Question about magic item level and dispel magic

[Melcar]

So, I was looking at dispel magic and found out that a single targeted dispel magic can annul an item for a short but important time. So how does this work if there are multiple enchantments on it, each of with their own caster level. How then do I determine which CL the item has?

Dispel magic says: "if the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the item's caster level. If you succeed, all the item's magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds..."

So, what happens if I make a Soulfire, Planar Tolerance, Healing, Freedom, Health, Easy Travel, Restful, Comfort, Bracers of Armor (+8 Armor, +5 Natural, +5 Insight, +5 Sacred, +5 Luck)

What DC, does the dispelling mage have to make, and what is the CL of such an item?

Thank you

[heavyfuel]

Someonce correct me if I'm wrong, as it's been a while since I read upon this, but...

There are 3 ways to determine an item's CL.

If it's a Wondrous Item, the CL should be printed with the item (eg: Lantern of Revealing is CL 5th)
If it's a magic weapon/armor, the CL is 3 times the enhancement bonus (eg: +2 armor is CL 6th)
If there's a special property on the weapon/armor, the CL should be printed with it (eg: Spell storing weapons are CL 12th)

You always take the highest CL of anything to determine its CL.

In your case, Bracers of Armor are CL 7th.
Check to see if any of the enchantments are CL higher than 7th, if yes, then use the highest one.

[tyckspoon]

If you're making the item yourself, the CL can be any caster level you are capable of using. If it has/had possible multiple CLs on it (say you found an item and later upgraded it yourself, or have been continuously upgrading it as you level up) then for simplicity's sake I would just treat the whole item's caster level as that of the highest CL effect on it. Check against that, either the whole item is suppressed or it's not. I think this is probably most consistent with the existing rules for dispelling items.

The complicated way would be keep a record of the CL that was used for every separate enchantment/trait on the item, and then treat it like targeted dispel magic against a character with multiple spells running - roll a dispel check against every individual enchantment. Keep a record of which specific traits are suppressed accordingly.

[Fizban]

One item is one item. If you improve it by adding a new ability that has a higher caster level, the caster level is now higher. If you make the check to suppress it, the whole items is suppressed, though any spells it cast aren't affected.

I've seen people saying you can set the caster level to whatever you want without cost, but I've never read it that way. Rather, I'm pretty sure that part is specifically about the hard formula items which the caster effectively designs themselves (scrolls, potions, wands, staves) , which is reinforced by the fact that the pricing guidelines for anything that duplicates a spell effect include the caster level as part of the price. Maybe I'd allow free caster level increases on flat bonus items where the only benefit gained is resistance to dispel shutdown as a minor perk of having the crafting feat (it does jive with the Universal Solvent problem, below), but if you're getting something significant you gotta pay for it.

Note also that I'm pretty sure that the given caster level for many items isn't actually an official Prerequisite (though I could have missed it somewhere). Flat bonuses have explicit cl requirements, and you need to be able to cast the relevant spells, but I remember failing to find anything that actually says you have to have X caster level. This is relevant for items like Universal Solvent, an extremely low priced multi-purpose consumable with cl 20, which just doesn't make sense if it actually requires a 20th level caster to spend an entire day making it. The "design" of many earlier items could include the idea that through whatever mystical process, a thing is relatively easy to make but also supremely effective.

Note also that many items in the later books will cast spells without actually listing their caster level. If an item gives the caster level (or duration or other specifics) of the spell it casts, that tells you caster level of that effect, regardless of whatever the item's general caster level is and/or if you increase the item's caster level by adding a flat ability that happens to have a higher level. But if it doesn't list the specifics, then you have to default to the given caster level for the item. This is particularly noticable with the Drow House Insignia, which due to having 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level variants within a single entry, lists the item's caster level as 5th. Which means the 1st level spell version still defaults to that 5th caster level for its only function of casting a 1st level spell, despite the price being far lower than you would normally expect*. However, if you add a high level Con bonus or something, that still wouldn't increase the caster level of the original DHI spell- improving that effect would require the DM to decide how much improving the spell is worth.


*When the item has no caster level given at all, you're supposed to assume the lowest normal cl for the highest level spell prerequisite. But the DHI has a given caster level. The rules address the fact that an item may cast a particular spell at stated level which is lower than the item's general caster level, but there is no statement which directly covers the DHI situation. I assume that the information of the item's caster level is supposed to be used in some way if it is given, so I say that it defaults, but one could easily argue that the default for unspecified cl of [i]any spell effect is always the minimum, and this may be the intent behind the DHI. Basically the combination of item format change and writers that don't care about the details shockingly created even more problems.

[Melcar]

Someonce correct me if I'm wrong, as it's been a while since I read upon this, but...

There are 3 ways to determine an item's CL.

If it's a Wondrous Item, the CL should be printed with the item (eg: Lantern of Revealing is CL 5th)
If it's a magic weapon/armor, the CL is 3 times the enhancement bonus (eg: +2 armor is CL 6th)
If there's a special property on the weapon/armor, the CL should be printed with it (eg: Spell storing weapons are CL 12th)

You always take the highest CL of anything to determine its CL.

In your case, Bracers of Armor are CL 7th.
Check to see if any of the enchantments are CL higher than 7th, if yes, then use the highest one.

Cool, thanks. Does that minimum 3x the bonus also count for like competence bonus to skill checks?


If you're making the item yourself, the CL can be any caster level you are capable of using. If it has/had possible multiple CLs on it (say you found an item and later upgraded it yourself, or have been continuously upgrading it as you level up) then for simplicity's sake I would just treat the whole item's caster level as that of the highest CL effect on it. Check against that, either the whole item is suppressed or it's not. I think this is probably most consistent with the existing rules for dispelling items.

The complicated way would be keep a record of the CL that was used for every separate enchantment/trait on the item, and then treat it like targeted dispel magic against a character with multiple spells running - roll a dispel check against every individual enchantment. Keep a record of which specific traits are suppressed accordingly.

Would I, just be able to say that something, that does not have explicit level attached to the price, was a certain level, without me adding an extra cost for high level? Like the character is level 32, can I just determine that I want the +10 competence bonus to concentration to be enchanted at level 32, but keep the: 10x10x100 price?



One item is one item. If you improve it by adding a new ability that has a higher caster level, the caster level is now higher. If you make the check to suppress it, the whole items is suppressed, though any spells it cast aren't affected.

I've seen people saying you can set the caster level to whatever you want without cost, but I've never read it that way. Rather, I'm pretty sure that part is specifically about the hard formula items which the caster effectively designs themselves (scrolls, potions, wands, staves) , which is reinforced by the fact that the pricing guidelines for anything that duplicates a spell effect include the caster level as part of the price. Maybe I'd allow free caster level increases on flat bonus items where the only benefit gained is resistance to dispel shutdown as a minor perk of having the crafting feat (it does jive with the Universal Solvent problem, below), but if you're getting something significant you gotta pay for it.

Note also that I'm pretty sure that the given caster level for many items isn't actually an official Prerequisite (though I could have missed it somewhere). Flat bonuses have explicit cl requirements, and you need to be able to cast the relevant spells, but I remember failing to find anything that actually says you have to have X caster level. This is relevant for items like Universal Solvent, an extremely low priced multi-purpose consumable with cl 20, which just doesn't make sense if it actually requires a 20th level caster to spend an entire day making it. The "design" of many earlier items could include the idea that through whatever mystical process, a thing is relatively easy to make but also supremely effective.

Note also that many items in the later books will cast spells without actually listing their caster level. If an item gives the caster level (or duration or other specifics) of the spell it casts, that tells you caster level of that effect, regardless of whatever the item's general caster level is and/or if you increase the item's caster level by adding a flat ability that happens to have a higher level. But if it doesn't list the specifics, then you have to default to the given caster level for the item. This is particularly noticable with the Drow House Insignia, which due to having 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level variants within a single entry, lists the item's caster level as 5th. Which means the 1st level spell version still defaults to that 5th caster level for its only function of casting a 1st level spell, despite the price being far lower than you would normally expect*. However, if you add a high level Con bonus or something, that still wouldn't increase the caster level of the original DHI spell- improving that effect would require the DM to decide how much improving the spell is worth.


*When the item has no caster level given at all, you're supposed to assume the lowest normal cl for the highest level spell prerequisite. But the DHI has a given caster level. The rules address the fact that an item may cast a particular spell at stated level which is lower than the item's general caster level, but there is no statement which directly covers the DHI situation. I assume that the information of the item's caster level is supposed to be used in some way if it is given, so I say that it defaults, but one could easily argue that the default for unspecified cl of [i]any spell effect is always the minimum, and this may be the intent behind the DHI. Basically the combination of item format change and writers that don't care about the details shockingly created even more problems.

Same question basically... If I want my enchants to be at level 32, but the price of a giving enchant is for example 7, then and there is no formula for pricing based on level, how do I know what the price and therefore exp cost of a giving enchantment?



On another note:

1) If I create an item, that adds, Luck, Competence, Sacred, Insight to AC do any of them count against touch ac? I would assume insight did at least, but luck would make sense too... But, so far I haven't been able to find any official answers.

2) Following the above question, how many types of bonus are there?

3) Is it possible for a good aligned person to wear items with the profane bonus? And can you enchant the same item with both sacred and profane?

4) Is there anything I cant add all types of bonuses to? I know I can add them to skill checks, saves and AC, but what about stats, initiative, etc, what else can I boost with numerous types?


Thanks for all the help guys!

[Crichton]

I've seen people saying you can set the caster level to whatever you want without cost, but I've never read it that way. Rather, I'm pretty sure that part is specifically about the hard formula items which the caster effectively designs themselves (scrolls, potions, wands, staves) [in fact I just checked the DMG and that is exactly where the line comes from], which is reinforced by the fact that the pricing guidelines for anything that duplicates a spell effect include the caster level as part of the price.

So, how are you reconciling this text, from the Magic Item Basics entry on an item's Caster Level (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#casterLevel)?



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 that the DMG pg 215 originally had the text 'the caster level is determined by the item' but the DMG Errata (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata) changed that to the above text, and that errata change is reflected in the SRD's entry.

[Khedrac]

On another note:

1) If I create an item, that adds, Luck, Competence, Sacred, Insight to AC do any of them count against touch ac? I would assume insight did at least, but luck would make sense too... But, so far I haven't been able to find any official answers.
Officially, touch AC discounts the armor shield and natural armor bonuses to AC so all of the others work.
Note, I did not list enhancement because you cannot get an enhancement bonus to AC, items can get an enhancement bonus to their bonus which will be one one of the other types.


2) Following the above question, how many types of bonus are there?
Lots and lots, there is no official list, worse some of them are a bit blurred from the way they have been used in official material. Not all of them can be used for all purposes.

To start with (all of these should be viable as AC bonuses):
armor, shield, dodge, luck, sacred, profane, circumstance, cover, natural armor, insight, competence, untyped, anarchic, axiomatic, infernal, diabolic...
Not all of them can come from magic however.


3) Is it possible for a good aligned person to wear items with the profane bonus? And can you enchant the same item with both sacred and profane?
Yes. Some specific items apply penalties, but there is no general rule. Yes.


4) Is there anything I cant add all types of bonuses to? I know I can add them to skill checks, saves and AC, but what about stats, initiative, etc, what else can I boost with numerous types?
In general it is undefined.
There are obvious "no" answers like adding a shield bonus to your attack. Most can be added to stats save and AC and skill and ability checks.
Note that initiative is a special dexterity check so don't try adding the same bonus to it twice.

Part of the problem when one really starts stacking bonuses is that the rules are unclear. They clearly state that you cannot add the same type of bonus twice, but they don't do so well on defining bonus types.
If you read the PHB then a characteristic modifier would apppear to be a bonus type - not Str and Dex and Con etc., but Str or Dex or Con... I know of no-one who plays it what way, but a really strict reading would appear to prevent you from ever adding two different stat modifiers to the same roll!

[Fizban]

Note that the DMG pg 215 originally had the text 'the caster level is determined by the item' but the DMG Errata (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata) changed that to the above text, and that errata change is reflected in the SRD's entry.
Hey look, an errata that doesn't add anything or make sense. Reconciled. :smallamused:

Though that does show me where the requirement that you meet the item's caster level regardless is written. The column break in the 3.5 version is killer, but the line is from the 3.0 version as well. So Universal Solvent never made sense.

Note also that that 3.5 DMG errata explicitly says the change is for clarification- Why would this happen in 3.5 errata rather than being addressed in the edition change? No joke, I think it's almost certainly because of that line break. If you read to the bottom of the page it just says that the "item itself" determines the caster level, which could indeed seem ambiguous. Taken together the last two sentences are easy to parse, but most likely in the 3.5 version no one was actually reading the last sentence, causing all the questions and thus an errata "replacing" them with a line that actually creates distinct mechanical change.

[Crichton]

Hey look, an errata that doesn't add anything or make sense. Reconciled. :smallamused:

Though that does show me where the requirement that you meet the item's caster level regardless is written. The column break in the 3.5 version is killer, but the line is from the 3.0 version as well. So Universal Solvent never made sense.

Note also that that 3.5 DMG errata explicitly says the change is for clarification- Why would this happen in 3.5 errata rather than being addressed in the edition change? No joke, I think it's almost certainly because of that line break. If you read to the bottom of the page it just says that the "item itself" determines the caster level, which could indeed seem ambiguous. Taken together the last two sentences are easy to parse, but most likely in the 3.5 version no one was actually reading the last sentence, causing all the questions and thus an errata "replacing" them with a line that actually creates distinct mechanical change.

That's..... an awful lot of assuming someone else's intent with no real evidence. Of course, no one can prove a negative, so I can't say you're wrong about their motivations, though frankly, I doubt it.

As for the 3.0 version and why they didn't do it in the edition change, I think you're entirely wrong. The 3.0 version is exactly the same as the pre-errata 3.5 version. So they decided to make the change some time after the 3.5 edition was published (specifically, during the 9 month delay between the DMG being published and the Errata being released), and it being a simple formatting issue seems extremely unlikely.



Either way, it absolutely doesn't matter. Errata are official rules changes, so the rule is what it is. Caster level is determined by the item's creator. End of story.

[Fizban]

That's..... an awful lot of assuming someone else's intent with no real evidence.
Really? The text in the reformatted book is easy to miss so it caused questions which led to errata, that's an "awful lot of assuming?"

Ah, I think I see- are you reading that as if I think that they realized the formatting was a problem and made an errata? Because I would doubt that- I expect that with more forums and a printed book with a rule with a formatting problem (which is less evident in srd pdfs, which will cause more confusion), that it would look like people were finding the rule ambiguous, so they wrote an errata. Not that they noticed the column break problem- though if they did, it's not like they could magically fix it anyway. It's not a problem that will be noticed until users have the new print in their hands.

As for the 3.0 version and why they didn't do it in the edition change, I think you're entirely wrong. The 3.0 version is exactly the same as the pre-errata 3.5 version. So they decided to make the change some time after the 3.5 edition was published (specifically, during the 9 month delay between the DMG being published and the Errata being released), and it being a simple formatting issue seems extremely unlikely.
None of that contradicts any of my point except the part where you don't think it's likely. Yes, the point is that the 3.0 and 3.5 text is the same, except the 3.5 version has a column break which makes it exceptionally easy to miss the last sentence and its critical information. And considering the number of times I've seen both this exact question (as I said, I've looked for the info before) and similar questions where it turned out the answer was part of a sentence or paragraph that ended on the next column or page, I find it extremely likely. Most of the published errata is for typos and readability, and the stated reason in this errata is clarification (specifically text that was perceived as "ambiguous and potentially misleading"), not a rule change to remedy some mechanical problem.

Formatting and layout can and does make or break otherwise effective text, much like punctuation, and pretty much everything else that goes on the page. Zero or extremely low formatting is better than messing up, and d20srd is essentially zero formatting. No column breaks, no page breaks, each section conveniently displays the entire section with no chance of loss. The 3.5 DMG is not this. They rearranged whole chunks of the 3.0 causing them to display differently, and there are multiple places where information which used to be contained now splits across column or even page breaks. This decreases readability, end of story, as you say. The original text was almost certainly written and formatted at the same time, while the 3.5 version uses the same text with different formatting.

The effect is easy to see if you take an essay/article/notes/etc that's ready to print and then muck with it, just one change in font size or page size or added column or any number of things can cascade across the work and require a dozen more adjustments to get it lined up nicely again. You're calling it "a simple formatting issue," but there are entire dedicated professionals to do this "simple" job, and changing the layout of a 250+ page book full of images is going to have something get past even the best, unnoticed until an end user stumbles into the trap. And this isn't what you'd call a "loud" problem- there are only so many times this sort of thing happens, fewer of which cause any noticeable problem, and still fewer of which are significant enough for anyone to bother arguing on the internet about them. This is probably the most noticeable example.

The funny part really is just that the original text was not ambiguous -the errata explicitly added something that wasn't there. The original text did not allow you to make a standard item with a higher caster level than normal, the errata says you can. The errata is what assumes a different intent than what was written. Whether or not this was actually checked with the original writer or even considered a serious change worth a closer look, is unknown. Based on the rest of the material I think that the people involved either themselves were misreading the original, or decided the new addition was an insignificant change compared to the improved clarity they expected from it- yes, it is in fact possible they made a Rule Change for no other reason than readability without mind for the Rule Consequences.

Still, it could be that the original text was mistaken, that the writer wrote something which did not match their intent. This I find unlikely, because the entire section could have been written much more simply and explicitly if there was a deliberate intent that people could make standard items without them being the same as standard items, could do things that cost more in some items but not more in others. The consumables are separate from other items in the paragraph, and other items clearly have their own pre-determined caster level. The entire system is obviously built from the standpoint of standard items rolled randomly. The pricing guidelines are abundantly clear that higher caster levels cost more money, matching the way the prices of the consumables that you do explicitly choose the level of also increase with level. The only evidence of an intent that you can just arbitrarily set the caster level of an otherwise standard item higher than normal is the errata itself.

I can't actually tell if you're suggesting that the formatting was perfect, or that it doesn't matter at all, or that the errata is a conscious rule change that has nothing to do with people's reading of the rule, but all three of those are false (it's not, it does, and the errata itself gives the reasoning). If your only evidence is Word of God vs the rest of the book which clearly disagrees, I'd say that Word of God is a pretty shaky argument. Frankly, what I find weird is your resistance to the idea that text which is hard to read could cause them to write an errata :smallconfused:


Either way, it absolutely doesn't matter. Errata are official rules changes, so the rule is what it is. Caster level is determined by the item's creator. End of story.
Yes yes, and I then I tell you that the only rules which matter are the ones the DM actually cares about (and how The Rules say that the DM should not behold themselves to The Rules), and then we argue until we both get tired.

I think I've made my point as clear as its going to get. Any choices remain to be made by the user (who, if they are not the DM, should be providing the DM with the fullest amount of information- if you're going to bother asking the internet, you should be prepared to present conflicting opinions).

Also:

So, what happens if I make a Soulfire, Planar Tolerance, Healing, Freedom, Health, Easy Travel, Restful, Comfort, Bracers of Armor (+8 Armor, +5 Natural, +5 Insight, +5 Sacred, +5 Luck)

What DC, does the dispelling mage have to make, and what is the CL of such an item?
If one actually made that item the price puts it into epic item territory, which might cause an increase in minimum caster level despite all of those being otherwise non-epic abilities.

[Melcar]

Firstly I want to thank everyone who have helped me and answered all my long winded questions so far. Its been a great help.

I have a few last questions and then I think I might just be done with asking questions about crafting. I hope you guys will be able to answer this one fairly easily. Here goes:

If I'm adding multiple effects to an item, I multiply second or third effects by 50%, but is the exp cost of such an item calculated off the base price before or after multiplying by 50%? If I create a necklace of +1 natural armor, but wants to add Proof Against Poisson. Is the exp then calculated from a base price of the enchantment's base marked price or from the total when adding them together on an item? Is it the final total cost of the item, or the individual enchantments cost added together that form the exp cost?

(Example: Is the exp cost of a +5 ring of protection and +5 resistance either 3000 or 3500?


Sorry for poor wording I hope you guys understand. My confusion or uncertainty stems from the fact that the use of base price might mean something different than total final cost... Potentially there's quite a lot of exp to save if the exp cost is not calculated from final marked price (including any enchantment multiplied by 50%), but from each individual enchantment taken individually!

Again, thank you all for your help!