Custom Magic Item help. [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

TypoNinja

2012-11-29, 04:31 AM

(Yeesh, servers were being buggy as all hell, took me forever to get here).

To answer your question, I believe you have the item priced properly. Though I leery on the "continuous effect" since it technically targets a weapon. So you have to be wearing a ring, which bestows your weapon with this effect constantly?

Or perhaps you have to spend a swift action each round, renewing the effect? I dunno for certain.

Regardless of that, the pricing is right. 10 times per day would be cheaper, and chances are, you won't need more than that. But I couldn't argue with something that's infinite really...

Targets 'you' or to be more precise Personal. Its good for either weapon attacks or natural attacks as the target is the wielder rather than the actual weapons.

Point is I'm trying to get the ability to cast wraithstrike into a melee build. The masterwork potion belt is almost it, lets you draw a potion as a free action, but doesn't say it prevents the AoO.

Is there a better way to bestow the ability to cast a single spell multiple times per day to a non-spellcaster that relies on WBL only? Some other use of the crafting rules?

I seem to remember the ability to store potions in your blood and use them as a free action coming from somewhere, but I can't remember if it was a spell or a class ability.

If you spend your standard action to activate the item, then you don't really get much benefit from the 1-round duration unless you're making a lot of AoOs. Spell trigger and spell completion items take the same action to activate as casting the spell, but other items default to taking a standard action.

Some of them also default to no action, unfortunately its really really vague about how you should determine that. Since this item is useless without keeping it a swift action logic indicates it should be your swift to activate it, or it may be activated as part of an attack.

You can't make a magic ring nor a wondrous item at a caster level of 3rd: The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#casterLevel)
Craft Wondrous Item requires a caster level of 5th, so that's the minimum for any item created using that feat. Forge Ring requires a caster level of 12th, so that's the absolute minimum caster level at which you can create a custom ring.

This is patently false.

01-10 — — Cure light wounds (potion) 50 gp
11-13 — — Endure elements (potion) 50 gp
14-15 — — Hide from animals (potion) 50 gp
16-17 — — Hide from undead (potion) 50 gp
18-19 — — Jump (potion) 50 gp
20-22 — — Mage armor (potion) 50 gp
23-25 — — Magic fang (potion) 50 gp
26 — — Magic stone (oil) 50 gp
27-29 — — Magic weapon (oil) 50 gp
30 — — Pass without trace (potion) 50 gp
31-32 — — Protection from (alignment) (potion) 50 gp
33-34 — — Remove fear (potion) 50 gp
35 — — Sanctuary (potion) 50 gp
36-38 — — Shield of faith +2 (potion) 50 gp
39 — — Shillelagh (oil) 50 gp

Potions are 50 × level of spell × level of caster. All these are clearly 50 x 1 x 1. Not 50 x 1 x 3, since brew potion has a 3rd level caster prerequisite.

Clearly you only need to maintain the minimum of the requisite spells for any individual creation, and not the feat that granted the ability to craft.

nedz

2012-11-29, 05:54 AM

TypoNinja

2012-11-29, 06:31 AM

Always active item pricing can be a little broken. There is the classic example of a Ring of True Strike — stupidly cheap for a +20 to hit.

This is why you need to check with your DM about Custom items.

I think it works pretty well on anything but a first level spell.

Its that 1x1x2000x4 that keeps the price down. Even a second level spell jumps to 48k right outta the gate with 2x3x2000x4. You go from 8k to 48k for one more spell level. The jump to 3rd level spells is even worse, 3x5x2000x4 puts you into 120k.

It's certainly pricey enough to prevent everybody from running around with permanent buffs.

I think its the charges a day option that's a little off, it seems odd that 10x a day is still worth half of the "forever" option. I guess that's why you see a lot of charged items at 1-3 a day, if you take it down to 3 charges a day you get a 40% discount. 60% at 2 and 80% at 1 charge.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-29, 08:11 AM

@ biffoniacus furiou:

Craft wondrous item's prerequisite is caster level 3rd, not 5th.

Also, why would the requirement for the feat be part of the requirements for the item?

Having a feat whose CL requirement is higher than the item's requirement doesn't change the requirement of the item, it only means that anyone capable of crafting the item in question is equally capable of crafting it at higher than minimum CL.

For a number of spells, mostly those whose durations are 1min/level or greater, the lower duration would be trivial next to the lower cost of making at a lower caster level than you're capable of, especially in the case of multiple use items.

mishka_shaw

2012-11-29, 11:20 AM

Craft Wondrous Item requires a caster level of 5th, so that's the minimum for any item created using that feat. Forge Ring requires a caster level of 12th, so that's the absolute minimum caster level at which you can create a custom ring.

A ring of Animal friendship is CL 3.
A ring of feather fall is CL 1 I believe.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2012-11-29, 10:06 PM

Correct in that Craft Wondrous Item has a prerquisite caster level of 3rd, rather than 5th, I was going by memory.

However, the post-errata DMG wording as it appears in the SRD still stands. Treasure discovered during adventures has the printed caster level, but items crafted during play follow these caster level rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#casterLevel). Note that potions, scrolls, and wands have separate rules:

"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."

Any item created during play has a minimum caster level of all of that item's prerequisites, including those given for the item creation feat used to craft them. For published items, this will not affect their price, as this is a built-in benefit of item creation, but for custom items designed to be underpriced, this serves as a balancing factor.

TypoNinja

2012-11-29, 10:13 PM

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2012-11-29, 10:20 PM

I feel like you missed the obvious implications of a 50GP potion existing.

The "prerequisites given" phrase is obviously only referring to the spells needed in creation, not the feat that granted the ability to craft. The existence of every potion on the table I just copied off the SRD is proof of that. You can find similar tables and proof for every other category of crafted item as well.

"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."

That's for potions, scrolls, and wands, only the minimum caster level for the spell(s) contained is taken into account for the minimum caster level of the item.

"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."

That's for all other types of items that are not potions, scrolls, or wands. An item's prerequisites (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#prerequisites) clearly do include the item creation feats used in crafting them, thus the caster level prerequisites for those is taken into account when determining the minimum caster level of an item.

Edit: "Drinking a potion or using an oil on an item of gear is a standard action. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/potionsAndOils.htm)" There are no built-in exceptions for that, even if the spell's default casting time is a swift action. Just get a Wand of Wraithstrike and put it in a wand chamber of your weapon, that's only 90 gp/use instead of 300, there's no time spent drawing it, and per Rules Compendium the activation time is the same as the spell it contains.

TypoNinja

2012-11-29, 11:37 PM

"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."

That's for potions, scrolls, and wands, only the minimum caster level for the spell(s) contained is taken into account for the minimum caster level of the item.

"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."

That's for all other types of items that are not potions, scrolls, or wands. An item's prerequisites (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#prerequisites) clearly do include the item creation feats used in crafting them, thus the caster level prerequisites for those is taken into account when determining the minimum caster level of an item.

Edit: "Drinking a potion or using an oil on an item of gear is a standard action. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/potionsAndOils.htm)" There are no built-in exceptions for that, even if the spell's default casting time is a swift action. Just get a Wand of Wraithstrike and put it in a wand chamber of your weapon, that's only 90 gp/use instead of 300, there's no time spent drawing it, and per Rules Compendium the activation time is the same as the spell it contains.

We seem to simply be repeating each other over the prerequisites, so I'll leave that aside now, and just shoot down your wand chamber idea.

I specifically mentioned it was for a melee build, this means no spell completion. If I had any arcane casting this really wouldn't be a problem since spell completion items are easier and cheaper.

My specific problem was giving a non-caster the ability to benefit from wraithstrike.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2012-11-30, 12:19 AM

A single level of Spellthief will permit you to use a Wand of Wraithstrike, and it's not extremely unfitting for a melee character. Otherwise just invest in UMD.

The Ruby Nightmare Blade strike delivers a melee attack as a touch attack, though you can't charge with it. A Warblade could use that every other round. There's also Deep Impact (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#deepImpact) + Psionic Meditation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#psionicMeditation) (+ Hustle (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/hustle.htm)). Don't forget about Don't use Brilliant Energy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#brilliantEnergy). How about a one-level dip into Pyrokineticist (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/prestigeClasses/pyrokineticist.htm) Sonokineticist (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040625e), since you can use any feats with the energy lash that can be applied to a standard whip such as power attack. Shock Trooper is another option. There are plenty of ways for a noncaster to hit things without trying to (ab)use Wraithstrike with the custom item crafting guidelines.

Rizban

2012-11-30, 05:56 AM

Wizards actually has a multi-article write up on magic items on their website. This is the section I quote most often when people come up with things that seem absurdly underpriced:

Use the Correct Formula: One item people frequently ask me about is a ring oftrue strike. The spell provides a whopping +20 insight bonus on attack rolls and negates miss chances arising from concealed targets. It's only 1st level, however, because it is a personal range spell with a duration of 1 round. That means you can normally manage one attack every 2 rounds when using the spell. Also, you can't bestow it on an ally (except for a familiar or animal companion) because of its personal range.

Assuming such a ring worked whenever it was needed and has a caster level of 1st, it would cost a mere 2,000 gp by the formula for a use-activated spell effect (in this case, 1 x 1 x 2,000 gp). Sharp-eyed readers will note that any continuously functioning item has a cost adjustment of x4 (see the footnotes to Table 7-33), which bumps up the ring's cost to 8,000 gp. That's a real bargain for an item that provides so much boost to a user's combat power. Much too great a bargain.

So, what would our example ring of true strike be worth? Insight bonuses aren't included on Table 7-33, but a weapon bonus has a cost equal to the bonus squared x 2,000 gp, so a +20 weapon would cost 800,000 gp. One can argue that the ring isn't quite as good as a +20 weapon because it doesn't provide a damage bonus. That, however, ignores the very potent ability to negate most miss chances. Also, the ring's insight bonus works with any sort of attack the wearer makes. On top of all that, the insight bonus stacks with any enhancement bonus from a magic weapon the wearer might wield. Still, 800,000 gp is a lot of cash and the lack of a damage bonus is significant, so some price reduction is in order. A 50% reduction might be in order, or 400,000 gp for the ring.

Would you pay 400,000 gp for a ring of true striking? I would if I could afford it. At a price of 400,000 gp, our mythical ring of true strike is something only an epic-level character could afford. That's fine, because epic play is where the ring belongs.
Link to article. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050118a)

Yes, I'm aware that true strike and wraithstrike are different spells, but they both serve a similar function of making your target significantly easier to hit.

nedz

2012-11-30, 06:23 AM

Interesting Article, but apart from ignoring damage multipliers (Power Attack anyone?) they make the classic mistake of confusing Cost and Price.
But then D&D has always done that.

Rizban

2012-11-30, 06:53 AM

Interesting Article, but apart from ignoring damage multipliers (Power Attack anyone?) they make the classic mistake of confusing Cost and Price.
But then D&D has always done that.

Where did that occur in the article? I have read that several times and don't see to what you're referring.

nedz

2012-11-30, 07:21 AM

Economics 101 : Price is a function of Supply and Demand.

Rizban

2012-11-30, 02:58 PM

D&D 101: "Price" is the assigned amount you have to pay to buy the item on the "market." Economics doesn't factor into it. It's called an operational definition.

Clistenes

2012-11-30, 05:55 PM

So I was looking at making a potion of wraithstike, then thought, what the hell, why not a ring, with say 10 charges per day.

I ran into a problem. I think I'm missing a step because it seems either criminally cheap, or disgustingly over priced.

Ok, so Potion. Single use, Use-Activated. SL x CL x 50gp. 300gp total. Not Bad.

As a Ring with say 10 charges. SL x CL x 2000gp. 12,000gp, but charges per day adds 'Divide by (5 dividied by charges)' so 5 / 10 = .5 or double so 24k Well that jumped fast.

But as a always on its only SL x SC x 2000 x 4 so 48k. That seems kind of cheap compared to our 10 charges a day version.

Did I miss something here?

Just a thing: An item that grants 5/day uses of a spell is as expensive as one that grants unlimited uses, so there is no point in increasing the cost of your ring past 12,000.

Also, I think your ring would be command-word, not continuous, and would cost SLxCLx1800 = 10,800 gp.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2012-11-30, 06:33 PM

Just a thing: An item that grants 5/day uses of a spell is as expensive as one that grants unlimited uses, so there is no point in increasing the cost of your ring past 12,000.

Also, I think your ring would be command-word, not continuous, and would cost SLxCLx1800 = 10,800 gp.

As I already pointed out, the minimum caster level for a custom or crafted-in-game magic ring is 12, which is the minimum required to take Forge Ring. That item has a minimum base price of 43,200 gp.

Rizban

2012-11-30, 07:03 PM

As I already pointed out, the minimum caster level for a custom or crafted-in-game magic ring is 12, which is the minimum required to take Forge Ring. That item has a minimum base price of 43,200 gp.Most wondrous items are crafted with the minimum caster level required to cast the spell involved. That's the default. It's up to the craftsman whether or not he wants to increase the caster level beyond the minimum. Caster level is based on the spells used not the level at which the craft feat can be taken.

Clistenes

2012-11-30, 07:15 PM

As I already pointed out, the minimum caster level for a custom or crafted-in-game magic ring is 12, which is the minimum required to take Forge Ring. That item has a minimum base price of 43,200 gp.

I know that the minimum caster level to take the Forge Ring Feat is 12, but the minimum caster level for a Ring of Animal Friendship is 3, the minimum caster level for a Ring of Chamaleon Power is 3, the minimum caster level for a Ring of Climbing is 5, the minimum caster level for a Ring of Blinking is 7...etc. All of those rings have caster level requirements well below 12.

The description of the feat Forge Rings don't say you can't forge items with a caster level below 12, and the text about the creation of magical rings in the page 286 of the DM Guide don´t say that either.

This text:

The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power. The caster level determines the item’s saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation. This information is given in the form "CL x," where "CL" is an abbreviation for caster level and "x" is an ordinal number representing the caster level itself.

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.

Means that you can make a magical item with a caster level that is as low as the one given as a prerrequisite, and no lower.

"The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given" = "The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the one given as prerequisite"

It would make no sense to give a Ring of Animal Friendship a prerrequisite of Caster Level 3 if you can't forge it until you have Caster Level 12.

Kalirren

2012-11-30, 07:26 PM

As I already pointed out, the minimum caster level for a custom or crafted-in-game magic ring is 12, which is the minimum required to take Forge Ring.

I think you're wrong here. As far as I can tell, the general rule for the minimum caster level for an item is here:

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 is the general rule given. I can find no specific rule under Magic Items:Rings that says caster levels cannot be below 12th, unlike, say for staves, where Magic Items:Staves specifically says that staff caster levels cannot be lower than 8th. (Note that even this requirement is distinct from the caster level requirement to take Craft Staff, which is caster level 12th.)

Urpriest

2012-11-30, 07:57 PM

Clistenes

2012-11-30, 08:19 PM

If you find it bizarre that continuous is only twice 10/day, consider this: in D&D 3.5, combat generally lasts 2-3 rounds, and you generally have 3-4 combats per day. At 6-12 rounds of combat per day, 10/day might as well be continuous.

That's for "activated on use or continuous items", but for "command word items", an item you can use unlimited times per day is as expensive as one that you can use only 5 times/day...so it's even crazier.

The "activated on use" or "continuous" properties really push up the price a lot.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2012-11-30, 08:43 PM

I know that the minimum caster level to take the Forge Ring Feat is 12, but the minimum caster level for a Ring of Animal Friendship is 3, the minimum caster level for a Ring of Chamaleon Power is 3, the minimum caster level for a Ring of Climbing is 5, the minimum caster level for a Ring of Blinking is 7...etc. All of those rings have caster level requirements well below 12.

The description of the feat Forge Rings don't say you can't forge items with a caster level below 12, and the text about the creation of magical rings in the page 286 of the DM Guide don´t say that either.

This text:

Means that you can make a magical item with a caster level that is as low as the one given as a prerrequisite, and no lower.

"The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given" = "The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the one given as prerequisite"

It would make no sense to give a Ring of Animal Friendship a prerrequisite of Caster Level 3 if you can't forge it until you have Caster Level 12.

Per magic item descriptions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#magicItemDescriptions), an item's default caster level (which you keep referencing in the Ring of Animal Friendship, etc.) and an item's prerequisites are two completely separate sections of the description. An items default caster level is not a prerequisite for crafting that item, and it has not been since the DMG errata.

The Speed weapon property has a default caster level of 7, which means any such weapon discovered as treasure will have a caster level of 7, but a Wizard 5 can craft a +1 Speed weapon and the item's caster level will be 5th. The minimum caster level is that which is required to meet that item's prerequisites, which in the case of any ring the minimum is 12th.

A magic ring discovered as treasure will always have the default caster level, which could be lower than 12th, but any ring ever crafted during play will always have a minimum caster level of 12th because that's what the rules state. When crafting an item with a nonvariable price, such as anything that's not a potion, wand, scroll, or staff, there's absolutely no reason to set the caster level below your own caster level, because the price is set in stone and will not increase with the item's caster level. Just because the rules are inconvenient for abuse of the custom item guidelines doesn't mean you can ignore or intentionally misinterpret them.

I'll say it again, and if you have any questions or disputes you can address the relevant section:

1. An item's default caster level is not a prerequisite for crafting that item. The different sections (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#magicItemDescriptions) are separated by semicolons; it goes Aura; Caster Level; Prerequisites; Market Price. Sometimes the creation cost and weight are described afterward.
For example, take the Amulet of Natural Armor:
Faint transmutation; CL 5th; Craft Wondrous Item, barkskin, creator’s caster level must be at least three times the amulet’s bonus; Price 2,000 gp (+1), 8,000 gp (+2), 18,000 gp (+3), 32,000 gp (+4), or 50,000 gp (+5).
An Amulet of Natural Armor discovered as treasure will always have a caster level of 5th, regardless of its bonus. To craft one during play however, you must have a caster level of at least three times the bonus.

2. The minimum caster level for any given item is clearly spelled out:
"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."
That means the minimum caster level to meet any of the prerequisites given is the minimum caster level for a given item that's not a potion, scroll, or wand. If an item requires Forge Ring, then you cannot craft one with a caster level below 12th, because that's what is required to meet one of its prerequisites.

3. For any item with a set, nonvariable base price, an increase or decrease in caster level does not modify its base price. There's a built-in mechanic for an item's caster level to vary, which is a benefit of item creation, but there is no such mechanic for variance in price, even if that item's effects would be stronger or weaker. A weapon with the Speed property could be crafted at a caster level of 5th, rather than the default of 7th, and it would be easier to disable that item with a Dispel Magic, but that item costs no less to create for that drawback. Similarly, a Hat of Anonymity (MIC) or the Masking armor property (MIC) would have a higher DC for its Nondetection effect on the wearer if crafted at a higher caster level, but it would not cost any more to create such an item. Don't expect to get a high level NPC to craft such an item for you and not charge a higher price for the stronger effect it grants, but that is one of the benefits of crafting such an item yourself.

4. The custom item creation pricing guidelines are not rules, they're guidelines. It does state that you should first look to the price of items with similar effects, rather than jumping to the lowest-cost formula on the estimation table, which is more a rule than the table itself. That means that any continuous effect or at-will item of Wraithstrike would be priced similarly to the Brilliant Energy weapon property before it would be priced based on spell level x caster level x price. Luckily we have an example of such an effect: the Gemstone of Fortification in the Draconomicon. Each of those is priced based on the price of +1 armor with that level fortification, minus the price of +1 armor. That means an item that has a similar effect to the Brilliant Energy weapon property would be priced as a +1 Brilliant Energy weapon, minus the price of a +1 weapon, or 48,000 gp. Per the rules, you go looking at the prices for items with similar effects before you dive into the estimation table.

Clistenes

2012-11-30, 09:22 PM

*sip*

That's all good, but according to your own calculations the Ring of Animal Friendship should cost 1x12x1800 = 21,600 gp, when it really costs 10,800 gp.
Ring of Blinking (Blink on command) 3x12x1800 = 64,800 (the ring is 27,000)
Ring of Detect Thoughs (Detect Thoughts on command) 2x12x1800 = 43,200 (the ring is 10,800).
Ring of Feather Falling (Feather Fall automatically) 1x12x2000 = 24,000 (the ring cost 2000)

Your method gives prices far too high. If you use the required spell`s minimum caster level, the prices are much closer:

27,000 gp for the Ring of Blinking (equal to market price)
10,800 gp for the Ring of Detect Thoughts (equal to market price)
2,000 gp for the Ring of Feather Falling (as market price)
1,800 gp lower that the 10,800 required for the Ring of Animal Friendship, but, if you consider Charm Animal a 2º level spell you get 10,800, like the market price (I guess they considered 1800 too cheap).

The CL requirement of the Forge Ring feat is ignored. The same goes for every one of the other rings.

Your method just doesn't fit any published magical item.

Urpriest

2012-11-30, 09:28 PM

Your method just doesn't fit any published magical item.

Read the post again. It fits every published item because those published items are stats for items found during the game, and are not the same as the cost to create the item during play.

Now there is a reason this falls flat: every one of these items has a cost to create listed. How does that factor in?

Clistenes

2012-11-30, 09:41 PM

Read the post again. It fits every published item because those published items are stats for items found during the game, and are not the same as the cost to create the item during play.

Yes, those are prices for items found during adventures. But his post also says you should take inspiration from items of similar power found in the DMG's list.

I think the items in the list's prices and the ones done following the calculations given by the DMG are intended to be similar.

Now there is a reason this falls flat: every one of these items has a cost to create listed. How does that factor in?

The cost to create the item is half the market (or base) price. When you calculate the price of the item, you obtain the market (or base) price. The cost to create is half of that.

The method I was applying gave the market price as a result. The cost of the magical ingredients to create the items would be half of that.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2012-11-30, 09:42 PM

Urpriest

2012-11-30, 09:43 PM

The cost to create the item is half the market price. When you calculate the price of the item, you obtain the market price. The cost to create is half of that.

The method I was applying gave the market price as a result. The cost of the magical ingredients to create the items would be half of that.

That part of the post was targeted at Biffoniacus_Furiou. My point was that if the example items and the items that one can create during play are entirely disjoint, then there should not be listed construction costs to the example items that match their cost when found during play.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2012-11-30, 09:47 PM

That part of the post was targeted at Biffoniacus_Furiou. My point was that if the example items and the items that one can create during play are entirely disjoint, then there should not be listed construction costs to the example items that match their cost when found during play.

Those costs were based on the pre-errata DMG wording, which did not permit any variance in an item's caster level but included the default caster level as a prerequisite. This is no longer the case, items no longer have caster level prerequisites unless it's specifically stated in the prerequisite section, and item caster levels can be as low as what's required to meet the prerequisites or as high as the creator's caster level. The item base prices still do not vary, even if created at a higher caster level, so the creation costs are still the same unless for a potion, scroll, staff, or wand, which do vary in price based on the item's caster level.

nedz

2012-11-30, 09:57 PM

Ring Descriptions
Animal Friendship

On command, this ring affects an animal as if the wearer had cast charm animal.

Faint enchantment; CL 3rd; Forge Ring, charm animal; Price 10,800 gp.

Caster Level

The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power. The caster level determines the item’s saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation. This information is given in the form "CL x," where "CL" is an abbreviation for caster level and "x" is an ordinal number representing the caster level itself.

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.

Note: the text in the SRD is from the DMG Errata, which was supposed to resolve the ambiguity in the previous version of the text. Clearly they failed in this ambition.

Clistenes

2012-11-30, 10:00 PM

The price of a Ring of Animal Friendship is already set in stone, regardless of the caster level it's created at. Same for a Ring of Blinking. You're doing exactly what I outlined in 4., you're jumping to the price estimation guidelines without even looking at the prices of existing items. A Ring of Blinking discovered as treasure will always have a caster level of 7th, but one crafted during play will have a caster level of at least 12th, per the rules; both of those items will have the exact same price, which is already given at 27,000 gp. Even if you craft a Ring of Blinking at caster level 20, with a 20-round duration on its effect instead of the default 7-round duration, it will still have a base price of 27,000 gp. Prices are not variable unless stated (such as for potions, scrolls, staffs, and wands), but caster levels are variable. That's what the rules clearly state.

The game designers picked spell effects which they believed should be affordable at a certain level, and created items of those spell effects at a price that they considered fair and balanced despite the rules for minimum caster levels. Those items are exceptions to the rule, and that's why it states to first look for items with similar effects rather than the estimation table, because the estimations are not always fair nor balanced. The rules clearly state that for any item not discovered as treasure, which would include any custom items ever created, the minimum caster level is that which is required to meet any prerequisites to craft such an item.

Look, it's clear we aren never going to stop, so I will say just one thing and I will leave the thread.

We are using the estimation tables in different ways.
You say we should take into account the CL 12 requirement of the Forge Ring feat.
I say we shouldn't, and that only the minimum caster level of the spell is relevant for items that cast spells.

We both say we should look the already existing similarly powerful item's prices to look for inspiration about the price of the items we are crafting.

Your method gives prices much higher than the ones that appear in the DMG. Mine gives prices that are very similar or equal to the ones that appear in the DMG.

According to your own (and the DMG's) advice, looking to that tables should make you suspect that your method is inadequate, since it gives prices that are nothing like the ones appearing there.

I calculate the price of an item, check the already existing items with exactly the same level of power, and see that they are all right.
You calculate the price of the item, check the already existing items with exactly the same level of power, and have to correct the price to make it similar to the similarly powerful item in the DMG.

Rizban

2012-11-30, 10:01 PM

1. An item's default caster level is not a prerequisite for crafting that item. The different sections (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#magicItemDescriptions) are separated by semicolons; it goes Aura; Caster Level; Prerequisites; Market Price. Sometimes the creation cost and weight are described afterward.
For example, take the Amulet of Natural Armor:
Faint transmutation; CL 5th; Craft Wondrous Item, barkskin, creator’s caster level must be at least three times the amulet’s bonus; Price 2,000 gp (+1), 8,000 gp (+2), 18,000 gp (+3), 32,000 gp (+4), or 50,000 gp (+5).
An Amulet of Natural Armor discovered as treasure will always have a caster level of 5th, regardless of its bonus. To craft one during play however, you must have a caster level of at least three times the bonus.Agreed. This is correct.

2. The minimum caster level for any given item is clearly spelled out:
"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."
That means the minimum caster level to meet any of the prerequisites given is the minimum caster level for a given item that's not a potion, scroll, or wand. If an item requires Forge Ring, then you cannot craft one with a caster level below 12th, because that's what is required to meet one of its prerequisites.See, this is where I disagreed earlier. Earlier, you said this:
As I already pointed out, the minimum caster level for a custom or crafted-in-game magic ring is 12, which is the minimum required to take Forge Ring. That item has a minimum base price of 43,200 gp.The minimum caster level to create a ring is 12. However, the minimum caster level of the ring is the minimum caster level of the highest spell in the ring. That's what I was pointing out.
As Kalirren also pointed out, the DMG and SRD make it clear:

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.I think the disagreement here is based on unclear explanation in the thread rather than an actual rules disagreement.

3. For any item with a set, nonvariable base price, an increase or decrease in caster level does not modify its base price. There's a built-in mechanic for an item's caster level to vary, which is a benefit of item creation, but there is no such mechanic for variance in price, even if that item's effects would be stronger or weaker. A weapon with the Speed property could be crafted at a caster level of 5th, rather than the default of 7th, and it would be easier to disable that item with a Dispel Magic, but that item costs no less to create for that drawback. Similarly, a Hat of Anonymity (MIC) or the Masking armor property (MIC) would have a higher DC for its Nondetection effect on the wearer if crafted at a higher caster level, but it would not cost any more to create such an item. Don't expect to get a high level NPC to craft such an item for you and not charge a higher price for the stronger effect it grants, but that is one of the benefits of crafting such an item yourself.I'm not entirely sure that how it works, but I'm AFB at the moment and can't give a better argument without looking up the references you've made.

4. The custom item creation pricing guidelines are not rules, they're guidelines. It does state that you should first look to the price of items with similar effects, rather than jumping to the lowest-cost formula on the estimation table, which is more a rule than the table itself. That means that any continuous effect or at-will item of Wraithstrike would be priced similarly to the Brilliant Energy weapon property before it would be priced based on spell level x caster level x price. Luckily we have an example of such an effect: the Gemstone of Fortification in the Draconomicon. Each of those is priced based on the price of +1 armor with that level fortification, minus the price of +1 armor. That means an item that has a similar effect to the Brilliant Energy weapon property would be priced as a +1 Brilliant Energy weapon, minus the price of a +1 weapon, or 48,000 gp. Per the rules, you go looking at the prices for items with similar effects before you dive into the estimation table.Agreed 100%. This is what I was pointing out earlier with the quote and link to the wizards.com article about exactly this.

nedz

2012-11-30, 11:21 PM

I find it hard to accept that there should be a different CL for items which are Found, Stolen or Bought rather than Crafted — after all someone must have crafted them. AFAIK there are not different rules for NPC crafting versus PC crafting. RAW does seem to be ambiguous, or at least unclear, in this case however. Maybe this belongs in the dysfunctional rules thread ?

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2012-11-30, 11:50 PM

Look, it's clear we aren never going to stop, so I will say just one thing and I will leave the thread.

We are using the estimation tables in different ways.
You say we should take into account the CL 12 requirement of the Forge Ring feat.
I say we shouldn't, and that only the minimum caster level of the spell is relevant for items that cast spells.

We both say we should look the already existing similarly powerful item's prices to look for inspiration about the price of the items we are crafting.

Your method gives prices much higher than the ones that appear in the DMG. Mine gives prices that are very similar or equal to the ones that appear in the DMG.

According to your own (and the DMG's) advice, looking to that tables should make you suspect that your method is inadequate, since it gives prices that are nothing like the ones appearing there.

I calculate the price of an item, check the already existing items with exactly the same level of power, and see that they are all right.
You calculate the price of the item, check the already existing items with exactly the same level of power, and have to correct the price to make it similar to the similarly powerful item in the DMG.

I'm saying that if you want to make a ring and price it based on Spell Level x Caster Level x GP Cost, you must take that CL 12 prerequisite for Forge Ring into consideration.

A Ring of Animal Friendship is based on a 1st level spell. If you wanted to make a Ring of Mage Armor and price it the same, it would cost consierably less than Bracers of Armor +4 and you would be able to keep the effect constantly active on the entire party. Different spells of the same level are not 'exactly the same level of power' as you put it, especially when putting those spell effects onto items. Thus Spell Level x Caster Level x GP Cost is not the formula you automatically use for every type of item based on a spell effect, especially if an item already exists with an effect almost identical to that spell.

Preexisting item prices are as fair and balanced as it gets, the price estimation table is only there for when there's absolutely no existing item whose effect even remotely resembles that of the item you want to create.

See, this is where I disagreed earlier. Earlier, you said this:The minimum caster level to create a ring is 12. However, the minimum caster level of the ring is the minimum caster level of the highest spell in the ring. That's what I was pointing out.
As Kalirren also pointed out, the DMG and SRD make it clear:

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.
I think the disagreement here is based on unclear explanation in the thread rather than an actual rules disagreement.

Per magic item descriptions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#magicItemDescriptions), an item's caster level cannot be lower than what's needed to meet that item's prerequisites. That includes the CL 12 prerequisite of Forge Ring.

The section you quoted was from before the DMG errata, when the only items with a variable caster level were those whose price was based on their caster level (potions, scrolls, staffs, wands). At the time it was printed all wondrous items, rings, rods, and arms/armor had their caster levels set in stone. The above quote actually doesn't even conflict with the current wording from magic item descriptions. It gives a limitation on how low an item's caster level can go, but it does not exclude any other limitations on an item's minimum caster level. It says you can set the caster level of an item below your own, "but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell." It says what you can't do, not that you can set it that low despite other limitations. If something said you can't set an item's caster level below 1st, then it doesn't mean any item can be created with a caster level of 1st because there are other limitations to consider in addition to that one. You're misinterpreting a limit as permission to go to that limit, but that's not at all what it says.

Clistenes

2012-12-01, 12:54 AM

OK, maybe the problem is about communication. Maybe we aren't speaking about the same thing.

Lets break this into parts:

First, lets speak about price.

We are speaking about spell effect items. Those duplicate or cast spells.

I'm saying that their base price is based on the level of the spell they cast and the caster level the item duplicates.

For example, a command word item has a price of Spell Level x Caster Level x 1800.

The Caster Level in that formula is not the minimum caster level required to create the item. It is the caster level of the fireball or whatever it shoots.

So, if you create a ring that casts unlimited magic missiles with caster level 1, it base price would be 1x1x1800, but if you make it cast them at caster level 10, it would cost 1x10x1800.

It works for most of the base prices given:

Spell level 3 x Caster level 5 x 1800 = 27,000 gp for the Ring of Blinking (equal to the base price).

Spell level 2 x Caster level 3 x 1800 = 10,800 gp for the Ring of Detect Thoughts (equal to base price)

Spell level 1 x Caster level 1 x 2000 (its 2000 because it's not a command word item, but "on use")= 2000 gp for the Ring of Feather Falling (as base price)

The Ring of Animal Friendship, that cast level 1 spells at caster level 3 cost double, but that's probably because it's too useful for the low price the estimation table gives for it.

Now lets speak about minimum caster level.

You can't give the item a caster level above that of your own.
You can't give the item a caster level below the minimum necessary to be able to memorize and cast the spell.
You need to have at least a feat to craft the item, and those require a minimum caster level each.

So, if you want to create a Ring of Animal Friendship with CL 3, like that in the DMG, you would need:

CL 1 to be able to cast the spell (unless you use a wand or scroll).
CL 3, because you can't create a magic item with a CL higher than you (unless you have Enchantement Focus, and then you could cast Charm Animal with caster level 3 even if your own caster level is 2).
CL 12 for the Forge Ring feat (unless a friend helps you to craft it).

BUT, the only one of the three that has any influence over the price would be the level with which the item casts the spell.

A command word glove that casts Fireball with caster level 20 is a Wondrous Item (requires caster level 3); the Fireball spell requires caster level 5, but, what matters is that it shoots Fireballs with caster level 20, and the formula would be 3x20x1800.

A ring that casts Fireball with caster level 20 would cost the same, 3x20x1800

A rod that casts Fireball with caster level 20 would cost the same, 3x20x1800

The relevant thing when calculating the price is the strength of the mojo coming out of it.

The CL of the formula SLxClx1800 is the "Caster level of the spell coming out of the item", not the "Caster level you need to have all the prerrequisites".

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2012-12-01, 01:56 AM

TypoNinja

2012-12-01, 02:52 AM

A Ring of Animal Friendship is priced at 10,800 gp. Its spell level is 1, x caster level 3, which x 1800 gp should be 5400 gp per the price estimation guidelines, but it's twice that much.

A Ring of Blinking is priced at 27,000 gp. Its spell level is 3, x caster level 7, which x 1800 gp should be 37,800 gp per the price estimation guidelines, but it's more like 3x5x1800.

Published items don't follow the estimation guidelines, they follow what the designers believed would be fair and balanced given the item's effect. Custom items should follow suit, being based on items with similar effects (not spell level, but effect) and priced accordingly.

The Ring of Animal Friendship would cost the same whether you craft it at caster level 1 or caster level 20, because the price is not variable. The Ring of Blinking would cost the same whether you craft it at caster level 5 or caster level 20, because the price is not variable.

You can find a Ring of Animal Friendship with a caster level of 3rd, but post-errata you can't make one at that caster level. "The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given." That means all the prerequisites, not just what's required for the spell. As I've already pointed out, there's absolutely no reason not to craft it at the highest caster level possible, since it doesn't make it cost any more than crafting it at the minimum caster level. If you have a caster level of 20, then you can craft all your items at caster level 20 for the same price as it would be to craft them at the considerably lower default caster level. The only exception to this would be items whose price is directly affected by the item's caster level (potions, scrolls, staffs, wands), all other items already have their prices set in stone. A higher caster level does not affect an item's price with the exception of potions, scrolls, staffs, and wands, and other non-core item types whose price is based directly on caster level rather than being a set number. Just the same, a lower caster level does not affect an item's price, otherwise every Speed weapon would be crafted at a caster level of 5th instead of 7th for 5/7 of the normal price.

The only time this becomes an obstacle rather than a benefit is when you try to abusively price custom items.

The idea that found items don't have to follow the same creation rules as PC crafted items is just silly.

Every magic item in the game was at some point crafted by somebody after all. Or are you suggesting every magic item shop ever sells large portions of its catalog at a loss? Or maybe there's an unpublished selection of NPC only feats that let them ignore your invented stumbling block to the rules?

You blindly quote the same text over and over again, which doesn't actually say one way or another about the portion under dispute. If you need to match the feat's caster level or not, but haven't given any good reasons why you think so, while we've got examples from every class of magic item on why it wouldn't be so.

But here's where it really falls down.

Animal Friendship

On command, this ring affects an animal as if the wearer had cast charm animal.

Faint enchantment; CL 3rd; Forge Ring, charm animal; Price 10,800 gp.

Specifies caster level of 3rd even though Forge Ring requires 12th.

There's more.

Blinking

On command, this ring makes the wearer blink, as with the blink spell.

Moderate transmutation; CL 7th; Forge Ring, blink; Price 27,000 gp.

Chameleon Power

As a free action, the wearer of this ring can gain the ability to magically blend in with the surroundings. This provides a +10 competence bonus on her Hide checks. As a standard action, she can also command the ring to utilize the spell disguise self as often as she wants.

Faint illusion; CL 3rd; Forge Ring, disguise self, invisibility; Price 12,700 gp.

Climbing

This ring is actually a magic leather cord that ties around a finger. It continually grants the wearer a +5 competence bonus on Climb checks.

Faint transmutatation; CL 5th; Forge Ring, creator must have 5 ranks in the Climb skill; Price 2,500 gp.

Climbing, Improved

As climbing, except it grants a +10 competence bonus on its wearer’s Climb checks.

Faint transmutation; CL 5th; Forge Ring, creator must have 10 ranks in the Climb skill; Price 10,000 gp.

Counterspells

This ring might seem to be a ring of spell storing upon first examination. However, while it allows a single spell of 1st through 6th level to be cast into it, that spell cannot be cast out of the ring again. Instead, should that spell ever be cast upon the wearer, the spell is immediately countered, as a counterspell action, requiring no action (or even knowledge) on the wearer’s part. Once so used, the spell cast within the ring is gone. A new spell (or the same one as before) may be placed in it again.

Moderate evocation; CL 11th; Forge Ring, imbue with spell ability; Price 4,000 gp.

Lots of specified caster levels lower than the feat. These aren't accidents, its a pattern. And if you needed to meet the minimum for the feat it would either all say 12th or wouldn't say anything at all.

Under your interpretation of the rules we now have contradicting information on how to create an item. Do I need caster level 5th like the item says to make a ring of Climb, or do I need a caster level of 12th like the feat says.

Obviously the answer is whatever information the item specifies, because your alternative would have the information specified in every item under the prerequisites for the feat be wrong. I know wizards makes mistakes, but I cant see them messing up this consistently across a significant portion of every magic item ever.

There is another angle to consider. 12th caster level is a pre-requisite to learn Forge Ring. Here the Feat text for clarity.

Forge Ring [Item Creation]
Prerequisite

Caster level 12th.
Benefit

You can create any ring whose prerequisites you meet. Crafting a ring takes one day for each 1,000 gp in its base price. To craft a ring, you must spend 1/25 of its base price in XP and use up raw materials costing one-half of its base price.

You can also mend a broken ring if it is one that you could make. Doing so costs half the XP, half the raw materials, and half the time it would take to forge that ring in the first place.

Some magic rings incur extra costs in material components or XP, as noted in their descriptions. You must pay such a cost to forge such a ring or to mend a broken one.

Prerequisite to learn the feat, but after that, no mention is made of 'all rings must be at least 12th caster level' after that. In fact it specifically tells you you can craft "Any ring whose prerequisites you meet". Some of those listed prerequisites give a caster level under 12th.

You are incorrectly assuming a link between the prerequisites for an item creation feat and the act of actually creating an item when none is specified in the text.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2012-12-01, 03:05 AM

Prerequisite to learn the feat, but after that, no mention is made of 'all rings must be at least 12th caster level' after that. In fact it specifically tells you you can craft "Any ring whose prerequisites you meet". Some of those listed prerequisites give a caster level under 12th.

You are incorrectly assuming a link between the prerequisites for an item creation feat and the act of actually creating an item when none is specified in the text.

"The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given."
The caster level which is needed to meet the Forge Ring prerequisite of a given ring is 12th. That's the minimum caster level for creating a ring.

Assuming a 12th level character wants to create a magic ring, why would he ever bother setting its caster level below 12th? It's not going to cost any more than normal to put its caster level at 12th instead of whatever the default level would be. It's not going to get him any discounts on crafting costs to set it at a lower caster level than 12th. By crafting an item at a higher caster level the effects of spells it produces are stronger, the item is more difficult to dispel, it gets better saving throws, etc. There's nothing but benefits to crafting an item at a higher caster level.

Before the errata items' caster levels were set in stone, and they were an additional (unnecessary) prerequisite to crafting a given item. That all changed with the DMG errata, items can now have higher caster levels, and they added a new minimum caster level to items created by PCs which game designers and DMs are exempt from. That minimum caster level is probably because so many people tried abusing the pricing guidelines for items that produce spells, and I welcome the change as it gives DMs a reason to tell an aggressive player no when they try to put an unfairly low price on a custom item.

Rizban

2012-12-01, 04:50 AM

Dude. It's "never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell."
It is NOT "never lower than needed to choose the feat needed to create the item."

The caster level necessary to pick up the feat has NO bearing on the caster level of the item. Hell, your caster level has NO bearing on crafting the item AT ALL.

The caster level is ONLY considered when you cast the spells as part of the crafting.

Forge Ring and other crafting feats don't affect casting a spell in any way, shape, or form.

By the way, the DMG, NOT the errata, the DMG says "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." Word for word. It's on page 282. Nowhere in the official DM errata does it mention magic items or item creation. Saying something was pre-errata if the errata doesn't change it is silly. None of the rules updates ever change this. As it was never changed in any of the primary sources (or any of the secondary sources I know about), then this rule still stands.

Edit: It never once mentions feats or the caster levels needed to choose those feats. Nowhere in the DMG, the errata, the Magic Item Compendium, nor in the Rules Compendium does it ever even suggest what you're insisting other than a deliberately obtuse reading of the prerequisites section.

Edit 2: Also from the Rules Compendium:
Caster Level
Each item’s description indicates a caster level. This caster level is used to determine the parameters of a spell that the item duplicates, such as range, duration, and so on. It’s also used to determine DCs for spells such as dispel magic.
If an item doesn’t mention a caster level, assume the caster level is equal to the minimum caster level required for the highest-level spell given as a prerequisite for the item. For an item that has only an enhancement bonus and no other properties, the caster level is three times the enhancement bonus.The caster level is ALWAYS based on the spells, never once in any of the books does it even mention item creation feats in relation to caster level.

only1doug

2012-12-01, 05:11 AM

Dude. It's "never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell."
It is NOT "never lower than needed to choose the feat to create the item."

The caster level necessary to pick up the feat has NO bearing on the caster level of the item. Hell, your caster level has NO bearing on crafting the item AT ALL.

The caster level is ONLY considered when you cast the spells as part of the crafting.

Forge Ring and other crafting feats don't affect casting a spell in any way, shape, or form.

Edit: It never once mentions feats or the caster levels needed to choose those feats. Nowhere in the DMG, the errata, the Magic Item Compendium, nor in the Rules Compendium does it ever even suggest what you're insisting other than a deliberately obtuse reading of the prerequisites section.

Edit 2: Also from the Rules Compendium:The caster level is ALWAYS based on the spells, never once in any of the books does it even mention item creation feats in relation to caster level.

While you might be correct by RAI (i don't think you are, but you might be) you are incorrect by RAW Biffoniacus has quoted the RAW and you are either disregarding it or misinterpreting it.

Caster level
The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given.

Prerequisites
Certain requirements must be met in order for a character to create a magic item. These include feats, spells, and miscellaneous requirements such as level, alignment, and race or kind.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2012-12-01, 05:40 AM

Dude. It's "never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell."
It is NOT "never lower than needed to choose the feat needed to create the item."

The caster level necessary to pick up the feat has NO bearing on the caster level of the item. Hell, your caster level has NO bearing on crafting the item AT ALL.

The caster level is ONLY considered when you cast the spells as part of the crafting.

Forge Ring and other crafting feats don't affect casting a spell in any way, shape, or form.

By the way, the DMG, NOT the errata, the DMG says "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." Word for word. It's on page 282. Nowhere in the official DM errata does it mention magic items or item creation. Saying something was pre-errata if the errata doesn't change it is silly. None of the rules updates ever change this. As it was never changed in any of the primary sources (or any of the secondary sources I know about), then this rule still stands.

Edit: It never once mentions feats or the caster levels needed to choose those feats. Nowhere in the DMG, the errata, the Magic Item Compendium, nor in the Rules Compendium does it ever even suggest what you're insisting other than a deliberately obtuse reading of the prerequisites section.

Edit 2: Also from the Rules Compendium:The caster level is ALWAYS based on the spells, never once in any of the books does it even mention item creation feats in relation to caster level.

"Can't go below that" and "Can go that low" are two completely different things. It does not say you can go that low, it just says you can't go below that. There's another paragraph that gives a separate limit, and you must stay above both the one you've been quoting and the one I've been quoting. "Can't go below 5" plus "Can't go below 12" doesn't equal "Can go as low as 5" ever.

Rizban

2012-12-01, 06:05 AM

To clarify my position further. You have to have Forge Ring to craft a ring. You have to have CL 12 to take Forge Ring. This is not in dispute.

Therefore, you have to have CL 12 to forge a ring. This is also apparently not in dispute.

The ring does not have to have CL 12. It only has to have a CL high enough to cast the highest level spell used in the ring's creation, which may indeed be lower than 12.

The crafter has to have CL 12. The ring does not.

1
While you might be correct by RAI (i don't think you are, but you might be) you are incorrect by RAW Biffoniacus has quoted the RAW and you are either disregarding it or misinterpreting it.We're both quoting RAW. Saying my point is invalid because he is quoting RAW is a logical fallacy, as it would also invalidate his point by the same token. I would say that he is the one "either disregarding it or misinterpreting it", especially since we're both referencing the same part of the RAW.

1
Before the errata items' caster levels were set in stone, and they were an additional (unnecessary) prerequisite to crafting a given item. That all changed with the DMG errata, items can now have higher caster levels, and they added a new minimum caster level to items created by PCs which game designers and DMs are exempt from. That minimum caster level is probably because so many people tried abusing the pricing guidelines for items that produce spells, and I welcome the change as it gives DMs a reason to tell an aggressive player no when they try to put an unfairly low price on a custom item.Just clear this part up for me. What errata are you talking about? I've looked at all the official errata, going so far as to download it again, and looked in both the MIC and RC. I still don't know what you're talking about in that.

1Secondly, you say that variable caster level items (with the exception of potion, scroll, staff or wand) didn't exist "pre-errata," but the chart in the DMG has formulae on it for just such items, namely the "command word" and "use-activated or continuous" entries, examples given for both are wondrous items. If, as you said in an earlier post, higher or lower caster level has no effect on the cost of the item, then why is it included in the cost formula? If they didn't exist, then why is there a formula for them?

1One final note and example for my viewpoint on crafting rings is this excerpt from an article written by Skip Williams, one of the three men who wrote the DMG.

Ring of Feather Falling: The ring provides a feather fall spell effect whenever needed. The closest entry on Table 7-33 is a use-activated spell effect, which has a base price equal to the spell level x the caster level x 2,000 gp. Feather fall is a 1st-level spell and the ring has a caster level of 1st; according to the formula, the ring should have a base cost of 1 x 1 x 2,000 gp. According to the ring's description, however, the price is 2,200 gp. Evidently the designer felt that having feather fall instantly available whenever you call is worth a little more than the formula indicates. The cost to create this ring is half the base price (1,100 gp). The experience cost is 1/25th base price (88 XP).In his own example, he says that it should be "spell level x the caster level x 2,000" and that "Feather fall is a 1st-level spell and the ring has a caster level of 1st" and that "the ring should have a base cost of 1 x 1 x 2,000."

I'm not sure how much more clear it can get than that.
[Article link (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050104a)]

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2012-12-01, 06:52 AM

Just clear this part up for me. What errata are you talking about? I've looked at all the official errata, going so far as to download it again, and looked in both the MIC and RC. I still don't know what you're talking about in that.

1Secondly, you say that variable caster level items (with the exception of potion, scroll, staff or wand) didn't exist "pre-errata," but the chart in the DMG has formulae on it for just such items, namely the "command word" and "use-activated or continuous" entries, examples given for both are wondrous items. If, as you said in an earlier post, higher or lower caster level has no effect on the cost of the item, then why is it included in the cost formula? If they didn't exist, then why is there a formula for them?

You need to look in DMG page 215, under Caster Level, before the errata:
"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 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)."

Before the errata, the caster level of every item that's not a potion, scroll, or wand was set in stone. After the errata caster levels of items are variable. The portion you continue quoting was a reference only to potions, scrolls, and wands, because those were the only items which had a variable caster level. It doesn't make any difference though, if you have two separate limits then you must stop at the first limit you reach. You keep quoting a minimum of what's required to cast a spell. The errata clearly states that an item's minimum caster level is whatever is needed to meet the item's prerequisites, and those prerequisites themselves have minimum caster levels as well which further raise the bar, below which your item's caster level may not go. It's a separate limit from the one you're quoting, and if you reach this one first then you'll never make it to the minimum for the spell in question.

Regarding your second point, I believe you're mistaken. Before the errata, published items had no built-in variance for caster level. There is indeed a table containing guidelines for estimating the price of custom items that don't appear in any published source. That table is not a set of rules, it does not grant the ability to create such items, it is only there if a DM wants to design a new magic item to fill a role in his game/story, and that table is a set of guidelines for him to estimate the value of such an item. Players have zero ability to create custom items out of nowhere, and have absolutely no business setting the price of such items. If you want to make a new magic item, you tell your DM what you want to make, ask him if any such item already exists, and if a new item needs to be designed your DM can do it and he'll be the one who sets the price. That table is in the DMG, not the PHB, it is a tool for a DM to use, not something a player has any business referencing as though it contained any rules.

Rizban

2012-12-01, 07:14 AM

You need to look in DMG page 215, under Caster Level, before the errata:
"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 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)."

Before the errata, the caster level of every item that's not a potion, scroll, or wand was set in stone. After the errata caster levels of items are variable. The portion you continue quoting was a reference only to potions, scrolls, and wands, because those were the only items which had a variable caster level. It doesn't make any difference though, if you have two separate limits then you must stop at the first limit you reach. You keep quoting a minimum of what's required to cast a spell. The errata clearly states that an item's minimum caster level is whatever is needed to meet the item's prerequisites, and those prerequisites themselves have minimum caster levels as well which further raise the bar, below which your item's caster level may not go. It's a separate limit from the one you're quoting, and if you reach this one first then you'll never make it to the minimum for the spell in question.

Regarding your second point, I believe you're mistaken. Before the errata, published items had no built-in variance for caster level. There is indeed a table containing guidelines for estimating the price of custom items that don't appear in any published source. That table is not a set of rules, it does not grant the ability to create such items, it is only there if a DM wants to design a new magic item to fill a role in his game/story, and that table is a set of guidelines for him to estimate the value of such an item. Players have zero ability to create custom items out of nowhere, and have absolutely no business setting the price of such items. If you want to make a new magic item, you tell your DM what you want to make, ask him if any such item already exists, and if a new item needs to be designed your DM can do it and he'll be the one who sets the price. That table is in the DMG, not the PHB, it is a tool for a DM to use, not something a player has any business referencing as though it contained any rules.

Please answer my question. It was only two words long.

What errata?

You keep 'quoting' this errata, but you still haven't answered what errata you're talking about. I've said that I can't find what you're talking about in the official DMG errata, the MIC, or the RC. Please identify your sources.

I also notice that you completely ignored my final point in which the author of the rules explains them and provides examples contrary to your points.

1Addressing specific points

You need to look in DMG page 215, under Caster Level, before the errata:
"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 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)."Your own quote is evidence against your argument. Pay close attention to the very last clause: "and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level."
That specifically says it's "a higher minimum on the creator's level." "Creator" not "item." This lends support to what I said in my last post:
The ring does not have to have CL 12. It only has to have a CL high enough to cast the highest level spell used in the ring's creation, which may indeed be lower than 12.

The crafter has to have CL 12. The ring does not.

That table is in the DMG, not the PHB, it is a tool for a DM to use, not something a player has any business referencing as though it contained any rules.
Wait, so now we can't reference it because it's in the DMG and this is required to be constrained to a player's point of view? What?! So, the DMG contains no valid rules on magic item crafting for a player because they're in the DMG? If that's true, then you have no grounds for your arguments at all. The entire thing is out of the hands of the player, and no argument is any better than any other. Everyone who says otherwise is simultaneously both right and wrong, even if their opinions differ.

The whole point of this discussion is to nail down what the rule on that is. That whole last part of your post was just a misdirect away from that. Application of Rule 0 is always going to trump anything else, even if what is being trumped is RAW. But application of Rule 0 does not change what is written and does not apply equally across all games everywhere. Appeal to Rule 0 is not a valid argument.

Clistenes

2012-12-01, 08:06 AM

only1doug

2012-12-01, 08:06 AM

Clistenes

2012-12-01, 08:13 AM

Rizban

2012-12-01, 08:27 AM

You are ignoring the part of the RAW that does not fit with your desired conclusion, even when Biff repeatedly points it out to you.

The section refering to creating magic items says that minimum caster level for custom items is caster level required to meet all prerequisites, item creation feats are a prerequisite of making the item so you must meet those prerequisites to make the item.

Your arguement that existing items don't follow the formula is irrelevant, RAW tells you how to make new items and it is quite clear, you must make the item at the caster level required to meet the prerequisite item creation feat (except for wands and potions)To which I point back to point #1 in my last post.

I did not quote any section from the rules except what Biff quoted. I used his quote to show further support for my position.

The caster level prerequisite on the feat does not affect the cost of the item. I have provided several references for this, including quotes from the DMG, Magic Item Compendium, Rules Compendium, and quotes from Skip Williams, who wrote the rules. I am not ignoring anything. I am saying that the reading of the rules requiring all rings to have CL 12 as their minimum is a deliberately obtuse interpretation of the rules and is not supported in any of the supporting text. I am quoting from multiple locations in multiple sources including three primary and one (technically) secondary source (see DMG errata for information on primary sources). I am not relying on a single small section from a single source and a frequently referenced "errata" that has not been identified.

I don't understand how you think that I'm deliberately ignoring what is written.

1For future clarity, let us just quote the entire section being use to support yours and Biff's position.
Prerequisites: Certain requirements must be met in order for a character to create a magic item. These include feats, spells, and miscellaneous requirements such as level, alignment, and race or kind. The prerequisites for creation of an item are given immediately following the item’s caster level.

A spell prerequisite may be provided by a character who has prepared the spell (or who knows the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard), or through the use of a spell completion or spell trigger magic item or a spell-like ability that produces the desired spell effect. For each day that passes in the creation process, the creator must expend one spell completion item (such as a scroll) or one charge from a spell trigger item (such as a wand), if either of those objects is used to supply a prerequisite.

It is possible for more than one character to cooperate in the creation of an item, with each participant providing one or more of the prerequisites. In some cases, cooperation may even be necessary, such as if one character knows some of the spells necessary to create an item and another character knows the rest.

If two or more characters cooperate to create an item, they must agree among themselves who will be considered the creator for the purpose of determinations where the creator’s level must be known. (It’s generally sensible, although not mandatory, for the highest-level character involved to be considered the creator.) The character designated as the creator pays the XP required to make the item.

Typically, a list of prerequisites includes one feat and one or more spells (or some other requirement in addition to the feat). When two spells at the end of a list are separated by “or,” one of those spells is required in addition to every other spell mentioned prior to the last two. For example, the prerequisites for a ring of three wishes are “Forge Ring, wish or miracle,” meaning that either wish or miracle is required as well as the Forge Ring feat.I fail to see anything in there that mandates a minimum caster level for anything beyond what is implied is necessary to obtain the feats and spells. I see nothing that says in any way that you have to craft the item with the minimum caster level necessary to have the feat. After all, the item isn't the one possessing the item creation feat.

nedz

2012-12-01, 11:12 AM

For Reference

Caster Level
Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 215
Problem: The last two sentences in the section on Caster Level are ambiguous and potentially misleading.
Solution: Replace with this text: 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.

This results in the text you see in the SRD, as previously quoted.
As I said previously — I'm not sure this actually helps.

Kalirren

2012-12-01, 12:11 PM

The errata clearly states that an item's minimum caster level is whatever is needed to meet the item's prerequisites, and those prerequisites themselves have minimum caster levels as well which further raise the bar, below which your item's caster level may not go. It's a separate limit from the one you're quoting, and if you reach this one first then you'll never make it to the minimum for the spell in question.

I'm curious to know your explanation for how it makes any sense that staves get a special "exemption" for being able to be crafted no lower than 8th level, when Craft Staff requires caster level 12th.

Under Rizban's interpretation it's straightforward - it's not an exemption at all, but a constraint. You can't use Craft Staff to create a staff at caster levels 1-7, which is wand territory. They didn't want Craft Staff to make Craft Wand entirely obsolete, so they put that in there.

But under yours, it would be impossible to create a staff with item caster level under 12th anyway, except for this specific allowance. Why does the allowance exist?

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2012-12-01, 02:11 PM

Please answer my question. It was only two words long.

What errata?
This is where you find errata (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a), click the Dungeon Master's Guide v.3.5 link for the DMG errata. You can find the relevant section on the first page, right column, second from the bottom labeled Caster Level. The SRD contains the current post-errata wording (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#casterLevel), which I have linked multiple times already.

Your own quote is evidence against your argument. Pay close attention to the very last clause: "and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level."
That specifically says it's "a higher minimum on the creator's level." "Creator" not "item." This lends support to what I said in my last post:
That portion which you claim lends support to what you said was removed by the errata, I quoted it to show what the rules used to be. The current wording does not agree with your conclusion.

Wait, so now we can't reference it because it's in the DMG and this is required to be constrained to a player's point of view? What?! So, the DMG contains no valid rules on magic item crafting for a player because they're in the DMG? If that's true, then you have no grounds for your arguments at all. The entire thing is out of the hands of the player, and no argument is any better than any other. Everyone who says otherwise is simultaneously both right and wrong, even if their opinions differ.

The whole point of this discussion is to nail down what the rule on that is. That whole last part of your post was just a misdirect away from that. Application of Rule 0 is always going to trump anything else, even if what is being trumped is RAW. But application of Rule 0 does not change what is written and does not apply equally across all games everywhere. Appeal to Rule 0 is not a valid argument.

DMG page 285, Table 7-33: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values, this table contains no rules whatsoever. DMG page 282, the sidebar, states the following:
"Many factors must be considered when determining the price of magic items you invent. The easiest way to come up with a price is to match the new item to an item priced in this chapter and use its price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table7-33: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values."
As I've already said, you are instructed to first find an existing item that has a similar effect and use its price as a guide. If you cannot find any existing items with similar effects, then you turn to that table. Your DM (most often) controls the game world, and nothing exists in that game world unless your DM puts it there. If you want to create a magic watering can that causes flowers to spring up and bloom wherever its shower falls, you ask your DM to design such an item for his setting, then your character researches the method to creating such an item (and learns of its price), and finally you can decide whether or not such an item would be worth crafting. If you want an item that gives you a continuous Wraithstrike spell effect, making your melee attacks resolve as touch attacks, then you go tell your DM and he can decide whether or not such an item exists in his setting. Players have absolutely no power to introduce something new into a setting without going through the DM, and Table 7-33 does not contain any rules to which anyone has any business referencing, it is a last resort for a DM to get an estimation from, nothing more.

Again, I'm not speaking of the minimum caster level to be able to craft the thing.

I'm speaking of how to estimate the price, and I say that the CL in the formula isn't that minimum caster level.

If you think that I'm wrong, please quote the place where it says that the CL in the estimating table is the minimum caster level required, and not the CL of the spell it replicates.

You don't use the Spell Level x CL x price formula, see my above quote from the sidebar on DMG 282.

4. The custom item creation pricing guidelines are not rules, they're guidelines. It does state that you should first look to the price of items with similar effects, rather than jumping to the lowest-cost formula on the estimation table, which is more a rule than the table itself. That means that any continuous effect or at-will item of Wraithstrike would be priced similarly to the Brilliant Energy weapon property before it would be priced based on spell level x caster level x price. Luckily we have an example of such an effect: the Gemstone of Fortification in the Draconomicon. Each of those is priced based on the price of +1 armor with that level fortification, minus the price of +1 armor. That means an item that has a similar effect to the Brilliant Energy weapon property would be priced as a +1 Brilliant Energy weapon, minus the price of a +1 weapon, or 48,000 gp. Per the rules, you go looking at the prices for items with similar effects before you dive into the estimation table.

As I've said multiple times:
"The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given."
The minimum caster level needed to meet a Forge Ring prerequisite is 12th. The minimum caster level of an item is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites. You need a caster level 12th to meet a Forge Ring prerequisite. It could not be any clearer. Unless you are a game designer or a DM with the authority to overrule that, you must abide by that minimum caster level. If a player wants to create a magic item, they must abide by that minimum caster level (and there's no drawback for doing so unless you're abusing the custom item pricing guidelines), but a DM may place a custom item in his setting which has a lower caster level than that minimum.

Kalirren

2012-12-01, 03:03 PM

As I've said multiple times:
"The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given."
The minimum caster level needed to meet a Forge Ring prerequisite is 12th. The minimum caster level of an item is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites. You need a caster level 12th to meet a Forge Ring prerequisite. It could not be any clearer. Unless you are a game designer or a DM with the authority to overrule that, you must abide by that minimum caster level. If a player wants to create a magic item, they must abide by that minimum caster level (and there's no drawback for doing so unless you're abusing the custom item pricing guidelines), but a DM may place a custom item in his setting which has a lower caster level than that minimum.

So if a 12th-level wizard with Forge Ring collaborates with a 8th-level cleric to create a Ring of Protection +2, with the cleric being designated as the creator (and having paid the XP) by agreement between the two, what are the allowable item caster levels that the duo can choose to create the item at?

Here's the entry for Ring of Protection:

Faint abjuration; CL 5th; Forge Ring, shield of faith, caster[creator] must be of a level at least three times greater than the bonus of the ring; Price 2,000 gp (ring +1); 8,000 gp (ring +2); 18,000 gp (ring +3); 32,000 gp (ring +4); 50,000 gp (ring +5).

If instead the wizard pays XP and becomes the creator, could they create a Ring +3?

TypoNinja

2012-12-01, 07:19 PM

For Reference

This results in the text you see in the SRD, as previously quoted.
As I said previously — I'm not sure this actually helps.

The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given.

This is the phrase I'm disputing over.

Biff thinks that the prerequisites given require you to have minimum the prerequisites of the item creation feat as well. I do not.

The reason I do not is because if that were the case it would make the caster level prerequisites entry in every item under the caster level of its respective feat wrong. Under Biff's interpenetration we get contradictory information for a good portion of the magic items.

I can also do silly RAW loopholes on it too.

It says the prerequisites given. The prerequisites are typically an item creation feat, a caster level, and a spell. It says nothing like "you must also craft at a minimum level of your Craft X feat.

The prerequisites for a feat are irrelevant to this check by strict RAW it wants to know if you have the feat not if you meet the prerequisites, because it is possible to have feats you do not meet the prerequisites for, and its also possible to not have a feat but have gained an effective feat for the purposes of X. The language of "may act as if they had X for the purposes of Y" is fairly common in D&D rules. It's entirely possible to have the ability to craft without having the crafting feat at all.

Finally, there are ways to gain craft feats without having a caster level. Void disciple can grant any feat temporarily, and there are wondrous architecture/places of power that grant crafting feats while you are working in that room and/or with the appropriate tools. Those are just a couple examples. Races of Stone in particular has magic forges that not only granted you free crafting feats, but straight up let a non-caster craft magical gear. There are also several published adventures that had rooms that allowed crafting in them.

Rizban

2012-12-02, 08:19 PM

This has gotten absolutely silly. I am beginning to feel like this argument is being continued just for the sake of making more posts.

I just want to clarify the two positions in an easy to read format, including all the points I've seen addressed so far.

3The Three Approaches to Magic Item Crafting

There is a qualitative difference between the different approaches to the design and crafting of magic items. Each one has different assumptions, and this section is an attempt to describe each of those, allowing us to better understand the two interpretations given below.

A player wanting to create a custom magic item must delegate the entire process to the DM, who will then consult his proprietary tables and determine its minimum [caster level], price, and so forth, after which the player determines whether to craft it
A player designs a custom magic item based on the guidelines and existing items, then submits it to the DM for final approval and any needed adjustments before crafting it
A player may create any magic item, custom or otherwise, according to the guidelines with no provision for DM oversight or correction except after the fact by crude fiat

The two interpretations gives below address these in different ways.

3The Point of Contention
This section provides the rules text, and its errata change, that forms the crux of the disagreement in rules interpretation.

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).

This was changed to:
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.

3The Position of Biffoniacus_Furiou and only1doug

This one errata change forces all items crafted with a feat that has a caster level prerequisite to be crafted with an item caster level at least that high. Therefore, wondrous items must have at least 3rd level, rods must be at least 9th, and staves and rings must be at least 12th level.

Any items that don't meet this requirement, even those numerous items officially printed, "break" the rules and therefore can only exist by DM fiat and can not be crafted by players at their printed caster levels, except by DM fiat.

In short, the prerequisite caster level of the item crafting feat used must be met not by the craftsman but by the item itself.

Collected Evidence:

The above errata change.

Benefits of this interpretation

Printed items (that aren't potions, scrolls, or wands) are always crafted at their printed prices. You can make them stronger by increasing their caster level, increasing any variable effects based on that caster level, without increasing their cost.

The entire process if firmly in the DM's control.

Drawbacks of this interpretation

This interpretation assumes on the first approach to creating custom items is valid, eliminating the possibility of the second or third approach. There is no room for further interpretation.

Printed item creation rules, charts, and guidelines must be interpreted as applying to the DM only with no player access.

Player characters creating items only do so only by DM fiat, requiring the DM to develop his own item crafting rules or to determine each item individually for the player. This adds additional work for the DM, as the players can not reliably reference the guidelines in the DMG.

Nowhere is it stated that players are allowed to invent new magic items, nowhere at all. The DM is the one who invents new magic items

A large number of officially printed items can't be crafted without DM fiat, as they do not meet the minimum caster level requirement.

You must assume that items which are looted or purchased follow different rules than those created by the players.

If creating a custom item, using the "spell level * caster level * X gp" method to determine cost greatly inflates the cost of the item, especially in the case of rings. Any custom ring with effects lower than that of a 5th-level spell is inflated. E.g. a 1st-level spell effect must be calculated at 1*12*2000 rather than the expected 1*1*2000.

You must ignore printed tables and guidelines when determining item gold piece values, due primarily to the previous point. The implication of this is that, for items with effects below certain spell levels, only officially printed items are priced within ranges that they are affordable while they are still useful. Custom items are too expensive to be useful by the time you can afford them, again due primarily to the previous point.

3The Position of Rizban, Kalirren, Clistenes, TypoNinja, et all

The minimum caster level of the item is only what is specifically spelled out in the magic item crafting rules, i.e. "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" (DMG 282). [SRD reference (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm)] Items with a specified different caster level prerequisite supersedes this general rules.

Collected Evidence:

The errata changed DMG text is not in the "Creating Magic Items" section but rather in the general section about magic items. Even then, it is in the subsection titled "Caster Level" which is before the "Prerequisites" subsection.

The reworded text still allows the creator to set the caster level to the level he chooses. "The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given" is a clear reference to the following section labeled "Prerequisites." It is that section which defines the prerequisites.

The Prerequisites section under "Magic Item Descriptions" mentions item creation feats as being necessary, but it only discusses caster levels in relation to the spells necessary in item creation. This is interpreted as saying the caster level is determined only by the spells, and the feat is a true/false condition that has no bearing on the caster level.

The Dungeon Master's Guide, Magic Item Compendium, and Rules Compendium all state that an item's minimum caster level is "the minimum caster level required for the highest-level spell given as a prerequisite for the item" (RC 87). Not once in any of these sources is the caster level requirement of the feat mentioned.

It is specified that "The minimum caster level of a staff is 8th" (DMG 243). Craft Staff can not be taken until CL 12. This caveat about minimum caster level of a staff would be completely unnecessary if staves could not be crafted at a CL less than 12.

There are numerous published items from numerous books that have a caster level below the minimum caster levels necessary to take the required item creation feats. E.g., wondrous items below caster level 3, rods below caster level 9, and staves and rings below caster level 12.

Skip Williams, who helped to write the DMG, wrote a seven part series of articles on the wizards.com website entitled "Making Magic Items (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041207a)." In these articles, he gave examples of creating several items with caster levels lower than the minimum required by the associated feat but specified that it couldn't be lower than the minimum for the spell.

In "Making Magic Items (Part Six)," Skip Williams does address the caster level prerequisite for the item creation feats. In the subsection entitled "Effects You've Never Seen Anywhere," it says "When an item doesn't do anything that can be easily compared to a spell, you should compare your item against other items that seem to do similar things, and set the caster level appropriately. If you still don't have any idea of how to set the caster level, use the minimum character level required by the particular item creation feat necessary to make the item." This is the only reference to using that prerequisite in an item's caster level that I have found. Even then, it is specified only as the option of last resort after all other options have been exhausted. It is not stated as the starting point.

The psionic item creation rules in the Expanded Psionics Handbook seem to correlate with this interpretation, including several references to players being able to design completely new items. The "Psionics and Crafting Magic Items" sidebar in the Magic Item Compendium reinforces the XPH rules. Both sources lend further support to this interpretation.

Benefits of this interpretation

This interpretation assumes on the second approach to creating custom items is valid. It still allows for the first and the third approach without hindrance; however, it insists upon the second and tries to limit the third.

This is (arguably) the simpler interpretation of the rules, taking what is written repeatedly in multiple sources as the standard rather than what is potentially only implied in a single sentence. If you miss reading one sentence, it does not "break" the game.

The entire process if firmly in the DM's control.

All items, whether looted, purchased, or crafted, follow the same rules for determining caster level without need for DM fiat.

Item pricing is simple and straightforward, allowing for a faster starting point in estimating the prices of custom items. While it is still as estimate, this process seems to be in line with what the developers used when pricing items.

Players can reliably use the estimation guidelines to estimate the value of their custom item before presenting it to the DM for approval or modification using the expected spell and caster levels for the item. This takes some of the work load off of the DM, which I personally think is a great benefit.

Drawbacks of this interpretation

Increasing the caster level of an item increases its cost to create. (Note: This is only a "drawback" in the loosest interpretation of drawbacks.)

Players will occasionally get upset when the DM adjusts the price of their proposed custom item to higher than they want to pay or higher than the guidelines might suggest.

3Note that I am willing to add to and clarify both of these interpreations.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2012-12-02, 09:23 PM

Drawbacks of this interpretation

Printed item creation rules, charts, and guidelines must be interpreted as applying to the DM only.

Player characters creating items only do so only by DM fiat, requiring the DM to develop his own item crafting rules or to determine each item individually for the player. This adds additional work for the DM, as the players can not reliably reference the guidelines in the DMG.

A large number of officially printed items can't be crafted without DM fiat, as they do not meet the minimum caster level requirement.

You must assume that items which are looted or purchased follow different rules than those created by the players.

If creating a custom item, using the "spell level * caster level * X gp" method to determine cost greatly inflates the cost of the item, especially in the case of rings. Any custom ring with effects lower than that of a 5th-level spell is inflated. E.g. a 1st-level spell effect must be calculated at 1*12*2000 rather than the expected 1*1*2000.

You must ignore printed tables and guidelines when determining item gold piece values, due primarily to the previous point. The implication of this is that, for items with effects below certain spell levels, only officially printed items are priced within ranges that they are affordable while they are still useful. Custom items are too expensive to be useful by the time you can afford them, again due primarily to the previous point.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the position, simply because you fail to differentiate when you're talking about inventing new items and when you're talking about crafting printed magic items. Furthermore, you're making assumptions about what a player is permitted to do with zero rules references to back it up. Nowhere is it stated that players are allowed to invent new magic items, nowhere at all. The DM is the one who invents new magic items, and if a player doesn't think it's cheap enough to exploit then that's his problem.

Before the errata you had to have a caster level at least equal to the item's printed caster level to craft a given item. After the errata this is no longer needed, and it's nothing but beneficial unless you're trying to flagrantly exploit the item invention pricing guidelines in making unfairly underpriced equipment. That items exist which have a caster level below what's required to meet all of the prerequisites for such an item is just a side-effect of a game in which the rules sometimes change. In this case, players are now able to craft printed items at higher caster level for no additional cost, but munchkins can't invent a Sword of True Strike or a Ring of Mage Armor or Boots of Expeditious Retreat for quite so cheap as they did before.

TuggyNE

2012-12-02, 10:59 PM

I just want to clarify the two positions in an easy to read format, including all the points I've seen addressed so far.

This is an excellent and collegial summary that clarifies all manner of confusion. Well done.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the position, simply because you fail to differentiate when you're talking about inventing new items and when you're talking about crafting printed magic items. Furthermore, you're making assumptions about what a player is permitted to do with zero rules references to back it up. Nowhere is it stated that players are allowed to invent new magic items, nowhere at all. The DM is the one who invents new magic items, and if a player doesn't think it's cheap enough to exploit then that's his problem.

There's a qualitative difference between three possible positions here:

A player wanting to create a custom magic item must delegate the entire process to the DM, who will then consult his proprietary tables and determine its minimum CL, price, and so forth, after which the player determines whether to craft it
A player designs a custom magic item based on the guidelines and existing items, then submits it to the DM for final approval and any needed adjustments before crafting it
A player may create any magic item, custom or otherwise, according to the guidelines with no provision for DM oversight or correction except after the fact by crude fiat

The advantage of the second over the first is primarily that the player knows more what to expect, can do more of the work on their own schedule and without waiting for replies on several possibilities, and need not burden the DM until they're fairly sure they have a reasonable custom item. There is very little difference from a rules standpoint, except that the somewhat parochial attitude of the first is lacking in the second.

TypoNinja

2012-12-02, 11:17 PM

This has gotten absolutely silly. I am beginning to feel like this argument is being continued just for the sake of making more posts.

I just want to clarify the two positions in an easy to read format, including all the points I've seen addressed so far.

3The Point of Contention

This was changed to:

3The Position of Biffoniacus_Furiou and only1doug

This one errata change forces all items crafted with a feat that has a caster level prerequisite to be crafted with an item caster level at least that high. Therefore, wondrous items must have at least 3rd level, rods must be at least 9th, and staves and rings must be at least 12th level.

Any items that don't meet this requirement, even those numerous items officially printed, "break" the rules and therefore can only exist by DM fiat and can not be crafted by players at their printed caster levels, except by DM fiat.

In short, the prerequisite caster level of the item crafting feat used must be met not by the craftsman but by the item itself.

Collected Evidence:

The above errata change.

Benefits of this interpretation

Printed items (that aren't potions, scrolls, or wands) are always crafted at their printed prices. You can make them stronger by increasing their caster level, increasing any variable effects based on that caster level, without increasing their cost.

Drawbacks of this interpretation

Printed item creation rules, charts, and guidelines must be interpreted as applying to the DM only.

Player characters creating items only do so only by DM fiat, requiring the DM to develop his own item crafting rules or to determine each item individually for the player. This adds additional work for the DM, as the players can not reliably reference the guidelines in the DMG.

A large number of officially printed items can't be crafted without DM fiat, as they do not meet the minimum caster level requirement.

You must assume that items which are looted or purchased follow different rules than those created by the players.

If creating a custom item, using the "spell level * caster level * X gp" method to determine cost greatly inflates the cost of the item, especially in the case of rings. Any custom ring with effects lower than that of a 5th-level spell is inflated. E.g. a 1st-level spell effect must be calculated at 1*12*2000 rather than the expected 1*1*2000.

You must ignore printed tables and guidelines when determining item gold piece values, due primarily to the previous point. The implication of this is that, for items with effects below certain spell levels, only officially printed items are priced within ranges that they are affordable while they are still useful. Custom items are too expensive to be useful by the time you can afford them, again due primarily to the previous point.

3The Position of Rizban, Kalirren, Clistenes, TypoNinja, et all

The minimum caster level of the item is only what is specifically spelled out in the magic item crafting rules, i.e. "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" (DMG 282). [SRD reference (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm)]

Collected Evidence:

The errata changed DMG text is not in the "Creating Magic Items" section but rather in the general section about magic items. Even then, it is in the subsection titled "Caster Level" which is before the "Prerequisites" subsection.

The reworded text still allows the creator to set the caster level to the level he chooses. "The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given" is a clear reference to the following section labeled "Prerequisites." It is that section which defines the prerequisites.

The Prerequisites section under "Magic Item Descriptions" mentions item creation feats as being necessary, but it only discusses caster levels in relation to the spells necessary in item creation. This is interpreted as saying the caster level is determined only by the spells, and the feat is a true/false condition that has no bearing on the caster level.

The Dungeon Master's Guide, Magic Item Compendium, and Rules Compendium all state that an item's minimum caster level is "the minimum caster level required for the highest-level spell given as a prerequisite for the item" (RC 87). Not once in any of these sources is the caster level requirement of the feat mentioned.

It is specified that "The minimum caster level of a staff is 8th" (DMG 243). Craft Staff can not be taken until CL 12. This caveat about minimum caster level of a staff would be completely unnecessary if staves could not be crafted at a CL less than 12.

There are numerous published items from numerous books that have a caster level below the minimum caster levels necessary to take the required item creation feats. E.g., wondrous items below caster level 3, rods below caster level 9, and staves and rings below caster level 12.

Skip Williams, who helped to write the DMG, wrote a seven part series of articles on the wizards.com website entitled "Making Magic Items (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041207a)." In these articles, he gave examples of creating several items with caster levels lower than the minimum required by the associated feat but specified that it couldn't be lower than the minimum for the spell.

In "Making Magic Items (Part Six)," Skip Williams does address the caster level prerequisite for the item creation feats. In the subsection entitled "Effects You've Never Seen Anywhere," it says "When an item doesn't do anything that can be easily compared to a spell, you should compare your item against other items that seem to do similar things, and set the caster level appropriately. If you still don't have any idea of how to set the caster level, use the minimum character level required by the particular item creation feat necessary to make the item." This is the only reference to using that prerequisite in an item's caster level that I have found. Even then, it is specified only as the option of last resort after all other options have been exhausted. It is not stated as the starting point.

Benefits of this interpretation

This is (arguably) the simpler interpretation of the rules, taking what is written repeatedly in multiple sources as the standard rather than what is potentially only implied in a single sentence.

All items, whether looted, purchased, or crafted, follow the same rules for determining caster level without need for DM fiat.

Item pricing is simple and straightforward, allowing for a faster starting point in estimating the prices of custom items. While it is still as estimate, this process seems to be in line with what the developers used when pricing items.

Players can reliably use the estimation guidelines to estimate the value of their custom item before presenting it to the DM for approval or modification using the expected spell and caster levels for the item. This takes some of the work load off of the DM, which I personally think is a great benefit.

Drawbacks of this interpretation

Increasing the caster level of an item increases its cost to create. (Note: This is only a "drawback" in the loosest interpretation of drawbacks.)

Players will occasionally get upset when the DM adjusts the price of their proposed custom item to higher than they want to pay or higher than the guidelines might suggest.

3Note that I am willing to add to and clarify both of these lists.

That was an awesome summary, if this forum had a karma system you'd be getting some.

Rizban

2012-12-03, 12:08 AM

There's a qualitative difference between three possible positions here:

A player wanting to create a custom magic item must delegate the entire process to the DM, who will then consult his proprietary tables and determine its minimum CL, price, and so forth, after which the player determines whether to craft it
A player designs a custom magic item based on the guidelines and existing items, then submits it to the DM for final approval and any needed adjustments before crafting it
A player may create any magic item, custom or otherwise, according to the guidelines with no provision for DM oversight or correction except after the fact by crude fiat

The advantage of the second over the first is primarily that the player knows more what to expect, can do more of the work on their own schedule and without waiting for replies on several possibilities, and need not burden the DM until they're fairly sure they have a reasonable custom item. There is very little difference from a rules standpoint, except that the somewhat parochial attitude of the first is lacking in the second.I was basing my entire argument around premise #2. I suppose that should have been written out.

I'll add all three premises to the introduction of my long post.

As to the two rules interpretations, my interpretation presupposes the second but allows for all three. I personally believe the rules were written with the second in mind.

The other interpretation offered presupposes the first and eliminates the other two.

1
This is a gross misrepresentation of the position, simply because you fail to differentiate when you're talking about inventing new items and when you're talking about crafting printed magic items.I did not "fail" to differentiate. In fact, I specifically said in there that under your interpretation that you had to treat each "category" of magic items differently, forcing differentiation. I then went on to say in my interpretation that it allowed for you to treat all magic items the same or essentially the same, regardless of category. I very specifically laid that out in the summaries for both write ups.

Furthermore, you're making assumptions about what a player is permitted to do with zero rules references to back it up. Nowhere is it stated that players are allowed to invent new magic items, nowhere at all. The DM is the one who invents new magic items, and if a player doesn't think it's cheap enough to exploit then that's his problem.You're right, I did make an assumption; however, tuggyne was good enough to point this out and further develop something constructive on that point. I will be revising my former post to reflect this additional information.

I do not see how it will cause major revisions to either interpretation.

Before the errata you had to have a caster level at least equal to the item's printed caster level to craft a given item.This is still true post errata.

After the errata this is no longer needed, and it's nothing but beneficial unless you're trying to flagrantly exploit the item invention pricing guidelines in making unfairly underpriced equipment.Are you assuming that anything not following your interpretation is "flagrant exploitation" of the rules?

Further, I don't see how you can ignore the examples I've given several times or how that can be interpreted as "nothing but beneficial."
Under my interpretation, a ring with a 1st level spell equivalent has a minimum caster level of 1 and costs 2,000gp.
Under your interpretation, a ring with a 1st level spell equivalent has a minimum caster level of 1 and costs 12,000gp.
Then again, you suggest ignoring the role that caster level plays in determining cost for anything that isn't a potion, wand, or scroll, so I really have no idea what the ring would cost under your ruling.

That items exist which have a caster level below what's required to meet all of the prerequisites for such an item is just a side-effect of a game in which the rules sometimes change.First of all, items can't have a caster level below what's required to meet all of the prerequisites. That's clearly written out several times. It also defines what those prerequisites are. My interpretation covers this nicely and cleanly, incorporating all printed items (or at least all to my knowledge) into the interpretation without any of them breaking the minimum caster level rule.

I also do not see where the rules have "changed." Rewording one line to explain that "is defined by the item" really means "is defined by the caster who chooses the spells that go into the item" is not a rule change. It's just a clarification of existing rules. As I've pointed out repeatedly now, the same rules that the "original" rules state is repeated in the Magic Item Compendium and in the Rules Compendium, both of which qualify as Primary Sources which supersede the DMG. Again, see the DMG errata for information on primary sources.

Finally, if the rules had changed, as you insist, then that change should have been carried over in the Magic Item and Rules Compendiums. The caster levels of all items in the MIC should have reflected your interpretation. They do not. That leads me to conclude that either your interpretation is wrong or the authors of magic items in all the books posted after that errata were completely ignorant of the basic rules concerning magic items.

In this case, players are now able to craft printed items at higher caster level for no additional cost, but munchkins can't invent a Sword of True Strike or a Ring of Mage Armor or Boots of Expeditious Retreat for quite so cheap as they did before.But the rules specifically say that a higher caster level should incur a higher cost. I also addressed this point as a strength of your interpretation as well as a potential weakness in mine.

As to the second part, they couldn't create items at those prices and "flagrantly exploit" the rules to begin with. The chart provided guidelines on pricing, but it was specifically stated that you should compare the item to other items that provide similar bonuses and adjust price accordingly. I have been pointing that out for awhile now and even linked and quoted the article by Skip Williams where this was explained in great detail.

I do not see why you are insisting upon this point when it was only "flagrantly exploiting" the rules that would have allowed that in the first place. I really don't see why you insist upon it when I said from the start that I agreed with you on this point and that certain items can not be reliably priced under the provided guidelines.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2012-12-03, 01:51 AM

...

Pre-errata, if a player wants to try to go over the DM's head and invent a custom item, he had an excuse to use the custom item price estimation guidelines to use Spell level x Minimum caster level x Price to get an unfairly cheap item. Post-errata, he can't really do that because the minimum caster level of his equation has to be the minimum caster level to have the item creation feat in question. That means he's left asking the DM to create a custom item with a lower default caster level, and thus a lower price. If the player then crafts that item it would be at the higher caster level, but at the same price as the DM assigned unless it's a potion, wand, scroll, or staff. It takes custom item pricing exploits out of the players' hands, and it looks like that's the primary reason why so many people are so resistant to the idea.

Rizban

2012-12-03, 02:25 AM

TypoNinja

2012-12-03, 07:27 PM

Pre-errata, if a player wants to try to go over the DM's head and invent a custom item, he had an excuse to use the custom item price estimation guidelines to use Spell level x Minimum caster level x Price to get an unfairly cheap item. Post-errata, he can't really do that because the minimum caster level of his equation has to be the minimum caster level to have the item creation feat in question. That means he's left asking the DM to create a custom item with a lower default caster level, and thus a lower price. If the player then crafts that item it would be at the higher caster level, but at the same price as the DM assigned unless it's a potion, wand, scroll, or staff. It takes custom item pricing exploits out of the players' hands, and it looks like that's the primary reason why so many people are so resistant to the idea.

Once again you are simply wrong.

Page 282 of the DMG has a sidebar detailing not only why some items are divergent from the formula as interpreted by me (Its exactly what one would expect, they are ad hoc'd up or down depending on how useful they truly are.)

The table, labeled I might add Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values, is only intended to be your starting point of crafting magic items not the end point, as the same sidebar notes that some items require DM judgement calls.

The sidebar also calls out that custom items should be compared to existing items providing similar benefits when at all possible.

So the estimated price of my ring of wraithstrike is 48k, however a DM is likely to note how much more awesome that is for a melee character than your usual second level spell effects, even persisted for all day use, and decide the price (and prehaps caster level, to maintain the rareness of the item) need to be adjusted. What that adjustment is will vary from DM to DM, but the starting point based on the tables remains the same.

The point you seem to be forgetting is that money is not arbitrary, WBL is a stat that has expected values as one progresses, a given amount of power comes from purchased magical assets, it is up to the DM to decide if a custom creation will give a character too much power for a given amount of wealth (or even not enough!) and adjust the price of an item accordingly.

Magic item creation has always been DM fiat territory, because its trivially easy to design disproportionally effective items compared to cost under those rules. As noted, several published items have prices far in excess of what the table would suggest, because they are just that good.

What the rules let us do is design our own items and then submit that design to a DM for final approval and tweaking rather than off load all our work to the DM in the first place by simply says "I want an X that does Y."

Rizban

2012-12-03, 09:02 PM

Hey, TypoNinja. That's all been pretty much covered already. I don't think it's going to change his position at this point. Might as well accept that some people are just determined to keep their position regardless of what is said to them.

mishka_shaw

2012-12-04, 10:13 AM

It’s funny because you are both right so no-one can win.
Biff is right as pure RAW you need to be level 12 to forge the ring
The other side are also right that you don’t need to be 12 to estimate the price.

See if you wanted to buy the ring from an NPC or loot it from a bad guy the DM is more than allowed to estimate the rings cost as a CL lower than 12 as the prerequisites for the ring feat only count when forging the item and not when estimating it.
However if you wish to forge it than RAW you do indeed need to minimise the CL to 12.

I guess the confusion is all about how Wizards have blatantly violated the pre-requisites rule with a complete plethora of magic items
[Hat of Disguise is an easy one to notice as it is Level 1 x CL 1 x 1800]
rather than
[Level 1 x CL 3 x 1800]

Long story short: DM decides and most I find throw the feat restriction out the window.
Edit: The DM should ALWAYS check the item the players wants to buy first though, the ring of true-strike is an oldie but a goldie

Rizban

2012-12-04, 12:17 PM

It’s funny because you are both right so no-one can win.
Biff is right as pure RAW you need to be level 12 to forge the ring
The other side are also right that you don’t need to be 12 to estimate the price.In that aspect, Biff's position is correct. You must be at least level 12 (or have CL 12) to forge a ring. I have never disputed that fact.

However, he insists that the CL of a ring must be at least 12, despite any and all evidence to the contrary. I disagree strongly with this point.

See if you wanted to buy the ring from an NPC or loot it from a bad guy the DM is more than allowed to estimate the rings cost as a CL lower than 12 as the prerequisites for the ring feat only count when forging the item and not when estimating it.
However if you wish to forge it than RAW you do indeed need to minimise the CL to 12.Beyond the one line he has quoted from the DMG errata, I still have yet to see where you are forced to make the CL of a ring at least 12.
I fully agree that the character must have at least CL 12, but I don't see where the item must be.

I guess the confusion is all about how Wizards have blatantly violated the pre-requisites rule with a complete plethora of magic items
[Hat of Disguise is an easy one to notice as it is Level 1 x CL 1 x 1800]
rather than
[Level 1 x CL 3 x 1800]Was it really violated, or is the rule being misinterpreted? This is one of the key differences between the two interpretations.
By Biff's interpretation (which also appears to be yours), there are a massive number of items in violation of the rules.
By my interpretation, these items are perfectly within the rules.

My question to this is, which assumption is the simpler?
1. Wizards was completely ignorant of their own rules and/or deliberately in violation of the magic item rules.
2. Wizards interpreted the magic item rules the same way that I do, causing none of these printed items to be in violation of the rules.

Long story short: DM decides and most I find throw the feat restriction out the window.Again, I don't believe it is being thrown out the window. The prerequisite to the feat is met by the character having caster level 12.
The item is not the one with the feat and therefore does not have to meet the feat's prerequisites, as long as it matches the magic item prerequisites.
Characters and Items are two different things.

Prerequisites of the feat make demands of the character. The character can not use the feat without meeting them.
Prerequisites of the item make demands of the item. The item can not exist without meeting them.
These are two separate sets of prerequisites met in two different ways.

Edit: The DM should ALWAYS check the item the players wants to buy first though, the ring of true-strike is an oldie but a goldieAgreed. Been saying this from the start. :smalltongue:

Rizban

2012-12-04, 12:31 PM

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2012-12-04, 11:30 PM

I have another point to make on this discussion.

How does Biff's interpretation interact with the Craft Universal Item feat from Expanded Psionics Handbook? It can specifically craft rings, due to rings being considered universal items, and the feat only has a prerequisite of 3rd level.

Does this forbid a character who takes that feat from crafting a ring?
Does that add yet another level of specifics that must be reinterpreted and DM fiated to work?
What new restrictions and requirements must be formulated for this to work?
Is there just something about psionics that makes crafting rings easier than using magic?

Or do we decide that there must be an error in Biff's interpretation and accept that the simpler interpretation must be the correct one?

With my interpretation, none of these questions concerning Craft Universal Item's interaction with rings even come up. My interpretation covers this feat and the items crafted by it without changing anything in the interpretation or the process of creating items, and it still adheres completely to the rules as presented in the DMG and MIC.

You're trying to add in more that's not even there so you have something to attack, that's called a Straw Man.

I never said it added a caster level prerequisite to any item. The rules do not say that. What they do say is that an item's minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given. If an item lists Forge Ring as one of its prerequisites, then a crafted ring has a minimum caster level of 12th even if you were able to supersede the prerequisite of that feat by some means, because that's the caster level which is normally needed to meet that prerequisite.

Craft Universal Item is specifically called out as being capable of crafting psionic universal items, nothing more. You can make a Ring of Self-Sufficiency with it, but not a Ring of Protection. Furthermore, only psionic rings have that feat listed as a prerequisite. Even if you use a different feat to craft an item, the caster level minimum is that for the prerequisites given, not that of anything you used as a substitution such as Craft Universal Item.

An item's price is based on its default caster level. When created a given item can have a higher caster level, but the stats in the books (usually) give the caster level that the price is based on. Calling out items published before the errata as breaking that rule is completely irrelevant, as they're not going to errata nearly every item ever printed. There's proof enough that nearly every item can and does break that rule in nearly any item that does have a caster level prerequisite (Amulet of Natural Armor, Bracers of Armor, etc.).

The power is in the hands of the game designers and the DM to invent items with a default caster level lower than what's required to meet its prerequisites, but the players who invest in item creation feats can enjoy the luxury of crafting those items at a higher caster level for no additional cost. There are some players who care more about 'winning' than whether anyone else has fun, and they don't like that they can't exploit the item creation pricing guidelines without their DM's permission, and that's just sad.

TypoNinja

2012-12-05, 04:06 AM

You're trying to add in more that's not even there so you have something to attack, that's called a Straw Man.

No, on both counts.

A Straw Man fallacy is when you deliberately misinterpret/misrepresent somebody's position and argue against the misrepresentation and pretend that refuting that position matters.

He is accurately representing your position that the caster level of the feat must also be met, remember magic/psionic transparency rules means there is functionally no difference between a psionic item and a magic one.

He's showing how even more of D&D's magic(/psionic) item creation rules are thrown into doubt by your position.

This counts as more countervailing evidence that your position is wrong, since it shows that yet more sections of the rules come into conflict with it.

My problem with your position can be summed up as follows. Your assumptions result in contradictory information in the rule system. That makes it either a bad rule or a bad assumption. Given the volume of contradictions your assumption sets up, I believe its reasonably to conclude you have a bad assumption.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2012-12-05, 04:31 AM

No, on both counts.

A Straw Man fallacy is when you deliberately misinterpret/misrepresent somebody's position and argue against the misrepresentation and pretend that refuting that position matters.

He is accurately representing your position that the caster level of the feat must also be met, remember magic/psionic transparency rules means there is functionally no difference between a psionic item and a magic one.

He's showing how even more of D&D's magic(/psionic) item creation rules are thrown into doubt by your position.

This counts as more countervailing evidence that your position is wrong, since it shows that yet more sections of the rules come into conflict with it.

My problem with your position can be summed up as follows. Your assumptions result in contradictory information in the rule system. That makes it either a bad rule or a bad assumption. Given the volume of contradictions your assumption sets up, I believe its reasonably to conclude you have a bad assumption.

He has repeatedly suggested that I was imposing an additional caster level prerequisite on item creation, and then attacking that fictitious position. That is the very definition of a Straw Man.

Let's look at a few obvious contradictions to your own position, as I've already pointed out: Amulet of Natural Armor and Bracers of Armor.

Per your position, an item's minimum caster level is that which is required to cast any spells contained in the item, plus any caster level prerequisites for that item.

An Amulet of Natural Armor has a default caster level of 5, but one of its prerequisites is a caster level three times the bonus it grants. That means any grade of the Amulet of Natural Armor above +1 breaks the post-errata rule. Bracers of Armor have a default caster level of 7, but its prerequisites include a caster level twice the bonus it grants. That means any grade of Bracers of Armor above +3 will break the post-errata rule.

Nearly every item that specifically names a varying caster level in its prerequisites that's based on the item's bonus will likewise break this rule. That my interpretation causes items to break the rule is absolutely no grounds for argument from someone whose own position also causes a great number of items to break the rule in exactly the same way. That's called a double standard.

TypoNinja

2012-12-05, 04:47 AM

He has repeatedly suggested that I was imposing an additional caster level prerequisite on item creation, and then attacking that fictitious position. That is the very definition of a Straw Man.

Let's look at a few obvious contradictions to your own position, as I've already pointed out: Amulet of Natural Armor and Bracers of Armor.

Per your position, an item's minimum caster level is that which is required to cast any spells contained in the item, plus any caster level prerequisites for that item.

An Amulet of Natural Armor has a default caster level of 5, but one of its prerequisites is a caster level three times the bonus it grants. That means any grade of the Amulet of Natural Armor above +1 breaks the post-errata rule. Bracers of Armor have a default caster level of 7, but its prerequisites include a caster level twice the bonus it grants. That means any grade of Bracers of Armor above +3 will break the post-errata rule.

Nearly every item that specifically names a varying caster level in its prerequisites that's based on the item's bonus will likewise break this rule. That my interpretation causes items to break the rule is absolutely no grounds for argument from someone whose own position also causes a great number of items to break the rule in exactly the same way. That's called a double standard.

No contradiction on Bracers of Armour, or another item that lists additional caster level requirements, because, now wait for it.

They list additional caster level requirements.

Exceptions to the rule are called out in the item that is the exception to the rule.

Its the very basis of an exception based rules system (Which D&D is) generic rules cover broad sections of play, and then exceptions are introduced on a case for case basis. Grappling provokes a attack of oppourtunity, unless you have a feat which says it doesn't. You need 8 hours rest, unless you are an elf, or have magic, that says you don't. Moving through threatened squares Provokes, unless you tumble.

And bracers of armour....

Moderate conjuration; CL 7th; Craft Wondrous Item, mage armor, creator’s caster level must be at least two times that of the bonus placed in the bracers;

..specifically call out the additional caster level requirements.

Its the exception in our exception based rules system.

Rizban

2012-12-05, 06:57 AM

You're trying to add in more that's not even there so you have something to attack, that's called a Straw Man.
He has repeatedly suggested that I was imposing an additional caster level prerequisite on item creation, and then attacking that fictitious position. That is the very definition of a Straw Man.TypoNinja already addressed the "straw man" issue pretty well. Thank you.

All I've done is quote you on your position. I don't usually even reword it. I don't see how that is a straw man, especially considering that you then follow your accusation with this:

I never said it added a caster level prerequisite to any item. The rules do not say that. What they do say is that an item's minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given. If an item lists Forge Ring as one of its prerequisites, then a crafted ring has a minimum caster level of 12th even if you were able to supersede the prerequisite of that feat by some means, because that's the caster level which is normally needed to meet that prerequisite.This is precisely what I have said you say. You say, "Rings have to have a minimum caster level of 12th." That's the whole reason I argue against your interpretation. How is quoting your own description of your own position misinterpreting or misrepresenting it?

Craft Universal Item is specifically called out as being capable of crafting psionic universal items, nothing more. You can make a Ring of Self-Sufficiency with it, but not a Ring of Protection. Furthermore, only psionic rings have that feat listed as a prerequisite. Even if you use a different feat to craft an item, the caster level minimum is that for the prerequisites given, not that of anything you used as a substitution such as Craft Universal Item.I counter with this:
PSIONICS AND CRAFTING MAGIC ITEMS
Many of the items in this book can also be created by a character with the appropriate psionic item creation feat.

For the purpose of meeting item prerequisites, a character who has the Craft Psionic Arms and Armor feat is treated as having Craft Magic Arms and Armor. Likewise, a character who has Craft Universal Item meets the feat prerequisite for items that require Craft Wondrous Item.

If an item includes a spell prerequisite, but the effect of the item does not directly implement that spell, then a psionic power of similar flavor can be substituted. If the item replicates a spell effect, then only the psionic version of that spell or a psionic power that replicates the same effect can be used to satisfy the prerequisite. For example, a character can create a helm of teleportation using psionic teleport as a power prerequisite, or energy burst as a power to create a necklace of fireballs.

The prerequisites of some items, such as the eldritch blast required for gauntlets of eldritch energy, have no psionic equivalent, and so cannot be created by a psionic character without the aid of a character who does meet the requirement.

If you are using the Psionics Is Different variant (EPH 65), then an item created by a psionic character using a psionic item creation feat would be a psionic item. The guidelines given above should be used to determine the psionic item’s feat and power prerequisites.So, there are a few conclusions that one can draw from this.{table=head]Biff's Interpretation||My Interpretation
CUI can not craft any rings unless they are specifically called out to be psionic and have CUI as the prerequisite.||CUI can be used to craft rings as long as the manifester/caster level and power/spell prerequisites are met or an appropriate spell/power analogue is provided.
Rings crafted with CUI must still have a minimum CL/ML of 12, the CL prerequisite of the Forge Ring feat|...|Rings crafted with CUI have a minimum CL/ML needed for the highest spell/power used in their creation. The feat's prerequisites don't factor in.[/table]
This section from the MIC seems to indicate the contrary to what you're saying about the feat prerequisites in relation to magic/psionic transparency. It does, however, leave the specific issue of rings unclear. For weapons, armor, and wondrous items, this section is very clear that transparency is intended and the same rules should be applied to both magic and psionic items.

An item's price is based on its default caster level. When created a given item can have a higher caster level, but the stats in the books (usually) give the caster level that the price is based on. Calling out items published before the errata as breaking that rule is completely irrelevant, as they're not going to errata nearly every item ever printed.The vast majority of the items printed were printed after your "rule change." There should be no need to errata them.

Per your position, an item's minimum caster level is that which is required to cast any spells contained in the item, plus any caster level prerequisites for that item.That is correct. You must meet the spell's minimum CL and and additional CL requirements given by the individual item.

There's proof enough that nearly every item can and does break that rule in nearly any item that does have a caster level prerequisite (Amulet of Natural Armor, Bracers of Armor, etc.).

et's look at a few obvious contradictions to your own position, as I've already pointed out: Amulet of Natural Armor and Bracers of Armor.

An Amulet of Natural Armor has a default caster level of 5, but one of its prerequisites is a caster level three times the bonus it grants. That means any grade of the Amulet of Natural Armor above +1 breaks the post-errata rule. Bracers of Armor have a default caster level of 7, but its prerequisites include a caster level twice the bonus it grants. That means any grade of Bracers of Armor above +3 will break the post-errata rule.
Nearly every item that specifically names a varying caster level in its prerequisites that's based on the item's bonus will likewise break this rule. That my interpretation causes items to break the rule is absolutely no grounds for argument from someone whose own position also causes a great number of items to break the rule in exactly the same way. That's called a double standard.
As I have already pointed out, this does not "break the rule," because there is an additional requirement for both of those items given. That requirement is spelled out in several different places. I will quote them here:

[Ring of] Protection
...
caster must be of a level at least three times greater than the bonus of the ring

Amulet of Natural Armor
...
creator’s caster level must be at least three times the amulet’s bonus

Bracers of Armor
...
creator’s caster level must be at least two times that of the bonus placed in the bracers

For an item with only an enhancement bonus, the caster level is three times the enhancement bonus.

Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor.

For an item with only an enhancement bonus and no other abilities, the caster level is three times the enhancement bonus.

Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite: The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon.

For an item with only an enhancement bonus and no other abilities (such as a +3 longsword), the caster level is three times the enhancement bonus.
These are specific instances of where there is a caster level requirement over and above the general caster level rule. A standard of D&D is that specific trumps general. Disregarding the weapon and armor for a moment (which has yet another requirement), I want to focus on the first three, a ring and two wondrous items.

All three items support my interpretation of the rules with no problems whatsoever. Let's look at it more closely.

There are two requirements for these particular items.

An item has to meet the minimum CL of the highest level spell used in its creation.
An item with only an enhancement bonus and no other abilities has a caster level three times its enhancement bonus.

Let's look specifically at the Amulet of Natural Armor.

Amulet of Natural Armor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#amuletofNaturalArmor)
This amulet, usually crafted from bone or beast scales, toughens the wearer’s body and flesh, giving him an enhancement bonus to his natural armor bonus of from +1 to +5, depending on the kind of amulet.

Faint transmutation; CL 5th; Craft Wondrous Item, barkskin, creator’s caster level must be at least three times the amulet’s bonus; Price 2,000 gp (+1), 8,000 gp (+2), 18,000 gp (+3), 32,000 gp (+4), or 50,000 gp (+5).
Does a +1 amulet comply with the first requirement? Yes, CL 5 is high enough to cast barkskin.
Does a +1 amulet compy with the second requirement? Yes, 5 is higher than 3*1.
No problems there.

Following the rules presented above, you are required to increase the caster level to meet both requirements. This is repeated multiple times and is made very clear.
A +2 amulet is increased to CL 6, +3 to CL 9, +4 to CL 12, and +5 to CL 15.
Therefore, it continues to meet both requirements as understood in my interpretation with no problems at all.

The Bracers of Armor are an interesting item. They specify a caster level of two times bonus instead of three. However, there are two points I should make about this item.
First, the rule of Specific trumps General applies. If the specific item says two when the general rule says three, then the two applies and the three does not.
Second, and equally important, Bracers of Armor do not provide an enhancement bonus. They provide an armor bonus, just as if you were wearing armor. Therefore, the 3 * enhancement general rule doesn't apply to them anyway!
Bracers of Armor still do not contradict or invalidate my interpretation of the rules in any way.

I believe that this is sufficient evidence for my position to show that such items do not indeed break any rules by my interpretation. This should prove that there is no "double standard," despite accusations to the contrary.

The power is in the hands of the game designers and the DM to invent items with a default caster level lower than what's required to meet its prerequisites, but the players who invest in item creation feats can enjoy the luxury of crafting those items at a higher caster level for no additional cost.I still do not believe that increasing the CL of an item and increasing its variable effects should have no correlating increase in cost. That's clearly not what is intended by the numerous references to caster level influencing the cost of an item.

If a DM wants to use Rule 0 to create items that do not conform to the rules, that's the DM's prerogative as DM. The existence of Rule 0 does not universally negate all other rules, just as I have stated previously.

There are some players who care more about 'winning' than whether anyone else has fun, and they don't like that they can't exploit the item creation pricing guidelines without their DM's permission, and that's just sad.And here you go yet again attacking any interpretation other than your own as a rules exploit, "bad gaming," and an attempt to "ruin fun."

My position isn't about "winning" or "exploiting rules," nor has it ever been. It's about interpreting the rules as best as possible based on the large body of supporting evidence.

I do not understand why you insist that any interpretation except yours is bad, wrong, and tantamount to cheating and feel a need to attack, insult, and demean it.

1Finally, I want to draw your attention to the following passages in the psionic item creation rules given to players in the XPH. I quote them below with my own emphasis added.
Several of the feats described in Chapter 3 of this book grant psionic characters the ability to create psionic items. They include everything needed to recreate any of the items described here. But what if you want to create a completely new item? Nothing is stopping you—go ahead! However, you’ll need to price the new item fairly in comparison to others of approximately equal power.

To calculate the costs involved in creating a psionic item, refer to Creating Magic Items on page 282 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide and in particular Table 7–33 in that book (page 285). Although that information deals with magic items, the price formulas presented there are identical to those for psionic items.
Refer to Table 7–33 on page 285 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide and use the item prices in this chapter as a guideline.
In the same way that a player character manifester can research a new power, a PC may be able to invent a new kind of psionic item.
While Biff claims that "Nowhere is it stated that players are allowed to invent new magic items, nowhere at all" and that this table in the DMG contains "no rules" and "is for DMs only," the Expanded Psionics Handbook seems to think differently.

TypoNinja

2012-12-06, 01:17 AM

I still do not believe that increasing the CL of an item and increasing its variable effects should have no correlating increase in cost. That's clearly not what is intended by the numerous references to caster level influencing the cost of an item.

Its patently silly as an idea, if that were the case every wand ever would only ever be created at max level for its spell, who wants a 5d6 wand of fireball if I could have a 10d6 wand for the exact same price? The same goes for literally every other magic item based on a spell with level dependent effects.

I'm still kind of curious how he could possibly come to that conclusion when literally every magic item that casts spells lists its formula is spell level times caster level. Caster level is clearly the basis of cost.

Deophaun

2012-12-06, 01:44 AM

I have a character. He takes 12 levels of cleric and picks up Craft Ring. Next level, he takes a level of wizard. He crafts a ring of feather fall. What's the CL for the ring?

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2012-12-06, 02:05 AM

Its patently silly as an idea, if that were the case every wand ever would only ever be created at max level for its spell, who wants a 5d6 wand of fireball if I could have a 10d6 wand for the exact same price? The same goes for literally every other magic item based on a spell with level dependent effects.

I'm still kind of curious how he could possibly come to that conclusion when literally every magic item that casts spells lists its formula is spell level times caster level. Caster level is clearly the basis of cost.

If you would stop fixating on Table 7-33 and actually read what the text says in the DMG on pages 282-288 you would see that potions, scrolls, staffs, and wands specifically do have a price directly correlating to their caster level, but other types of items use the printed prices. Table 7-33 is specifically for inventing new items, not modifying the prices of existing items, whose prices are set in stone.

As for Rizban, per the sentence I've repeatedly quoted, only the prerequisites given are taken into consideration, not the methods used to bypass those prerequisites, such as substituting Craft Universal Item for Forge Ring. In that case Forge Ring is still the prerequisite given, and the item's minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet that prerequisite, which is a caster level of 12. My interpretation of that sentence is 100% accurate per the English language, regardless of how little sense it makes in relation to the rules which came before it. The general rule is that an item's minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet all of its given prerequisites, and any printed item which has a lower caster level is an exception to that rule, just as much as anything else published is an exception to any other rule.

If a Wizard 12 with Forge Ring gets level drained and his caster level is currently only 11, he no longer meets the prerequisites for his Forge Ring feat. That means he cannot use that feat to meet the prerequisites to craft an item that requires it, so in order to meet the prerequisites given for that item he needs a caster level of 12. That is the minimum caster level for that item, because that is the caster level which is needed to meet the prerequisites given.

Furthermore, you can use a spell-like ability in place of a spell in item creation, and spell-like abilities have no minimum caster level (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities). That means you could conceivably craft any item in the game at a caster level of one, except that it specifically states the caster level which is needed to meet the prerequisites given is the minimum. Substituting a spell-like ability for a spell is the same as substituting Craft Universal Item for Forge Ring, the original prerequisites given are all that's considered when determining the minimum caster level of an item, not any abilities substituted for those prerequisites. So again, your interpretation appears designed to specifically allow pricing items below what is fair, whereas my interpretation completely ignores any means of bypassing an item's normal prerequisites.

Rizban

2012-12-06, 09:16 AM

I have a character. He takes 12 levels of cleric and picks up Craft Ring. Next level, he takes a level of wizard. He crafts a ring of feather fall. What's the CL for the ring?

1st. Obviously. Not only is it a 1st level spell, but it's also specified as a CL 1 item in the DMG. Under my interpretation, this is a perfectly legal and reasonable use of the feat.

Under Biff's interpretation, I don't know if you'd be able to craft the item or not. You'll have to wait for him to comment, as I honestly have no idea how the rules apply to this situation from his perspective.

1
If you would stop fixating on Table 7-33 and actually read what the text says in the DMG on pages 282-288 you would see that potions, scrolls, staffs, and wands specifically do have a price directly correlating to their caster level, but other types of items use the printed prices. Table 7-33 is specifically for inventing new items, not modifying the prices of existing items, whose prices are set in stone.That leaves a huge question in my mind. If the prices are set in stone, and you can make them weaker or stronger without a price decrease or increase... how does that balance out?

You insist that my interpretation is a rules exploit and ruins fun and is bad gaming, but, under your interpretation, you are charging MORE for LOW level items and LESS for HIGH level items. How does this line up with your claim that your interpretation is the only balanced and fair interpretation? Why would I ever pay the same amount for a ring of CL 2nd when I can pay the same amount for the same ring at CL 20th with 10 times the strength of the variable spell effects? How is that balanced in any way? I do not understand why you make such accusations against me when this is a flaw of your interpretation but is not a flaw in mine.

1
As for Rizban, per the sentence I've repeatedly quoted, only the prerequisites given are taken into consideration, not the methods used to bypass those prerequisites, such as substituting Craft Universal Item for Forge Ring. In that case Forge Ring is still the prerequisite given, and the item's minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet that prerequisite, which is a caster level of 12.And I have never once said that you don't have to meet the prerequisites for the feat. Never once.

I have said, and continue to say, that the feat's prerequisites are met by the character not the item. The character has to have CL 12, not the item. The feat prerequisite on an item is a Boolean conditional. If you have it, you can make the item. If you don't, you can't. There's no further input from the feat. The prerequisites of the feat are only for the feat, not for the item.

My interpretation of that sentence is 100% accurate per the English language, regardless of how little sense it makes in relation to the rules which came before it.Technically, yes; however, your operational definition of the word "prerequisites" does not line up with what is specifically given in the book's operational definition of the same word as provided in the section labeled "prerequisites" which follows immediately after the sentence in question.

That section covers, in detail, the prerequisites of crafting an item. The ONLY time the prerequisites of the feat come up at all is in the one quote from the web article I already quoted and referenced in previous posts.

The general rule is that an item's minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet all of its given prerequisites, and any printed item which has a lower caster level is an exception to that rule, just as much as anything else published is an exception to any other rule.There is no exception to the rule for printed items in this area under my interpretation. That's why I believe mine is the correct one.

Your interpretation requires specific rules exemptions for large numbers of printed items and DM fiat in several cases for item crafting.

Mine uses the items as printed.

If a Wizard 12 with Forge Ring gets level drained and his caster level is currently only 11, he no longer meets the prerequisites for his Forge Ring feat. That means he cannot use that feat to meet the prerequisites to craft an item that requires it, so in order to meet the prerequisites given for that item he needs a caster level of 12.This has never been in dispute. It is quite obvious by the rules that the character has to meet the feat's prerequisites. I have stated this repeatedly.

That is the minimum caster level for that item, because that is the caster level which is needed to meet the prerequisites given.And this is where your argument breaks down. Your interpretation is based on a fallacy of composition. Just because one part of the equation must equal X does not mean that the whole composite must equal X. The CL requirement on the feat must be met by the character, not by the item. You really have to stretch that sentence read it as meaning that, and no where in any of the supporting body of work that I've collected and quoted in this thread has shown any kind of support for your interpretation. It would be really nice to see some kind of support for your position other than this one sentence from the DMG errata that may or may not mean what you claim it means.

Furthermore, you can use a spell-like ability in place of a spell in item creation, and spell-like abilities have no minimum caster level (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities). That means you could conceivably craft any item in the game at a caster level of one, except that it specifically states the caster level which is needed to meet the prerequisites given is the minimum.This is an converse fallacy of accident and is patently wrong. The rules explicitly state that the minimum caster level is the minimum needed to cast the highest level spell necessary in the item's construction.

In a completely different section, it allows exceptions for characters unable to cast the spell in the form of using an analogue, i.e. a wand, scroll, or spell-like ability or the hiring of a second party to cast said spell, in the place of the character casting the spell for that item. It, however, does not ever change the minimum caster level or other prerequisites. It simply allows for alternate sources of the casting to take place.

Nothing in the section modifies the cost or requirements of the item in any way. To say otherwise is clearly wrong, and using such to defend your position is silly at best.

Substituting a spell-like ability for a spell is the same as substituting Craft Universal Item for Forge RingQuite so. As I pointed out above, it's an alternate source for meeting the prereqs. That does not in any way change the requirements on crafting the item.

However, my interpretation does not require the item to meet the feat's prerequisites. Only the character has to meet the prereqs.

the original prerequisites given are all that's considered when determining the minimum caster level of an item, not any abilities substituted for those prerequisites. So again, your interpretation appears designed to specifically allow pricing items below what is fair, whereas my interpretation completely ignores any means of bypassing an item's normal prerequisites.And once again, you're wrong.

Let's look at the Ring of Telekinesis. As printed, it replicates a 5th-level spell and has caster level 9th and functions on command.

Increasing the caster level to 20th increases the range, the duration, the amount of weight that can be lifted, the effective Base Attack Bonus for the Combat Maneuver use of the spell, and the number of creatures/objects that can be thrown using the Violent Thrust use of the spell. This is a significant increase in power.

Under your interpretation, a Ring of Telekinesis at CL 9 and a Ring of Telekinesis at CL 20 both cost 75,000 gp. After all, CL has no input on cost, and printed items have fixed prices and variable CLs.

Under my interpretation, a Ring of Telekinesis at CL 9 costs 75,000 gp as printed; however, a Ring of Telekinesis at CL 20 costs significantly more due to the increased CL. Using a little math, the price for the ring at CL 20 would be approximately 166,000 gp.

So I ask you, whose interpretation is it that results in "pricing items below what is fair"?