|
Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met. Magic armor or a magic shield must have at least a 1 enhancement bonus to have any armor or shield special abilities.
My understanding is that it is the DC of the total number of + equivalents that you are trying to reach, Since expeditious and energy resistance are flat GP costs rather than an additional plus, the DC remains the same as for the +1 armour.
So requirement for +1 Expeditious Armour is 3x armour + (met), CL5 (met), Expeditious retreat (met), access to a forge or workshop and 5-6 days (base price / 1000). The DC is 10 (5+ CL 5).
The restricting factor here is not the difficulty of the roll but the cost, as a suit of energy resistant armour is assumed to be beyond the budget of a level 5 character (list price 20k+, WBL 10-16k).
Question if I'm a arcanist lv 18 and want to create a ring or regeneration by rule I increase the DC by +5 but the caster lv which I use the cleric lv or the druid lv to take the spell?
|
If the object has already a magical power and you want to add another power you should check two things:
1) The description of the new power. Generally, it will list a caster level. If that caster level is higher than the already existing CL it will set the DC of enchanting the item.
2) The CL of the item. If the CL of the item is higher of that required for the new power you have to match it, so, in this instance, the DC is set by the preexisting caster level.
While the need to have all the effects at the same CL is not explicitly stated in the rules, it is implicit in how dispelling a magic item work:
If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a
dispel check against the item’s caster level (DC = 11 + the item’s
caster level).
as you target a single value to stop the whole item from functioning.
Besides that, it will be very complicated to list all magic items as expiditios chain mail +2, composed of first +1 CL3, second +1 CL 6, expeditious CL5. If we cast a targeted Dispel magic and are successful against CL 5 what happens? Does it become a chain mail +1 for 1d4 rounds?
There is an example of that, the Strand of prayer beads, but that is a very peculiar item, as it can be partially dismantled, removing beads and still having the strand work.
|
|
Question if I'm a arcanist lv 18 and want to create a ring or regeneration by rule I increase the DC by +5 but the caster lv which I use the cleric lv or the druid lv to take the spell?
Your choice. The CRB doesn't say anything.
Society play has a rule about it:
Potions, Scrolls and Wands
All potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables are made by clerics, druids, or wizards in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. The only exceptions are spells that are not on the cleric, druid, or wizard spell list. For example, a scroll of lesser restoration must be purchased as a 2nd-level scroll off the cleric spell list and may not be purchased as a 1st-level scroll off the paladin spell list. If a spell appears at different levels on two different lists, use the lower level spell to determine cost. As an example, poison would be priced as a 3rd-level druid spell instead of a 4th-level cleric spell. All potions, scrolls, and wands are available only at minimum caster level unless found at a higher caster level on a Chronicle sheet.
so you would use the Cleric version.
Fully understand cost is a limiting factor :-) its the DC I am finding confusing.
<sorry I dont know how to quote people with gray text on this forum>.
>>Expeditious is CL 5 + 5 = 10.
This is exactly part of my confusion since Pearl of Power FAQ says to ignore items CL listed near price for create DC purpose, and only look at requirement section.....
>>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.
so then in this case expeditious retreat is a first level spell, only need to be CL 1, so DC=5 + 1? and then you compare that to the initial/existing DC to add the +1 enchant (DC 8) pick the higher, so the DC is only 8 to add expeditious?
You can, but the FAQ is not the reason.
While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. 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. Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal.
This general rule allows you to cut the item's Caster Level down to the minimum required to cast the item's highest level spell requirement. (Staffs have a specific rule that if this minimum is less than CL=8, you can't cut down below CL=8.)
The FAQ shows that, for example, pearls of power "are" CL=17 because the pearl of power (9th) needs to be. A pearl for a lower spell level "is" CL=17, but can be cut down as low as the spell level allows; a pearl (5th) could be CL=9, but not lower.
Note that some items simply have CLs below the level of their spell requisites; rings of wizardry are CL=11 and require limited wish (a 7th level spell.) This can't be cut down because of the general rule.
-----
Now, in the case of +1 expeditious armour, we do indeed compare the CLs of each effect.
The +1 is CL=3 (by the 3x requirement.)
Expeditious is CL=5 with a 1st level spell requisite (expeditious retreat). We can cut it down to CL=1.
DCs are based on the highest caster level; thus, DC 8. This should remain true even if we add expeditious later in the item's life cycle.
----
Now let's consider +1 impervious armour.
The +1 is still CL=3.
Impervious is CL=7 with a 5th level spell requisite (fabricate). Since the CL is already lower than the spell requisite, we can't cut it down.
DCs are based on the highest caster level; thus, DC 12.
|
|
You can, but the FAQ is not the reason.
While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. 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. Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal.This general rule allows you to cut the item's Caster Level down to the minimum required to cast the item's highest level spell requirement. (Staffs have a specific rule that if this minimum is less than CL=8, you can't cut down below CL=8.)
Actually Armor and Weapons have a specific rule, so you can't lower the require CL:
Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met. Magic armor or a magic shield must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to
have any armor or shield special abilities
You must always meet the CL requirements. Even for the special abilities.
Logic, as the special abilities of armor and weapons rarely are activated spell effects, generally, they are noticeably different than the effect of the general spell.As an example, the special ability Expeditious is a swift effect. If it did activate a normal Expeditious retreat spell it would be a 5th level spell that lasts 9 minutes and add 30' of movement to the armor wearer land speed only. Instead, it activates an effect that lasts 1 round and add 10' of movement to all the wearer speeds.
Actually Armor and Weapons have a specific rule, so you can't lower the require CL:
You must always meet the CL requirements. Even for the special abilities.Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met. Magic armor or a magic shield must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to
have any armor or shield special abilities
I showed that in my example for the +1 expeditious. If I might again.
1. Suppose you have a +1 armour (CL 3), and you want to add expeditious to it.
2. Expeditious is normally CL 5, but its only requisite is a 1st level spell. As such, you can (in theory) lower it to as low as CL 1...
3. Even if you did, however, the armour would still be CL 3, since that's the highest level among the requirements.
So adding expeditious to a +1 armour is DC 8, as normal for a CL 3 item.
Other cases:
- We could lower expeditious to CL 4, in which case the item is DC 9 -> CL 4.
- Lowering expeditious would have no effect at all if the armour were +2 (CL 6).
There's a difference in the rules between "you can't do something" and "you can do something, but something else will override it."
That is the worst FAQ written for Pathfinder in existence. It is my very sincere suggestion that you ignore its existence because it is utter nonsense and only serves to confuse the rules for magic item creation.
I wouldn't mind ignoring the rule that says you can lower an item's CL. It'd make things simpler - and just limit the ability to increase CL to cases where it matters (scrolls, potions, and wands.)
Otherwise, I only went into the complication because the rule exists. >.<
|
|
Actually Armor and Weapons have a specific rule, so you can't lower the require CL:
You must always meet the CL requirements. Even for the special abilities.Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met. Magic armor or a magic shield must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to
have any armor or shield special abilitiesI showed that in my example for the +1 expeditious. If I might again.
1. Suppose you have a +1 armour (CL 3), and you want to add expeditious to it.
2. Expeditious is normally CL 5, but its only requisite is a 1st level spell. As such, you can (in theory) lower it to as low as CL 1...
3. Even if you did, however, the armour would still be CL 3, since that's the highest level among the requirements.So adding expeditious to a +1 armour is DC 8, as normal for a CL 3 item.
Other cases:
- We could lower expeditious to CL 4, in which case the item is DC 9 -> CL 4.
- Lowering expeditious would have no effect at all if the armour were +2 (CL 6).There's a difference in the rules between "you can't do something" and "you can do something, but something else will override it."
What part of If a specific ability for armors or weapons has a CL prerequisite you must have it is unclear to you?
It is a special prerequisite, you can't lower it.
The unclear bit is:
"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, what is the purpose of this rule?
In the case of a potion, it means a level 20 Cleric can create a Caster Level 1 potion of Cure Light Wounds. This creates a potion of Cure Light Wounds that heals only 1d8+1, but keeps the crafting cost down.
However, the Cleric could not create a Caster Level 1 potion of Cure Serious Wounds, because that's below the minimum level (5) you'd need to cast Cure Serious Wounds.
The Pearl of Power is a special case - basically you ought to be able to create a level 1 Pearl of Power without having a caster level of 17, and the FAQ attempts to find a way to make that legal without changing the rules. It points out that for this particular item:
caster level is not part of the Requirements listing for that item
None of this should be applied to things like expeditious armor.
An item with a lower caster level is supposed to be less powerful. How would that apply here?
What part of If a specific ability for armors or weapons has a CL prerequisite you must have it is unclear to you?It is a special prerequisite, you can't lower it.
Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.
I'm understanding it clearly: the special prerequisite sets the CL for the enhancement bonus. Then you compare that CL to the special ability's CL; whichever is higher sets the item's CL overall.
What you appear to be doing is saying that the special prerequisite is inherited by qualities. You're saying that if we're making a +3 expeditious armour, that both of these are explicitly true:
#1. The +3 enhancement has a requirement of "creator must be caster level 9th";
#2. Expeditious has a situational requirement of "creator must be caster level 9th."
Now let's take a 5th level crafter who can afford to create this item. Now this is important. Since 5th level isn't meeting "creator must be caster level 9th", what is the Craft DC for the attempt?
1. DC 19 (5+9, +5 for missing "must be 9th");
2. DC 24 (5+9, +5 for missing "must be 9th" from +3 and +5 for missing "must be 9th" from "expeditious when applied to a +3 weapon");
3. Impossible ("must be 9th," as a special requisite, absolutely must be met, and can't be +5'd.)
|
|
What part of If a specific ability for armors or weapons has a CL prerequisite you must have it is unclear to you?
It is a special prerequisite, you can't lower it.Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.I'm understanding it clearly: the special prerequisite sets the CL for the enhancement bonus. Then you compare that CL to the special ability's CL; whichever is higher sets the item's CL overall.
What you appear to be doing is saying that the special prerequisite is inherited by qualities. You're saying that if we're making a +3 expeditious armour, that both of these are explicitly true:
#1. The +3 enhancement has a requirement of "creator must be caster level 9th";
#2. Expeditious has a situational requirement of "creator must be caster level 9th."Now let's take a 5th level crafter who can afford to create this item. Now this is important. Since 5th level isn't meeting "creator must be caster level 9th", what is the Craft DC for the attempt?
1. DC 19 (5+9, +5 for missing "must be 9th");
2. DC 24 (5+9, +5 for missing "must be 9th" from +3 and +5 for missing "must be 9th" from "expeditious when applied to a +3 weapon");
3. Impossible ("must be 9th," as a special requisite, absolutely must be met, and can't be +5'd.)
Ah, that is very different from what you were saying previously.
Yes, both #1 and #2 need to be true, it is part of the text I cited. It doesn't matter if the enchantments are added together or separately, you still need to meet the highest CL requirement each time.
For the second part of your post, most of the answer is in the FAQ:
Crafting and Bypassing Requirements: What crafting requirements can you bypass by adding +5 to the DC of your Spellcraft check?
As presented on page 549 of the Core Rulebook, there are no limitations other than (1) you have to have the item creation feat, and (2) you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites. So racial requirements, specific spell requirements, math requirements (such as "caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus"), and so on, are all subject to the +5 DC rule.
So:
- you can make the item;- it is a missing prerequisite, so it increases the DC;
- the problem is by how much, as there is no clear indication if the increase should be based on each level you lack or only once for all the levels you lack.
Personally I would say that you should increase the DC for every single level you lack, so your CL 5 caster trying to make a CL 9 item will add +20 to the DC for the multiple level prerequisites he lacks, but it is only my interpretation.
The unclear bit is:
"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, what is the purpose of this rule?
In the case of a potion, it means a level 20 Cleric can create a Caster Level 1 potion of Cure Light Wounds. This creates a potion of Cure Light Wounds that heals only 1d8+1, but keeps the crafting cost down.
However, the Cleric could not create a Caster Level 1 potion of Cure Serious Wounds, because that's below the minimum level (5) you'd need to cast Cure Serious Wounds.
Mostly I say yes to this, but it's depends in the time your GM put the downtime, if he said that you only have 10 day it's better to create 5 potion of cure light wounds and do other things rather than create only two cure serious wounds, this rule it's not only for reduce cost but also reduce the time expend. Second I not sure you apply the caster lv to the potion
Mostly I say yes to this, but it's depends in the time your GM put the downtime, if he said that you only have 10 day it's better to create 5 potion of cure light wounds and do other things rather than create only two cure serious wounds, this rule it's not only for reduce cost but also reduce the time expend. Second I not sure you apply the caster lv to the potionThe unclear bit is:
"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, what is the purpose of this rule?
In the case of a potion, it means a level 20 Cleric can create a Caster Level 1 potion of Cure Light Wounds. This creates a potion of Cure Light Wounds that heals only 1d8+1, but keeps the crafting cost down.
However, the Cleric could not create a Caster Level 1 potion of Cure Serious Wounds, because that's below the minimum level (5) you'd need to cast Cure Serious Wounds.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Caster Level is part of the formula for determining the cost of an item.
The costs for materials and ingredients are subsumed in the cost for brewing the potion: 25 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster.
So, a 1st level Potion of Cure Light Wounds costs ( 25 x 1 x1 = 25gp) and it would heal 1d8+1 hp.
A 5th level Potion of Cure Light Wounds costs (25 x 1 x5 = 125gp) and it would heal 1d8+5 hp.
It's typically not done because it isn't cost effective. But the rules absolutely allow you to do this. Both of the above potions could be easily created by a 20th level caster. If such a caster wanted to waste a bunch of money they could even make a 20th level Potion of Cure Light wounds and it would cost (25 x 1 x20 = 500gp) and it would heal 1d8+5 hp.
Mostly I say yes to this, but it's depends in the time your GM put the downtime, if he said that you only have 10 day it's better to create 5 potion of cure light wounds and do other things rather than create only two cure serious wounds, this rule it's not only for reduce cost but also reduce the time expend. Second I not sure you apply the caster lv to the potion
(1) Although you are correct that lowering caster level speeds up the time to craft, a potion of Cure Serious Wounds would still only take 8 hours to make.
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. Potions and scrolls are an exception to this rule; they can take as little as 2 hours to create (if their base price is 250 gp or less). Scrolls and potions whose base price is more than 250 gp, but less than 1,000 gp, take 8 hours to create, just like any other magic item. The character must spend the gold at the beginning of the construction process. Regardless of the time needed for construction, a caster can create no more than one magic item per day. This process can be accelerated to 4 hours of work per 1,000 gp in the item’s base price (or fraction thereof) by increasing the DC to create the item by 5.(2)
It can duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting time of less than 1 minute and targets one or more creatures or objects.
Potions duplicate the effect of a spell. Potions have caster levels. Cure Light Wounds is a spell that heals 1d8 + (caster level or 5, whichever is lower). Why wouldn't you apply the caster level you used?
Ok my wrong I checked and you apply the caster lv to the formula
|
|
Potions have caster levels. Cure Light Wounds is a spell that heals 1d8 + (caster level or 5, whichever is lower). Why wouldn't you apply the caster level you used?
You can, but they cost more if you do
Cost is spell level x caster level x 50.So CL 1 cure light heals 1d8+1 and cost 50.
CL 5 cure light heals d8+5 and cost 250.
Potions have caster levels. Cure Light Wounds is a spell that heals 1d8 + (caster level or 5, whichever is lower). Why wouldn't you apply the caster level you used?You can, but they cost more if you do
Cost is spell level x caster level x 50.
So CL 1 cure light heals 1d8+1 and cost 50.
CL 5 cure light heals d8+5 and cost 250.
Yeah it like if you created a potion of cure serious wounds cl 15 it's market price is 2250 and it cost you half the price and 2 days to create
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, both #1 and #2 need to be true, it is part of the text I cited.#1 and #2 are mutually exclusive when you're creating a +3 expeditious armor, they cannot both be true. And #1 is clearly the only one that is true.
...
They aren't exclusive. #2 is situational. The item has an overall CL of 9, so the CL for adding enchantment is 9, regardless of Expeditious alone having a lower CL requirement. That happens because the rules say " If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met." So even if you enchant the armor to +3 and at a later time you add Expeditious, you still have to respect the CL 9 requirement to enchant the item.
|
|
They aren't exclusive. #2 is situational. The item has an overall CL of 9, so the CL for adding enchantment is 9, regardless of Expeditious alone having a lower CL requirement. That happens because the rules say " If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met." So even if you enchant the armor to +3 and at a later time you add Expeditious, you still have to respect the CL 9 requirement to enchant the item.
Yes, both #1 and #2 need to be true, it is part of the text I cited.#1 and #2 are mutually exclusive when you're creating a +3 expeditious armor, they cannot both be true. And #1 is clearly the only one that is true.
...They're mutually exclusive because the DC for crafting an item cannot be both 19 and 24 for a given scenario, it's either one or the other, never both at the same time.
Yes, you still have to respect the CL 9 requirement for enchanting it, but it's still a DC of 19 (14+5 for not meeting the CL 9 requirement of the item), not 24. #2 is flat out never correct in the given scenario, even if you craft the +3 armor first and then add expeditious.
The only situational thing is whether the creator can cast Expeditious Retreat, which was not the reasoning in the original scenario for the DC 24.
Now let's take a 5th level crafter who can afford to create this item. Now this is important. Since 5th level isn't meeting "creator must be caster level 9th", what is the Craft DC for the attempt?
1. DC 19 (5+9, +5 for missing "must be 9th");
2. DC 24 (5+9, +5 for missing "must be 9th" from +3 and +5 for missing "must be 9th" from "expeditious when applied to a +3 weapon");
3. Impossible ("must be 9th," as a special requisite, absolutely must be met, and can't be +5'd.)
willuwontu, you are speaking of 2., not #2!
#2. Expeditious has a situational requirement of "creator must be caster level 9th."
I didn't speak of 2., I spoke of #2, the simple fact that you need to respect the CL9 when you are adding expeditious. The item has a single CL, you don't lack it several times.
What I am reiterating is that even if you add more enchantment to a magic item after it has been done, you still need to use the highest CL, even if the new power has a lower CL.
Sorry about that. To be clear, Diego, I'm pretty sure we've been agreeing in our conclusions, but differing a bit in how the approach is interpreted.
What I'm saying is that "+3" and "expeditious" are separate events. When they're brought together into a "+3 expeditious armour", you set the CL by comparing the two.
- The CL of +3 is CL 9th, minimum CL 9th.
- The CL of expeditious is CL 5th, minimum CL 1st.
Since 9th is higher, the item is CL 9th.
If we had +1 expeditious, expeditious could be lowered. It's not impossible to lower it below CL 3rd, just meaningless because the CL 3rd from "+1" would then prevail.
-----
What my "#2" was referring to is something I do not agree with - the idea that a quality situationally acquires additional requisites. Let's go to a different example.
Suppose we find a suit of +3 armour in a hoard, and our 7th level mage wants to add expeditious to it. We know (see above) that the CL will be 9th. What is the DC and why?
a) 14. Expeditious does not actually have the CL requisite, so we simply apply 5+CL.
b) 19. Even though the +3 armour already exists, it still imposes its "creator must be CL 9th" onto any qualities being added.
c) 19. We don't care that the +3 armour already exists; we need to calculate the DC as though we were creating a brand-new suit of +3 expeditious.
|
|
I disagree with "The CL of expeditious is CL 5th, minimum CL 1st. " as there is a specific rule that say the opposite.
Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.
That is one special prerequisite. So you must have the printed CL of the special ability and you can't lower that CL. It makes no difference for the cost of the item as the ability price isn't set by the CL, but it makes a difference when you want to add a high CL ability to armors and weapons with a low enhancement.
Note that the often-cited FAQ says:
Though the listed [c]Caster Level[/b] 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.
bolded parts included.
But for Armor and Weapons, the CL is part of the requirements.
(brevity snip)
But for Armor and Weapons, the CL is part of the requirements.
And I'm forced to disagree. The CL is never part of the requirements. I did, however, find something else to suggest that "lowering CL" is something 3.5 allowed that Pathfinder stopped allowing in most cases. It's within the jumble of mostly 3.5-imported item creation rules, and subtle changes made by PF.
First, let's look at the rule that is typically cited to allow lowering. From the overview on magic item creation:
While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. 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. Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal.
Now let's go over to the magic item descriptions, on caster level:
For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself.
3.5's version of this:
For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell and not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the creator. The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given.
So as we can see, the overview appears to have orphaned language.
As such, I'm now leaning toward the idea that caster levels should be treated as fixed levels, by a general rule for how they're determined. The "pearl of power" (etc) case is a specific ruling on items of that sort, due to there being 6-10 different items jammed into one description.
@OP: ON THAT BASIS, I'm going to conclude that expeditious can't be lowered. Thus, adding the effect to a +1 armour will be DC 10 and cause the new armour to become CL 5th.
The CL is never part of the requirements.
The phrase "the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met" in the rule quoted just above implies otherwise.
The CL is never part of the requirements.The phrase "the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met" in the rule quoted just above implies otherwise.
It's holdover language from 3.0 which was never updated along with the rest of the rules. History under spoiler.
For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of the item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell and not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator’s caster level must be as high as the item’s caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator’s level).
In 3.5, it became this:
For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell and not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the creator. The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given.
And, of course, in PF, it became:
For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself.
In PF Second Edition, for reference, they actually went back to the 3.0 rule of item level as a hard requirement, and extended it even to mundane items:
Each item has an item level, which represents the item’s complexity and any magic used in its construction. Simpler items with a lower level are easier to construct, and you can’t Craft items that have a higher level than your own (page 243). If an item’s level isn’t listed, its level is 0. While characters can use items of any level, GMs should keep in mind that allowing characters access to items far above their current level may have a negative impact on the game.
And for curiosity, 3.0, 3.5, and PF1 all have the same text for armour / weapon caster level, including that line about the "higher caster level requirement must be met" repeated in both the CL description and the item creation.
In short:
- 3.0: Caster level is a hard requirement.
- 3.5: Caster level is a suggestion, lower-bounded by actual requirements (which are hard.)
- PF1: Caster level is fixed, but not a requirement (unless you look at 3.0-era language funny enough.) Even if we somehow grant that it is one, it's soft.
- PF2: It's called item level now, and it's a hard requirement.
|
|
It's holdover language from 3.0 which was never updated along with the rest of the rules.
It boils down to you saying: "I don't like a specific rule, so I invent an excuse to say that it is holdover text."
As long as the text is there, it is a rule.
Note that it is reiterated several times: for armors at pag. 462 and pag. 550 and for weapons at pag. 468 and pag. 551.
It's holdover language from 3.0 which was never updated along with the rest of the rules.It boils down to you saying: "I don't like a specific rule, so I invent an excuse to say that it is holdover text."
As long as the text is there, it is a rule.
Note that it is reiterated several times: for armors at pag. 462 and pag. 550 and for weapons at pag. 468 and pag. 551.
I'm absolutely fine with the rule applying to the three clear cases - dispelling, dispelling burst, and spell storing - where the ability actually has a CLR.
When it comes to enhancement bonuses and abilities that don't have CLR, I have changed my position on this. The mistake I was making was that I was seeing the special requisite as only applying to the enhancement bonus.
(Funny enough, that last line about how the higher CLR must be met is WHY I was making that mistake; if all abilities are CLR 3rd when applied to +1 armour, then when is there ever a higher CLR? I hadn't found the three clear cases yet, but I think you can see the problem.)
When it comes to lowering CLs, I have changed my position. My basis for this is the general rule "the caster level is determined by the item itself," in contrast to 3.5. Scrolls, potions, wands, and (by FAQ) pearl-like items are specific exceptions to that.
----
What we are still disagreeing on is a new position you've taken, which is an attempt to impose caster level as a caster level requisite, which is never the case in Pathfinder.
Nothing in the text of the special requisite implies that the ability's CL is any sort of requisite. In fact, because it's a process in "creating magic armour," it uses the caster level requirement of the enhancement bonus unless its own requirement is higher.
As a counterpoint to trying to use caster level as a caster level requisite, let's look at the other context of "the higher requirement must be met":
Caster Level for Armor and Shields: The caster level of a magic shield or magic armor with a special ability is given in the item description. For an item with only an enhancement bonus, the caster level is three times the enhancement bonus. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.
+1 expeditious armour is CL 5th, "creator must be caster level 3rd."
+5 expeditious armour is CL 5th, "creator must be caster level 15th."The CL 5th has nothing to do with requisites, but simple definition.
|
|
What we are still disagreeing on is a new position you've taken, which is an attempt to impose caster level as a caster level requisite, which is never the case in Pathfinder.
The text that you use of the basis for your assertion?
Have you read the FAQ text?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.
What does it say? It says that you can make an item with a CL lower than your own. Full stop.
Pearl of Power: What is the caster level required to create this item?
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.
That amplifies the scope of the CRB text, so that if the CL is not a listed requirement you can make an item with a CL lower than the printed sources.
Armor and Weapons: the 3 points of CL for each +1 and meeting the CL printed for the special abilities is a requisite, as the Crafting Armor and Crafting Weapon explicitly say:
Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.
You are arguing that prerequisites aren't requisites?
|
|
What we are still disagreeing on is a new position you've taken, which is an attempt to impose caster level as a caster level requisite, which is never the case in Pathfinder.
Just to make a different example of a magic item where the CL is a requirement:
Requirements Craft Construct, animate dead, bull’s strength, geas/quest, limited wish, creator must be caster level 8th;
What we are still disagreeing on is a new position you've taken, which is an attempt to impose caster level as a caster level requisite, which is never the case in Pathfinder.Just to make a different example of a magic item where the CL is a requirement:
Requirements Craft Construct, animate dead, bull’s strength, geas/quest, limited wish, creator must be caster level 8th;
- Wood golems are CL 7th and "creator must be caster level 12th."
- Amulet of Natural Armor +1 is CL 5th and "creator's caster level must be at least three times the amulet's bonus" (in this case, 3rd.)CL isn't a requirement. The requirement and the CL are often the same value, but there's no rule that links them in a causative manner - unless you're suggesting that coincidence implies causation.
I'd agree with you completely if they'd rewritten the special requisite and caster level descriptions to read something like this:
The caster level of a weapon is determined by its enhancement bonus and any special abilities present. For the enhancement bonus, the caster level is three times the bonus; for a special ability, the caster level can be found as CL in the ability's stat block. If a weapon's enhancement bonus and special abilities have different caster levels, the highest among these determines the weapon's caster level.
Creating magic weapons has a special prerequisite: the creator's caster level must be at least equal to the weapon's caster level. If the weapon's special abilities have even higher caster level requirements, the highest among them determines the caster level that must be met.
I'd prefer it if it did read that way, actually.
@Meirill: I agree that it should be the highest CL among the effects. The language involved, however, is... sloppy 3.0 slop, which was the illustration.
|
|
"A caster level requisite, which is never the case in Pathfinder."
And then when I show you that there are items where it is in the requirements you swerve and avoid responding?
It is or isn't in the golems requirement lines?
Other examples:
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, greater magic fang, creator’s caster level must be at least three times the amulet’s bonus, plus any requirements of the melee weapon special abilities;
oops, a CL requirement right in the middle of the requirements.
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, greater magic fang, creator’s caster level must be at least three times the amulet’s bonus, plus any requirements of the melee weapon special abilities;
Another. And we are only to the A letter of the Wondrous items.
Debunked your argument that a caster level is never a requisite, how do you argue that the prerequisite stated in the Armors and Weapons isn't a requisite?
Or you are arguing that the CL in the description line isn't a requirement? With that I can agree, the problem is that there are items with a CL requirement and your statement affirm that they don't exist?
|
|
That amplifies the scope of the CRB text, so that if the CL is not a listed requirement you can make an item with a CL lower than the printed sources.
Armor and Weapons: the 3 points of CL for each +1 and meeting the CL printed for the special abilities is a requisite
If I'm understanding what you guys are arguing about, that's wrong.
The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.You have to meet the higher of the two caster level requirements, not meet the caster level of the expeditious ability.
If we look at expeditious, we see:
Requirements Craft Magic Arms and Armor, expeditious retreat; Price +2,000 gpExpeditious has no CL requirement, therefore it has no effect on the required CL for the armor.
A +1 expeditious armor would have a CL of 5 but the CL requirement to craft it would only be 3 (highest of 3 and 0).
No, you are misunderstanding me.
Read carefully the first two phrases you cited. They say exactly what you say.
1) If the CL isn't listed in the requirements you can set it as low as possible, as long as it is high enough to cast the required spells;
2) If it is listed in the requirements (or as a prerequisite) you must match it or add +5 to the DC for missing it.
For armors and weapons it is a prerequisite, so you need to match it.
|
|
I'm now thoroughly confused.
Do we all agree that a normal +1 expeditious armor has a CL of 5 and a CL requirement of 3 for crafting it or not?
No, it has a CL requirement of 5 for crafting. "the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met".
Once one of the effects on the armor sets the highest requirement it is applied to all the effects.
Or you are arguing that the CL in the description line isn't a requirement? With that I can agree, the problem is that there are items with a CL requirement and your statement affirm that they don't exist?
The statement I made was this, verbatim. "You're trying to impose caster level as a caster level requirement, which is never the case in Pathfinder."
Breaking this down for as much insight I can give into my meaning.
1. "Impose caster level" = here, caster level refers to CL.
2. "As a caster level requirement." I've never denied that caster level requirements exist; in fact, I've made a number of references to three cases where weapon special abilities have them: dispelling (10th), dispelling burst (12th), and spell storing (12th.)
What I'm denying, rather, is that CL is ever the source of these requirements. In many cases, the two values match. It happens for most golems and their golem manuals. It happens for +n weapons and armours with no abilities. But we can't generalize this to say that CL is causing the requirement, as there are many cases (both higher and lower) where they don't match.
The amulet of natural armor, one of the items I cited (and its spell requisite is barkskin, not greater magic fang), is an example of both.
A +1 amulet is CL 5th and has a caster level requirement of 3rd.
A +5 amulet is still CL 5th, but has a caster level requirement of 15th.
3. "Never the case in Pathfinder" - that is, in this game (Pathfinder First Edition) in contrast to related systems:
- In 3.0, CL was explicitly a caster level requirement.
- In 3.5, CL was merely a suggestion, but lower-bounded by prerequisites.
- In Pathfinder Second Edition, item level is explicitly a caster level requirement.
-----
So with that in mind, let's have a fresh look at our +1 expeditious armour.
The special requisite reads, verbatim:
Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.
The way I am reading this, by RAW, leads to this.
1a. Apply first sentence. Creator must be caster level (3x1) = 3rd.
2a. Apply second sentence. Expeditious doesn't have a caster level requirement, and 3 > 0...
3a. Conclusion: Creator must be caster level 3rd.
Diego, I'm aware that you're saying 5th based on expeditious being CL 5th; but this is exactly what I'm arguing against (see above). I hope the following can illustrate enough of a counterpoint.
Let's upgrade this to +1 expeditious spell-storing.
1b. Apply first sentence. Creator must be caster level 3rd.
2b. Apply second sentence. Expeditious doesn't have one, but spell storing does: "creator must be a caster of caster level 12th." Since 12 > 3 > 0...
3c. Conclusion: Creator must be caster level 12th.
I hope that makes more sense.
|
|
I'm now thoroughly confused.
Do we all agree that a normal +1 expeditious armor has a CL of 5 and a CL requirement of 3 for crafting it or not?
No, it has a CL requirement of 5 for crafting. "the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met".
Once one of the effects on the armor sets the highest requirement it is applied to all the effects.
Ah, then for that I disagree and will quote myself from earlier.
The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.You have to meet the higher of the two caster level requirements, not meet the caster level of the expeditious ability.
If we look at expeditious, we see:
Requirements Craft Magic Arms and Armor, expeditious retreat; Price +2,000 gpExpeditious has no CL requirement, therefore it has no effect on the required CL for the armor.
A +1 expeditious armor would have a CL of 5 but the CL requirement to craft it would only be 3 (highest of 3 and 0).
CASTER LEVEL FOR ARMOR AND SHIELDS: The caster level of a magic shield or magic armor with a special ability is given in the item description. For an item with only an enhancement bonus, the caster level is three times the enhancement bonus. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster
level requirements must be met.
I agree that the formatting of the Expeditious ability and all the armor and weapon ability in UE doesn't put the CL in the requirements, but the piece cited above implies that the CL in the item description should be used.
YMMMV
|
|
2. "As a caster level requirement." I've never denied that caster level requirements exist; in fact, I've made a number of references to three cases where weapon special abilities have them: dispelling (10th), dispelling burst (12th), and spell storing (12th.)
And I'm forced to disagree. The CL is never part of the requirements.
Your words. If you don't mean to make a general statement, avoid making it.
The formatting of the weapon and armor abilities in the CRB is like this:
Moderate evocation [chaotic]; CL 7th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, chaos hammer, creator must be chaotic; Price +2 bonus.
For Spell storing is:
Strong evocation (plus aura of stored spell); CL 12th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, creator must be a caster of at least 12th level; Price +1 bonus.
If I get it correctly, you are arguing that it is a Requisite only when it is written after the crafting feat required for the item, as that is how it appears in the other enchanted items.
It is reasonable, even if I disagree. Simply you have never stated it, you have simply denied the existence of CL requirements.We have a difference in how the rules should be read, but your reading is surely possible.
Simply you making a general statement made your position incomprehensible.