Cost to add +1 ability to Specific Weapon

[Gerion of Mercadia]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.