New FAQ at Wizards - Behind the Screen with magic item creation

[Artoomis]

Hmmm.. the issues at hand seem to be whether another spellcaster can supply the spell for creating a magic items and whether the caster level can be set by the creator regardless of the spell level supplied by a another cooperative spell caster. The general rule is:

Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed).

While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell. Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal.

Seems pretty clear so far. Anyone can cast the spells needed, or they can be off of scrolls, and the caster level can be no lower than that needed for the spells required.

Only Rings do not have the rule that:

The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard)...

This leads us to one of three conclusions (choose which one you like best):

1. Creating rings (and only rings) allows cooperation or for spells to be from items (scrolls, etc.) per the general rule. (Except the laguage on "prepared spells" excludes using items, if read very strictly).

2. The specific rules are all in error (or perhaps merely poorly phrased) and really don't mean to be restrictive to only the creator needing the spell.

3 The general rule is in error and even rings don't really allow cooperation. The fact that the similar statement about the creator needing the spell is missing is an oversight.

I'd toss number 3 out right away, myself.

Number 1 actually follows the rules as written, but leads one to wonder why a general rule was even published if only ring creation follows that rule - and, even then, not the whole rule, leaving a general rule that CANNOT be followed under any cirumstances. That's does not make sense form a rules perspective and therefore is suspect.

This leads me to think that number 2 is the correct rule, and that all this business of the creator needing the spell available him- or herself is misstated and simply poorly written and is true only if the creator happens to NOT have cooperation, and, in the latter case applies to the spell donor.

There you have it. Strict readfing would probably lead one incorrectly to conlcusion number 1 above, but that leaves one wondering why a rule is stated and then every creation rule other than riings does not follow that rule. Something is clearly wroing there.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

AHAH!!!!

Could a wizard make a UMD check to activate a divine scroll of that cleric-only spell when making the Wondrous Item (assume it only takes one day)?

I don't see why not.

I do. The rules that allow you to use an item to provide a spell prerequisite are in the same place - the general rules on prerequisites - that allow another caster to provide prerequisites (including spell prerequisites).

They are not present in any of the "specific" sections, which only mention having the spell prepared or known.

In other words, the fact that the general rules mention using spell trigger or spell completion items is meaningless, because none of the item sections (including that on rings) specifically allow you to use spell trigger or spell completion items to provide spell prerequisites. See more on my reply to Artoomis re: rings below.

Which is just one more reason why there aren't actually any "specific" rules; they're just restatements of part of the general rules. They even use the exact same text: "who has prepared the spell (or who knows the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard)"

With all due respect, that's a lot of hogwash and you know it.

Whenever someone mentions "with all due respect," you may rest assured that they really mean "Without any respect at all" ...

It's not hogwash; I do know it; and you're still wrong.

The rules discussing magical item creation in general are clearly the general rules.

Which, because of your tortured reading, apply to exactly zero methods of item creation. I don't think so.

For you to just come out and state that, "No, actually the specific rules on scrolls are not specific at all" is a logical fallacy - the name of which escapes me at the moment.

No, it isn't, because I deny that they are, in fact, specific rules; they are nothing more than a cut-and-paste reminder of the general rule stated above. In order for them to be specific rules, they must change the general. They don't.

Okay, so now enough with the hypothetical questions and snide remarks

I'm sorry that you thought there were any snide remarks. There weren't. Until now, anyway.

and explain to me how the general rule overrides the specific rule

Easy. There're no general and specific rules in conflict, and therefore there's nothing to override or be overriden.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Actually, Artoomis, #1 is arguably incorrect as written.

Rings can't be made by sorcerors, according to I2K, and they certainly cannot be powered by other magic items (scrolls, wands, or staves).

The act of working on the ring triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the ring’s creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from his currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

 

[Artoomis]

AHAH!!!!...
I do. The rules that allow you to use an item to provide a spell prerequisite are in the same place - the general rules on prerequisites - that allow another caster to provide prerequisites (including spell prerequisites).

Correct. If you cannot have cooperation with another spell caster, you ALSO cannot use scrolls.

Either

"The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard)... "

OR they can use cooperation with other spell casters and use items (scroll, et. al.).

One OR the other must be true.

 

[Artoomis]

Actually, Artoomis, #1 is arguably incorrect as written.

Rings can't be made by sorcerors, according to I2K, and they certainly cannot be powered by other magic items (scrolls, wands, or staves).

Hmm.. socrerors to seem to be excluded, by strict reading, but cooperation is not necessarily excluded by the "prepared spell" language for that could apply to another spell caster, which would then allow sorcerors to create, but only with cooperation.

It's all pretty much tortured logic though - it seems pretty clear the the general rule is really the rule and the specific rules are simply poorly stated.


I've updated my previous post to reflect this.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Whenever someone mentions "with all due respect," you may rest assured that they really mean "Without any respect at all" ...

Actually, I do have a lot of respect for Peter, and for you, and for quite a large number of people on this board. I really meant it and did not intend injury by my comment. I hope Peter didn't take offense, but if so, I apologize.

No, it isn't, because I deny that they are, in fact, specific rules; they are nothing more than a cut-and-paste reminder of the general rule stated above. In order for them to be specific rules, they must change the general. They don't.

Then that's where we disagree.

This leads me to think that number 2 is the correct rule, and that all this business of the creator needing the spell available him- or herself is misstated and simply poorly written and is true only if the creator happens to NOT have cooperation, and, in the latter case applies to the spell donor.

I agree. It also means that to 'properly' allow cooperation as was obviously intended (I say obviously because I'm pretty sure we all agree that people are intended to contribute different spells) we have to houserule it anyway. And the initial example that Patryn provided is not only in conflict with the rules as written, it should be in conflict with a majority of people's houserules. If not, that's okay, too.

 

[Artoomis]

... I agree. It also means that to 'properly' allow cooperation as was obviously intended (I say obviously because I'm pretty sure we all agree that people are intended to contribute different spells) we have to houserule it anyway. And the initial example that Patryn provided is not only in conflict with the rules as written, it should be in conflict with a majority of people's houserules. If not, that's okay, too.

Well, just to be clear, we are talking about how to set the CL of the item, right?

1. The "creator" must be someone with the feat.
2. The CL CANNOT be lower than that level needed to cast any required spells to create the item. It seems the CL can be set to anything you want up to your own level (the creator's) provided it is no lower than that needed for the spells needed.

Agreed?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

1. The "creator" must be someone with the feat.

Incorrect. See other thread.

2. The CL CANNOT be lower than that level needed to cast any required spells to create the item. It seems the CL can be set to anything you want up to your own level (the creator's) provided it is no lower than that needed for the spells needed.

Agreed, with some caveats.

 

[Artoomis]

Incorrect. See other thread.

Gotcha. You're wrong, of course, but I understand your argument.

Agreed, with some caveats.

What caveats?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'm still right; you're still wrong; nyah!

By caveats, I mean: "Pick the method for determining what you mean when you say, 'no lower than that needed for the spells needed.'"

For instance, CLW may be cast by Druids and Clerics at CL 1 and by Bards, Paladins, and Rangers at CL 2.

When you create the scroll / ring / whatever, what's the minimum CL?