The older I get, the more I appreciate 3.0

[delericho]

Caster level pre-requisites were an error? By induction, then...

Thus, one of the most major weaknesses of non-casters, the inability to neither create magic items nor use any but the most expensive magic items, may be entirely resolved by the removal and extrapolation from said removal, of this error.

There's a big problem with this reasoning: they still need the appropriate Crafting feat, and those still require a certain Caster Level to acquire and use. Sorry.

 

[Random Bystander]

There's a big problem with this reasoning: they still need the appropriate Crafting feat, and those still require a certain Caster Level to acquire and use. Sorry.

If caster level requirements to make magic items were "an error", then it stands to reason that statement applies to caster level requirements to attain the feats needed to make magic items.

Short of Monte Cook showing up in this thread and explaining what he meant by "an error", we are left only with the semantics for interpretation. And "caster level requirements to make magic items were 'an error'", to summarize, logically applies, at minimum, to any 'artificial' caster level requirement to make a magic item. From that, the chain of logic follows as stated, and the only caster level requirements are the ability to cast, or access to, the needed spells.

However, Monte Cook may not have meant something that all-encompassing, and may have only meant, as you state, "caster level requirements...on the actual magic items themselves...were 'an error'".

While I think the game would be enhanced by my chain of logic, that is far from being authoritative.

 

[delericho]

If caster level requirements to make magic items were "an error", then it stands to reason that statement applies to caster level requirements to attain the feats needed to make magic items.

Monte specifies that it's a mistake in the 3.0e DMG. The feat descriptions are in the PHB.

Edit: And, in fact, Monte addresses the very point here.

That means it's possible to have a caster level of a rod lower than 9, even though you have to be 9th level to use the Craft Rod feat.

 

[Random Bystander]

Monte specifies that it's a mistake in the 3.0e DMG. The feat descriptions are in the PHB.

Edit: And, in fact, Monte addresses the very point here.

* Caster level is still a prerequisite for magic item creation. This was an error in the 3.0 DMG and remains. You still have to be 17th level to make a 1st-level pearl of power.

Hmm...Yes, he does specify only the DMG.

The only relevant thing he seems to address in that post is that, although you have to have a certain caster level to create certain magic items and have the right item creation feat, which comes with its own caster level requirement, you may still create that item at a lower caster level, provided the item itself does not specify otherwise.

I shall review this later; I did not get a good night's sleep last night.

 

[delericho]

It's perhaps worth noting that there appears to be some debate on whether that Caster Level requirement was a mistake or not - in one of his "Rules of the Game" columns, Skip Williams (one of the other members of the 3e core design) reiterates the need for the right caster level. That suggests that possibly it was Monte who felt it was a mistake but that he was out-voted. Or perhaps not - WotC could have changed their minds in between, or SW could have simply been stating his interpretation of what the rules said, or...

FWIW, neither the "Rules Compendium" nor the "Magic Item Compendium" seem to say anything at all on the topic. I might have missed something, of course.

 

[Random Bystander]

It's perhaps worth noting that there appears to be some debate on whether that Caster Level requirement was a mistake or not - in one of his "Rules of the Game" columns, Skip Williams (one of the other members of the 3e core design) reiterates the need for the right caster level. That suggests that possibly it was Monte who felt it was a mistake but that he was out-voted. Or perhaps not - WotC could have changed their minds in between, or SW could have simply been stating his interpretation of what the rules said, or...

FWIW, neither the "Rules Compendium" nor the "Magic Item Compendium" seem to say anything at all on the topic. I might have missed something, of course.

It would be interesting, perhaps, to view an alternate Earth where the new edition happened in 2005/2006 as planned (presumably called "4th edition"; summerizable as AU4th, I guess), followed probably by an AU5th somewhere in the 2010/2011/2012. That the course of the previous and current editions may be entirely due to the premature release of D&D 3.5 in 2003.

That is, the primary complaint about 3.5 was that it was not balanced; the primary complaint about about 4.0 was that it went too far from D&D's roots. That, then, 4.0 was intended to be very balanced, and 5.0 is intended to encompass those roots. If, instead of 3.5 in 2003, a balanced AU4th was released in 2005/2006, the entire history of D&D for the last twelve years, and probably a notable portion of the RPG hobby for the same period, would be different.

For better or worse? That, I can't say. Probably, "yes".

 

[ksbsnowowl]

Regardless of what Monte Cook may have written 12 years ago, the DMG errata addresses the subject:

Caster Level Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 215
Problem: The last two sentences in the section on Caster Level are ambiguous and potentially misleading.
Solution: Replace with this text: For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the creator. The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given.

Basically, the listed caster level for each item is just the caster level for the effects of the item that is randomly generated. It is not a pre-req, and any item made by the PC's will have its CL determined by the creator (presumably no higher than his own CL).

 

[delericho]

It would be interesting, perhaps, to view an alternate Earth where the new edition happened in 2005/2006 as planned

Indeed.

If, instead of 3.5 in 2003, a balanced AU4th was released in 2005/2006, the entire history of D&D for the last twelve years, and probably a notable portion of the RPG hobby for the same period, would be different.

That history would indeed have been significantly different. Though how different would also depend on WotC's handling of the OGL with AU4th and also what they did with the magazines (did they spin out Paizo at all, did they renew the license after 5 years, etc).

But I have some concerns whether it's actually possible to produce a balanced AU4th on the top of the 3e engine. As far as I can see, it has some fundamental issues (notably surrounding high-level play, multiclassing, magic item creation, and especially caster supremacy) that potentially make it impossible to balance. It seems to me that Pathfinder has gone some way to fixing some of the issues, while both 4e and 5e dealt with them by changing some of the foundations; but 16 years on it doesn't look like anyone has really gotten to the bottom of all the problems.

 

[Staffan]

If caster level requirements to make magic items were "an error", then it stands to reason that statement applies to caster level requirements to attain the feats needed to make magic items.

Short of Monte Cook showing up in this thread and explaining what he meant by "an error", we are left only with the semantics for interpretation. And "caster level requirements to make magic items were 'an error'", to summarize, logically applies, at minimum, to any 'artificial' caster level requirement to make a magic item. From that, the chain of logic follows as stated, and the only caster level requirements are the ability to cast, or access to, the needed spells.

However, Monte Cook may not have meant something that all-encompassing, and may have only meant, as you state, "caster level requirements...on the actual magic items themselves...were 'an error'".

While I think the game would be enhanced by my chain of logic, that is far from being authoritative.

This is how it's supposed to work. I'll use 3.5 items because the 3.5 SRD is readily available online, but the principle is the same for 3.0. Take the amulet of the planes:

CL 15th; Craft Wondrous Item, plane shift; Price 120,000 gp.

If you find an amulet of the planes as random treasure, or buy one, the caster level is 15th. However, that is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisites are the ones listed as prerequisites: the Craft Wondrous Item feat, and the plane shift spell. These in turn give you virtual prerequisites of 3rd and 9th level, because CWI has 3rd level as a prerequisite, and plane shift is a 5th level spell. If a 10th level PC acquired the resources to make this item, they could, and it would have a caster level of 10.

Let's look at another item, the amulet of natural armor:

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).

Again, being 5th level is not a prerequisite. However, this item does call out a level-based prerequisite, so in order to make an amulet of natural armor +3 you need to be 9th level.

 

[nijineko]

hmmm, i find that i prefer 3.x over 3.0. so that would mean all 3.5 content plus all non-updated 3.0 content.

though i find i do like certain specific examples of 3.0 content over 3.5 content.

in my games, i'll even include 2e or 1e or b/e things on occasion under the guise of an antique magic item/spell, or primitive race, etc. i find it amusing to occasionally toss something like an old-style scroll of fireball spell in there and watch the players blow themselves up.


in my case, i usually play psionics, and rules-wise the 3.5 system is the better system for psionics, imo, of all the versions of psionics from various editions. besides which, the 3.5 dark sun was quite handy and useful, despite mostly focusing on spell casters (?!).