I always thought that the PCs were supposed to be Heroes, therefore the PC character classes are well designed for Heroes.
Your average population has much less skill and aptitude for learning any of the class abilities.
I thought that the population of a 5e world had, in total, created just about every magic item that our PCs loot. It's a good point that you make but, if the population can do things like this, then there could be a possibility that some people could stretch to become artificers. And if, as I say, there could be profit in becoming an artificer, then parties may be far more likely to encounter low-level artificers than, say, low-level wizards.
To be fair, that is setting dependent. If I remember correctly the default setting is heavy on ancient dead civilizations created most magical Items. And if i don't remember correctly its a common enough trope to prove my point ;)
The needles followed by the tattoo are the item and these tattoos, RAW, can be repeatedly applied to a recipient. Multiple tattoos can be applied to a person and Jeremy Crawford further added that tattoos can overlap.
Jeremy said that, but the items themselves each say how much of the body they take up, so his advice is a ruling not a rule. It is certainly reasonable that any DM advises that two half-body tattoos are all that you can have (even if you were to let them both be on the left half of your body).
On the other hand RAW, the needle becomes the tattoo ("To use the tattoo, you must hold the needle against your skin and speak the command word. The needle turns into ink that becomes the tattoo, which appears on the skin in whatever design you like.") and the tattoo disappears when the spell is used ("Once the spell ends, the tattoo vanishes from your skin."). There is no mechanism for removing a spellwrought tattoo. So once you use the spellwrought tattoo item, it disappears and is unrecoverable. You cannot tattoo more than one individual with one item, which means any artificer could only hand out one of each spell that they know as a tattoo a day. And they can't replace that infusion used later in the day - that only happens at the end of a long rest.
So, essentially, other than your 1 familiar (which is a ritual, mind you), you are really only gaining a first level spell slot per infusion; instead of some lasting benefit.
That's helpful but, in this case it would perhaps be your ruling that tattoos can't overlap vs Jeremy Crawford's ruling that they can. Personally I think that your houseruling, if that's what you're suggesting, makes sense but it would then be up to any DM to decide what interpretation that they actually want to take from RAW.
Spellwrought Tattoo
... Once the spell ends, the tattoo vanishes from your skin. ...
Even with your seeming ruling that tattoos can't overlap, I'd still disagree with the interpretation that, "You cannot tattoo more than one individual with one item, ..." All Tasha's does is give rules on:
Magic Tattoo Coverage
Tattoo Rarity
Area Covered
Common
One hand or foot or a quarter of a limb
If one tattoo covers a quarter of a limb then, even if tattoos weren't able to overlap, four tattoos could still fit onto a single limb.
In relation to burns the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_rule_of_nines indicate that an entire leg constitutes just 18% of a human body's surface area while an arm constitutes just 9%. There's a whole load of other skin that might also be covered with various magical tattoos (unless DMs added their own house rules).
I always thought that the PCs were supposed to be Heroes, therefore the PC character classes are well designed for Heroes.
Your average population has much less skill and aptitude for learning any of the class abilities.
I thought that the population of a 5e world had, in total, created just about every magic item that our PCs loot. It's a good point that you make but, if the population can do things like this, then there could be a possibility that some people could stretch to become artificers. And if, as I say, there could be profit in becoming an artificer, then parties may be far more likely to encounter low-level artificers than, say, low-level wizards.
To be fair, that is setting dependent. If I remember correctly the default setting is heavy on ancient dead civilizations created most magical Items. And if i don't remember correctly its a common enough trope to prove my point ;)
That's fair.
Still, back on the topic of low-level wizards, I wonder what might have happened to Saltmarsh's Sanbalet or Phandelver's Glass Staff if they had become artificers instead. I'd imagine that they could have done a healthy trade by temporarily infusing consumable items and been able, not being killed by adventurers, to live comfortable quiet lives. Big city contexts might have a relatively high number of wizard, might-have-been artificers.
New storyline to Lost Mine of Phandelver: PCs, including an artificer, go into Glass Staff's laboratory and discover that he has an interest in the long and laborious process of making potions of invisibility. They then meet Glass Staff himself and the artificer says, "what, you crazy? You could be learning to be an artificer to be able to produce a variety of other consumables far more quickly and cheaply. Follow me and I'll apprentice you and we can do a bit of adventuring together." Glass Staff replies, "Stupid me, if I had thought of that sooner I might not have ended in an underground room beneath a crumbling ruin."
JC didn't answer what allotment of tattoos you are capable of carrying on your skin, he answered whether they can overlap. Those are two different questions, and Jeremy has a habit of answering the questions that people actually ask, rather than what they thought they asked. You though he answered something different than he did; he didn't say that you could carry more tattoos than you have areas to place them.
Also, the needle becomes the tattoo ink which covers the body. You absolutely cannot use the same needle to give more than one tattoo. You use the needle and it is consumed to give the tattoo, then the tattoo disappears. And that is one of your infusions for the entire day (which you can only change at the end of a long rest).
JC didn't answer what allotment of tattoos you are capable of carrying on your skin, he answered whether they can overlap. Those are two different questions, and Jeremy has a habit of answering the questions that people actually ask, rather than what they thought they asked. You though he answered something different than he did; he didn't say that you could carry more tattoos than you have areas to place them.
Also, the needle becomes the tattoo ink which covers the body. You absolutely cannot use the same needle to give more than one tattoo. You use the needle and it is consumed to give the tattoo, then the tattoo disappears. And that is one of your infusions for the entire day (which you can only change at the end of a long rest).
Again, All Tasha's mentions on coverage of a tattoo relates to "...the space it typically occupies on a creature’s skin." and that "The Magic Tattoo Coverage table offers guidelines for how large a given tattoo is:..." ie "Common - One hand or foot or a quarter of a limb"
Crawford was asked: @armando_doval · Nov 18, 2020 "@JeremyECrawford Is the Magic Tattoo Coverage table from Tasha's intended to limit how many tattoos you can have at one time? Putting it differently, is it possible to have multiple overlapping tattoos on the same body part?" He answered: @JeremyECrawford ·Nov 25, 2020 "If your DM introduces magic tattoos in your D&D game, the only limit on the number you can have is attunement. The Magic Tattoo Coverage table in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything helps visualize how big a tattoo might be, but it doesn't impose any limits. Tattoos can overlap. #DnD"
The needle becomes the tattoo ink that covers, or gives coverage to, the part of the body tattooed.
I've never said that you use the same needle to give more than one tattoo. The scenario that I mentioned was of a group of Artificers in a location, for instance, such as the Yawning Portal.
I guess I was still thinking of the tattoo UA rules. But even still, as you point out, those tattoos are optional rules in the first place. You need not allow them in your game.
Even with your seeming ruling that tattoos can't overlap, I'd still disagree with the interpretation that, "You cannot tattoo more than one individual with one item, ..." All Tasha's does is give rules on:
Are you agreeing now that you can't use the same item to give a tattoo to multiple individuals? Because just a few posts ago you said this^
I guess I was still thinking of the tattoo UA rules. But even still, as you point out, those tattoos are optional rules in the first place. You need not allow them in your game.
Even with your seeming ruling that tattoos can't overlap, I'd still disagree with the interpretation that, "You cannot tattoo more than one individual with one item, ..." All Tasha's does is give rules on:
Are you agreeing now that you can't use the same item to give a tattoo to multiple individuals? Because just a few posts ago you said this^
My OP is based on the scenario of potentially, easy access to a potentially unlimited number of castings of 1st level spells including reaction buffs. I went on to say that, "Locations like the Yawning Portal might rapidly become sites for tattoo parlours to spring up with artificers popping in to trade their lightning-fast inkworks." From the perspective of an individual artificer sure, "You cannot tattoo more than one individual with one item". I've not said anything different to that. With a group of artificers, as per the scenario I've presented, you definitely can. I don't think that we have always been talking about the same thing.
One respondent surprised me by replying to say that they liked the idea of a world with loads of familiars, but I'd personally agree with you that the scenario would present difficulties for play. It's just the way that I think that a world would logically develop if artificers were able to infuse spellwrought tattoos.
I just don't see why you think the world would logically develop into one where artificers provide tattoos to cast spells for sale.
Artificers are adventurers. They aren't necessarily that common depending on the DMs world. Most people are not capable of learning the Artificers craft.
Why would these individuals decide to spend some of their limited and very valuable infusions on a spellwrought tattoo needle to create familiars? It is a curiosity and a party trick. A familiar would normally cost 10gp to cast, these are free. However, familiars die off very easily. One hit from any creature (even a commoner) kills one. How much would an artificer be able to charge for one? Rich people might be able to spend a gold or two on the curiosity - commoners aren't going to spend a year or a month's income on a creature that dies so easily.
As for selling tattoos, why would 5 level 2 artificers agree to sit around not using their infusions so that they could allow some other adventurer to have 10 spells inscribed as tattoos? It doesn't make any sense - finding 5 artificers might not be easy and the artificers probably want to use the magic for themselves.
Finally, an artificer could probably make MORE with a magic item rental service. How many human adventurers would pay to rent a pair of Goggles of Night so that they can see in the dark while adventuring? Way better than darkvision (a 2nd level spell). A bag of holding might also be a useful rental item for lower level adventurers. Seems far more useful to me than a familiar that will die at the drop of a hat and can't be replaced.
TL;DR ... I just don't find your proposed scenario to be very likely or realistic when most artificers will have better things to do with their infusions than walk around creating familiars for folks willing to cough up some coin.
If the needle is used to create a magical tattoo, isn't the duration of the magical tattoo and any spell triggered by it also limited by the fact that it is an infusion.
So if the artificer re-uses that infusion "slot", then any spell currently running due to a magical tattoo will have its magic removed?
I think that's potentially a reasonable solution. What do you think?
Spellwrought tattoo says "... Once the tattoo is there, you can cast its spell, requiring no material components. The tattoo glows faintly while you cast the spell and for the spell’s duration. Once the spell ends, the tattoo vanishes from your skin.
Find Familiar says: "CASTING TIME 1 Hour Ritual;... DURATION Instantaneous; SCHOOL Conjuration;... DAMAGE/EFFECT Summoning You gain the service of a familiar, a spirit that takes an animal form you choose:... ...you can communicate with it telepathically... see through your familiar's eyes and hear what it hears... ...you can temporarily dismiss your familiar. It disappears into a pocket dimension where it awaits your summons...."
I guess a lot may depend on the way in which the telepathy and the interdimensional capability are powered. Is the telepathy powered by an ongoing influence from the spell or does the familiar itself act in some similar way to a sentient magical item that possesses an innate ability to let you communicate with it? Is it an ongoing influence of spell that powers dismissal and summoning or is it an ability left in discrete connection to the familiar that permits its dismissal and, perhaps by some silver cord type means, it's return?
For me these questions get interesting in the context of the commonly held view that dispel magic doesn't affect familiars despite the fact it could certainly effect an ongoing spell.
A familiar is a type of critter that exists out in the multiverse. This spell causes one to come to you, that's all. The spell isn't keeping him here, that would be Bind Familiar. :P
Well, yes it is keeping them here. A Familiar has no choice as to whether it stays on this plane or not… though I suppose an unfriendly/mistreated one could run away from its master on the Material Plane (until summoned back).
I always thought that the PCs were supposed to be Heroes, therefore the PC character classes are well designed for Heroes.
Your average population has much less skill and aptitude for learning any of the class abilities.
I thought that the population of a 5e world had, in total, created just about every magic item that our PCs loot. It's a good point that you make but, if the population can do things like this, then there could be a possibility that some people could stretch to become artificers. And if, as I say, there could be profit in becoming an artificer, then parties may be far more likely to encounter low-level artificers than, say, low-level wizards.
Most of those items are relics of the countless lost civilizations over the top of which the Forgotten Realms are built. That's the genre trope. Modern people don't know the secrets of their construction.
Well, yes it is keeping them here. A Familiar has no choice as to whether it stays on this plane or not… though I suppose an unfriendly/mistreated one could run away from its master on the Material Plane (until summoned back).
But that's just a fact of familiars. Just like you and I can't travel between planes, neither can the familiar. Just like you and I see the notification on here and comment, the familiar feels the call to return and returns. :P
Artificers are adventurers. They aren't necessarily that common depending on the DMs world. Most people are not capable of learning the Artificers craft.
Why would these individuals decide to spend some of their limited and very valuable infusions on a spellwrought tattoo needle to create familiars? It is a curiosity and a party trick. A familiar would normally cost 10gp to cast, these are free. However, familiars die off very easily. One hit from any creature (even a commoner) kills one. How much would an artificer be able to charge for one? Rich people might be able to spend a gold or two on the curiosity - commoners aren't going to spend a year or a month's income on a creature that dies so easily.
As for selling tattoos, why would 5 level 2 artificers agree to sit around not using their infusions so that they could allow some other adventurer to have 10 spells inscribed as tattoos? It doesn't make any sense - finding 5 artificers might not be easy and the artificers probably want to use the magic for themselves.
Finally, an artificer could probably make MORE with a magic item rental service. How many human adventurers would pay to rent a pair of Goggles of Night so that they can see in the dark while adventuring? Way better than darkvision (a 2nd level spell). A bag of holding might also be a useful rental item for lower level adventurers. Seems far more useful to me than a familiar that will die at the drop of a hat and can't be replaced.
TL;DR ... I just don't find your proposed scenario to be very likely or realistic when most artificers will have better things to do with their infusions than walk around creating familiars for folks willing to cough up some coin.
Some adventurers stop adventuring before disability or death stop them. . Not all people are capable of becoming, say, wizards and yet there are loads of wizard encounters in various modules. Given the choice (and the ability) perhaps some would become artificers and earn.
Find Familiar is regarded by some as one of the most valuable 1st level spells in the game. It gives a permanent resource. You could pay someone to keep watch or use a familiar. You could pay an Aarakokra to act as an ariel scout for you or use a familiar. On the grounds that familiars live as long as the summoner then the investment, in many circumstances, may pay off.
Find Familiar costs 10 gp to cast, if you've first trained to be a wizard. That's a lot of work especially seeing that the desire to have a familiar can be one motivation for characters to choose the class. 10 gp for half of an artificer's daily infusions isn't bad. I think they could get more. 6 seconds work. Crafting potions nets 2.5 gp for a full day's effort.
Sure, artificers that are adventuring may want to use the infusions for themselves or their allies. If they are not adventuring, which infusions would they want to use?
True, maybe an artificer could make MORE with a magic item rental service (for some items). How much would you pay, say, to hire a bag of holding per day? Get two artificers to infuse bags of holding and you've got a vastly powerful bomb, if that's the strategy you want to adopt. Other adventurers, about to fight say a dragon, might value a reaction spell like Absorb Elements as one route to resistance. But, either way, if an artificer can get this kind of money, why train to be a wizard. Either way, one way artificers could earn is by giving buff etc spells to adventures with the only limit being the number of artificers at a particular location.
A familiar will only die on a hit, but why would that happen. Even if that happened, the death of a familiar could serve as a valuable warning for someone that was being targeted.
My OP is based on the scenario of potentially, easy access to a potentially unlimited number of castings of 1st level spells including reaction buffs.
You have been given multiple reasons in this thread why it wouldn't work, or why a DM would be justified in ruling it wouldn't work the way you are insisting it has to work.
Why are we still here?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
My OP is based on the scenario of potentially, easy access to a potentially unlimited number of castings of 1st level spells including reaction buffs.
You have been given multiple reasons in this thread why it wouldn't work, or why a DM would be justified in ruling it wouldn't work the way you are insisting it has to work.
Why are we still here?
I absolutely agree with all the homebrew rulings to say why it wouldn't work. That's basically what I was asking for. A part from that I'm just trying to follow the logic. RAW, by logical interpretation, would lead to something like the situation described.
The Familiars themselves are permanent as long as they can survive, so i think that is what the OP is getting at. But the tattoos are limited to the restrictions of infusions and the spellwrought tattoo description. You can use each tattoo once, and as long as you haven’t used it, that artificer isn’t infusing another item. Or maybe they are… and you’re just out the gold or have to go find the artificer.
Every long rest the artificer could infuse two more tattoos of, say, Find Familiar and everyday those two spells would be enabled to be cast. Then the next day the artificer can in infuse for two more tattoos and yet the previous days spell castings would have already happened.
Each Artificer can only learn each infusion once. Each infusion can be created once at a time. Therefore, any Artificer can only learn the “Replicate Spellwrought Tattoo Infusion” once, and can therefore only create a single Spellwrought Tattoo at a time. (DDB had to break down the magic item into various spell levels, but RAW there is technically there are no “Spellwrought Tattoo, Xth level.”) RAW, there is no way for an Artificer to infuse more than a single Tattoo each day.
The Familiars themselves are permanent as long as they can survive….
So… you mean as long as nobody sneezes near them or gives them a particularly stern look…?
Someone, anyone, please explain something to me: It is relatively common knowledge that mounts are not survivable because they typically drop with the AoE of the day. Familiar animals are all universally squishier than even the lowest HP animals that typically get used as mounts.
A single hostile with access to just a single casting of a spell as shitty as thunderclap (like from their own tattoo) can ready that casting and overcome even the owl’s apparently dreaded Flyby trait.
Suppose a party takes a weekend so their Artificer can spend three days making tattoos and the tatted stay in to keep them alive until all three are ready. So, the whole party sat on their duffs for two days to make sure that on day three there are three living familiars in the party. A single enemy with a single spellwrought tattoo of magic missile whipped up fresh that morning can clear that little infestation up in six seconds flat.
So why are Familiars such a scourge? What gives? At least this inquiring mind wants to know.
My OP is based on the scenario of potentially, easy access to a potentially unlimited number of castings of 1st level spells including reaction buffs.
You have been given multiple reasons in this thread why it wouldn't work, or why a DM would be justified in ruling it wouldn't work the way you are insisting it has to work.
Why are we still here?
I absolutely agree with all the homebrew rulings to say why it wouldn't work.
I think the fact you're seeing them all as homebrew is part of the problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There is nothing homebrew about choosing not to use optional rules. There is nothing optional about requiring infusion that are RAW ”prototypes of permanent magic items” to be copies of permanent items either, if you really want. You can honestly remove the “issue” without stepping outside of the rules.
There is nothing homebrew about choosing not to use optional rules. There is nothing optional about requiring infusion that are RAW ”prototypes of permanent magic items” to be copies of permanent items either, if you really want. You can honestly remove the “issue” without stepping outside of the rules.
OK, I began by speaking of, "The infusion of spellwrought tattoos by D&D 5e Artificers ..." If that is in place then, if logic continued on its direct course, the scenario that I described would naturally develop. Familiars could be acquired in a range of situations in which they were wanted and, if a sufficient number of artificers were available, adventurers could acquire spellwrought tattoos at least to the limit of their bodies being covered or perhaps without limit if Crawford is believed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
To be fair, that is setting dependent. If I remember correctly the default setting is heavy on ancient dead civilizations created most magical Items. And if i don't remember correctly its a common enough trope to prove my point ;)
That's helpful but, in this case it would perhaps be your ruling that tattoos can't overlap vs Jeremy Crawford's ruling that they can.
Personally I think that your houseruling, if that's what you're suggesting, makes sense but it would then be up to any DM to decide what interpretation that they actually want to take from RAW.
... Once the spell ends, the tattoo vanishes from your skin. ...
Even with your seeming ruling that tattoos can't overlap, I'd still disagree with the interpretation that, "You cannot tattoo more than one individual with one item, ..." All Tasha's does is give rules on:
Magic Tattoo Coverage
If one tattoo covers a quarter of a limb then, even if tattoos weren't able to overlap, four tattoos could still fit onto a single limb.
In relation to burns the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_rule_of_nines
indicate that an entire leg constitutes just 18% of a human body's surface area while an arm constitutes just 9%. There's a whole load of other skin that might also be covered with various magical tattoos (unless DMs added their own house rules).
That's fair.
Still, back on the topic of low-level wizards, I wonder what might have happened to Saltmarsh's Sanbalet or Phandelver's Glass Staff if they had become artificers instead. I'd imagine that they could have done a healthy trade by temporarily infusing consumable items and been able, not being killed by adventurers, to live comfortable quiet lives.
Big city contexts might have a relatively high number of wizard, might-have-been artificers.
New storyline to Lost Mine of Phandelver: PCs, including an artificer, go into Glass Staff's laboratory and discover that he has an interest in the long and laborious process of making potions of invisibility. They then meet Glass Staff himself and the artificer says, "what, you crazy? You could be learning to be an artificer to be able to produce a variety of other consumables far more quickly and cheaply. Follow me and I'll apprentice you and we can do a bit of adventuring together." Glass Staff replies, "Stupid me, if I had thought of that sooner I might not have ended in an underground room beneath a crumbling ruin."
JC didn't answer what allotment of tattoos you are capable of carrying on your skin, he answered whether they can overlap. Those are two different questions, and Jeremy has a habit of answering the questions that people actually ask, rather than what they thought they asked. You though he answered something different than he did; he didn't say that you could carry more tattoos than you have areas to place them.
Also, the needle becomes the tattoo ink which covers the body. You absolutely cannot use the same needle to give more than one tattoo. You use the needle and it is consumed to give the tattoo, then the tattoo disappears. And that is one of your infusions for the entire day (which you can only change at the end of a long rest).
Again, All Tasha's mentions on coverage of a tattoo relates to "...the space it typically occupies on a creature’s skin." and that "The Magic Tattoo Coverage table offers guidelines for how large a given tattoo is:..." ie "Common - One hand or foot or a quarter of a limb"
Crawford was asked:
@armando_doval · Nov 18, 2020 "@JeremyECrawford Is the Magic Tattoo Coverage table from Tasha's intended to limit how many tattoos you can have at one time? Putting it differently, is it possible to have multiple overlapping tattoos on the same body part?"
He answered:
@JeremyECrawford ·Nov 25, 2020 "If your DM introduces magic tattoos in your D&D game, the only limit on the number you can have is attunement.
The Magic Tattoo Coverage table in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything helps visualize how big a tattoo might be, but it doesn't impose any limits. Tattoos can overlap. #DnD"
The needle becomes the tattoo ink that covers, or gives coverage to, the part of the body tattooed.
I've never said that you use the same needle to give more than one tattoo. The scenario that I mentioned was of a group of Artificers in a location, for instance, such as the Yawning Portal.
I guess I was still thinking of the tattoo UA rules. But even still, as you point out, those tattoos are optional rules in the first place. You need not allow them in your game.
Are you agreeing now that you can't use the same item to give a tattoo to multiple individuals? Because just a few posts ago you said this^
My OP is based on the scenario of potentially, easy access to a potentially unlimited number of castings of 1st level spells including reaction buffs.
I went on to say that, "Locations like the Yawning Portal might rapidly become sites for tattoo parlours to spring up with artificers popping in to trade their lightning-fast inkworks."
From the perspective of an individual artificer sure, "You cannot tattoo more than one individual with one item". I've not said anything different to that.
With a group of artificers, as per the scenario I've presented, you definitely can.
I don't think that we have always been talking about the same thing.
I just don't see why you think the world would logically develop into one where artificers provide tattoos to cast spells for sale.
Artificers are adventurers. They aren't necessarily that common depending on the DMs world. Most people are not capable of learning the Artificers craft.
Why would these individuals decide to spend some of their limited and very valuable infusions on a spellwrought tattoo needle to create familiars? It is a curiosity and a party trick. A familiar would normally cost 10gp to cast, these are free. However, familiars die off very easily. One hit from any creature (even a commoner) kills one. How much would an artificer be able to charge for one? Rich people might be able to spend a gold or two on the curiosity - commoners aren't going to spend a year or a month's income on a creature that dies so easily.
As for selling tattoos, why would 5 level 2 artificers agree to sit around not using their infusions so that they could allow some other adventurer to have 10 spells inscribed as tattoos? It doesn't make any sense - finding 5 artificers might not be easy and the artificers probably want to use the magic for themselves.
Finally, an artificer could probably make MORE with a magic item rental service. How many human adventurers would pay to rent a pair of Goggles of Night so that they can see in the dark while adventuring? Way better than darkvision (a 2nd level spell). A bag of holding might also be a useful rental item for lower level adventurers. Seems far more useful to me than a familiar that will die at the drop of a hat and can't be replaced.
TL;DR ... I just don't find your proposed scenario to be very likely or realistic when most artificers will have better things to do with their infusions than walk around creating familiars for folks willing to cough up some coin.
A familiar is a type of critter that exists out in the multiverse. This spell causes one to come to you, that's all. The spell isn't keeping him here, that would be Bind Familiar. :P
Well, yes it is keeping them here. A Familiar has no choice as to whether it stays on this plane or not… though I suppose an unfriendly/mistreated one could run away from its master on the Material Plane (until summoned back).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Most of those items are relics of the countless lost civilizations over the top of which the Forgotten Realms are built. That's the genre trope. Modern people don't know the secrets of their construction.
But that's just a fact of familiars. Just like you and I can't travel between planes, neither can the familiar. Just like you and I see the notification on here and comment, the familiar feels the call to return and returns. :P
Some adventurers stop adventuring before disability or death stop them.
.
Not all people are capable of becoming, say, wizards and yet there are loads of wizard encounters in various modules. Given the choice (and the ability) perhaps some would become artificers and earn.
Find Familiar is regarded by some as one of the most valuable 1st level spells in the game. It gives a permanent resource. You could pay someone to keep watch or use a familiar. You could pay an Aarakokra to act as an ariel scout for you or use a familiar. On the grounds that familiars live as long as the summoner then the investment, in many circumstances, may pay off.
Find Familiar costs 10 gp to cast, if you've first trained to be a wizard. That's a lot of work especially seeing that the desire to have a familiar can be one motivation for characters to choose the class. 10 gp for half of an artificer's daily infusions isn't bad. I think they could get more. 6 seconds work. Crafting potions nets 2.5 gp for a full day's effort.
Sure, artificers that are adventuring may want to use the infusions for themselves or their allies. If they are not adventuring, which infusions would they want to use?
True, maybe an artificer could make MORE with a magic item rental service (for some items). How much would you pay, say, to hire a bag of holding per day? Get two artificers to infuse bags of holding and you've got a vastly powerful bomb, if that's the strategy you want to adopt. Other adventurers, about to fight say a dragon, might value a reaction spell like Absorb Elements as one route to resistance. But, either way, if an artificer can get this kind of money, why train to be a wizard. Either way, one way artificers could earn is by giving buff etc spells to adventures with the only limit being the number of artificers at a particular location.
A familiar will only die on a hit, but why would that happen. Even if that happened, the death of a familiar could serve as a valuable warning for someone that was being targeted.
You have been given multiple reasons in this thread why it wouldn't work, or why a DM would be justified in ruling it wouldn't work the way you are insisting it has to work.
Why are we still here?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I absolutely agree with all the homebrew rulings to say why it wouldn't work.
That's basically what I was asking for.
A part from that I'm just trying to follow the logic.
RAW, by logical interpretation, would lead to something like the situation described.
Each Artificer can only learn each infusion once. Each infusion can be created once at a time. Therefore, any Artificer can only learn the “Replicate Spellwrought Tattoo Infusion” once, and can therefore only create a single Spellwrought Tattoo at a time. (DDB had to break down the magic item into various spell levels, but RAW there is technically there are no “Spellwrought Tattoo, Xth level.”) RAW, there is no way for an Artificer to infuse more than a single Tattoo each day.
So… you mean as long as nobody sneezes near them or gives them a particularly stern look…?
Someone, anyone, please explain something to me: It is relatively common knowledge that mounts are not survivable because they typically drop with the AoE of the day. Familiar animals are all universally squishier than even the lowest HP animals that typically get used as mounts.
A single hostile with access to just a single casting of a spell as shitty as thunderclap (like from their own tattoo) can ready that casting and overcome even the owl’s apparently dreaded Flyby trait.
Suppose a party takes a weekend so their Artificer can spend three days making tattoos and the tatted stay in to keep them alive until all three are ready. So, the whole party sat on their duffs for two days to make sure that on day three there are three living familiars in the party. A single enemy with a single spellwrought tattoo of magic missile whipped up fresh that morning can clear that little infestation up in six seconds flat.
So why are Familiars such a scourge? What gives? At least this inquiring mind wants to know.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think the fact you're seeing them all as homebrew is part of the problem.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There is nothing homebrew about choosing not to use optional rules. There is nothing optional about requiring infusion that are RAW ”prototypes of permanent magic items” to be copies of permanent items either, if you really want. You can honestly remove the “issue” without stepping outside of the rules.
OK, I began by speaking of, "The infusion of spellwrought tattoos by D&D 5e Artificers ..." If that is in place then, if logic continued on its direct course, the scenario that I described would naturally develop. Familiars could be acquired in a range of situations in which they were wanted and, if a sufficient number of artificers were available, adventurers could acquire spellwrought tattoos at least to the limit of their bodies being covered or perhaps without limit if Crawford is believed.