The problem is that Spellwrought Tattoos have varied rarity and artificers can only learn the "Common" version, so you need a way to enforce that. You could limit Artificer by declaring that Uncommon Spellwrought is a separate magic item, but that's even more arbitrary than declaring that Find Familiar Spellwrought and Magic Missile Spellwrought are separate magic items, as the latter is how the item is actually rewarded...
I'd be inclined to disagree - firstly because TCE already addresses the enforcement issue you mentioned by differentiating the items by rarity rather than any other factor. Any common tattoo regardless of spell occupies a given amount of space on the body, while any uncommon tattoo regardless of spell occupies a different amount of space. It's true that they are found with a spell already within and no mechanism exists to change which spell one has, but I would argue that a ring of spell storing found with five casts of catapult is the same item as a ring of spell storing found with one cast of animate objects. The difference here is that the rules do not provide clear guidance on how the Replicate Magic Item infusion deals with items that have variants... however, other Infusions actually DO address that point rather well. You don't take an Infusion of "Enhanced Sword" or "Enhanced Crossbow", you take "Enhanced Weapon" and apply that +1/+2 to whatever you want. There is a precedent for flexibility.
And frankly... Artificers aren't going to break your game by sacrificing one of their valuable infusion slots to cast a 1st level spell once per day, even if they are allowed to go outside the Artificer list and pick a different spell each time. In fact, given the theme of the class is flexibility through magic items and the class has a distinct lack of flexibility in their spellbook compared to Wizards, I would argue that it's highly appropriate for them to have that option. Especially given that they have to plan ahead, and can't just pick from the whole game's spell list the moment they need the spell or anything crazy like that.
It rewards forethought, grants flexibility, and has extremely low potential to be disruptive or imbalanced. I'd allow it.
(Answering to the first post)I think it's not because if you look into the artificer infusions it says [You can infuse more than one nonmagical object at the end of a long rest; the maximum number of objects appears in the Infused Items column of the Artificer table. You must touch each of the objects, and each of your infusions can be in only one object at a time. Moreover, no object can bear more than one of your infusions at a time. If you try to exceed your maximum number of infusions, the oldest infusion immediately ends, and then the new infusion applies.]
In my opinion, that means that you can't have infinite spellwrought tatoos at the same time, because the ink is still part of the infusion, and if you try to use it more, it dissapears and so does the find familiar spell, cause it's part of the effect of the infusion. If it's still not enough, it would be up to the DM that the players can only put cantrips and spells that they can use (that are in their spell list).
Let’s see, you are a L6+ artificer so you can have 3 infusions active at a time. One is on your armor, one is on your primary weapon and you have a third still available that you are actually going to use to create a spell wrought tattoo of find familiar (really? Not your secondary weapon?, not a bag of holding?, not one of other really useful items but a tattoo of find familiar? - RIGHT!) So you do so and get yourself a familiar. Your buddy thinks “That’s cool I want one too” and asks you for the tattoo not understanding your abilities. So, you ( not fully understanding either) agree and the next morning you gift them with the arcane needle infusion that they apply to their skin and then activate your spell/infusion - and poof your familiar spirit goes poof and reappears around them listening to them and not you. It is after all still your casting not theirs they just activated it they didn’t actually cast it. The find familiar spell is actually quite clear about this - if you recast it the old familiar poofs away and then returns in what ever new form is desired. Your original infusion is no more since you activated it providing the original familiar spirit and making it possible to create a new infusion without losing the one you did on your armor/weapon. But the infusion was activated from a new person so your old spirit is now attached to your friend and not you. ( this is a case where the activation of the spell is instantaneous but the effect of binding the spirit to you is permanent. So it’s still the same spirit each time you redo the infusionl but the presence of the infusion on a different person links the result to the new person so they get your familiar.)
definitly not game breaking but to me the entire concept is whiteroom trash created without really thinking through what the character is, has and needs to be doing in game. One of the reasons that find familiar is NOT on the artificer’s spell list is because the homonculus IS in its infusions list - the Homonculus IS the artificer’s familiar.
Let’s see, you are a L6+ artificer so you can have 3 infusions active at a time. One is on your armor, one is on your primary weapon and you have a third still available that you are actually going to use to create a spell wrought tattoo of find familiar (really? Not your secondary weapon?, not a bag of holding?, not one of other really useful items but a tattoo of find familiar? - RIGHT!) So you do so and get yourself a familiar. Your buddy thinks “That’s cool I want one too” and asks you for the tattoo not understanding your abilities. So, you ( not fully understanding either) agree and the next morning you gift them with the arcane needle infusion that they apply to their skin and then activate your spell/infusion - and poof your familiar spirit goes poof and reappears around them listening to them and not you. It is after all still your casting not theirs they just activated it they didn’t actually cast it. The find familiar spell is actually quite clear about this - if you recast it the old familiar poofs away and then returns in what ever new form is desired. Your original infusion is no more since you activated it providing the original familiar spirit and making it possible to create a new infusion without losing the one you did on your armor/weapon. But the infusion was activated from a new person so your old spirit is now attached to your friend and not you. ( this is a case where the activation of the spell is instantaneous but the effect of binding the spirit to you is permanent. So it’s still the same spirit each time you redo the infusionl but the presence of the infusion on a different person links the result to the new person so they get your familiar.)
definitly not game breaking but to me the entire concept is whiteroom trash created without really thinking through what the character is, has and needs to be doing in game. One of the reasons that find familiar is NOT on the artificer’s spell list is because the homonculus IS in its infusions list - the Homonculus IS the artificer’s familiar.
but spell wrought tattoo says the one with the tattoo on them is casting the spell. it says while the tattoo is on you you can cast the spell. of course all this talk of find familiar ignores the real elephant in the room. spells with a duration but no concentration. take gift of alacrity you cast it and the tattoo glows for 8 hours. a glowing tattoo is still on you so you should still be able to cast the spell again and nothing says the first one would end. so you should by multiple minutes be able to cast gift of alacrity to the entire party with a single tattoo. of course when the first spell ends so would the rest but still pretty broken at lvl 2
I went thru this before in a different thread here but here goes -again. The infusion is powering the magic so the infusion is still present until the final step is activated. That means that the artificer places the infusion initially in the needle but it is there to power the eventual spell - no infusion no spell. When the artificer or someone else uses the needle to create the tattoo the magic of the needle (the infusion) is transferred to the tattoo. When the tattoo is activated the infusion powers the spell and only then is it gone and with that the artificer’s infusion slot. So if you have 3 infusion slots you can create the tattoo , you could even technically create 3 tattoos as long as they are powering different spells but you can’t have any other infusions until one of the tattoos is activated - or if you choose to do a new infusion the oldest tattoo fades off the body of whoever has it as the infusion in it fades out while the new one comes online. You can’t have 2 of the same spell as that breaks the infusion rule that you can’t have two of the same infusion active.
This the hard part for a lot of folks it seems: enchantments ( like the tattoo needle or a spell scroll) are single use semi- permanent items - that is they will last until activated after the creator locks the magic into it. Infusions are ALWAYS temporary being tied to the artificer’s life force in some way. This is (to me) self evident from the fact that they fad3 out when the artificer dies. The enchantments of a regular mage are not linked to their lives and survive their deaths intact. So the mage creates the tattoo needle and enchants it with the spell the tattoo represents and the ability to become a tattoo without activating the spell (or the rest of the spell if you prefer). When the wearer of the tattoo activates it it functions just like they had read a scroll so they are the “caster” of the spell. The artificer is only slightly different but that difference is very important - they are not tiring of the magic of the world locking it into the object forever (until activated) they are linking a piece of their life force to it until activated. They can only have so many active at once since more would start to sap their life force and they would ( if it were somehow possible) start losing HPs for each extra infusion. In my campaign I actually allow this but as long as the extra infusions are active (and the needle and tattoo are considered active) you are down 1/#infusions possible to you of your HP. Further, if you use the extra infusion for something like the tattoo then when the spell is activated you lose those HP permanently. If you use it for something like enhance weapon then when you stop the infusion you regain those HPs.
I think I'm reading this correctly. Artificers gain access to all Common level items as part of the Replicate Magic Item Infusion. Spellwrought Tattoos that allow one to cast Cantrips and 1st level spells are Common. 2nd level Artificers have easy access to any Cantrip or 1st level spell and it negates the Material component. Once your Artificer gets to level 2, every member of your party can have a familiar.
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 permanentitems.
The concept of the infusion of prototypes of permanent items fits in with the condition of Replicate Magic Item, "not including potions or scrolls" as they can be considered impermanent on grounds of being consumable.
Spellwrought tattoos are also consumable so, arguably, they also don't count.
Let’s see, you are a L6+ artificer so you can have 3 infusions active at a time. One is on your armor, one is on your primary weapon and you have a third still available that you are actually going to use to create a spell wrought tattoo of find familiar (really? Not your secondary weapon?, not a bag of holding?, not one of other really useful items but a tattoo of find familiar? - RIGHT!) So you do so and get yourself a familiar. Your buddy thinks “That’s cool I want one too” and asks you for the tattoo not understanding your abilities. So, you ( not fully understanding either) agree and the next morning you gift them with the arcane needle infusion that they apply to their skin and then activate your spell/infusion - and poof your familiar spirit goes poof and reappears around them listening to them and not you. It is after all still your casting not theirs they just activated it they didn’t actually cast it.
I don't think this bolded part is correct. Pretty sure the user is the one that casts the spell.
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 permanentitems.
The concept of the infusion of prototypes of permanent items fits in with the condition of Replicate Magic Item, "not including potions or scrolls" as they can be considered impermanent on grounds of being consumable.
Spellwrought tattoos are also consumable so, arguably, they also don't count.
So you're saying I read that incorrectly? I mean you say arguably, but I think that's a houserule. A reasonable one, maybe, but still a houserule.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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!
Possibly. The line about making effective prototypes of permanent magic items could be interpreted as both flavor text and RAW. When the class was made, the spellwrought tattoo did not exist. The intent, regardless of whatever people want to argue the RAW actually is, is obvious; the tattoo is taboo. It wouldn't be the first hiccup with something in Tasha's. And we might see clarification in the pending Rules Expansion Gift Set due early next year. Some errata is probably to be expected.
Which could render this entire thread a pointless exercise.
Tattoos should be considered expendable like scrolls and potions but right now they show up as possible replicateable items here in DDB so we do have a problem till some errata come out. People keep quoting the wrong part of this:
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 permanentitems.
The they want to use the bolder part (from an earlier post not Tasha’s) when the key part is the word prototype. Prototypes are not permanent, and the artificer’s infusions especially aren’t since they (seem to be) powered in some way by a piece of the artificer’s life force/force of will. In an enchanted tattoo the magic effect (borrowing terminology from FR) is woven permanently into the needle and it’s tattoo at the time of enchantment to be released at the time it is activated by someone else. In the case of the artificer’s prototype the magical effect is held in the needle and tattoo by the artificer’s will ( or life force) until it is activated. The activation is done by the user but the power of the effect is from the artificer not from some woven in magical energy. It is that will that powers it so if the artificer surrenders that portion of his will life force/ whatever to do a different infusion (or dies) the needle/tattoo ceases to have any magical “energy” and fades out. Only if the artificer is still focused on the tattoo at the time of activation would it actually work. Sorry if I wasn’t quite clear in earlier posts.
Prototypes are not permanent, and the artificer’s infusions especially aren’t since they (seem to be) powered in some way by a piece of the artificer’s life force/force of will. In an enchanted tattoo the magic effect (borrowing terminology from FR) is woven permanently into the needle and it’s tattoo at the time of enchantment to be released at the time it is activated by someone else. In the case of the artificer’s prototype the magical effect is held in the needle and tattoo by the artificer’s will ( or life force) until it is activated. The activation is done by the user but the power of the effect is from the artificer not from some woven in magical energy. It is that will that powers it so if the artificer surrenders that portion of his will life force/ whatever to do a different infusion (or dies) the needle/tattoo ceases to have any magical “energy” and fades out. Only if the artificer is still focused on the tattoo at the time of activation would it actually work. Sorry if I wasn’t quite clear in earlier posts.
All reasonable sounding, but none of it grounded it rules. The rules say that the caster is the user of the item. Following that, a familiar is an instant effect, which means it stays around until killed, dispelled, or dismissed. Even if the Artificer dies it would still stick around.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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!
Let’s see, you are a L6+ artificer so you can have 3 infusions active at a time. One is on your armor, one is on your primary weapon and you have a third still available that you are actually going to use to create a spell wrought tattoo of find familiar (really? Not your secondary weapon?, not a bag of holding?, not one of other really useful items but a tattoo of find familiar? - RIGHT!) So you do so and get yourself a familiar. Your buddy thinks “That’s cool I want one too” and asks you for the tattoo not understanding your abilities. So, you ( not fully understanding either) agree and the next morning you gift them with the arcane needle infusion that they apply to their skin and then activate your spell/infusion - and poof your familiar spirit goes poof and reappears around them listening to them and not you. It is after all still your casting not theirs they just activated it they didn’t actually cast it.
I don't think this bolded part is correct. Pretty sure the user is the one that casts the spell.
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 permanentitems.
The concept of the infusion of prototypes of permanent items fits in with the condition of Replicate Magic Item, "not including potions or scrolls" as they can be considered impermanent on grounds of being consumable.
Spellwrought tattoos are also consumable so, arguably, they also don't count.
So you're saying I read that incorrectly? I mean you say arguably, but I think that's a houserule. A reasonable one, maybe, but still a houserule.
I'm saying that you read out of context (which I think many of us have done for a long time).
Yes, we read:
Replicate Magic Item
Using this infusion, you replicate a particular magic item. You can learn this infusion multiple times; each time you do so, choose a magic item that you can make with it, picking from the Replicable Items tables. A table’s title tells you the level you must be in the class to choose an item from the table. Alternatively, you can choose the magic item from among the common magic items in the game, not including potions or scrolls.
However, SAC says:
RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
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 permanentitems.
The context in time is that Xanathar's with its spellwrought tattoos hadn't been written when the Eberron book was published.
The context of worldbuilding is that, in many conceptions, it would be ****ed if artificers could infuse consumable tattoos. Familiars could become incredibly common, adventurers could get inked up with as many tats of shield etc as they think they might use in a day, and Hogwarts would close in favour of an artificer technical college to cater for all those wanting to enter more immediately lucrative lines of work.
Prototypes are not permanent, and the artificer’s infusions especially aren’t since they (seem to be) powered in some way by a piece of the artificer’s life force/force of will. In an enchanted tattoo the magic effect (borrowing terminology from FR) is woven permanently into the needle and it’s tattoo at the time of enchantment to be released at the time it is activated by someone else. In the case of the artificer’s prototype the magical effect is held in the needle and tattoo by the artificer’s will ( or life force) until it is activated. The activation is done by the user but the power of the effect is from the artificer not from some woven in magical energy. It is that will that powers it so if the artificer surrenders that portion of his will life force/ whatever to do a different infusion (or dies) the needle/tattoo ceases to have any magical “energy” and fades out. Only if the artificer is still focused on the tattoo at the time of activation would it actually work. Sorry if I wasn’t quite clear in earlier posts.
All reasonable sounding, but none of it grounded it rules. The rules say that the caster is the user of the item. Following that, a familiar is an instant effect, which means it stays around until killed, dispelled, or dismissed. Even if the Artificer dies it would still stick around.
The issue is whether or not the spellwrought tattoo is even a valid choice. And I think it's fair to say, because it's a temporary magical item, that it's not a valid target for an infusion.
Prototypes are not permanent, and the artificer’s infusions especially aren’t since they (seem to be) powered in some way by a piece of the artificer’s life force/force of will. In an enchanted tattoo the magic effect (borrowing terminology from FR) is woven permanently into the needle and it’s tattoo at the time of enchantment to be released at the time it is activated by someone else. In the case of the artificer’s prototype the magical effect is held in the needle and tattoo by the artificer’s will ( or life force) until it is activated. The activation is done by the user but the power of the effect is from the artificer not from some woven in magical energy. It is that will that powers it so if the artificer surrenders that portion of his will life force/ whatever to do a different infusion (or dies) the needle/tattoo ceases to have any magical “energy” and fades out. Only if the artificer is still focused on the tattoo at the time of activation would it actually work. Sorry if I wasn’t quite clear in earlier posts.
All reasonable sounding, but none of it grounded it rules. The rules say that the caster is the user of the item. Following that, a familiar is an instant effect, which means it stays around until killed, dispelled, or dismissed. Even if the Artificer dies it would still stick around.
The issue is whether or not the spellwrought tattoo is even a valid choice. And I think it's fair to say, because it's a temporary magical item, that it's not a valid target for an infusion.
Yep, as far as RAI is concerned, it's about as grounded as you can get.
I’m with you that the tattoo should not be a valid choice here is the problem: when making a character in DDB and taking the replicate item infusion when you read the text for it and the lists of what can be replicated the tattoos are not there, but when you scroll through the options you can select they are. So many folks think they can take these disposable items and then compound the problem by making tens to hundreds of them assuming that once the needle was used to make the tattoo the infusion is freed for the next one and the spell can still be cast from the tattoo. IMO this is clearly broken since the tattoo is not a permanent item. So how do you explain it if your going to allow it? ( Obviously the best route is to simply ban it and tell players they have to stick to the published lists not the selection options which appear to be broken) Anything forces the discussion past RAW to RAI , and that calls for deeper dive into the rest of the artificer and infusion text to see if their is a common underlining theme that can be used to explain what must be happening to allow the tattoo to function in an unbroken way. Hence my explanation. It’s my current take on how the artificer and their infusions etc work.
There are lots of problems with D&D beyond. Just look at wizards. Improved Minor Illusion doesn't check to see if your character already has the cantrip from another source. Transmuter's Stone isn't something players can toggle to give themselves the appropriate bonus. Heck, if you're a barbarian and have armor equipped it will still use your Unarmored Defense if that total is higher. Now, personally, I think that's how it's supposed to work. But the official line is no, so to have it reflect accurately you need to build your character so as not to have them conflict with the software.
And these have been known for years. Fixing them just isn't a priority. There are limitations to working with D&D Beyond. We have to recognize them if we're to be successful.
Not arguing any of that. Still, many folks using it think it’s actually WOtC and everything here is taken as gospel leading to discussions like this. Between that and WOtC frequently wording things in an obtuse way so RAW is confusing at best.
Prototypes are not permanent, and the artificer’s infusions especially aren’t since they (seem to be) powered in some way by a piece of the artificer’s life force/force of will. In an enchanted tattoo the magic effect (borrowing terminology from FR) is woven permanently into the needle and it’s tattoo at the time of enchantment to be released at the time it is activated by someone else. In the case of the artificer’s prototype the magical effect is held in the needle and tattoo by the artificer’s will ( or life force) until it is activated. The activation is done by the user but the power of the effect is from the artificer not from some woven in magical energy. It is that will that powers it so if the artificer surrenders that portion of his will life force/ whatever to do a different infusion (or dies) the needle/tattoo ceases to have any magical “energy” and fades out. Only if the artificer is still focused on the tattoo at the time of activation would it actually work. Sorry if I wasn’t quite clear in earlier posts.
All reasonable sounding, but none of it grounded it rules. The rules say that the caster is the user of the item. Following that, a familiar is an instant effect, which means it stays around until killed, dispelled, or dismissed. Even if the Artificer dies it would still stick around.
The issue is whether or not the spellwrought tattoo is even a valid choice. And I think it's fair to say, because it's a temporary magical item, that it's not a valid target for an infusion.
Yep, as far as RAI is concerned, it's about as grounded as you can get.
There is no rule that says artificer infusions cannot be consumable or one use items, it is just the rule that they specifically cannot be potions or scrolls. I see what you mean, that it could be intended that way. You're right, that's fairly strong evidence for RAI, but as grounded as it gets for RAI is still not very grounded in terms of RAW.
Prototypes are not permanent, and the artificer’s infusions especially aren’t since they (seem to be) powered in some way by a piece of the artificer’s life force/force of will. In an enchanted tattoo the magic effect (borrowing terminology from FR) is woven permanently into the needle and it’s tattoo at the time of enchantment to be released at the time it is activated by someone else. In the case of the artificer’s prototype the magical effect is held in the needle and tattoo by the artificer’s will ( or life force) until it is activated. The activation is done by the user but the power of the effect is from the artificer not from some woven in magical energy. It is that will that powers it so if the artificer surrenders that portion of his will life force/ whatever to do a different infusion (or dies) the needle/tattoo ceases to have any magical “energy” and fades out. Only if the artificer is still focused on the tattoo at the time of activation would it actually work. Sorry if I wasn’t quite clear in earlier posts.
All reasonable sounding, but none of it grounded it rules. The rules say that the caster is the user of the item. Following that, a familiar is an instant effect, which means it stays around until killed, dispelled, or dismissed. Even if the Artificer dies it would still stick around.
The issue is whether or not the spellwrought tattoo is even a valid choice. And I think it's fair to say, because it's a temporary magical item, that it's not a valid target for an infusion.
Yep, as far as RAI is concerned, it's about as grounded as you can get.
There is no rule that says artificer infusions cannot be consumable or one use items, it is just the rule that they specifically cannot be potions or scrolls. I see what you mean, that it could be intended that way. You're right, that's fairly strong evidence for RAI, but as grounded as it gets for RAI is still not very grounded in terms of RAW.
No such rule exists because the rules are generally not written in the prohibitive. They tell you what you can do, not what you cannot. You know this. The line, "Well, the rules don't say I can't," doesn't fly and never has. True, the specific infusion, Replicate Magic Item, only explicitly excludes potions and scrolls. And it expressly permits any other common magic item. It's also true the feature the infusion falls under, Infuse Item, is only designed to create, "prototypes of permanent items."
Barring the catch-all for common magic items, there are prescribed lists of the kinds of magic items that can be replicated. None of them are consumable or otherwise has a finite number of charges. And those that do have charges always replenish them and are of no risk of being destroyed after the final charge is expended.
There is seemingly a contradiction. The question is, is the text of Replicate Magic Item sufficient to create an exception to the general rule of only replicating permanent magic items? And I don't believe there's a RAW answer for that. That's a matter of opinion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'd be inclined to disagree - firstly because TCE already addresses the enforcement issue you mentioned by differentiating the items by rarity rather than any other factor. Any common tattoo regardless of spell occupies a given amount of space on the body, while any uncommon tattoo regardless of spell occupies a different amount of space. It's true that they are found with a spell already within and no mechanism exists to change which spell one has, but I would argue that a ring of spell storing found with five casts of catapult is the same item as a ring of spell storing found with one cast of animate objects. The difference here is that the rules do not provide clear guidance on how the Replicate Magic Item infusion deals with items that have variants... however, other Infusions actually DO address that point rather well. You don't take an Infusion of "Enhanced Sword" or "Enhanced Crossbow", you take "Enhanced Weapon" and apply that +1/+2 to whatever you want. There is a precedent for flexibility.
And frankly... Artificers aren't going to break your game by sacrificing one of their valuable infusion slots to cast a 1st level spell once per day, even if they are allowed to go outside the Artificer list and pick a different spell each time. In fact, given the theme of the class is flexibility through magic items and the class has a distinct lack of flexibility in their spellbook compared to Wizards, I would argue that it's highly appropriate for them to have that option. Especially given that they have to plan ahead, and can't just pick from the whole game's spell list the moment they need the spell or anything crazy like that.
It rewards forethought, grants flexibility, and has extremely low potential to be disruptive or imbalanced. I'd allow it.
(Answering to the first post)I think it's not because if you look into the artificer infusions it says [You can infuse more than one nonmagical object at the end of a long rest; the maximum number of objects appears in the Infused Items column of the Artificer table. You must touch each of the objects, and each of your infusions can be in only one object at a time. Moreover, no object can bear more than one of your infusions at a time. If you try to exceed your maximum number of infusions, the oldest infusion immediately ends, and then the new infusion applies.]
In my opinion, that means that you can't have infinite spellwrought tatoos at the same time, because the ink is still part of the infusion, and if you try to use it more, it dissapears and so does the find familiar spell, cause it's part of the effect of the infusion. If it's still not enough, it would be up to the DM that the players can only put cantrips and spells that they can use (that are in their spell list).
Let’s see, you are a L6+ artificer so you can have 3 infusions active at a time. One is on your armor, one is on your primary weapon and you have a third still available that you are actually going to use to create a spell wrought tattoo of find familiar (really? Not your secondary weapon?, not a bag of holding?, not one of other really useful items but a tattoo of find familiar? - RIGHT!) So you do so and get yourself a familiar. Your buddy thinks “That’s cool I want one too” and asks you for the tattoo not understanding your abilities. So, you ( not fully understanding either) agree and the next morning you gift them with the arcane needle infusion that they apply to their skin and then activate your spell/infusion - and poof your familiar spirit goes poof and reappears around them listening to them and not you. It is after all still your casting not theirs they just activated it they didn’t actually cast it. The find familiar spell is actually quite clear about this - if you recast it the old familiar poofs away and then returns in what ever new form is desired. Your original infusion is no more since you activated it providing the original familiar spirit and making it possible to create a new infusion without losing the one you did on your armor/weapon. But the infusion was activated from a new person so your old spirit is now attached to your friend and not you. ( this is a case where the activation of the spell is instantaneous but the effect of binding the spirit to you is permanent. So it’s still the same spirit each time you redo the infusionl but the presence of the infusion on a different person links the result to the new person so they get your familiar.)
definitly not game breaking but to me the entire concept is whiteroom trash created without really thinking through what the character is, has and needs to be doing in game. One of the reasons that find familiar is NOT on the artificer’s spell list is because the homonculus IS in its infusions list - the Homonculus IS the artificer’s familiar.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
but spell wrought tattoo says the one with the tattoo on them is casting the spell. it says while the tattoo is on you you can cast the spell. of course all this talk of find familiar ignores the real elephant in the room. spells with a duration but no concentration. take gift of alacrity you cast it and the tattoo glows for 8 hours. a glowing tattoo is still on you so you should still be able to cast the spell again and nothing says the first one would end. so you should by multiple minutes be able to cast gift of alacrity to the entire party with a single tattoo. of course when the first spell ends so would the rest but still pretty broken at lvl 2
I went thru this before in a different thread here but here goes -again. The infusion is powering the magic so the infusion is still present until the final step is activated. That means that the artificer places the infusion initially in the needle but it is there to power the eventual spell - no infusion no spell. When the artificer or someone else uses the needle to create the tattoo the magic of the needle (the infusion) is transferred to the tattoo. When the tattoo is activated the infusion powers the spell and only then is it gone and with that the artificer’s infusion slot. So if you have 3 infusion slots you can create the tattoo , you could even technically create 3 tattoos as long as they are powering different spells but you can’t have any other infusions until one of the tattoos is activated - or if you choose to do a new infusion the oldest tattoo fades off the body of whoever has it as the infusion in it fades out while the new one comes online. You can’t have 2 of the same spell as that breaks the infusion rule that you can’t have two of the same infusion active.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
This the hard part for a lot of folks it seems: enchantments ( like the tattoo needle or a spell scroll) are single use semi- permanent items - that is they will last until activated after the creator locks the magic into it. Infusions are ALWAYS temporary being tied to the artificer’s life force in some way. This is (to me) self evident from the fact that they fad3 out when the artificer dies. The enchantments of a regular mage are not linked to their lives and survive their deaths intact. So the mage creates the tattoo needle and enchants it with the spell the tattoo represents and the ability to become a tattoo without activating the spell (or the rest of the spell if you prefer). When the wearer of the tattoo activates it it functions just like they had read a scroll so they are the “caster” of the spell. The artificer is only slightly different but that difference is very important - they are not tiring of the magic of the world locking it into the object forever (until activated) they are linking a piece of their life force to it until activated. They can only have so many active at once since more would start to sap their life force and they would ( if it were somehow possible) start losing HPs for each extra infusion. In my campaign I actually allow this but as long as the extra infusions are active (and the needle and tattoo are considered active) you are down 1/#infusions possible to you of your HP. Further, if you use the extra infusion for something like the tattoo then when the spell is activated you lose those HP permanently. If you use it for something like enhance weapon then when you stop the infusion you regain those HPs.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Back to the OP.
Infuse Item
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.
The concept of the infusion of prototypes of permanent items fits in with the condition of Replicate Magic Item, "not including potions or scrolls" as they can be considered impermanent on grounds of being consumable.
Spellwrought tattoos are also consumable so, arguably, they also don't count.
I don't think this bolded part is correct. Pretty sure the user is the one that casts the spell.
So you're saying I read that incorrectly? I mean you say arguably, but I think that's a houserule. A reasonable one, maybe, but still a houserule.
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!
Possibly. The line about making effective prototypes of permanent magic items could be interpreted as both flavor text and RAW. When the class was made, the spellwrought tattoo did not exist. The intent, regardless of whatever people want to argue the RAW actually is, is obvious; the tattoo is taboo. It wouldn't be the first hiccup with something in Tasha's. And we might see clarification in the pending Rules Expansion Gift Set due early next year. Some errata is probably to be expected.
Which could render this entire thread a pointless exercise.
Tattoos should be considered expendable like scrolls and potions but right now they show up as possible replicateable items here in DDB so we do have a problem till some errata come out. People keep quoting the wrong part of this:
Infuse Item
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.
The they want to use the bolder part (from an earlier post not Tasha’s) when the key part is the word prototype. Prototypes are not permanent, and the artificer’s infusions especially aren’t since they (seem to be) powered in some way by a piece of the artificer’s life force/force of will. In an enchanted tattoo the magic effect (borrowing terminology from FR) is woven permanently into the needle and it’s tattoo at the time of enchantment to be released at the time it is activated by someone else. In the case of the artificer’s prototype the magical effect is held in the needle and tattoo by the artificer’s will ( or life force) until it is activated. The activation is done by the user but the power of the effect is from the artificer not from some woven in magical energy. It is that will that powers it so if the artificer surrenders that portion of his will life force/ whatever to do a different infusion (or dies) the needle/tattoo ceases to have any magical “energy” and fades out. Only if the artificer is still focused on the tattoo at the time of activation would it actually work. Sorry if I wasn’t quite clear in earlier posts.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
All reasonable sounding, but none of it grounded it rules. The rules say that the caster is the user of the item. Following that, a familiar is an instant effect, which means it stays around until killed, dispelled, or dismissed. Even if the Artificer dies it would still stick around.
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!
I'm saying that you read out of context (which I think many of us have done for a long time).
Yes, we read:
Replicate Magic Item
Using this infusion, you replicate a particular magic item. You can learn this infusion multiple times; each time you do so, choose a magic item that you can make with it, picking from the Replicable Items tables. A table’s title tells you the level you must be in the class to choose an item from the table. Alternatively, you can choose the magic item from among the common magic items in the game, not including potions or scrolls.
However, SAC says:
RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
The context in the feature indicates:
Infuse Item
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.
The context in time is that Xanathar's with its spellwrought tattoos hadn't been written when the Eberron book was published.
The context of worldbuilding is that, in many conceptions, it would be ****ed if artificers could infuse consumable tattoos. Familiars could become incredibly common, adventurers could get inked up with as many tats of shield etc as they think they might use in a day, and Hogwarts would close in favour of an artificer technical college to cater for all those wanting to enter more immediately lucrative lines of work.
The issue is whether or not the spellwrought tattoo is even a valid choice. And I think it's fair to say, because it's a temporary magical item, that it's not a valid target for an infusion.
Yep, as far as RAI is concerned, it's about as grounded as you can get.
I’m with you that the tattoo should not be a valid choice here is the problem: when making a character in DDB and taking the replicate item infusion when you read the text for it and the lists of what can be replicated the tattoos are not there, but when you scroll through the options you can select they are. So many folks think they can take these disposable items and then compound the problem by making tens to hundreds of them assuming that once the needle was used to make the tattoo the infusion is freed for the next one and the spell can still be cast from the tattoo. IMO this is clearly broken since the tattoo is not a permanent item. So how do you explain it if your going to allow it? ( Obviously the best route is to simply ban it and tell players they have to stick to the published lists not the selection options which appear to be broken) Anything forces the discussion past RAW to RAI , and that calls for deeper dive into the rest of the artificer and infusion text to see if their is a common underlining theme that can be used to explain what must be happening to allow the tattoo to function in an unbroken way. Hence my explanation. It’s my current take on how the artificer and their infusions etc work.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
There are lots of problems with D&D beyond. Just look at wizards. Improved Minor Illusion doesn't check to see if your character already has the cantrip from another source. Transmuter's Stone isn't something players can toggle to give themselves the appropriate bonus. Heck, if you're a barbarian and have armor equipped it will still use your Unarmored Defense if that total is higher. Now, personally, I think that's how it's supposed to work. But the official line is no, so to have it reflect accurately you need to build your character so as not to have them conflict with the software.
And these have been known for years. Fixing them just isn't a priority. There are limitations to working with D&D Beyond. We have to recognize them if we're to be successful.
Not arguing any of that. Still, many folks using it think it’s actually WOtC and everything here is taken as gospel leading to discussions like this. Between that and WOtC frequently wording things in an obtuse way so RAW is confusing at best.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
There is no rule that says artificer infusions cannot be consumable or one use items, it is just the rule that they specifically cannot be potions or scrolls. I see what you mean, that it could be intended that way. You're right, that's fairly strong evidence for RAI, but as grounded as it gets for RAI is still not very grounded in terms of RAW.
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!
And won’t be unless an errata or a sage advice on it comes out.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
No such rule exists because the rules are generally not written in the prohibitive. They tell you what you can do, not what you cannot. You know this. The line, "Well, the rules don't say I can't," doesn't fly and never has. True, the specific infusion, Replicate Magic Item, only explicitly excludes potions and scrolls. And it expressly permits any other common magic item. It's also true the feature the infusion falls under, Infuse Item, is only designed to create, "prototypes of permanent items."
Barring the catch-all for common magic items, there are prescribed lists of the kinds of magic items that can be replicated. None of them are consumable or otherwise has a finite number of charges. And those that do have charges always replenish them and are of no risk of being destroyed after the final charge is expended.
There is seemingly a contradiction. The question is, is the text of Replicate Magic Item sufficient to create an exception to the general rule of only replicating permanent magic items? And I don't believe there's a RAW answer for that. That's a matter of opinion.