Did we ever resolve the vorpal weapon creator level?

Drew · Jan 21, 2002

A while ago, on both this site and Monte Cook's boards, there was some discussion regarding the minimum caster to create a vorpal weapon. I don't want to open a can of worms here, but was that issue ever resolved.

Basically, the DMG says that when creating a magic weapon, the creator's level must be 3x the weapon's enhancement bonus. It states something to the effect that, if it has a special ability, then you take the higher of the two.

This led some to believe that a +1 vorpal longsword would require a maker of at least 15th level. The logic here is that vorpal is equivalent to a +5 bonus, and it has a +1 enhancement bonus. The highest here is +5, and 3*5 is 15.

There was supposedly some errata associated with all this, but no one could ever remember exactly what it said. So...what the ever came of this? Or should I just E-mail Skip instead?

dcollins · Jan 21, 2002

Oh, boy...

- First, you've misinterpreted "the higher of the two". The second "caster level requirement" isn't (3 x effective bonus), it's just the listed "Caster Level" -- see DMG p. 183 under "Caster Level for Weapons". The Caster Level for "vorpal" is 18th (not 15th).

- It probably wasn't, and won't be, decided to everyone's satisfaction. The DMG and Monte Cook's essay expressly contradict each other. See here for the full presentation: www.superdan.net/dndfaq2.html

- No official DMG Errata has ever been issued on the situation. No entry to the Official D&D FAQ has been made on this issue.

- Go ahead and ask the Sage if you want, and you'll probably get a brand new contradictory ruling.

CRGreathouse · Jan 21, 2002

"Vorpal" is not an enhancement bonus. The lowest level needed to create a +1 vorpal weapon is the greater of 3 (for the +1) and the lowest level one can cast the required spells: keen edge and the non-existant death spell.

Edit: And 5, the lowest level for Craft Magic Arms and Armor, obviously.

Avatar of the North · Jan 21, 2002

I believe death spells are spells that have the 'Death' Descriptor in them

Finger of death, Power Word: Kill, Circle of death, Death Knell, Destruction, Slay Living, Symbol (of death), and Wail of the Banshee.

I would also consider any of the spells in the Destruction domain to be 'Death' Spells (i don't see WHY Implosion doesn't have that descriptor)

Darkness · Jan 21, 2002

Avatar of the North said:
I believe death spells are spells that have the 'Death' Descriptor in them

And I believe that death spell (italicized, as in this case) refers to a no-longer-existing spell (which was a 6th-level spell in 2e). Circle of death is probably it's 3e replacement...

green slime · Jan 21, 2002

Darkness said:
And I believe that death spell (italicized, as in this case) refers to a no-longer-existing spell (which was a 6th-level spell in 2e). Circle of death is probably it's 3e replacement...

And that would place the creator level at 11th+, which seems about right...Considering it would require 2*6*6*1000 gp / 2 = 36000 gp and 2880 XP, and 72 days uninterrupted construction time. A considerable portion of the cash available to such a character, and more time than most have available, what with the planet constantly on the verge of destruction by evil forces...

On a side note I'd rather have the price-equivalent +2 brilliant energy sword...

nsruf · Jan 21, 2002

According to DMG, p. 178, you would need to be lvl 18:

"For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level."

But Monte Cook claims something else in the article on creating magic items on his website (IIRC: that item caster level is only a guideline for the DM, what the "typical level" will be for purpose of determining saves and such). He even quotes the section on caster level, but breaks of before the above sentence. Weird, isn't it?

Drew · Jan 21, 2002

No, I haven't misinterpreted anything. All this makes my head hurt and I don't have a really clear answer. I understand what you are saying dcollins, and I agree with that interpretation. On the other hand, I understand the other side of the argument as well. As I recall, someone on one of the old threads said they were E-mailing Skip. Did that ever get a reply? If not, would one of you E-mail him? I don't really know all the sides of this issue, and so I don't think I'd get the point across to him properly. Someone needs to say "Hey Sage, we're confused and here's why..." WoTC needs to know that this is an issue that confuses the heck out of a lot of people.

By the way nsruf, you are mistaken. The caster level is not a prerequisite. You need to know the caster level for things such as item saving throws. For magic items, the DMG lists the minumum caster level of the wizard who made it. This has been erratted to make it more clear.

I really wasn't trying to open this up for discussion. I think this has been argued nearly to death. I was wondering if WoTC had ever given a final ruling on this. Since they haven't someone needs to point out how confusing all this is. Any takers?

dcollins · Jan 21, 2002

Drew said:
The caster level is not a prerequisite. You need to know the caster level for things such as item saving throws. For magic items, the DMG lists the minumum caster level of the wizard who made it. This has been erratted to make it more clear.

Again, this has NOT been errata'd in any way. (If you really believe otherwise, I invite you to quote the source of the alleged errata.) The book rules stand as written: the listed item's Caster Level is a "minimum on the creator's level" (DMG p. 178). Furthermore, it must be this way because no hard rules are given for pricing items like weapons with altered caster levels.

Further development and references at: www.superdan.net/dndfaq2.html

Drew · Jan 21, 2002

Dcollins, I didn't realize that I was going into this debate with the holy champion of DMG magic item confusion. Wow.

I followed your link and poked around. I agree with many of your points, but rather than simply follow your advice and run things without worrying about Sean and Monte, wouldn't it be best to alert WoTC to the inherent confusion and contradiction among their current and former employees? I mean, if the author of the book is saying something that contradicts with the rules, this should likely be addressed, shouldn't it?