Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 3421095" data-attributes="member: 2525">I agree, which is why I used the word reasonable.&nbsp; It's one reasonable interpretation.&nbsp; It is neither extreme nor excessive.&nbsp; There is rational ground for that opinion.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; In this case, there are at least two reasonable positions in my opinion.&nbsp; They are not just plausible, but BOTH are actually reasonable.&nbsp; Yes, that would be one reasonable thing for them to do.&nbsp; Not the only one, but one reasonable thing.Arguing that the absence of a thing proves you point is rarely a strong argument.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Like flavor (which was pointed out earlier - it's for bards, and perhaps &quot;longsword&quot; was relevant to the flavor of the item).&nbsp; It has &quot;blade&quot; in the name.&nbsp; It was important to already have a +1 bonus on it.&nbsp; Someone at WOTC liked the idea of it.&nbsp; Etc...If WOTC felt some or all of these things were useful bits for this item, then they might list it as they did.&nbsp; Who knows why they listed it the way they did.&nbsp; There are plenty of things WOTC lists in a certain way that has nothing at all to do with formulas and ease of pricing.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Not your fault I got dragged back in...that is just on me.&nbsp; But all this talk that seems a lot like &quot;reasonable minds cannot differ on this topic, I must be right and you must be wrong&quot; is starting to get to me.&nbsp; It seems to me like you are seeking perfection in the imperfect.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 3421095, member: 2525"] 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification