Although i still agree that it isn't clear if take +5 total or +5 for every spell level that you lack, i personally think that it's +5 period.It seems quite clear that unless it's listed in the requirements (or in the case of magic weapons and magic armor, additionally in their item creation section), it's not a requirement.
I was talking about pearls of power on that.
Ok how is any different the things i said from what i said?
I only mentioned the spell level in order to figure out the CL of the item.
My bad. I probably thought that you were saying it because of what Oliver has been saying. I suppose just assume I was replying to Oliver and not you, in that case. I was saying the same thing you are, I guess, but tried to word it differently for Oliver.
Ok
I thought so but i wanted to be sure.
""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""I do not see were this would not cover other items as well. In effect he is letting a caster who is only able to cast 2nd level spells, the ability to create a magic item that requires 3rd level spells.
This would cover many other items as well.
Italics mine.
As you can see it says that the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" is a requirement, now you are correct about pearls of power (and maybe some other item i don't know of) but what other magic item do you know that has as part of it's requirements section the ability to cast a specific level of spell?
...........
In other words you might be right
then again
You might be wrong.
I do not know.
...........
I understand your point, but can also seeing the effect being general enough to apply to all magic items.
..............
I will agree, that we disagree. Until i see something more offical to support my point of view or your.
First of all i respect your right to play it that way in your games Oliver.
The RAW hasn't changed with the FAQ, it was merely a clarification about pearls of power. If they wanted to change it they would have put it in the errata and not in the FAQ.
Now you can think what you want about this thing but since you are a frequent poster on the boards (and a very quick one i might add), can you please not say (in other threads) that your reasoning is the RAW and it is only based on your understanding of a FAQ entry, so that guys that don't know the rules well get confused?
I understand your point, but can also seeing the effect being general enough to apply to all magic items.You are assuming something that is not in the RAW. You cannot extrapolate this particular item's requirements to EVERY item. That is an assumption of huge proportions, and would likely have been included in the RAW were it actually the case.
As it stands, your baseless assumption is a house rule, and not actually in the RAW.
I was debating the effect of DC and Caster level.
I was debating the effect that the Errant of Pearl of Power had made
The only time i said RAW, when when i asking if the FAQ was or was consider RAW. (Said raw only in one other post while guoteing the FAQ
I have say more than once that i was debating the way the DC was used.
First of all i respect your right to play it that way in your games Oliver.
The RAW hasn't changed with the FAQ, it was merely a clarification about pearls of power. If they wanted to change it they would have put it in the errata and not in the FAQ.
Now you can think what you want about this thing but since you are a frequent poster on the boards (and a very quick one i might add), can you please not say (in other threads) that your reasoning is the RAW and it is only based on your understanding of a FAQ entry, so that guys that don't know the rules well get confused?
You have said that RAW did not change with FAQ.
Again i was debating the effect of weather the effect of the Pearl of Power effect +5 Flat or +5 per spell level.
I never said that this effect on other magic items was RAW, I said that i thought that the over all effect that this had, would apply to all magic items.
You then gave a good Counter point = At which point i said i would agree to disagree with you at this time.
Until, I see ether something that support your view more or my view more.
Again i was debating the effect of weather the effect of the Pearl of Power effect +5 Flat or +5 per spell level.
And as i have said you may have a point about that.
I never said that this effect on other magic items was RAW, I said that i thought that the over all effect that this had, would apply to all magic items.
Italics mine.
Why would that be?
Until, I see ether something that support your view more or my view more.
The thing is that my (and Nigrescence's) opinion is supported by the books (and errata) and yours doesn't, it is a hypothesis based on a very clear (to me) FAQ (which i also think that was unecessary but ok) that you thought that it created a new rule.
Anyway i will try to drop this now since it doesn't seem that we can get anywhere with this discussion.
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
Ok.
Let's start with the ICL in the description. SR said those numbers are half wrong and to basically ignore them, and also that crafters can pick whatever CL they want as long as it's >= the min level to cast the spells and <= CCL.
Correct?
Then the spellcraft DC is set by the ICL, plus 5 for any "requirements" you're missing. By "requirements" they basically ONLY mean the "must be an elf" crap and the spell, but NOT the ICL derived from the spell.
Correct?
Then the only thing left to argue about is whether you can make pearls of power bigger than you can use, since there's no spell in the description to force a minimum ICL and you can skip the "requirements".
Correct?
Well who gives two craps about that? The PC can't use the damn thing anyway.
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*Ok.
Let's start with the ICL in the description. SR said those numbers are half wrong and to basically ignore them, and also that crafters can pick whatever CL they want as long as it's >= the min level to cast the spells and <= CCL.
Correct?
Then the spellcraft DC is set by the ICL, plus 5 for any "requirements" you're missing. By "requirements" they basically ONLY mean the "must be an elf" crap and the spell, but NOT the ICL derived from the spell.
Correct?
Then the only thing left to argue about is whether you can make pearls of power bigger than you can use, since there's no spell in the description to force a minimum ICL and you can skip the "requirements".
Correct?
Well who gives two craps about that? The PC can't use the damn thing anyway.
Drop the <= CCL.
By requirements it means the things that are located in the requirements section of the item(it's basically what you said by there are a lot of things that can be in the requirements section, for example being a ranger, having X ranks in a skill etc).
Drop the <= CCL.
By requirements it means the things that are located in the requirements section of the item(it's basically what you said by there are a lot of things that can be in the requirements section, for example being a ranger, having X ranks in a skill etc).
Drop the CCL? So any nitwit Mage can make a sword +1 at CL20 so transmute metal to wood won't work on it? That does NOT sound right.
Drop the CCL? So any nitwit Mage can make a sword +1 at CL20 so transmute metal to wood won't work on it? That does NOT sound right.
Drop the <= CCL.
By requirements it means the things that are located in the requirements section of the item(it's basically what you said by there are a lot of things that can be in the requirements section, for example being a ranger, having X ranks in a skill etc).
I think that he can (if he can make the roll) but i will have to check first.
I don't see anywhere, where you can arbitrarily increase your own caster level...
Would you mind showing that to me?
All I know is that you cannot create an item below the minimum caster level that it requires (by RAW). A level 1 mage, simply cannot create something of CL 3... without increasing his own caster level somehow.
A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, "but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell"
The bolded part is the part of the rules where there are caster level requirements.
However, only the portions under the requirements section are able to be replaced with the +5 to DC rule.
What ridiculous stuff are you guys arguing about?
I think that he can (if he can make the roll) but i will have to check first.Drop the CCL? So any nitwit Mage can make a sword +1 at CL20 so transmute metal to wood won't work on it? That does NOT sound right.
Drop the <= CCL.
By requirements it means the things that are located in the requirements section of the item(it's basically what you said by there are a lot of things that can be in the requirements section, for example being a ranger, having X ranks in a skill etc).
But the roll is easy if you can take ten. If a crafter is nit limited by his own CL then disjunction is crap, dispel to surpress is crap, etc, because everything would get made at ICL 20.
I can't imagine that's how it's supposed to work.
Edit: no, it definitely doesn't work that way. Go back and read the other linked thread. Scott was talking about how it was a neat idea to up the CL of your items when you dinged since it doesn't cost anything. He wouldn't have said that if mist items started at ICL20.
Found it Leo:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/magicItemCreationAndCasterLevel&page=1&source=search#7
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.
For other items, the CL does actually play a role in the item's effects--a generic necklace of fireballs has a default CL of 10th because two varieties include fireball-beads that deal 10d6 damage (just like a CL 10th fireball does). If you wanted to make a type VI or VII necklace (which have fireballs of this power), you should *require* the crafter set the CL to 10th. However, if you're just making a type I necklace (max 5d6 fireball), there's no reason you couldn't just set the item's CL to 5th because it doesn't need to be more than that. And if you're a wiz20 and wanted to be a weirdo and make a type I necklace that's CL 20th, you could, but unless you're paying the extra gold for this increase to change the d6s of the item, that CL is basically irrelevant and I wouldn't have it effect the crafting DC.
For the pearl of power, I agree that in an ideal situation, each type of pearl would have its own CL listed (based on the min level to actually cast that sort of spell), and likewise each type of necklace of fireballs would have its own CL. And while the pearl sort of straddles the line between category 1 (CL is irrelevant because a CL 20th 1st-level pearl isn't any better at recalling spells than a CL 1st 1st-level pearl) and category 2 (in that the spell level of the pearl implies a minimum CL), in terms of its cost, price, and time, the CL difference for a pearl of the same spell level is essentially irrelevant and would...
So this is "correct" ...:
Let's start with the ICL in the description. SR said those numbers are half wrong and to basically ignore them, and also that crafters can pick whatever CL they want as long as it's >= the min level to cast the spells and <= CCL.
Then the spellcraft DC is set by the ICL, plus 5 for any "requirements" you're missing. By "requirements" they basically ONLY mean the "must be an elf" crap and the spell, but NOT the ICL derived from the spell.
In Sean Reynold's example, the mage could set the CL at anything between the minimum that the "requirements" dictate (whether he's taking DC penalties to skip those requirements or not) and his caster level. He can't go to ICL20 unless he's 20th.
Also, I want to make a general apology if I came across as snippy anywhere in the thread. This stuff used to make obvious sense to me until the pesky developers decided that it doesn't work like it's written, lol. Now I just want to make sure I know how they intend it to work, and can defend that position with others in my game, since we rotate GMs and there's no final adjutication of how it works than the rules "as written."
Master Craftsman is an awesome feat for someone who wants to play a Fighter/Crafter.
Basically, it gives you +2 to craft and also allows you to use ranks to replace your lack of Caster Level.
This allows someone to become a Spell-less magic item creator.
Thus bypassing this rule that you cannot create items above your caster level. (Which is intrinsicly there when they say "you cannot create items of a caster level below it's minimum CL".)
For that purpose, your ranks (not your total craft skill, but only ranks) become your caster level.
After that, you increase the DC by +5 for spells you do not have, feats you do not have, or other requirements you do not have).
Thems the rules peeps! It's inherently harder to be a crafter without spells.... but no longer impossible.... therefore the feat has worth.
Going back to OP, I dont remember if the question of magic weapons and armor was answered.
The DC to create a magic item is 5 + the caster level for the itemand
The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus ofDoesnt that mean that you have to meet that to determine the initial creation DC?
So you cant ignore that requirement, since its as basic to creating as material cost and feat?Just checking if my logic seems right; some of these examples have gotten me kinda confused :)
Yes, in essence. It means it is NOT POSSIBLE AT ALL to create a +5 sword unless you are 15th level.
Once you are 15th level, you can attempt to create it and you fail if you don't meet the DC.
Well guys i have been running the Serpent's Skull campaign, we are on part 5 of the campaign, Fortress of a Thousand Fangs, and one of my players is an item crafter, we used the rules as they were written, for every prerequisite he couldn't meet the Craft DC increases by 5. Now the party's gear is much to high of a level for the adventure. They're attack rolls can't miss, they're AC can't be hit, and they can't fail they're saves.
My personal recommendation, if you wish to preserve the integrity and challenge of your campaign as written, that the caster level requirements for certain items such as, weapons, armor, bracers of armor, amulet of natural armor, ring of protection, and cloak of resistance.
The damage has already been done in my campaign and it has largely become boring and unfun, i would suggest you set your foot down in your games before it's too late.
My personal recommendation, if you wish to preserve the integrity and challenge of your campaign as written, that the caster level requirements for certain items such as, weapons, armor, bracers of armor, amulet of natural armor, ring of protection, and cloak of resistance.
be met. Sorry poor grammar.
First of all Matthias_DM and Nigrescence each of you is talking about different stuff, Nigrescence is saying that the extra requirement that Oliver McShade thinks that apply to every item is very bad and doesn't follow RAW and he used the master craftsman feat as an example for that and you Matthias_DM you are saying that the master craftsman shouldn't be an uber feat, something nobody said.
@rowdy55
The caster level requirements for armor, weapons and shields are mandatory, now about the caster level requirements of items like bracers of armor, cloak of resistance etc., one could say that RAW since those requirements are listed in the requirements section, they can be skipped by adding +5 to the DC. Although i understand what you are saying and i will think about your advice.
@beej67
Link doesn't work and i can't seem to find Sean's post.
Now i might have been wrong that you get to set the item's caster as high as you want but i am sure that you can create an item that has a listed CL that is higher than your own, for example if a level 6 wizard wants to create a cape of the mountebank he can.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
@beej67
Link doesn't work and i can't seem to find Sean's post.
Now i might have been wrong that you get to set the item's caster as high as you want but i am sure that you can create an item that has a listed CL that is higher than your own, for example if a level 6 wizard wants to create a cape of the mountebank he can.
You have to be able to, or else the example on the FAQ of a 3rd level Wizard making a Pearl of Power 3 (that they can't even use yet) wouldn't work.
@beej67
Link doesn't work and i can't seem to find Sean's post.
Now i might have been wrong that you get to set the item's caster as high as you want but i am sure that you can create an item that has a listed CL that is higher than your own, for example if a level 6 wizard wants to create a cape of the mountebank he can.You have to be able to, or else the example on the FAQ of a 3rd level Wizard making a Pearl of Power 3 (that they can't even use yet) wouldn't work.
It's the same link someone else posted to me earlier. The reason you can make a bigger pearl of power is that there is NO SPELL to set the minimum ICL. The only thing dictating ICL is down in the "requirements" list, which is bypassable with higher spellcraft checks. Sean isn't saying you get to set the ICL as high as you want, he's saying you can bypass a "requirement" and make a high level pearl of power at an ICL equal to your CCL.
I bolder the text, from the guy who wrote the rules, saying specifically that casters pick an ICL somewhere between the minimum allowable by spell requirement and their own caster level. What more do you want?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
It's the same link someone else posted to me earlier. The reason you can make a bigger pearl of power is that there is NO SPELL to set the minimum ICL. The only thing dictating ICL is down in the "requirements" list, which is bypassable with higher spellcraft checks. Sean isn't saying you get to set the ICL as high as you want, he's saying you can bypass a "requirement" and make a high level pearl of power at an ICL equal to your CCL.I bolder the text, from the guy who wrote the rules, saying specifically that casters pick an ICL somewhere between the minimum allowable by spell requirement and their own caster level. What more do you want?
There's no spell requirement, but the "must be able to cast X level spells" requirement DOES set a minimum ICL for the Pearl of Power.
And yeah, you can bypass that, but that doesn't have any effect on the minimum ICL. Since the ICL sets the DC of the crafting check, and you have to determine the DC before you negate any requirements, you have to start by setting the item's ICL. Otherwise, what are you adding 5 to?
Furthermore, take a look at the FAQ entry again, bolded spots for emphasis:
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.
It would be strange to have a Pearl with an ICL lower than the level needed to cast the spell it recalls. If a 3rd level wizard can't make an item with an ICL higher than his CCL, then every Pearl3 he makes will be 'weird', i.e. wrong.
Yet we see later on in the FAQ entry that a Wizard 3 is in fact able to create a Pearl3. Therefore, he must be able to craft the item at its minimum ICL (5th), despite this being higher than his CCL (3rd). This is backed up by the second line I bolded, "He can set the caster level to whatever he wants (assuming he can meet the crafting DC)
While the line you've quoted might seem to say otherwise, it's just not backed up by the FAQ, and I don't think SKR wrote it with the intention of prohibiting what you want the line to prohibit (he was after all talking mainly about minimum CL in that instance).
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
There's no spell requirement, but the "must be able to cast X level spells" requirement DOES set a minimum ICL for the Pearl of Power.
No, it's down in the requirement list, so it's bypassable for a at a +5 to the Spellcraft Check. According to Sean, the only thing that sets a minimum ICL is when a SPELL is named in the requirements list.
Therefore, he must be able to craft the item at its minimum ICL (5th), despite this being higher than his CCL (3rd). This is backed up by the second line I bolded, "He can set the caster level to whatever he wants (assuming he can meet the crafting DC)
That's sloppy wording, because he's not talking about the ICL. He's talking about the "bypassable requirement" down in the requirements list. It's the same thing Sean was talking about with the 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.
Why would he let him make it at CL1st? Because there's no spell in the requirements list to set a minimum ICL. Just like Pearl of Power.
It's Sean's words, not mine. He says clear as day that:
1) you set the ICL between the item's minimum spell requirement and your caster level
2) you can only take a +5 spellcraft check to bypass stuff in the "requirements" list down at the bottom
Otherwise why would he even bring the wizard's level up at all?
The reason Pearl of Power can be made at a higher level than you can cast is the same reason you can make a Bag of Holding as soon as you can take the feat - there's no spell to set a minimum ICL. You craft it at your own ICL and if necessary +5 your way past the requirements, which happens to work for Pearl of Power because there's no ICL, just a caster level requirement down in the requirements list.
Why else would Sean clearly say that a 17th level mage could only make a bag of holding up to 17th level? He says it right there. Go read the thread. Go read the rest of the thread. Go read all the context. It's obvious this is how it's supposed to work.
I came to this thread with an opinion about how the rules worked. My opinion was wrong. I've studied what the guys who wrote the game said, admitted my wrong opinion, and adopted their position on how the rules work, because they wrote them. Go read their words, their discussions, in context, and you'll come to the same conclusions. Heck, dude, you're the one who linked me to it!
While the line you've quoted might seem to say otherwise, it's just not backed up by the FAQ, and I don't think SKR wrote it with the intention of prohibiting what you want the line to prohibit (he was after all talking mainly about minimum CL in that instance).
Max ICL comes up repeatedly in the thread you linked me. Here's his entire post. Take in all the context, not just a single unclear line from a FAQ. I'll bold the important bits. This is not my language, it's Sean's:
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.
For other items, the CL does actually play a role in the item's effects--a generic necklace of fireballs has a default CL of 10th because two varieties include fireball-beads that deal 10d6 damage (just like a CL 10th fireball does). If you wanted to make a type VI or VII necklace (which have fireballs of this power), you should *require* the crafter set the CL to 10th. However, if you're just making a type I necklace (max 5d6 fireball), there's no reason you couldn't just set the item's CL to 5th because it doesn't need to be more than that. And if you're a wiz20 and wanted to be a weirdo and make a type I necklace that's CL 20th, you could, but unless you're paying the extra gold for this increase to change the d6s of the item, that CL is basically irrelevant and I wouldn't have it effect the crafting DC.
For the pearl of power, I agree that in an ideal situation, each type of pearl would have its own CL listed (based on the min level to actually cast that sort of spell), and likewise each type of necklace of fireballs would have its own CL. And while the pearl sort of straddles the line between category 1 (CL is irrelevant because a CL 20th 1st-level pearl isn't any better at recalling spells than a CL 1st 1st-level pearl) and category 2 (in that the spell level of the pearl implies a minimum CL), in terms of its cost, price, and time, the CL difference for a pearl of the same spell level is essentially irrelevant and would almost never be a factor in any campaign (only if someone is specifically trying to temporarily nullify the powers of a pearl, which I've *never* seen happen). It shouldn't be harder to craft the "better" high-CL 1st-level pearl because it isn't really any better than the low-CL 1st-level pearl.
So if the question is, "should a CL 17th 1st-level pearl have a higher crafting DC than a CL 1st 1st-level pearl?" then the answer is "no, because the difference between the two is essentially negligible." Both cost 1000gp, both recall a 1st-level spell. Likewise with a bag of holding... the CL doesn't affect its abilities, so a wiz17 could set the CL to 17th if he wanted to, without changing the crafting DC at all.
He mentions an ICL maximum equal to the CL of the PC three times in that post.
Some other quotes from the thread:
So would it be safe to assume that all of the gear created by a spellcaster would share his highest caster level (with the exception of scrolls, potions, and similar items whose cost is based on caster level)?If you really wanted to, yes.
Note: not CL 20, not the highest thing he could take 10 and beat a spellcraft roll on, highest caster level.
more:
After all, if increasing the caster level of an item during item creation takes no extra time and costs no extra gold in most cases, doesn't it stand to reason that every time the spellcaster leveled he would instantaneously boost all his items to his caster level?I wouldn't let him *instantly* do it, that's pretty cheesy. I'd probably set the minimum time for each to something like a number of hours equal to CL increase (thus, 1 hour per item, assuming you do this every level).
No indication of people just jacking their items to ICL20 out the gate, talking very specifically about doing it one level at a time as the player levels, to keep the ICL up with his CCL.
Would a mage need any ranks in craft skills then? Or do the feats and Spellcraft meet all prereqs and let you make anything you want?
-He would need EITHER ranks in the craft skill OR the feat in question.
@beej67
Although i can't be sure about that (since the link you provided doesn't take me to the page where Sean made that post), but i think that Sean's post is older than the FAQ entry. Also Benchak the Nightstalker is correct when you want to craft pearls of power the ICL must be at least at the minimum required for you to cast that spell. For example a 3rd level wizards wants (for some reason) to create pearls of power that restore 3rd level spells, the ICL must be at least 5 because that's the caster level required to cast 3rd level spells. And all that can be backed by the FAQ entry that has been quoted a bajillion times in this thread.
@beej67
Although i can't be sure about that (since the link you provided doesn't take me to the page where Sean made that post), but i think that Sean's post is older than the FAQ entry. Also Benchak the Nightstalker is correct when you want to craft pearls of power the ICL must be at least at the minimum required for you to cast that spell. For example a 3rd level wizards wants (for some reason) to create pearls of power that restore 3rd level spells, the ICL must be at least 5 because that's the caster level required to cast 3rd level spells. And all that can be backed by the FAQ entry that has been quoted a bajillion times in this thread.
So you believe a level 8 bard with a couple thousand gold to spare and the craft wondrous item feat can take ten, spend four days, and cast a Gate spell?
You might not.... others might have considerable problems having such a potent weapon churned out by a journeyman crafter.by saying caster level is not a requirement, you are allowing the crafting of a +5 sword by a 5th level elven wizard, with an easier spellcraft DC.
i find nothing wrong with a 5th level wizard crafting a +5 weapon.
A 5th level wizard can not create a +5 weapon, a 5th level wizard can create at most +1 weapons.
@beej67
Although i can't be sure about that (since the link you provided doesn't take me to the page where Sean made that post), but i think that Sean's post is older than the FAQ entry. Also Benchak the Nightstalker is correct when you want to craft pearls of power the ICL must be at least at the minimum required for you to cast that spell. For example a 3rd level wizards wants (for some reason) to create pearls of power that restore 3rd level spells, the ICL must be at least 5 because that's the caster level required to cast 3rd level spells. And all that can be backed by the FAQ entry that has been quoted a bajillion times in this thread.So you believe a level 8 bard with a couple thousand gold to spare and the craft wondrous item feat can take ten, spend four days, and cast a Gate spell?
Before i answer i need to know what item is that.
That can cast gate i mean.
|
All of the prerequisites for creating a magic item have to be met. None of them can be ignored. But the actual creator of the item does not have to meet all the prerequisites. He can get help from other sources to meet the prereq's (he can hire a druid to cast Bull's Strength, for instance). He can go to an elf to seek the racial knowledge needed for Boots of Elven Kind. And so on and so forth. That's what the +5 per prereq is all about when the creator themselves must get help in making the item. Making magic items is often a team endeavor, and each additional pair of hands that becomes involved increases the chance that somebody is going to make a mistake, hence the +5 per prereq.
All of the prerequisites for creating a magic item have to be met. None of them can be ignored. But the actual creator of the item does not have to meet all the prerequisites. He can get help from other sources to meet the prereq's (he can hire a druid to cast Bull's Strength, for instance). He can go to an elf to seek the racial knowledge needed for Boots of Elven Kind. And so on and so forth. That's what the +5 per prereq is all about when the creator themselves must get help in making the item. Making magic items is often a team endeavor, and each additional pair of hands that becomes involved increases the chance that somebody is going to make a mistake, hence the +5 per prereq.
That is a very weird way (although valid) to read the rules, one guy here in the forums (LoreKeeper i think) has the same opinion but this is a very strict way of reading the rules and most people don't read it that way (mostly because it makes the crafting feats pretty useless for spontaneous casters and a little harder to use for wizards).
Now all of the above were true before the FAQ entry that has been quoted many many times in this thread, now we know that this way of reading the rules isn't the right one. But if you want to play it that way on your games it's your decision.|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
snip
Ok, I went and read through that thread again (even though I was the one that linked you to it, :P) and here's where I think you're getting mixed up:
Sean is talking about increasing the ICL without affecting the DC to craft the item. I.e., the question was "If I'm a 17th level wizard and I make a bag of holding, why does the bag of holding not have an ICL = my CCL automatically?" And the answer is, for items like a bag of holding, it can. Set the ICL to whatever you wish when you craft it, from 9th-17th, and don't even muck about with changing the craft DCs.
This should not be taken to mean a character can't craft an item with a default ICL higher than their CCL. As I pointed out, the FAQ explicitly allows this:
(Yes, a Pearl of Power 3 has a minimum ICL. It's based on the requirement that you be able to cast 3rd level spells. This is spelled out clearly in the FAQ. No, adding 5 to the craft DC to bypass the 3rd level spells requirement does not affect the minimum ICL, it's still 5 no matter what requirements you bypass)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
So you believe a level 8 bard with a couple thousand gold to spare and the craft wondrous item feat can take ten, spend four days, and cast a Gate spell?
No, but I'd let him craft a non-spell-completion item with gate as a prerequisite :D
(This is assuming he has at least a +17 in Spellcraft at level 8, otherwise he won't be able to meet the DC 27 check to make such an item.)
So you believe a level 8 bard with a couple thousand gold to spare and the craft wondrous item feat can take ten, spend four days, and cast a Gate spell?No, but I'd let him craft a non-spell-completion item with gate as a prerequisite :D
(This is assuming he has at least a +17 in Spellcraft at level 8, otherwise he won't be able to meet the DC 27 check to make such an item.)
And in all likelihood that's going to be a cursed gate. You're going to open a wormhole into asmodeous's bathtub or something.
And in all likelihood that's going to be a cursed gate. You're going to open a wormhole into asmodeous's bathtub or something.
No it's not, you're Taking 10, do the math.
So you believe a level 8 bard with a couple thousand gold to spare and the craft wondrous item feat can take ten, spend four days, and cast a Gate spell?No, but I'd let him craft a non-spell-completion item with gate as a prerequisite :D
(This is assuming he has at least a +17 in Spellcraft at level 8, otherwise he won't be able to meet the DC 27 check to make such an item.)
So Ring Gates, totally kosher?
8th level Jackass with Spellcraft as a class skill:
Spellcraft 11
Human = Int +2
Int 20 base = +5
int bump at 4 and 8 = +1
Spellcraft 17 for an 8th level character, and that's not including any sort of Gnomish Crowbarring or Traitliness or anything. Bards might not pursue that build but mages sure as heck will.
So lets back that sideways for a sec, and return to the original thread's point. +5 weapons are ICL 15. Spellcraft DC20 to craft at 5+ICL. Spellcraft 25 if you don't have the ICL by your interpretation of the rules. That's a Take 10 roll for a 6th level dude.
That's seriously the intent of the rules?
No it's not, you're Taking 10, do the math.
8 ranks + 2 int +3 skill focus spellcraft +3 skill .....? A +2 int is kind of a lot for a bard, and skill focus spellcraft isn't that great in a feat starved class.
the intent of the rules is that you're limited by your cash, and the fact that you can't liquidate all of your assets at cost, so there's no way for an 8th level player character to have enough dough to open up gates anywhere.
Benchak, thanks for the link.
So if I understand it, Scott Reynolds is basically saying:
1) That 3.0 and 3.5 and PF and APG all had the same error in them that was always intended to be fixed and never got fixed?
2) The CL listed in the item description means nothing, because a mage can set the CL whatever he likes, as long as it's high enough to cast the requisite spells.
And yeah, a 3rd level Bard can make any item on the list....providing they can make the spellcraft check (and afford it!) And since the minimum caster level of an item is limited by the spells used to construct it, more powerful items are still going to be out of the bard's reach until he hits higher levels.So the bard takes +5 penalty, removes the spell as a prereq, sets the Caster Level at 1 since it now has no spell prereq, and rolls on a target number of 11, taking 10 on the roll. That trick works for any item in the Wondrous Item list that's got a single spell prereq. A 3rd level Bard can craft a Cubic Gate according to Scott's interpretation.
Bards don't have Plane Shift on their spell lists!
Oh, wait, you were trying to be sarcastic.Not funny.
Wait, can a gemcutter with master craftsman create one?
I agree with the suggestion that a cleric be present.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
So Ring Gates, totally kosher?8th level Jackass with Spellcraft as a class skill:
Spellcraft 11
Human = Int +2
Int 20 base = +5
int bump at 4 and 8 = +1Spellcraft 17 for an 8th level character, and that's not including any sort of Gnomish Crowbarring or Traitliness or anything. Bards might not pursue that build but mages sure as heck will.
So lets back that sideways for a sec, and return to the original thread's point. +5 weapons are ICL 15. Spellcraft DC20 to craft at 5+ICL. Spellcraft 25 if you don't have the ICL by your interpretation of the rules. That's a Take 10 roll for a 6th level dude.
That's seriously the intent of the rules?
You mean the 40,000 gp ring gates that, even at half price for crafting, would eat up 2/3s of your 8th level bard's (or mage's) wealth by level?
Yeah, I totally would! Nothing in the rules says they can't. (Well, except for the whole "you shouldn't spend more than half your wealth on a single item" thing)
If he puts up the money, and he's maxed his Int to hit the Spellcraft DC at 8th level, he gets access to the item. Would you disagree?
Edit: As for your 6th level weapon crafter, if he's got 25,000 gp to blow at 6th level, He's going to be causing problems no matter how you run the crafting system