Cost to add +1 ability to Specific Weapon

[Salthorae]

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. gnfnrf

I'm gonna have to drop in on the gnfnrf/Mistwell side of this debate. Like gnfnrf I've always thought that you could upgrade specific items as the MIC example shows. I used this logic before I had ever seen the MIC or the rule on upgrading specific items. Here is an example of my logic/line of reasoning. I really don't see why viewing the crystal-echo as a flat cost is that big of a deal, when was the last time you heard of a Bard being a true melee threat?

 

[Cheiromancer]

I really don't see why viewing the crystal-echo as a flat cost is that big of a deal, when was the last time you heard of a Bard being a true melee threat?

Crystal-echo would be a precedent for the notion that, unless otherwise specified, every special property can be treated as a flat cost. And since specific items do not specify the cost of their properties, that would be all of them. Maybe crystal-echo won't be a problem, but can you make a blanket statement that no specific property would be a problem as a flat cost?

 

[Mistwell]

For what it is worth, despite listing flaming as the ability I wanted to add in the initial example (for simplicity), the real weapon I was getting at is a Crystal Echoblade of Harmonizing (a new +1 ability from MIC).

Harmonizing
Price: +1 bonus
Property: Melee Weapon
Caster Level: 5th
Aura: Faint (DC 17) Illusion
Activation: --; see text

A harmonizing weapon accompanies you in song if drawn, granting a +2 competence bonus on Perform (sing) checks.
In addition, if you hold a harmonizing weapon when you begin a bardic music effect, the weapon can continue the effect for you, allowing you to focus on other efforts. One round after you begin a bardic music effect that allows or requires continued use or concentration (including inspire courage, countersong, fascinate, inspire competence, inspire greatness, song of freedom, and inspire heroics), the weapon picks up and continues the performance flawlessly for 10 rounds, until you start another bardic music effect, or until you command it to end as a swift (mental) action.
Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, ghost sound, bardic music.
Cost to Create: Varies.

So, a Crystal Echoblade of Harmonizing would be 10,310 gp, and quite useful for a bard (particularly the Inspire Courage focused bard I have been working on, on this board, for a while).

 

[IcyCool]

Crystal-echo would be a precedent for the notion that, unless otherwise specified, every special property can be treated as a flat cost. And since specific items do not specify the cost of their properties, that would be all of them. Maybe crystal-echo won't be a problem, but can you make a blanket statement that no specific property would be a problem as a flat cost?

The item that immediately jumps to my mind is the Sunblade.

 

[Owen K.C. Stephens]

I abslutely cannot speak to what the rules actually say any better than the two sides have already done.

I know what I would do in my own campaigns, if I were faced with a playing wishing to upgrade the Crystal echoblade. I'd decide the "echoing" part cost the same as the last bonus, rather than a flat 2k gp.

Thus in my game a +1 echoblade is 4k (plus weapon)

A +2 echoblade (or +1 flaming echoblade) is 14k (plus weapon), since the cost of your 2nd +1 bons is 6k.

A +3 echoblade is 28k (plus weapon).

I'd do this precisely because the benefit doesn;t seem out of place for a bard, but a flat +2k is too trivial for a 14th level bard to add to his existing flaming frost shock rapier

 

[Mistwell]

I abslutely cannot speak to what the rules actually say any better than the two sides have already done.

I know what I would do in my own campaigns, if I were faced with a playing wishing to upgrade the Crystal echoblade. I'd decide the "echoing" part cost the same as the last bonus, rather than a flat 2k gp.

Thus in my game a +1 echoblade is 4k (plus weapon)

A +2 echoblade (or +1 flaming echoblade) is 14k (plus weapon), since the cost of your 2nd +1 bons is 6k.

A +3 echoblade is 28k (plus weapon).

I'd do this precisely because the benefit doesn;t seem out of place for a bard, but a flat +2k is too trivial for a 14th level bard to add to his existing flaming frost shock rapier

Which is not an illogical way to do it. I'd do it differently obviously, but it's not like we are talking about a 200% swing in pricing (like you see with many debates about magic item pricing). A 4,000 gp discrepancy is something (40% increase in price), but it's not so wildly different that it's in a totally different ballpark.

 

[pawsplay]

Why "echo crystalblade" should not be treated as a flat gp cost: It's so inexpensive, a bard would add it to essentially any magic weapon he owned.

Why the DMG magic item guidelines are set up the way they are: to avoid that scenario.

 

[Mistwell]

Why "echo crystalblade" should not be treated as a flat gp cost: It's so inexpensive, a bard would add it to essentially any magic weapon he owned.

Why the DMG magic item guidelines are set up the way they are: to avoid that scenario.

I have not seen anyone advocating using the echo property to add to any other weapon. Just adding a general ability to that existing listed specific weapon, which we know for a fact the Magic Item Compendium says you can add abilities to that weapon.

DMG magic item guidelines do not cover the issue we are discussing. If they did, there would be no issue.

Arguing it's so inexpensive any bard would want it pretty much shows you are not coming at this from an objective standpoint. You have a goal you want to meet (making it more expensive) and it is coloring your idea of how to approach the rules analysis. So much so that you are telling people that not only is your approach better, but that your approach is the only possible legitimate one.

I'd prefer we first figure out how it is supposed to be priced according to WOTC, and then we can discuss if that is balanced and if a houserule is appropriate in this situation.

In addition to the majority of users here, and WOTC CustServ, and numerous general statements in both the DMG and MIC, we have an example from the magic item compendium concerning a specific item, and the cost to add a general ability to that specific item.

The formula the example uses places a flat cost on the specific portion of specific weapons, and the general price-increasing cost on the general portion of that specific item.

So far, the arguments disputing this example are that the item in question is "wacky". That doesn't seem very helpful to me. We are concerned with how the rulebook approaches the rule, not whether or not a certain weapon is priced wacky to begin with.

Unless you are claiming WOTC chose an example item specifically to foil any attempt to gain any use from the example or rule they were talking about, I think we should be discussing the rule and not the wackiness of the item used in the example. That wackiness issue seems like a distraction and strawman to me. We all know this issue has nothing at all to do with how wacky the axe of ancestral virtue is.

 

[pawsplay]

Arguing it's so inexpensive any bard would want it pretty much shows you are not coming at this from an objective standpoint. You have a goal you want to meet (making it more expensive) and it is coloring your idea of how to approach the rules analysis.
[/quote]

Ad hominem. It shows no such thing. I am advocating the viewpoint that the magic item costs were originally designed with some concept of balance in mind. The DMG includes no flat cost weapon enhancements, and ones elsewhere rarely effect a weapon's damage directly. Thus, to me, it is central that the echoblade property is essentially a "+" quality that simply was not given a "+."

That remains the case whether you are adding the flaming quality to the echoblade or the echoblade quality to something else. Whether or not the other case is possible, if you add flaming to the echoblade, you are gaining the advantages of an unsually enhanced item. Treating "echoblade" as a static property simultaneously breaks down the existing price structure for weapons, while also ignoring the usual discount for a weapon that can be used only by certain characters, particularly by using an ability themselves.

No one can say if the echoblade was designed in the first place as a "+" and then a discount was applied, of a certain percentage, or some arbitrary amount. Or whether conversely it was priced intuitively.

I think it is not permissible to ignore the echoblade qualities when pricing the item, because it is exactly the sort of property that generally rates as a + increase. If mighty cleaving rates a +1, "echoblade" certainly does.

 

[pawsplay]

That wackiness issue seems like a distraction and strawman to me.

A strawman, by the way, is a weak version of an opinion set up and then destroyed, without addressing the stronger, actual opinion. Whether or not it's a distraction, addressing the bizarre example is not a "strawman" in any fashion I can see. Rather, it's more of a lightning rod for the central problems with the CustServ answer.