The Final Word On The Rules For Item Creation

[Anubis]

I have searched for a long time for the answers to an important question, and Sean Reynolds was the man to give me the answer. These are official, and can be found here:

http://pub17.ezboard.com/fseankreynoldsboardsfrm2.showMessage?topicID=23.topic

My question:

The first question is about levels needed for item creation and "market price modifiers". Page 244 of the DMG states "The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon." Obviously, that means that to make a Longsword +3, the creator must be caster level 9.

Later, however, near the end of the paragraph, the text reads that "If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability (such as ghost touch), the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met." By Monte Cook's own admission, the "Caster Level" entry for items was never meant as a prerequisite, and therefore that is not what the text refers to.

I am of the belief that the "market price modifier" for a special ability is considered the same as an enhancement bonus for purposes of item creation, just as the "market price modifier" counts toward the maximum of +10. In other words, since the caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus, and both enhancement bonuses and special ability bonuses are considered for item creation, in order to make a weapon with Disruption (+2 market price modifier), one would have to be caster level 6. (2 x 3 = 6) Or by the same rule, in order to make a Brilliant Energy weapon (+4 market price modifier), one would have to be caster level 12. (4 x 3 = 12) Others I have debated with say that I am wrong, but the text appears to confirm my theory. Am I correct in my interpretation?

Sean Reynolds says:

QUOTE

The "x3 prereq" for enhancement bonuses only applies to actual enhancement bonuses, not the effective "plus" of a weapon when you count it's special abilities. A 3rd-level mage with Craft Wondrous Item could add flaming to a +5 weapon with no difficulty, assuming he had the time, money, and XP.

The caster level listed on an item is never a prereq; the text that says so on DMG pg 178 is in error.

The text that sets a minimum caster level as a prereq for an item based on the enhancement bonus or item's properties is also in error, extending from the error on page 178. The dancing property has a _default_ caster level of 15, but that doesn't rule out some Clr3 with the feat making a dancing weapon with the help of a higher-level buddy.

--
Sean K Reynolds

So although my interpretation does make sense and balances nicely, the OFFICIAL rules say that my interpretation is incorrect.



Let's open this one for debate:

Does my original interpretation balance better than the actual rule? I'd like to hear all thought, especially from Caliban, poilbrun, S'mon, Gez, and Upper_Krust. (They are some of the notable names I know from these boards.) Also, UK, if you do find this to be better balanced, is it possible to find it in the optional rules for the Immortals Handbook?

(Yes, I know of the typos in his response. Craft Wondrous Item should be Craft Magic Arms and Armor, and Clr3 should be Clr5. Remember, this is a busy man.)

 

[Artoomis]

These are official, and can be found here:

What makes it official? We certainly play this way in my group, but it has not made it into the official errata, has it? So how can it be "official?" And Sean Reynolds left WotC in the latest shake-up, didn't he?

 

[hong]

I have searched for a long time for the answers to an important question, and Sean Reynolds was the man to give me the answer. These are official, and can be found here:

(snip)

It sounds to me like 1) you asked a question here; 2) you didn't like the answer you got; 3) you went to Sean Reynolds; 4) you didn't like the answer you got; 5) you want to start up the whole rigmarole again.

Why?

 

[Anubis]

Nah, it's not like that. I asked it here, but only got opinions, which is fine. I wanted something official so that there would be no doubt as to what the RULES say. Now I have been proven wrong and have admitted it, but that does not mean that everything is settled. After all, it wouldn't be the first rule that didn't make sense. (Think of the errata that makes spellcasters pay XP components for every day of item creation, making items requiring Wish impossible to create altogether.) This simply means that the letter of the rule has finally been settled and that it's up to us to think of a reasonable solution seeing as WotC can't seem to do it.

And for your information, I went not only here and to Sean Reynolds, but also to Monte Cook and the Sage. Monte and the Sage were strangely silent, probably because they realize that even though it's not what they intended, what I said made sense.

Can you argue with that? What I'd like to know is why you are being so rude? I simply posted the information I was given and decided that with the official word known, perhaps it was time to think of a good way to fix it, because the whole system needs to be fixed and can be fixed with only a few minor modifications.

This used to be a debate over what the rules actually meant, now it is more of a debate over how to fix it.

 

[hong]

And for your information, I went not only here and to Sean Reynolds, but also to Monte Cook and the Sage. Monte and the Sage were strangely silent, probably because they realize that even though it's not what they intended, what I said made sense.

I think it's more likely that Monte and Skip simply get more mail than they can respond to. There's no need to infer more about their motives than is strictly necessary.

Can you argue with that? What I'd like to know is why you are being so rude?

If you think _that_ was rude, you ain't seen anything.

This used to be a debate over what the rules actually meant, now it is more of a debate over how to fix it.

I see nothing that particularly needs fixing. If it bothers you that much, take it to House Rules.

 

[Caliban]

The market price modifier is not and never has been equivalent to the enhancement bonus. It's just a modifier for calculating the market price and total number of abilities/enhancements an item can have.

The "minimum caster" level is just the minimum level needed to cast any of the prerequisite spells. (i.e. 5th level is the minimum caster level for a wizard to create a flaming weapon. 6th level would be the minimum for a sorcerer to create a flaming weapon.)

 

[dcollins]

Sean Reynolds says:
The caster level listed on an item is never a prereq; the text that says so on DMG pg 178 is in error.

Reynolds continues a common error; no text says that "caster level" is a "prerequisite" -- what it does say is that it is a "minimum on the creator's level" (DMG p. 178). (Which is a different, but easily confused issue.)

I agree with Sean Reynolds that to change this rule, the text would need to be changed by errata (including added rules on pricing items after altering caster levels). Obviously that has not happened yet, so the rule stands.

A more thorough discussion of this issue may be found here: www.superdan.net/dndfaq2.html

 

[hong]

Re: Re: The Final Word On The Rules For Item Creation

I agree with Sean Reynolds that to change this rule, the text would need to be changed by errata (including added rules on pricing items after altering caster levels). Obviously that has not happened yet, so the rule stands.
[/url]

... and is just as easily ignorable as any other rule in the books, if one so desires.

 

[dcollins]

Re: Re: Re: The Final Word On The Rules For Item Creation

... and is just as easily ignorable as any other rule in the books, if one so desires.

Except that, as pointed out above and in the linked essay, it requires the creation of a ruleset for price-adjusting altered-caster-level-items which currently do not exist in the core rules.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Final Word On The Rules For Item Creation

Except that, as pointed out above and in the linked essay, it requires the creation of a ruleset for price-adjusting altered-caster-level-items which currently do not exist in the core rules.

Why?