Please forgive such a pedestrian question, but... How do the Construction Requirements and Caster Level for something like "Goggles of Minute Seeing" work?
True Seeing is a spell requirement. But, CL = 3.
I would think the CL required for True Seeing would be much higher.
Unless the creator got the help of a higher level caster, or risked using an "out of reach" scroll?
Just curious.
It's just using the spell as an example of the sort of magic you'd need to create the goggles as a magic item; the item isn't really emulating true seeing, so it doesn't need to use that spell's caster level.
Thank you.
So if caster level doesn't need to reflect the minimum caster level needed for the listed spell requirements, how does one go about selecting an appropriate caster level for the item?
Caster level affects the rolls needed to dispel the item and to identify the item. What other benefits are there to a higher CL? The CL obviously doesn't reflect the level the owner is expected to be to have the item, as 1000gp pearls of power I have CL 17 and are frequently found with 5th level casters.
What are some guidelines for deciding on a CL?
If the item's CL doesn't have a direct effect on its power (like a fireball's d6s), then the caster level is mostly irrelevant.
Contributor
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
|
If the item's CL doesn't have a direct effect on its power (like a fireball's d6s), then the caster level is mostly irrelevant.
Higher CL makes it more difficult to suppress the magic item with dispel magic, but other than that I think it's irrelevant.
But I guess it should be in proportion with the cost of the item and generally how powerful the item is...
EDIT: ...and though items like pearls of power exist, the judges may question your design-fu if you give the item a CL far too high or low for it to make sense.
Agreed. Personally, I've always wondered if the reason for that CL 17 was partially to help avoid the awkward book-keeping that would ensue if players' pearls of power were being dispelled on a regular basis.
The CL 17 for the POP is because the 9th-level pearl really ought to have CL 17, as that's the minimum CL for 9th-level spells. The other POPs could easily have lower CLs, but that would make the item stat block more complicated and annoying.
A good rule of thumb for the CL of items that don't duplicate spells is to ask yourself "If the effect of this item were a spell, what level spell would it be?", then use the minimum caster level for that spell level.
A good rule of thumb for the CL of items that don't duplicate spells is to ask yourself "If the effect of this item were a spell, what level spell would it be?", then use the minimum caster level for that spell level.
So Can-in-a-Spell?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the item's CL doesn't have a direct effect on its power (like a fireball's d6s), then the caster level is mostly irrelevant.Well, it's irrelevant until someone tries to craft the item. Then CL becomes very important. The CL is a limit on the minimum Spellcraft bonus a PC would need to craft the item with no chance of failure, and is thus very important to game balance in any campaign that allows item creation feats.
My point is that an item that gives a +5 to a particular skill isn't any more effective with CL 10 than it is with CL 5, therefore (other than the very minor chance that it's CL is relevant for an attempt to dispel the item), there's no reason to make the item with CL 5 rather than CL 10.
And for items like this in the Core Rulebook, if you can't see a good reason for an item to be a particular caster level (for example, its CL determines its spell damage, or it duplicates a spell that would have an obvious minimum caster level, such as 17 for a 9th-level spell), the listed CL in the book is just the CL of a typical specimen of that item.
Thus, a cloak of elvenkind doesn't replicate any spells, but it requires the invisibility spell to craft it, which means the typical crafter is almost certainly 3rd level (the minimum to cast that spell). As giving the item a different CL doesn't cost any more or less, your typical 3rd-level crafter is just going to give the item his own CL (3rd) instead of a lower CL. You could in theory find (or craft) a cloak of invisibility that is CL 1 or CL 2, and it has basically no effect on the item's usability (except the 5% or 10% difference if someone tries to dispel it)... and in terms of crafting it, if decreasing the crafting DC by 1 or 2 (for CL 2 or 1) is what it takes to let you make the roll safely, then do so.
By comparison, a minor crown of blasting has CL 6th because you need to have at least CL 6th in order to get a 3d8 blast out of it. You could make a CL 5th crown, but it would only do 2d8 (because the spell does 1d8 per 2 full caster levels). So if you're skimping on the CL of the item in order to make your roll, the item isn't going to be as powerful (but also shouldn't cost as much as the CL 6 crown, as its listed Price/Cost are based on CL 6th).