Item Creation Caster Levels (Is this true??)

[Caliban]

Agree with 2 of the designers' unofficial statements and house rule CL away, but don't try and claim that it isn't the official position in 3.0 and 3.5 as their is absolutely no rules text that supports that assertion.
[/b]

"absolutely no rules text"? What BS. Several people have pointed out things that support that assertion.

Declaring yourself right and ignoring the counter arguements does nothing but hurt your own credibility.

The facts are that there is some ambiguous wording that can be read to agree with the designers intent, and some non-ambigous wording that flatly contradicts some other non-ambigous text.

If you go with what the designers say the intent was, the contradiction goes away, but you have to use a less than obvious interpretation of some text.

If you go with the most likely interpretation, then you have some items that have two different caster level requirements, which is a direct contradiction in the rules.

Face it, the item creation rules are messed up. Still. Pick whichever version makes the most sense to you and stop pretending that there is only one correct way to read it.

 

[KarinsDad]

" Pick whichever version makes the most sense to you and stop pretending that there is only one correct way to read it.

Well, I for one cannot see another way to read it. Please enlighten me.

"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 (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level.) "

Ignoring what the designers state, please quote item creation rules from the DMG that illustrate that CL is determined by the ability to cast the prerequisite spell(s) and not by the item itself.

I see no other way to interpret this.

Now, the designers may argue over what they meant or didn't mean, but that is non-sequitor to the actual rules.

 

[Silverglass]

"absolutely no rules text"? What BS. Several people have pointed out things that support that assertion.

Declaring yourself right and ignoring the counter arguements does nothing but hurt your own credibility.

Ok then quote me some of this contradictory rules text, not something that "can be interpreted" or "is ambiguous and might mean" or "a designer has said it was meant to be this way" but an actual piece of text that specifically over-rules the explicit sentence about caster level.

I will freely admit that some items have wordings that don't make absolute sense but only 1 single item out of the whole SRD actually breaks what is said in the general rule, thus being an example of a specific rule overriding a general rule. And the principle of the way the rules or D&D are written is that specific cases do override the general rule, this does not however invalidate that rule for any case other than that specified.

The facts are that there is some ambiguous wording that can be read to agree with the designers intent, and some non-ambigous wording that flatly contradicts some other non-ambigous text.

If you go with what the designers say the intent was, the contradiction goes away, but you have to use a less than obvious interpretation of some text.

If you go with the most likely interpretation, then you have some items that have two different caster level requirements, which is a direct contradiction in the rules.

Having 2 caster level requirements is not a direct contradiction with the rules, as CL and prerequisites are separate attributes and requirements of the item each with their own write-up and the rules as written state that this case may exists and which takes precedence over the other (prerequisite caster levels may raise the level required above the items CL).

"For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell and not higher than her own caster level. 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 (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator’s level)."

This is a completely unambigious statement that the creator's caster level must be as high as the the item's caster level. The caveat about higher minimums is plainly explained in the section on pre-requisites.

"Prerequisites: Certain requirements must be met in order for a character to create a magic item. These include feats, spells, and miscellaneous requirements such as level, alignment, and race or kind. The prerequisites for creation of an item are given immediately following the item’s caster level."

Ok an unambigous statement that the prerequisites must be met during item creation, note that Caster Level is not a "prerequisite" but a separate attribute of the item.

"It is possible for more than one character to cooperate in the creation of an item, with each participant providing one or more of the prerequisites. In some cases, cooperation may even be necessary.
If two or more characters cooperate to create an item, they must agree among themselves who will be considered the creator for the purpose of determinations where the creator’s level must be known. The character designated as the creator pays the XP required to make the item."

Another unambiguous statement showing that all of the prerequisites do not have to be met by the creator, they may be supplied by another person. So this is why the prerequisites MAY put a higher minimum on the creators caster level than the CL of the item.

Looking at the items themselves:

For Weapons and Armour:
"If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met." This does not contradict the general rule but instead supports it and is explicity stated in the sections on creating arms and armour.

Rings
Ring of Protection
"caster must be of a level at least three times greater than the bonus of the ring", this does not contradict the general rule which states that prerequistes may put a higher minimum than just the CL as you cannot Forge a ring until you are caster level 12th in any case.

Wondrous Items
Exluding the references of "creator’s caster level must be at least x times the bonus" which do not contradict the general rule in any way there are only 2 items that do have ambiguous text, and I fully admit this.

Golem Manual
e.g Clay - "creator must be caster level 11th", a strange one as this is equal to the CL of the item and is repeated in the other golem manuals. This makes little sense but any reading does not imply that the CL limit is overriden in any way as the prerequisite is the same as the CL.

Brass Horn of Valhalla "Spellcaster level 1st", the real strange one but that even contradicts the simple fact that you must be a 3rd level caster to qualify for the feat.

So of all the items listed there a 2 whose prerequisites actually have an absolute caster level specified and only one has a prerequisite that is lower than the items CL. So 1 item out of the whole set has a prerequiste that breaks the rule.

Yes some Potions are listed with caster level prerequisites that are higher than the items CL. But potions operate under a separate rule than the one I have quoted at the beginning of this, specifically "For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell and not higher than her own caster level." The caster Level can be set by the creator and the prerequisite may be higher than this but the rules as written about prerequistes state that this does not need to be supplied by the creator.

Face it, the item creation rules are messed up. Still. Pick whichever version makes the most sense to you and stop pretending that there is only one correct way to read it.

There is only 1 correct way to read the rules as written, even Monte admits this. I have not however said in any way that what is written is what was intended (it obviously was not) or that it is the best way of ruling item creation or that they are not messed up (for some items). All that I have said is that this is what the 3.0 rules said and it has not been errata'd or changed in 3.5.

 

[Caliban]

There is only 1 correct way to read the rules as written, even Monte admits this. I have not however said in any way that what is written is what was intended (it obviously was not) or that it is the best way of ruling item creation or that they are not messed up (for some items). All that I have said is that this is what the 3.0 rules said and it has not been errata'd or changed in 3.5.

Obvioiusly a false statement on your part, since several people interpret them differently, including the game designers. So drop the "holier than though act" please.

Last post, since this topic has once again degenerated into "Is Not/Is So" defenses.

 

[Artoomis]

...There is only 1 correct way to read the rules as written, even Monte admits this. I have not however said in any way that what is written is what was intended (it obviously was not) or that it is the best way of ruling item creation or that they are not messed up (for some items). All that I have said is that this is what the 3.0 rules said and it has not been errata'd or changed in 3.5.

That's what I said as well. There is absolutely no ambiguity here whatsoever. It's just as clear as can be. Perhaps that's not what was intended, but it most certainly is what got published and never changed.

 

[KarinsDad]

Obvioiusly a false statement on your part, since several people interpret them differently, including the game designers. So drop the "holier than though act" please.

This is not an obviously false statement.

There are rules. There are game designer opinions. This is a rules forum, not a game designer opinion forum.

I am personally waiting for you to quote rules to back a different interpretation. Stating that item caster level actually means caster level required to cast the spell is, quite frankly, totally lame. If they would have meant minimum caster level for the spell, they would have stated so. There is a caster level listed for the item. It is obvious to anyone who reads this that item caster level is the one listed on the item. You have failed to quote any rule that would support an alternative interpretation (at least so far on this thread).

So, if anyone has a "holier than though act", so far I'd have to say it is you. The same criteria that you use when posting elsewhere on the rules forum (i.e. taking the literal or most reasonable interpretation), you are not using here.

Post some real rules which disagree with this rule.

Last post, since this topic has once again degenerated into "Is Not/Is So" defenses.

If you feel like you cannot support your position, then fine. But, you appear to be the one who is degenerating the thread, not anyone else.

If you feel like this is not the case, support your position with rules quotes.

 

[Artoomis]

...There are rules. There are game designer opinions. This is a rules forum, not a game designer opinion forum...

While you are correct on what the rules content is in this case, this is also the forum for discussing designers' intent. Interpreting rules requires both the actual text and the intent.

Of course, in cases like this where the text is incredibly plain ("...the creator’s caster level must be as high as the item’s caster level ...") intent doesn't mean didley-squat except for the good folks at WotC to decide if the rule needs erratum (that's the oft-ignored singular of "errata," for those who might not know) to fix it to meet the designer's intent as state after-the-fact. As in, "How in tarnation did that get published? That's not what we meant at all. What we meant was caster level is NOT a requirement for creation." And then the good folks at WotC could add it to the list of errata. While the former may have happened, the latter has not.

 

[Caliban]

Post some real rules which disagree with this rule.

If you feel like you cannot support your position, then fine. But, you appear to be the one who is degenerating the thread, not anyone else.

If you feel like this is not the case, support your position with rules quotes.

Why don't you act like less of jerk KD, and stop trying to provoke me? I thought we had measure of respect for each other, but it looks like I was wrong.

I have quoted rules, if you choose not to listen, that's your problem, not mine. I'm not repeating myself again. Go on with your smug and condescending proclamations if you want, but leave me out of this.

I'm definitely sick and tired of all you (Artoomis, KD, Silver, etc.) acting as if there is only one possible way of reading the rules in this case. It isn't. If it was, then there wouldn't be a debate. Saying it over and over again doesn't make you more right.

Both interpretations have inconsistencies. You simply choose to ignore the inconsistencies in your version is (or rely on meanings as "strained" or "lame" as anything you accuse me of to explain them).

 

[Artoomis]

...I'm definitely sick and tired of all you (Artoomis, KD, Silver, etc.) acting as if there is only one possible way of reading the rules in this case. It isn't. If it was, then there wouldn't be a debate. Saying it over and over again doesn't make you more right.

Both interpretations have inconsistencies. You simply choose to ignore the inconsistencies in your version is (or rely on meanings as "strained" or "lame" as anything you accuse me of to explain them).

It's incredibly hard for me to see how "...the creator’s caster level must be as high as the item’s caster level..." is in any way unclear or ambigious or inconsistent.

To think that "...The prerequisites for creation of an item are given immediately following the item’s caster level...." somehow means that the item's caster level is not required is, indeed, a stretch, since the item's caster level is clearly stated as a requirement for creation.

I think that those who believe that the item's caster level is not a requirement are being unduly influenced by the designers' post-production stated intent.

 

[KarinsDad]

Why don't you act like less of jerk KD, and stop trying to provoke me? I thought we had measure of respect for each other, but it looks like I was wrong.

I do respect you when you deserve respect.

I do not respect you right now.

Who in this thread wrote "What BS" first?
Who in this thread wrote "So drop the "holier than though act" please" first?
Who in this thread called someone else a jerk first?
Who in this thread went off on a tissy fit because I thought that the concept of "item caster level = minimum caster level for a given spell" was lame?

If you are going to take an attitude in the thread first because most everyone here is disagreeing with you, do not be surprised when people call you on it.

Look in the mirror Caliban. You appear to be having a bad hair day. Now, let's drop the attitude and get back to the discussion at hand.


Your entire argument appears to revolve around item caster level not being in the prerequisite section.

For that matter, a forge is not listed in the prerequisite section. Having a quiet, comfortable, well lit work area is not in the prerequisite section. Working on nothing else is not in the prerequisite section. Not stopping is not in the prerequisite section.

All of these are still requirements however.

The prerequisite rule in no way precludes or excludes other item creation requirements. You have to meet them all in order to make the item.

Now, if you could show us some rules that indicate that "item caster level = minimum caster level for a given spell", then your position would have more merit. But as you have described it so far, it does not meet any form of literal interpretation or even reasonable interpretation of the quoted text. IMO.

You simply choose to ignore the inconsistencies in your version is (or rely on meanings as "strained" or "lame" as anything you accuse me of to explain them).

Please point out the inconsistency in "our version".

I must have missed them in your earlier postings and cannot find them. Sorry about that.

If you could explicitly point them out, I'd appreciate it.