Don’t have a lot of time today, so I can’t be as verbose as I usually am on the subject. But a comment elsewhere in the artificer forum spoke again of the ‘greediness’ of artificers who retain their infusions for their own use, and it spiked my blood pressure. Rather than respond in that thread and yank it firmly off topic, I’ve decided to simply post a PSA I can link to whenever someone else yells at an artificer for “being greedy” by keeping their infusions.
Point by point:
1.) My infusions are MY CLASS FEATURES. I don’t get many class features outside of Infusions. Nobody expects a wizard to rip pages out of their spellbook and hand them to other people so that person can cast spells. Nobody expects a druid to undergo a ritual blood transfusion to give away their ability to Wild Shape to someone else. Nobody expects the rogue to cut off their highly trained, nimble-fingered hands and sew them onto the barbarian so the barbarian can have Expertise and locksmithing skills. Why should other people expect me to give away my class features and leave myself woefully unprepared to Adventure alongside them?
2.) Artificers are always at the bottom of the loot pool. A.L.W.A.Y.S. Every single adventuring group in D&D, without fail, tells the artificer “You can just make magic items, you don’t need our found loot too!” and only gives the artificer a share of the spoils when nobody else wants a given item. We put up with this because they are, partially, correct – an artificer can learn Infusions to cover the fact that they do not ever get a share of party loot. Which works – up until the party gets mad that the artificer is “Being Greedy” with their infusions and demands the artificer give away all their created loot, as well. Suddenly, we’re stuck with absolutely no gear or cool items because the party is allowed to be greedy with loot, but the artificer is expected to be Kind and Generous and Selfless with their class features? Screw that noise.
3.) My infusions are required for most of my other class features, as they act as spellcasting foci. Some subclasses (the Armorer in particular) are entirely reliant on their infusions to keep them going and perform very poorly if they’re forced by peer pressure to give away all their stuff. An artificer with no infusions is an artificer with limited ability to cast its spells, limited access to its Spell-Storing Item feature, and almost no ability to take advantage of Magic Item Adept/Savant/Master or Soul of Artifice at higher levels.
STOP demanding that artificers “not be greedy” by keeping their class features for themselves. You do not get to have your cake and eat it too – you get a full suite of class features built into whatever class you decided to play, you don’t get to bully the artificer into giving you their class features and also cut them out of the party’s loot finds. That’s called “being an *******”, and it’s a lot worse than being ‘greedy’. If your party’s artificer doesn’t want to give you their infusions? Deal with it, move on, and console yourself with the fact that the DM will never let that artificer find anything useful for them anyways and all the loot is always for everyone else in the party.
If somebody called somebody else greedy at my table they would be warned about keeping things civil and then kicked out of the group if they persist. This is a rule in general not just for Artificers. Most of use deal with annoying whiny and sometimes just outright rude people way too often in our everyday lives. Bringing that kind of behavior to the gaming table where people are just trying to unwind and have some fun is something I would not tolerate both as a player and a part time DM.
There is a difference between asking politely if the Artificer could make you something to demanding them do it. If asked nicely I would probably give them a infusion, but if they demand it I would just refuse to do it on principal.
It's greedy the same way a caster using their concentration in such a way that only benefits themselves rather the party as a whole. E.g anyone who thinks dropping darkness to spike their personal damage at the expenses of the party's options is a good move.
If said infusion would be more effective on another character and the artificer's only reasoning to not pass it on is "it's my feature. Go get your own." That is the very definition of greedy. Well maybe jealousy.
I have no idea what a lot pool is. If your players are dull enough to fail at basic reasoning I would probably find a new group.
Even then, who cares of the artificer is last in line for found items. They still have infusions on top of the ability to attune to more items and later on to items regardless of requirements. Being last is a complement to the competence of the player not a attack on a class.
Saying a artificer is greedy isn't bullying them into anything. If your table is counting the infusions against you in determining what is available to the party. Fine a new group. Hoarding resources isn't going to change a toxic table.
I think you're saying that artificers should give away all of their infusions(I've found that Artificers are absurdly weak without them. This makes it easier for the artificer to die, which ends infusions after ~4 days) and also that artificers don't deserve loot because they can make their own(But they can't, because they've given all their class features to other party members).
That's the whole point of my post, Stout. if the artificer is last in line for found items and then also required to give up every last single infusion they have to the "more effective characters" in the party, they get nothing. Their infusions don't matter because according to your logic the artificer never gets to keep them. The artificer's ability to attune to more items doesn't matter because they never have any items to attune to in the first place - because it's More Effective(TM) for the artificer to give away all their shit to other people. At least, other people think it's more effective if they get to have Cool Shit at the expense of the artificer never being effective in their role.
Why should an artificer player persist at a table where she is expected to be nothing but a magic item pez dispenser who's never allowed to benefit from her abilities herself, nor benefit from the party's adventuring?
It's greedy the same way a caster using their concentration in such a way that only benefits themselves rather the party as a whole. E.g anyone who thinks dropping darkness to spike their personal damage at the expenses of the party's options is a good move.
If said infusion would be more effective on another character and the artificer's only reasoning to not pass it on is "it's my feature. Go get your own." That is the very definition of greedy. Well maybe jealousy.
I have no idea what a lot pool is. If your players are dull enough to fail at basic reasoning I would probably find a new group.
Even then, who cares of the artificer is last in line for found items. They still have infusions on top of the ability to attune to more items and later on to items regardless of requirements. Being last is a complement to the competence of the player not a attack on a class.
Saying a artificer is greedy isn't bullying them into anything. If your table is counting the infusions against you in determining what is available to the party. Fine a new group. Hoarding resources isn't going to change a toxic table.
I think you're saying that artificers should give away all of their infusions(I've found that Artificers are absurdly weak without them. This makes it easier for the artificer to die, which ends infusions after ~4 days) and also that artificers don't deserve loot because they can make their own(But they can't, because they've given all their class features to other party members).
Yep, that's what I got from this as well, which ironically make the other players sound like the greedy and jealous ones. "We want all your magically infused items so we can be stronger, also all the loot is ours since you can make magic items.....that we then demand you give to us."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
At the end of the day, an Artificer has just as much right to use their own infusions as a Paladin does to use their Lay On Hands on themselves, or a Cleric does to use anything other then healing spells. We are not advocating that an Artificer never be a team player, I'm sure many Artificers have given infusions to player. I certainly have with my characters. However, Artificers are allowed to use infusions on themselves as well.
Edit: Confused Bardic inspiration with something else.
Edit Edit: It was Blade Flourish that I was thinking of from the Swords Bard.
It's greedy the same way a caster using their concentration in such a way that only benefits themselves rather the party as a whole. E.g anyone who thinks dropping darkness to spike their personal damage at the expenses of the party's options is a good move.
If said infusion would be more effective on another character and the artificer's only reasoning to not pass it on is "it's my feature. Go get your own." That is the very definition of greedy. Well maybe jealousy.
I have no idea what a lot pool is. If your players are dull enough to fail at basic reasoning I would probably find a new group.
Even then, who cares of the artificer is last in line for found items. They still have infusions on top of the ability to attune to more items and later on to items regardless of requirements. Being last is a complement to the competence of the player not a attack on a class.
Saying a artificer is greedy isn't bullying them into anything. If your table is counting the infusions against you in determining what is available to the party. Fine a new group. Hoarding resources isn't going to change a toxic table.
I think you're saying that artificers should give away all of their infusions(I've found that Artificers are absurdly weak without them. This makes it easier for the artificer to die, which ends infusions after ~4 days) and also that artificers don't deserve loot because they can make their own(But they can't, because they've given all their class features to other party members).
Depending on party makeup they could safely pass out all of their infusions. In real table play, I would say 50% of infusions being on someone else is the best break point in a 4-5 man party.
I never said artificer doesn't deserve any found items. I specially stated that infusion should have absolutely no impact on what is found but obviously they should be taking consideration for what the artificial has available with their infusions.
if the party finds a +2 weapon that means the fighter no longer gets anything out of that infusion so that infusion floats back to the artificer to re-examine the party as a whole and go from there. They are constantly identifying and eliminating weak links in the party.
I would say whoever is usually the last to be considered for items is the most competent player regardless of the class they are. I would assume anybody they could play this class effectively has to be a competent player because it's just a more complex class. Being last might be a correlation but not caused by being an artificer.
Now you've moved to a third conflicting argument. Here it's that you never said what you said first. You're saying that an artificer's infusions on themselves should matter for loot distribution, but you still think another party member(Who you're suggested should have 50% of the artificer's infusions) should get plenty of additional magic items?
It's greedy the same way a caster using their concentration in such a way that only benefits themselves rather the party as a whole. E.g anyone who thinks dropping darkness to spike their personal damage at the expenses of the party's options is a good move.
If said infusion would be more effective on another character and the artificer's only reasoning to not pass it on is "it's my feature. Go get your own." That is the very definition of greedy. Well maybe jealousy.
I have no idea what a lot pool is. If your players are dull enough to fail at basic reasoning I would probably find a new group.
Even then, who cares of the artificer is last in line for found items. They still have infusions on top of the ability to attune to more items and later on to items regardless of requirements. Being last is a complement to the competence of the player not a attack on a class.
Saying a artificer is greedy isn't bullying them into anything. If your table is counting the infusions against you in determining what is available to the party. Fine a new group. Hoarding resources isn't going to change a toxic table.
I think you're saying that artificers should give away all of their infusions(I've found that Artificers are absurdly weak without them. This makes it easier for the artificer to die, which ends infusions after ~4 days) and also that artificers don't deserve loot because they can make their own(But they can't, because they've given all their class features to other party members).
Depending on party makeup they could safely pass out all of their infusions. In real table play, I would say 50% of infusions being on someone else is the best break point in a 4-5 man party.
I never said artificer doesn't deserve any found items. I specially stated that infusion should have absolutely no impact on what is found but obviously they should be taking consideration for what the artificial has available with their infusions.
if the party finds a +2 weapon that means the fighter no longer gets anything out of that infusion so that infusion floats back to the artificer to re-examine the party as a whole and go from there. They are constantly identifying and eliminating weak links in the party.
I would say whoever is usually the last to be considered for items is the most competent player regardless of the class they are. I would assume anybody they could play this class effectively has to be a competent player because it's just a more complex class. Being last might be a correlation but not caused by being an artificer.
Now you've moved to a third conflicting argument. Here it's that you never said what you said first. You're saying that an artificer's infusions on themselves should matter for loot distribution, but you still think another party member(Who you're suggested should have 50% of the artificer's infusions) should get plenty of additional magic items?
If we're going to get into semantics I will use more precise language.
Infusions should never affect the nature of items found or items that are available within a game. With the exception of spellwrought tattoos. game Depending.
the fluidic nature of infusions allow for found magical items to be more impactful on the party overall. it doesn't matter who gets the item. I could have very well said that the party found an item that the artificer gets a lot of use out of therefore it frees up and infusions to pass on to someone else. A+B=B+A is normal but artificers have to think like A(B+C) vs B(A+C).
I am saying that a class does not necessarily determine the order in which magical items are distributed through a party. The biggest factor in my experience is the individual effectiveness of the player. a player that is better at positioning will get a lot less out of increased armor class because they tend to get hit less to begin with. A player who rarely makes concentration checks because they make sure they don't get hit to start with doesn't get a lot out of the mind sharpener. A player who is better at resource management doesn't get as much out of the spell refueling ring.
a player with the worst class race combination and supar weapons and items is still going to be more effective than somebody who doesn't know what they're doing with the best class race combination regardless of the items they have access to.
This doesn't seem like more precise language. This is an attempt to say "I didn't say this." without people noticing and pointing out when you said it.
Now, why would the artificer not get a part of the loot again? Didn't they participate?
If you're in the group, you get a share.
I mean, you gave a lot of reasons but honestly I didn't like them that much, but something more fitting would be the Wizard shouldn't get spell scrolls and wands/staves with spells in them, since he can already cast spells, the cleric shouldn't get healing potions or similar things since he can already heal. The rogue better not be sneaking about at night getting extra income without sharing that. You could argue that it's only fair to play with encumbrance rules, since one of your class abilities concerns a bag of holding. And that said, anyone that wanted you to help carrying stuff for them, could either let you get a honest share for your work AS A GROUP, or simply pay the bag tax at 50% of the value of anything that goes in there + a modest sum of 50g for each item as a base cost.
Or just play nice with each other. If this happened in a group I was in I'd bring it up with the DM and the group. I'm not greedy, I don't mind a rogue sneaking about and stealing a bunch of stuff getting some extra gold now and then as long as they accept the consequenses of their actions if they ever get caught, but you don't steal from the group and everyone gets a share... I wouldn't even mind if the others got most of the more "specific" items, like I woulnd't take a +2 greatsword just because it was my choice first and it was the most expensive item, when we have a greatsword wielder fighter in the group.. But when there's a specific item I'd like I expect to get it if I get crap all the rest of the time.
Still, like thelonelymagi said most of the time I'd probably even be lending my gear to my group anyways, but anyone demanding things wouldn't get far.
It's greedy the same way a caster using their concentration in such a way that only benefits themselves rather the party as a whole. E.g anyone who thinks dropping darkness to spike their personal damage at the expenses of the party's options is a good move.
If said infusion would be more effective on another character and the artificer's only reasoning to not pass it on is "it's my feature. Go get your own." That is the very definition of greedy. Well maybe jealousy.
I have no idea what a lot pool is. If your players are dull enough to fail at basic reasoning I would probably find a new group.
Even then, who cares of the artificer is last in line for found items. They still have infusions on top of the ability to attune to more items and later on to items regardless of requirements. Being last is a complement to the competence of the player not a attack on a class.
Saying a artificer is greedy isn't bullying them into anything. If your table is counting the infusions against you in determining what is available to the party. Fine a new group. Hoarding resources isn't going to change a toxic table.
I think you're saying that artificers should give away all of their infusions(I've found that Artificers are absurdly weak without them. This makes it easier for the artificer to die, which ends infusions after ~4 days) and also that artificers don't deserve loot because they can make their own(But they can't, because they've given all their class features to other party members).
Depending on party makeup they could safely pass out all of their infusions. In real table play, I would say 50% of infusions being on someone else is the best break point in a 4-5 man party.
I never said artificer doesn't deserve any found items. I specially stated that infusion should have absolutely no impact on what is found but obviously they should be taking consideration for what the artificial has available with their infusions.
if the party finds a +2 weapon that means the fighter no longer gets anything out of that infusion so that infusion floats back to the artificer to re-examine the party as a whole and go from there. They are constantly identifying and eliminating weak links in the party.
I would say whoever is usually the last to be considered for items is the most competent player regardless of the class they are. I would assume anybody they could play this class effectively has to be a competent player because it's just a more complex class. Being last might be a correlation but not caused by being an artificer.
Now you've moved to a third conflicting argument. Here it's that you never said what you said first. You're saying that an artificer's infusions on themselves should matter for loot distribution, but you still think another party member(Who you're suggested should have 50% of the artificer's infusions) should get plenty of additional magic items?
If we're going to get into semantics I will use more precise language.
Infusions should never affect the nature of items found or items that are available within a game. With the exception of spellwrought tattoos. game Depending.
the fluidic nature of infusions allow for found magical items to be more impactful on the party overall. it doesn't matter who gets the item. I could have very well said that the party found an item that the artificer gets a lot of use out of therefore it frees up and infusions to pass on to someone else. A+B=B+A is normal but artificers have to think like A(B+C) vs B(A+C).
I am saying that a class does not necessarily determine the order in which magical items are distributed through a party. The biggest factor in my experience is the individual effectiveness of the player. a player that is better at positioning will get a lot less out of increased armor class because they tend to get hit less to begin with. A player who rarely makes concentration checks because they make sure they don't get hit to start with doesn't get a lot out of the mind sharpener. A player who is better at resource management doesn't get as much out of the spell refueling ring.
a player with the worst class race combination and supar weapons and items is still going to be more effective than somebody who doesn't know what they're doing with the best class race combination regardless of the items they have access to.
This doesn't seem like more precise language. This is an attempt to say "I didn't say this." without people noticing and pointing out when you said it.
and that sounds like "I misinterpreted what you wrote and because you didn't verify what I thought you obviously wrote it wrong."
I just came up with a pretty good illustration of all this.
If it came out tomorrow that they updated the armorer so their level 9th feature no longer limited to those extra infusions to be used on themselves would the armorer be considered:
Just a general question to anyone. It's the only point where we could compare the value of infusions that can be shared vs not within published material.
To the people who actually play the armorer, it just puts more pressure on them to be useless. To the people who do the pressuring, they get more of the artificer's stuff.
May I offer my opinon? I'm pretty much with Yurei. The Infusions I pick for myself are one of the core features that make the artificer a real PC - instead of a pure item management system. An Artificer(especially armorer or battlesmith - I don't know about the other two, never really examined them better) will pretty much just be like a no trick pony.
Giving away your infusions is a pretty great feature - IF your character stays a REAL character while you do it. giving a fighter the +1(+2) infusion is pretty strong, but if my battlesmith cant attack with Int anymore she won't do ANYthing in battle.
Last thing I want to mention: You don't really get a big number of infusions known and even less active - you gotta make the best out of them. And by picking what makes your character effective you'll probably not pick what makes another character effective. I myself use the "repeating shot" infusion with Sharpshooter on my battlesmith - in my party I will benefit MOST from this infusion (even with 2 fighters in there). If another player would go into a "duel" situation where I have the time, of course I will give them ALL the infusions that could help them. But most of the time, I will wield my crossbow and wear my cloak and kick ass for myself. After level 10 I can build them some magic items that are permanent.
At this stage, I have to ask how many artificers you have actually played in how many groups for you to be so definitive about your "always"...
Stop calling into question people's experience and the authenticity of their statements. It's so freakin rude.
You don't need to have played with a million artificers to follow the logic. Heck, I've never touched an artificer and the logic tracks just fine for me. Every group I've ever played with tries to divy out magic items as equally as possible. It stands to reason that a class that creates its own "magic items" would be looked at by the group with a collective "nah, you've already got more than us."
This reminds me of the Berserker thread where someone kept arguing the exhaustion can be cured by Greater Restoration like it was just a given that a cleric/druid would want to spend precious diamond and a 5th level slot.
No one at the table owes anyone anything. Period. To demand another player's resources is callous, selfish and incredibly unfun for the person who is constantly being pestered. That kind of attitude is the real greed in the situation and has no place at the table.
Let the artificer do whatever the heck they want and be happy if they end up throwing you an infusion now and again. Telling people how to play their class is not okay (unless they specifically ask you for advice of course).
It makes me sad that this thread even exists. Stay strong artificers dealing with this BS.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Don’t have a lot of time today, so I can’t be as verbose as I usually am on the subject. But a comment elsewhere in the artificer forum spoke again of the ‘greediness’ of artificers who retain their infusions for their own use, and it spiked my blood pressure. Rather than respond in that thread and yank it firmly off topic, I’ve decided to simply post a PSA I can link to whenever someone else yells at an artificer for “being greedy” by keeping their infusions.
Point by point:
1.) My infusions are MY CLASS FEATURES. I don’t get many class features outside of Infusions. Nobody expects a wizard to rip pages out of their spellbook and hand them to other people so that person can cast spells. Nobody expects a druid to undergo a ritual blood transfusion to give away their ability to Wild Shape to someone else. Nobody expects the rogue to cut off their highly trained, nimble-fingered hands and sew them onto the barbarian so the barbarian can have Expertise and locksmithing skills. Why should other people expect me to give away my class features and leave myself woefully unprepared to Adventure alongside them?
2.) Artificers are always at the bottom of the loot pool. A.L.W.A.Y.S. Every single adventuring group in D&D, without fail, tells the artificer “You can just make magic items, you don’t need our found loot too!” and only gives the artificer a share of the spoils when nobody else wants a given item. We put up with this because they are, partially, correct – an artificer can learn Infusions to cover the fact that they do not ever get a share of party loot. Which works – up until the party gets mad that the artificer is “Being Greedy” with their infusions and demands the artificer give away all their created loot, as well. Suddenly, we’re stuck with absolutely no gear or cool items because the party is allowed to be greedy with loot, but the artificer is expected to be Kind and Generous and Selfless with their class features? Screw that noise.
3.) My infusions are required for most of my other class features, as they act as spellcasting foci. Some subclasses (the Armorer in particular) are entirely reliant on their infusions to keep them going and perform very poorly if they’re forced by peer pressure to give away all their stuff. An artificer with no infusions is an artificer with limited ability to cast its spells, limited access to its Spell-Storing Item feature, and almost no ability to take advantage of Magic Item Adept/Savant/Master or Soul of Artifice at higher levels.
STOP demanding that artificers “not be greedy” by keeping their class features for themselves. You do not get to have your cake and eat it too – you get a full suite of class features built into whatever class you decided to play, you don’t get to bully the artificer into giving you their class features and also cut them out of the party’s loot finds. That’s called “being an *******”, and it’s a lot worse than being ‘greedy’. If your party’s artificer doesn’t want to give you their infusions? Deal with it, move on, and console yourself with the fact that the DM will never let that artificer find anything useful for them anyways and all the loot is always for everyone else in the party.
Please do not contact or message me.
If somebody called somebody else greedy at my table they would be warned about keeping things civil and then kicked out of the group if they persist. This is a rule in general not just for Artificers. Most of use deal with annoying whiny and sometimes just outright rude people way too often in our everyday lives. Bringing that kind of behavior to the gaming table where people are just trying to unwind and have some fun is something I would not tolerate both as a player and a part time DM.
There is a difference between asking politely if the Artificer could make you something to demanding them do it. If asked nicely I would probably give them a infusion, but if they demand it I would just refuse to do it on principal.
I think you're saying that artificers should give away all of their infusions(I've found that Artificers are absurdly weak without them. This makes it easier for the artificer to die, which ends infusions after ~4 days) and also that artificers don't deserve loot because they can make their own(But they can't, because they've given all their class features to other party members).
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
That's the whole point of my post, Stout. if the artificer is last in line for found items and then also required to give up every last single infusion they have to the "more effective characters" in the party, they get nothing. Their infusions don't matter because according to your logic the artificer never gets to keep them. The artificer's ability to attune to more items doesn't matter because they never have any items to attune to in the first place - because it's More Effective(TM) for the artificer to give away all their shit to other people. At least, other people think it's more effective if they get to have Cool Shit at the expense of the artificer never being effective in their role.
Why should an artificer player persist at a table where she is expected to be nothing but a magic item pez dispenser who's never allowed to benefit from her abilities herself, nor benefit from the party's adventuring?
Please do not contact or message me.
Yep, that's what I got from this as well, which ironically make the other players sound like the greedy and jealous ones. "We want all your magically infused items so we can be stronger, also all the loot is ours since you can make magic items.....that we then demand you give to us."
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
At the end of the day, an Artificer has just as much right to use their own infusions as a Paladin does to use their Lay On Hands on themselves, or a Cleric does to use anything other then healing spells. We are not advocating that an Artificer never be a team player, I'm sure many Artificers have given infusions to player. I certainly have with my characters. However, Artificers are allowed to use infusions on themselves as well.
Edit: Confused Bardic inspiration with something else.
Edit Edit: It was Blade Flourish that I was thinking of from the Swords Bard.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
Now you've moved to a third conflicting argument. Here it's that you never said what you said first. You're saying that an artificer's infusions on themselves should matter for loot distribution, but you still think another party member(Who you're suggested should have 50% of the artificer's infusions) should get plenty of additional magic items?
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
Just posting to automatically sub to this thread, it's an interesting topic.
Looking for a campaign? Or, perhaps, trying to start one? Come join Rolegate! Just send me a friend request (same name as here) and I'll help you get started!
Ducks are just geese lite. Focus on the future. It'll become the past soon enough.
Istari and White Counsel in Club. Not the wish-granter of a thread.
Become a Plague Doctor today!
Join the Knights of the Random Table and Calius and Kothar Industries!
Homebrew: Artifact, Dungeon
May be offline due to school
This doesn't seem like more precise language. This is an attempt to say "I didn't say this." without people noticing and pointing out when you said it.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
Now, why would the artificer not get a part of the loot again? Didn't they participate?
If you're in the group, you get a share.
I mean, you gave a lot of reasons but honestly I didn't like them that much, but something more fitting would be the Wizard shouldn't get spell scrolls and wands/staves with spells in them, since he can already cast spells, the cleric shouldn't get healing potions or similar things since he can already heal. The rogue better not be sneaking about at night getting extra income without sharing that. You could argue that it's only fair to play with encumbrance rules, since one of your class abilities concerns a bag of holding. And that said, anyone that wanted you to help carrying stuff for them, could either let you get a honest share for your work AS A GROUP, or simply pay the bag tax at 50% of the value of anything that goes in there + a modest sum of 50g for each item as a base cost.
Or just play nice with each other. If this happened in a group I was in I'd bring it up with the DM and the group. I'm not greedy, I don't mind a rogue sneaking about and stealing a bunch of stuff getting some extra gold now and then as long as they accept the consequenses of their actions if they ever get caught, but you don't steal from the group and everyone gets a share... I wouldn't even mind if the others got most of the more "specific" items, like I woulnd't take a +2 greatsword just because it was my choice first and it was the most expensive item, when we have a greatsword wielder fighter in the group.. But when there's a specific item I'd like I expect to get it if I get crap all the rest of the time.
Still, like thelonelymagi said most of the time I'd probably even be lending my gear to my group anyways, but anyone demanding things wouldn't get far.
Who are you asking?
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
To the people who actually play the armorer, it just puts more pressure on them to be useless. To the people who do the pressuring, they get more of the artificer's stuff.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
Wow this thread blew UP.
May I offer my opinon? I'm pretty much with Yurei. The Infusions I pick for myself are one of the core features that make the artificer a real PC - instead of a pure item management system. An Artificer(especially armorer or battlesmith - I don't know about the other two, never really examined them better) will pretty much just be like a no trick pony.
Giving away your infusions is a pretty great feature - IF your character stays a REAL character while you do it. giving a fighter the +1(+2) infusion is pretty strong, but if my battlesmith cant attack with Int anymore she won't do ANYthing in battle.
Last thing I want to mention: You don't really get a big number of infusions known and even less active - you gotta make the best out of them. And by picking what makes your character effective you'll probably not pick what makes another character effective. I myself use the "repeating shot" infusion with Sharpshooter on my battlesmith - in my party I will benefit MOST from this infusion (even with 2 fighters in there). If another player would go into a "duel" situation where I have the time, of course I will give them ALL the infusions that could help them. But most of the time, I will wield my crossbow and wear my cloak and kick ass for myself. After level 10 I can build them some magic items that are permanent.
Stop calling into question people's experience and the authenticity of their statements. It's so freakin rude.
You don't need to have played with a million artificers to follow the logic. Heck, I've never touched an artificer and the logic tracks just fine for me. Every group I've ever played with tries to divy out magic items as equally as possible. It stands to reason that a class that creates its own "magic items" would be looked at by the group with a collective "nah, you've already got more than us."
This reminds me of the Berserker thread where someone kept arguing the exhaustion can be cured by Greater Restoration like it was just a given that a cleric/druid would want to spend precious diamond and a 5th level slot.
No one at the table owes anyone anything. Period. To demand another player's resources is callous, selfish and incredibly unfun for the person who is constantly being pestered. That kind of attitude is the real greed in the situation and has no place at the table.
Let the artificer do whatever the heck they want and be happy if they end up throwing you an infusion now and again. Telling people how to play their class is not okay (unless they specifically ask you for advice of course).
It makes me sad that this thread even exists. Stay strong artificers dealing with this BS.