Is Caster Level a prerequisite for creating magic items?

[Menexenus]

Come on, Dcollins, you should be more intellectually honest.

I don't see any intellectual dishonesty in what dcollins quoted. The quote indicates that Monte a) believes that caster level as a prereq is part of the canonical interpretation of the rules and b) that he thinks its a lingering mistake. I don't see how the heading that you added to the quote changes anything.

There's no need for name-calling or false accusations, guys. Let's all get along!

From what I've seen so far, I guess the answer to my original question boils down to Rule 0. What does your DM want to do? Everyone is free to play it however they want in their own game (which is, of course, always true).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I don't see any intellectual dishonesty in what dcollins quoted.

Actually, there is, because he's not presenting it as Monte intended. He's presenting it as, "Monte thinks CL should be a prerequisite," which is most definately not what Monte is saying.

Moreover, this is something dcollins has used multiple times in the past as part of his body of evidence that he's right and the 3.5 DMG (+Errata) is wrong. We have this conversation every other month or so.

EDIT:

As to your original question, the actual rules say that CL is not a prerequisite. They do this in no uncertain terms.

You may houserule appropriately.

 

[anon]

I hate to fan these flames too much, but, dcollins, do you maintain your claim in the face of the errata? Or are you simply restating how you think your houserule should work?

 

[3d6]

The new caster level rules do have some problems. For a good example, look at the cape of the mountebank.

On command, this bright red and gold cape allows the wearer to use the magic of the dimension door spell once per day. When he disappears, he leaves behind a cloud of smoke, appearing in a similar fashion at his destination.

Moderate conjuration; CL 9th; Craft Wondrous Item, dimension door; Price 10,080 gp;Weight 1 lb.

Given the errata, you can create this item with any caster level equal to or greater than 9. Higher caster level capes are better items, as they have a greater range, weight limit, and are harder to dispel, but all possible capes of the montebank cost the same. Other magic items, such as scrolls and potions, have costs that vary based on caster level to reflect this difference in power, while woundrous items (and rods, and rings, etc.) do not.

A minor problem, to be sure, but I would still prefer that errata not introduce new problems into the rules.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

A minor problem, to be sure, but I would still prefer that errata not introduce new problems into the rules.

And not really a problem at all. The cost for a cape of the mountebank is actually based on the formula for a command word activated item:

Spell Level * Caster Level * 1,800 gp = 4 * 9 * 1,800gp = 64,800 gp

It's useable once per day, which grants a price reduction of 80%, bringing the price to 12,960.

Now, the actual cape has a market price of 10,080, which is an approximately 23% reduction, likely due to "When he disappears, he leaves behind a cloud of smoke, appearing in a similar fashion at his destination," a limitation which is not present in the base spell.

So, if you want a CL 15 cape?

Spell Level * Caster Level * 1,800 gp = 4 * 9 * 1,800gp = 108,000 gp

Once per day: 21,600 gp

Unusual Limitation: 16,800gp

dcollins's usual counter example is stat-enhancing items, since their benefit is entirely independent of the item's caster level. The rules do not provide any method for pricing Gloves of Strength +2 at CL 5 vs. CL 20, therefore, he argues, you cannot arbitrarily up the CL.

I think the best rebuttal is to bring up the second half of my first sentence: "their benefit is entirely independent of the item's caster level."

If increasing an item's caster level has no appreciable benefits the majority of the time, then it should not carry a commensurate cost increase.

What are the benefits the gloves gain at CL 20 vs. CL 5?

1. Better resistance to targeted dispel-type magics
2. Better saving throws if unattended

As regards #1, I have never, in all the years I've spent playing 3E, seen a dispel magic targeted at an item. Anecdotal evidence is, at best, a poor way of rebutting points, however, but it's all I have, so I'll go with it. I'll also point out that the duration of a targeted dispel - 1d4 rounds - is small enough that, in many cases, it likely won't matter.

As regards #2, it means your items have a better chance of not going kaput after you die and your party wizard fireballs your body to get the guys that killed you. This is not exactly a game-breaking issue, especially given that, at higher CLs, the item still has the exact same hardness and hit points it started with, so even if it makes it save, it's likely to go kaput from the damage anyway.

In other words, the benefits of higher CL for CL-indepent items are scanty at best, and hardly a reason to denounce the whole system.

 

[3d6]

The cost of a cape of the montebank is 10,080 gp, regardless of the cape's caster level. You're confusing guidelines for the creation of entirely new magic items with the rules for creating magic items, which state that "the caster level is determined by the creator" and that a cape of the montebank is 10,080 gp.

Also, I don't think calling something a "minor problem" is the same thing as "denounc[ing] the whole system".

 

[Scion]

I have always treated CL as what the item is made as, no matter the level of the person who made it.

It makes some items lesser and some greater. Pearls of power are simply incredibly difficult to destroy where as the cape isnt so much.

I feel that this fixes pretty much all of the problems right away. I also allow another feat so that all items you are wearing to be at a higher CL, it makes for some interesting characters on occasion.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Btw, I think the price of the Cape was made from the minimum caster level, 7th. (4 * 7 * 1800) / 5 is exactly the price.

IMO, the better houserule would be to edit all of the magical items to have the minimum caster level by default. And, if you want to create one with a higher caster level, it would have to be a custom item. Indeed, that's the rule on items in general, so to actually set a different level, it has to be a custom item. Right?

 

[Menexenus]

Warning: this is a very lame post.

As regards #1, I have never, in all the years I've spent playing 3E, seen a dispel magic targeted at an item. Anecdotal evidence is, at best, a poor way of rebutting points, however, but it's all I have, so I'll go with it. I'll also point out that the duration of a targeted dispel - 1d4 rounds - is small enough that, in many cases, it likely won't matter.

This is completely irrelevant to the highly technical points that you are making, but I actually did see someone do a targeted dispel once. We were fighting a powerful lich whose ring seemed to be helping him a lot, so the cleric in the party did a targeted dispel on it. I can't remember if it made a big difference to the fight, but I just wanted to point out that I had seen it done.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Equally lame post

I have never seen an item targeted either, but my high level (15-16th) PCs discussed using it as a tactic. The problem to be solved as the opponent BBEG, high-level cleric with a bead of karma. They wanted to dispel the bead (actually using greater dispel of course). They have yet to take that chance, but they definitely will when it comes up again.