The Infamous Magic Item Caster Level!!!

[kigmatzomat]

It's interesting to see that here he admits that's the rule in the DMG, and not just a mis-reading of the definition of "Caster Level".

The confusion to the developers seems to come from using the same phrase for multiple things and not defining it well enough. There should have been "minimum caster level" and "required caster level."

For things like flaming or frost weapons it makes sense for there to be a "required caster level" in excess of that required to cast the spell or you'd have a sword that was engulfed in cold/heat, including the hilt and thus only usable by cold/fire types. Those extra caster levels reflect the skill required to "finesse" the effect beyond the feat's ability to make the magic "stick" to the item without destroying it. Additional caster levels don't gain anything for that particular effect. The same goes for most wonderous items where there's no gradation.

Potions, scrolls, wands have a "minimum caster level" equal to the the lowest level the class can cast the spell but it can be ramped upwards at the creators option.

The *really* problematic ones are the multiple variations of one item lumped together (pearls of power, items of stat boost, etc) where they got lazy and didn't enumerate each item. These should have received a required caster level per sub-item which never happened.

If the ability is a spell effect that can be gradiated (natural armor, bracers mage armor, stat boost) the requisite caster level should be expressed as a formula, like 4xbonus. (i.e. 16th level to make gauntlets dex +4). This way a 4th level mage can make a belt of constitution +1 when he needs it; at low levels. (Yes, I use +1 stat items because 50% of the time they do make a difference, except with strength where it always makes a difference on load).

But that's just me interpreting the rules because as written they blow.

 

[kreynolds]

Odd how no one's ever able to answer that question.

That _was_ my answer.