dcollins
Explorer
Last edited:
Item Creation Caster Levels (Is this true??)
- Thread starter Ashrem Bayle
- Start date
Unfortunately, that response really doesn't counter the arguement at all. It's not just potions that have the caster level in the prerequisites (even in 3.0), and the rules state that prerequisites may but a higher minimum on the creator's level, not on the creator's caster level. As I already pointed out, this is because feats like Forge Ring have a mininimum caster level to acquire, but that does not affect the caster level of the items you can create. Your character level (12th) will in fact be much higher than the caster level of most rings you can make.dcollins said:
Silverglass
Registered User
The simple reason that CL is listed seperately is that the Caster Level is not only something that the creator must meet but it also sets how hard the item is to effect with a dispel magic and sets variable effects of spells.
It is also seperate because Prerequisites do not have to be met by the creator themself, another person may supply a prerequisite but it is the creator who must meet the CL and pay the XP cost. This only strengthens the argument that the creator must meet the items CL because the rules seperate it from other prerequisites which can be met by someone other than the creator.
"If two or more characters cooperate to create an item, they must agree among themselves who will be considered the creator for the purpose of determinations where the creator’s level must be known. The character designated as the creator pays the XP required to make the item."
So if an item had a CL of 10 but a prerequisite of Caster Level 15 then a 10th Level caster can be the item's creator if another caster supplies the CL 15 prerequisite.
The sentence (for non potions, scrolls, wand) is quite clear. "the creator’s caster level must be as high as the item’s caster level". If you are the creator of an item you must meet the CL.
It is also seperate because Prerequisites do not have to be met by the creator themself, another person may supply a prerequisite but it is the creator who must meet the CL and pay the XP cost. This only strengthens the argument that the creator must meet the items CL because the rules seperate it from other prerequisites which can be met by someone other than the creator.
"If two or more characters cooperate to create an item, they must agree among themselves who will be considered the creator for the purpose of determinations where the creator’s level must be known. The character designated as the creator pays the XP required to make the item."
So if an item had a CL of 10 but a prerequisite of Caster Level 15 then a 10th Level caster can be the item's creator if another caster supplies the CL 15 prerequisite.
The sentence (for non potions, scrolls, wand) is quite clear. "the creator’s caster level must be as high as the item’s caster level". If you are the creator of an item you must meet the CL.
Li Shenron
Legend
Ashrem Bayle said:
dcollins
Explorer
Caliban said:
I cannot agree with that fairly strained interpretation. The fact that both armor and weapon sections refer to the same thing as "caster level requirements" indicate the piece you quoted is just shorthand for "creator's caster level".
I do agree that the caster level of most rings is lower than the spell caster level of the ring creator (the Forge Ring prerequisite being a "spellcaster level", after all) -- that being further evidence that ring caster levels weren't meant to be variable.
Caliban said:
Frankly, I don't think the outspoken designers are remembering correctly, and that's absolutely the most aggravating part of this single issue. Monte Cook has flip-flopped about how to interpret the rule as written. Sean K. Reynolds was totally confident the rule has been changed in errata when it wasn't. If you believe Sean K. Reynold's post at ENWorld, there had to be some unknown designer (not Monte Cook) who actually wrote the section in question. (Documented here: www.superdan.net/dndfaq2b.html ) Until we hear from that unnamed writer, we don't actually have a solid counter-intent claim.
Every newbie that pops up, like Ashrem here, has read the rule to say caster level is a requirement on the creator. The most objective analysis I can make is that the designers have liberalized the creation rules they use post-publication (as per Arcana Unearthed, for example), and aren't carefully thinking about how it was actually written in the first place.
Last edited:
It's not strained, it's there in black and white. Caliban said:
Nobody said anything about knowing what the designers were thinking. Look at the quote from Monte for a minute. He seems to be saying that caster level is a requirement. He also seems to be implying that it was a mistake (it wasn't meant to be a requirement, but it never got fixed).
The point is not what the designers think or want. The point is that caster levels are officially a requirement by the rules of the game at this time. The fact that the designers themselves may believe this is a mistake would seem to indicate that this will eventually be changed... but until then the official rule stands.
There are those people who insist on playing by the rules of the game. Nobody said you can't use a house rule and toss caster levels as a requirement out the window (I plan to).
Silverglass
Registered User
Caliban said:
That's not an interpretation, "CL must be met by the creator" is what is written in the rules. And I am only aware that Monte and Sean are in disagreement with this position and Monte admits that this is what the rules do say officially its just something he feels should not have been in the rules as published, which is a long way from "none" of the designers agreeing, if none of them agreed with it then 3.5 would have changed it, it has been raised far too many times to have slipped under the radar when the rules were being revisisted.
Agree with 2 of the designers' unofficial statements and house rule CL away, but don't try and claim that it isn't the official position in 3.0 and 3.5 as their is absolutely no rules text that supports that assertion.
Aside from some well quoted exceptions the "CL as a requirement" makes sense as it scales with the relative power of the item, if Pearls of Power had specified the CL as say "equal to the caster level needed to cast that spell +1" would these arguments ever have been made?
Last edited:
