Nope. The fighter attaches "master craftsman" to craft: weapon or craft: armors. If he wanted to do both he'd have to get a second master craftsman feat. So 3 feats to make up for everything the wizard could be doing with 1, and then by your reading he still has to bum spells off of the wizard.
I consider that a good thing. Encourages roleplaying and interaction with PCs or NPCs.
It's important to distinguish between "making things less restrictive" and "making it so that there is no hell of a difference". The second one is why I (personally) don't like 4e very much: it is all the same.
Wizards (and clerics) make great crafters because they are highly self-sufficient in terms of what spells they have available. That is intuitively sensible. A stable-boy should not be able to achieve the same feats of crafting greatness that a archmage can. On the other hand - it *is* possible for a fighter to bond with his sword and (with a bit of help) forge it into an ever greater weapon.
But, ultimately, this comes down to how you want to play it in your campaign.
Well, raging hobbit doesn't even believe that precursors exist, and that coadunations add 5 to the dc. I think the fact that i can phrase that in one sentence is an improvement... but shows how MUBAR the wording is.
These are all words and meanings you brought into the conversation, not Paizo, so the only reason its MUBAR is because that's the way you see it. I think the developer's did a great job describing Magic Item Creation and the rules are quite clear to me. If I am wrong, I can take it. I hope that we get enough FAQ's to get a response.
Err on the side of difficulty to prevent exploits.
It's funny when people hear logic and reason applied to the rules and it doesn't correspond to their preconceived notions, they always say "man, the rules are MUBAR."
What he said
+1 agree with.
It's funny when people hear logic and reason applied to the rules and it doesn't correspond to their preconceived notions, they always say "man, the rules are MUBAR."
But when many people apply logic and reason to an issue and come up with multiple interpretations then there is problem.
And for many of those people the rules are clear to them, which is often at great variance to what other people see as "clear to them".
My game group contains a maths PhD, crytographer, chaos theory whizz, professional editor and professional linguists, and we all have interpreted the rules differently.
These are all words and meanings you brought into the conversation, not Paizo
I'm not calling it how i set it up mubar. No ones called my system confusing or unclear, merely innacurate on some of the particulars. The point is that the interpretation of these rules is more like a Rorschach test than a road map.
so the only reason its MUBAR is because that's the way you see it.
I think the developer's did a great job describing Magic Item Creation and the rules are quite clear to me.
And if i was alone in that opinion, or even in a sizable minority, or even if there were merely two camps on the issue you might have a point. The thing is that everyone is looking at the same rules and comming up with completely different answers, including the devs who have been punting on the issue. If the rules were crystal clear about what was supposed to be what, the devs would do their normal "this is what the rules say, feel free to modify it to suit your campaigns".
If I am wrong, I can take it. I hope that we get enough FAQ's to get a response.
I have seen a fair number of posts about adding 5 to the DC's of magic items. In none of those posts can i recall any mention of meeting the prerequisite through another caster AND having the DC increased anyway except for something way back in Beta, and then they were talking about a small bump for outsourcing the prereq and a larger one for skipping it entirely. In the text i can't find anything to conclusively link the ideas of adding 5 to the dc AND getting another caster to help you. Meeting a prerequisite through another person is meeting the prerequisite.
It's funny when people hear logic and reason applied to the rules and it doesn't correspond to their preconceived notions, they always say "man, the rules are MUBAR."
Except you're not doing that. My reading is at least as equally valid as yours, doesn't make multiple feats completely pointless, and doesn't require shoehorning anything into the wording in to accommodate the fact that non spell prerequisites can be worked around with an increase to the DC. If anything, you're trying to read your preconception to err on the side of difficulty to prevent exploits into the rules rather than answering objections about scenarios when your rules start to break down.
Let's read in order and breakdown the paragraph that everyone is having a problem with logically:
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions.
All items have prerquisites. OK.
These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created.
The feats must be attained, the spells must be cast, levels must be attained (among others).
Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed).
The item's creator must know (be familiar with) the spell. Another magic item or spellcaster can assist the creator in crafting the item.
The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite does not meet.
For every prereq the creator/caster (same thing) cannot meet (including casting the spells himself) you add +5 to the DC. So if the creator cannot cast the spell himself and uses another magic item or spellcaster, add 5 to the DC.
The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory.
The Item Creation feat must be attained before item creation can commence.
In addition (to the aforementioned exception),you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.
Emphasis added is mine to define "In addition".
This means the writer's meant to include "you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites" as part of the only exception to "The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet."
When the rules are read in order and each sentence is broken down its much easier to see.
Now before you slander me with another snide remark, please prove/refute what I have broken down before you with dev words or rules. I hope you prove me wrong. I am a crafter in my current campaign. My DM doesn't get it so I work off the trust system. Then you can slander me. :-)
Thank you. I love this back and forth.
The magic rules make assumptions, that people do not all agree with.
People want to make assumptions about what is specific and what is general, which is totally a matter of option. Option is subjective, based on the point of view of the reader, and how he wants to read the rules.
.......................
I do see other people points of view. In fact i can see reading the rules in five different ways, based on those points of view.
Until a FAQ or Errant is posted by someone official, that clarifies how these magic rules are to be read. Then this argument will continue forever.
That or they come out with a Ultimate Magic Item book, that re-writes the Magic Item Creation Rules, in a better format than they currently are written.
The magic rules make assumptions, that people do not all agree with.
People want to make assumptions about what is specific and what is general, which is totally a matter of option. Option is subjective, based on the point of view of the reader, and how he wants to read the rules.
.......................
I do see other people points of view. In fact i can see reading the rules in five different ways, based on those points of view.
Until a FAQ or Errant is posted by someone official, that clarifies how these magic rules are to be read. Then this argument will continue forever.
That or they come out with a Ultimate Magic Item book, that re-writes the Magic Item Creation Rules, in a better format than they currently are written.
Ok, no rules or developer view points quoted to refute my "assumptions".
Ok, no rules or developer view points quoted to refute my "assumptions".
Because it's pointless to do so. The rules were quoted above, people refuted your interpretation, you didn't agree with them.
The rules are so flummoxed because the PF rules were based off the original 3.0 rules, which got errata'd, then put into 3.5 in the original non-errata'd state, and errata'd again in 3.5.
So, the original, wrong, 3.0 rules were used as the basis for the PF rules, which were further altered. The alterations are incredibly easy to interpret in a dozen different ways as they are. So all we can do is keep stabbing the heck out of the FAQ buttons and hoping somebody, somewhere, somewhen, bothers to FAQ it.
Ok. First off I'm not slandering you I'm disagreeing with you. If you don't want people accusing you of reading your preconceptions into things, don't accuse other people of doing the same. It is not somehow slander when others do it to you but perfectly acceptable when you do it to other people.
Secondly going into a conversation with the assumption that everyone else has a problem with logic isn't going to get ANYWHERE.
This is where the problem breaks down
Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (indicating that sometimes they do not)
These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created.(this sounds like a hard must)
The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory
including the prerequisites that aren't spells.. which is either a contradiction or a non standard use of must because there is no way to meet to meet non spell requirements through another caster or person.
-This could mean EITHER 1) That if you meet the requirement through another caster that the DC increases by five OR 2) that If you meet the requirement through another caster that you meet the requirement. So by that line, literally, the ONLY exception to being able to add +5 to the DC of anything listed as a prerequisite and still make the item anyway is the item creation feat.
So, if you have a non spell prerequisite, you can deal with it by adding 5 to the DC. That contradicts the hard reading of must.
So for example, I'm a third level human wizard and i want to create a cloak of elven kind. I prep invisibility and go through the logic chart. What happens is that i hit a logic fork in the road with two opposing statements
-These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created.
-The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet.
Eureeka!
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.
(SKR, 8/18/10)
–Sean K Reynolds (08/18/10)
Back to Top
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy88yj/faq#v5748eaic9n8m
-Right there. He says you can skip a requirement by adding 5 to the DC, and no mention is made of involving another creator in the process.
and when you make wands and whatnot, you do need to have access to the spell for those
But the way its worded is unclear whether spell trigger and spell completion items need to have the prerequisites met (possibly through another caster) or if they have to be met strictly out of the creator's own personal ability. The first allows people to dictate scrolls to a secretary, the latter makes staves almost impossible for non wizards.
Eureeka!
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.
(SKR, 8/18/10)
–Sean K Reynolds (08/18/10)
Back to Top
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy88yj/faq#v5748eaic9n8m-Right there. He says you can skip a requirement by adding 5 to the DC, and no mention is made of involving another creator in the process.
Yep, don't particularly like 2nd level wizards being able to make items that should be higher level, but SKR said it was the rules. I personally house rule that, since technically, the DC penalty for 3rd level pearl and 9th level pearl for a 2nd level wizard is exactly the same (+5 for not meeting the spell requirement), which seems off.
THe big issue that keeps coming up is enhancement bonuses, which (for example on weapons and armor) in a prerequisite section, it's spelled out in the text describing how to make them, and are called 'special prerequisites'. Blech. Does that mean they are or are not bypassable? I don't think they are, but the one post I saw from a dev on that I haven't been able to find in hours of searching (too many threads on it).
EDIT
Wait, that violates the rule that says you can't set the CL higher than your own CL (the pearl of power thing).
Wait, that violates the rule that says you can't set the CL higher than your own CL (the pearl of power thing).
I believe that because it's in the prerequisites description rather than elsewhere that makes it fair game to be circumvented with the dc increase.
3) The rules also say...and by the way, these specific magic items need to have the spell provided (spell-trigger and spell-completion items)
Right... the spell needs to be provided but it doesn't specify by whom. It depends on how you read the previous few sentences.
*tries hitting FAQ button with a mallet*
Eureeka!
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.
(SKR, 8/18/10)
–Sean K Reynolds (08/18/10)
Back to Top
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy88yj/faq#v5748eaic9n8m-Right there. He says you can skip a requirement by adding 5 to the DC, and no mention is made of involving another creator in the process.
Well done, BNW. I stand corrected. You can by pass non-spell, non-item creation feat prereqs simply by adding 5 to the DC. Thank you.
That is refreshing. But in the example given doesn't that violate the other rule about making a magic item with a higher caster level than your own?
Reefwood also reads the rules very similar to me. I agree with a lot of his post.
Well done, BNW. I stand corrected. You can by pass non-spell, non-item creation feat prereqs simply by adding 5 to the DC. Thank you.
Danke. I had to find that twice before i realized it was what i was looking for.
That is refreshing. But in the example given doesn't that violate the other rule about making a magic item with a higher caster level than your own?
It MIGHT but i don't think so. I think this meshes well with my hypothesis that anything in the prerequisite line is up on the chopping block if the caster wants to add +5 to the DC, including spells.
The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this (being able to increase the DC by 5 for a missing prerequisite) is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. (Except for the other "only" exception on spell trigger and spell completion items)
I vaguely remember reading what Mdt mentioned before about the + on magic weapons being called prerequisites but not really being prerequisites because they weren't there in the stat block. If these are outside of the stat block they're not circumventable.
What it comes down to i think is evidence that "must" has more than one meaning here. That opens it wide to other interpretations.
Danke.
Bitte Schoen. Aber Ich glaube, dass alles, was ich vorher geschrieben hab, aeusserhalb was Sean K Reynold's geschrieben hat, immer noch stimmt.
Bitte Schoen. Aber Ich glaube, dass alles, was ich vorher geschrieben hab, aeusserhalb was Sean K Reynold's geschrieben hat, immer noch stimmt.
Well, the problem there is we've seen that "must" ISN"T MUST. Once the idea that must isn't must breaks, the entire rest of your argument goes out the window and the rest of it starts to make more sense: like the fact that
The only exception to thisis the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory.
This line would be completely unnecessary under a hard must rule. Since must doesn't mean MUST here , i can't see any reason to trust it to mean MUST for spells either. Spell and non spell prerequisites aren't separate, they're treated the same way. So if you can meet non spell prerequisites by adding 5 to the DC then you meet spell prerequisites by adding 5 to the dc, and the word "must" means no more or less for one than the other.
Vielleicht wäre es besser gewesen, wenn die Regeln hatte in Deutsch geschrieben worden - es könnte mehr Klarheit geschaffen haben ;-)
[quote=]Eureeka!
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.
(SKR, 8/18/10)
–Sean K Reynolds (08/18/10)
Back to Top
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy88yj/faq#v5748eaic9n8m
The caster can take a +5 to DC, to up the caster level beyond wants needed. ( a 3rd level wizard casts a 2nd level spell, but treated it as if cast by a 5th level wizard = So the spell duration/damage/saving throw is treated as if cast by a 5th level wizard).
Plus
+5 DC for not being able to cast the spell.
...................
Ok that does make things more confusing.
This list based on Cleric/Druid/Wizard = Other classes will vary based on when they gain assess to spell levels.
So +5 DC for each jump in power (2nd level +5 DC. 5th level +5 DC, 7th level +5 DC, 9th level +5 DC, 11th level +5 DC, 13th level +5 DC, 15th level +5 DC, 17th level +5 DC)....
Well, the problem there is we've seen that "must" ISN"T MUST. Once the idea that must isn't must breaks, the entire rest of your argument goes out the window and the rest of it starts to make more sense: like the fact that
Careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The only thing we've established is that we took a phrase from a developer. While that phrase offered one solution, it created another problem too.
|
The big issue that keeps coming up is enhancement bonuses, which (for example on weapons and armor) in a prerequisite section, it's spelled out in the text describing how to make them, and are called 'special prerequisites'. Blech. Does that mean they are or are not..
Seems to me it's a matter of specificity.
All other discussion of prerequisites and "must/not-must" seems to fall under the context of magic items in general.
Much like spell completion and spell trigger items absolutely require the spell (although the source of the spell and the DC were a source of confusion, magic arms and armor have a specific, special pre-requisite.
So all magic items have these rules.
Spell completion/trigger have these additional requirements, and take precedence.
Magic arms and armor have special prerequisites, and take precedence over other rules, and seem to imply they're a hard cap.
That's how I see it, anyway. I get that using prerequisite is a problem even with a modifier, though.
Still, I gotta say "coadunations and precursors" would normally make me stop reading anyway. Kind of the same way I feel when I see the word "verdigris" in a published module and I kind of get mad and stop reading.
Well, the problem there is we've seen that "must" ISN"T MUST.
That also depends on what your definition of "is" is.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
This particular part I have no problem with. Sorcerers simply should not be as good as wizards in crafting. And I do think that someone who's only tie to magical crafting is a craft skill SHOULD be limited in what they can make. The world's greatest blacksmith with the magical craftsman feat should be crafting magical arms and armor... not cranking out CLW wands.1) The overall design philosophy of pathfinder is to be LESS restrictive than 3.5
2) Only wizards and clerics would be able to make items by themselves under your interpretations. Sorcerers would be left completely out in the cold.
-And under the rules as i see them they wouldn't be. Wizards would be able to meet all the requirements guaranteeing success, while sorcerers would have to add to the DC, would have a lower spell craft score, and possibly crank out cursed items)
They can't crank out wands. Master craftsman allows someone to take the craft magics arms and armor feat (they will be able to make either melee/throwing weapons OR bows and arrows OR armor because master craftsman is tied to one skill) OR the craft wondrous item feat. Even then they can't use spell trigger wondrous items. (do any exist?)
Well, the problem there is we've seen that "must" ISN"T MUST. Once the idea that must isn't must breaks, the entire rest of your argument goes out the window and the rest of it starts to make more sense: like the fact thatCareful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The only thing we've established is that we took a phrase from a developer. While that phrase offered one solution, it created another problem too.
It only created a problem for your interpretation. It fits seamlessly into mine. I interpreted must as "must or you increase the dc by 5" and that's how he used it. So what we now have is two valid interpretations with one being backed by the lead designer. I think its time to get a new baby.
Still, I gotta say "coadunations and precursors" would normally make me stop reading anyway. Kind of the same way I feel when I see the word "verdigris" in a published module and I kind of get mad and stop reading.
Coadunation mayby. Precursor isn't that big of a word. I suppose you could call it requirement types I II and III 9, or code blue red and yellow, but i thought i was writing for geeks here :)
I was looking for something with flavor that wasn't already a term in D&D. (see the mess for the many uses of "Level") did a little research on alchemy and was surprised to find a term that meant exactly what i was looking for
It only created a problem for your interpretation. It fits seamlessly into mine.
I guess the rules aren't MUBAR anymore!?!
I interpreted must as "must or you increase the dc by 5"
If only the RAW said that...but they don't.
and that's how he used it. So what we now have is two valid interpretations with one being backed by the lead designer. I think its time to get a new baby.
Your baby is a Munchkin.
Magic Item Creation should not be a walk in the park. That is opinion though.
Clerics should not be able to make Wands of Magic Missile.
Wizards/Sorcerers should not be able to make scrolls of Heal.
I think by dismissing the 'must's of the rules, exploits run rampant.
Is this a strong or a soft must?
Was glaubt euch?
I guess the rules aren't MUBAR anymore!?!
They are. And i'm still not entirely sure about a few other things (like wands potions and scrolls)
I interpreted must as "must or you increase the dc by 5"If only the RAW said that...but they don't.
Yes. It does.
These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created.(this sounds like a hard must)
The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory
-It plainly says you can not meet the pre requisites by adding 5 to the DC.
The problem is that it also says you can not not meet the prerequisites.
But it also goes on to further state that you can not not meet the prerequisites on certain items... which would be a completely pointless addition if your reading of it was correct.
Your baby is a Munchkin.
NOW who's bringing in preconceptions?
I've demonstrated that my interpretation is not only valid but is also backed by a developer. I'm not the only one with this interpretation: it seems to be about an even break. Given that i have a dev making statements that backs my interpretation I think you have an obligation to offer equal evidence to the contrary or AT LEAST to refrain from insulting me in lieu of making a point.Magic Item Creation should not be a walk in the park. That is opinion though.
It seems to go against the intent of the system though.
Clerics should not be able to make Wands of Magic Missile.
Wizards/Sorcerers should not be able to make scrolls of Heal.
They might not be able to. As I've stated, there are two separate rules, one for most items and one for spell trigger and spell completion items. They may very well be unreachable by the wrong kind of caster,or reachable only with the assistance of the right kind of caster.
I think by dismissing the 'must's of the rules, exploits run rampant.
Relax. Its not that bad. Parties are still limited by their wealth.
Here's something new to consider:
Requirements: Certain requirements must be met in order for a character to create a magic item. These include feats, spells, and miscellaneous requirements such as level, alignment, and race or kind.
Feats AND spells are not considered 'miscellaneous requirements' as is the requirement that brought about my ultimate downfall earlier in this thread.
Perhaps the developer allowed the +5 to the DC for the PoP because the requirement was a 'miscellaneous requirement' and not a feat OR spell requirement.
hmmm....
Plus I found this in the APG, under Advanced Magic Items...
The creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level (and additional requirements may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level).
I know the developer's have said that the CL is not a requirement for item creation, but does that contradict the above statement?
Feats AND spells are not considered 'miscellaneous requirements' as is the requirement that brought about my ultimate downfall earlier in this thread.
Perhaps the developer allowed the +5 to the DC for the PoP because the requirement was a 'miscellaneous requirement' and not a feat OR spell requirement
I don't see any differentiation there (or in the phb) between spells and other sorts of prerequisites. Spells are on the list right along side everything else. If its on the prerequisite line, it can be chopped for the +5 dc. Some folks seem to think that race should be exempt because of flavor, or spells or feats... but the fact is that they're all lumped together. To me the spell is the LEAST intrinsic part of a magic item but *shrug*
+5 to the DC is sort of a big deal. If you meet all the pre reqs your chances of making a cursed item is probably around 0 (especially for wizards, who have a +4 or +5 int, maxed spellcraft, even if you could succeed on a 1 , taking a +5 to the dc means you get a 1 in 4 chance of now winding up with a cursed item and wasted cash.
I don't see any differentiation there (or in the phb) between spells and other sorts of prerequisites.
Yeah, I agree, just trying to save face.
While I pick up my face, answer this:
Why doesn't it say race, kind and miscellaneous requirements such as feats and spells?
As we've established, the placement of words are very important in the interpretation of the rules.
Is the feat considered a miscellaneous requirement?
It doesn't really matter tho, just throwing it out there...now where did my face go?