Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dcollins" data-source="post: 1209814" data-attributes="member: 876">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.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: <a href="http://www.superdan.net/dndfaq2b.html" target="_blank">www.superdan.net/dndfaq2b.html</a> ) 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.</blockquote>

Verification