Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Patryn of Elvenshae said:
An item's saving throws are also directly dependent on caster level. "A magic item’s saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + one-half the item’s caster level."
-Hyp.
Item Creation Caster Level
- Thread starter EPRock
- Start date
An item's saving throws are also directly dependent on caster level. "A magic item’s saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + one-half the item’s caster level."
-Hyp.
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Hypersmurf said:
Yeah, I know. I should addressed that specifically, as well, but I've found that unattended magic item saving throws come up about as often as targeted dispels - succinctly, never.
But then, I've never played in games with blaster mages who blanket AoE spells on their own (dead) party members.
The mages I've played and grouped with tended more towards targeted spells.
Patryn of Elvenshae said:Yeah, I know. I should addressed that specifically, as well, but I've found that unattended magic item saving throws come up about as often as targeted dispels - succinctly, never.
But then, I've never played in games with blaster mages who blanket AoE spells on their own (dead) party members.
So, you are saying that after a PC dies, none of the NPCs throw Fireball anymore towards the dead PCs vicinity because the NPCs are afraid of destroying his magic items, hence, they switch over to targeted spells?
How lame of them. Which is more important, their life in a fight, or them wanting to save magic items of dead opponents? Hmmmm.
Or if you are talking only about PC latter round spell selection, why are your dropping NPCs out of the equation?
Also, do NONE of your PCs roll a one on a saving throw, hence, requiring a saving throw for one of the four most likely items on his/her person?
With four PCs, one out of every five Fireballs should on average require a Saving Throw for an item.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
dcollins said:
Except it's not the only item that has the problem, and no 'breaking of the whole system' ever occurs. Occasionally a PC may pay extra to make an item with a slightly lower caster level - a stat that rarely has any relevance. Oh no. Someone paid extra for something. How awful.
My personal take for the most boneheaded (not corrected or errataed) magic item in the DMG is the Bag of Holding.
The versions range in Market Price from 2500 GP to 10000 GP.
Their creation costs (for crafting only one bag) range from 6300 GP to 10050 GP due to the material cost of casting Leomund's Secret Chest (5050 GP, the cost of which is not lost, but is still required up front). 6300 GP to craft an item that sells for 2500 GP. If you crafted and sold four of the Type I Bags of Holding, you still would not break even. Hmmm.
They should have used the Rope Trick spell instead.
Also, the economics of SP * CL is the root problem of why economics in the DND system are so skewed. At 1 CP per dollar (i.e. $4 for an alcoholic drink or $2 for a loaf of bread or any other reasonable conversion) a Sanctuary Potion which lasts for a whopping one round and will rarely have any affect on combat (or out of combat) costs $5000. When was the last time you shelled out $5000 for something that lasted for six seconds and probably didn't do much of anything?
A first level PC party of four finds more than $320,000 in stuff (($900 GP - $100 GP starting money - expenses) * 4 PCs) in a matter of a week or two whereas a 19th level PC party of four finds over 72 million dollars in stuff in maybe a matter of a month or so. Plus, these values are effectively much higher due to the costs of adventuring (i.e. this is wealth per level, not wealth ever acquired and spent).
This then ranges up to $20,000,000 for a Mirror of Life Trapping. 20 MILLION dollars for a trap that often won't stop any group with more than one character in it at the level that characters encounter it and can easily be broken in a single round by anyone in a group who is not caught (typically half or more of the characters at that level range). A falling ceiling trap is often much more effective than that and boatloads cheaper.
Economic and weak design issues like this are why I prefer the magic item creation rules in the Artificer's Handbook by Mystic Eye Games.
Getting back to the topic at hand, the only apparent truism about the Caster Level rule is that the designers cannot make up their minds about it.
With regard to what it should be, it should be the equivalent of a minimum pre-requisite (i.e. the item determines the Caster Level) like it states in the 3.5 DMG. The first reason is that Caster Level is effectively a minimum pre-requisite for other items like scrolls and wands. Rule consistency is important.
Second, the same item with a lower CL should have a lower GP cost in some cases, but not in others. Ones with a duration or a range or a damage change based on CL should cost less. Ones with no appreciable benefit (outside of saving throw advantage) should not cost significantly less. That's illogical. Allowing the CL to be decreased in cases where there is no significant benefit violates the entire logic of CL indicating relative power level (as per page 215 of the DMG) whereas not doing so does not.
Third, simplicity. It is easier to look it up in the DMG and use it as is, as opposed to attempting to either recalculate costs or having the same item cost less with a lower CL, even though it has the exact same benefit as the higher CL item (in many cases).
Fourth, it is often difficult if not impossible to come up with the same cost for an item that the designers did (ESPECIALLY in the middle of a gaming session). Allowing PCs to lower the CL makes it a guessing game as to what the GP cost should be for many items.
Fifth, lower powered same type items can easily be (and should have been) referenced as costing less and having a lower Caster Level. For example, Bags of Holding should have a CL and GP cost for each bag, just like Golem Manuals do. Ditto for Pearls of Power. Have a lower CL for the lower powered ones. Problem solved.
Sixth, there are several errors in the 3.5 FAQ, why would the 3.5 errata be considered error free? This one sounds like another logic error where one designer didn't look at the big picture. IMO.
The versions range in Market Price from 2500 GP to 10000 GP.
Their creation costs (for crafting only one bag) range from 6300 GP to 10050 GP due to the material cost of casting Leomund's Secret Chest (5050 GP, the cost of which is not lost, but is still required up front). 6300 GP to craft an item that sells for 2500 GP. If you crafted and sold four of the Type I Bags of Holding, you still would not break even. Hmmm.
They should have used the Rope Trick spell instead.
Also, the economics of SP * CL is the root problem of why economics in the DND system are so skewed. At 1 CP per dollar (i.e. $4 for an alcoholic drink or $2 for a loaf of bread or any other reasonable conversion) a Sanctuary Potion which lasts for a whopping one round and will rarely have any affect on combat (or out of combat) costs $5000. When was the last time you shelled out $5000 for something that lasted for six seconds and probably didn't do much of anything?
A first level PC party of four finds more than $320,000 in stuff (($900 GP - $100 GP starting money - expenses) * 4 PCs) in a matter of a week or two whereas a 19th level PC party of four finds over 72 million dollars in stuff in maybe a matter of a month or so. Plus, these values are effectively much higher due to the costs of adventuring (i.e. this is wealth per level, not wealth ever acquired and spent).
This then ranges up to $20,000,000 for a Mirror of Life Trapping. 20 MILLION dollars for a trap that often won't stop any group with more than one character in it at the level that characters encounter it and can easily be broken in a single round by anyone in a group who is not caught (typically half or more of the characters at that level range). A falling ceiling trap is often much more effective than that and boatloads cheaper.
Economic and weak design issues like this are why I prefer the magic item creation rules in the Artificer's Handbook by Mystic Eye Games.
Getting back to the topic at hand, the only apparent truism about the Caster Level rule is that the designers cannot make up their minds about it.
With regard to what it should be, it should be the equivalent of a minimum pre-requisite (i.e. the item determines the Caster Level) like it states in the 3.5 DMG. The first reason is that Caster Level is effectively a minimum pre-requisite for other items like scrolls and wands. Rule consistency is important.
Second, the same item with a lower CL should have a lower GP cost in some cases, but not in others. Ones with a duration or a range or a damage change based on CL should cost less. Ones with no appreciable benefit (outside of saving throw advantage) should not cost significantly less. That's illogical. Allowing the CL to be decreased in cases where there is no significant benefit violates the entire logic of CL indicating relative power level (as per page 215 of the DMG) whereas not doing so does not.
Third, simplicity. It is easier to look it up in the DMG and use it as is, as opposed to attempting to either recalculate costs or having the same item cost less with a lower CL, even though it has the exact same benefit as the higher CL item (in many cases).
Fourth, it is often difficult if not impossible to come up with the same cost for an item that the designers did (ESPECIALLY in the middle of a gaming session). Allowing PCs to lower the CL makes it a guessing game as to what the GP cost should be for many items.
Fifth, lower powered same type items can easily be (and should have been) referenced as costing less and having a lower Caster Level. For example, Bags of Holding should have a CL and GP cost for each bag, just like Golem Manuals do. Ditto for Pearls of Power. Have a lower CL for the lower powered ones. Problem solved.
Sixth, there are several errors in the 3.5 FAQ, why would the 3.5 errata be considered error free? This one sounds like another logic error where one designer didn't look at the big picture. IMO.
Jeff Wilder
First Post
While we're discussing dcollins being wrong about item creation rules, I'll point out the following for about the fourth time. (I don't have any doubt that dcollins will continue to ignore it, but hopefully it will encourage other readers to use the proper forum, rather than following his direction.)
His signature reads:
His signature reads:
This is incorrect. From this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=103527:dcollins said:
So while there was some question about the proper forum, that question was resolved. As I said, I've posted corrections to dcollins' sig several times, but he is apparently committed to disseminating incorrect information.Piratecat said:
Btw, another reason why item caster level being allowed to be lowered is an inconsistent and (quite frankly) stupid rule is that CL is effectively squared in the cost equation for most items (i.e. CL * SL ~= CL * CL * 2 for minimum cost items). Hence, the cost of lowering CL is not a linear decrease for no real loss for many items.
For example, if lowering CL is allowed and a Dwarven Cleric with a Wisdom of 14 crafts a Belt of Dwarvenkind, it costs him (continuous or use activated item):
4 (SL) * 7 (CL) * 2000 GP * 1.5 (10 mins per level spell) = 84000 GP / 2 (market value) or 42000 GP (creation cost)
A Dwarven Bard with a Charisma of 14 crafts a Belt of Dwarvenkind and it costs him:
2 (SL) * 4 (CL) * 2000 GP * 1.5 (10 mins per level spell) = 24000 GP / 2 (market value) or 12000 GP (creation cost)
Should an item be worth (Market Value) 3.5 times the cost when one character crafts it versus another character crafting it where the ONLY real advantage is that when it is unattended, it has a 5% increase (2 + 0.5 CL = +4 when the Bard creates it and 2 + 0.5 CL = +5 when the Cleric creates it) in it's saving throw???
That's ludicrous.
For attended items (the time MOST items would ever get a save), it uses the higher of it's own saving throw and the user's saving throw which often is higher and hence, the item often saves at the same chance if attended.
In other words, the different CL saving throw issue is ALMOST moot because most of the time, an item:
a) often will not require a save because item saves are rare in the game
b) often will not require a save because a random item lower on the chart will take the save for it
c) often use the higher saving throw as the user of the item when attended
d) only decrease the item save by a small percentage when unattended or not using the user's saving throw for most items
Granted, a Belt of Dwarvenkind actually only has a Market Value of 14,900 (for some extremely bizarre unknown reason) and a Caster Level of 12 which if you think about it, a Belt of Darkvision alone should have a Market Value of 12000 (2nd level spell * 3rd level caster * 2000 GP), let alone all of the MASSIVE other benefits granted by the Belt.
The item crafting rules are just plain broken and nearly worthless in the game for Wondrous Items.
For example, if lowering CL is allowed and a Dwarven Cleric with a Wisdom of 14 crafts a Belt of Dwarvenkind, it costs him (continuous or use activated item):
4 (SL) * 7 (CL) * 2000 GP * 1.5 (10 mins per level spell) = 84000 GP / 2 (market value) or 42000 GP (creation cost)
A Dwarven Bard with a Charisma of 14 crafts a Belt of Dwarvenkind and it costs him:
2 (SL) * 4 (CL) * 2000 GP * 1.5 (10 mins per level spell) = 24000 GP / 2 (market value) or 12000 GP (creation cost)
Should an item be worth (Market Value) 3.5 times the cost when one character crafts it versus another character crafting it where the ONLY real advantage is that when it is unattended, it has a 5% increase (2 + 0.5 CL = +4 when the Bard creates it and 2 + 0.5 CL = +5 when the Cleric creates it) in it's saving throw???
That's ludicrous.
For attended items (the time MOST items would ever get a save), it uses the higher of it's own saving throw and the user's saving throw which often is higher and hence, the item often saves at the same chance if attended.
In other words, the different CL saving throw issue is ALMOST moot because most of the time, an item:
a) often will not require a save because item saves are rare in the game
b) often will not require a save because a random item lower on the chart will take the save for it
c) often use the higher saving throw as the user of the item when attended
d) only decrease the item save by a small percentage when unattended or not using the user's saving throw for most items
Granted, a Belt of Dwarvenkind actually only has a Market Value of 14,900 (for some extremely bizarre unknown reason) and a Caster Level of 12 which if you think about it, a Belt of Darkvision alone should have a Market Value of 12000 (2nd level spell * 3rd level caster * 2000 GP), let alone all of the MASSIVE other benefits granted by the Belt.
The item crafting rules are just plain broken and nearly worthless in the game for Wondrous Items.
Jeff Wilder said:
This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Not only can anyone put anything non-offensive in their sigs that they desire, I also do not see a sig for DCollins. So, maybe he just recently removed it, but in either case, your point here is not a discussion of the rules and doesn't belong in the rules forum. If you ever have a problem with his sig, please send it directly to the moderators instead of posting it.
And to ensure that my post here has some relevance, I would like to reiterate DCollin's point that the errata totally disagrees with the Armor and Weapon Item Creation rules and is illogical for them.
"For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the creator. The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given." doesn't make sense for Armor or Weapons whereas the original text "For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself..." since that means that any 5th level caster (minimum level for the Craft feat) can create any weapon or armor that does not have an associated higher level spell pre-requisite. A 5th level caster can create a +5 Longsword according to this errata because the only pre-requisite for a +5 Longsword is to have the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat.
The errata has an obvious error in it on this as written ("For other magic items" refers to all non-potions, non-scrolls, and non-wands in that paragraph, not just Rings, Rods, Staves, and Wondrous Items).
