Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 3429956" data-attributes="member: 2525">This might help clarify an earlier question about what value the axe of ancestral value has for various alignments.However, this is the part of the section that is relevant to our discussion:And now compare that statement to this one:And this statement:Three times the statement is extremely similar in wording:1) &quot;A character can improve an existing relic just as he could any other magic item&quot;,2) &quot;You can increase the enhancement bonus of these weapons or add more special properties just as you would for any other item&quot;,3) &quot;You can add new magical abilities to a magic item...the cost is...the same as if the item was not magical.&quot;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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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 &quot;we feel that is too cheap from a balance perspective&quot;, which of course is not the issue at hand.&nbsp; Nobody asked &quot;do you think this is balanced for your game&quot;.&nbsp; It's certainly a worthwhile discussion to have, and we can certainly have that discussion here, but it is not the same issue as &quot;what does it cost under the RAW?&quot;.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 3429956, member: 2525"] This might help clarify an earlier question about what value the axe of ancestral value has for various alignments. However, this is the part of the section that is relevant to our discussion: And now compare that statement to this one: And this statement: 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification