Just recently had a debate over the specifics of all this. My players are under the impression that you can ignore all of prerequisites which I am in some disagreement to.
Firstly, I understand (and mainly by the aid of this thread) that a caster needs to be capable of casting a spell that they are attempting to dismiss by using the +5 DC rule. So, a wizard can't go attempting to craft a cloak that grants displacement without first actually having the minimum level to have cast displacement at all, despite the spell not being in their spellbook or memorized.
My second issue is this: My players believe that feat and skill requirements can be dismissed in the same manner. And so, my question is how can this be? By virtue of that nugget of rediculousness, if this were true, then anyone could craft any item they like and never take any of the crafting feats since those feats are listed under prerequisites, and the Core states that all of those can be ignored by adding +5 to the DC.
Please tell me the system isn't this broken.
Just recently had a debate over the specifics of all this. My players are under the impression that you can ignore all of prerequisites which I am in some disagreement to.
Firstly, I understand (and mainly by the aid of this thread) that a caster needs to be capable of casting a spell that they are attempting to dismiss by using the +5 DC rule. So, a wizard can't go attempting to craft a cloak that grants displacement without first actually having the minimum level to have cast displacement at all, despite the spell not being in their spellbook or memorized.
My second issue is this: My players believe that feat and skill requirements can be dismissed in the same manner. And so, my question is how can this be? By virtue of that nugget of rediculousness, if this were true, then anyone could craft any item they like and never take any of the crafting feats since those feats are listed under prerequisites, and the Core states that all of those can be ignored by adding +5 to the DC.
Please tell me the system isn't this broken.
It's not broken. Everyone's just deathly afraid of allowing players to craft items and keeps looking for ways of making a crafter's life hard. The WBL is exponential, which means doubling their wealth is really only letting them get ahead by a level or two, for the cost of at least 2 feats. So no, not broken. (Certain campaign assumptions may make the crafting feats more or less valuable though.)
Now to your question, the only thing that's absolutely required is the crafting feat itself. Everything else can be bypassed with a +5 DC. Also, the CL of the item, unless it's actually listed in the requirements line, is basically meaningless and has no effect on crafting. (Wands, potions and scrolls are exceptions to this.)
Now, if you or any other DM can't get over this, my suggestion would be to alter the DC penalty for ignoring requirements. Make it +5 + spell level or something.
"Now to your question, the only thing that's absolutely required is the crafting feat itself."
Is there some text I can use to verify this? Something absolute would be a great thing to have to show my players. And to respond to your snarky remarks about the crafting system and how I view it, my only real problem is the claim that a feat can be ignored. Which, if so, would have been broken.
The other aspects make sense, especially after reviewing Sean's comments on the matter. Though, nothing has been stated about the feats themselves. Common sense at the gaming table concerning this matter tends to die a horrible death when the debate arises.
"Now to your question, the only thing that's absolutely required is the crafting feat itself."
Is there some text I can use to verify this? Something absolute would be a great thing to have to show my players. And to respond to your snarky remarks about the crafting system and how I view it, my only real problem is the claim that a feat can be ignored. Which, if so, would have been broken.
The other aspects make sense, especially after reviewing Sean's comments on the matter. Though, nothing has been stated about the feats themselves. Common sense at the gaming table concerning this matter tends to die a horrible death when the debate arises.
Didn't mean to be too snarky, but nearly everyone seems to be out to find a way to nerf crafting, which I get annoyed at (and mentioning brokeness made me think you were one such person).
Anyway, the crafting feat is absolutely required (see above), but everything else can be bypassed.
2009 that's a hell of a necro'd thread ;)
If your having issue with crafting what you should really pay attention to is the time required to craft. In short takes a LOOOOONG time, if you want to limit crafting then adjust your campaigns timescale and or introduce time critical events. If you bounce your players between major encounters within a couple of days there simply is no time for crafting
|
I think I read somewhere in the most recent CRB that the minimum CL is a CL that's high enough to cast all the spells listed as requirements. This can push up the difficulty quite a bit if you also can't satisfy those spell requirements. (Golems... ouch...)
It's trickier with the metamagic rods though.
|
Ascalaphus, it is in SKR FAQ. And no, it don't make it difficult. If you do the math a focused 4th level caster can make a miscellaneous item that will cast unlimited wishes. Granted, it would need around 1.5 millions in components and for years of work, but taking 10 he would automatically succeed.
(lvl 9 spell, CL 17, DC 22, +5 for lacking the spell = DC 27. Make it a jewelled necklace so you can use craft Jewellery. Int 20, skill focus, Craft Jewellery, masterwork tools, maximized skill:
int +5, skill 4+3, tools +2, skill focus +3, total bonus +17
A level 4 caster can beat a DC 27 check consistently.)
Ascalaphus, it is in SKR FAQ. And no, it don't make it difficult. If you do the math a focused 4th level caster can make a miscellaneous item that will cast unlimited wishes. Granted, it would need around 1.5 millions in components and for years of work, but taking 10 he would automatically succeed.
(lvl 9 spell, CL 17, DC 22, +5 for lacking the spell = DC 27. Make it a jewelled necklace so you can use craft Jewellery. Int 20, skill focus, Craft Jewellery, masterwork tools, maximized skill:
int +5, skill 4+3, tools +2, skill focus +3, total bonus +17
A level 4 caster can beat a DC 27 check consistently.)
That is what I had to correct with my players, as they were just as confused as you. It is very clearly stated that you need to have the minimum level to cast the spell in the first place at all. Again, we fall back to the utter loss of common sense and the ability to read that most players (and us DMs) seem to suffer from when it comes to this issue.
A 4th level caster is not capable of casting Wish, as in order to do so they need to have the ability to cast 9th levels spells.
I do not see any text in any of these books where it states that you can use a spell above your caster level without Use Magic Device being required (and even then, the task is often quite impossible as the DC would be over the best they could get even with a 20, excluding high powered characters, that is).
Also, no mage can add a spell to their spell list that is beyond their level's capability. Where in the rules do you see this being so?
No, indeed, it states:
"...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...", pg. 549, Core Rule Book, 5th edition, second paragraph, second sentence.
And after reading this material (as I'm somewhat new to Pathfinder), I also found the passage which states that the crafting feat is also necessary, something I was not aware of at the time of my initial posts.
"...The only exception to this is the requisite item
creation feat, which is mandatory....", pg. 549, Core Rule Book, 5th edition, first paragraph, fourth sentence.
With these things now clarified, I am quite well aware of how the system functions. It is very well put together and extremely nice for players as they can very easily create things now without a huge cost to self.
I understand how so many people have been confused over this stuff. If you don't read ALL the words, then you wind up looking like a dunce (of which I am certainly guilty).
|
|
@Jedorian: I'm not sure that either of those passaged implies that you can't make stuff with a CL higher than your own.
The only place where I see a mandatory demand of your caster level is in creating magic arms and armor. That and the Crafting Feat is absolutely mandatory; everything else is replaceable with +5 DCs.
I also don't think this is necessarily that bad a thing; if a wizard needs to create a magic item to do X, because he can't cast X yet, that's basically a form of very slow, very expensive casting of X.
Magic item CL seems to be a pretty separate thing from caster CL.
@Jedorian: I'm not sure that either of those passaged implies that you can't make stuff with a CL higher than your own.
The only place where I see a mandatory demand of your caster level is in creating magic arms and armor. That and the Crafting Feat is absolutely mandatory; everything else is replaceable with +5 DCs.
I also don't think this is necessarily that bad a thing; if a wizard needs to create a magic item to do X, because he can't cast X yet, that's basically a form of very slow, very expensive casting of X.
Magic item CL seems to be a pretty separate thing from caster CL.
And yet again, the ability to read has perished.
|
And yet again, the ability to read has perished.@Jedorian: I'm not sure that either of those passaged implies that you can't make stuff with a CL higher than your own.
The only place where I see a mandatory demand of your caster level is in creating magic arms and armor. That and the Crafting Feat is absolutely mandatory; everything else is replaceable with +5 DCs.
I also don't think this is necessarily that bad a thing; if a wizard needs to create a magic item to do X, because he can't cast X yet, that's basically a form of very slow, very expensive casting of X.
Magic item CL seems to be a pretty separate thing from caster CL.
Here is the FAQ for your reading fun:
Pearl of Power: What is the caster level required to create this item?
Though the listed Caster Level for a pearl of power is 17th, that caster level is not part of the Requirements listing for that item. Therefore, the only caster level requirement for a pearl of power is the character has to be able to cast spells of the desired level.
However, it makes sense that the minimum caster level of the pearl is the minimum caster level necessary to cast spells of that level--it would be strange for a 2nd-level pearl to be CL 1st.
For example, a 3rd-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item can create a 1st-level pearl, with a minimum caster level of 1. He can set the caster level to whatever he wants (assuming he can meet the crafting DC), though the pearl's caster level has no effect on its powers (other than its ability to resist dispel magic). If he wants to make a 2nd-level pearl, the caster level has to be at least 3, as wizards can't cast 2nd-level spells until they reach character level 3. He can even try to make a 3rd-level pearl, though the minimum caster level is 5, and he adds +5 to the DC because he doesn't meet the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" requirement.
—Sean K Reynolds, 08/18/10
Sean even goes into the examples of a 1st level wizard creating a pearl of power with a CL of 3 by adding +5 DC to the crafting.
Caster Level is not a requirement unless the item calls it out.
For example, the item Amulet of Proof against detection has the following for constructions requirements:
Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location
Aura moderate abjuration; CL 8th
Slot neck; Price 35,000 gp; Weight —
Description
This silver amulet protects the wearer from scrying and magical location just as a nondetection spell does. If a divination spell is attempted against the wearer, the caster of the divination must succeed on a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against a DC of 19 (as if the wearer had cast nondetection on herself ).
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, nondetection; Cost 17,500 gp
So, a wizard who was too low level to cast nondetection (say a level 3 wizard who just got the "Craft Wondrous Items" feat), would be able to still create this item (or at least attempt to) by adding +5 to the DC because they are unable to cast the spell.
As you have said: "And yet again, the ability to read has perished. "
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yawn. This again?
The caster level of the item is not a requirement.
Caster level is only a prerequisite for creating the item IF the caster level is LISTED in the Requirements section of the item (for an example, see amulet of mighty fists).
The text on page 460 is a little unclear and probably is derived from the (wrong) SRD text taken from the (wrong) DMG 3.0 magic item introduction (where Monte wrote it correctly, then someone changed it to something wrong and that's how it got published, and fixed in the errata for 3.0, and then 3.5 was written by updating the original 3.0 Word documents, which didn't incorporate the 3.0 errata, and thus went to print with wrong information again). Anyway, caster level is NOT a prereq unless the item's Requirement section specifically lists a caster level.
The last line is the important one.
So, now that it is absolutely crystal clear that the caster level is not a prereq unless it's in the item's requirement section, may as well go into a bit more detail.
What is the caster level of the item? It sets the DC to make the item, and the level-dependent effects of any spell effect the item makes. You can see a much more detailed description of the caster level here.
Well then, what does this line mean then?
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.
Quite simply, it means that you cannot make an item that casts fireball that has a caster level less than 5. You can't make it do 3d6, since that would mean the CL is 3, which is lower than the minimum level needed to cast the spell (which is CL 5). If you want to make an item with a higher level spell, then the CL of the item needs to be the minimum level necessary to cast that spell. So if you're trying to make an item that pewpews a fireball, the CL of the item needs to be 5, as that's the minimum level needed for the item.
But...there is no rule that the player's CL must match the item's.
---
This is a fairly common confusion amongst new players. But it's been clarified time and time again that the caster level is not necessary.
Now, there are other reasons why this "wish granting item" is not intended to work, but I'll skip over those for now.
One note, the caster level of the effects on the items don't all have to match. The caster level of the item is the maximum of all its parts. (See the Flame Tongue from the core book.) But each effect does still have a minimum caster level as mentioned.
|
|
And yet again, the ability to read has perished.@Jedorian: I'm not sure that either of those passaged implies that you can't make stuff with a CL higher than your own.
The only place where I see a mandatory demand of your caster level is in creating magic arms and armor. That and the Crafting Feat is absolutely mandatory; everything else is replaceable with +5 DCs.
I also don't think this is necessarily that bad a thing; if a wizard needs to create a magic item to do X, because he can't cast X yet, that's basically a form of very slow, very expensive casting of X.
Magic item CL seems to be a pretty separate thing from caster CL.
You don't have to be rude to people who doubt you.
If you want to make a wand of fireballs, you should be at least of a level capable of casting fireball.
Bad example, since Craft Wand has a prerequisite of 5th level caster to take.
However, a wand of ice storm, on the other and, can be made at 5th level, by the crafter taking a +5 DC.
@IshmaelWolf, I suspect you won't quote the relevant text because, in this case, it doesn't exist. The devs have commented that this is not only RAW but RAI, and the links have already been posted earlier in this thread. Again, if you feel this is wrong for your game, change it, but this is the Rules forum, so let's stick to RAW and RAI.
(Also, that quote was for the first half of my post, about wands, and has nothing to do with the second, about the sword.)
@Jedorian, yes I was being snarky. I feel it was warranted. I'm glad you enjoyed it. (But don't call me kiddo.)
Well as long as you two can agree that the guys who write the rules are wrong and that clearly they only sit on one side of the table have fun.
@Jedorian, I have read over the magic item creation rules many times, since I want to get people to get over their knee-jerk dislike of item crafting (at least that's how I see most of the responses). In particular, the quote I think you're referring to is an FAQ post, which helps clarify RAI. FAQ posts have never been incorporated into the main text (that would be an errata).
Now if you can only accept that your view is equally religious, then maybe we can convince you that the developers don't seem to subscribe to your religion.
I've already said, probably more than once, that my view of magic items is not shared by most of the people on these boards. However, I've also tried hard to separate that from my understanding of RAW and RAI and to make it clear which one I'm talking about. (But it doesn't seem like you really care about such details.)
@IshmaelWolf, no, if you don't agree with the devs it's wrong, almost by definition. For example, the CL of an item does not determine the CL needed to make the item. This is very vague per RAW, but has been clarified (RAI) in an FAQ. Unless a specific caster level is stated in the prerequisites line, it's only real effect on crafting is setting the DC. It also matters when dispelling an item and for spell-duplication items that have level dependent effects (ring of invisibility, for example).
Since this is the Rules forum, we should try and stick to what's written (RAW) plus what the devs have said elsewhere (RAI). If you don't agree with that, that's fine, but would be more appropriate in the Houserules section.
Caster level is only a prerequisite for creating the item IF the caster level is LISTED in the Requirements section of the item (for an example, see amulet of mighty fists).The text on page 460 is a little unclear and probably is derived from the (wrong) SRD text taken from the (wrong) DMG 3.0 magic item introduction (where Monte wrote it correctly, then someone changed it to something wrong and that's how it got published, and fixed in the errata for 3.0, and then 3.5 was written by updating the original 3.0 Word documents, which didn't incorporate the 3.0 errata, and thus went to print with wrong information again). Anyway, caster level is NOT a prereq unless the item's Requirement section specifically lists a caster level.
Like I said, Caster Level is not a prereq for creating an item unless it's actually listed in the Requirements line. For example, there's no reason why a 1st-level pearl of power requires a 17th-level caster (and the Requirements line only specifies that you have to be able to cast the spell level in question).
TLDR:
1 )If giving the item a better CL doesn't really make the item better, don't make it harder for the crafter (by increasing the crafting DC) for that increase in CL, any more than you'd make it harder if they want a blue magical cloak instead of a red magical cloak.
2) If giving the item a better CL doesn't really make the item better, let the crafter create it at their own CL instead of the default.
Okay, so caster level is still not a prerequisite for item crafting. Why exactly is this then still stated in the magic items section of the APG? >.<Because I didn't see that before it went to print. :p You'll notice there's a FAQ item about this.
** spoiler omitted **
Yes! Precisely what I had said would happen. I must be magic. Lets reference more outdated and contradictory stuff, shall we?
Any DM worth the name would not let any caster lower than 7th level make a Wand of Ice Storm. This is why players don't run the game. Players try to twist text and make loopholes, hence the reason a DM's decision overrides any text.
Your right here but its not because of caster level. It's because wands scrolls staves and potions actually require the spell to be used in making it no skipping that by adding +5 to the DC.
@Jedorian, Why does it feel like you stop reading half way through posts?
The final paragraph of my post mentioned how I've tried to separate my best understanding of RAI from my interpretation of them (my houserules). I have no idea why you felt the need to quote GM.
In the quotes from SKR, it seems like you didn't read the final quote either, which explicitly mentions and counters your argument.
@Talonhawke, I'll have to remember that that applies to staves too. I always just mention wands, scrolls and potions.
Yes! Precisely what I had said would happen. I must be magic. Lets reference more outdated and contradictory stuff, shall we?** spoiler omitted **
Then please enlighten us with the new updated and non contradictory information. Though I figure I can also be magic and bet neither of you will qoute anything.
And for your referencing enjoyment, you can refer to my older post, which does include quotes and references. Not that you will choose to pay attention to those, as you are so very keen on clinging to statements that have been rendered moot.
Actually I have been looking over the errata, the SRD, the FAQs, and my core rule book. I can't find anything that says the previous errata issued by the devs is no longer relevant. I can't find anything that says that caster level is a prereq all the time. I can't find one line that says you must be high enough CL to cast the spells or you can't make it.
And another one also unchanged and unrefuted that says to look back at the first.
I'm asking for quotes becasue I can't find them.