I agree. James expressed an opinion that 3.5 = 3.p in the area of question, and I wanted to illustrate both and how they differed.

To which I say that they are still identical in practice by my reading.

As for Twowlves, I use no information in the 3.5 rules/errata to come to my conclusion that the 3.5 and 3.p rules work identically in regard to CL as a requirement. To me the rule set uses different words to come to the same conclusion.

The fact that they bothered to use different wording instead of a "cut'n'paste" of previous rules (as they have done in other areas) implies they did it for a reason. That reason being they meant CL to be treated differently than in 3.5 ed.

Majuba wrote:

It's also stating that when your CL is lower than the normal CL of an item (non-scroll/wand/etc), the item's CL drops to yours. That way your say, Pearl of power 1st (DC 22), that you managed to create at 4th level doesn't have the saves of a CL 17 item.

Could you provide a page number for this? That would be real useful. Thanks.

Sure, same one you're quoting, p. 460

For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level).

This paragraph is under "Caster Level" for magic item descriptions. So we're not into the hardcore "item creation rules". Paragraph 1 described what Caster level affects. Paragraph 2 (above) is describing how it is set. This is important to clarify for many reasons, but particularly because people know the cost is related to the caster level. So this describes some limits for setting the caster level.

Potions, Scrolls, Wands - these are set by caster within a certain range (minimum for spell up to creator's - same range they can actually cast the spell, which is required for these items to be crafted). For other items, the caster level [that the creator can set the item at] is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator's caster level must be as high as [what she sets as] the item's caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level).

This paragraph is talking about how the CL is set, in the context of "this is what Caster Level does", i.e. effects, saves, etc. That's all. In the Requirements section on the next page it does talk about prerequisites, etc., and specifically says they are listed after the CL, and that is a change from 3.5 worth noting, for clarity.

The fact that they bothered to use different wording instead of a "cut'n'paste" of previous rules (as they have done in other areas) implies they did it for a reason. That reason being they meant CL to be treated differently than in 3.5 ed.

Your first statement makes plenty of sense - change in wording for a reason. Your second statement is pure conjecture. IMO, an even more likely reason would be to *clarify* an oft misunderstood section of the rules.

They cannot allot infinite space (or even more than a couple paragraphs) to discuss item creation rules - it would take up too much space and utterly bore and confuse people. So they condense it down as tight as they can.

Side note: a Staff with Miracle, as a spell-completion or spell-trigger item, cannot be created without the spell prereq. This is listed with the item creation feats as the only exception to bypassing requirements with +5 to DC.

Lee Gordon wrote:

I agree. James expressed an opinion that 3.5 = 3.p in the area of question, and I wanted to illustrate both and how they differed.

To which I say that they are still identical in practice by my reading.

If my post #47 was unconvincing, then we agree to disagree. Not much more I can say on the topic.

Sure, same one you're quoting, p. 460

PRD wrote:

For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level).

This paragraph is under "Caster Level" for magic item descriptions. So we're not into the hardcore "item creation rules". Paragraph 1 described what Caster level affects. Paragraph 2 (above) is describing how it is set. This is important to clarify for many reasons, but particularly because people know the cost is related to the caster level. So this describes some limits for setting the caster level.

Potions, Scrolls, Wands - these are set by caster within a certain range (minimum for spell up to creator's - same range they can actually cast the spell, which is required for these items to be crafted). For other items, the caster level [that the creator can set the item at] is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator's caster level must be as high as [what she sets as] the item's caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level).

This paragraph is talking about how the CL is set, in the context of "this is what Caster Level does", i.e. effects, saves, etc. That's all. In the Requirements section on the next page it does talk about prerequisites, etc., and...

I think there is a lot of extrapolation and interpretation there. I read it that the caster can set the CL for potions, scrolls, and wands, but the CL for other items are fixed, based on the item. Another case of agree to disagree and rule it however we wish for our home games until Paizo clarifies. They may say it should work as per 3.5, but in that case their rewording made that less obvious, not more.

to me pearls of power are CL17 because they are crafted with Wish. there are better spells for it (mnemonic enhancer, mage's lubrication, limited wish, then wish for highest). it doesn't make sense, but then neither does sovereign glue.

The fact that they bothered to use different wording instead of a "cut'n'paste" of previous rules (as they have done in other areas) implies they did it for a reason. That reason being they meant CL to be treated differently than in 3.5 ed.

To which I say they could have just as likely tried to clarify something the 3.5 rules ended up posting Errata.

The rule in 3.5 was errata'd already. They could have used the exact, corrected wording. They did not.

The rule in 3.5 was errata'd already. They could have used the exact, corrected wording. They did not.

No, since it was on the order of 50 extra words. They could have opted for a shorter, presumably more clear wording.

The wording they chose seems clear enough to me. Obviously it could have been clearer still.

The wording they chose seems clear enough to me. Obviously it could have been clearer still.

I agree, we just are one opposite sides of "of course it says X" from each other.

Yeah, the wrong side, and my side!

;)

Just jumping in here quick, this has been covered a few times. In short, the CL was only a requirement for Craft Arms and Armor in 3.5. The wording has not really changed with Pathfinder, and I would not apply CL as a requirement unless it states it to be one as in Weapons/Armor.

So this counts as "not really changed"?

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.

For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level).

Seems like the PRD is very specific and the SRD is very vague.

Caster Level isn't a creation requirement. It wasn't in 3.5 (and the errata made that clear) and it isn't in Pathfinder.

In general, the prerequisites for an item are only those listed at the end of its entry. For example, a Headband of Vast Intelligence requires Craft Wondrous Item and one spell (Fox's Cunning). Caster Level is not included in these requirements because it is not a requirement.

Armour and Weapon creation is an exception to the general rule - they have 'A special prerequisite': a CL of three times the item bonus.

There are other special exceptions. For example, a Flesh Golem Manual is 'CL8; requires caster level 8'. Ioun Stones are CL12 and have listed under prereqs 'Creator must be 12th level.'

All this is rendered confusing by multiple ambiguous references to CL maybe being a requirement. There are several of these scattered around. If you want to rule that CL *is* a requirement by the book, you can still cite these...but that's not RAI, and it doesn't work out well (see below)

There are other ways of limiting creation. Appropriate level wealth guidelines are good. For example, a third level PC should have only 3000gp wealth as standard, of which no one item should be worth more than 1500gp. As DM, you could rule that magic items with a market value greater than 1.5k can't be created by such a character - thus ruling out a Headband of Vast Intelligence+2 until 5th level. This has the benefit of being pretty balanced. If you feel more lenient, you can use creation cost rather than market value: this allows the Headband+2 at 4th.

You might also decide that - regardless of level wealth guideliness - item creation in Pathfinder is just too easy. I agree. IMO, the basic DC creation check is too easy, and the ability to ignore any requirement by adding +5 DC leaves newbie DMs wide open to exploitation of creation. But wealth restrictions help keep things in check if you impose them.

Imposing the listed Caster Levels as requirements doesn't work as a restriction, because that's not what they're intended for. Firstly, some of them are too high (eg Pearl of Power), and just as importantly, some of them are too low to be consistent with item power - for example, Cube of Frost Resistance (CL5), Cloak of Major Displacement (CL7), Helm of Telepathy (CL5), Lantern of Revealing (CL5), Periapt of Proof Against Poison (CL5), Scabbard of Keen Edges (CL5), Luckstone (CL5). If this is your restriction, be prepared for your party to craft these things early. In Pathfinder, after all, they don't even the spells required...

Better, I think, to use wealth level guidelines as a restriction. Market cost/creation cost and half-max-single-item rules are solid, consistent restrictions.

Am I the only one who can't get by these statements?

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.

For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level).

Can no one else see that the 3.5 SRD (with the errata applied) doesn't sync with what is written in PF?

Maybe if I word them differently to mean the same thing:

PF CL requirement := Creator CL >= LARGER(Item CL, Prereq CL), where LARGER(x, y) =: x when x >= y, otherwise y.

3.5 SRD CL requirement := Creator CL >= Prereq CL.

For anyone attempting to state that 3.5 and PF use the same rules for crafting magic items, I can't get by these statements |:

I see that some things have stayed the same between 3.5 and PF:

A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell.

That statement seems to be compatible with the 3.5 SRD's statement above (3.5 SRD CL requirement := Creator CL >= Prereq CL.).

So are we saying that because something is stated 2 places (3.5 SRD and PF Magic Item Creation section), it negates something said differently in another section (PF Magic Item section)?

In short, I think it's just broken. You can argue one way or another all day, but there's no explanation that unifies both mutually exclusive statements.