A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components except for those components that have a specific cost"
Priceless is not a specific cost, it doesn't matter if it's priceless worthless or simply unknown.

I mean, priceless IS a specific cost. It's specified right there: cost: priceless.

[Gransoley]

No, priceless, by definition, is not a cost. Literally not a cost.

[Calthropstu]

I mean, priceless IS a specific cost. It's specified right there: cost: priceless.


No, priceless, by definition, is not a cost. Literally not a cost.

So you prefer the definition "contains artifacts including sphere of annihilation killing you tand deztroying the pouch."

[Gransoley]

I think it's silly and i would probably never use it, but that's what the strict RAW definition is.

[Calthropstu]

I think it's silly and i would probably never use it, but that's what the strict RAW definition is.

Heh. "I make a wizard." "He has a spell component pouch?" "Well yeah." "He dies. Make a new character." "What?"

[Gransoley]

Think whatever you want, I'm advocating what the RAW definition implies, not if it is realistic to actually use it in a normal game.

[Calthropstu]

Think whatever you want, I'm advocating what the RAW definition implies, not if it is realistic to actually use it in a normal game.

Well, instagib on all casters with spell component pouches is fine I suppose. Just cross those classes from your playable list.

[mattie_p]

Or the Eschew Materials feat becomes a tax for all casters.

[Calthropstu]

Or the Eschew Materials feat becomes a tax for all casters.

To be fair, you could just store your materials in your baclpack. Retrieving items is no longer a free action but it's an option.

[Bronk]

I don't think that's right. It's not the effect that is random, it's the chance that the artifact is affected. And even if it did, then you are assured to lose your spellcasting and make a god angry. Congrats?

I think it would work (it's still in the spell, even though it's a note), but unless they've got 100 caster levels they'd never affect the artifact in the first place, because that roll would be maximized too.

[Gransoley]

Which roll are you referring to exactly? Disjunction only roll twice, once for amf and once for artefact. Plus one roll for the deity note. I can't see why it wouldn't work. Also the DC 25 save is a breeze to pass.

[Darg]

To be fair, you could just store your materials in your baclpack. Retrieving items is no longer a free action but it's an option.

Retrieving items has never been a free action even with the pouch. It's just an assumption that was made. Eschew materials feat is artificially devalued.

[Gransoley]

Retrieving items has never been a free action even with the pouch. It's just an assumption that was made. Eschew materials feat is artificially devalued.

This is actually incorrect, it is explicitly stated under the spell component description AND on the list of free action.

[Darg]

This is actually incorrect, it is explicitly stated under the spell component description AND on the list of free action.

Prepare =/= retrieve. As I said it's an assumption being made. If it were to mean that retrieving components is a free action, it wouldn't matter where you stored them. They would all be free actions even though the action isn't any different than retrieving another item. But hey, at least those potions of bull's strength can be retrieved as a free action.

[Gransoley]

Prepare =/= retrieve. As I said it's an assumption being made. If it were to mean that retrieving components is a free action, it wouldn't matter where you stored them. They would all be free actions even though the action isn't any different than retrieving another item. But hey, at least those potions of bull's strength can be retrieved as a free action.

The spell component use neither the world prepare nor retrieve, it uses the world "gather" which seems a lot clearer.
Also yes, is a free action no matter where you store them.

[Darg]

The spell component use neither the world prepare nor retrieve, it uses the world "gather" which seems a lot clearer.
Also yes, is a free action no matter where you store them.

Where does it say gather? I'm looking at the book and it says prepare under the cast a spell action and on the free action table.

[Gransoley]

Where does it say gather? I'm looking at the book and it says prepare under the cast a spell action and on the free action table.

No you're right, i misread the RC.

[Crake]

No, priceless, by definition, is not a cost. Literally not a cost.

You're right, it's not a cost, but it is specified.

[Bronk]

Which roll are you referring to exactly? Disjunction only roll twice, once for amf and once for artefact. Plus one roll for the deity note. I can't see why it wouldn't work. Also the DC 25 save is a breeze to pass.

Is this referring to my post? If so, it's because you roll under for percentages, not over. When maximized, all three percentage rolls will be 100, so unless you have a hundred caster levels, you'd never be successful on either of the first two rolls.

[Gransoley]

Is this referring to my post? If so, it's because you roll under for percentages, not over. When maximized, all three percentage rolls will be 100, so unless you have a hundred caster levels, you'd never be successful on either of the first two rolls.

Do you have any rule references? I can't find one in the cores

[Crake]

Is this referring to my post? If so, it's because you roll under for percentages, not over. When maximized, all three percentage rolls will be 100, so unless you have a hundred caster levels, you'd never be successful on either of the first two rolls.

Read maximize spell again. It doesn't treat every roll in the spell as if it rolled the highest value, it says "All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized.". Rolling to see if you affect an artifact is not a variable, numeric effect, it's a variable, boolean effect. It would be like saying a maximized dispel magic treats the caster level check as if it rolled a 20, which just isn't how maximize spell works.