Question anent "RotG -- Making Magic Items"

[dcollins]

Also, I'm pretty certain any given item only has a single caster level.*...

* - Can someone back me up on this?

All the items in the core rules are listed with just a single caster level, so personally I agree with that statement. However, nowhere does it explicitly state one way or another that it has to be that way, so frequently you'll get people claiming that they can have mixed caster levels for different abilities. Of course, that feeds into the whole issue of whether off-book items are really covered by the core rules or not...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Of course, that feeds into the whole issue of whether off-book items are really covered by the core rules or not...

Actually, it doesn't even touch upon off-book items.

A found Longsword +2 has a caster level of ... [checks the book] ... CL 6.

A wizard adds the Flaming ability to a Longsword +2. So, it has a caster level of ... [checks the book] ... Huh. Does it have a single CL of 10 - the requirement you like from the Flaming enhancement - or does it have a CL of 6 for the Enhancement bonus and of 10 for the special ability?

If it doesn't change, then if I supress the Enhancement bonus with a targeted dispel magic, it loses the special ability as well.

And I think that's where we'll find our answer, actually.

When you cast a targeted dispel magic at an item, you roll a CL check against the item's CL:

If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the item’s caster level. If you succeed, all the item’s magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers on its own.

Note the singular usage of caster level. In other words, you do not roll a dispel check against each property of an item. You roll a dispel check against the entire item, opposed by the item's single caster level.

Therefore, all items have a single caster level and, using the example above, a wizard who adds flaming at CL 10 to an extant +2 Longsword "updates" the CL of the +2 part to 10 as well.

Therefore, any item which has multiple abilities must have all of those abilities operate at the same caster level. In many cases, the cost to do this is non-existant. In some cases, however, it can be very expensive to do.

 

[dcollins]

Personally, I agree -- but like I said, there are those who don't, since that's all inferential reasoning and not explicit in the rulebooks.

Furthermore, I agree with you that "the cost do this [increase caster level] is non-existant", and consider it to be additional support that caster levels for non-potions/scrolls/wands are fixed. Most of the writers & designers who disagree with that wind up arguing that there has to be some kind of pricing fudge factor thrown in to rectify that.

 

[Abraxas]

Furthermore, I agree with you that "the cost do this [increase caster level] is non-existant", and consider it to be additional support that caster levels for non-potions/scrolls/wands are fixed. Most of the writers & designers who disagree with that wind up arguing that there has to be some kind of pricing fudge factor thrown in to rectify that.

Hmm, I may not be remembering correctly, it seemed to me that they didn't say there had to be a pricing fudge factor. Instead they felt the effect of a higher or lower caster level was negligible - but that you could include one if you felt the benefit/penalty of being slightly harder/easier to suppress was not negligible.

Yes I've read your FAQ - but I disagree with your conclusions.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Most of the writers & designers who disagree with that wind up arguing that there has to be some kind of pricing fudge factor thrown in to rectify that.

I can see why they'd want to argue that - in that a higher or lower caster level generally has benefits or drawbacks - but, generally, the cases where it's actually important *are* specified in the rules: Spell Level x Caster Level x Factor.

I can't think of (or find with a cursory examination) any items in the SRD that use spells in which the caster level matters that do not also follow the above formula (at least loosely).

There's also things like this:

Amulet of Natural Armor: This amulet, usually crafted from bone or beast scales, toughens the wearer’s body and flesh, giving him an enhancement bonus to his natural armor bonus of from +1 to +5, depending on the kind of amulet.
Faint transmutation; CL 5th; Craft Wondrous Item, barkskin, creator’s caster level must be at least three times the amulet’s bonus; Price 2,000 gp (+1), 8,000 gp (+2), 18,000 gp (+3), 32,000 gp (+4), or 50,000 gp (+5).

Which is really just weird, since the caster level of the item isn't enough to meet the prerequisites of any but the first amulet. Point to your side, really, but it is strange.

 

[dvvega]

In the case of the amulet CL5 is the bare minimum to make a +1 amulet (Craft Wonderous is 5th level prereq correct?). But the text states it should be x3 bonus minimum.

So this leads me to think they really meant the CL to be a minimum originally but got "lost" along the way.

I've decided to house rule the whole shamozzle ... weapon enhancements, bonus or otherwise will be stacking from now on, and magic items will use the CL as a bare minimum, meaning that it will slow down the munchies just a little but not remove them fromt he game.

D