Cost to add +1 ability to Specific Weapon

[Mistwell]

This might help clarify an earlier question about what value the axe of ancestral value has for various alignments.

In addition to its relic power, each relic has a base effect or power available to any character whose alignment is within one step of the associate diety's. For example, the axe of ancestral cirtue functions as a +1 keen adamantine dawarven waraxe in the hands of any character who is lawful good, lawful neutral, or neutral good (that is, within one step of Moradin's LG alignment). In the hands of a character not of one of these alignments, the item has no magical abilities whatsoever and is simply an adamantine dwarven waraxe...

However, this is the part of the section that is relevant to our discussion:

(MIC Pg. 224) Furthermore, a character can improve an existing relic just as he could any other magic item.

And now compare that statement to this one:

(MIC Pg. 46)The following weapons are usually constructed with the properties described here. You can increase the enhancement bonus of these weapons or add more special properties just as you would for any other item.

And this statement:

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.

Three times the statement is extremely similar in wording:

1) "A character can improve an existing relic just as he could any other magic item",
2) "You can increase the enhancement bonus of these weapons or add more special properties just as you would for any other item",
3) "You can add new magical abilities to a magic item...the cost is...the same as if the item was not magical."

The first one however gives an example of what they mean by that statement, and the example treats pluses to an item like any other plus on an item, and specific abilities not otherwise associated with a plus as a flat cost to be added to that item.

Ergo, if we apply that principal to the other two statements, we know that adding a plus to an existing specific item functions the same way.

Which results in a cost for a Crystal Echoblade of Flaming being equal to 10,310 gp. The same answer most of us came up with on our own, and the same answer CustServ came up with.

And most of the responses to this seem to amount to "we feel that is too cheap from a balance perspective", which of course is not the issue at hand. Nobody asked "do you think this is balanced for your game". It's certainly a worthwhile discussion to have, and we can certainly have that discussion here, but it is not the same issue as "what does it cost under the RAW?".

And besides, if you actually think the MIC is pricing items too cheaply and your goal is to make that point, attacking this particular formula doesn't help achieve your goal because all you would do is attack a small subset of the rules for adding general abilities to specifically named items. If you think the MIC is resulting in prices that are too low, you would do better to admit that the formula they use comes up with too low a price, just like all the other items in the book, and you would be getting your point across much better that way.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

No, it is not. Seriously, I know the word, I use the word, I have argued legal briefs to state supreme court justices using the word. A strawman is not a weak portion of an opinion - it's something that never was part of an opinion to begin with.

Whether or not it's a distraction, addressing the bizarre example is not a "strawman" in any fashion I can see.

It is, because how wacky the axe of ancestral virtue might be is not any part of the opinion you are addressing. It's a different issue, but you are trying to make it seem like the opinion you are addressing was dependent on the wackiness level of the axe, when it wasn't any part of that opinion at all.

Rather, it's more of a lightning rod for the central problems with the CustServ answer.

The axe was not part of the CustServ answer. You seem to have confused two different issues. I believe CustServ was citing to a page with a vorpal property, not the axe of ancestral virtue.

 

[Mistwell]

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 "+."

Not really relevant. This isn't done using the DMG, it's done using the MIC and the new rules stated in that book. Everyone admits the DMG does not cover this issue. The MIC is the first book that specifically says you can add general abilities to specific items. Hence, the source for this rule is the MIC.

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.

I have never seen a rule that says you can remove an ability from a specific item and apply it to a general item. Nobody has advocated for that either. That you think the pricing would be bad if someone did that is not relevant, since nobody is doing that or advocating that. Hence, it's another strawman. When someone says they are going to remove the echo property from the crystal echoblade and apply it to a club, your argument becomes valid. Right now, I don't see how it is relevant.

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.

That's a balance issue, not a rules as written issue. If your argument is that the MIC is coming up with items that are too cheap in general, then say so. Others are making that argument in other threads, so you have some support on that issue. But it's not the same issue as how the rules seem to address it.

It *IS* permissible to ignore the echoblade qualities when pricing the item, if the question is "how does the MIC seem to price these sorts of things". If the question becomes "...and is that a fair price or should it be changed based on balance issues" then your response is relevant.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I have never seen a rule that says you can remove an ability from a specific item and apply it to a general item. Nobody has advocated for that either. That you think the pricing would be bad if someone did that is not relevant, since nobody is doing that or advocating that.

:raises hand guiltily:

Actually I was speculating about this earlier. I figured that if "crystal echo" was a magical ability with a flat cost, it should be possible to add it to something else, like a crystal echoclub or a crystal echokatana.

But your more substantial point is correct; this question is independent of how much it would cost to add a +1 property to an existing crystal echoblade.

 

[AngelBob]

Now, this is not a rules citation, but a in-world logic decision. My apologies if it is unwelcome.

A specific weapon CAN be upgraded, th MIC says so, but the specific weapon's traits cannot be added to another already existing weapon. Namely Echoblade is not an enchantable modifier.

Why?

Treat the special traits of a specific weapon as if they were inherrant to the original creation of a weapon. The same as crafting a star-metal greatsword. You cannot later "reforge" the blade with starmetal without completely re-enchanting the weapon, as it is a new weapon. So a weapon needs to be FORGED an Echoblade, cannot be made an echoblade later. This logic can pass down to all specific weapon.

A Shatterspike (+1 Longsword with extra sundering coolness) gets that Sundering power at the time of it's creation, due to the method of it's creation, or perhaps a unreplicatable event that occurs after it (the death of the ancient hero's loved one awakens the power of the blade, the forgers lifeblood must be emptied on the blade, etc.).

Essentially, the local Wizard's Tower may know how to MAKE a crystal echoblade, IMPROVE a crystal echoblade, but are unable to make something else a crystal echoblade.

"Ummmm... well you see... Crystal echoblade's are made of crystal, and your +2 Adamantine Rapier is sort of... well... not. How about some nice Fireball Scrolls, eh?"


But could an Echoblade be CREATED as something other than a longsword? I'd say iffy at best. A Rapier might be to thin to hold all the magical matrixes, a club lack the thinness needed for proper resonation, etc.