Creating magic items at a higher caster level

[Coriat]

Say I want to create a cloak of resistance at caster level 10 instead of 5. I know that this is largely irrelevant unless someone tries to use a targeted dispel magic or unless the item itself ends up rolling saving throws, but sometimes it is desirable.

Is this addressed in the rules anywhere?

(I feel like I knew the answer to this once, but I've forgotten more about Pathfinder rules than I ever knew... however that works...)

[MichaelCullen]

If you are at least caster level 10 then you have no issue. Just make sure you increase the DC to craft based off the new CL.

If you are not at least caster level 10 then the rules don't cover this situation precisely.

The rules do allow you to make items that require a higher caster level than you have, in these cases the DC to craft is increased by 5 for missing a prerequisite.
Ask you DM if similar logic can be applied to making items that don't require the higher caster level.

[MichaelCullen]

For reference the DC to craft a wonderous item is 5 + the items caster level + 5 for every requirement you are missing.

So if the item requires a higher caster level than you have, you are missing a requirement. You can still make the item, it just has a higher DC to craft.

The only requirements that can not be bypassed by increasing the DC are the crafting feats themselves.

[_Ozy_]

CL is not a crafting requirement except for specific items like enhancement bonuses for weapons and armor.

[MichaelCullen]

Hmmm, I've always treated the caster level of the item I'm trying to make as a requirement. I wonder if that is not the case.

[GM Rednal]

The specific caster level of an item is a not a requirement for its construction. The only requirements are those listed in an item's "construction" area.

That said, many items do have a minimum caster level as part of the basic crafting rules - they can't be crafted with a caster level lower than the minimum level necessary to cast the spell(s) used in their construction.

As an example, if a Wizard is crafting something with, say, a third-level spell as one of its requirements, the item needs a Caster Level of at least 5 (because that's when they get access to third-level spells).

Crafting at a higher Caster Level than normal for an item is totally do-able... although very expensive in return for what's usually minimal gain, so most people don't do it. XD Note that the rules expressly permit crafting at a lower caster level than you possess (subject to the caveat above), but do not say they allow you to craft at a caster level higher than your own.

[Coriat]

GM Rednal wrote:

Crafting at a higher Caster Level than normal for an item is totally do-able... although very expensive in return for what's usually minimal gain, so most people don't do it. XD

Well, I'm not aware of rules giving any cost adjustment if I want to make the item caster level of my cloak of resistance 10 instead of 5, which is part of the reason I wasn't sure whether I could do it. The only item prices that take item caster level into account are those for spell effect items (spell completion, spell trigger, etc.), but cost for items with a non-spell effect (cloak of resistance, amulet of natural armor...) does not take the item's caster level into account.

Given the seeming lack of price difference, I am a bit leery of concluding that I can boost the item's power, however marginally (just dispel resistance and item saving throws in most cases I think) effectively for free. However, perhaps the "cost" is a higher base spellcraft DC to craft the item and thus a (theoretically) higher chance of failure?

[GM Rednal]

Well, this post basically sums it up.

The main conclusion is that "if changing the caster level doesn't really change the item (and targeted dispels against magical equipment almost never happen to begin with), you probably shouldn't worry about it and can go ahead and let them craft it at whatever caster level they can meet".

[Coriat]

That post is good enough for me. Thanks.

[Plausible Pseudonym]

But what about a Ring of Invisibility or a Hat of Disguise where a higher CL can have very important duration effects?

[GM Rednal]

Easiest solution: Just don't allow it. Such items can be very powerful, and restricting them to the lowest legal caster level is an intentional balancing mechanism. (That, and they're basically at-will anyway, so if you can't slip away for a couple of seconds sometime, maybe that's a good thing for the challenge...)

Since it WOULD be a real change, though, there's also the...

More complicated solution: Make sure the GM is okay with it, then check for any improved versions of the item that already exist, and if that fails, crunch the math. Those are more of use-activated items to begin with, and you can reverse the numbers (Item cost divided by spell level divided by caster level) to see the differences. The Ring of Invisibility is basically 3333 GP (rounded down from a repeating decimal) instead of 2000. So if you wanted to make it CL 8, we could calculate a cost of about 53,333 GP.

Most characters probably aren't going to need the extra duration very often, so they'd be pouring quite a lot of GP into a rarely-used effect. You'd want to point this out to the player, and note the opportunity cost of not getting other useful effects. Also, by the time they could casually afford items at a much higher caster level, they'd probably have access to much more powerful and useful effects anyway. Longer at-will Invisibility probably isn't going to be as useful as the Wizard occasionally dropping Greater Invisibility on you.

In short... it can be done, but for multiple reasons, it's not necessarily a good idea, and the GM should definitely approve on a case-by-case basis to make sure the items aren't disruptive to the campaign.

[_Ozy_]

Plausible Pseudonym wrote:

But what about a Ring of Invisibility or a Hat of Disguise where a higher CL can have very important duration effects?

Best solution there is to ignore the silly duration rules. ;)

[Ravingdork]

I think SKR is wrong in this. An item with a higher caster level SHOULD have some additional cost associated with it. Even if the item's effects aren't caster level based, having an item that is more durable than it otherwise would be is a strict upgrade.

As a rule of thumb, strict upgrades probably shouldn't cost nothing.

_Ozy_ wrote:

Plausible Pseudonym wrote:

But what about a Ring of Invisibility or a Hat of Disguise where a higher CL can have very important duration effects?

Best solution there is to ignore the silly duration rules. ;)

Damn. Ninja'd. I was just about to say exactly that!

[Coriat]

Plausible Pseudonym wrote:

But what about a Ring of Invisibility or a Hat of Disguise where a higher CL can have very important duration effects?

The short answer is that spell-effect items are outside the scope of my question because caster level - providing straightforward utility as it does, since these items either cast spells directly or provide continuous spell effects - is factored into their cost formulas already. Unlike for a cloak of resistance or its ilk, RAW already provides an answer here.

For the slightly longer answer, RAW I see nothing to quibble with in Rednal's reply. Caster level is a straight multiplier in the guideline formulas for command items, so if you want to double the caster level of a ring of invisibility, double the price.

[Coriat]

Ravingdork wrote:

I think SKR is wrong in this. An item with a higher caster level SHOULD have some additional cost associated with it. Even if the item's effects aren't caster level based, having an item that is more durable than it otherwise would be is a strict upgrade.

As a rule of thumb, strict upgrades probably shouldn't cost nothing.

This is the line of thought that led me to post the question.

(that and considering an NPC the party fought a while back; upon seeking to dispel some of his custom gear we found that it had some souped up caster levels and I wondered what it would take to do the same)

However, perhaps for a difference so marginal in most cases that the higher Spellcraft DC to craft (and the need to take a crafting feat in order to custom make it) is enough. For example, in about fifteen years of playing 3.x I'm not sure I've ever rolled a saving throw using a magic item's native bonus while on the player side of the screen. Rolling an item save is rare enough before piling on a circumstance in which you'd roll one but not use a wielder's save...