# Cost to add +1 ability to Specific Weapon



## Mistwell (Mar 25, 2007)

Let's say I have a specific magic weapon as opposed to a generic magic one.  I'll use the Crystal Echoblade from Magic Item Compendium as an example:



> Crystal Echoblade
> Price (Item Level)" 4,310 gp (9th)
> Body Slot: - (held)
> Caster Level: 10th
> ...




Now assume I want to add an ability to the Crystal Echoblade such as flaming:



> Flaming
> 
> Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition.
> 
> Moderate evocation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor and flame blade, flame strike, or fireball; Price +1 bonus.




A +1 bonus costs 2,000 gp, a +2 8,000 gp, and a +3 18,000 gp.

So, how much does it cost to add the flaming special ability to the Crystal Echoblade?


----------



## theredrobedwizard (Mar 25, 2007)

It looks as if the "Echoblade" quality is an added on thing, adding +2000gp to the base cost of a +1 Longsword.

Thus, it can be extrapolated that to add Flaming to such a weapon would cost 6000gp, the difference between +1 and +2.

-TRRW


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 25, 2007)

There are no rules for doing such. A DM could chose to do so, but there are not hard and fast rule for it. Adding the difference for the next "plus", in this case 6000gp, migh be about right.

And I have to say that item sounds like potent powerup for a bard. Only reason why i say not overpowered is due to the bard being on the low end of the power level spectrum.


----------



## starwed (Mar 25, 2007)

If  adding abilities to the "specific" weapons was easy to cost, they would have just made the specific weapon abilities either a +N modifier cost or a +Xgp cost.

The fact that they didn't do either of those things indicates that their pricing isn't according to such a scheme.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 25, 2007)

starwed said:
			
		

> If  adding abilities to the "specific" weapons was easy to cost, they would have just made the specific weapon abilities either a +N modifier cost or a +Xgp cost.
> 
> The fact that they didn't do either of those things indicates that their pricing isn't according to such a scheme.




Okay, then are you saying you think you should not be able to add a generic magic ability to a specific magic weapon, or that it is difficult and a case by case basis analysis depending on the specific magic weapon?

If it is the later, then what is your opinion for this example?


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 25, 2007)

You could 

1. add the difference between +1 and +2
2. add the difference from a +1 item to the cost of a +2 item
3. treat it as a "+ 1/2" modifier and price it about halfway between a +2 and a +3 item
4. pull a number out of your portable hole that sounds right

In any case, you'll have to playtest the result.


----------



## Gerion of Mercadia (Mar 25, 2007)

Well, sometimes the only way to calculate WotC logic is to reverse engineer the math according to formula.

A +1 longsword has a market price of 2310gp.

The Item in question is priced at 4310.

Your "cost difference" here is 2000 gp.  It appears that this added power is rated as a first level spell, "continuously activatable" by anyone using bardic music.

Accordingly, you calculate the abilities for a +x weapon normally, and then add on 2000gp to give it this feature.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 25, 2007)

Gerion of Mercadia said:
			
		

> Well, sometimes the only way to calculate WotC logic is to reverse engineer the math according to formula.
> 
> A +1 longsword has a market price of 2310gp.
> 
> ...




Sounds fair (and in accord with what theredrobedwizard and frankthedm said)

So, a +2 weapon is 8,000 gp (added to the base 310 for the masterwork longsword).  +2,000 gp for the special bardic ability, and we have 10,310  gp as an estimate.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 26, 2007)

The way that I'd probably do it is see what the cost of the item is, round it up to the next '+ equivalent' on the weapon enhancement chart, and then add the +1 ability to that.

In this instance, the price is 4310gp. This is above the +1 threshold (2000gp), so I bump it up to the +2 threshold (8000gp). I then add the +1 for the new flaming ability and I've got a +3 equivalent weapon, worth a total of 18000gp (thus the cost to add this ability to the echoblade would be +14,000gp).

That's how I'd do it. Look at the price, convert it to a '+ equivalent' and then work from there.

Cheers


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 26, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Sounds fair (and in accord with what theredrobedwizard and frankthedm said)
> 
> So, a +2 weapon is 8,000 gp (added to the base 310 for the masterwork longsword).  +2,000 gp for the special bardic ability, and we have 10,310  gp as an estimate.




I'm not sure I buy that reasoning. If it were intended that way, wouldn't echoblade just be a property that added +2000 gold? To me, it looks more like a +1 property with a price break for requiring bardic ability to activate.


----------



## Gerion of Mercadia (Mar 26, 2007)

> I'm not sure I buy that reasoning. If it were intended that way, wouldn't echoblade just be a property that added +2000 gold? To me, it looks more like a +1 property with a price break for requiring bardic ability to activate.




A Percentage price break is usually 10-30% of the cost of the entire item.  The market price for a +2 longsword is 8310gp.  If you try and cost this as a +1 property, and apply a "pricebreak" how do you explain a 50% discount on the magic?  IMHO, you can't.



> The way that I'd probably do it is see what the cost of the item is, round it up to the next '+ equivalent' on the weapon enhancement chart, and then add the +1 ability to that.




This is the same as making the "echoblade" a +1 feature.  That is clearly not the design intent.  The feature clearly is intended to cost less than a full +1 market price adjustment.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Sounds fair (and in accord with what theredrobedwizard and frankthedm said)
> 
> So, a +2 weapon is 8,000 gp (added to the base 310 for the masterwork longsword). +2,000 gp for the special bardic ability, and we have 10,310 gp as an estimate.




Right, and if you later want to add ghost touch - cost as +3 and add 2000 gp.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> 1. add the difference between +1 and +2
> 2. add the difference from a +1 item to the cost of a +2 item
> 3. treat it as a "+ 1/2" modifier and price it about halfway between a +2 and a +3 item
> 4. pull a number out of your portable hole that sounds right




uh - 1 and 2 are the same thing, and we wind up at the same price actually 10,310gp 

As far as option 3 there is no precedent for it at all, but plugging +2.5 weapon feature into the WotC formula for weapons yields a cost of 12,310gp.

The problem with 4 is consistency.  I want my players to be able to expect consistency in the rules, regardless of the situation they are confronted with.  The fewer times I have to go by the seat of my pants or pull a number out of...  The better.  Leads to fewer arguments.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 26, 2007)

Gerion of Mercadia said:
			
		

> This is the same as making the "echoblade" a +1 feature.  That is clearly not the design intent.  The feature clearly is intended to cost less than a full +1 market price adjustment.




Not quite.  Firstly, it's not an ability that can be applied to anything except a longsword.  No Crystal Echoclubs!  Secondly, under Plane Sailing's method, it's only priced as a +1 feature _if_ you want something that is not the Specific Magic Weapon, Crystal Echoblade, defined in the MIC.  You want a Crystal Echoblade?  It's a lot cheaper than a +2 weapon.  You want a Flaming Crystal Echoblade?  It costs the same as any other +3 weapon; the special bargain doesn't apply.

It has the advantage of the consistency you crave; your players will always be able to determine what the cost of adding an ability to a Specific Weapon or Specific Armor will be, by following the simple step of rounding up to the next MPM cost...

-Hyp.


----------



## ChimericDream (Mar 26, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I buy that reasoning. If it were intended that way, wouldn't echoblade just be a property that added +2000 gold? To me, it looks more like a +1 property with a price break for requiring bardic ability to activate.



This is actually something I've been thinking about doing in my campaign. The specific weapons have a lot of interesting abilities to them, and it would be nice to have a starting point for figuring out how to add these abilities to other weapons. (Greatsword of venom, anyone?)


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 26, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I buy that reasoning. If it were intended that way, wouldn't echoblade just be a property that added +2000 gold? To me, it looks more like a +1 property with a price break for requiring bardic ability to activate.




So you agree with the price, but not the method to get there? Okay....not sure how that changes the estimate however.  If you get the price break for activating with bardic music, that element is still there.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 26, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Not quite.  Firstly, it's not an ability that can be applied to anything except a longsword.  No Crystal Echoclubs!  Secondly, under Plane Sailing's method, it's only priced as a +1 feature _if_ you want something that is not the Specific Magic Weapon, Crystal Echoblade, defined in the MIC.  You want a Crystal Echoblade?  It's a lot cheaper than a +2 weapon.  You want a Flaming Crystal Echoblade?  It costs the same as any other +3 weapon; the special bargain doesn't apply.
> 
> It has the advantage of the consistency you crave; your players will always be able to determine what the cost of adding an ability to a Specific Weapon or Specific Armor will be, by following the simple step of rounding up to the next MPM cost...
> 
> -Hyp.




Is it any more consistent than backing out the formula used to discover the 2000 gp portion and then adjusting for it?  Either way you are pulling apart the formula.  One method determines the extra cost in the item for the unique ability, and the other determines the rounding up portion to adjust for a bonus.  Both take as long to do, and same amount of pulling apart the elements of the item.  Why is it more advantageously consistent to do it that way?


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 26, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> So you agree with the price, but not the method to get there? Okay....not sure how that changes the estimate however.  If you get the price break for activating with bardic music, that element is still there.




The next number in the series of 2,4,... is:

a) 6
b) 8
c) 7

You get six by adding 2 to each number. You get 8 if you're doubling. You get 7 if you add 1, then 2, then 3, and so forth. 

So if you don't know how you got there, it's impossible to say where you're going.


----------



## hong (Mar 26, 2007)

This is essentially the same question as I asked earlier (using the crystal echoblade as the base, even):

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=191405

Response I got there was to treat the plus as separate to the special enchantment.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 26, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Is it any more consistent than backing out the formula used to discover the 2000 gp portion and then adjusting for it?  Either way you are pulling apart the formula.  One method determines the extra cost in the item for the unique ability, and the other determines the rounding up portion to adjust for a bonus.  Both take as long to do, and same amount of pulling apart the elements of the item.  Why is it more advantageously consistent to do it that way?




It's more advantageous than his option 4.

As to which you choose, it depends whether you feel that the unique aspects of specific weapons should be equally valuable regardless of the power of the weapon they exist upon, or more valuable the more powerful the weapon they exist upon.  

This question has been asked since the 3E DMG first came out - "If I want the light weapon property of the Sunblade, but don't want all the other powers, how much should it cost?"  or  "If I want the Rhino Hide power on my full plate..."

In the DMG, at least, there _are_ no weapon special abilities that have a flat cost, so to me having the value of those unique aspects increase exponentially is more consistent with the existing mechanics when looking at it as a core-only exercise.  Of course, later supplements have introduced flat-costed weapon abilities (and the 3.5 DMG, at least, included such for armor), so there's precedent for the flat fee.

To me, the increasing cost fits how weapons are priced, so I'd give serious thought to adopting Plane Sailing's method should the situation arise in-game for me.

-Hyp.


----------



## Gerion of Mercadia (Mar 26, 2007)

Why is it more advantageously consistent to do it that way?

Ah Mistwell, back to your example.  What you are asking is how do you *in general* take a specific weapon and modify it?  The answer is "reverse engineering".  Hypersmurf and Plane Sailing are looking only at your specific example; not the Source question in the thread topic.

The general rule of "rounding up" falls apart when your example is a +5 weapon and you only want a +1 version for now because you lack the means to possibly make a +5 version.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 26, 2007)

Gerion of Mercadia said:
			
		

> The general rule of "rounding up" falls apart when your example is a +5 weapon and you only want a +1 version for now because you lack the means to possibly make a +5 version.




My simple answer to that, like with the Rhino Full Plate, is 'You can't'.

You can create a Frost Brand - a +3 greatsword plus extras.  You can upgrade it to a Keen Frost Brand, or a Frost Brand which is +4, because you can improve existing items by the rules.

But I'd have no problem ruling that a Frost Brand based on a +2 greatsword, or a battleaxe, simply can't be done.  They're 'specific weapons'.

And the rounding method always caters for the general question asked in the original post - I have a specific weapon, and I want to add to it.  Your question - I want to craft something vaguely similar to a specific weapon but different - is not the same question.  The original question presupposes an existing specific weapon, for which we already know the cost.

-Hyp.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 26, 2007)

Essentially, the question being asked is, "how much does echoblade cost as a weapon special ability?" Answer: Good question.

I do NOT think the answer is a flat +2000 gp. That is definitely the worst of the suggestions made so far. It isn't consistent with much of anything, and is likely, at high levels, to eclipse properties such as bane which are already +1. I can think of many reasons why +5 crystal echoblade spiked chains aren't necessarily a valuable addition to the game. Considering it adds damage based on character level, not item level, it is in some respects far more valuable than standard items, since it's upgrades are effectively "free." Allowing its enhancement bonus to scale, too, could be seen as double-dipping. 

I don't think it's a game breaker, any more than Ur-Priest/MT, but it would still be broken if the cost weren't watched closely. 

Inexpensive upgrade + damage that scales with level without additional cost = Bards Gone Wild Summer Vacation.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 26, 2007)

This is the response I received from CustServ at WOTC:



> Thank you for contacting Wizards of the Coast game support.
> 
> The answer to your question is in the Magic Item Compendium on page 233 under Improving Magic Items. A +1 weapon is valued at 2,000gp plus MW cost.) The Flaming ability will make the weapon the equivalent of a +2 weapon (and a +2 weapon is valued at 8,000gp plus MW cost). The difference between a +1 weapon and a +2 weapon is 6,000gp (this is the market price upgrade). The crafting cost would be 3000gp (half the market price upgrade) and 240xp (1/25th of the market price upgrade).
> 
> ...




He's right.  Page 233 of the Magic Item Compendium does give some new incite into adding bonuses, and I had just missed it!



> You can add new magical abilities to a magic item with virtually no restrictions.  The cost and prerequisites to do this are the same as if the item was not magical.  Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal longsword minus the cost of a +1 longsword (93,315 - 2,313 = 96,000 gp).  The character improving the magic item must meet the same prerequisites as of he were creating the item from scratch.


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens (Mar 26, 2007)

It says much the same thing in the 3.5 DMG, on page 288, under "Adding New Abilities."


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 26, 2007)

However, you have to price the final item. And there is no final cost presented for a +2 crystal echoblade.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 26, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> However, you have to price the final item. And there is no final cost presented for a +2 crystal echoblade.




You mean from CustServ? "Add the 6,000gp to determine the final market price of the item. 10,310gp."


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 26, 2007)

CustServ is, as is often the case, wrong.

_Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal longsword minus the cost of a +1 longsword (93,315 - 2,313 = 96,000 gp). _

That rule in no way establishes any precedent for the echoblade. It is the same as the DMG rule, which I, at least, was already aware of from the beginning of the discussion. It says how to go from a +1 longsword to a +2 vorpal longsword. It does not say how to go from a crystal echoblade to a weapon like a crystal echoblade but with a +2 enhancement. A +2 vorpal longsword has a listed cost.

A crystal echoblade (+2) does not, so calculating its cost by using its listed cost is circular reasoning.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 26, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> CustServ is, as is often the case, wrong.




Most people in this thread came to the same conclusion they did.   It's a logical price, it's calculated based on a consistent set of principals that can be replicated in other situations.  I think we have an answer that is satisfactory to most folks at this point, which is a relatively rare thing on this rules forum   



> _Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal longsword minus the cost of a +1 longsword (93,315 - 2,313 = 96,000 gp). _
> 
> That rule in no way establishes any precedent for the echoblade.




Sure it does.  You take the cost of the new item, minus the cost of the old item, and you get the total.  Same rule, just new application now to a specific item rather than a general one.  Which is the typical use for a precedent...applying a similar principal to a new set of facts.  Or, as Webster defines it "something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind".  In this case, it's an analogous kind of new thing using the rule of an older thing.

I mean, if it wasn't a precedent to draw on, how come some many people in this very thread were naturally drawn to that precedent even without CustServ's opinion?



> It is the same as the DMG rule, which I, at least, was already aware of from the beginning of the discussion.




Not quite.  The wording is different.  It implies wider application of the rule than the DMG.  "You can add new magical abilities to a magic item with virtually no restrictions. The cost and prerequisites to do this are the same as if the item was not magical."



> It says how to go from a +1 longsword to a +2 vorpal longsword. It does not say how to go from a crystal echoblade to a weapon like a crystal echoblade but with a +2 enhancement. A +2 vorpal longsword has a listed cost.




And echoblade has a listed cost as well.  So does a +1 addition to a weapon.  Each element has a listed cost.



> A crystal echoblade (+2) does not, so calculating its cost by using its listed cost is circular reasoning.




There is nothing circular about it from where I am sitting.  A + B = C.  What's circular about it?  Each element HAS a listed cost.


----------



## Gerion of Mercadia (Mar 26, 2007)

> That rule in no way establishes any precedent for the echoblade.




I believe that it does establish a precedent, as does almost everybody else in the thread.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 26, 2007)

Any new precedent, based in the rules. CustServ is welcome to say anything they like, but that's not what I'm talking about.



> You take the cost of the new item, minus the cost of the old item, and you get the total. Same rule, just new application now to a specific item rather than a general one.




Try this one on for size. A +1 bane (versus dragons) longsword. What's the cost of a +2 bane longsword?

Back to what I  was saying. The cost of the "new item" is the cost of a +2 echoblade. So you take the price difference between the cost of a +1 echoblade and a +2 echoblade. Unfortunately, there is no +2 echoblade.

The rule cited by CustServ only describes how to upgrade an existing item to another existing items. That rule does not say you can extract the enchancement part of a weapon.

You cannot calculate the cost of a +2 echoblade thusly:

Take the cost of a +1 echoblade, and add the difference to a +2 echoblade. The cost of a +2 echoblade is the cost of a +1 echoblade, plus the difference between the cost of a +1 echoblade and a +2 echoblade. The cost of a +2 echoblade...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 26, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> And echoblade has a listed cost as well.  So does a +1 addition to a weapon.  Each element has a listed cost.




A +1 addition to a weapon _doesn't_ have a listed cost.

What's the cost of a +1 addition to a masterwork longsword?  2000gp.

What's the cost of a +1 addition to a +1 longsword?  6000gp.

What's the cost of a +1 addition to a +1 flaming longsword?  10000gp.

What's the cost of a +1 addition to a Crystal Echoblade?  We don't know.  It's not adding a +1 addition to a +1 longsword, and it's not adding a +1 addition to a +2 longsword, both of which we know the final cost of and can calculate the difference.

In the first three examples, we know the initial value and we know the final value, so we can calculate the difference.  In the case of the Crystal Echoblade, we don't know the final value (it's not listed anywhere) and we don't know the difference (as shown above, it varies!), so we can't calculate either from the rules given.  We need to add a new rule before we can make a calculation.

Custserv's answer gives an example where we know both the initial and final values, and demonstrates calculating the difference.  That's easy.

But when they say "Flaming ability will make the weapon the equivalent of a +2 weapon", that's where I disagree.  The Crystal Echoblade isn't the equivalent of a +1 weapon; it's _better_ than a +1 weapon.  Therefore a Flaming Crystal Echoblade isn't the equivalent of a +2 weapon; it's _better_ than a +2 weapon.  So using the formula to determine the difference between a +1 and a +2 weapon isn't relevant.

It's like saying "I want to add the Flaming ability to my +1 Shocking longsword", and being told that the +1 Shocking longsword is the equivalent of a +1 weapon, so the price is 6000gp higher.  It might have a +1 enhancement bonus, but it's not the equivalent of a +1 weapon!



> Each element HAS a listed cost.




I disagree.

-Hyp.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 26, 2007)

Sigh.

You guys have fun debating this with yourself.  One of you is saying we don't know (which is not a helpful answer really).  The other is saying "That's one reasonable way to do it, but I prefer this other reasonable way".

Okay, fair enough.  In one of your games you will throw up your hands and say you don't know.  In the other, you will calculate it a slightly different way.

But in most of our games, it looks like we are going to do it the way CustServ suggested...because we came to that same conclusion without that CustServ advice, and that conclusion is one logical and consistent interpretation of the rules.

Unless someone has an argument for why a different method is actually superior, as opposed to simply different and also a reasonable method, I think my part of this debate is done.  Thanks for the advice, and I do appreciate it.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 27, 2007)

The CustServ method is likely to consistently underprice the item. That would be my reason why not.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Mar 27, 2007)

Well, the cost of a Crystal Echoblade (4,310 gp) is 2000 gp more than a +1 longsword.  The question is how to interpret that 2000 gp.  Is it a flat cost?  That seems too low for me.  It is a trivial addition at high levels, and high levels is when the special ability is most important.  IMHO the cost of adding "crystal echoness" to a weapon has to scale; it *has* to be more expensive the more expensive the weapon is.

How about treating it as a doubling of the base enhancement cost?  i.e. 4000 x bonus x bonus + 310 gp.

So the base cost of a +2 Crystal Echoblade would be 16,310 gp, a +3 Crystal Echoblade would be 36,310 gp, and so on.  I'd count enhancement equivalents (like shocking and flaming) as well.  But not flat costs like everbright.

No particular rules justification to this; just trying to find an elegant rule that fits the mathematical progression and won't make the item undercosted at higher levels.


[edit] You can't use the Custserv method until you know what the cost of a +2 Crystal Echoblade is.  If we knew that, we wouldn't need to have this discussion.


----------



## hong (Mar 27, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I do NOT think the answer is a flat +2000 gp. That is definitely the worst of the suggestions made so far. It isn't consistent with much of anything,




Yes it is. It's consistent with the approach taken in MIC, where special funky effects for non-weapon items are treated separately to simple plusses.



> and is likely, at high levels, to eclipse properties such as bane which are already +1.




... if wielded by a bard. Since the consensus is that bards suck, I don't see why a cheap but powerful weapon for them is so bad.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 27, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Well, the cost of a Crystal Echoblade (4,310 gp) is 2000 gp more than a +1 longsword.  The question is how to interpret that 2000 gp.  Is it a flat cost?  That seems too low for me.  It is a trivial addition at high levels, and high levels is when the special ability is most important.  IMHO the cost of adding "crystal echoness" to a weapon has to scale; it *has* to be more expensive the more expensive the weapon is.
> 
> How about treating it as a doubling of the base enhancement cost?  i.e. 4000 x bonus x bonus + 310 gp.
> 
> ...




You use some strange words in your post.  Like " it *has* to be more expensive the more expensive the weapon is".  And "You can't use the Custserv method until you know what the cost of a +2 Crystal Echoblade is."

No really, it doesn't HAVE to be more expensive, and you CAN use the CustServ method right now.  There is no actual objective proof of your position, just a subjective one.  I don't understand why you are stating it as if you KNOW the correct answer, without any doubt at all.

MIC is in fact a change to WOTC's approach to magic items.  The cost of magic items is specifically coming down because of the MIC.  It's not an accident they did that, it's called out with a big note explaining that it is intentional, and the reasoning for it.  This method suggested by others and CustServ and the new rules is consistent with that purpose.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 27, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> ... if wielded by a bard. Since the consensus is that bards suck, I don't see why a cheap but powerful weapon for them is so bad.




That's a rationale I'll never buy. One weak area is no reason to start busting open the entire magic item creation system.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 27, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> That's a rationale I'll never buy. One weak area is no reason to start busting open the entire magic item creation system.





MIC busts open the entire magic item creation system.  Specifically.  With big bold letters.  All over the place, and not just with this one item.  Heck, they even say in the book:



> If you compare the items in this book to those in other books (or particularly, with previously published versions of the same items in other books), *you might be shocked* at the price differences.  Many of the items reproduced in this book have had their prices shaved or even slashed dramatically....




I think we are seeing some of the "shocked" part.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 27, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> No really, it doesn't HAVE to be more expensive, and you CAN use the CustServ method right now.  There is no actual objective proof of your position, just a subjective one.  I don't understand why you are stating it as if you KNOW the correct answer, without any doubt at all.




No, you can't. It's a logical impossibility. Whatever is true, the reasoning that CustServ provides is circular and cannot be used as a reason for anthing. This has been stated three different times by three different people. I don't know how this can be any more clear. 

There is, in fact, no doubt at all that the CustServ answer, if provided as the answer the echoblade question, is wrong. 

We wish to know A. A is B + C. C is A -B. 

Therefore, A = B + (A -B). Thus... A = A. 

In other words, "The price of a +2 crystal echoblade is equal to the price of a +2 crystal echoblade."


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 27, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> MIC busts open the entire magic item creation system.  Specifically.  With big bold letters.  All over the place, and not just with this one item.




The whole rationale is that each unique item is considered on its own merits. Trying to derive a formula to extrapolate a +2 echoblade is counter to the MIC philosophy. When I say, "bust open," I mean "completely trash as something purported to produce balance," not "ignore certain guidelines when they seem simplistic or produce a bad answer."

Cheiromancer's approach in that last post is pretty close to a MIC style pricing.


----------



## hong (Mar 27, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> That's a rationale I'll never buy. One weak area is no reason to start busting open the entire magic item creation system.




The magic item creation system exists to serve the game. Elevating the item creation system to something that should be defended in its own right puts the cart before the horse.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 27, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> No, you can't. It's a logical impossibility. Whatever is true, the reasoning that CustServ provides is circular and cannot be used as a reason for anthing. This has been stated three different times by three different people. I don't know how this can be any more clear.




Because it's not circular, and more than three people have told you in return how it's perfectly logical and possible?  I didn't realize we were voting on logic by popular vote here, but since you raised the issue...we win I guess, if that is the criteria.



> There is, in fact, no doubt at all that the CustServ answer, if provided as the answer the echoblade question, is wrong.




You saying it's true, over and over again, doesn't make it true.  When two sides come to different conclusions, and one side says "there is more than one reasonable position to be taken on this issue" and the other side says "we have found the one true position on this issue and all other positions therefore must be false", it's almost always the case that the side thinking they found the one true answer is, at best, exaggerating their position.



> We wish to know A. A is B + C. C is A -B.
> 
> Therefore, A = B + (A -B). Thus... A = A.
> 
> In other words, "The price of a +2 crystal echoblade is equal to the price of a +2 crystal echoblade."




We know the price of a +1 longsword.  We know the price of a +2 longsword, and the price of adding a +1 bonus to a longsword that already has a +1 bonus.  And we know the price of the echoblade special ability, because we can derive it from examining the listed price of a +1 echoblade.  

You don't even need the price of a +2 longsword for that analysis, because it's apparent on the face of the price of a +1 echoblade what the echoblade portion adds to the price.  IT CAN BE A FIXED VALUE, NOT A VARIABLE VALUE.  That is one reasonable way to look at this issue.

It's not necessarily dependent on anything other than it's own fixed value, much like the price of adding lots of things in this game is based on a fixed value and not anything else.  

Our interpretation is implied that way by the RAW in the MIC, and it's logical to the majority of people here, and it was logical to CustServ, and the price seems pretty balanced to myself many others, and that is really the end of the story for me.

Y'all can go on screaming that you have found the one true objective answer regarding this subjective question until you're blue the face.  But for me, when folks start telling everyone else that there couldn't possibly be two reasonable answers to a rules question where everyone admits the rules are not perfectly clear on the subject, then I start to question some bigger issues than just your answer.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 27, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> The magic item creation system exists to serve the game. Elevating the item creation system to something that should be defended in its own right puts the cart before the horse.




And elevating the responses of CustServ? 

I've already stated the in-game reasons why I feel it should not be treated as a flat cost. That is what I call defending the game, in this case, from spurious rules inventions. The DMG and MIC do not say what CustServ says it does.

The CustServ response tells you how to upgrade an ordinary +1 weapon to a crystal echoblade. But trying to apply that answer to the +2 upgrade is nonsensical.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 27, 2007)

Here, maybe this will be helpful to some.  Page 233 of the Magic Item Compendium:



> The magic item prices in this book aren't the result of any intricate formulas or detailed equations.  Instead, each price is set individually by comparing the item (and more important, its likely perceived value to player characters) to other items commonly used by PCs.




It is entirely reasonable to believe that WOTC feels the echoblade special ability itself is worth about 2,000 gp after comparing it to other items commonly used and valued by PCs.

You might disagree with that opinion.  But to say it's a flat-out unreasonable opinion doesn't make sense to me.  It's one reasonable interpretation of this item.  Why all the saber rattling about there being only one conceivable reasonable opinion on this issue?


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 27, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Here, maybe this will be helpful to some.  Page 233 of the Magic Item Compendium:
> 
> 
> 
> It is entirely reasonable to believe that WOTC feels the echoblade special ability itself is worth about 2,000 gp after comparing it to other items commonly used and valued by PCs.




Merely because it is plausible does not mean it is reasonable. I think it would be reasonable that if it were to be treated as a +2000 gp quality, it would be listed as exactly that. Therefore, I tend to believe any answer that is not that one is more likely to be correct according to WotC.


----------



## hong (Mar 27, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> And elevating the responses of CustServ?




Point me to where I said anything about CustServ.



> I've already stated the in-game reasons why I feel it should not be treated as a flat cost. That is what I call defending the game, in this case, from spurious rules inventions. The DMG and MIC do not say what CustServ says it does.




The most important "rule" that MIC gives is (paraphrased) "is this item priced correctly relative to other items".

At the moment, I'm not seeing anything to suggest that 2000 gp for the ability to add half your bard level to damage is particularly broken. Yes, it means bards who expect to be in melee will grab it. This isn't so different, in terms of the game as a whole, to druids and Natural Spell; and in fact it's less broken than that precedent since bards at least aren't a superpowered class to start with.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 27, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Merely because it is plausible does not mean it is reasonable.




I agree, which is why I used the word reasonable.  It's one reasonable interpretation.  It is neither extreme nor excessive.  There is rational ground for that opinion.  It is an explanation that makes a fact (in this case a price of an item) intelligible.

There does not have to be only one reasonable position on a given subject.  In this case, there are at least two reasonable positions in my opinion.  They are not just plausible, but BOTH are actually reasonable.  



> I think it would be reasonable that if it were to be treated as a +2000 gp quality, it would be listed as exactly that. Therefore, I tend to believe any answer that is not that one is more likely to be correct according to WotC.




Yes, that would be one reasonable thing for them to do.  Not the only one, but one reasonable thing.

Arguing that the absence of a thing proves you point is rarely a strong argument.  There are many reasons you and I can both come up with for WOTC to list the item as they did instead of with just a +2000 adder.  Like flavor (which was pointed out earlier - it's for bards, and perhaps "longsword" was relevant to the flavor of the item).  It has "blade" in the name.  It was important to already have a +1 bonus on it.  Someone at WOTC liked the idea of it.  Etc...If WOTC felt some or all of these things were useful bits for this item, then they might list it as they did.  Who knows why they listed it the way they did.  

There are plenty of things WOTC lists in a certain way that has nothing at all to do with formulas and ease of pricing.  In fact, as I posted earlier, they outright declared this time that basing things on intricate formulas and equations was NOT their goal this time around. 

I'm getting irritated at this point over this debate, so I again say I think it is my time to back out of this thread.  Not your fault I got dragged back in...that is just on me.  But all this talk that seems a lot like "reasonable minds cannot differ on this topic, I must be right and you must be wrong" is starting to get to me.  It seems to me like you are seeking perfection in the imperfect.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 27, 2007)

> Yes, that would be one reasonable thing for them to do. Not the only one, but one reasonable thing.




As I said, I am allowing numerous reasonable opinions as possible. I simply don't find CustServ's answer to be consistent with the rule they cite, nor do I think that price structure seems intended by a consensus of the designers.

I'm sorry the discussion turned into a headache for you. Take your leave, with my blessings.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Mar 27, 2007)

I thought Mistwell was going to let us argue among ourselves? 

Anyway, I may have been too hasty with my earlier suggestion about doubling the cost - that's probably too much.

But the CustServ answer presupposes two things not found in the book:

1. That a special weapon can be improved.

2. That the variable cost for improving it treats it as if it were a +1 weapon with a fixed cost improvement.

Now you can take CustServ's answer as establishing these two points, but I think it is natural to wonder how they found this out.  I don't want to get into a FAQ vs RAW kind of question, but surely these two theses are not obvious, are they?

For instance, if special weapons can be improved, shouldn't it say so somewhere? If it doesn't, isn't that evidence that special weapons can't be improved? If "crystal echoiness" is a flat +2000 gp why isn't it listed under the properties that can be added to any weapon?  The fact that it is not so listed is evidence that this is not a flat-costed property.

Neither of these pieces of evidence is conclusive, but they should prompt one to be cautious in improving special weapons, or improving them on the cheap.  And a flat gp cost is the cheapest possible way the weapon could be improved.  Treating it as equivalent to an enhancement bonus would be safer.  Treating it as a multiplier of the base enhancement cost would be safer still, but perhaps overly cautious.  As Mistwell points out, a straight bard is unlikely to be unbalanced in combat no matter how awesome his weapon is.

Anyway, the original question was: "So, how much does it cost to add the flaming special ability to the Crystal Echoblade?"

It hasn't been demonstrated that a special ability can be added to a Crystal Echoblade.  Nor is there any way to reverse engineer the cost of "crystal echoiness".  You can assume it is a +2000 gp property.  Or you could assume it is a +1 enhancement with a 4000 gp discount.  Or you could assume it represents a doubling of the cost of the existing enhancements.  Or any number of other things.

CustServ has answered that yes, you can add a special ability to a special weapon, and that yes it is a +2000 gp property.  But if anyone has posted where in the book these alleged facts are stated, I must have overlooked their reply.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 27, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I thought Mistwell was going to let us argue among ourselves?
> 
> Anyway, I may have been too hasty with my earlier suggestion about doubling the cost - that's probably too much.
> 
> ...




Not leaping back into the heart of the discussion again, but I did want to drop by and mention something I noticed this morning.  The top of the specific weapons section in the MIC now has a note that I had missed earlier (I am hoping someone with the book will post it here).  It specifies that a special weapon can be improved.

Anyone have the book and can post it (I do not have the book on me)?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 27, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> For instance, if special weapons can be improved, shouldn't it say so somewhere? If it doesn't, isn't that evidence that special weapons can't be improved?




I would have thought that the DMG line:

_*ADDING NEW ABILITIES*
A creator can add new magical abilities to a magic item with no restrictions._

... had this covered?

-Hyp.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 27, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> MIC busts open the entire magic item creation system.  Specifically.  With big bold letters.  All over the place, and not just with this one item.  Heck, they even say in the book:
> 
> I think we are seeing some of the "shocked" part.



That is what they "say". What really is happeneing is wotc is dropping prices to sell the book to players who want to get items cheaper. Wotc knows many DMs will say "No" to the prices whether as a knee jerk, or after comparing to pricing ranges they agree with, but either way by that time wotc has already sold the book to said player.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Mar 27, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I would have thought that the DMG line:
> 
> _*ADDING NEW ABILITIES*
> A creator can add new magical abilities to a magic item with no restrictions._
> ...




Perhaps I misunderstood your post #20 in this thread.  I thought that you said there (I'm paraphrasing you here) that you could not add crystal echoblade property to a club, or the frost brand quality to a battle axe, the reason being that they are specific items.  I interpreted this as indicating that these qualities (and by extension, their items) were an exception to the general rule that you can add new magical abilities to a magic item with no restrictions. 

If "crystal echoiness" or "frost brandiness" cannot be added to other weapons without restriction, why not?  If the reason is that a frost brand or a crystal echoblade is a specific weapon, then why doesn't this specificity prevent new abilities to be added to them?

In any event, you can't price them unless you know if these are fixed gp costs (+2000 gp or whatever) or are equivalent to an item plus - perhaps a fractional plus, even - or a multiplier to the base enhancement cost, or a plus with a discount, or whatever.  I think the fact that these are specific items indicates that maybe, just maybe, the pricing of the property doesn't fit well into the standard formulas.  Otherwise they'd be listed in the standard lists of weapon properties, not in the specific weapons section.

[edit] I don't want these weapons to be unimprovable.  Or for it to be sheer guesswork as to what the improvement should cost.  But Mistwell is correct; at the beginning of the specific weapon chapter it says



			
				MIC p. 46 said:
			
		

> You can increase the enhancement bonus of these weapons or add more special properties just as you would for any other item.




Which is quite mischievous, since to do this you would have to know what "plus" the weapon has.  I guess the assumption is that all the special abilities are flat gp costs, not plus-equivalents.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 27, 2007)

Again, first paragraph in MIC under specific weapons clarifies this.  I do not have the text in front of me to post it.  Does anyone else?


----------



## Cheiromancer (Mar 27, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Again, first paragraph in MIC under specific weapons clarifies this.  I do not have the text in front of me to post it.  Does anyone else?




Simulposting!


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 27, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Simulposting!




Sweet, thanks for posting that! "You can increase the enhancement bonus of these weapons or add more special properties just as you would for any other item."


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 27, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Because it's not circular, and more than three people have told you in return how it's perfectly logical and possible?




It is circular. What people have said is "I think this produces a good answer." But the rule cited by CustServ does not provide the answer they say it does.

You can upgrade a magic item to any other magic item. but you must know the cost of that magic item. The cost of a +2 echoblade is unknown. For reasons already stated, it is very suspect to assume echoblade is a flat +2000 gp property.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 27, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Perhaps I misunderstood your post #20 in this thread.  I thought that you said there (I'm paraphrasing you here) that you could not add crystal echoblade property to a club, or the frost brand quality to a battle axe, the reason being that they are specific items.




Right.

But since the specific item exists, once you have it (the crystal echoblade longsword, or the frost brand greatsword), you can improve it without restriction.

-Hyp.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 27, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Right.
> 
> But since the specific item exists, once you have it (the crystal echoblade longsword, or the frost brand greatsword), you can improve it without restriction.
> 
> -Hyp.




Hence the question that started this thread.  If I have a crystal echoblade (longsword), what does it cost to add a +1 special ability to it like flaming?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 27, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Hence the question that started this thread.  If I have a crystal echoblade (longsword), what does it cost to add a +1 special ability to it like flaming?




The cost is the difference between the market value of a Crystal Echoblade (which is known), and the market value of a Flaming Crystal Echoblade (which is unknown); hence the cost to add the ability is unknown.

Which is what pawsplay has been saying; given the rules and figures we have available, there's not enough information to answer the question.  It's necessary to invent at least one piece of information before we can answer the question.

That's the difference between "If I have a crystal echoblade (longsword), what does it cost to add a +1 special ability to it like flaming?" and "If I have a +2 Holy longsword, what does it cost to add a +1 special ability to it like flaming?"

The second we can answer from the rules, and everyone will get the same result.  The first requires us to make something up, and so everyone may come up with a different response.

-Hyp.


----------



## Gerion of Mercadia (Mar 28, 2007)

... your problem is that 

1 +A +1 = 2 +A

I don't NEED to know what A is to tell you that much.

The logic here relies on a systems of equations approach.

Known formulae:

Crystal Echoblade + Flaming feature = Flaming Crystal Echoblade
+1 Longsword + Echoblade feature = Crystal Echoblade

ergo
+1 Longsword + Echoblade Feature + Flaming Feature = Flaming Crystal Echoblade

Pawsplay's "problem" is that it doesn't seem to be a statement in the rules that allows you to do it because the Crystal Echoblade doesn't have a gp cost but yall found the statement that lets you work it.



> I would have thought that the DMG line:
> A creator can add new magical abilities to a magic item with no restrictions.
> 
> ... had this covered?




In other words, reverse engineering is generally possible.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 28, 2007)

> ergo
> +1 Longsword + Echoblade Feature + Flaming Feature = Flaming Crystal Echoblade




Careful with your ergos there. In your A + B + C = D

A is known, B is unknown, C is unknown until we know D, and D is unknown.

You are just not getting it. 

_A creator can add new magical abilities to a magic item with no restrictions._

Simply because you can do it without restriction does not mean there are guidelines for doing so.

The Echoblade Feature does not exist. We are working with an echoblade. If you happen to find an "echoblade feature" in your MIC, let me know what page number it's on and we'll use that.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 28, 2007)

Gerion of Mercadia said:
			
		

> ... your problem is that
> 
> 1 +A +1 = 2 +A
> 
> I don't NEED to know what A is to tell you that much.




Let's say that A is the Keen property.

For a +1 Keen weapon, what is the Keen property worth?  6000gp.

For a +2 Keen weapon, what is the Keen property worth?  10000gp.

So if we take 1+A and add 1, it might be equal to 2+A... but the value of A has changed!

The assumption you're making is that the 'Echoblade feature' has a flat cost.  We don't know that.  It can't be stated as fact.

Similarly, it can't be stated that it _doesn't_ have a flat cost.

The CustServ answer makes the same assumption; without a statement along the lines of "Assume that any property of a specific weapon not defined as an ability with a market price modifier has a flat cost", their answer is flawed.

-Hyp.


----------



## Jhulae (Mar 28, 2007)

That's the ultimate issue.  Since there's no specific ability listed for the "Echo" part in the 'Big List of Abilities', it does throw the wrench into the works.

However, seeing as the ability is very dependent on a single class feature, were I to rule on it, I'd have no problem with saying it's a +2000 gp ability.

But, HS is right.  To blanketly say that's the case is incorrect.  Each DM would have to make the decision for themselves.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 28, 2007)

And as I have stated before, the fact that it is not listed as a flat cost special property, which would be simply enough to have done, suggests that is likely the one thing it is not.


----------



## gnfnrf (Mar 29, 2007)

The Magic Item Compendium explains exactly how to add effects to specific weapons, and even has an example, at least for relics.  And (for relics, anyway) the nonstandard abilities are in fact fixed costs.

p 222, second column.



> ... An axe of ancestral virtue has an effective enhancement bonus of +2 (+1 plus another +1 for the keen property) so improving it to a +2 keen adamantine dwarven waraxe would cost 10,000 gp, just as it would for any other weapon.




Note that it doesn't say the relic abilities are fixed cost, it just assumes you know that.  I think, similarly, it assumes you know that non relic abilities are fixed cost as well.

Are the rules as clear as they could be?  No.  Upon further study, is it obvious how they work?  Yes.  Take the base weapon of the specific weapon, and price the upgrade based on the difference between that and an upgraded version of that weapon.  This effectively keeps the specific weapon property at a fixed cost.

--
gnfnrf


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 29, 2007)

gnfnrf said:
			
		

> The Magic Item Compendium explains exactly how to add effects to specific weapons, and even has an example, at least for relics.  And (for relics, anyway) the nonstandard abilities are in fact fixed costs.




Apart from being a +1 keen adamantine waraxe, what are the abilities of the Axe of Ancestral Virtue, and what's its market value?

-Hyp.


----------



## gnfnrf (Mar 29, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Apart from being a +1 keen adamantine waraxe, what are the abilities of the Axe of Ancestral Virtue, and what's its market value?




It's a relic, so it's complicated.

First, it only functions as a +1 keen adamantine waraxe if you are lawful good, lawful neutral, or neutral good.

Second, you access it's other special abilities with the True Believer feat and 9 HD, or by sacrificing a 5th level spell slot to it (and worshipping Moradin).  Then it becomes an intelligent weapon, but you only gain access to its greater power if you have TB and 13 HD or a 7th level sacrificed slot. 

The weapon costs 8,530 gp.

The point is, none of this matters.  You upgrade it, like ANY OTHER WEAPON, based on the +1 keen adamantine waraxe part.

--
gnfnrf


----------



## Cheiromancer (Mar 29, 2007)

It sounds like, for a relic at least, that the relic powers are free.

Good catch, gnfnrf!

I'm leaning more and more to the idea that specific powers are flat costs; they don't interact with plussed special abilities or enhancement bonuses.  

Of course this seems to mean that the costs of abilities like Echo and Frost Brand can be reverse engineered and applied to other weapons "without restriction".  I'm not sure I am comfortable with that.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 29, 2007)

gnfnrf said:
			
		

> The weapon costs 8,530 gp.




That's 2500gp cheaper than a non-relic +1 Keen Adamantine Waraxe with no other unlockable powers... :\

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 29, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I'm leaning more and more to the idea that specific powers are flat costs; they don't interact with plussed special abilities or enhancement bonuses.
> 
> Of course this seems to mean that the costs of abilities like Echo and Frost Brand can be reverse engineered and applied to other weapons "without restriction".




One doesn't necessarily imply the other... and I'm still unconvinced of the first 

-Hyp.


----------



## gnfnrf (Mar 29, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's nearly 3000gp cheaper than a non-relic +1 Keen Adamantine Waraxe...




But it's a flat cost -3000 gp.  

I don't know if the item is priced appropriately.  And right now, I don't care.  I do know that when explaining how to upgrade it, the item price isn't even mentioned.  The wackiness of relicosity is irrelevent to the calculation.  Just like any specific weapon properties would be.

--
gnfnrf


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 29, 2007)

gnfnrf said:
			
		

> I don't know if the item is priced appropriately.  And right now, I don't care.  I do know that when explaining how to upgrade it, the item price isn't even mentioned.  The wackiness of relicosity is irrelevent to the calculation.  Just like any specific weapon properties would be.




Well, if all those powers had an MPM, it would obviously be less than zero!

Find us an example of a specific weapon that costs _more_ than the 'base' weapon being upgraded.

-Hyp.


----------



## gnfnrf (Mar 29, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, if all those powers had an MPM, it would obviously be less than zero!
> 
> Find us an example of a specific weapon that costs _more_ than the 'base' weapon being upgraded.




But they only give one example in MIC.  Why?  Because, as they say, all items work in exactly the same way.

--
gnfnrf


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 29, 2007)

gnfnrf said:
			
		

> But they only give one example in MIC.  Why?  Because, as they say, all items work in exactly the same way.




Relics obviously don't - the item costs less than it should!

And if it's cheaper because it's restricted to certain alignments, that should result in a _percentage_ reduction, which would mean that the 10,000gp difference should also be reduced by the same percentage.

The Axe of Ancestral Virtue isn't a helpful example.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Mar 29, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The Axe of Ancestral Virtue isn't a helpful example.




Yes it is.


----------



## Twowolves (Mar 29, 2007)

Why not just make up some comprimise formula that is reasonable?

If a +1 crystal echoblade is 2000gp more than a +1 longsword, and a flat +2000gp seems too little, how about this: the cost of the "echoblade" part is 2000 X (enhancement bonus equivalent). Thus adding the Flaming property to a +1 crystal echoblade would cost the same as a +2 weapon +4000gp.


----------



## gnfnrf (Mar 29, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Relics obviously don't - the item costs less than it should!




I should have said "Upgrading all items works in exactly the same way."



> And if it's cheaper because it's restricted to certain alignments, that should result in a percentage reduction, which would mean that the 10,000gp difference should also be reduced by the same percentage.




And yet, it is not.



> The Axe of Ancestral Virtue isn't a helpful example.




I find it to be so.  Despite how wierd its pricing is, and that the base item is restricted, plus it has funky abilities that cost spell slots or feats, it is upgraded as if it were a perfectly normal +1 keen adamantine dwarven waraxe.  With the note that every weapon works this way.  Compared to that, the crystal echoblade is downright boring.  What possible complexity could upgrading it have, if the axe of ancestral virtue is so simple?

But, you clearly don't see it that way, and, unless you think there is further useful progress to be made in the discussion, I'll try to leave it at that.

--
gnfnrf


----------



## epochrpg (Mar 29, 2007)

I know for a fact that you can add things to specific items, because in the Magic Item Compendium, there IS a specific item that says something to the effect that "if x ability is added to this item, z will happen".  That sentence would not exist if you could not add abilities to existing items.

Now, I am not about to go and plow through the entire Magic Items Compendium to look this up and site a page number, but there are many of you out there who will.  I believe it is a weapon, but it could be an armor.  I do remember reading this earlier today, though and thinking "hey, I should mention this in that thread on enworld."  I guess I should have bookmarked it.  

Oh, well.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 29, 2007)

gnfnrf said:
			
		

> I should have said "Upgrading all items works in exactly the same way."




So is a Holy Avenger a +2 cold iron longsword with a +110,000 flat cost, or a +5 holy cold iron longsword with a +20,000 flat cost?

Is a Dwarven Thrower a +2 warhammer with a +22,000 flat cost, or a +3 Returning warhammer with a -2,000 flat cost?

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Mar 29, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So is a Holy Avenger a +2 cold iron longsword with a +110,000 flat cost, or a +5 holy cold iron longsword with a +20,000 flat cost?
> 
> Is a Dwarven Thrower a +2 warhammer with a +22,000 flat cost, or a +3 Returning warhammer with a -2,000 flat cost?




Regardless, a crystal echoblade is a +1 longsword with a +2000 flat cost.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Mar 29, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Cheiromancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You don't think that Echo and Frost Brand are magical abilities?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 29, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> You don't think that Echo and Frost Brand are magical abilities?




I don't think that 'Echo' is a magical ability that exists outside of the Crystal Echoblade.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Mar 29, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I don't think that 'Echo' is a magical ability that exists outside of the Crystal Echoblade.
> 
> -Hyp.



 So you start with a crystal echoblade and amp it up. Duh!


----------



## Cheiromancer (Mar 29, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> So you start with a crystal echoblade and amp it up. Duh!



But what if you want a crystal echoclub?



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I don't think that 'Echo' is a magical ability that exists outside of the Crystal Echoblade.




If it's a magical ability then it can be added to other magic items with virtually no restrictions.  A flat "no" hardly counts as "virtually no restrictions."  And once it is added to another magic item, then it would exist outside the Crystal Echoblade.

(I'm not comfortable with these abilities being reverse engineered and scattered all over the place.  But I'm finding it difficult to find a convincing reason why the rules wouldn't allow it.  Besides rule 0, that is.)


----------



## hong (Mar 29, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> But what if you want a crystal echoclub?




Not nearly stylish enough.

But a crystal echokatana, that's okay.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 29, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> If it's a magical ability then it can be added to other magic items with virtually no restrictions.  A flat "no" hardly counts as "virtually no restrictions."  And once it is added to another magic item, then it would exist outside the Crystal Echoblade.




Seeking is a magical ability.  If you attempt to apply it to a melee weapon, you get a flat 'no'.

Heavy Fortification is a magical ability.  If you attempt to apply it to... well, any weapon at all, you get a flat 'no'.

Can _all_ magical abilities be added to other magic items with virtually no restrictions?  Or can magical abilities _appropriate to the item in question_ be added to other magic items with virtually no restrictions?

-Hyp.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Mar 29, 2007)

_NB: (I might misquote the text a bit in this post- I don't have the MIC with me.)_



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Seeking is a magical ability.  If you attempt to apply it to a melee weapon, you get a flat 'no'.



Because the seeking ability says "Only ranged weapons can have the seeking ability."  Specific trumps generic.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Heavy Fortification is a magical ability.  If you attempt to apply it to... well, any weapon at all, you get a flat 'no'.



It's listed with the abilities listed under "Armor" and so it makes sense to restrict it to armor.  But it is not limited to "Adamantine Full-plate".  And an attempt to so restrict it would just be a rule 0.  A restriction based on where the ability is given should be to items in that same category.  You could rule that echo is restricted to specific weapons, but what's to prevent a player from saying "I *am* making a specific weapon; the _crystal echokatana of hong_."?  Or maybe they'll add it to a _frost brand_ or other specific weapon.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Can _all_ magical abilities be added to other magic items with virtually no restrictions?  Or can magical abilities _appropriate to the item in question_ be added to other magic items with virtually no restrictions?
> 
> -Hyp.




In the absence of specific text saying otherwise, I'd say that armor properties are appropriate for armor, and weapon properties are appropriate for weapons.  The details of a particular ability might rule out some applications: if an ability enhances a slashing ability, it might not make sense to apply it to a bludgeoning weapon.  Now I suppose you can say that the text at the beginning of the section on specific weapons rules out (as inappropriate) everything but the exact type of weapon listed there.  Which can then be the base for further enhancements (treating the specific property as a flat cost, most likely).

Thing is, you are taking an inferred rule ("echo is inappropriate except on longswords") and saying it trumps a specifically stated rule ("magical abilities can be applied with virtually no restrictions").  Maybe this is a legitimate way of interpreting the rules, but I'd prefer to give precedence to something explicitly stated over something inferred to be implicit in the text.


----------



## gnfnrf (Mar 29, 2007)

Right, one more pass.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So is a Holy Avenger a +2 cold iron longsword with a +110,000 flat cost, or a +5 holy cold iron longsword with a +20,000 flat cost?




The first.  (Note that upgrading it to +3 or adding keen doesn't change what a paladin gets, a +5 holy weapon).

Doing it the other way is upgrading the special ability, which requires DM adjudication.



> Is a Dwarven Thrower a +2 warhammer with a +22,000 flat cost, or a +3 Returning warhammer with a -2,000 flat cost?




Similarly, the first, though in this case, upgrading it affects both "modes," due to the wording.

This isn't complicated.  Read the weapon description.  When it says the type of weapon ("longsword" or "dagger") read what properties it assigns to it ("+1" or "+3 keen").  That is what you use to calculate the standard upgrade price.  The remaining powers don't have a "fixed cost", they aren't used in calculating the upgrade price at all.  You don't even have to know what they are.

In the examples you gave (and also the Sword of the Planes), this comes out a bit funny.  But in nearly every other weapon in the DMG and MIC, there are no problems at all.

This may not be how you want to upgrade weapons.  This may not be the best way to upgrade weapons.  But this is how they are upgraded according to the MIC.

--
gnfnrf


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 29, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Yes it is.




no, it's really not. First of all,  the axe is restricted in use to certain alignments, so strictly speaking, wouldn't it be cheaper to upgrade? Second, relics are a special case. They require a feat or an investment of divine spellcasting to use, so their costs are going to be juked all over the place.

I'm inclined to say the MIC "guidelines" are not only messed up, but inconsistent. 

If that's the best example, that demonstrates little except you should never use the MIC "rules" for upgrading anything. That is an amazingly bad example.


----------



## hong (Mar 29, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> no, it's really not.




Yes, it really is.



> First of all,  the axe is restricted in use to certain alignments, so strictly speaking, wouldn't it be cheaper to upgrade? Second, relics are a special case. They require a feat or an investment of divine spellcasting to use, so their costs are going to be juked all over the place.




However, none of this has any effect on the basic rule: treat the plus as separate to the funky stuff. The fact that the funky stuff has some funky price attached is irrelevant.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 29, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> If it's a magical ability then it can be added to other magic items with virtually no restrictions.  A flat "no" hardly counts as "virtually no restrictions."  And once it is added to another magic item, then it would exist outside the Crystal Echoblade.




That's abuse of English. It doesn't say "you can add anything to anything." It says only that you won't be prevented from adding something. It still has to be something you can add. You cannot, for instance, add a property to a longsword that gives +4D6 RKA AP, because that's a Hero System game statistic. 

I have yet to see a specific cite IN THE RULES (not really horrible examples) that states you can ignore the cost of OTHER WEAPON QUALITIES when you upgrade a weapon. 

By the logic that has been presented so far, I should be able to upgrade a +1 flaming keen longsword as though it were a +1 flaming longsword, and treat the keen property as an add on cost. 

The echoblade's bonus is not a SLA, not an ability score bonus, not a bonus to something else... it's a weapon quality.


----------



## hong (Mar 29, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> That's abuse of English. It doesn't say "you can add anything to anything." It says only that you won't be prevented from adding something. It still has to be something you can add. You cannot, for instance, add a property to a longsword that gives +4D6 RKA AP, because that's a Hero System game statistic.




Are we having fun yet?



> I have yet to see a specific cite IN THE RULES (not really horrible examples)




Point me to anybody who has come up with an example as horrible as using a statistic from ANOTHER GAME SYSTEM. Oh, whoops, that was you.




> By the logic that has been presented so far, I should be able to upgrade a +1 flaming keen longsword as though it were a +1 flaming longsword, and treat the keen property as an add on cost.




No, silly, because the keen property already has a listed cost, as a plus. Try again.


----------



## hong (Mar 29, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Seeking is a magical ability.  If you attempt to apply it to a melee weapon, you get a flat 'no'.
> 
> Heavy Fortification is a magical ability.  If you attempt to apply it to... well, any weapon at all, you get a flat 'no'.




Thankfully, noone has yet made mention of adding armour enchantments to a weapon.



> Can _all_ magical abilities be added to other magic items with virtually no restrictions?  Or can magical abilities _appropriate to the item in question_ be added to other magic items with virtually no restrictions?




Why is it inappropriate to make a +1 crystal echoblade +2?


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 29, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Point me to anybody who has come up with an example as horrible as using a statistic from ANOTHER GAME SYSTEM. Oh, whoops, that was you.




Why do I have to do that? The fact that I can come up with something more ridiculous doesn't make it any less ridiculous to use _a relic_ as an example of a straightforward power up, especially one that jukes a number of guidelines suggested in the DMG that AFAIK have not been explicitly deprecated by the MIC, such as items being restricted to certain characters or abilities as being discounted.



> No, silly, because the keen property already has a listed cost, as a plus. Try again.




So because a property does not have a listed cost, it is not relevant? That's your refutation? 

This whole thing started with "what is the cost of a flaming crystal echoblade," which is really another form of the question "what is the cost of the echoblade property?" 

Saying the echoblade property has no listed cost and therefore can be ignored in the calculation really begs the question, doesn't it?


----------



## hong (Mar 29, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Why do I have to do that? The fact that I can come up with something more ridiculous doesn't make it any less ridiculous to use _a relic_ as an example of a straightforward power up, especially one that jukes a number of guidelines suggested in the DMG that AFAIK have not been explicitly deprecated by the MIC, such as items being restricted to certain characters or abilities as being discounted.




That makes no sense at all.




> So because a property does not have a listed cost, it is not relevant? That's your refutation?




Well, someone's confused here.... 



> This whole thing started with "what is the cost of a flaming crystal echoblade," which is really another form of the question "what is the cost of the echoblade property?"
> 
> Saying the echoblade property has no listed cost and therefore can be ignored in the calculation really begs the question, doesn't it?




No, silly, I'm saying that the basic principle is "add the plusses and then add the special stuff". You are claiming that this basic principle falls down because you could apply it to the process of upgrading a +1 sword to a +1 keen sword and treat the keen bit as "special stuff". However, your claim is dumb because the keen property already has a pre-existing rule for calculating cost, and that rule says to treat it as a plus. There is no similar rule for the echoblade property, and so nothing is contradicted by treating it as "special stuff".

Further, the basic principle of "add the plusses and then add the special stuff" is recommended in MIC for all other types of plusses, whether saves, skills, stats, or whatnot. And hence the claim that it's inconsistent to apply it also to weapons (and armour) is also silly. It may not be to your taste, but it's certainly consistent.

Is that clearer?


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 29, 2007)




----------



## Cheiromancer (Mar 29, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> > Can _all_ magical abilities be added to other magic items with virtually no restrictions? Or can magical abilities _appropriate to the item in question_ be added to other magic items with virtually no restrictions?
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it inappropriate to make a +1 crystal echoblade +2?



If I understand Hypersmurf correctly, the question was whether it was appropriate to make a +1 katana into a +1 crystal echokatana.  That is, whether crystal echo could be added to other items.  He accepts that you can add special abilities to an item that already has the crystal echo property.  Similarly a Dwarven Thrower can get extra abilities, but only a +2 warhammer can get the dwarven thrower ability (which increases its enhancement bonus, adds the returning ability and more damage against giants).  Not a dagger or a sword or a mace; only a +2 warhammer.  And only a +3 frost greatsword can get the frost brand ability, and so on.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 29, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> If I understand Hypersmurf correctly, the question was whether it was appropriate to make a +1 katana into a +1 crystal echokatana.  That is, whether crystal echo could be added to other items.  He accepts that you can add special abilities to an item that already has the crystal echo property.  Similarly a Dwarven Thrower can get extra abilities, but only a +2 warhammer can get the dwarven thrower ability (which increases its enhancement bonus, adds the returning ability and more damage against giants).  Not a dagger or a sword or a mace; only a +2 warhammer.  And only a +3 frost greatsword can get the frost brand ability, and so on.




There are a lot of sources for the rule we are talking about.  The paragraph above the specific armor section in the MIC.  The paragraph above the specific weapon section in the MIC.  The paragraph about relics in the MIC.  The paragraph about imrproving magic items int he MIC.  And the paragraph in the DMG about improvements.

All seem to be saying the same thing: you can improve a specific item.  So far, I have seen nothing that says you can remove a specific item ability and apply it to a different item.  There may be strong flavor reasons for this (we went to all the trouble of making a lovely picture of an echoblade, and it's a BLADE darnit, not a club, and when we someday make a novel mentioning this item or a miniature or a comic book or movie or TV show, we want it recognizable as an echoBLADE, not an echoCLUB), or it may just be an aspect they have not thought about.  But so far, the rule seems to favor improving existing listed specific items and not adapting their special abilities to other items.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 29, 2007)

gnfnrf said:
			
		

> The first.  (Note that upgrading it to +3 or adding keen doesn't change what a paladin gets, a +5 holy weapon).




But the Axe of Ancestral Virtue functions as a non-magical weapon except under special circumnstances, doesn't it?

So surely upgrading it to a Flaming weapon doesn't change what the lawful good, lawful neutral, or neutral good character gets - +1 keen adamantine weapon?

If the Holy Avenger is treated as a +2 weapon (which is cooler in certain hands) for pricing purposes, why isn't the Axe of Ancestral Virtue treated as a non-magical weapon (which is cooler in certain hands) for pricing purposes?

-Hyp.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 29, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But the Axe of Ancestral Virtue functions as a non-magical weapon except under special circumnstances, doesn't it?
> 
> So surely upgrading it to a Flaming weapon doesn't change what the lawful good, lawful neutral, or neutral good character gets - +1 keen adamantine weapon?
> 
> ...




Smurf, I just gotta ask.  What does this have to do with the actual Axe of Ancestral Virtue? The paragraph says it's a rule for all magic items, and then it just is giving an example of some item to show how the cost works.  It really literally could have been any item at all in the example.  That's why it's an EXAMPLE.  If it happened to be a unique example, there would be no reason to use it for a general example like that (in fact there would be lots of reasons to not use it).  So we know for sure it's NOT about that friggen axe! Why do you keep bringing up the axe itself? You gotta know you're using a strawman every time, right?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 29, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Smurf, I just gotta ask.  What does this have to do with the actual Axe of Ancestral Virtue?




It doesn't - in this case, it has to do with the Holy Avenger.



> The paragraph says it's a rule for all magic items, and then it just is giving an example of some item to show how the cost works.




Which is why I don't understand gnfnrf's proposed treatment of the Holy Avenger, which doesn't seem consistent with the example used as a rule for all magic items.

-Hyp.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 29, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Smurf, I just gotta ask.  What does this have to do with the actual Axe of Ancestral Virtue? The paragraph says it's a rule for all magic items, and then it just is giving an example of some item to show how the cost works.  It really literally could have been any item at all in the example.  That's why it's an EXAMPLE.  If it happened to be a unique example, there would be no reason to use it for a general example like that (in fact there would be lots of reasons to not use it).  So we know for sure it's NOT about that friggen axe! Why do you keep bringing up the axe itself? You gotta know you're using a strawman every time, right?




What strawman are you talking about? Here's the deal. The EXAMPLE, the thing that's supposed to make everything clearer, itself raises huge questions. What you're basically saying is that Smurf cannot use the example that has been put forward, because that example has more holes than swiss cheese. Every single time Smurf gives another example that takes the MIC guidelines, piledrives them, then runs off with their girlfriend, the point is either greeted with silence or we get "well, that's just an example."

But if it were an example, it would work, right? But it doesn't. This is like getting instructions for a book case that tells you to fit Tab A into Slot A, but the tabs are labeled A - E and the slots F - J. And the picture in the book shows you doing something that you've already determined is physically impossible. And what it's calling "shelves" are shaped like ovals. 

The stupid dwarven axe is the worst possible example, unless they wanted to explain a lot more than they did. 

And it's STILL not 100% relevant as a rules citation, since the properties being added to the axe are still properties that can be added to any weapon, which the "echoblade property" is not.

Which makes the CustServ answer still worse than useless.


----------



## Caliban (Mar 29, 2007)

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped posting here...


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 29, 2007)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Thanks for reminding me why I stopped posting here...




Indeed.


----------



## IcyCool (Mar 29, 2007)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Thanks for reminding me why I stopped posting here...




Thanks for the useful and thought provoking post!


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 29, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Thanks for the useful and thought provoking post!




Sadly, it WAS.  He's saying what I have been thinking.  This is a fruitless, frustrating activity.  Folks entrench on a viewpoint and debate for the sake of the debate rather than finding a satifactory resolution.  I didn't need yet another reminder of that.


----------



## Caliban (Mar 29, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Thanks for the useful and thought provoking post!




Your sarcasm is duly noted.  

I'm sad to see things haven't gotten better during my extended absence.  I had hoped that taking my leave would lessen the negative vibe that I was contributing to in this forum.  Guess it wasn't just me.

Carry on with your bickering.


----------



## IcyCool (Mar 29, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Sadly, it WAS.  He's saying what I have been thinking.  This is a fruitless, frustrating activity.  Folks entrench on a viewpoint and debate for the sake of the debate rather than finding a satifactory resolution.  I didn't need yet another reminder of that.




You see "debate for the sake of debate" and call it "fruitless" and "frustrating".  I see "multiple valid interpretations" (even though I sometimes dig out a trench) and call it "valuable" and "worthwhile".

I can understand that if you are trying to change someone's opinion, it can be a difficult and often impossible task.  I can see where that could be frustrating.  But if you leave one of these discussions without having learned more about the rules, I find that surprising, and disappointing.

Now, I'd better go find me a trench and get back to my bickering.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 29, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> You see "debate for the sake of debate" and call it "fruitless" and "frustrating".  I see "multiple valid interpretations" (even though I sometimes dig out a trench) and call it "valuable" and "worthwhile".




Earlier, I was trying to make that point.  That there are multiple valid intepretations.  What I was getting back, from at least one poster here, is that he thinks there is not.  He thinks reasonable minds cannot differ on this topic.  That's the point where I find it frustrating.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Mar 30, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Earlier, I was trying to make that point.  That there are multiple valid intepretations.  What I was getting back, from at least one poster here, is that he thinks there is not.  He thinks reasonable minds cannot differ on this topic.  That's the point where I find it frustrating.



Now whenever I see someone saying "there are multiple valid interpretations" I tend to parse it as "don't point the flaws in my argument- let's just pretend that all our interpretations are equally good."  Sometimes this leads me wrong, of course.

I tend to go into a discussion like this with the assumption that there is one answer which is better than another.  If there are multiple answers, they should have conditionals: "If your campaign features X, Y and Z, then rule this way; if your campaign has features P, Q and R, then rule this other way."  Or "If you rule that monks can take INA, then to be consistent you should also allow feat X and prestige class Y.  If you don't, you shouldn't."  Or something of that sort.

Basically I'm looking at a question from the perspective of a DM who hasn't made up his mind, but wants to be fair, have a fun game, and be faithful to the rule books.  But part of the job of being a DM is that at the end of a day you have to make a ruling.  You can't say "there are multiple valid interpretations" and leave it at that.  There is one interpretation that I have to pick out as being the best of the bunch.  The purpose of this "bickering" is to figure out what that interpretation is.


----------



## 3catcircus (Mar 30, 2007)

I can't believe all of this "discussion" over this issue.

1.  You already know the book value for the specific magic item in question.

2.  You know that it acts as a +1 longsword.

3.  You know it has the echo ability, restricted to those who can use bardic music.

4.  You know the cost of a +1 longsword.

5.   You know the 310 gp kicker for a masterwork longsword.

6.  You *don't* know whether the echo ability is *just* echo and the crystal part is a separate ability or if crystal and echo are conjoined twins, so to speak, correct?  I don't have MIC yet (its in the mail), so I don't know if "crystal" is a magic item ability.  Or maybe it is a special material.

7.  If "crystal" is a special material with a specific additional cost (percentage or flat) to craft an item from, then you can derive the echo ability cost by working backwards.  If "crystal" is not separate from echo, then the cost can still be derived by working backwards.

8.  Unless the DM says otherwise, you can boost the weapon to +2, or add flaming, or whatever, by taking the derived cost of echo (and or crystal), including the cost of, in this case, flaming, and the cost of +1, and then subtracting the +! and crystal and echo stuff.

9.  In any case, you don't need to do all of this math since the cost of improving an item falls out and can be calculated as a delta directly.

10.  This all doesn't matter since any DM in his right mind would not allow the weapon anyway...


----------



## Caliban (Mar 30, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Now whenever I see someone saying "there are multiple valid interpretations" I tend to parse it as "don't point the flaws in my argument- let's just pretend that all our interpretations are equally good."  Sometimes this leads me wrong, of course.




The other common meaning is "I don't think you are right, but I'm tired of argueing about it and want to drop the subject".    Unfortunately, some people take that as a sign of weakness and just means they become even more aggressive in pushing their point of view.



> I tend to go into a discussion like this with the assumption that there is one answer which is better than another.  If there are multiple answers, they should have conditionals: "If your campaign features X, Y and Z, then rule this way; if your campaign has features P, Q and R, then rule this other way."  Or "If you rule that monks can take INA, then to be consistent you should also allow feat X and prestige class Y.  If you don't, you shouldn't."  Or something of that sort.




In a perfect world, maybe.   Some times there actually are multiple technically valid answers based on the available data and rules - or even in spite of the rules.   People then factor in nebulous factors like "common sense", "balance", "intent", "fun", or "what I want for my character" when deciding between them, and that is when it tends to break down from a reasoned debate to what I call "bickering" - restating the same arguements over and over, with the added benefit of sarcasm, condescending attitudes, and veiled ad-hominem attacks.



> Basically I'm looking at a question from the perspective of a DM who hasn't made up his mind, but wants to be fair, have a fun game, and be faithful to the rule books.




I'm sure you are.  Unfortunately, not everyone involved in the discussion is going to think that way.  



> But part of the job of being a DM is that at the end of a day you have to make a ruling.  You can't say "there are multiple valid interpretations" and leave it at that.  There is one interpretation that I have to pick out as being the best of the bunch.  The purpose of this "bickering" is to figure out what that interpretation is.




Saying "there are multiple valid interpetations, pick the one you think will work for your campaign" should be perfectly fine for a message board discussion.   We are not all playing/running the same campaign.  There are many ways to run a D&D campaign, even using the same rules.      

There is a difference between saying "I don't think it should work that way, here is how I would do it, but choose what works best for your game" and saying "Your interpretation is [unreasonable/munchkin/dumb], the sources you cite to support your position are [irrelevent/untrustworthy/not saying what you think they are], and you should do things my way or you are [unreasonable/munchkin/dumb/a cheater]".

And that is oversimplifying things.   

It is easy to unconciously identify yourself with the position you are arguing for, and when somone disagrees with it too strongly, you can feel threatened or attacked.  If they do it strongly enough, the urge is to dig in and strike back regardless of the validity of their arguements.  

There are people who revel in the debate itself (rather than the subject of the debate), and will deliberately take a contrary position (or no position at all) and goad others involved in the debate so that they can show off their ability to tie people into logical knots, or just to keep the arguement going because they are bored.

In the end, don't expect a consensus.  Some people are stuck in their point of view because they feel attacked, some people consider other factors more important, some people are just trying to prolong the debate for their own reasons.

*shrug* Or maybe I'm just jaded because of my own experiences.


----------



## AngelBob (Mar 30, 2007)

I would refer you to the rules on "Relics" in the magic item compendium, where it states that the base functionality of the weapon can be upgraded like any other magic weapon, disregarding any other special abilities granted by either qualifying for the relic or otherwise.

For example, the Axe of Ancestral Virtue, despite having other powers, is also a +1 Keen Dwarven Waraxe, a +2 weapon. The other powers are treated like special abilities that add +cash to the cost, not +itemlevel. Therefore, the cost of increasing the item to a +2 Keen Dwarven Waraxe is exactly the same as making any other +2 weapon into a +3 weapon.

Bards everywhere rejoice, upgraded Crystal Echoblades for all!


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 30, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

>








  I agree.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> with the added benefit of sarcasm, condescending attitudes, and veiled ad-hominem attacks.



IME the mods are usually darn good at helping with those.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 30, 2007)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> 10.  This all doesn't matter since any DM in his right mind would not allow the weapon anyway...



It don't look that bad. Now if there was a way to double up on the echo there might be a problem, or for any other class there would be issues, but on it's own, _not including other splat materials_, the +1 longsword version is a strong weapon for a class that does not have much going for it front line.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 30, 2007)

Ditto to what Caliban said (and Frank, for the balance issue on this item).


----------



## gnfnrf (Mar 30, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But the Axe of Ancestral Virtue functions as a non-magical weapon except under special circumnstances, doesn't it?




Actually, as far as I can tell, no.

I think you can't use it at all.  But it doesn't say.



> So surely upgrading it to a Flaming weapon doesn't change what the lawful good, lawful neutral, or neutral good character gets - +1 keen adamantine weapon?




Except it does, because that's what the example says.



> If the Holy Avenger is treated as a +2 weapon (which is cooler in certain hands) for pricing purposes, why isn't the Axe of Ancestral Virtue treated as a non-magical weapon (which is cooler in certain hands) for pricing purposes?




This is backwards.  We know how the axe is handled, because the book tells us.  If you think I handled the Holy Avenger wrong, that's fine.  I don't hold strictly to my evaluation.  (The difference as I see it is in the wording.  The holy avenger says what it is, then what it is for a paladin.  The axe just says what it is for those alignments.)

But, at worst here, you've shown we don't know how to handle the Holy Avenger, and by extention, the Dwarven Thrower and the Sword of the Planes (and possibly one or two other items we haven't mentioned).  The Crystal Echoblade has no such problems, nor do most specific weapons.  

Just because it's not clear how to apply the general rule in a few cases doesn't mean you can reject the general rule entirely.

--
gnfnrf


----------



## hong (Mar 30, 2007)

gnfnrf said:
			
		

> This is backwards.  We know how the axe is handled, because the book tells us.  If you think I handled the Holy Avenger wrong, that's fine.  I don't hold strictly to my evaluation.  (The difference as I see it is in the wording.  The holy avenger says what it is, then what it is for a paladin.  The axe just says what it is for those alignments.)
> 
> But, at worst here, you've shown we don't know how to handle the Holy Avenger, and by extention, the Dwarven Thrower and the Sword of the Planes (and possibly one or two other items we haven't mentioned).  The Crystal Echoblade has no such problems, nor do most specific weapons.
> 
> Just because it's not clear how to apply the general rule in a few cases doesn't mean you can reject the general rule entirely.




The trouble is that discerning the general rule from the example of the axe of ancestral virtue requires a deductive leap and the acceptance of unstated assumptions (namely, that the axe is supposed to be treated as a +1 keen axe with frills). In turn, this requires investing "designer intent" with substantive meaning within the context of the game. Deductive leaps and designer intent, however, are anathema to the principle of an abstract rules framework. Of course, this could also be another argument that mathematicians should just stick to mathematics....


Hong "theorem: all characters are interesting. Proof by contradiction: consider the ordered set of uninteresting characters..." Ooi


----------



## gnfnrf (Mar 30, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> The trouble is that discerning the general rule from the example of the axe of ancestral virtue requires a deductive leap and the acceptance of unstated assumptions (namely, that the axe is supposed to be treated as a +1 keen axe with frills).




Here I disagree.  I think that the description of upgrading the axe of ancestral virtue makes clear its assumptions and the generality of the rules it is applying.  But then, I thought that's how the rule worked before I read MIC, so my perceptions may be skewed.



> In turn, this requires investing "designer intent" with substantive meaning within the context of the game. Deductive leaps and designer intent, however, are anathema to the principle of an abstract rules framework. Of course, this could also be another argument that mathematicians should just stick to mathematics....




And yet, without deductive reasoning, we are paralyzed.  We know it is possible to upgrade the Crystal Echoblade, MIC tells us this explicitly.  How much should it cost?   I am proposing a system which I believe is the system the authors think is already in the game.  I know it is the system they want to use for relics in their example, and they also say to use for any other weapon.  

To some extent, I am divining designer intent here.  But I am doing so from an example in which the procedure of upgrading is spelled out, so we actually know the thought process.  Not just the final price of an upgraded axe of ancestral virtue, but what calculations they performed to get there.

--
gnfnrf


----------



## 3catcircus (Mar 30, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> It don't look that bad. Now if there was a way to double up on the echo there might be a problem, or for any other class there would be issues, but on it's own, _not including other splat materials_, the +1 longsword version is a strong weapon for a class that does not have much going for it front line.




Actually, I was referring to adding the flaming ability to the existing weapon.  The existing weapon itself I have no problem with.


----------



## Salthorae (Mar 30, 2007)

gnfnrf said:
			
		

> Here I disagree.  I think that the description of upgrading the axe of ancestral virtue makes clear its assumptions and the generality of the rules it is applying.  But then, I thought that's how the rule worked before I read MIC, so my perceptions may be skewed. gnfnrf




I'm gonna have to drop in on the gnfnrf/Mistwell side of this debate. Like gnfnrf I've always thought that you could upgrade specific items as the MIC example shows. I used this logic before I had ever seen the MIC or the rule on upgrading specific items. Here  is an example of my logic/line of reasoning. I really don't see why viewing the crystal-echo as a flat cost is that big of a deal, when was the last time you heard of a Bard being a true melee threat?


----------



## Cheiromancer (Mar 30, 2007)

Salthorae said:
			
		

> I really don't see why viewing the crystal-echo as a flat cost is that big of a deal, when was the last time you heard of a Bard being a true melee threat?




Crystal-echo would be a precedent for the notion that, unless otherwise specified, every special property can be treated as a flat cost.  And since specific items do not specify the cost of their properties, that would be all of them.  Maybe crystal-echo won't be a problem, but can you make a blanket statement that no specific property would be a problem as a flat cost?


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 30, 2007)

For what it is worth, despite listing flaming as the ability I wanted to add in the initial example (for simplicity), the real weapon I was getting at is a Crystal Echoblade of Harmonizing (a new +1 ability from MIC).



> Harmonizing
> Price: +1 bonus
> Property: Melee Weapon
> Caster Level: 5th
> ...




So, a Crystal Echoblade of Harmonizing would be 10,310 gp, and quite useful for a bard (particularly the Inspire Courage focused bard I have been working on, on this board, for a while).


----------



## IcyCool (Mar 30, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Crystal-echo would be a precedent for the notion that, unless otherwise specified, every special property can be treated as a flat cost.  And since specific items do not specify the cost of their properties, that would be all of them.  Maybe crystal-echo won't be a problem, but can you make a blanket statement that no specific property would be a problem as a flat cost?




The item that immediately jumps to my mind is the Sunblade.


----------



## Owen K.C. Stephens (Mar 30, 2007)

I abslutely cannot speak to what the rules actually say any better than the two sides have already done.

I know what I would do _in my own campaigns_, if I were faced with a playing wishing to upgrade the Crystal echoblade. I'd decide the "echoing" part cost the same as the last bonus, rather than a flat 2k gp.

Thus in my game a +1 echoblade is 4k (plus weapon)

A +2 echoblade (or +1 flaming echoblade) is  14k (plus weapon), since the cost of your 2nd +1 bons is 6k.

A +3 echoblade is 28k (plus weapon).

I'd do this precisely because the benefit doesn;t seem out of place for a bard, but a flat +2k is too trivial for a 14th level bard to add to his existing flaming frost shock rapier


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 30, 2007)

OStephens said:
			
		

> I abslutely cannot speak to what the rules actually say any better than the two sides have already done.
> 
> I know what I would do _in my own campaigns_, if I were faced with a playing wishing to upgrade the Crystal echoblade. I'd decide the "echoing" part cost the same as the last bonus, rather than a flat 2k gp.
> 
> ...




Which is not an illogical way to do it.  I'd do it differently obviously, but it's not like we are talking about a 200% swing in pricing (like you see with many debates about magic item pricing).  A 4,000 gp discrepancy is something (40% increase in price), but it's not so wildly different that it's in a totally different ballpark.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 31, 2007)

Why "echo crystalblade" should not be treated as a flat gp cost: It's so inexpensive, a bard would add it to essentially any magic weapon he owned. 

Why the DMG magic item guidelines are set up the way they are: to avoid that scenario.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 31, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Why "echo crystalblade" should not be treated as a flat gp cost: It's so inexpensive, a bard would add it to essentially any magic weapon he owned.
> 
> Why the DMG magic item guidelines are set up the way they are: to avoid that scenario.




I have not seen anyone advocating using the echo property to add to any other weapon.  Just adding a general ability to that existing listed specific weapon, which we know for a fact the Magic Item Compendium says you can add abilities to that weapon.

DMG magic item guidelines do not cover the issue we are discussing.  If they did, there would be no issue.

Arguing it's so inexpensive any bard would want it pretty much shows you are not coming at this from an objective standpoint.  You have a goal you want to meet (making it more expensive) and it is coloring your idea of how to approach the rules analysis.  So much so that you are telling people that not only is your approach better, but that your approach is the only possible legitimate one.

I'd prefer we first figure out how it is supposed to be priced according to WOTC, and then we can discuss if that is balanced and if a houserule is appropriate in this situation.

In addition to the majority of users here, and WOTC CustServ, and numerous general statements in both the DMG and MIC, we have an example from the magic item compendium concerning a specific item, and the cost to add a general ability to that specific item.  

The formula the example uses places a flat cost on the specific portion of specific weapons, and the general price-increasing cost on the general portion of that specific item.  

So far, the arguments disputing this example are that the item in question is "wacky".  That doesn't seem very helpful to me.  We are concerned with how the rulebook approaches the rule, not whether or not a certain weapon is priced wacky to begin with.  

Unless you are claiming WOTC chose an example item specifically to foil any attempt to gain any use from the example or rule they were talking about, I think we should be discussing the rule and not the wackiness of the item used in the example.  That wackiness issue seems like a distraction and strawman to me.  We all know this issue has nothing at all to do with how wacky the axe of ancestral virtue is.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 31, 2007)

_Arguing it's so inexpensive any bard would want it pretty much shows you are not coming at this from an objective standpoint. You have a goal you want to meet (making it more expensive) and it is coloring your idea of how to approach the rules analysis. 
[/quote]

Ad hominem. It shows no such thing. I am advocating the viewpoint that the magic item costs were originally designed with some concept of balance in mind. The DMG includes no flat cost weapon enhancements, and ones elsewhere rarely effect a weapon's damage directly. Thus, to me, it is central that the echoblade property is essentially a "+" quality that simply was not given a "+."

That remains the case whether you are adding the flaming quality to the echoblade or the echoblade quality to something else. Whether or not the other case is possible, if you add flaming to the echoblade, you are gaining the advantages of an unsually enhanced item. Treating "echoblade" as a static property simultaneously breaks down the existing price structure for weapons, while also ignoring the usual discount for a weapon that can be used only by certain characters, particularly by using an ability themselves.

No one can say if the echoblade was designed in the first place as a "+" and then a discount was applied, of a certain percentage, or some arbitrary amount. Or whether conversely it was priced intuitively. 

I think it is not permissible to ignore the echoblade qualities when pricing the item, because it is exactly the sort of property that generally rates as a + increase. If mighty cleaving rates a +1, "echoblade" certainly does._


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 31, 2007)

_That wackiness issue seems like a distraction and strawman to me. _

A strawman, by the way, is a weak version of an opinion set up and then destroyed, without addressing the stronger, actual opinion. Whether or not it's a distraction, addressing the bizarre example is not a "strawman" in any fashion I can see. Rather, it's more of a lightning rod for the central problems with the CustServ answer.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 31, 2007)

This might help clarify an earlier question about what value the axe of ancestral value has for various alignments.



> In addition to its relic power, each relic has a base effect or power available to any character whose alignment is within one step of the associate diety's.  For example, the axe of ancestral cirtue functions as a +1 keen adamantine dawarven waraxe in the hands of any character who is lawful good, lawful neutral, or neutral good (that is, within one step of Moradin's LG alignment).  In the hands of a character not of one of these alignments, the item has no magical abilities whatsoever and is simply an adamantine dwarven waraxe...




However, this is the part of the section that is relevant to our discussion:



> (MIC Pg. 224) Furthermore, *a character can improve an existing relic just as he could any other magic item.*




And now compare that statement to this one:



> (MIC Pg. 46)The following weapons are usually constructed with the properties described here.  You can increase the enhancement bonus of these weapons or add more special properties *just as you would for any other item.*




And this statement:



> *You can add new magical abilities to a magic item with virtually no restrictions. The cost and prerequisites to do this are the same as if the item was not magical.* Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal longsword minus the cost of a +1 longsword (93,315 - 2,313 = 96,000 gp). The character improving the magic item must meet the same prerequisites as of he were creating the item from scratch.




Three times the statement is extremely similar in wording:

1) "A character can improve an existing relic just as he could any other magic item",
2) "You can increase the enhancement bonus of these weapons or add more special properties just as you would for any other item",
3) "You can add new magical abilities to a magic item...the cost is...the same as if the item was not magical."

The first one however gives an example of what they mean by that statement, and the example treats pluses to an item like any other plus on an item, and specific abilities not otherwise associated with a plus as a flat cost to be added to that item.  

Ergo, if we apply that principal to the other two statements, we know that adding a plus to an existing specific item functions the same way.

Which results in a cost for a Crystal Echoblade of Flaming being equal to 10,310 gp.  The same answer most of us came up with on our own, and the same answer CustServ came up with.

And most of the responses to this seem to amount to "we feel that is too cheap from a balance perspective", which of course is not the issue at hand.  Nobody asked "do you think this is balanced for your game".  It's certainly a worthwhile discussion to have, and we can certainly have that discussion here, but it is not the same issue as "what does it cost under the RAW?".  

And besides, if you actually think the MIC is pricing items too cheaply and your goal is to make that point, attacking this particular formula doesn't help achieve your goal because all you would do is attack a small subset of the rules for adding general abilities to specifically named items.  If you think the MIC is resulting in prices that are too low, you would do better to admit that the formula they use comes up with too low a price, just like all the other items in the book, and you would be getting your point across much better that way.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 31, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> _That wackiness issue seems like a distraction and strawman to me. _
> 
> A strawman, by the way, is a weak version of an opinion set up and then destroyed, without addressing the stronger, actual opinion.




No, it is not.  Seriously, I know the word, I use the word, I have argued legal briefs to state supreme court justices using the word.  A strawman is not a weak portion of an opinion - it's something that never was part of an opinion to begin with.



> Whether or not it's a distraction, addressing the bizarre example is not a "strawman" in any fashion I can see.




It is, because how wacky the axe of ancestral virtue might be is not any part of the opinion you are addressing.  It's a different issue, but you are trying to make it seem like the opinion you are addressing was dependent on the wackiness level of the axe, when it wasn't any part of that opinion at all.



> Rather, it's more of a lightning rod for the central problems with the CustServ answer.




The axe was not part of the CustServ answer. You seem to have confused two different issues.  I believe CustServ was citing to a page with a vorpal property, not the axe of ancestral virtue.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 31, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Ad hominem. It shows no such thing.  I am advocating the viewpoint that the magic item costs were originally designed with some concept of balance in mind. The DMG includes no flat cost weapon enhancements, and ones elsewhere rarely effect a weapon's damage directly. Thus, to me, it is central that the echoblade property is essentially a "+" quality that simply was not given a "+."




Not really relevant.  This isn't done using the DMG, it's done using the MIC and the new rules stated in that book.  Everyone admits the DMG does not cover this issue.  The MIC is the first book that specifically says you can add general abilities to specific items.  Hence, the source for this rule is the MIC.



> That remains the case whether you are adding the flaming quality to the echoblade or the echoblade quality to something else. Whether or not the other case is possible, if you add flaming to the echoblade, you are gaining the advantages of an unsually enhanced item.




I have never seen a rule that says you can remove an ability from a specific item and apply it to a general item.  Nobody has advocated for that either.  That you think the pricing would be bad if someone did that is not relevant, since nobody is doing that or advocating that.  Hence, it's another strawman.  When someone says they are going to remove the echo property from the crystal echoblade and apply it to a club, your argument becomes valid.  Right now, I don't see how it is relevant. 



> I think it is not permissible to ignore the echoblade qualities when pricing the item, because it is exactly the sort of property that generally rates as a + increase. If mighty cleaving rates a +1, "echoblade" certainly does.




That's a balance issue, not a rules as written issue.  If your argument is that the MIC is coming up with items that are too cheap in general, then say so.  Others are making that argument in other threads, so you have some support on that issue.  But it's not the same issue as how the rules seem to address it.  

It *IS* permissible to ignore the echoblade qualities when pricing the item, if the question is "how does the MIC seem to price these sorts of things".  If the question becomes "...and is that a fair price or should it be changed based on balance issues" then your response is relevant.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Mar 31, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I have never seen a rule that says you can remove an ability from a specific item and apply it to a general item.  Nobody has advocated for that either.  That you think the pricing would be bad if someone did that is not relevant, since nobody is doing that or advocating that.




:raises hand guiltily:

Actually I was speculating about this earlier.  I figured that if "crystal echo" was a magical ability with a flat cost, it should be possible to add it to something else, like a crystal echoclub or a crystal echokatana.  

But your more substantial point is correct; this question is independent of how much it would cost to add a +1 property to an existing crystal echoblade.


----------



## AngelBob (Mar 31, 2007)

Now, this is not a rules citation, but a in-world logic decision. My apologies if it is unwelcome.

A specific weapon CAN be upgraded, th MIC says so, but the specific weapon's traits cannot be added to another already existing weapon. Namely Echoblade is not an enchantable modifier.

Why?

Treat the special traits of a specific weapon as if they were inherrant to the original creation of a weapon. The same as crafting a star-metal greatsword. You cannot later "reforge" the blade with starmetal without completely re-enchanting the weapon, as it is a new weapon. So a weapon needs to be FORGED an Echoblade, cannot be made an echoblade later. This logic can pass down to all specific weapon.

A Shatterspike (+1 Longsword with extra sundering coolness) gets that Sundering power at the time of it's creation, due to the method of it's creation, or perhaps a unreplicatable event that occurs after it (the death of the ancient hero's loved one awakens the power of the blade, the forgers lifeblood must be emptied on the blade, etc.).

Essentially, the local Wizard's Tower may know how to MAKE a crystal echoblade, IMPROVE a crystal echoblade, but are unable to make something else a crystal echoblade.

"Ummmm... well you see... Crystal echoblade's are made of crystal, and your +2 Adamantine Rapier is sort of... well... not.  How about some nice Fireball Scrolls, eh?"


But could an Echoblade be CREATED as something other than a longsword? I'd say iffy at best. A Rapier might be to thin to hold all the magical matrixes, a club lack the thinness needed for proper resonation, etc.


----------

