Cost to add +1 ability to Specific Weapon

[Hypersmurf]

Smurf, I just gotta ask. What does this have to do with the actual Axe of Ancestral Virtue?

It doesn't - in this case, it has to do with the Holy Avenger.

The paragraph says it's a rule for all magic items, and then it just is giving an example of some item to show how the cost works.

Which is why I don't understand gnfnrf's proposed treatment of the Holy Avenger, which doesn't seem consistent with the example used as a rule for all magic items.

-Hyp.

 

[pawsplay]

Smurf, I just gotta ask. What does this have to do with the actual Axe of Ancestral Virtue? The paragraph says it's a rule for all magic items, and then it just is giving an example of some item to show how the cost works. It really literally could have been any item at all in the example. That's why it's an EXAMPLE. If it happened to be a unique example, there would be no reason to use it for a general example like that (in fact there would be lots of reasons to not use it). So we know for sure it's NOT about that friggen axe! Why do you keep bringing up the axe itself? You gotta know you're using a strawman every time, right?

What strawman are you talking about? Here's the deal. The EXAMPLE, the thing that's supposed to make everything clearer, itself raises huge questions. What you're basically saying is that Smurf cannot use the example that has been put forward, because that example has more holes than swiss cheese. Every single time Smurf gives another example that takes the MIC guidelines, piledrives them, then runs off with their girlfriend, the point is either greeted with silence or we get "well, that's just an example."

But if it were an example, it would work, right? But it doesn't. This is like getting instructions for a book case that tells you to fit Tab A into Slot A, but the tabs are labeled A - E and the slots F - J. And the picture in the book shows you doing something that you've already determined is physically impossible. And what it's calling "shelves" are shaped like ovals.

The stupid dwarven axe is the worst possible example, unless they wanted to explain a lot more than they did.

And it's STILL not 100% relevant as a rules citation, since the properties being added to the axe are still properties that can be added to any weapon, which the "echoblade property" is not.

Which makes the CustServ answer still worse than useless.

 

[Caliban]

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped posting here...

 

[Mistwell]

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped posting here...

Indeed.

 

[IcyCool]

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped posting here...

Thanks for the useful and thought provoking post!

 

[Mistwell]

Thanks for the useful and thought provoking post!

Sadly, it WAS. He's saying what I have been thinking. This is a fruitless, frustrating activity. Folks entrench on a viewpoint and debate for the sake of the debate rather than finding a satifactory resolution. I didn't need yet another reminder of that.

 

[Caliban]

Thanks for the useful and thought provoking post!

Your sarcasm is duly noted.

I'm sad to see things haven't gotten better during my extended absence. I had hoped that taking my leave would lessen the negative vibe that I was contributing to in this forum. Guess it wasn't just me.

Carry on with your bickering.

 

[IcyCool]

Sadly, it WAS. He's saying what I have been thinking. This is a fruitless, frustrating activity. Folks entrench on a viewpoint and debate for the sake of the debate rather than finding a satifactory resolution. I didn't need yet another reminder of that.

You see "debate for the sake of debate" and call it "fruitless" and "frustrating". I see "multiple valid interpretations" (even though I sometimes dig out a trench) and call it "valuable" and "worthwhile".

I can understand that if you are trying to change someone's opinion, it can be a difficult and often impossible task. I can see where that could be frustrating. But if you leave one of these discussions without having learned more about the rules, I find that surprising, and disappointing.

Now, I'd better go find me a trench and get back to my bickering.

 

[Mistwell]

You see "debate for the sake of debate" and call it "fruitless" and "frustrating". I see "multiple valid interpretations" (even though I sometimes dig out a trench) and call it "valuable" and "worthwhile".

Earlier, I was trying to make that point. That there are multiple valid intepretations. What I was getting back, from at least one poster here, is that he thinks there is not. He thinks reasonable minds cannot differ on this topic. That's the point where I find it frustrating.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Earlier, I was trying to make that point. That there are multiple valid intepretations. What I was getting back, from at least one poster here, is that he thinks there is not. He thinks reasonable minds cannot differ on this topic. That's the point where I find it frustrating.

Now whenever I see someone saying "there are multiple valid interpretations" I tend to parse it as "don't point the flaws in my argument- let's just pretend that all our interpretations are equally good." Sometimes this leads me wrong, of course.

I tend to go into a discussion like this with the assumption that there is one answer which is better than another. If there are multiple answers, they should have conditionals: "If your campaign features X, Y and Z, then rule this way; if your campaign has features P, Q and R, then rule this other way." Or "If you rule that monks can take INA, then to be consistent you should also allow feat X and prestige class Y. If you don't, you shouldn't." Or something of that sort.

Basically I'm looking at a question from the perspective of a DM who hasn't made up his mind, but wants to be fair, have a fun game, and be faithful to the rule books. But part of the job of being a DM is that at the end of a day you have to make a ruling. You can't say "there are multiple valid interpretations" and leave it at that. There is one interpretation that I have to pick out as being the best of the bunch. The purpose of this "bickering" is to figure out what that interpretation is.