Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Artoomis" data-source="post: 1211375" data-attributes="member: 111">While you are correct on what the rules content is in this case, this is also the forum for discussing designers' intent.&nbsp; Interpreting rules requires both the actual text and the intent.Of course, in cases like this where the text is incredibly plain (&quot;...the creator’s caster level must be as high as the item’s caster level ...&quot;) intent doesn't mean didley-squat except for the good folks at WotC to decide if the rule needs erratum (that's the oft-ignored singular of &quot;errata,&quot; for those who might not know) to fix it to meet the designer's intent as state after-the-fact.&nbsp; As in, &quot;How in tarnation did that get published?&nbsp; That's not what we meant at all.&nbsp; What we meant was caster level is NOT a requirement for creation.&quot;&nbsp; And then the good folks at WotC could add it to the list of errata.&nbsp; While the former may have happened, the latter has not.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Artoomis, post: 1211375, member: 111"] While you are correct on what the rules content is in this case, this is also the forum for discussing designers' intent. Interpreting rules requires both the actual text and the intent. Of course, in cases like this where the text is incredibly plain ("...the creator’s caster level must be as high as the item’s caster level ...") intent doesn't mean didley-squat except for the good folks at WotC to decide if the rule needs erratum (that's the oft-ignored singular of "errata," for those who might not know) to fix it to meet the designer's intent as state after-the-fact. As in, "How in tarnation did that get published? That's not what we meant at all. What we meant was caster level is NOT a requirement for creation." And then the good folks at WotC could add it to the list of errata. While the former may have happened, the latter has not. [/QUOTE]

Verification