Lee Gordon's page

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.

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.

Any interpretation that relies on 3.5 rulings/errata was thrown out the window when item creation began using a Spellcraft/Craft check to succeed in PRPG. The system now is not the same, only vaguely similar. Drawing conclusions about the latter by looking at clarifications of the former has no merit, IMO.

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.

I don't need to, you just did. That line with the fact that CL is never listed as a requirement/prereq (just like in 3.5 rules) means that the CL is set by the caster making the item.

I think we will have to agree to disagree about this.

For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself.

For wondrous items, my interpretation is that the item caster level is an absolute value and is defined by the CL text. I believe your interpretation is that the item caster level is variable and is at least as high as the CL required to satisfy the prereqs. I agree with your interpretation in 3.5, but not Pathfinder.

To me, the 3.5 Errata is now identical to the 3.p rules.

What caused trouble is that the 3.5 Errata was never slip-streamed into the SRD after the first pass.

This is the 3.5 DMG Errata in this area (and was in the SRD I referenced):

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.

That matches with what you have been saying, but is absent from 3.p. The reason for the change is that you can now forgo prereqs, so another minimum was required, IMHO.

For 3.p, we have these statements from pg 460:

1. The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item

2. the caster level is determined by the item
3. the creator’s caster level must be as high as the item’s caster level
4. prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator’s level

If you interpret #2 to mean it is defined by the item's prereqs only and not set by #1, then there really isn't a need to clarify that with #4. I see #2 is superfluous, or could be better expressed as:

2. the caster level is determined by the listed CL for the item

To me, #4 is the best case for my position. It indicates that there is a minimum CL required specified outside of the prereqs, which I take as the CL entry for the given item. Also note that it says the CL requirement may effectively be raised to satisfy the prereqs. It doesn't actually raise the CL. It just means that to meet all of the prereqs, you may need to be higher than the minimum CL. You can be lower than the CL of the highest CL prereq if you can satisfy the prereqs another way.

Best example if this is Folding Boat. It's a CL 6 item with a CL 9 spell prereq (Fabricate). You need to be at least CL 6 to make one, and either forgo the spell and increase the DC by +5, or get the spell from another source (scroll, etc). You don't actually need to be CL 9.

Like I said before, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this, and wait for some Paizo clarification. It looks to me like this was an intentional change from 3.5, which I may houserule back to the 3.5 rules anyway.

The CL listed in the item is only used to buy an item.

If you make an item, you set the CL:

Could you please quote the text that describes this in regard to wondrous items? This changed between 3.5 and 3.p.

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 and not higher than her own caster level. 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 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).

I can't find any reference to setting the CL based on the creator for wondrous items in 3.p.

Here's perhaps a better example to discuss. An empower metamagic rod only has feats as a requirement (Craft Rod and Empower Spell), and is CL 17. It seems to me according to RAW, that's always a CL 17 item, and you must be CL 17 (or higher) to create one. But a CL 20 mage will still only create a CL 17 metamagic rod.

I think it would be a fine houserule to change metamagic rods so lessers were CL 5 (although Craft Rod requires CL 9), normals were CL 11, and greaters were CL 17 (to cover the 3rd, 6th, and 9th level spell limits), but that's definitely not RAW. It looks to me that they are all CL 17.

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.

My take on the Caster Level requirement is that yes, they are there to restrict what items can be created by what level of caster. However, you should be able to bypass it like any other restriction (save the feat) by accepting the increase in difficulty. This actually makes even more sense than being able to bypass a missing spell component.

I'm going back and forth on this. I'll either house rule that there is no caster level requirement for wondrous items, or go with a penalty equal to item CL - creator's CL, instead of straight +5. So, for a 3rd level wizard, it would increase the difficulty +14 to create any pearl of power. Given the starting DC of 5 + 17, I hope he enjoys his new cursed item. But, at 15th level it would increase the difficulty by only +2.

Pearl of Power is an extreme case. I think in more cases, the delta between item and creator's CL should be less than +5 for level appropriate items PCs can afford to make, so it should help them more than hurt them overall.

EDIT: I'm not sure about scenario 3's claim that increasing the CL costs more in all cases. Increasing the CL makes the DC to create he item go up in all cases (5 + CL), but not necessarily the cost (like items that use spells that aren't level dependent). The reason that creator's would make higher CL for those types of items would be for the reason given before (dispel checks).

Maybe this link will help explain things better. It's for 3.5, but I think is still relevant.

Rules of the game

Bottom line, you can only adjust the CL for scrolls, potions, wands, and staves. I don't see this being different between 3.5 and 3.p.

The CL of the item is the CL that you make the item. So if you make two separate items (both requiring a 3rd level spell), one could be at CL 5 and the other could be at CL 17. But if your real caster level is 4, you can't make the CL 17 one (because you are not 17th CL) and to make the CL5 one you would need to add the +5 (iirc) penalty for lacking a prereq (namely the spell since you can't cast it.)

Where does it say that the caster level of a wondrous item is determined by the caster? I think you might be extrapolating the rules for wands, potions, and scrolls here. For other items, that is determined by the item, not the caster.

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

I don't see that as being ambiguous at all. A 3rd level wizard and 20th level wizard both make boots of levitation at CL 3. There aren't any decisions you make about CL when crafting a wondrous item as far as I can tell.

Caster level is not a requirement, but a value as to how powerful or resistant (regarding saving throws) the item is.

Caster level was not required in 3.5, and was even explicitly clarified in a 3.5 FAQ. But in 3.p, I think the rules changed.

The PFRPG book is pretty clear, as was highlighted earlier.

Caster Level (CL): The next item in a notational entry gives
the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power.

...

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).

The RAW is pretty clear, the item's caster level for wondrous items is listed as the CL in the entry, and not based on the spells used, assuming the text caster level of the item == item's caster level. Since there is no mention of determining a wondrous item's caster level based on the level required to cast requisite spells, I think that's a safe assumption. Note, this is wondrous items (and rings and rods) only, and not scrolls, wands, potions, staves, armor or shields, which are all dealt with in a different way.

Further support for this is the Bag of Tricks. That has 3 CLs listed (CL3, CL5, and CL9) depending on which Summon Nature's Ally version is required (II, III, V). There would be no reason to split that out unless it was being treated differently.

A Pearl of Power has one CL (17). Any level of a Pearl of Power is still CL 17.

An example on the other side is Folding Boat. That's a CL 6 item, but it requires Fabricate to cast, which is a 5th level Wizard spell. You'd need to be 9th level to cast it under normal circumstances.

People can certainly apply their own rules for item creation, but they aren't RAW, IMHO.

My personal opinion is magic item creation should go back to the 3.5 style with regard to CL and not require caster level to be part of the formula. I may house rule that in my game.

The range for a metropolis is 150-200 adults per acre (~4 acres per square mile, so a net of 600-800 per square mile). 114,700 adults gives a range of 574-765 acres or 143.5-191.25 square miles.

One quick correction for you, there are 640 acres per square mile.

here

I just wonder that Dospera got too big a chunk in that analsis, otherwise really interesting well-thought out stuff, but I would have gone more like 45% Dospera, 50% Spera, and given Rego Crua is much smaller and the Spera probably has plenty poor people of its own, that still packs Crua much denser with the lower classes.

Sounds good. Like I said, I just pulled the numbers out the air as a conversation starter, and to illustrate sizable density differences. Having more population in the Spera makes sense.

@Lee Gordon:

The only major problem with that is that the Dospera is more than half abandoned, so I imagine that the Spera has more of the population, its famed for its middle classes and priests, but I'd say most bar the more truly desperate and poor actually live there.

I only measured out the Rego Crua and ignored the Rego Cader (as it was abandoned, or at least the population living there wasn't likely included in the census).

I guess it all depends on how much of a middle class exists in Westcrown. My assumption is that most of the populace is poor, especially with the decline of Westcrown after the rise of the House of Thrune. Those that formally lived in the far north of the city (before the Rego Cader was abandoned) kept moving their way further south until they were met with resistance at the Canaroden at the top of the Spera. This built up the density (and desperation) in the Dospera.

Wow. I need to become more skilled at Adobe products, I think. :-)

Tools -> Measuring -> Area Tool

First time I ever used it, but definitely not the last! The Area Tool and the Distance Tool are going to get heavy use from me moving forward. They are awesome for stuff like this!

For fun (and instead of working today), I took the Westcrown map and measured out the area of the Regicona, Spera, and Dospera (excluding the ruins) using the Adobe Acrobat measuring tool, setting 1 inch = 1 mile.

With a little bit of rounding, I get this:

Regicona: 4.75 sq miles
Spera: 10.25 sq miles
Dospera: 2.25 sq miles

When you consider that each region has a different land use, and thus a different population density, I think the numbers look okay given my total lack of knowledge on the topic. :-).

To get the populations, I pulled some numbers out of the air.

I assumed 5% of the population lived on in the Regicona. This would be the noble families, plus guards, servants, and slaves. This gives a population density of about 1200/sq mile. The Regicona is dominated by canals, markets, manors and estates. The private land would include gardens, guest houses, private theaters, pools, etc. Think of the land use of mansions in Bel Air.

I ballparked that 35% of the population lives in the Spera. These are the skilled laborers, clergy, tradesmen, merchants, and upper class that can't make their way to the Regicona. This yields a density of about 4000/sq mile. This land also includes many shrines, temples, shops, and parks along the lowlands that would be prone to flooding in the spring, plus warehouses down by the marina.

The remaining population, 60%, are unskilled laborers, urban poor, and others down on their luck. The are relegated to the Dospera, which is much more dense. This works out to be about 30,000/sq mile and is your more typical high density tenement housing.

Looking at population densities by Parego looks a lot better to me, and it should help DMs create different feels for the regions.

Perhaps someone with better historical knowledge could adjust my percent estimates to make these carry a little more weight.

I believe they are each separate spells. The Good/Evil/Law/Chaos entry is simply to be more concise in the spell list. Otherwise, I'd expect to it be something like Protection from Alignment Component.

I think the issue of different versions refers to when a spell has multiple effects which you select from at casting time, such as Dispel Magic or Fire Shield.

I'm also about to start the CoT AP.

Another potential problem with the first fight is:
If only some of them die, and others escape or are knocked unconscious, what then?

What I'd do is have all of the characters be approached by Janiven individually later, regardless if they were new, escaped from the tavern, or were captured and released by the Hellknights. At this point, she needs more help to free Arael, and you pick up the adventure in the hideout.

Those that survived the tavern will pay more heed to Janiven's advice in the future!

This is getting more off topic, but in my campaign, I'll probably have the Order of the Rack be motivated, disciplined, and efficient.

Barring a crit that ends up killing someone outright, there would be dire consequences for a Hellknight that continues to bludgeon an unconscious person they were supposed to apprehend. It's cheaper to interrogate a live person over a dead one.

One captured and revived, the process would be to first interview them individually by someone with a decent Sense Motive skill. Then interview them again under the effects of a Zone of Truth to cross-check their answers. To further demonstrate their innocence, they'd be asked to forego the Will save while in the Zone. If there are discrepancies (or if it can be determined they made their save), then it would be followed up with a series of increasingly "persuasive" methods, designed to break their spirits. They might even offer up the classic Prisoner's Dilemma at that point. The final step would end with Speak with Dead, if they don't come clean before that point.

With that being said, if my players don't flee the encounter at the tavern, I'm gonna TPK them for being stupid. :-).

Although keep in mind that the Hellknights are Lawful, and the armigers in the sewers are LN (which may or may not be common in the Order). Extreme torture for patrons in the bar owned by a suspected rebel seems awfully severe. It seems like they should be afforded some kind of due process under the law. Plus, the truth is that the PCs haven't done anything wrong yet (aside from possibly resisting arrest).

Maybe the Order of the Rack is the "Kill 'em all and let the gods sort it out" type. I guess it all depends on the GM. Although, if they have clerics ready to cast Speak with Dead, they'd probably want to try Zone of Truth first.

When I get around to running the campaign, I'll probably have the rank and file be mostly LN ("Just followin' orders, ma'am"), but the leadership is LE.

Since the HellKnight PrC in the players guide has a +5 BAB, I'd make them at least 6th level, which should leave no doubt as to the outcome. Might be wise to give them some non-lethal options though to avoid an accidental TPK at the start of the AP, which also further emphasizes their desire to take prisoners for interrogation.

Another vote for using the weight of the original object as the basis of the cost. The RAW doesn't say that mithral weighs 500gp/lb. It says that for any item which you want to make out of mithral, the cost of doing so is 500 gp/lb. The cost includes the labor of using the material. When said item is made, it is considered masterwork quality, and weighs half of what a non-mithral equivalent item would weigh.

I'd treat a medium dagger as costing 502 gp and a small dagger as 252 gp. Small races could game the system a little bit, but not enough to worry about, IMHO.

In Pathfinder, its a bit more simplified (IMHO). You never lose XP (or class levels) for any reason (death, magic item creation, etc).

When a character dies, the XP level doesn't decrease. The consequences of coming back to life depend on the method used. If Raise Dead (pg 329) or Reincarnation (pg 331) is used , then the character gains 2 permanent negative levels. If Resurrection (pg 334) is used, then the character gains 1 permanent negative level.

In the case you gave, your Paladin would still be a 7th level Paladin, with 2 negative levels. After gaining a bit more XP, it would be an 8th level Paladin, with 2 negative levels.

Once the permanent negative levels are removed (via Restoration (pg 334) or some other means), then the character no longer suffers any adverse effects from being previously dead.

Take a look at Energy Drain and Negative Levels (pg 562) for more info.

The goblin's not proficient with the dogslicers, which gives him an additional –4 penalty to attacking with them. Most goblins are warriors or fighters, and get the proficiency for free, but goblins themselves aren't automatically proficient with the weapons.

Which works out well, since goblins don't always make the best choices when it comes to maximizing their characters.

Ahhh, makes perfect sense. I figured I was missing something. Thanks!

The stat block for Ezren in Crypt of the Everflame supports your second option, which is the way I read it, too. However, even though it's not stated explicitly, I would still apply non-proficiency penalties.

Mike

Thanks, that's official enough for me. I agree on the proficiency part as well.

Keep in mind that it functions like the spell though. The ring is CL 7, so with a standard action, you can start blinking for 7 rounds. You can dismiss the effect with another standard action before the 7 rounds are up (to accommodate a healing spell, for example).

To have the ring work continuously, you'd need to spend a standard action every 7 rounds to reactivate it.

Not that people are likely to play Universalist Wizards any more, but I do have a question about Hand of the Apprentice that I'm looking for some guidance on. Mainly I'm trying to figure out if range increment and thrown weapon penalties apply. Here's the line that I'm considering.

This attack is treated as a ranged attack with a thrown weapon

Does this mean that a wizard carrying a quarterstaff, attacking a creature 30 feet away would take -8 in penalties to use HotA (-4 for throwing a weapon not normally thrown, and -4 for two 10' range increment penalties).

Or, does HotA allow you to throw any weapon without penalty up to 30 feet away?

I can see arguments for both points of view, although I'm leaning towards the latter since HotA is not nearly as overpowering as it was before.

Speaking of stats, I've been looking at the Sewer Goblin on pg 22. I'm puzzled by the Melee attack.

Melee 2 broken dogslicers –6 (1d4–1)

With a single attack, I'd expect it to be +0 attack (+0 BAB, +1 Small, +1 Str, -2 Broken).

With a full attack, I'd expect it to be -2 attack (+0 BAB, +1 Small, +1 Str, -2 Broken, -2 TWF with light weapons and feat).

Is that right, or are there additional penalties I'm missing, and -6 is correct?

Two other stats I've noticed that are off are Init (should be +3) and Perception (should be +5), but those are more straightforward.

Thanks. Looks like I didn't go through the new pdf carefully enough. The Alpha rules spelled out more details around creation, and when I didn't see that in Beta, I thought they went back to 3.5 completely.

Did the Pathfinder rules revert back to the SRD for creating magic items? That is, they now involve XP costs again, you can't craft while adventuring, etc?

It looks like the rules for crafting in Alpha are gone in Beta.

You answered your own question. There are two defining elements given: a wand is a baton that contains a single spell.

In your example it would not be a wand. The baton now contains two spells, which violates the second element. Both elements need to be preserved for it to be a wand.

After I posted this, I realized it was really more of a question about the SRD, so I sent it to Wotc. Your comments are my general interpretation as well, but I want to verify if they were simply trying to prevent a wand of multiple spells sharing charges, or if the verbage is meant to prevent reusing a single baton for independent "wands". I haven't been able to find anything definitive thus far.

Normally there isn't much benefit to sharing a baton between wands, but that might be different in the context of Pathfinder.

What would differentiate it from a staff then if you can have multiple spells in a wand?

Staves use the wielder's caster level and ability scores for effects, whereas wands use the lowest possible CL and ability scores for its effects. Wands are limited to 4th level spells, but staves are unlimited. The staff charges are shared amongst the spells, but the wand charges are tracked independently per spell. Staves can be recharged.

There is still a big benefit to using a staff over a wand.

I'm reading through the rules for creating wands and adding new abilities, and I wanted to get some other opinions on this to see if I'm reading this correctly.

Looking at the rules as written, it seems there is nothing preventing you from adding another spell to an existing wand. The crafting rules don't stipulate that you start with a non-magical item, and the rules for adding a new ability indicate you can add abilities w/o restrictions.

For example, if you have a wand of fireballs, it appears you can also turn that same stick into a wand of lightning bolt. They are independent, and each have 50 charges for each of their spells. The cost of that is 5625 for the fireballs and 5625 for the lightning bolt.

Normally there isn't a big advantage to doing this, aside from avoiding rummaging through your pack when you need a wand with a different spell.

But, this changes quite a bit in the context of a bonded object that is a wand. In this case, you could have a wand of fireballs and wand of lightning bolt for 5625 for the both.

Is there something in the rules that I'm missing? There is a phrase in the SRD that a wand is a baton that contains a single spell, but I don't know if that description is strong enough to prevent using that stick to function as a separate wand. You'd end up with a wand of fireballs with 50 charges, and a wand of lightning bolt with 50 charges, both sharing the same baton.

Thoughts?

I'm sure my group is sick of hearing me harp about this, but I thought I should get this on the radar for something to be addressed in an update. Here's an illustration of the size issue with HotA.

Lets say you have 3 universal wizards: a tiny grig, medium human, and huge titan. They each have a 3 lb medium club, and are all proficient in the weapon. The grig and titan can't use the medium club in melee because it is too big/small.

Now the grig casts enlarge person and the titan casts reduce person. The small grig can use a medium club two handed, and the large titan can use a medium club as a light weapon. In both cases, the club is the wrong size, and there is a -2 penalty for melee attacks.

The question is, in which cases can the caster above use HotA with a medium club, and at what penalty?

If you interpret HotA as an extension of the caster and only allow the spell to work with one handed weapons, then:

medium human: no penalty
tiny grig and huge titan: cannot use weapon
small grig: cannot use weapon
large titan: can use weapon at -2 penalty

The part that is unsettling to me is that in all cases, the weapon and the spell strength are the same. The spell effect is independent of caster size and STR. It's simply telekinesis of a non-magical object up to 5 pounds. Furthermore, the caster is not actually wielding the weapon. It's being manipulated magically.

There are a few ways to make this more internally consistent:

1) HotA creates a medium sized hand that can wield light or one-handed medium weapons. Large light weapons and small one- and two-handed weapons can be used at a -2 penalty. In this case, the human, grig, and titan can use the medium club w/o penalty regardless of size. The 5 pound limit could be retained. Small spellcasters would be forced to carry a medium weapon if they wanted to avoid the -2 penalty though, which is bad.

2) HotA works with any weapon up to 5 pounds. Caster size is irrelevant. The weapon category is based on the size of the wielder and there is no wielder. This means you can use a medium mithral greatsword as a medium human. If you are not proficient, you take a -4 penalty. This opens the door to serious abuse (Gargantuan mithral siangham???).

3) HotA creates a hand of the size of the caster, which can wield light or one-handed weapons of that size, with no weight restrictions. Smaller/larger weapons can be used at a -2 penalty if they are not two-handed for that size. Now a titan can wield heavier weapons, and a grig will wield lighter weapons. The spell strength adjusts based on the caster size. In this way, all casters can use their normal weapons effectively.

I think #3 most closely matches the spirit of the ability, and makes it so it is usable by any creature, regardless of size. To me, the intent is to give a wizard a ranged attack option relative to the weapon they carry.

Thoughts?