Magic Item Compendium

[Kestrel]

So who's going to put together the random generator tool using the tables in the back of the book? I can't be bothered to roll dice, need to push a button!

 

[Kerrick]

Why?

... What do you mean "why"? What do YOU call them? What do you define as a "special effect"?

It's very simple. The general principle for pricing enchantments in 3E/3.5E is that the order of adding stuff doesn't matter. There is _one_ price for any given combination of powers, and it doesn't matter whether you add A to B, or B to A.

Right, I'm with you so far.

There is nothing in MIC, save some ambiguously worded paragraphs, to suggest this principle has changed.

I'm glad you're finally acknowledging that it's not my fault that I'm misinterpreting this. I'm a reasonably intelligent person; I have an English degree. I think I can read a section of text and puzzle out the meaning, but this one is, like you said, rather poorly worded and leads to silly rules arguments like this one.

In fact, the examples given in that section imply the principle is still the same: they all reference a single price for an item, without any mention that the order is supposed to affect things.

Let's trot out that paragraph again, shall we?

In most cases, if the item is one that occupies a body slot, the cost of adding any additional ability...

Any additional ability. Not "special effects" or "common effects".

...to that item is 1-1/2 times the value of the added power (or the value of the added power plus 1/2 the value of the existing item, if the added power normally costs more than the existing item).

Here's the clincher, the part where it implies that order DOES matter. (BTW, I left out part of that; I'm surprised someone didn't call me on it.) If the new ability costs LESS than the existing item, you multiply the new ability by 1.5. If the new ability costs MORE than the existing item, then you add the new ability's cost and multiply the existing item's cost by 1.5.

You know... once I wrote that out, and looked at it, it actually made sense. It's 1.5 times the lesser ability. Why the **** couldn't they have said just that, instead of making some convoluted, obscure sentence that idiots like me are bound to misinterpret?

From this principle, it is obvious that "add common effects to an existing magic item" is meant to be interpreted as "create a magic item with both common and special effects". By assuming otherwise, for no reason that I can tell, all you've achieved is to create a rod to beat yourself with. Cease with the pointless nitpicking, or I will be forced to assume you like beating yourself.

Didn't you hear, flagellation leads to enlightenment? You should try it some time. Worked for me.

 

[Stalker0]

One thing that disapoints me about the new book is most of the saves don't scale. I've seen one, menacing, in which the save is based on the person weilding it. Others like blinding remain the same. The problem is they quickly become useless, who cares about a DC 14 fort save at level 20?

Actually speaking of blinding, my copy has it in the list, but its not listed among the other weapon properties. A big typo indeed.

 

[hong]

... What do you mean "why"?

Why do you take a position in defiance of established principles of item creation in D&D?

What do YOU call them? What do you define as a "special effect"?

Something that isn't a common effect.

I'm glad you're finally acknowledging that it's not my fault that I'm misinterpreting this. I'm a reasonably intelligent person; I have an English degree. I think I can read a section of text and puzzle out the meaning, but this one is, like you said, rather poorly worded and leads to silly rules arguments like this one.

Feel free to stop arguing any time.

Let's trot out that paragraph again, shall we?

Wrong paragraph. I am referring to the various examples of improving items: the +1 sword made into the +2 vorpal sword, the boots of striding & springing combined with slippers of spider climb, the boots of S&S combined with +2 Dex, and so on. In all of these examples, no mention is made of prices differing according to which effect is put on first. Instead they all give a single price for an item, implying that order doesn't matter.

Further, given all the "behind the curtain" sidebars, you'd think that if they were going to overturn this fundamental principle of pricing, they would mention it.

Any additional ability. Not "special effects" or "common effects".

Tch.

In most cases, if the item is one that occupies a body slot, the cost of adding any additional ability...

Given the repercussions of interpreting that passage narrowly, it is obvious that such an interpretation is not the correct one.

Here's the clincher, the part where it implies that order DOES matter. (BTW, I left out part of that; I'm surprised someone didn't call me on it.) If the new ability costs LESS than the existing item, you multiply the new ability by 1.5. If the new ability costs MORE than the existing item, then you add the new ability's cost and multiply the existing item's cost by 1.5.

IOW, order doesn't matter: the price is the same, regardless of which ability goes first. As you yourself conclude below.

You know... once I wrote that out, and looked at it, it actually made sense. It's 1.5 times the lesser ability.

Yes, just like it's been since 3.5 came out, or 3E even if you go by the general principle (although back then it was x2 instead of x1.5). Isn't this fun?

Why the **** couldn't they have said just that, instead of making some convoluted, obscure sentence that idiots like me are bound to misinterpret?

It's an intelligence test. You must be THIS TALL to comment on this issue.

Didn't you hear, flagellation leads to enlightenment? You should try it some time. Worked for me.

Only because I deigned to educate you, my boy.

 

[MerricB]

Actually speaking of blinding, my copy has it in the list, but its not listed among the other weapon properties. A big typo indeed.

Blinding is an Armour property, not a weapon property. It's described on DMG 218, and it's in the list on page 283 of the MIC.

Cheers!

 

[Kerrick]

Given the repercussions of interpreting that passage narrowly, it is obvious that such an interpretation is not the correct one.

I don't know... We're not arguing about established principles of D&D item creation anymore - this is entirely new territory.

This sentence:

In most cases, if the item is one that occupies a body slot...

Seems to apply to this one:

This added cost doesn't necessarily apply when adding some common effects to existing items; see below.

Which directly refers to common effects. The only example they give is adding a +2 Dex bonus to an existing item, without a price hike. Fair enough, that part's spelled out pretty clearly. BUT, there's absolutely no evidence to show that you can add a "special effect" (read: an additional ability) to an item that has a common effect without a price hike. I suppose you could interpret it that way, based on the previous example (adding effects is always 1.5 times the lower-priced ability), and be technically correct, but I'm just opposed to the whole concept (which is not why I was arguing the point in the first place, but that's beside the point).

I am referring to the various examples of improving items: the +1 sword made into the +2 vorpal sword, the boots of striding & springing combined with slippers of spider climb, the boots of S&S combined with +2 Dex, and so on. In all of these examples, no mention is made of prices differing according to which effect is put on first. Instead they all give a single price for an item, implying that order doesn't matter.

You're mixing metaphors. Improving items isn't the same as adding additional abilities - they use different pricing schemes. Additional abilities are 1.5 times the lower cost, and improved abilities are the higher minus the lower.

Yes, just like it's been since 3.5 came out, or 3E even if you go by the general principle (although back then it was x2 instead of x1.5). Isn't this fun?

Wrong. If you look in your 3.5 DMG, it's 2 times the higher cost. They DID change it in the MIC; they just didn't mention it in a sidebar for some reason, instead choosing to write it in obscure verbiage that a 10-year-old could have done better.

It's an intelligence test. You must be THIS TALL to comment on this issue.

I suppose I asked for that one.

Only because I deigned to educate you, my boy.

Pfft. You merely guided me on the path; I found enlightenment on my own.

 

[hong]

I don't know... We're not arguing about established principles of D&D item creation anymore - this is entirely new territory.

Nonsense. Just because YOU want it to be entirely new territory, for reasons that possibly make sense in that certain non-Euclidean way, does not mean anyone else has to feel the same.

Which directly refers to common effects. The only example they give is adding a +2 Dex bonus to an existing item, without a price hike. Fair enough, that part's spelled out pretty clearly. BUT, there's absolutely no evidence to show that you can add a "special effect" (read: an additional ability) to an item that has a common effect without a price hike.

Of course there is, although I suppose a pedant with no substantive point to make could always choose to ignore it. The evidence is:

1) There are no corroborating statements to the effect that item prices depend on the order in which enchantments are added;

2) There are no items with multiple prices given;

3) There are no sidebars discussing what would be a major change to the item pricing guidelines;

4) Consequently, the algorithm for pricing items must be as I've outlined it.

Shall I explain it to you all over again?

I suppose you could interpret it that way, based on the previous example (adding effects is always 1.5 times the lower-priced ability), and be technically correct,

Exactly.

but I'm just opposed to the whole concept (which is not why I was arguing the point in the first place, but that's beside the point).

This isn't even cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's cutting off your nose to spite your nose.

You're mixing metaphors.

Ah. This must be some new meaning of "metaphor" that I wasn't aware of before.

Improving items isn't the same as adding additional abilities - they use different pricing schemes. Additional abilities are 1.5 times the lower cost, and improved abilities are the higher minus the lower.

Regardless of nitpicking by pedants with no substantive point to make, the item at the end of the process is more potent/useful than it was at the start, and thus it is "improved".

Wrong. If you look in your 3.5 DMG, it's 2 times the higher cost.

Chapter and verse, please.

They DID change it in the MIC;

Chapter and verse, please.

they just didn't mention it in a sidebar for some reason,

Possibly because they didn't change it.

instead choosing to write it in obscure verbiage that a 10-year-old could have done better.

Bitter much?

I suppose I asked for that one.

Yes, yes, you did.

Pfft. You merely guided me on the path; I found enlightenment on my own.

Yes, yes, that's what they all say.

 

[Piratecat]

Next person who posts something snarky gets a free vacation. Tune down the hostility and bickering, please; it isn't going to be tolerated.

 

[Kerrick]

Of course there is, although I suppose a pedant with no substantive point to make could always choose to ignore it.

I did have a substantive point to make; I just happened to be wrong.

Nonsense. Just because YOU want it to be entirely new territory, for reasons that possibly make sense in that certain non-Euclidean way, does not mean anyone else has to feel the same.

Adding common effects (or ANY effects, for that matter) to an item without a price increase is something that's never been done before; hence "new territory".

1) There are no corroborating statements to the effect that item prices depend on the order in which enchantments are added;

2) There are no items with multiple prices given;

Yes, wWe've already established that.

3) There are no sidebars discussing what would be a major change to the item pricing guidelines;

4) Consequently, the algorithm for pricing items must be as I've outlined it.

I don't know why they didn't put it in a sidebar, but see below.

Chapter and verse, please.

Table 7-33, p. 285. "Multiple different abilities: multiply higher item cost by 2."