Remove some CL req for craft magic items

[anatoliy-savchak]

Apparently CL entry in magic items description is NOT actual requirement. I only recently discovered it and it is very common mistake.

3.5e Main FAQ:

The rules for magic item creation permit a character creating an item to use scrolls, wands, or even another caster as the source of the spells to be placed in the item. The rules do not, however, state clearly whether the character crafting the item has to be of a level sufficient to cast a given spell. Is the caster level of the character with the item creation feat being used to create the item (the "creator”) a limit on the power of the item? For example, can a 3rd-level wizard with the Craft Wondrous Item feat create items containing any spell (assuming access to the spells by other means), or is he limited to 2nd-level spells? Unless stated specifically, items never have a minimum caster level as a prerequisite. (The “CL” entry is the default caster level of the item, not a requirement for creation.) A 3rd-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item could create a harp of charming (even though he’s not high-enough level to cast suggestion, a prerequisite for creation), as long he had access to the suggestion spell during creation (such as from an item or another character).

https://www.scribd.com/document/37680159/D20-WotC-D-D3-5-Frequently-Asked-Questions page 62

Therefore craft_maa_specs.tab should be modified and CL requirement removed (except some specific entries like Enchantment max bonus etc).

[dolio]

There are other ways that ToEE does not match up with the item creation rules. Some of that might have been revisions that happened later in 3.5; it's hard to tell whether some of the stuff in the compendia were originally intended by the rules in the DMG or not.

For instance, the magic item compendium explicitly says that it isn't necessary for one character to meet all the prerequisites for a given magic item. Multiple characters can work together to supply them, and I believe only one needs to have the crafting feat. I think the DMG mentions that for spell prerequisites, but not others (like feats and whatnot). But, ToEE requires e.g. a Good domain cleric with the crafting feat to craft holy weapons.

If you want to get into scrolls, though, you have to be careful. The way spell prerequisites work are essentially that someone is casting the spell every day as part of the item creation (although you don't require material/xp components for them unless it's the sort of magic item that can actually cast the spell, usually). So if you want to use a scroll to satisfy the requirement, you need one scroll per day that it takes to craft the item.

Of course, ToEE doesn't keep track of how many days are taken at all, either. :)

If it's just the caster level prerequisites, though, yeah. Most items don't actually have those.

[doug1234]

I think its a good candidate for a "stricter rules enforcement" type flag.

[dolio]

Is that possible if it's stuff in a .tab file?

[doug1234]

I would leave the .tab file alone and just not enforce the requirement on the C++ side when the flag is set. There is already a flag to turn off spell requirements. Adding one to turn off the caster level requirement would seem easy to do.

[dolio]

Well, some crafting does have a caster level requirement. All weapon/armor abilities equivalent to enhancement bonuses are intended to, I think. And various wondrous items also have caster level prerequisites. It's just that the 'caster level' part of the description isn't the prerequisite.

So, you can't just turn it off in the code. It'd have to have a separate table of the actual prerequisites.

Here's a proposal, I guess. Relax the format of the tab file. The caster level column can now contain up to two space-separated entries. The first entry is used under normal rules. Under strict rules, the second is used if it exists, otherwise there is no caster level prerequisite. Then the tab file just needs to be altered to add the actual prerequisites for things that should have them under strict rules.

[doug1234]

I hadn't thought of that, good point. I think you proposal is reasonable. Something like that should be doable.