Cost to add +1 ability to Specific Weapon

[Mistwell]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.