Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 3429921" data-attributes="member: 2525">I have not seen anyone advocating using the echo property to add to any other weapon.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; So far, the arguments disputing this example are that the item in question is &quot;wacky&quot;.&nbsp; That doesn't seem very helpful to me.&nbsp; We are concerned with how the rulebook approaches the rule, not whether or not a certain weapon is priced wacky to begin with.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; That wackiness issue seems like a distraction and strawman to me.&nbsp; We all know this issue has nothing at all to do with how wacky the axe of ancestral virtue is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 3429921, member: 2525"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification