The Final Word On The Rules For Item Creation

[dcollins]

Again, it's explained here: www.superdan.net/dndfaq2.html
See "Caster Level Recommendations", paragraph 3 and beyond.

 

[hong]

Again, it's explained here: www.superdan.net/dndfaq2.html
See "Caster Level Recommendations", paragraph 3 and beyond.

Yes, I read that. I think the game is quite playable regardless of how you treat the prerequisite situation, and regardless of how market price figures into it.

 

[RigaMortus]

So if you think a better way to handle this is to have the caster level be 3 times the "market value", that means you would need to be level 30 to make an item with a +10 market value. That doesn't seem too reasonable to me.

 

[KGradert]

I personally like the idea of +1 market price per 2 levels. This allows 20th lvl chracters to make the near-artifact level swords (+5 Vorpal, +5 Screamining, Flaming, Shocking, Fire Burst weapons) while still keeping the spirit of low level mages being able to make weaker, yet still good items (6th level +2 flaming swords, etc)


While the price/exp factor IS cost prohibitive for a level 5 person to make a +1 Vorpal weapon, I don't like that mechanic as well as making all the bonuses count by level.

Just my never humble opinion.

 

[Anubis]

So if you think a better way to handle this is to have the caster level be 3 times the "market value", that means you would need to be level 30 to make an item with a +10 market value. That doesn't seem too reasonable to me.

NO IT DOESN'T.

As I said before, the text says "enhancement bonus OR special ability bonus, whichever is higher". Remember also that each special ability is counted seperately. This means that to make a Vorpal Longsword +1, you would need Level 15 (NOT 18) because the higher of the two is the +5 from Vorpal. Same for a Keen Longsword +5. Same for a Vorpal Longsword +5! (+5 and +5, 3 times each is still only 15.)

See what I'm saying?

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I have almost always run it that way Anubis. Once I found out the caster level shown in the special ability decription didn't mean much of anything. I thought that the x3 should apply to the enhancement bonus or the special ability bonus, it makes a lot more sense to me since the special ability bonus also limits the total power of the item, and it also limits the really powerful stuff to high levels instead of just when you can afford to make it. For some strange reason I don't want fighters, having the wizard make them a vorpal scimitar at 10th level.

By the way if caster level means jack as some creaters have commented, then the x3 caster level req for enhancement bonuses shouldn't really exist either. Because in my eddition at least it is phrased as a caster level, not creater level requirement. So any shmuck even at 5th level should be able to make a +5 sword, it they had the cash and xp.

And if that caster level means something and the others don't is there really a decent reason for it.

I personally think this is just one of the areas they screwed up on in craft arms and armor. The special ability bonuses are way out of whack as well IMO as an additional area I think they screwed up, but what they hey no system is perfect for everyone.

 

[S'mon]

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.)

I like your approach better. I don't think Sean puts much thought into his responses.

Of course I personally tend to think that the creation requirements in 3e are a bit too low, anyway. If it was up to me I'd rule that a weapon's total effective plus x3 was the minimum creation level, so if it was an effective +10 (due to special powers & base pluses) you'd need to be 30th level to make it. So don't mind me.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

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

I like your approach better. I don't think Sean puts much thought into his responses.

Of course I personally tend to think that the creation requirements in 3e are a bit too low, anyway. If it was up to me I'd rule that a weapon's total effective plus x3 was the minimum creation level, so if it was an effective +10 (due to special powers & base pluses) you'd need to be 30th level to make it. So don't mind me.

Actually, I think that is quite a large problem. High level (14-20) characters are expected to have +6 equivalent and higher weapons. The CRs of monsters assume not only a reasonable modicum of equipment value but also that that equipment is reasonably advantageous to the characters. If items with more than a +6 equivalent bonus require epic level casters, you're either stuck saying that there are no (or very very few) +2 heavy fortification suits of armor or +5 holy swords in your world or adding numbers of epic level casters to the campaign world so that such items can have creators.

On the face of it, this idea would seem to limit the amount of magic in the world by keeping PCs from creating powerful items but what it really does is add more (and more powerful) NPCs to the world if any such items are to exist. Thus, a Greyhawk magic level can't coexist with the items high level characters would have; you have to go to a Forgotten Realms style (epic level) mage heavy environment to account for the existence of subartifact equipment.

(It also has the side effect of further changing the balance of the game in favor of wizards, sorcerors and away from fighters and rogues. After all, wizards and sorcerors' best magic items (rings of wizardry and elemental command, robes of the archmagi, staffs of power, etc) are still constructable by non-epic level characters (and thus logically should be more readily available), but +2 heavy fortification fullplate, +5 holy flaming greatswords, and +3 keen Falchions of speed aren't.)

 

[poilbrun]

My opinion on rules interpretation

Hi Anubis (and everyone else, of course)!

I tend to agree with you. No level 3 wizard creating a Vorpal longsword +1 in my game! (He would have troubles casting the required spells, but scrolls can make up for that).

I believe the problems with rules mainly comes from the people you believe when it comes to interpret rules. Myself, I only believe WotC erratas (I'm a rule geek, and as they are the creator of the game, I believe they are right, even when they're wrong !), the Sage and Monte Cook (who, IMO, is the most logical person -among those who created the game- when it comes to rules interpretation). But here comes the problem : I'm a rule geek, except in special cases : no paying XP components everyday in my game, which would mean that you have to cast the spell everyday during the creation time, thus excluding the creation of items using scroll, which is, IIRC, said to be possible in one of the rulebooks.

Actually, I think that is quite a large problem. High level (14-20) characters are expected to have +6 equivalent and higher weapons. The CRs of monsters assume not only a reasonable modicum of equipment value but also that that equipment is reasonably advantageous to the characters. If items with more than a +6 equivalent bonus require epic level casters, you're either stuck saying that there are no (or very very few) +2 heavy fortification suits of armor or +5 holy swords in your world or adding numbers of epic level casters to the campaign world so that such items can have creators.

It all depends on how your high-level campaign goes, as usual. I'm currently running two campaigns : in the first one, the players are allied with devils and fighting demons, and as such need magical weapons to be able to fight effectively. However, in the second one, the players are now level 9 and the only monsters they have faced until now are goblins and orcs (which have a powerful civilization in the world). As such, they are quite rich as far as money goes, but quite poor as far as magical items go. All this boils down to one point : you cannot link the power of the players and the power of their magical items.

 

[S'mon]

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

Actually, I think that is quite a large problem. High level (14-20) characters are expected to have +6 equivalent and higher weapons. The CRs of monsters assume not only a reasonable modicum of equipment value but also that that equipment is reasonably advantageous to the characters. If items with more than a +6 equivalent bonus require epic level casters, you're either stuck saying that there are no (or very very few) +2 heavy fortification suits of armor or +5 holy swords in your world or adding numbers of epic level casters to the campaign world so that such items can have creators.

On the face of it, this idea would seem to limit the amount of magic in the world by keeping PCs from creating powerful items but what it really does is add more (and more powerful) NPCs to the world if any such items are to exist. Thus, a Greyhawk magic level can't coexist with the items high level characters would have; you have to go to a Forgotten Realms style (epic level) mage heavy environment to account for the existence of subartifact equipment.

(It also has the side effect of further changing the balance of the game in favor of wizards, sorcerors and away from fighters and rogues. After all, wizards and sorcerors' best magic items (rings of wizardry and elemental command, robes of the archmagi, staffs of power, etc) are still constructable by non-epic level characters (and thus logically should be more readily available), but +2 heavy fortification fullplate, +5 holy flaming greatswords, and +3 keen Falchions of speed aren't.)

I've always been of the view that +7-equivalent or better items (holy +5 swords. +3 vorpal swords, etc) are artifact-level and thus should be very rare, yes. If you look at the 20th-level, CR 20, NPCs in the DMG, their stuff is not as powerful as all that - the Fighter has nothing over +4, there seems to be very little over +5. Since my game started in 1st edition 16 years ago there are magic-users over 20th level, anyway, but not a vast number of them.