Cost to add +1 ability to Specific Weapon

[3catcircus]

I can't believe all of this "discussion" over this issue.

1. You already know the book value for the specific magic item in question.

2. You know that it acts as a +1 longsword.

3. You know it has the echo ability, restricted to those who can use bardic music.

4. You know the cost of a +1 longsword.

5. You know the 310 gp kicker for a masterwork longsword.

6. You *don't* know whether the echo ability is *just* echo and the crystal part is a separate ability or if crystal and echo are conjoined twins, so to speak, correct? I don't have MIC yet (its in the mail), so I don't know if "crystal" is a magic item ability. Or maybe it is a special material.

7. If "crystal" is a special material with a specific additional cost (percentage or flat) to craft an item from, then you can derive the echo ability cost by working backwards. If "crystal" is not separate from echo, then the cost can still be derived by working backwards.

8. Unless the DM says otherwise, you can boost the weapon to +2, or add flaming, or whatever, by taking the derived cost of echo (and or crystal), including the cost of, in this case, flaming, and the cost of +1, and then subtracting the +! and crystal and echo stuff.

9. In any case, you don't need to do all of this math since the cost of improving an item falls out and can be calculated as a delta directly.

10. This all doesn't matter since any DM in his right mind would not allow the weapon anyway...

 

[Caliban]

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.

The other common meaning is "I don't think you are right, but I'm tired of argueing about it and want to drop the subject". Unfortunately, some people take that as a sign of weakness and just means they become even more aggressive in pushing their point of view.

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.

In a perfect world, maybe. Some times there actually are multiple technically valid answers based on the available data and rules - or even in spite of the rules. People then factor in nebulous factors like "common sense", "balance", "intent", "fun", or "what I want for my character" when deciding between them, and that is when it tends to break down from a reasoned debate to what I call "bickering" - restating the same arguements over and over, with the added benefit of sarcasm, condescending attitudes, and veiled ad-hominem attacks.

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.

I'm sure you are. Unfortunately, not everyone involved in the discussion is going to think that way.

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.

Saying "there are multiple valid interpetations, pick the one you think will work for your campaign" should be perfectly fine for a message board discussion. We are not all playing/running the same campaign. There are many ways to run a D&D campaign, even using the same rules.

There is a difference between saying "I don't think it should work that way, here is how I would do it, but choose what works best for your game" and saying "Your interpretation is [unreasonable/munchkin/dumb], the sources you cite to support your position are [irrelevent/untrustworthy/not saying what you think they are], and you should do things my way or you are [unreasonable/munchkin/dumb/a cheater]".

And that is oversimplifying things.

It is easy to unconciously identify yourself with the position you are arguing for, and when somone disagrees with it too strongly, you can feel threatened or attacked. If they do it strongly enough, the urge is to dig in and strike back regardless of the validity of their arguements.

There are people who revel in the debate itself (rather than the subject of the debate), and will deliberately take a contrary position (or no position at all) and goad others involved in the debate so that they can show off their ability to tie people into logical knots, or just to keep the arguement going because they are bored.

In the end, don't expect a consensus. Some people are stuck in their point of view because they feel attacked, some people consider other factors more important, some people are just trying to prolong the debate for their own reasons.

*shrug* Or maybe I'm just jaded because of my own experiences.

 

[AngelBob]

I would refer you to the rules on "Relics" in the magic item compendium, where it states that the base functionality of the weapon can be upgraded like any other magic weapon, disregarding any other special abilities granted by either qualifying for the relic or otherwise.

For example, the Axe of Ancestral Virtue, despite having other powers, is also a +1 Keen Dwarven Waraxe, a +2 weapon. The other powers are treated like special abilities that add +cash to the cost, not +itemlevel. Therefore, the cost of increasing the item to a +2 Keen Dwarven Waraxe is exactly the same as making any other +2 weapon into a +3 weapon.

Bards everywhere rejoice, upgraded Crystal Echoblades for all!

 

[frankthedm]

I agree.

with the added benefit of sarcasm, condescending attitudes, and veiled ad-hominem attacks.

IME the mods are usually darn good at helping with those.

 

[frankthedm]

10. This all doesn't matter since any DM in his right mind would not allow the weapon anyway...

It don't look that bad. Now if there was a way to double up on the echo there might be a problem, or for any other class there would be issues, but on it's own, not including other splat materials, the +1 longsword version is a strong weapon for a class that does not have much going for it front line.

 

[Mistwell]

Ditto to what Caliban said (and Frank, for the balance issue on this item).

 

[gnfnrf]

But the Axe of Ancestral Virtue functions as a non-magical weapon except under special circumnstances, doesn't it?

Actually, as far as I can tell, no.

I think you can't use it at all. But it doesn't say.

So surely upgrading it to a Flaming weapon doesn't change what the lawful good, lawful neutral, or neutral good character gets - +1 keen adamantine weapon?

Except it does, because that's what the example says.

If the Holy Avenger is treated as a +2 weapon (which is cooler in certain hands) for pricing purposes, why isn't the Axe of Ancestral Virtue treated as a non-magical weapon (which is cooler in certain hands) for pricing purposes?

This is backwards. We know how the axe is handled, because the book tells us. If you think I handled the Holy Avenger wrong, that's fine. I don't hold strictly to my evaluation. (The difference as I see it is in the wording. The holy avenger says what it is, then what it is for a paladin. The axe just says what it is for those alignments.)

But, at worst here, you've shown we don't know how to handle the Holy Avenger, and by extention, the Dwarven Thrower and the Sword of the Planes (and possibly one or two other items we haven't mentioned). The Crystal Echoblade has no such problems, nor do most specific weapons.

Just because it's not clear how to apply the general rule in a few cases doesn't mean you can reject the general rule entirely.

--
gnfnrf

 

[hong]

This is backwards. We know how the axe is handled, because the book tells us. If you think I handled the Holy Avenger wrong, that's fine. I don't hold strictly to my evaluation. (The difference as I see it is in the wording. The holy avenger says what it is, then what it is for a paladin. The axe just says what it is for those alignments.)

But, at worst here, you've shown we don't know how to handle the Holy Avenger, and by extention, the Dwarven Thrower and the Sword of the Planes (and possibly one or two other items we haven't mentioned). The Crystal Echoblade has no such problems, nor do most specific weapons.

Just because it's not clear how to apply the general rule in a few cases doesn't mean you can reject the general rule entirely.

The trouble is that discerning the general rule from the example of the axe of ancestral virtue requires a deductive leap and the acceptance of unstated assumptions (namely, that the axe is supposed to be treated as a +1 keen axe with frills). In turn, this requires investing "designer intent" with substantive meaning within the context of the game. Deductive leaps and designer intent, however, are anathema to the principle of an abstract rules framework. Of course, this could also be another argument that mathematicians should just stick to mathematics....


Hong "theorem: all characters are interesting. Proof by contradiction: consider the ordered set of uninteresting characters..." Ooi

 

[gnfnrf]

The trouble is that discerning the general rule from the example of the axe of ancestral virtue requires a deductive leap and the acceptance of unstated assumptions (namely, that the axe is supposed to be treated as a +1 keen axe with frills).

Here I disagree. I think that the description of upgrading the axe of ancestral virtue makes clear its assumptions and the generality of the rules it is applying. But then, I thought that's how the rule worked before I read MIC, so my perceptions may be skewed.

In turn, this requires investing "designer intent" with substantive meaning within the context of the game. Deductive leaps and designer intent, however, are anathema to the principle of an abstract rules framework. Of course, this could also be another argument that mathematicians should just stick to mathematics....

And yet, without deductive reasoning, we are paralyzed. We know it is possible to upgrade the Crystal Echoblade, MIC tells us this explicitly. How much should it cost? I am proposing a system which I believe is the system the authors think is already in the game. I know it is the system they want to use for relics in their example, and they also say to use for any other weapon.

To some extent, I am divining designer intent here. But I am doing so from an example in which the procedure of upgrading is spelled out, so we actually know the thought process. Not just the final price of an upgraded axe of ancestral virtue, but what calculations they performed to get there.

--
gnfnrf

 

[3catcircus]

It don't look that bad. Now if there was a way to double up on the echo there might be a problem, or for any other class there would be issues, but on it's own, not including other splat materials, the +1 longsword version is a strong weapon for a class that does not have much going for it front line.

Actually, I was referring to adding the flaming ability to the existing weapon. The existing weapon itself I have no problem with.