I'm looking for a Paizo response here, not because I don't want peanut gallery responses, but because only a Paizo response will satisfy the person I'm having the argument with. That said, if you think you can convince him, feel free.
What is the minimum caster level for a +3 thundering merciful holy speed greatsword? Going by my interpretation of the rules, you compare the enhancement bonus*3 (9, in this case) to the highest caster level required for the special abilities (7, in this case) and take the higher of the two. By my interpretation, that makes the above weapon a minimum of CL 9 to craft.
By the other person's argument, you take the highest of (enhancement bonus*3; 9 here), (special ability total bonus*3; 21 here), or (special ability minimum caster level; 7 here). By his interpretation, this weapon would require CL 21 to craft and thus be impossible to make.
So, which is it?
Even if your friend is right, there are rules in place to be able to add bonuses and abilities after the initial creation of the magic item. So, if necessary, make the sword with just some of the stuff you listed and add to it in between campaigns til you get it where you want it.
Besides that, if you read the description of each ability you listed, both flaming and holy require at least CL 10 for enchantment anyway, so that throws your number off right there.
And I may just be missing it, but I do not see anything in the item creation rules that says you add the equivalent bonuses for abilities together when determining minimum level for crafting. I only see those bonuses used to determine price, which also affects crafting time but not level requirement.
As far as I can tell, you take the higher of either the enhancement bonus x3 or the highest CL required by any abilities the weapon has, regardless of the number of abilities. So the CL for your example would be 10.
Actually, holy only requires 7th; I assume you meant keen. I changed flaming to merciful and keen to thundering, although the example isn't really important save to illustrate the disparity anyway.
I would have to say that the combined rule you referenced would be wrong. If a sword or armor can have a "net" bonus of +10 between the + to hit and the ability then you would need a level 30 caster to make the item and it would be either Epic or Artifact level magic.
Clearly the rules are intending a caster below level 20 to be able to make the items that are not listed in the artifact section.
Well, I'm not a Paizo staff person, but the rules they wrote pretty much clear this up:
Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met. A magic weapon must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to have any melee or ranged special weapon abilities.
If you have a rule saying you need to pick the higher of the two, then it wouldn't make sense to add them up.
Ya know this whole thread is kinda pointless. I told him before he started I understood his view and that of the communality at large. When I made that statement Believe it or not I did not know other folks did not do it like so. Ya know I did not spend the last 8 years seeing how folks outside my group ruled that. I don't look in charop forms and never look up changes to the rules outside of the printed book
I can see y'all point of view, I however do not agree with it and to me the book seems to go either way. After all you use your total enhancement not the newest add on{ you do not get to use just +2 for CL when your adding that to a +1 weapon in place of +3 do you?}, so why would you not do the same for ablitys?. The book never said it only used the newest not the total as far as I know. So reading the book it makes sense to me that +9 ablitys on a +1 sword is harder to make then +5 with +4 ablitys.
Anyhow this is all a moot point.I really do not care one way of the other what someone at paizo says as they do not game with me. And I could care less about Zuri and his point as he always refuses to see any but his on.That and the whole argument was a diversion anyhow.
After all you use your total enhancement not the newest add on{ you do not get to use just +2 for CL when your adding that to a +1 weapon in place of +3 do you?}, so why would you not do the same for ablitys?. The book never said it only used the newest not the total as far as I know.
There's the caster level of the item, and then there's the Magical Weapon special requirement where you need have a minimum of that many caster levels.
In other words, if you aren't a 9th level caster, you either can't make a +3 sword, or you need to add +5 to your check to ignore it.
The check for a 6th level caster trying to make a +3 sword would be 5 + 9 + 5, 19. At least, I think so...
I am not trying to say that is RAW, Folks have pointed out that is not how it is meant to work. Zuri however can not let go of the fact I understood it they way I did and can't phanton how I ever thought that..eh whatever not my prob.
I do not keep claiming things are RAW after I have been told they are not,that however does not mean I must agree with them. I can understand someones reasoning with out agreeing with it after all.
Zuri however can not let go of the fact I understood it they way I did and can't phanton how I ever thought that.
Really? You know what I can and cannot fathom (I assume that's what "phanton" is supposed to be)? That's mighty impressive. You might want to apply for the James Randi $1M Paranormal Challenge, since you can read my mind even though you don't even know where I live!
Or not, because your ESP needs some serious work.
I understood exactly what you were saying. I was trying to show you that A) your understanding is incomplete, and B) your rule is effectively a house rule because it is not the official rule, and thus it had no place in the discussion.
On the other hand, I honestly did leave open the very slight (IMO) chance that you were right and I was wrong, so I am being honest when I say I would like to hear confirmation from Paizo about who is correct. If I've been playing the wrong way since 3.5 (which has the same rule), I would definitely like to know about it.
Until you dissected the language, Zurai, I too was under the impression that a non-epic character could only craft so good a weapon. I thought it peculiar, but since I was not that high level as for it to be a worry I put it out of mind.
Thank you for setting me straight.
Until you dissected the language, Zurai, I too was under the impression that a non-epic character could only craft so good a weapon. I thought it peculiar, but since I was not that high level as for it to be a worry I put it out of mind.
Thank you for setting me straight.
Creating Magic WeaponsTo create a magic weapon, a character needs a heat source and some iron, wood, or leatherworking tools. She also needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being the weapon or the pieces of the weapon to be assembled. Only a masterwork weapon can become a magic weapon, and the masterwork cost is added to the total cost to determine final market value. Additional magic supplies costs for the materials are subsumed in the cost for creating the magic weapon—half the base price of the item based upon the item's total effective bonus.
Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met. A magic weapon must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to have any melee or ranged special weapon abilities.
It seems that if the weapon is a straight enhancement bonus such as a +2 weapon the caster level would have to be 6, but if the weapon has multiple enhancements such as +3 thundering merciful holy speed greatsword then the caster level of nine is 9 is correct since it is the higher than the minimum caster level of the highest special ability.
I can see no reason why it would state the higher of the two if they are meant to be added. If that were the case how would a PC get a weapon or armor above +7 when most campaign worlds don't have more than 5 casters above level 20.
Ya know this whole thread is kinda pointless. I told him before he started I understood his view and that of the communality at large. When I made that statement Believe it or not I did not know other folks did not do it like so. Ya know I did not spend the last 8 years seeing how folks outside my group ruled that. I don't look in charop forms and never look up changes to the rules outside of the printed book
I can see y'all point of view, I however do not agree with it and to me the book seems to go either way. After all you use your total enhancement not the newest add on{ you do not get to use just +2 for CL when your adding that to a +1 weapon in place of +3 do you?}, so why would you not do the same for ablitys?. The book never said it only used the newest not the total as far as I know. So reading the book it makes sense to me that +9 ablitys on a +1 sword is harder to make then +5 with +4 ablitys.
Anyhow this is all a moot point.I really do not care one way of the other what someone at paizo says as they do not game with me. And I could care less about Zuri and his point as he always refuses to see any but his on.That and the whole argument was a diversion anyhow.
Seeker, a special ability is not an enhancement. It is only treated as one for purposes of pricing and putting the +10 cap on non-epic weapons.
concerro I understand that. I have never looked at it that way myself. But ya know a few folks have said that I get it. I may not agree with it but I get it.
Oh an zuIR iz splz realz gooz lik fur youz ok? I am always amused you have to attack my spelling. Eh everyone needs a hobby I guess.
concerro I understand that. I have never looked at it that way myself. But ya know a few folks have said that I get it. I may not agree with it but I get it.
Oh an zuIR iz splz realz gooz lik fur youz ok? I am always amused you have to attack my spelling. Eh everyone needs a hobby I guess.
Your spelling is pretty atrocious, dude.
Yes it's rough but he knew what I meant. He was just being an jerk. He is good at that.
concerro I understand that. I have never looked at it that way myself. But ya know a few folks have said that I get it. I may not agree with it but I get it.
Oh an zuIR iz splz realz gooz lik fur youz ok? I am always amused you have to attack my spelling. Eh everyone needs a hobby I guess.
Ok. Well that is all I have on the subject then. :)
It's cool Concerro. I made a statement a few folks pointed out it did not work that way, I said I read it that way and did not agree with the other way is all.
Thats the issue ya have at times playing with one group{which I have untill recently} is you only get that ones groups take on things. We all came to the same conclusion on how it worked so didn't even dawn on me most groups did not see it that way.
Seeker, just to point out. If you do it your way you take games to epic proportions, which isn't supposed to be just yet. A 20 level caster should be able to make anything in the book, aside from artifacs, so, although you may not agree with it, it's just plain... let's say... bizarre. Cause you are ignoring way more than just one rule.
It seems that if the weapon is a straight enhancement bonus such as a +2 weapon the caster level would have to be 6, but if the weapon has multiple enhancements such as +3 thundering merciful holy speed greatsword then the caster level of nine is 9 is correct since it is the higher than the minimum caster level of the highest special ability.
I can see no reason why it would state the higher of the two if they are meant to be added. If that were the case how would a PC get a weapon or armor above +7 when most campaign worlds don't have more than 5 casters above level 20.
Read a little more carefully. It says you multiply the enhancement bonus by 3. Then it says you take either that number or the caster level for the special ability, whichever is higher. Nowhere does it tell you to multiply the special ability bonus by 3 (let alone add up all the special ability bonuses and multiply the total by 3!). Nowhere does it use the term "enhancement" to describe special ability bonuses, even when it tells you the bonus cap (there it specifically says to add the enhancement bonus and any special ability bonuses, and the total cannot exceed +10).
I'll ask you the same question SOS has refused to answer four times now:
If you multiply the special ability bonus by 3 to determine caster level, why does a speed weapon have a listed caster level of 7 even though it's a +3 special ability bonus?
Its my understanding that an items caster level is a measure of its difficulty to dispel and not a requirement in that "you need to be an X level caster to create this item". Its a terribly confusing term, for sure, but its not listed in the requirements of most items (except in cases like a clay golem's crafting requirements). Otherwise only 17th level casters could make pearls of power(slot level 1). If indeed you do need to be a 10th level caster before you can craft a +1 flaming sword, that would be a terrible nerf to crafter PC's IMHO. It seems more reasonable that it is just a factor in the DC to craft the item, and how difficult it is for the item to be dispelled.
I was confused and trying to understand if maybe people were talking about something else.
No one has really explained where in the rules they got the impression that it was added together.
I guess Zurai's post explaining the "enhancement bonus vs special ability" kind of helped me understand where someone could get it wrong... if you miss that it's the "enhancement" bonus they are talking about, and not just the bonus in general.
Its my understanding that an items caster level is a measure of its difficulty to dispel and not a requirement in that "you need to be an X level caster to create this item".
It's been quoted twice now (once by myself), so I won't repeat it, but the weapon entry in magic item creation has a special clause that requires this extra bit. Typically a magic item doesn't need to meet caster level requirements... Weapons do.
Then again, with Pathfinder rules, you can ignore anything but the feat requirement (other than spells for spell completion items). So my guess is that a player can still make the item, he's just stuck with a +5 modifier to his craft/Spellcraft check if he isn't high enough level.
It seems that if the weapon is a straight enhancement bonus such as a +2 weapon the caster level would have to be 6, but if the weapon has multiple enhancements such as +3 thundering merciful holy speed greatsword then the caster level of nine is 9 is correct since it is the higher than the minimum caster level of the highest special ability.
I can see no reason why it would state the higher of the two if they are meant to be added. If that were the case how would a PC get a weapon or armor above +7 when most campaign worlds don't have more than 5 casters above level 20.Read a little more carefully. It says you multiply the enhancement bonus by 3. Then it says you take either that number or the caster level for the special ability, whichever is higher. Nowhere does it tell you to multiply the special ability bonus by 3 (let alone add up all the special ability bonuses and multiply the total by 3!). Nowhere does it use the term "enhancement" to describe special ability bonuses, even when it tells you the bonus cap (there it specifically says to add the enhancement bonus and any special ability bonuses, and the total cannot exceed +10).
I'll ask you the same question SOS has refused to answer four times now:
If you multiply the special ability bonus by 3 to determine caster level, why does a speed weapon have a listed caster level of 7 even though it's a +3 special ability bonus?
You might have misread my statement. I agreed with you. :)
Seeker, just to point out. If you do it your way you take games to epic proportions, which isn't supposed to be just yet. A 20 level caster should be able to make anything in the book, aside from artifacs, so, although you may not agree with it, it's just plain... let's say... bizarre. Cause you are ignoring way more than just one rule.
Sigh yes and no. If the total of ability goes past +6 total then yes you would need to be 21 for a +7 total ability, 24 for +8 ability and 27 for +9 of ability. Note a +5 weapon with 5 ability would be CL 15 a +4 weapon with +6 ability would be CL 18
As by the rules weapons like that are rare it made sense for us. Also we mainly ran FR so ya know casters past 20 were not all that rare.
As I have said I agree with the community I may have been doing it wrong but ya know you can indeed read it like I did and come to that conclusion as it is not really spelled out ability are not enhancement when it counts them as enhancement in almost every way save this one it seems.
And zuri I did answer 3 times now, you just did not agree with it is all. I am refusing to do it a 4th time as it is a waste of time to ague with you as you refuse to see any view but your own.
Zurai's interpretation is correct.
Rather than take the RAW approach (because the section is poorly worded), let's take the DM balance approach.
Compare a +3 weapon (+1 holy) with a +4 weapon (+1 flaming holy). The price difference is what, 14,000 gp? The difference is +1d6 of fire damage. But is it unreasonable for a level 10 character to craft a +4 weapon? According to the wealth guidelines, a level 10 character has 62k of wealth on average. Since crafting an item costs half the market price, the level 10 character would spend approximately a quarter of his resources on this item. A non-crafting character would spend half his resources on it.
Guess what? That's exactly what PHII recommends a melee character should spend on a weapon starting at a given level -- half. I'm sure PF's itemization budget has not changed that much from 3.5 (given that weapon costs haven't really changed). So it's *perfectly acceptable* for a level 10 character to have a +4 weapon. In fact, with crafting, it's very plausible for a level 10 character to have a +6 weapon.
This is more a case of balance logic versus words as written. Yes, they don't explicitly lay out what happens when you have multiple special abilities on one weapon. But from an itemization perspective, it's quite ok for them to be available at lower levels.
Alright, I have not been paying attention to who has been arguing with who over this, but I have gone and read back through the sections of the Core Book to make sure I was not missing anything. I even went and read the same sections in the 3.5 DMG to make sure there was not a sentence or paragraph that was dropped that would have clarified things. If there is something I am missing, please point it out.
First, as I am sure most are aware, the highest enhancement bonus for weapons is +5, so a weapon creator for a weapon with no special abilities would never have to be higher than 15th level, per the bonus x3 rule.
Second, if a weapon has one special ability you use the CL listed for that ability or bonus x3 for required creator level, whichever is higher.
Third, if a spell is involved in the creation of the weapon and the spell level is higher than the CL of the special ability or bonus x3, that that level is the minimum level required to create the item if the creator is also the spell caster, otherwise a spell caster of that level must be working with you on the weapon.
Fourth, nowhere in the book is there anything about the CL being higher if the weapon being made has multiple special abilities. The charts on page 469 are purely for determining the cost of the weapon and to limit the total bonuses/abilities the weapon can have, as the combination of enhancement bonus and special ability equivalent bonuses cannot exceed +10.
Now, instead of using the OP's original example, let's look at two of the highest CL abilities, dancing at CL15 and vorpal at CL18. Either sword can have anywhere from a +1 to +5 bonus and the creator level will still be 15 or 18 because bonus x3 maxes at 15. Now, you could also put both of those abilities on a single sword because with their equivalent bonuses there is enough left for the required +1 that allows a weapon to have abilities. But those three things added together make an equivalent +10 bonus only for price, not for creation. So, no, it does not require a creator level of 30 to make this sword, only an 18 because that is the highest between 15 for +5, 15 for dancing, and 18 for vorpal.
The same would be true if you wanted to make a +5 weapon with 5 special abilities that each have a +1 equivalent bonus. The creator level required would be either 15 for the bonus or the CL of any of the abilities that is higher than 15.
Personally, I am very surprised there is not some sort of restriction on how many special abilities that a weapon can have. As it is now, you could make a +1 sword with 9 of the 14 special abilities that have an equivalent bonus of +1. I would fix this loophole by house ruling that a weapon has to have a +1 bonus for every ability it has, so that a sword with 5 of those basic abilities would also have to have a +5 bonus and that would guarantee at least a creator level of 15 for something that powerful.
We generally don't answer "I need an official answer on this to satisfy this other dude" sort of questions because unless something actually isn't clear in the rules, the answer is *in* the rules, and someone else in the community will probably be able to answer it before any of us will.
Recalcitrant need to learn that they can't expect an official ruling every time there's a disagreement about the rules.
Mind you, I'm have this position partly because I've seen Skip Williams dealing with D&D rules questions like "I need an official ruling, do I have to take Power Attack before I can take Cleave?"... when the answer is right there in the book.
We generally don't answer "I need an official answer on this to satisfy this other dude" sort of questions because unless something actually isn't clear in the rules, the answer is *in* the rules, and someone else in the community will probably be able to answer it before any of us will.
Recalcitrant need to learn that they can't expect an official ruling every time there's a disagreement about the rules.
Mind you, I'm have this position partly because I've seen Skip Williams dealing with D&D rules questions like "I need an official ruling, do I have to take Power Attack before I can take Cleave?"... when the answer is right there in the book.
EEW AN ANKHEG KILL IT!
We generally don't answer "I need an official answer on this to satisfy this other dude" sort of questions because unless something actually isn't clear in the rules, the answer is *in* the rules, and someone else in the community will probably be able to answer it before any of us will.
Recalcitrant need to learn that they can't expect an official ruling every time there's a disagreement about the rules.
Mind you, I'm have this position partly because I've seen Skip Williams dealing with D&D rules questions like "I need an official ruling, do I have to take Power Attack before I can take Cleave?"... when the answer is right there in the book.
I think you should sticky that you(Paizo) should not be expected to answer a question about a rule that is in the book unless you think its reasonable that there could be a misunderstanding, even if most of us understand it.
Most of us come from 3.5, but new players may not understand so well. I misunderstood a lot of rules at the beginning, but the interwebs has educated me greatly.
*Yeah I know....
Random Poster: Why shouldn't they answer it.
Me: It does not take a developer to answer a question. Most of us are well known in the community and are quiet knowledgeable about the system, even some of us that are not well known have been playing for a while, and can normally answer a question correctly.
MiB, and Zurai for example. That Nethys guy seems to be correct a lot also.