Cost to add +1 ability to Specific Weapon

[pawsplay]

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]

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).

Add the 6,000gp to determine the final market price of the item. 10,310gp.

Take Care and Good Gaming!

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]

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

 

[pawsplay]

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

 

[Mistwell]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.