Any rules or guidance on using Metamagc in magic item creation?

[reddir]

I saw this quote and was shocked:

For example, get all Sanctum Cantrips at will for -1*1*2000=-2000xp per cantrip. Or more if you maximize the CL(40 is easy enough for a net gain of 80000xp per cantrip).

I had never considered the implications. I’d always assumed that the metamagic feats raised the Spell Level, but the RAW quite clearly only changes the needed Spell Slot, and only a few of them change the effective Spell Level; and crafting costs seem to be based off the Spell Level.

Are there any rulings or generally accepted practices for using and accounting for using metamagic feats on the spells cast for magic item creation?

[ExLibrisMortis]

I think the usual recommended practice is to let the spell slot set the price of the item.

[HouseRules]

Minimum Caster Level changes from Effective Spell Level from Heighten Spell and similar Metamagic, but not Adjusted Spell Level from Other Metamagic.

So it is possible to craft an item with 9th-level spell and 1st-level caster if you use Metamagic to increase Adjusted Spell Level without increasing Effective Spell Level.

All Items use the Spell Level × Caster Level × Necessary Multiplier unless it is part of the table indicated for specific bonuses.

Given that Sanctum Spell affects Effective Spell Level, it does not affect the cost of those spells, but may affect Minimum Caster Level.

Edit:

Difficulty Class = 10 + Effective Spell Level + Relevant Ability Score Modifier + Specific or Circumstantial Bonus

Level of Spell Slot Required = Adjusted Spell Level.

[Malphegor]

Yeah, generally the spell slot used determines the spell level used in casting I think, so using metamagic bumps up the price on stuff.

However, there is a way around this I think. Residual Magic feat (specifically lingering metamagic)- you fire off a metamagic spell as normal, then the next round you cast it again, except now it is the same spell level as if the metamagic wasn't there. Stick that metamagic'd spell in your item at a decent discount.

[reddir]

Minimum Caster Level changes from Effective Spell Level from Heighten Spell and similar Metamagic, but not Adjusted Spell Level from Other Metamagic.

So it is possible to craft an item with 9th-level spell and 1st-level caster if you use Metamagic to increase Adjusted Spell Level without increasing Effective Spell Level.

All Items use the Spell Level × Caster Level × Necessary Multiplier unless it is part of the table indicated for specific bonuses.

Given that Sanctum Spell affects Effective Spell Level, it does not affect the cost of those spells, but may affect Minimum Caster Level.

Edit:

Difficulty Class = 10 + Effective Spell Level + Relevant Ability Score Modifier + Specific or Circumstantial Bonus

Level of Spell Slot Required = Adjusted Spell Level.

Is the term “Adjusted Spell Level” specifically used in the rules?

I’ve only seen the changed spell slot mechanic.

[reddir]

Someone suggested that I look at the 3.5 Player’s Handbook page 88.

There, amidst some confusing of “Spell Slot” with “Spell Level”, one can take the idea that metamagic which affects the spell slot needed to cast a spell should also increase the spell level for item creation calculations (as well as determining if the spell can be placed in a potion or wand).

So, despite the confused terms and the rule not being given explicitly, one can cite the example given to show an intent that higher required spell slot = higher creation cost.

(Sorry for not quoting the relevant texts. I am on my phone and am not so good at typing here.)

———

EDIT— On rereading the text a few more times, to be honest I must say that this interpretation is shaky. The example given is not given in the “Magic Items and Metamagic Spells” section but in the “Multiple Metamagic Feats on a Spell” section just above it, which would naturally be about the spell slot needed to cast the spell.

My interpretation is strongly based on habitual thought as well as what seems to me to be most balanced. (This page could have used a bit more editing.)

I have to admit that a strictly RAW reading might be argued as supporting (or at least allowing) the other interpretation.