I have an Artificer that spellcasts through tattoos and (on non-living objects) paintings. I reskinned calligrapher's supplies as tattooist's supplies to do this. Because he just reached level 2, I've been looking at infusions, and I really, really want to replicate magic tattoos, esp. spellwrought tattoos. As with you all, the open questions for me are: 1. Can I replicate a spellwrought tattoo with spells from other classes' spell lists? * For now, I think not, but I'll follow DM guidance, of course 2. Am I locked into one specific cantrip or 1st-level spell for the infusion, or can I change the spell in the infusioned spellwrought tattoo each time I make the infusion? * I think I am locked in, because the magic item that I am replicating has a fixed spell
The DM can set reasonable limits, so I'm not worried about broken infusions. The fact that you have a limit of 2-3 active infusions at any one time (until level 10) is a big limitation on the artificer's power, esp. when you have to choose from the 4-6 you've learned. I want a homunculus, so at my level (2), I have only one active infusion that I can have one other infusion active at any one time.
My next artificer is going to be the Candyman with the Chef's feat, which will be awesome.
Why not both? The APT is an attuned item, the tattoo does not require attunement. I agree the APT is far better because you can cast the cantrip at will for 8 hours, but having an extra one-off cantrip could be useful if you have the infusion slot available or would like to craft the tattoo for 50 gold or 25 at level 10.
all magical Tattoo's require attunement and take up a certain amount of the body based upon their rarity. if you lose attunement with them they turn back into the magical needle.
Why not both? The APT is an attuned item, the tattoo does not require attunement. I agree the APT is far better because you can cast the cantrip at will for 8 hours, but having an extra one-off cantrip could be useful if you have the infusion slot available or would like to craft the tattoo for 50 gold or 25 at level 10.
all magical Tattoo's require attunement and take up a certain amount of the body based upon their rarity. if you lose attunement with them they turn back into the magical needle.
I don’t see that online or in the book. Eldritch Claw Tattoo? TCOE 126, requires attunement. Lifewell Tattoo, TCOE 129, requires attunement. Spellwrought Tattoo, TCOE 135, no mention of attunement.
An artificer at level 10 with a little downtime and gold could cover themselves head to toe in spellwrought tattoos. Each uncommon (level 2-3) would take 2.5 days and 100 gold (per Xanathar) and you could have two per limb and one on your scalp for 9, plus one common (level 1) tattoo for on each hand and foot, each taking 1.25 days and 25 gold for 4 more.
Basically with 27.5 days — a month — and 1000 gold you get 9 3rd level spells and 4 1st level spells
And you’d still have your chest and back free. RAW these could take one Very Rare tattoo each. Those don’t exist for Spellwrought Tattoos but you might convince a DM to allow smaller tats to partially cover those areas.
Why not both? The APT is an attuned item, the tattoo does not require attunement. I agree the APT is far better because you can cast the cantrip at will for 8 hours, but having an extra one-off cantrip could be useful if you have the infusion slot available or would like to craft the tattoo for 50 gold or 25 at level 10.
all magical Tattoo's require attunement and take up a certain amount of the body based upon their rarity. if you lose attunement with them they turn back into the magical needle.
I don’t see that online or in the book. Eldritch Claw Tattoo? TCOE 126, requires attunement. Lifewell Tattoo, TCOE 129, requires attunement. Spellwrought Tattoo, TCOE 135, no mention of attunement.
It even specifically says no attunement on 117.
Your correct. I missed the exception to that one type of tattoo.
Here's the thing that I think a lot of people are missing here:
-Replicate Magic Item says nothing about material cost. As long as you only have up to your maximum allowed infusions at a time, they're totally free to create after a long rest.
-Spellwrought tattoos specifically say that they cost no material components. As long as the bearer can use verbal and somatic components - that is, they aren't silenced/deafened and they have at least one free limb - they can cast the spell. There are no other limits whatsoever as to who or what can receive a spellwrought tattoo.
-This means that you can give a Find Familiar tattoo to your Familiar.
-And then to your Familiar's Familiar.
-And so on, ad nauseum.
-Totally for free, once per long rest.
Obviously, no sane DM would allow this, but RAW there isn't much stopping you.
I'd probably lean toward Alchemist's Supplies. The tools used to inscribe a traditional tattoo needn't be that complicated, but the process of creating new inks and salves would be more involved than simple artist supplies. Mortal/pestle, emulsifiers, inks, alcohol, preservatives, etc...
Can a familiar with incredibly low intelligence intelligibly command another familiar? I'd say no. As a DM, I would have the familiar's familiar drop a rock on the PC's head.
Level 10+ artificer with a month of downtime can wreck face lots of ways. I mean seriously wreck face.
But then its all tier-3 stuff and upward so epic OTT stuff is sort of OK and the DM better be able to handle it. The main limit is having exotic materials for crafting, there is a very fine line the DM needs to tread between allowing the Artificer to do their thing (and keep up with other classes) and overdoing their thing and breaking too many encounters.
I would love that. What type of tools would those include? (Painters? Calligraphers?) Would it need a new type of tools? (Tattoo Artist's Tools)
I've used re-skinned Calligraphers Supplies, and my DMs have agreed so far.
Yeah.
Side Note: We need more artisans tools in 5e. We don't have any more "modern" tools. Like Mechanics' Tools, Plumbers' Tools, Electrician's Tools, Astronomer's/Astrologers' Tools, and other types of tools that don't really fit any others.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
At 2nd level, you gain the ability to imbue mundane items with certain magical infusions. The magic items you create with this feature are effectively prototypes of permanent items.
Looking at the infusions and replicable items, they're all permanent. Even the Homunculus Servant leaves behind the gem you infuse to create it if it dies.
Then there's this bit of Replicate Magic Item:
Alternatively, you can choose the magic item from among the common magic items in the game, not including potions or scrolls.
This is a red flag since Spellwrought Tattoo is for the most part interchangeable with a spell scroll. What they probably intended was "not including consumable items" or possibly "not including consumable items that recover HP, deal damage, or replicate spell effects." Before Spellwrought Tattoo came into the picture, the only non-potion, non-scroll consumable items were things like the bead of nourishment.
If your DM is willing to ignore the first line I quoted I suppose this works as written, though you're arguably only getting access to a Find Familiar tattoo when you learn the infusion, not all possible cantrips and 1st level spells. And the main reason this seems kind of broken is that Find Familiar grants benefits that last an indefinite amount of time after its casting, but the same loophole can be pulled off with a Ring of Spell Storing.
An artificers infusions are permanent as opposed to expiring after a set amount of time, it is not refering to consumables. I agree that spellwrought tattoos should probably be excluded just like scrolls and potions
At 2nd level, you gain the ability to imbue mundane items with certain magical infusions. The magic items you create with this feature are effectively prototypes of permanent items.
Looking at the infusions and replicable items, they're all permanent. Even the Homunculus Servant leaves behind the gem you infuse to create it if it dies.
Then there's this bit of Replicate Magic Item:
Alternatively, you can choose the magic item from among the common magic items in the game, not including potions or scrolls.
This is a red flag since Spellwrought Tattoo is for the most part interchangeable with a spell scroll. What they probably intended was "not including consumable items" or possibly "not including consumable items that recover HP, deal damage, or replicate spell effects." Before Spellwrought Tattoo came into the picture, the only non-potion, non-scroll consumable items were things like the bead of nourishment.
If your DM is willing to ignore the first line I quoted I suppose this works as written, though you're arguably only getting access to a Find Familiar tattoo when you learn the infusion, not all possible cantrips and 1st level spells. And the main reason this seems kind of broken is that Find Familiar grants benefits that last an indefinite amount of time after its casting, but the same loophole can be pulled off with a Ring of Spell Storing.
The bead of nourishment is permanent until consumed. And, as you noted, the bead of nourishment is included on the replicate magic items list. By definition, then, a bead of nourishment made with the replicate magic items infusion is "[a] prototype[] of [a]permanent item[]." Therefore, "permanent items" include items, like the bead of nourishment, that are permanent util consumed. Arguably, scrolls and potions are permanent until consumed. The difference? Scrolls and potions are explicitly excluded from available options for replicating a magical item. Spellwrought tattoos (of cantrip and first level) are not excluded, and, indeed, are included by the language "you can choose the magic item from among the common magic items in the game, not including potions or scrolls." Similarly, when creating a Spellwrought tattoo, you create a permanent item: a needle. Like the bead of nourishment, the needle is permanent until consumed (i.e. applied to yourself or another). Your interpretation and reliance on the word "permanent" seems defeated by the inclusion of the bead of nourishment on the list of available, replicable magic items. More likely, "permanent" means "does not expire after a set amount of time" as noted by i3thtemplar elsewhere (above, I think?) in the forum.
As I believe I stated already in different words, nothing is broken, so long as the DM and players are comfortable working together respectfully. However, the reality is that most tables aren't so clean. The rules should be written to improve the experience for the average table, with the understanding that more experienced groups are free to augment the rules in ways that suit them.
Find Familiar is a Wizard exclusive* spell, so in addition to introducing mechanical complexity, allowing it to become a party resource so easily trivializes a distinctive class feature. Restricting this particular infusion by default does nothing other than set expectations for new groups, which an experienced DM is free to alter according to their comfort level. Whether or not this new feature is "fun", it's poor game design. Sharing one-off spells, like Shield, is a neat trick. Sharing permanent effects, like a familiar, fundamentally changes the game, and shouldn't be treated as normal.
Separately, I'm perpetually frustrated by how DMs and Players so regularly underestimate the cleverness of their players. Focusing on a solution to a very, very narrow subset of possible encounters is extremely short-sighted. Give a player too much freedom, and you'll either need to trust them to demonstrate self-discipline, or be prepared to deal with the consequences. Further, as new content is produced, it's going to become exponentially more difficult to check how it interacts with every previously published feature, which can turn safe mechanics into nightmares of munchkinism.
Rulebooks need to establish reasonable boundaries to keep the game accessible. This is one of the most significant differences between 3.5e and 5e.
Good in isolation is not the same as good in the grand scheme.
Is it really your experience that the average D&D table isn't "clean"?? I've never encountered a table where the players and DM don't work together respectfully. Then again, I almost always DM, so my sample size of other DMs is limited. But I'm curious to hear about your experiences with other tables. How does the game even function if the DM and players aren't comfortable working together? That's like the minimum requirement necessary to play a game of D&D . . .
As I believe I stated already in different words, nothing is broken, so long as the DM and players are comfortable working together respectfully. However, the reality is that most tables aren't so clean. The rules should be written to improve the experience for the average table, with the understanding that more experienced groups are free to augment the rules in ways that suit them.
Find Familiar is a Wizard exclusive* spell, so in addition to introducing mechanical complexity, allowing it to become a party resource so easily trivializes a distinctive class feature. Restricting this particular infusion by default does nothing other than set expectations for new groups, which an experienced DM is free to alter according to their comfort level. Whether or not this new feature is "fun", it's poor game design. Sharing one-off spells, like Shield, is a neat trick. Sharing permanent effects, like a familiar, fundamentally changes the game, and shouldn't be treated as normal.
Separately, I'm perpetually frustrated by how DMs and Players so regularly underestimate the cleverness of their players. Focusing on a solution to a very, very narrow subset of possible encounters is extremely short-sighted. Give a player too much freedom, and you'll either need to trust them to demonstrate self-discipline, or be prepared to deal with the consequences. Further, as new content is produced, it's going to become exponentially more difficult to check how it interacts with every previously published feature, which can turn safe mechanics into nightmares of munchkinism.
Rulebooks need to establish reasonable boundaries to keep the game accessible. This is one of the most significant differences between 3.5e and 5e.
Good in isolation is not the same as good in the grand scheme.
Is it really your experience that the average D&D table isn't "clean"?? I've never encountered a table where the players and DM don't work together respectfully. Then again, I almost always DM, so my sample size of other DMs is limited. But I'm curious to hear about your experiences with other tables. How does the game even function if the DM and players aren't comfortable working together? That's like the minimum requirement necessary to play a game of D&D . . .
Ended up writing more than I meant to, so you can find my response in the spoiler below.
TL;DR: "Average" is a complicated concept, and we tend to see the world through a lens of our own design. D&D groups are not significantly different from any other collection of people. Think about how many "dream job" companies there are compared to the number of people who only work because they can't afford not to.
[For Context: In 2019, the "mean" US income was $54,129, but the "median" US income was only $35,977, so the vast majority of people experience life well below the "average" of the whole.]
There are a lot of scenarios where groups come together under less than ideal circumstances:
(1) Players may connect due to convenience and proximity, rather than shared ideals. (Middle/Highschool friends) (2) Young players may have a range of maturity that simultaneously causes friction, and leaves them without the tools to resolve issues. (3) Drop-in games, like Adventurer's League, often includes wildcards, who may be inexperienced or anti-social, and only need to be tolerated for a single game at a time. (4) There may also be external pressures, such as a church group strongly encouraging incompatible people to play together.
The term "average" also suffers from a self-perpetuating issue. Bad groups are more likely to break down, and the problem players often find themselves at new tables, taking with them the same bad habits, resulting in a large number of short-run high-stress games. Ergo, Good Groups may represent a significant majority of the "Play Time", but a tiny minority of the active "tables".
"How does the game even function if the DM and players aren't comfortable working together?"
Ultimately, poorly. Problem players are often problem players because they are searching for something specific within the interaction that they don't know how to find in a healthy way: admiration, a sense of control, belonging, etc....
The player/DM may start out cautiously in order to establish themselves within their new circle, but eventually they will be comfortable enough to start pushing limits in order to get what they want. If the individual is accommodated, then it is likely that the group will become unbalanced, which will cause problems for the other players. If the individual is denied, then they may react viscerally, much the same as an addict.
Best case scenario, the problem player just needs a bit of thoughtful guidance, and will eventually find their needs met, and everyone can grow together. Worst case scenario, the problem spirals and a conflict ensues.
Though, this isn't a D&D specific problem. One doesn't have to look far to find dysfunction in workplaces, where the only reason people continue to work together is fear for their own livelihood.
People tend to surround themselves with others who are like them, so high-functioning people tend to be more optimistic and will experience confirmation bias in the positive direction, while dysfunctional people will experience the opposite. Exposure further reinforces behavior, which stabilizes each respective group.
I have an Artificer that spellcasts through tattoos and (on non-living objects) paintings. I reskinned calligrapher's supplies as tattooist's supplies to do this. Because he just reached level 2, I've been looking at infusions, and I really, really want to replicate magic tattoos, esp. spellwrought tattoos. As with you all, the open questions for me are:
1. Can I replicate a spellwrought tattoo with spells from other classes' spell lists?
* For now, I think not, but I'll follow DM guidance, of course
2. Am I locked into one specific cantrip or 1st-level spell for the infusion, or can I change the spell in the infusioned spellwrought tattoo each time I make the infusion?
* I think I am locked in, because the magic item that I am replicating has a fixed spell
The DM can set reasonable limits, so I'm not worried about broken infusions. The fact that you have a limit of 2-3 active infusions at any one time (until level 10) is a big limitation on the artificer's power, esp. when you have to choose from the 4-6 you've learned. I want a homunculus, so at my level (2), I have only one active infusion that I can have one other infusion active at any one time.
My next artificer is going to be the Candyman with the Chef's feat, which will be awesome.
I think the rules are unclear about 1. but I'm pretty sure you have to choose one spell when you choose the infusion.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
all magical Tattoo's require attunement and take up a certain amount of the body based upon their rarity. if you lose attunement with them they turn back into the magical needle.
I don’t see that online or in the book. Eldritch Claw Tattoo? TCOE 126, requires attunement. Lifewell Tattoo, TCOE 129, requires attunement. Spellwrought Tattoo, TCOE 135, no mention of attunement.
It even specifically says no attunement on 117.
Yep, spellwrought tattoos explicitly do not require attunement. Of course, they are one-use-only and then the tattoo disappears.
An artificer at level 10 with a little downtime and gold could cover themselves head to toe in spellwrought tattoos. Each uncommon (level 2-3) would take 2.5 days and 100 gold (per Xanathar) and you could have two per limb and one on your scalp for 9, plus one common (level 1) tattoo for on each hand and foot, each taking 1.25 days and 25 gold for 4 more.
Basically with 27.5 days — a month — and 1000 gold you get 9 3rd level spells and 4 1st level spells
And you’d still have your chest and back free. RAW these could take one Very Rare tattoo each. Those don’t exist for Spellwrought Tattoos but you might convince a DM to allow smaller tats to partially cover those areas.
Your correct. I missed the exception to that one type of tattoo.
Here's the thing that I think a lot of people are missing here:
-Replicate Magic Item says nothing about material cost. As long as you only have up to your maximum allowed infusions at a time, they're totally free to create after a long rest.
-Spellwrought tattoos specifically say that they cost no material components. As long as the bearer can use verbal and somatic components - that is, they aren't silenced/deafened and they have at least one free limb - they can cast the spell. There are no other limits whatsoever as to who or what can receive a spellwrought tattoo.
-This means that you can give a Find Familiar tattoo to your Familiar.
-And then to your Familiar's Familiar.
-And so on, ad nauseum.
-Totally for free, once per long rest.
Obviously, no sane DM would allow this, but RAW there isn't much stopping you.
Maybe we need a tattooist artificier
I would love that. What type of tools would those include? (Painters? Calligraphers?) Would it need a new type of tools? (Tattoo Artist's Tools)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I'd probably lean toward Alchemist's Supplies. The tools used to inscribe a traditional tattoo needn't be that complicated, but the process of creating new inks and salves would be more involved than simple artist supplies. Mortal/pestle, emulsifiers, inks, alcohol, preservatives, etc...
Can a familiar with incredibly low intelligence intelligibly command another familiar? I'd say no. As a DM, I would have the familiar's familiar drop a rock on the PC's head.
Level 10+ artificer with a month of downtime can wreck face lots of ways. I mean seriously wreck face.
But then its all tier-3 stuff and upward so epic OTT stuff is sort of OK and the DM better be able to handle it. The main limit is having exotic materials for crafting, there is a very fine line the DM needs to tread between allowing the Artificer to do their thing (and keep up with other classes) and overdoing their thing and breaking too many encounters.
I've used re-skinned Calligraphers Supplies, and my DMs have agreed so far.
Yeah.
Side Note: We need more artisans tools in 5e. We don't have any more "modern" tools. Like Mechanics' Tools, Plumbers' Tools, Electrician's Tools, Astronomer's/Astrologers' Tools, and other types of tools that don't really fit any others.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
A permanent magic item is one that doesn't expire
An artificers infusions are permanent as opposed to expiring after a set amount of time, it is not refering to consumables. I agree that spellwrought tattoos should probably be excluded just like scrolls and potions
The bead of nourishment is permanent until consumed. And, as you noted, the bead of nourishment is included on the replicate magic items list. By definition, then, a bead of nourishment made with the replicate magic items infusion is "[a] prototype[] of [a] permanent item[]." Therefore, "permanent items" include items, like the bead of nourishment, that are permanent util consumed. Arguably, scrolls and potions are permanent until consumed. The difference? Scrolls and potions are explicitly excluded from available options for replicating a magical item. Spellwrought tattoos (of cantrip and first level) are not excluded, and, indeed, are included by the language "you can choose the magic item from among the common magic items in the game, not including potions or scrolls." Similarly, when creating a Spellwrought tattoo, you create a permanent item: a needle. Like the bead of nourishment, the needle is permanent until consumed (i.e. applied to yourself or another). Your interpretation and reliance on the word "permanent" seems defeated by the inclusion of the bead of nourishment on the list of available, replicable magic items. More likely, "permanent" means "does not expire after a set amount of time" as noted by i3thtemplar elsewhere (above, I think?) in the forum.
Is it really your experience that the average D&D table isn't "clean"?? I've never encountered a table where the players and DM don't work together respectfully. Then again, I almost always DM, so my sample size of other DMs is limited. But I'm curious to hear about your experiences with other tables. How does the game even function if the DM and players aren't comfortable working together? That's like the minimum requirement necessary to play a game of D&D . . .
Ended up writing more than I meant to, so you can find my response in the spoiler below.
TL;DR: "Average" is a complicated concept, and we tend to see the world through a lens of our own design. D&D groups are not significantly different from any other collection of people. Think about how many "dream job" companies there are compared to the number of people who only work because they can't afford not to.
[For Context: In 2019, the "mean" US income was $54,129, but the "median" US income was only $35,977, so the vast majority of people experience life well below the "average" of the whole.]
There are a lot of scenarios where groups come together under less than ideal circumstances:
(1) Players may connect due to convenience and proximity, rather than shared ideals. (Middle/Highschool friends)
(2) Young players may have a range of maturity that simultaneously causes friction, and leaves them without the tools to resolve issues.
(3) Drop-in games, like Adventurer's League, often includes wildcards, who may be inexperienced or anti-social, and only need to be tolerated for a single game at a time.
(4) There may also be external pressures, such as a church group strongly encouraging incompatible people to play together.
The term "average" also suffers from a self-perpetuating issue. Bad groups are more likely to break down, and the problem players often find themselves at new tables, taking with them the same bad habits, resulting in a large number of short-run high-stress games. Ergo, Good Groups may represent a significant majority of the "Play Time", but a tiny minority of the active "tables".
Ultimately, poorly. Problem players are often problem players because they are searching for something specific within the interaction that they don't know how to find in a healthy way: admiration, a sense of control, belonging, etc....
The player/DM may start out cautiously in order to establish themselves within their new circle, but eventually they will be comfortable enough to start pushing limits in order to get what they want. If the individual is accommodated, then it is likely that the group will become unbalanced, which will cause problems for the other players. If the individual is denied, then they may react viscerally, much the same as an addict.
Best case scenario, the problem player just needs a bit of thoughtful guidance, and will eventually find their needs met, and everyone can grow together.
Worst case scenario, the problem spirals and a conflict ensues.
Though, this isn't a D&D specific problem. One doesn't have to look far to find dysfunction in workplaces, where the only reason people continue to work together is fear for their own livelihood.
People tend to surround themselves with others who are like them, so high-functioning people tend to be more optimistic and will experience confirmation bias in the positive direction, while dysfunctional people will experience the opposite. Exposure further reinforces behavior, which stabilizes each respective group.