D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 DMG Errata has been posted at WOTC

[Marshall]

Where does it say it has a higher "Sale Value", in the rules? I agree that items with level based spell effects have a variable cost based on the caster level, but I don't see where items like belt's of giant strength have their cost adjusted by the caster level. (Although as a DM I would probably increase the value if the caster level was significantly higher than the default. It's just not spelled out in the rules.)

It doesn't. Thats the point. The rules use the term "Market Value" as a function of "Cost-to-Create". That doesn't take into effect that the "Market" would "Value" higher caster level items more than lower level ones. Its an unfortunate mis-use of a real world term.

 

[Caliban]

Check again, the first quoted thread is dated 7/11/2003 and specifically titled "[3.5] Errata/FAQ not included? Confirm or deny."

*shrug* Ok, I looked at the wrong date. What's your point?

Everything you quoted from him pretty much agrees with what I said. He says the price change is marginal at best when changing the caster level. Sounds like he's just eyeballing a minor price adjustment based on the caster level change, which is what I would do as a DM.

Now show me where in the 3.5 (or even 3.0) rules it actually gives a price adjustment based on the caster level for an item that produces an effect that isn't a level dependent spell.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yipee! They fixed Polymorph! Hit points DO NOT CHANGE when con changes!

I noticed that.

I also noticed that the Official DMG Errata are out, and a Standard Strand of Prayer Beads containing only a Bead of Karma still has a market price of 0 gp, and a Standard Strand of Prayer Beads containing only a Bead of Healing still has a negative market price

-Hyp.

 

[Gort]

I am thankful for the weapon hitpoints errata - my DM was sundering my +4 sword a week or two back and I KNEW the rule was +10 hitpoints per plus on the sword, I just couldn't remember where it came from!

I find 50 hitpoints a lot less scary than 14.

 

[dcollins]

Sounds like he's just eyeballing a minor price adjustment based on the caster level change, which is what I would do as a DM... Now show me where in the 3.5 (or even 3.0) rules it actually gives a price adjustment based on the caster level for an item that produces an effect that isn't a level dependent spell.

There isn't one, and that's my point. It's the "no-one-knows-how-much-anything-costs issue". Having "other item" caster levels fixed was synchronous with there being no rules one way or another for evaluating these changed prices.

So please, show me a quote from any rulebook, FAQ, or designer commentary which clarifies exactly when caster level changes price and when it does not. There's never been one, and there needed to be one along with this errata change to make sense.

 

[Count Arioch the 28t]

I am thankful for the weapon hitpoints errata - my DM was sundering my +4 sword a week or two back and I KNEW the rule was +10 hitpoints per plus on the sword, I just couldn't remember where it came from!

I find 50 hitpoints a lot less scary than 14.

Dang, I missed that rule. It's a good one though, I assumed it was +1 HP per + of the enhancement.

 

[Ranger REG]

Huh. I thought the policy on errata was 'only what is necessary'. A lot of the DMG errata is fluff that didn't need to be touched.

If it's grammatical error that have no bearing on the rules whatsoever, then I understand. But if they're missing crucial rules statement like "taking a level in a prestige class do not incur a multiclass experience penalty" or somesuch, then this should fall under "only what is necessary." I mean this has been asked so many times, and while the FAQ and this board were happy to answer it, it doesn't validate our answer until it is in the errata.

My opinion? The errata is not complete. What is even worse? I am not surprised.

Who cares if the sample NPCs have a few errors or the magic items have a few odd costs or components? There are a heck of a lot more PHB rules that are of much greater importance that need attention ...

If the sample NPCs are not following the rules, they can cause confusion for DMs, newbie or not. As for PHB, I may agree with you, but the discussion here is about DMG errata.

 

[Caliban]

There isn't one, and that's my point. It's the "no-one-knows-how-much-anything-costs issue". Having "other item" caster levels fixed was synchronous with there being no rules one way or another for evaluating these changed prices.

So please, show me a quote from any rulebook, FAQ, or designer commentary which clarifies exactly when caster level changes price and when it does not. There's never been one, and there needed to be one along with this errata change to make sense.

Sure, look at the pricing guidelines for new magic items in the DMG. Notice all the prices that are adjusted by caster level? Now notice all the prices that aren't.

If it's not one of the things that have a level-based cost, then I don't see where caster level actually has an effect. Look at items like Pearl of Power. They are all at the same caster level, but it's not used at all in the price calculation formula.

Look at the stat boosting items, some of them have different caster levels (gauntlets of ogre power: caster level 6; Gloves of Dexterity: caster level 8), but that doesn't affect the price, only the total stat bonus does.

If the item isn't casting/duplicating a spell, then the caster level doesn't have any bearing on the price, even if we all agree that it should have at least a minor effect.

Confirm or Deny?

 

[Marshall]

So please, show me a quote from any rulebook, FAQ, or designer commentary which clarifies exactly when caster level changes price and when it does not. There's never been one, and there needed to be one along with this errata change to make sense.

Heres the thing:

THE DMG HAS NO RULES FOR "PRICE"!!!

None, zip, zero, zilch.
The DMG guidelines are there to help determine cost. The fact of the matter is that it doesnt COST any more to make an item with no caster level dependant effects at a higher than minimum CL. That doesn't mean that the DM can't say it has a higher "Price"

 

[dcollins]

Sure, look at the pricing guidelines for new magic items in the DMG. Notice all the prices that are adjusted by caster level? Now notice all the prices that aren't... Confirm or Deny?

(a) I didn't ask for "guidelines", I asked for rules, and there aren't any. (b) I also didn't ask for absence of rules, that's exactly the problem.

Prior to this errata, all magic items actually appearing in the DMG had an inarguable, by-the-book price to them. Now, Sean K. Reynolds says a 3rd-caster-level pearl of power would be worth "marginally" less, by about a caster-levels-value. You say you'd "eyeball" it to some other number. Marshall, above, feels it should be a different number.

Does a 3rd-caster-level pearl of power, or a 20th-level circlet of blasting, actually have a definite market price under the rules, or does it not? If so, what is that number?