Caster Level Requirement for Prayer Beads

[Skarppsey]

I'm disconcerted by the caster level listed for Necklace of Prayer Beads (Bless) (DMG p223). It says the caster level is 17th, apparently regardless of which type of bead is being crafted. But that doesn't seem to jibe with the requirements to craft a bead of bless.

Craft Wonderous Item = 3rd Level Feat.
Bless = 1st Level Spell

Seems like a 3rd Level Divine caster with the Craft Wonderous Item feat should be able to handle it.

Why would you need to be 17th level to do this? If you look at the prerequisites, it says gate, wind walk and one of the other spells (bless is one of them). But there are specific beads for wind walking and for summoning. If I only want a bead of bless on my necklace, do I still need a 17th level caster to create it?

Any help is appreciated.

 

[dcollins]

Guess I'll lay a bit of groundwork here. This thread will definitely turn into a "is caster level actually a requirement?" discussion. Many people will argue "no", including some D&D designers in off-book comments. However, that directly contradicts the language on DMG p. 178 which says it is a "minimum on the creator's level", and has not itself been errata'd (more: www.superdan.net/dndfaq2.html).

With regard to the particular item necklace of prayer beads, it is a bit surprising as you say, both in caster level and prerequisite spells. Similar "grouped" items include ioun stones and pearls of power which similarly spark frequent debate but none of those have been errata'd either.

So the rule stands as written. It can be changed but requires a house rule which I personally find unnecessary. As to the "why?" that's up to the individual DM and the flavor of the campaign -- there are many other items with high caster levels and low prerequisites which apparently are just special items that require experienced crafters to make them (see also: sovereign glue, universal solvent, vestments of faith, etc.)

 

[Yeoman]

As far as the debate is concerned, I'm on the opposite side of Dan, and the Sage agrees that the entry that Dan refers to on page 178 is in error. You'll likely get a lot of answers, but just go with the one that seems right to you.

Later

 

[Dr_Rictus]

However, that directly contradicts the language on DMG p. 178 which says it is a "minimum on the creator's level", and has not itself been errata'd (more: www.superdan.net/dndfaq2.html).

Here, however, we get into trouble with what the book says and what writing means vs. what the author said and what he meant.

Let's pretend for a moment, without getting into too deep a discussion of semiotics, that the purpose of writing the DMG was to communicate the authors' intended meaning. We know what that meaning was because they have told us. Now, that's a poor way to correct the problem for the majority of D&D players, but what do we gain in this context by arguing against it?

We gain an unreasonable ruling due to a dogmatic insistence on sticking to text that the authors have already told us is not what they meant to say. Whoo-pee, that's entertainment value, all right.