Artificer Spell List Access

[Zarion]

The Artificer, from ebberon, can create magic items by simulating any spell. My question is for spells that are added to a spell list by feats like Mother Cyst or the Initiate feats or Incarnum Spellshaping, does an artificer have access to those spells or do they need the feat?

[Aharon]

The Artificer, from ebberon, can create magic items by simulating any spell. My question is for spells that are added to a spell list by feats like Mother Cyst or the Initiate feats or Incarnum Spellshaping, does an artificer have access to those spells or do they need the feat?

The rules are silent on that issue. RAI probably not, since too broad access opens the road for abuse (there's this idea floating around of an Artificer simulating the spells of a caster with all mage slayer feats, allowing him to make CL3 Gates and Wishes, for example).

[khadgar567]

The rules are silent on that issue. RAI probably not, since too broad access opens the road for abuse (there's this idea floating around of an Artificer simulating the spells of a caster with all mage slayer feats, allowing him to make CL3 Gates and Wishes, for example).

okay that broken level 3 gate solars this must be record on how cheesey you can get with out dipping any class I mean 3 level wish spell yes please

[Zarion]

A cheesy but not broken method is to cast from the Beholder Mage and Ur-Priest lists, which are the sorcerer/wizard and cleric lists respectively but with CL=SL.

[fishyfishyfishy]

The Artificer, from ebberon, can create magic items by simulating any spell. My question is for spells that are added to a spell list by feats like Mother Cyst or the Initiate feats or Incarnum Spellshaping, does an artificer have access to those spells or do they need the feat?

The only requirements the Artificer can ignore is the spell requirement by way of a UMD check. If there are any other requirements to create the item, such as a certain maneuver or Initiator level, the Artificer in question must still meet these requirements in order to create the item.

Edit: Yes, this means the Necrotic Cyst related spells can be put on a scroll by an Artificer.

[Gildedragon]

A cheesy but not broken method is to cast from the Beholder Mage and Ur-Priest lists, which are the sorcerer/wizard and cleric lists respectively but with CL=SL.

Actually Beholder Mage spells have a minimum CL of SL x 2

[Zarion]

Actually Beholder Mage spells have a minimum CL of SL x 2

They function at 2xSL but the spells are gained at each level, so I don't know how it would work with an artificer.

[Troacctid]

I think there is a very good argument that the CL penalty from Mage Slayer would simply prevent you from casting Wish completely if it brought you below CL 17.

They function at 2xSL but the spells are gained at each level, so I don't know how it would work with an artificer.

If the minimum CL for a 1st level ranger spell is 2 rather than 4 (and it is), then the minimum CL for a 1st level beholder mage spell is 2 rather than 1.

[Aharon]

I think there is a very good argument that the CL penalty from Mage Slayer would simply prevent you from casting Wish completely if it brought you below CL 17.


If the minimum CL for a 1st level ranger spell is 2 rather than 4 (and it is), then the minimum CL for a 1st level beholder mage spell is 2 rather than 1.

Yes, there is such an argument, however, there isn't anything in the rules that outright defines minimum caster levels for spells. There is a section in the PHB (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverv...tingSpells.htm), but it only says that the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question. The example in the PHB (Fireball no lower than CL5) makes it rather clear that the minimum caster level is supposed to be the caster level you have when you first gain the ability to cast spells of that spell level. However, it doesn't outright say so, so the rule "the caster level you choose must be high enough" is a null pointer.

[Troacctid]

Yes, there is such an argument, however, there isn't anything in the rules that outright defines minimum caster levels for spells. There is a section in the PHB (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverv...tingSpells.htm), but it only says that the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question. The example in the PHB (Fireball no lower than CL5) makes it rather clear that the minimum caster level is supposed to be the caster level you have when you first gain the ability to cast spells of that spell level. However, it doesn't outright say so, so the rule "the caster level you choose must be high enough" is a null pointer.

The Dungeon Master's Guide has charts that include the minimum caster levels for all the core classes (DMG 287), so the argument that they're never properly defined doesn't hold much water for me. Yes, non-core classes aren't on the chart, but it's very obvious what the pattern is, and the rules do actually for reals tell you to extrapolate in situations like this (DMG 6), so shrugging your shoulders and saying "Well, we can't really know!" seems like a disingenuous answer IMO.

[Zarion]

The Dungeon Master's Guide has charts that include the minimum caster levels for all the core classes (DMG 287), so the argument that they're never properly defined doesn't hold much water for me. Yes, non-core classes aren't on the chart, but it's very obvious what the pattern is, and the rules do actually for reals tell you to extrapolate in situations like this (DMG 6), so shrugging your shoulders and saying "Well, we can't really know!" seems like a disingenuous answer IMO.

Except the Ur-Priest gains spells at CL=SL and those spells function at that CL, so it obviously is possible, because you can enter the class with no spellcasting levels.

[Troacctid]

Well sure, minimum CL is different for different classes, that much is very clear. Ur-Priest weirdness isn't a rules justification for Mage Slayer shenanigans, though.

[Zarion]

Well sure, minimum CL is different for different classes, that much is very clear. Ur-Priest weirdness isn't a rules justification for Mage Slayer shenanigans, though.

I was referring to the debate over the Beholder Mage.

[Big Fau]

okay that broken level 3 gate solars this must be record on how cheesey you can get with out dipping any class I mean 3 level wish spell yes please

Welcome to the Big 6. They're the most powerful classes in the game for a reason.

A LOT of reasons.

[Afgncaap5]

Hmm... you know, if we're talking specifically about he absolute letter of the law, there's this snippet...

An artificer can also make Use Magic Device checks to emulate nonspell requirements, including alignment
and race, using the normal DCs for the skill. He cannot emulate skill or feat requirements, however, including item creation feat prerequisites.

I think by RAI those sentences are talking more about emulating nonspell requirements for item creation than for whether or not a spell is available, though it doesn't feel out of place to use that as a guideline for whether or not an artificer can emulate certain kinds of spells that have other unusual restrictions. You could use UMD to emulate a spell that requires you to be a dwarf, for instance, or possibly a spell that requires you to be a follower of Boccob (and there's a certain 4th level spell that most Artificers would be very interested in, along those lines.) However, if you follow it in this direction, you couldn't use those to emulate spells that have a requirement linked to feats. You could, however, take the feat and then emulate the spells even if you have no levels in the class that the spell requires.

That's just what feels "right" to me, though, not something that I think is easily supportable through a strict reading of everything pertinent.