So my character needs to get buff, and a Manual of Gainful Exercise might do the trick. The only problem is that while he can craft wondrous items, he doesn't have Wish or Miracle available. Are those required components for the crafting, or would I just add 5 to the DC at the end of crafting?
you just add 5 to the craft DC
No, the caster level of the item is NOT a requirement. Caster level of the creator is not relevant unless it specifically says "creator must be at least 6th level" or something similar in the Construction Requirements (example - Caster's Shield). And even then, it is still a requirement that can be bypassed by adding +5 to the crafting check DC.
If you go into creating your own item and can convince your dm nothing in the game stops a manual from being cl 1. There is no correlation between the spells and the cl of an item.
See elixir of vision for example.
This isn't to say I think it should be allowed. But the rules allow it.
That FAQ about Pearls of Power is not setting a general rule for all items. It is fixing the original entry for Pearl of Power that said all of them, even the level 1 version, would be CL 17.
This makes the book version pretty much impossible to identify for low level casters (DC 32 requires at least 12 spellcraft and a natural 20 or requires the caster to rely on the Identify spell). It also creates the oddity that identifying a level 1 Pearl is just as hard as identifying a level 9 pearl, which was weird.
So they wrote the FAQ to fix that.
What you are actually looking for is this:
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.
This bit from the CRB tells us why the CL of the Manuals cannot be lower than 17.
Thanks for all the responses!
I was just worried that an item requiring a major spell like Miracle or Wish would be more difficult to craft, but apparently it's not as restrictive as, say, an Amulet of Mighty Fists.
Also, I thought the CL for any given item wasn't the required level or anything like that but instead just added to the DC for the item's creation. (A CL 17 item has a base DC of 22 for example)
Also, I thought the CL for any given item wasn't the required level or anything like that but instead just added to the DC for the item's creation. (A CL 17 item has a base DC of 22 for example)
That is pretty much the intention for the printed items. The language is a bit scattered around, has gone through several versions since 2000, and addresses many different factors -- "requirements", real requirements, and varying "minimums" based on multiple variables.
Manual of Gainful Exercise, without wish/miracle, DC is 27.
So the real question is, since you can easily make the manual without casting Wish, does that mean you can ignore the costly material component of Wish and make the manual for a fraction of the cost, just by raising the DC by 5?
The base cost is 27,500 gp (+1). The construction cost is 26,250 gp (+1). Since the construction cost is always half of the base cost, plus material components, if we subtract the material component (25,000 gp diamond), we get 2,500 gp base cost and 1,250 gp construction cost, exactly half. So clearly these prices include the material cost of casting ONE wish spell.
If you don't cast Wish, do you have to pay the material cost?
If not, can you make a +1 Manual for only 1,250 gp and a +5 manual for only 6,250?
Clearly, I wouldn't allow this as a GM - a 5th level wizard could get a permanent +5 to every ability score (all SIX of them) for only a total of 37,500gp, and he could still craft headbands and belts for the usual benefits.
But is there a rule that prevents this, by RAW?
There is this:
In addition, some items cast or replicate spells with costly material components. For these items, the market price equals the base price plus an extra price for the spell component costs. The cost to create these items is the magic supplies cost plus the costs for the components.
Technically, that doesn't explicitly state that you add the cost of components because you are casting the spell while you create the item. It simply instructs you to add the component cost, period. So, by RAW, it doesn't leave much room to say "I'm not casting Wish so I don't need the component, therefore it is no longer part of the cost".
But then you get weird questions like "OK, I'm not casting Wish, so what exactly AM I doing with this diamond?" Does the crafter have to grind it up and mix it into the ink? Why? If he DID cast Wish, the spell would just evaporate the diamond and it would not be ground up and put into the ink, so why is it necessary when we're not casting Wish?
Just because?
Maybe "just because" has to be good enough, but something in the RAW would be better.
Oh, sure, I agree.
But RAW can be interpreted (RAI) either way. It could lead to an interesting argument.
Bizbag - no XP cost to casting wish, it's all gold (25000gp).
And DM_Blake... No. Bad Tarrasque!
Gotcha, "is now removed" in pathfinder, not via ignoring the spell pre-req.
remind him that you're still infusing an item with magic, and powerful magic at that. Your skill in magic (and you DO have skill in magic - it's Spellcraft) allows you to bypass having to formally cast the spell, but you still have to perform some sort of magic juju to create magic in an item where there was none before. The diamond would vanish in the same way as if you did cast Wish, in my opinion.
To throw a monkey wrench into your answer:
The Master Crafstman feat could allow a fighter to take 5 skill ranks in Craft (Calligraphy) and then write a Manual of Gainful Exercise using his Craft skill instead of Spellcraft (still needs the Craft Wondrous Items feat, of course).
Now he does not have any skill in magic at all...
Taking Master Craftsman and Craft Wondrous Item indicates/grants skill in magic.
I don't read anything in there that says you actually gain magical ability. You still use your skill ranks (calligraphy, or whatever) to make an item so cool that it becomes infused with magic, but that doesn't mean that YOU are magical, or that you are CASTING magic, or even that you are USING magic - none of that is stated or even implied by the feat.
All it says is that you are a "Master" craftsman. You make good stuff. Masterful stuff. So masterful that it has magical properties.
We can fluff it with "You're so masterful that you actually learned how to use magic when you create items" or we could fluff it with "You're so masterful that your stuff, even though it isn't actually enchanted with magic, still gives off the same benefits as a wizard's magical items" or we could fluff it with "You're so masterful that, despite using no magic, you make such wonderful stuff that magic is drawn into your items from the world".
It all works for me, and none of those is explicitly required or explicitly ruled out by the wording of the feat.
|
If you go into creating your own item and can convince your dm nothing in the game stops a manual from being cl 1. There is no correlation between the spells and the cl of an item.
See elixir of vision for example.
This isn't to say I think it should be allowed. But the rules allow it.
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.
So, the minimum CL for a Manual or amy other item based on the wish spell is 17.
That is not really a problem as a focused caster can beat a DC of 27 (22 for the base difficulty +5 for not knowing wish) at level 5.Apparently the elixir CL is wrong. On the other hand it do nothing with any kinship with True seeing. Simply there is no appropriate CRB spell for its effect.
It'd still take him a month to make the simplest one, of course, unless he found another +5 (Hire a level 3 bard for +2 Competence, take Skill Focus). He'd have trouble affording it, of course, but this could make for an interesting NPC if the person had no other magical ability. Sort of like the Tranquil from the Dragon Age video games - no magic powers (anymore), but capable of creating magic items.
3 days for the one giving +1 to a characteristic, the 25.000 GP for the material cost don't increase the crafting time.
n addition, some items cast or replicate spells with costly material components. For these items, the market price equals the base price plus an extra price for the spell component costs. The cost to create these items is the magic supplies cost plus the costs for the components. Descriptions of these items include an entry that gives the total cost of creating the item.
....
Creating an item requires 8 hours of work per 1,000 gp in the item's base price (or fraction thereof), with a minimum of at least 8 hours.
What matter is the base price.
|
|
Oh, sure, I agree.
But RAW can be interpreted (RAI) either way. It could lead to an interesting argument.
There is a great part of me that wants to see someone try to claim that allowing a player access to a permanent, undispellable, unique-bonus-type increase to the stat or stats of their choice for 2500 GP per stat point is Intended.
Search a bit the forum and your wish would be granted. :-(
I recall at least 1 guy doing exactly that.|
|
Apparently the elixir CL is wrong. On the other hand it do nothing with any kinship with True seeing. Simply there is no appropriate CRB spell for its effect.It's not wrong, it's a rules exception. You can always make an item to the specifications in its description, you just can't make them at a lower caster level than that, if it is lower than the minimum for the spells.
Not wrong, ok, it simply don't respect the other rules guidelines.
It would have been better to not list a spell requirement at all.As thing stand today, it is:
- a spell requirement that is out of way with the item CL;
- a 250 gp requirement for costly components that is not respected in the item costs.
Those are unneeded exceptions when a prerequisite of X ranks in perception would have worked perfectly.