Reved-up Ioun Stone...

[ARandomGod]

Well, Hyp would probably argue that what you call it does not matter; the item would still be an Ioun Stone once created, and would not stack. Kind of like if you'd called the thing 'Ralph'. Ralph still would not stack with other +1 CL Ioun Stones.

Ralph, actually, is an intensly magical artifact typically found in the first 1-3 adventures of one of my favorite game worlds. "Normal" rules don't necessarily apply to him.

Fortunately, however, he does not typically increase anyone's caster level, so this point is moot.

 

[ARandomGod]

However, let's extend this example.

In the magic item creation rules, it says you multiply the cost of creation by 1.5 for abilities that are placed in items in the wrong 'body slot'. You multiply the cost by 2 for abilities that are placed in items that do not take up a body slot at all. In Complete Arcane there is a Ring of Arcane Might that gives +1 CL that costs 20kgp. Since the Ioun Stone does not take up a slot, and therefore both magic items seem to follow the formula, we can assume that any +1CL item created that does not take up a body slot would cost 30kgp.

I do so assume, by the way.

Remember that wizards will make this item at half cost, which is a very valid point.

Also, of course, if you call it some other bonus, don't forget to look that in the book they make bonuses other than the base bonus type cost more than the base type (see luck, insight, etc in the base). OF course, since the base type is unnamed that may not make a difference...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Mainly I'd call the difference in the word "spell", and I wouldn't consider the stone casting a spell. Sure, an odd quirky difference, and one that I can fully see an arguement against (it's indeed equally valid to say this should go the other way), but still a difference and magic is quirky.

The explicit statement is the word spell. Two casters cast spells, two stones have magical non-spell effects. Effects that are, indeed, similiar to spells.

I do indeed see that "two applications of the same spell" as an inherent weakness of spells in general, and not of all magics. Permanent items work in a different way than spells, even if they are powered by the same base source.

But there isn't an explicit statement "Contrary to intuition, two instances of the same spell are considered the 'same source'"; rather, it just uses the example of the same spell cast twice to illustrate the principle of 'same source'.

-Hyp.