I may have found a loophole in magic item creation

[HeavyG]

I'm not a 100% sure, but I think I may have found a (rather small) hole in magic item creation.

My starting hypotheses are thus :
1) The caster level of magical items defines their operating parameters, for example the duration of spells cast via the item.

2) The caster level indicated in the stat block of magical items in the DMG and other books represents either, depending on who you ask :
a) The minimum caster level to create the item.
b) A baseline (or average) for magical items you find.

3) It is possible to create magical items with a higher caster level (up to the item creator's caster level).


Let us take as an example a ring of jumping. It is a use-activated item that can cast a 1st level spell at 1st caster level.

It is worth 1X1X2000 = 2000 gp. (which is confirmed by the magical rings cost table)

If I want to make a ring of jumping with a caster level of 5th, I could do it, right ? Of course, it would be worth 10000 gp.

Here's the loophole :

Because of the way magical armors, shield and weapons are priced, there is no way to increase cost and caster level for magical powers for these items.

For example, I'm a 12th level cleric. I'm creating a +1 full plate of death ward (this happened to me recently). Such an armor is worth as much as a +3 armor.

The death ward power has a caster level of 7th, so the Death Ward lasts 70 minutes. There doesn't seem to be any way that I can put a caster level of 12 in that item. I'd be ready to pay a bit more for it, but upping the cost of the armor to a +4 armor equivalent is way too much.


Anyway, it's not a dramatic loophole or anything. Just something weird I thought I'd share.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Caster level and the minimum level to create an item are often not the same. Often the item requires you to be (as an example) 15th-level to create the item, 12th-level to have the feat, but the "typical" item has a caster level of 7th. And so forth.

Does Armor of Death Ward come from a splatbook or official product? I've never heard of it.
For your example, just stick to 70 minutes (it's easier that way). It you made +4 full plate of death ward, which has a caster level of 12 (for purposes of saving throws and Dispel Magic), the Death Ward still has a level of 7.

*In general, rules for caster level don't apply to magic weapons and armor. If I wanted to make a "stormblade", a +3 sword that throws 9th-level Lightning Bolts on command, my DM might rule that it has a caster level of 15, but casts Lightning at 9th-level. It doesn't obey most rules for crafting magic items, but then again magic weapons and armor don't follow the rules.* For instance, try figuring out the caster level for a +1 vorpal longsword.

The creator must be at least 5th-level to make a magic sword.

The creator must be at least 3rd-level to make a +1 weapon.

The prerequisites for a vorpal SQ are Circle of Death and Keen Edge (minimum level 11th), but to actually put those spells together to make a vorpal blade, you need to be at least 18th-level.

 

[Rybaer]

I don't know that I'd call this a loophole, but more of an oversight. For the most part, the enchantments for arms and armor are not based on spell effects and don't have durations...hence the caster level is generally not that important. Death Ward is one of the few exceptions to this.

In this case, if you wanted to have a longer duration for the Death Ward effect, I think I'd just tweak up the price slightly. I agree that going all the way up to a +4 equivalent is much too high. Alternatively, you could increase the use of the Death Ward effect to twice a day, which might be valuable enough to push it up near the +4 level.

In your example, I'd propose increasing the gold cost of the armor's enhancement from +9k to +10k or +11k. It increases the duration, but remains only usuable once per day.

Basically, this sort of thing is a case-by-case basis. Just use a little common sense and work with the DM/players on what is appropriate.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

It is not so much a loophole as an artifact of the arms/armor and other items having 2 quite separate systems for determining price. The net result is caster level with respect to arms/armor is somewhat arbitrary, while the caster level for many other magic items is directly related to the cost.

Consider a +2 Flaming Burst Sword built two different ways:

(1) Weapon rules: +2 bonus and a +2 enchantment value for flaming burst makes this a +4 equivalent cost weapon. 32000gp.

(2) Wondrous item rules: +2 bonus give (2^2)x2000 =8000gp cost. Adding a +2 enchancement is (2^2)x2000, then doubled for "slotless". 24000gp.

So the rules for weapons vs. wondrous items are quite different before you even mention caster levels.

 

[kreynolds]

(2) Wondrous item rules: +2 bonus give (2^2)x2000 =8000gp cost. Adding a +2 enchancement is (2^2)x2000, then doubled for "slotless". 24000gp.

That's not right. The +2 enhancement and +2 flaming burst enhancement are both Weapon Enhancements. Thus, going by wondrous item creation, the cost is 4x4x2000gp = 32000gp. You add all of the enhancements together because they are of the same type, Weapon Enhancements. The cost comes out the same.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

That's not right. The +2 enhancement and +2 flaming burst enhancement are both Weapon Enhancements. ...

My point is that weapons and other items use fundamentally different rules from other items, so worrying about inconsistency in caster level rules is small potatoes.

A Belt of Strength +2 and Constitution +2 also give two enchancement type bonuses. But you would not calculate the cost as for a +4 items. At least I would not.

 

[kreynolds]

My point is that weapons and other items use fundamentally different rules from other items, so worrying about inconsistency in caster level rules is small potatoes.

A Belt of Strength +2 and Constitution +2 also give two enchancement type bonuses. But you would not calculate the cost as for a +4 items. At least I would not.

Hey, it's cool. I was just pointing out that your point was incorrect. I could already see hundreds of players claiming that they will use Craft Wondrous Item to make all their weapons because it would be cheaper than using Craft Magic Arms and Armor if they used your formula.

 

[dcollins]

Because of the way magical armors, shield and weapons are priced, there is no way to increase cost and caster level for magical powers for these items.

This is indeed a significant loophole, if one assumes that caster levels are freely alterable. It's a problem not just for the items you note, but in fact the only items which are given hard cost-change-for-altered-caster-level are potions/scrolls/wands (PH p. 78 and DMG p. 243-246).

I would point to a slight oversight in your list of assumptions. You note:

2) The caster level indicated in the stat block of magical items in the DMG and other books represents either, depending on who you ask :
a) The minimum caster level to create the item.
b) A baseline (or average) for magical items you find.

3) It is possible to create magical items with a higher caster level (up to the item creator's caster level).

However, the situation supported by the core book (DMG), is both that #2(a) is true, and that #3 is not true. In other words, not only is "caster Level" a minimum level for the creator, but it is also fixed for the specific item and cannot be changed. Fortunately, taking the book literally, the problem you note therefore disappears -- most items simply cannot have their caster level changed, so pricing for the differences is a nonissue.

From DMG p. 178: "For other magic items [i.e., any non-potion/scroll/wand], the caster level is determined by the item itself [i.e., not #3]. In this case, the creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level [i.e., #2(a)]."

The problem you identify (nonexistence of rules for pricing altered-caster-level items) is one of the primary arguments why proponents of #2(b) must be mistaken. You may wish you read more on the issues involved at this site, here: www.superdan.net/dndfaq2.html

 

[KGradert]

Well, since Monte Cook is one of the main proponents of 2b...I put a lot of faith in his take on it, seeing as how he helped write most of it.

He has a large write-up of the issue on his website in the archives for DM Support.

http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly3.html