Cost to add +1 ability to Specific Weapon

[Mistwell]

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]

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

 

[Cheiromancer]

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]

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]

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.

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.