DMG p. 215

[Platinum]

Read the first sentance of the second column on p. 215 of the DMG and THEN answer this:

Can a charcter craft a wondrous item if he meets all the prerequisites, but is of a level lower than the listed caster level for that item?

If yes, what would be my argument/response when my DM says: "Show me where it says that you don't have to be the minimum caster level for a listed item."

Thanks.

 

[the Jester]

Sigh... this is one of those issues that is poorly defined. I believe Monte Cook has said that the caster level shouldn't be a prereq, but I'm of the opinion that it should (since the magic item certainly shouldn't be higher level than its creator except under exceptionally odd circumstances).

 

[Tessarael]

As Monte Cook said in his review of the DMG, this is something that should have been fixed in 3.5E, which they messed up in 3E.

Reading the 3.5E DMG, no, you must meet the caster level requirement, as well as having the other prerequisites (e.g. the spells needed to make the item).

As far as I can see, caster level requirement makes sense for weapon and armor enhancement bonuses, level x 3 is required. Beyond that, I don't know whether the caster level requirement is needed for game balance.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Judging by p215 and p282 the intention of 3.5 is clear... for wondrous items and certain other stuff the Caster Level *is* a prerequisite.

Despite what Monte thinks, this is surely a needed balance to the Craft Wondrous Item feat requiring merely 3rd level+ to attain. It is the only way they can have one feat which spans creation of minor wondrous items all the way up to magnificent wondrous items.

What do you specifically have in mind? What is the item you would want to create and how far off it is your own caster level?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

The specific sentence Platinum mentioned aside, the sentence further down the page:

"The prerequisites for creation of an item are given immediately following the item's caster level"

would tend to indicate that caster level is not itself always a prerequisite unless specifically addressed (particularly since some items specify a caster level requirement in that "prerequisite" section, and some do not).

Shrug.

 

[Quixon]

I may as post this here as well(I posted the same thing on the thread on WotC boards Platinum started on same topic).

Andy Collins has said(in the 3.5 Q&A Thread he was answering before the books came out) that caster levels ARE NOT pre-req's, never have been nor are they now, they just copy and pasted that part from 3.0 so it didn't get fixed in 3.5

Monte Cook and Sean K. Reynolds said the same thing on their sites.

 

[Tellerve]

I should hope not as some just don't make any sense.

Tellerve

 

[sithramir]

I don't get where in those pages it implies that the caster level IS a prerequisite. Certain items have a caster level minimum in the PREREQUISITES but the caster level is definitely defined as only for the items saving throws etc. Any other time you see it talking about caster level as a prerequisite it is talking about the caster level given IN THE PREREQUISITES not the one given before. Or its talking about making an item like a wand which you need a caster level high enough to make it cast like that level (IE you can't make a 10th level fireball wand if you are 9th level).

 

[dcollins]

Can a charcter craft a wondrous item if he meets all the prerequisites, but is of a level lower than the listed caster level for that item?

Welcome to a massive debate that knows no end. That rules passage in 3.0 and 3.5 is very explicit that Caster Level is a requirement for non-potions/scrolls/wands.

However, various designers (Monte Cook, Sean K. Reynolds, Andy Cook) said that it wasn't supposed to be. However, it was never errata'd. However, Monte Cook more recently said that according to the written rule, it was a requirement. However, he said it was an error. However, no designer can answer what the price of an item with altered caster level is, exactly.

And so it goes: www.superdan.net/dndfaq2.html

 

[Stalker0]

You would think for one of the most hotly debated topics imo in 3e history, and considering the amount of developers who have taken an active stance on the issue... that they would have taken care to clarify that passage