[3.5] Errata/FAQ not included? Confirm or deny.

[dcollins]

Sean, while we've got your ear here I'd like to say this (watch out, this has caused countless flame fests in the rules forum)...

If this rule does get changed at some point I sincerely hope that rules are included to answer the question of "how does market price change when Caster Level is altered?" The rules currently answer that question very succinctly for potions/scrolls/wands, but not for the other types of items which DMG p. 178 says have fixed caster levels.

I know you're not on the R&D team, but it does seem to be an issue.

 

[Jhyrryl]

It's not errata, it's reader confusion.

At GenCon last year during the D&D Q&A, it was stated that caster level is not, and never has been a prerequisite for item creation, which is why caster level is listed independently (read as "in-front-of and seperated by a semi-colon") of the prerequisites.

That said, it surprises me that they didn't attempt to address that confusion by listing caster level on a seperate line.

 

[Plane Sailing]

On the other hand, using caster level as a prereq is the only balancing feature in the otherwise uber-creation feat "Create Wondrous Item". I wonder if it was left in deliberately for that reason?

Tom - I guess you've got all the answers here that you were looking for? I can't actually help on the issue of 3.5 vs FAQ/errata, because I never bothered keeping up with the latter.

Cheers

 

[seankreynolds]

{If this rule does get changed at some point I sincerely hope that rules are included to answer the question of "how does market price change when Caster Level is altered?" The rules currently answer that question very succinctly for potions/scrolls/wands, but not for the other types of items which DMG p. 178 says have fixed caster levels.}

Whether or not they'll ever officially do so, I dunno. But I do mention it in my Guidelines For Magic Item Creation article, found here:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/magicitemcreation.htm

{That said, it surprises me that they didn't attempt to address that confusion by listing caster level on a seperate line.}

Well, it is listed BEFORE the word "Prereq," so unless people are reading right-to-left it should be self-evident that CLs are not part of the prereqs.

 

[kreynolds]

Well, it is listed BEFORE the word "Prereq," so unless people are reading right-to-left it should be self-evident that CLs are not part of the prereqs.

This is what I like to lovingly call a "b**** slap".

 

[Spatula]

On the other hand, using caster level as a prereq is the only balancing feature in the otherwise uber-creation feat "Create Wondrous Item". I wonder if it was left in deliberately for that reason?

The wondrous item maker still needs to meet the listed prereqs, and have the enough cash and XP (keeping in mind that you can't spend so much XP that you lose a level). But regardless of whether or not the DM treats the "Caster Level" as a prerequisite, Craft Wondrous is always going to be the uber item creation feat simply because of the range of items it allows you to create, across all levels of the character's career. That's a problem with the feat itself, not with how the caster level is treated.

 

[heirodule]

For the record:

1. Monte never intended caster level to be a prereq for creating items.
2. His turnover of the DMG text doesn't include such a rule.
3. It was added afterward, I don't know when.
4. It's a pretty well-known bit of errata among the R&D staff, as Monte and I both talked about it with people when we both still worked there.
5. It apparently didn't make it into the official DMG errata, though it should have.
6. I thought it had made it into the errata, but was on the train home without a copy of the errata so I couldn't check, and since I left my power adapter at work I only had a limited amount of time to post my comments before I ran out of power so I couldn't check the errata to be sure.
7. The error is still in the 3.5 DMG.
8. I'll be posting a correction to my commentary ASAP.

9. Living Greyhawk decided it was a good limiting factor for MIC in a global campaign, so maybe they pushed for it to stay.

 

[dcollins]

{re: pricing for altered caster levels} Whether or not they'll ever officially do so, I dunno. But I do mention it in my Guidelines For Magic Item Creation article, found here:

I'm afraid I don't see this specifically mentioned in your arcticle, it would be much appreciated if perhaps you could point it out for me?

For example, what I've never found an answer to:
- What is the market price of a 1st-level pearl of power made at caster level 3 (instead of 17)?

Or additionally:
- What is the market price of vestments of faith made at caster level 7 (instead of 20)?
- Is there any increase in market price to a +1 flaming sword made at caster level 20 (instead of 10)?
- What is the market price of a minor circlet of blasting at caster level 10 (instead of 6), or a major circlet of blasting at caster level 10 (instead of 17)?

Things like that -- official items in the rules that apparently have variable caster level.

 

[seankreynolds]

{I'm afraid I don't see this specifically mentioned in your arcticle, it would be much appreciated if perhaps you could point it out for me?}

Scroll down to the section called "Effectiveness of Caster Level." It talks about why you would ever price a constant-effect item of endure elements at above CL 1.


{For example, what I've never found an answer to:- What is the market price of a 1st-level pearl of power made at caster level 3 (instead of 17)?}

Marginally greater, since for this item the only effect is a slightly better chance at resisting a dispel magic.

{- What is the market price of vestments of faith made at caster level 7 (instead of 20)?}

Probably not much less (though I'd be inclined to argue that this "holy garment" probably has its cost based on the clerical version of stoneskin rather than the arcane version). As with the pearl, the resistance do dispel magic is of only marginal value.

{- Is there any increase in market price to a +1 flaming sword made at caster level 20 (instead of 10)?}

Ditto.

{- What is the market price of a minor circlet of blasting at caster level 10 (instead of 6), }

Since the CL has a direct effect on the item's power (the damage is as per searing light, which has CL-based scaling damage), it would increase as per the formula.

{or a major circlet of blasting at caster level 10 (instead of 17)?}

Well, you can't do it at CL 10 since a maximized searing light is a 6th-level slot, requiring CL 11, but otherwise as the minor form of the item.

 

[Conaill]

Marginally greater, since for this item the only effect is a slightly better chance at resisting a dispel magic.

I assume you mean marginally less, right? I.e. the CL3 PoP costs marginally less than the CL 17 one.

I like the reasoning in your article, but it still lacks concrete guidelines for changing the CL of the *primary* function of an item.

How's this for an extrapolation from your CL1 Endure Elements example... A Pearl of Power at CL 17 provides little additional benefit over one created at CL 3, so the standard CL 17 item in the DMG could be assumed to be priced as a CL 4 one (1 level above its minimum caster level). So a CL 3 version would be... 3/4 the price?

Seems reasonable, but there's quite a series of assumptions between your article and the final price I came up with. And at 3/4 the price, pretty soon the campaign world will be populated with CL3 Pearls of Power,in stead of the assumed CL17 ones. Probably made in Hong Kong or somesuch.