Setting DCs for magic item creation

It appears that the DC for creating a Belt of Giant Strength +2 is the same as for creating a Belt of Giant Strength +6. Is this correct?

It appears that the DC for creating a Belt of Giant Strength +2 is the same as for creating a Belt of Giant Strength +6. Is this correct?

If the caster level is the same between them (and it can be), then yes, the DC is the same.

The *cost*, however, is not.

LilithsThrall wrote:

It appears that the DC for creating a Belt of Giant Strength +2 is the same as for creating a Belt of Giant Strength +6. Is this correct?

If the caster level is the same between them (and it can be), then yes, the DC is the same.

The *cost*, however, is not.

I'm well aware that the cost is not. It just surprised me to discoveer that the DC can be the same.

It appears that the DC for creating a Belt of Giant Strength +2 is the same as for creating a Belt of Giant Strength +6. Is this correct?

Yup. Yet another reason why the magic item creation rules need a complete overhaul. I'll add in my favorite gripes on the subject:

1. The creator can take 10 on the die roll.

2. The creator can try to make a Belt of Giant Strength without actually knowing the Bull's Strength spell. In fact, he can successfully make the belt even if nobody in the party knows Bull's Strength, albeit at a +5 to the DC (not really a problem, as we'll see...).

3. The item has a listed "caster level" of 8, which is in no way a requirement for making the item. It merely sets the DC to make the item to 5+8 = 13, but actually being a level 8 caster is not a prerequisite.

To summarize, a level 5 wizard (with enough money...) can attempt to make a Belt of Giant Strength +6, which is only a CL 8 item in the first place. For comparison, a +1 flaming sword would have a caster level of 10, and for that the caster level WOULD be a prerequisite. But getting back to the Belt in question, you don't even get the +5 penalty to the spellcraft DC if you try to make one at level 5, so the DC to make it is 13. Assuming the wizard has 5 ranks in spellcraft and a +2 Int modifier, he get's a +10 to the spellcraft die roll, and if he takes a 10 on it, that's an automatic 20, without even rolling the dice. He therefore has no chance of failure or of making a cursed item.

To summarize, a level 5 wizard (with enough money...) can attempt to make a Belt of Giant Strength +6, which is only a CL 8 item in the first place. For comparison, a +1 flaming sword would have a caster level of 10, and for that the caster level WOULD be a prerequisite.

Hi, I'm having some problems understanding item creation rules myself, somewhat related to this question. Do I understand correctly, that e.g. in order to create a scroll of teleport, you need to have access to the teleport spell, but you can create boots of teleportation without either access to teleport spell, or even being high enough level to cast it, just by taking +5 to your DC? That is provided you have the time, the money, the Craft Wonderous Item feat and are able to make the roll?

For comparison, a +1 flaming sword would have a caster level of 10, and for that the caster level WOULD be a prerequisite.

A +1 flaming sword has a minimum caster level prereq of 3, not 10 - but you couldn't make it until you were a 5th-level caster, anyway, because you need that many levels to take Create Magic Arms and Armor.

So, for that sword, the prereq definer is the enhancement bonus, which is 3 * Bonus.

Effective bonuses - like that which the flaming property adds - do not count for creation prereqs (unless they actually have a prereq of "Caster must by Xth-level or higher," which flaming does not; instead, CL 10 is the standard example CL for a randomly-generated flaming [whatever], just like every other item).

He therefore has no chance of failure or of making a cursed item.

And, as continually mentioned in these threads, the wizard is the one optimally designed for creating magic items, but he not the only one doing so. Clerics with low Int can also make items; they have a much higher chance of failure than Wizards. It's like complaining that a high Strength Fighter with Weapon Focus and Weapon Training doesn't miss a whole lot.

Hi, I'm having some problems understanding item creation rules myself, somewhat related to this question. Do I understand correctly, that e.g. in order to create a scroll of teleport, you need to have access to the teleport spell,

Yes.

but you can create boots of teleportation without either access to teleport spell, or even being high enough level to cast it, just by taking +5 to your DC? That is provided you have the time, the money, the Craft Wonderous Item feat and are able to make the roll?

Yes. But, keep in mind, the caster level is important for the Boots of Teleportation; a lower CL on the boots reduces the teleport's range (100 miles / CL). Note that:

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).

So, you cannot make CL9 boots if your own CL is only 5.

Patryn, your last point is actually incorrect; the last sentence of that paragraph was taken out with the 3rd printing errata. The caster level of the item sets the DC of the Spellcraft check, but the creator does not need to meet the caster level him/herself. Otherwise, nobody would ever make Pearls of Power 1 (caster level 17? I think I'll just make 9th level Pearls, thanks...).

Patryn, your last point is actually incorrect; the last sentence of that paragraph was taken out with the 3rd printing errata. The caster level of the item sets the DC of the Spellcraft check, but the creator does not need to meet the caster level him/herself. Otherwise, nobody would ever make Pearls of Power 1 (caster level 17? I think I'll just make 9th level Pearls, thanks...).

I understood that to mean that if a 3rd-level caster made a pearl of power, he'd make a CL <= 3 pearl of power; he could not make a CL 17 pearl (and the DC is set based on the desired CL of the item; for most items, the CL doesn't matter too much).

Also, I grabbed the text from the PF SRD; I wonder why that hasn't been updated with the errata. But thanks!

I understood that to mean that if a 3rd-level caster made a pearl of power, he'd make a CL <= 3 pearl of power; he could not make a CL 17 pearl (and the DC is set based on the desired CL of the item; for most items, the CL doesn't matter too much).

The rule says "For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself." The item, not the caster: this sounds to me, like the CL of a wondrous item would be whatever the book says it is, regardless of the creator's level. Can you show me the rules that back your interpretation?

If the rules are what I think they are, this brings up another uncomfortable question: what items exactly does "Craft Wondrous Item" allow you to craft? Are you limited to the ones in the book, or can the character come up with their own? Because if you can, then this allows a relatively low level spellcaster to create items which replicate results of any spells. And not only that, but they can be replicated in items that can be used by anyone and have unlimited charges (with perhaps the only limitation being the number of uses per day). After all, if you can make Boots of Teleportation, why not Hat of Wishing?

Differnce between 3.5 and Pathidner for enchanting.

1) 3.5 you could not bypass prereq spells (though recommended level was still ignorable)

2) 3.5 enchating was automatic as compared to having to make a roll.

3) No XP.

So yes in 3.5 a 3rd level wizard with Bull strength, Cat Grace and Bears Endurance could make a +6 str, dex,con belt WITH NO ROLL. (assuming he had the money and xp).

People who complain about the relativel LOW rolls required in Pathfinder often forget that no roll was needed in 3.5, it was automatic.

crafting

All fine except that the CL for the item isn't what's listed. That caster level is only an average/recommended CL for items found, it has nothing to do with crafting. The minimum CL for crafting an item is the minimum CL to cast all spells required in creating it. So the min CL of a Belt of Giant's Strength +6 is 3, because the prerequisite spell is Bulls Strength, which a wizard can cast at 3rd level.

I don't blame you for the misconception, it's one I held for a long time as well, and yes there needs to be a blog about crafting, the sooner the better.

Also, it's intentional that there should be no risk of failure making most items. There was no risk of failure in 3.0/3.5 either, you just had to pay XP. Really the only setback for making an item should be monetary. The whole point of crafting feats is not having to worry about availability in "magic shops".

After all, if you can make Boots of Teleportation, why not Hat of Wishing?

You can make a hat of wishing... it is just VERY pricey.

Example Hat of Wishing lets you cast wish 5 times a day.
(1800 x 9 x 17) + (25,000 x 50) = 275400 + 1,250,000 = 1,525,400

Cost break down is as follows
1800 for command word would be 2000 if no command word needed x Caster level (minimum 17 to cast wish) x 9 (level of spell) + (25,000 cost of component x 50).

Now if 5 times a day is not good enough and you want to be able to cast at wish at will.....

(2000 x 9 x 17) + (25,000 x 100) = 306000 + 2,500,000 = 2,806,000

Now lets say you are enchanting them yourself....

Since the COMPONENT part which is the most expensive does not change you are looking at 1,387,700 for 5 times a day or 2,653,000 for unlimited.
Either way if there is that much gold floating around your game at low levels (and I consider less then 20 low level for that amount since reccomended weath by level for 20 is under 1 million) you have bigger problems then the enchanting rules.

People who complain about the relativel LOW rolls required in Pathfinder often forget that no roll was needed in 3.5, it was automatic.

If there is going to be a roll at all, the roll to create the item should at a minimum be greater than the roll to identify the item.

That's the part I find funny.

Ughbash wrote:

People who complain about the relativel LOW rolls required in Pathfinder often forget that no roll was needed in 3.5, it was automatic.

If there is going to be a roll at all, the roll to create the item should at a minimum be greater than the roll to identify the item.

That's the part I find funny.

It is the same roll.... if you use identify.

Since the COMPONENT part which is the most expensive does not change you are looking at 1,387,700 for 5 times a day or 2,653,000 for unlimited.
Either way if there is that much gold floating around your game at low levels (and I consider less then 20 low level for that amount since reccomended weath by level for 20 is under 1 million) you have bigger problems then the enchanting rules.

I could see though how relatively relatively low level characters could come into the posession of substantial amounts of money by crafting various wondrous items, which duplicate powers of other spells, and making creative use of them.

Not to mention the impact of this on the game setting: with caster level limitations, the supply of magic items would be limited by the availability of high level spellcasters. As the rule stands, wealthy people and institutions should be able to make these effectively just by throwing money at them.

Ughbash wrote:

Since the COMPONENT part which is the most expensive does not change you are looking at 1,387,700 for 5 times a day or 2,653,000 for unlimited.
Either way if there is that much gold floating around your game at low levels (and I consider less then 20 low level for that amount since reccomended weath by level for 20 is under 1 million) you have bigger problems then the enchanting rules.

I could see though how relatively relatively low level characters could come into the posession of substantial amounts of money by crafting various wondrous items, which duplicate powers of other spells, and making creative use of them.

Not to mention the impact of this on the game setting: with caster level limitations, the supply of magic items would be limited by the availability of high level spellcasters. As the rule stands, wealthy people and institutions should be able to make these effectively just by throwing money at them.

Yes, they could... but that is not a factor of the enchanting system but a factor of the loopholes. One of the classic ways was the old "flesh to Salt" spell. Buy a pig, cast "flesh to salt" on pig, sell salt. But a GM should keep an eye on the economy of the world.... He should stop people from buying ladders, cutting then in half and selling them as 2, 10 ft poles at a profit.

Crafting magic items is NOT the way to riches though it may allow another means of using "wealth tricks".

Also, a Monkey's Paw of Three Wishes (according to my calculations) might cost under a hundred grand - not much more than the cost of casting the spells itself. The difference being that it takes a 17th level Wizard to cast the spells, but any caster with enough money the craft feat may attempt to create the item.

The other thing no one ever talks about in these threads is creation time. I don't know about the rest of you, but my party is rarely willing to take a 6 month break from adventuring so the party wizard can huddle in his lab and make one magic item.

In the time it takes the lone wizard to make the item, the remainder of the party had raided 6 or more dungeons, gained a half dozen levels, and found piles of magic items and treasure probably much better than the wizard could create.

In my experience, item creation is rarely worth the time spent, except for cheap, quick items like scrolls and potions. The only time I ever say item creation used effectively and regularly was in Living Greyhawk and Living City where you had X Time Units to use each year, and adventuring cost you a number of time units per adventure (usually 5-10). In those type of systems Item creation was commonly used as a way to spend extra Time Units before the end of the actual physical year. [IE its December 20th, your character has 100 time units left, and there's no way your going to be able to play 10-15 adventures before the year ends...what to do with those time units? Make Magic items!))

Yes, they could... but that is not a factor of the enchanting system but a factor of the loopholes. One of the classic ways was the old "flesh to Salt" spell. Buy a pig, cast "flesh to salt" on pig, sell salt. But a GM should keep an eye on the economy of the world.... He should stop people from buying ladders, cutting then in half and selling them as 2, 10 ft poles at a profit.

Crafting magic items is NOT the way to riches though it may allow another means of using "wealth tricks".

I did not necessarily mean getting rich by selling the items, though that would be one way of raising some capital. The issue is that access to high level spells and effects like raising ability scores effectively without limit gives a caster and his party additional means of earning money, whether through crime, hiring themselves out at going rates for a higher level characters, fighting more powerful monsters etc. Hence the reason that higher level spells can only be cast by higher level characters.

Yes, it's a loophole. A massive, glaringly obvious loophole introduced by the errata to the magic item creation rules. I was hoping that maybe I'm mis-reading it and there are some additional restrictions that make it impossible, but apparently not.

The question that remains is whether this was the intended effect of this errata, or an unfortunate side-effect? If this was intended, what was the rationale? Does this not unbalance the game as much as I think it does?

As for flesh to salt, I don't really see it as a loophole. Sure, you can make some money that way. But this can easily be worked around by roleplaying and applying common sense: do this in a small community, and you can maybe sell the salt from the first pig, but then everybody has enough salt to last them for years and nobody's interested in buying more. Go to a larger community, and they will already have a wizard supplying them with salt, and possibly some or other kind of guild rules preventing outsiders from dumping goods on the local market (or possibly making them pay "fees and taxes" for the privilege). And in the end it seems a reasonable assumption, that it's possible to make _some_ money if you know magic.

Ughbash wrote:

Since the COMPONENT part which is the most expensive does not change you are looking at 1,387,700 for 5 times a day or 2,653,000 for unlimited.
Either way if there is that much gold floating around your game at low levels (and I consider less then 20 low level for that amount since reccomended weath by level for 20 is under 1 million) you have bigger problems then the enchanting rules.

I could see though how relatively relatively low level characters could come into the posession of substantial amounts of money by crafting various wondrous items, which duplicate powers of other spells, and making creative use of them.

Not to mention the impact of this on the game setting: with caster level limitations, the supply of magic items would be limited by the availability of high level spellcasters. As the rule stands, wealthy people and institutions should be able to make these effectively just by throwing money at them.

Actually, the biggest limiting factor is not the money required, but the time. It will take 1,526 days or a little over 4 years to craft the 5 times a day version and 2,806 days or over 7 and a half years for the unlimited one. And that's only if they work on the item every single day and do little else. Worrying about a PC crafting anything this ridiculous is pointless. As far as I know, there is no way within the Pathfinder rules to speed the crafting process beyond 1000 gp per day. Otherwise, I guess a rich NPC could chain an adept or low level wizard to a work station if you are worried about the integrity of an imaginary world, but really? What if the crafter dies before he finishes the item? That is a lot of money to risk.

But I do agree. The magic item crafting system does need an overhaul or at least a lot more clarification within the rules. Right after the total absence of oracle curses in Ultimate Magic (which is still it the description of the product), not having more or better guidelines for magic item creation (other than the construct stuff) is my second biggest disappointment in that book.

The other thing no one ever talks about in these threads is creation time. I don't know about the rest of you, but my party is rarely willing to take a 6 month break from adventuring so the party wizard can huddle in his lab and make one magic item.

In the time it takes the lone wizard to make the item, the remainder of the party had raided 6 or more dungeons, gained a half dozen levels, and found piles of magic items and treasure probably much better than the wizard could create.

But you're talking in-game time here, not real time. In real time taking a 6 month break just means saying "6 months pass" and subtracting the cost of living (which are not significant compared to the cost of the item itself). If the players think the item is worth the money, why wouldn't they take the break, given that they will gain the half dozen levels and find the same magic items over the same number of game sessions, but having the item will increase their chances of actually suriviving these dungeons?

Actually, the biggest limiting factor is not the money required, but the time. It will take 1,526 days or a little over 4 years to craft the 5 times a day version and 2,806 days or over 7 and a half years for the unlimited one. And that's only if they work on the item every single day and do little else. Worrying about a PC crafting anything this ridiculous is pointless. As far as I know, there is no way within the Pathfinder rules to speed the crafting process beyond 1000 gp per day. Otherwise, I guess a rich NPC could chain an adept or low level wizard to a work station if you are worried about the integrity of an imaginary world, but really? What if the crafter dies before he finishes the item? That is a lot of money to risk.

But why would they die, if they're not old and they're well guarded? And even if they do, then for someone investing a couple of million in the Hat of Wishing, it should be feasible and reasonable to take precautions like creating an item with a few charges of True Resurrection beforehand.

Kassegore wrote:

The other thing no one ever talks about in these threads is creation time. I don't know about the rest of you, but my party is rarely willing to take a 6 month break from adventuring so the party wizard can huddle in his lab and make one magic item.

In the time it takes the lone wizard to make the item, the remainder of the party had raided 6 or more dungeons, gained a half dozen levels, and found piles of magic items and treasure probably much better than the wizard could create.

But you're talking in-game time here, not real time. In real time taking a 6 month break just means saying "6 months pass" and subtracting the cost of living (which are not significant compared to the cost of the item itself). If the players think the item is worth the money, why wouldn't they take the break, given that they will gain the half dozen levels and find the same magic items over the same number of game sessions, but having the item will increase their chances of actually suriviving these dungeons?

But I think he is talking game time:

Wizards says, "I want to spend 6 months crafting!"

Rest of the party says, "Screw that, we want to fight in more dungeons!"

Next three sessions: Wizard is crafting while the rest of the party is going to fight in a dungeon.

Fighter, "Man that dungeon was fun!!"

Wizard, "So, how much time has passed in the game?"

GM, "Three weeks. The next 3 quests will probably be farther away than that dungeon, so you'll probably only be crafting for 14 more sessions.... Do you want to just not show up for a while?"

But let's say that the party does go along with it and they all take the break together. Why shouldn't they do it? Because while the heroes of the world are taking a break, the evils of the world take over and are now unstoppable or they destroy the world all together. Or maybe if they are already well known, they will be attacked during their break. Either way: Game Over. Sorry. I wouldn't think any GM would allow such a thing if he thought it was too much for the party to gain. Although 6 months is only about 180,000 gp worth of magic items if you only have one crafter in the party. If the items are spread out between 5 party members, it's not that over powered, really. And if one character wanted to hog all of the crafting for himself then I just wouldn't think the party (other players) would stand for it.

I'd probably be nice and not just "Game Over" the campaign over the crafting of over powered magic times. But if there is an evil in the world, it doesn't rest because you do. Maybe they'll be making magic times of their own. Or maybe they'll be working hard in other ways. All of the minions are now 2 to 5 levels higher and all of the bosses up to 10 higher than they would have been before. Hope the items close the gap.

The rule says "For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself." The item, not the caster: this sounds to me, like the CL of a wondrous item would be whatever the book says it is, regardless of the creator's level. Can you show me the rules that back your interpretation?

If the rules are what I think they are, this brings up another uncomfortable question: what items exactly does "Craft Wondrous Item" allow you to craft? Are you limited to the ones in the book, or can the character come up with their own? Because if you can, then this allows a relatively low level spellcaster to create items which replicate results of any spells. And not only that, but they can be replicated in items that can be used by anyone and have unlimited charges (with perhaps the only limitation being the number of uses per day). After all, if you can make Boots of Teleportation, why not Hat of Wishing?

The CL of an item is determined (for Magic item creation) is the spells that are involved with the item, not what is listed in the book. The CL listed next to the item is for GM’s to use as a quick reference when giving the item out.

However, when crafting the item, the CL can be determined by the character making the item.

For example, if I am a 15th level Wizard and I wanted to craft those Boots of Teleportation, I could set my level up to 15th level if I so wished. I wouldn’t be forced to put it at CL 9.

I say this because I asked SKR this very question last year and he did clarify it for me, except my example was a Bag of Holding:

For many items, the CL provides no benefit except resistance to dispel attempts. A bag of holding is an example of this... its powers aren't based on CL. Thus, the wiz17 could make his bag at CL 9th (the default), CL17th (his own CL), or anything in between. I probably wouldn't let him make it at CL 1st, as secret chest requires CL 9th and the item is based on that, but if he really wanted to I supposed I'd let him. None of these choices affect the price, cost, time, or craft DC in any way, because the CL doesn't affect the item's abilities.

Here is the link to the post. Actually, you'll need to scroll further up the page for Sean's post, but you can't miss it.

I'm so confused? But I'm going to follow your link and see if that helps to clarify things.

Wizards says, "I want to spend 6 months crafting!"

Rest of the party says, "Screw that, we want to fight in more dungeons!"

Next three sessions: Wizard is crafting while the rest of the party is going to fight in a dungeon.

Fighter, "Man that dungeon was fun!!"

Or:

Party says: "OK."

But let's say that the party does go along with it and they all take the break together. Why shouldn't they do it? Because while the heroes of the world are taking a break, the evils of the world take over and are now unstoppable or they destroy the world all together. Or maybe if they are already well known, they will be attacked during their break. Either way: Game Over. Sorry. I wouldn't think any GM would allow such...

First of all, you're making a huge assumption here, that the party is a group of fanatics on a HOLY MISSION, who will relentlessly fight evil, with no regard for anything else, like for example enjoying their lives or for that matter doing anything else apart from adventuring. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's not the only campaign model supported by Pathfinder. In fact, Pathfinder lets players choose alignments for their characters and they do not have to choose "good".

Second, you are describing a campaign, where a new world-threatening evil arises immediately after the previous one has been defeated, and only the PCs can save the world. Again, I'm not saying that's the wrong way to do it, but I, for one, do not run my game like this, and if I were a player, it would make impossible any suspension of disbelief. For me, this might only work in a slapstick style game.

In fact, in my campaign PCs frequently take downtime, whether they craft magic items or not. In fact, adventures are mostly relatively short periods of time between downtime periods that take weeks or even months: this is in fact how I explain away leveling up: it's not up to what happens in game sessions, PCs use downtime to practice, gain knowledge, do research, learn spells etc.

Bottom line is: it would be a huge flaw of the system, if it forced the style of campaign where PCs don't take downtime, just because of broken item creation rules. I can't see that being the intention of these rules and would rather be inclined to see these rules as broken.

The CL of an item is determined (for Magic item creation) is the spells that are involved with the item, not what is listed in the book. The CL listed next to the item is for GM’s to use as a quick reference when giving the item out.

However, when crafting the item, the CL can be determined by the character making the item.

For example, if I am a 15th level Wizard and I wanted to craft those Boots of Teleportation, I could set my level up to 15th level if I so wished. I wouldn’t be forced to put it at CL 9.

Can you point me to the actual place in the rules, where it says this? Because in the PRD it says "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. "

What you described sounds very much like the rule "for potions, scrolls and wands", if the rules were the same for wondrous items (and other magic items?), then why the distinction? Also, what you just wrote doesn't seem to fit the phrase "is determined by the spell itself". I'm pretty sure my players wouldn't buy this interpretation.

The thing is, it isn’t in the rules. The rules are vague with magic item creation in general as well as contradicting one another in more than one area. It is why crafting of magic items has sparked a lot of threads. The rules on it needs a lot of clean up, IMO.

However, I did quote and link you to a post from SKR, and I would consider any post from a developer as RAW, especially one from Sean.

I'll quote the relevant section again, emphasis mine:

For many items, the CL provides no benefit except resistance to dispel attempts. A bag of holding is an example of this... its powers aren't based on CL. Thus, the wiz17 could make his bag at CL 9th (the default), CL17th (his own CL), or anything in between.

First of all, you're making a huge assumption here, that the party is a group of fanatics on a HOLY MISSION, who will relentlessly fight evil, with no regard for anything else, like for example enjoying their lives or for that matter doing anything else apart from adventuring. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's not the only campaign model supported by Pathfinder. In fact, Pathfinder lets players choose alignments for their characters and they do not have to choose "good".

No, no, no. I'm not making an assumption. I'm giving an EXAMPLE. The only ASSUMPTION I made is one that I assumed you were actually asking for an example of "why wouldn't they take the break" and I gave you one. I realize that there are other styles of game.

Second, you are describing a campaign, where a new world-threatening evil arises immediately after the previous one has been defeated, and only the PCs can save the world. Again, I'm not saying that's the wrong way to do it, but I, for one, do not run my game like this, and if I were a player, it would make impossible any suspension of disbelief. For me, this might only work in a slapstick style game.

When did you say the previous evil was defeated? My example is of a party who is tasked with taking down an evil (or good or other doom which is the entire center of the campaign). They haven't finished taking down said evil and instead decide to take a 6 month break to craft some cool new gear. Another stipulation that I was thinking of writing but felt I'd already written too much is this: Another group of heroes stepped up when you did not and they saved the day. Congratulations. You're no longer needed. Game Over. Personally, I find putting the evil lords on pause requiring much more suspension of belief.

In fact, in my campaign PCs frequently take downtime, whether they craft magic items or not. In fact, adventures are mostly relatively short periods of time between downtime periods that take weeks or even months: this is in fact how I explain away leveling up: it's not up to what happens in game sessions, PCs use downtime to practice, gain knowledge, do research, learn spells etc.

Again, I was just giving an example because that's what I thought you wanted. I'm not against downtime in a campaign. I actually had a 3.5 artificer once who did an absurd amount of crafting (largely during the downtime for her pregnancy).

Bottom line is: it would be a huge flaw of the system, if it forced the style of campaign where PCs don't take downtime, just because of broken item creation rules. I can't see that being the intention of these rules and would rather be inclined to see these rules as broken.

Again, not my stance. Just an example. I don't think it's that broken. You can have downtime in a campaign. The characters still need money to craft. If a GM is letting players go far beyond the wealth per level guidelines with other loopholes or whatnot, that's a bigger problem than worrying about them exploiting downtime. Yeah, it is a bit of a cheap argument to end with, but it is all up to the GM to handle such things.

Also, a Monkey's Paw of Three Wishes (according to my calculations) might cost under a hundred grand - not much more than the cost of casting the spells itself. The difference being that it takes a 17th level Wizard to cast the spells, but any caster with enough money the craft feat may attempt to create the item.

Ok a big differnce between your Monkey paw and a Moneky paw that does it 3 times a day.

But lets use a 3 time item.

By the rules (50 x 9 x17 x3) + 75000 = 97950 as compared to ring of 3 wishes which costs 120,000.

DC to make this ASSUMING you are not level 17 and have wish is 17 (minimum level) + 5 ( do not have wish) + 5 base or 27 and will take you 98 days (or if you up the DC to 32, 49 days).

Since both time and gold can be restricted by a GM I do not see it as a real problem. It still requires an exceptional amount of both.

Now how much does it cost for NPC Spell Casting Services to get 3 wishes.... 17 x 9 x 3 x 10 + 75000 = 79590..

So assuming the GM is very strict about wealth by level.

At 11th level you could spend almost everything you have 79590 out of 82000 for 3 wishes.

At 12th level you could enchant an item for 3 wishes using 97950 of your 108k.

At 13th level you could buy a ring of 3 wishes for 120k out of your 140k.

In all three cases I would suggest you are spening WAY too much of your wealth on those three wishes.

As I said enchanting is NOT the problem with the game system.

No, no, no. I'm not making an assumption. I'm giving an EXAMPLE. The only ASSUMPTION I made is one that I assumed you were actually asking for an example of "why wouldn't they take the break" and I gave you one. I realize that there are other styles of game.

Well, there being an example of a situation where the party would not agree to wait doesn't make it any less of a problem. In the general case it is in fact completely feasible, that a party would be willing to wait a few months, both in character and out of character.

If a GM is letting players go far beyond the wealth per level guidelines with other loopholes or whatnot, that's a bigger problem than worrying about them exploiting downtime. Yeah, it is a bit of a cheap argument to end with, but it is all up to the GM to handle such things.

I would prefer not to punish players for coming up with ways to earn more money. I do not enforce wealth per level guidelines, and in fact, if they are to hold, would expect the game system to support them, as in it would be difficult (but not impossible) for PCs to get hold of that much money.

My problem is not a 3rd level caster creating a Hat of Wishing or similar. My problem is that such a caster, in a party of 3rd level characters, and within means of such a party, might be able to create items duplicating the effect of any 3rd or 4th level spells, usable by any member of the party. Such an advantage would make the party somewhat more powerful than their level indicates, say one level better, which in turn might allow them to gain wealth in line with a higher level party. Such wealth might then be used to create yet more powerful items and so forth, and so forth. I see the lack of access to powerful magic as one way that the rules limit how much wealth PCs can get their hands on.

The thing is, it isn’t in the rules. The rules are vague with magic item creation in general as well as contradicting one another in more than one area. It is why crafting of magic items has sparked a lot of threads. The rules on it needs a lot of clean up, IMO.

However, I did quote and link you to a post from SKR, and I would consider any post from a developer as RAW, especially one from Sean.

I'll quote the relevant section again, emphasis mine:

Sean K. Reynolds wrote:

For many items, the CL provides no benefit except resistance to dispel attempts. A bag of holding is an example of this... its powers aren't based on CL. Thus, the wiz17 could make his bag at CL 9th (the default), CL17th (his own CL), or anything in between.

Fair enough - I will accept that this was the designer's intention behind the wording.