Talk:Spontaneous Artificer (DnD Optimized Character Build)

From D&D Wiki

[edit] Legality

I'm sorry to say so, but this build is not legal. The feats were never stackable, as the feat description does not say they could be taken multiple times. They were marked as such in the table, but if text and table disagree the text takes precedence.

Also, the Eberron Campaign Setting Errata cleared this up by explicitely stating that the table is wrong. --Mkill 06:42, 4 August 2007 (MDT)

I hadn't checked the errata, thanks. I'm actually glad that it doesn't work, because it would have been very game-breaking, not something one likes to see with only one non-core book added. --Daniel Draco 07:14, 4 August 2007 (MDT)

Should this be deleted since it does not work ,or are you going to modify it? --Green Dragon 12:09, 4 August 2007 (MDT)

Unless someone can come up with a way to make it work, it should probably be deleted. --Daniel Draco 14:46, 4 August 2007 (MDT)

I suggest to keep it, be it only as a warning that if a build looks too good to be true it's likely somebody didn't check the rules correctly. If you delete it, make an entry over at D&D Discussions with the main ideas, so we can reference it next time someone has the same idea.

And by the way, as I have written above, the feats are not stackable even without the errata. --Mkill 17:11, 5 August 2007 (MDT)

Just like my misreading of ascetic rogue. Wizards should be more careful with table text and rules text! --Aarnott 09:10, 7 August 2007 (MDT)

I am a fan of moving this discussions over to DnD Discussion... Anybody else? --Green Dragon 15:45, 11 August 2007 (MDT)

That seems as good a place as any. --Daniel Draco 17:28, 11 August 2007 (MDT)

Ah, nevermind. I'll just put a banner on the top saying this does not work. --Green Dragon 14:47, 14 August 2007 (MDT)

Well, even if the feats did stack, then taking a feat that decrease the gp by 25 % four times would work like this

100 x .75 = 75

75 x .75 = 56.25

56.25 x .75 = 42.1875

42.1875 x .75 = 31.64

So, in the end, it could only decrease the resources needed to 31% --T G Geko 19:15, 1 January 2008 (MST)