Everburning Torch question ...

[kreynolds]

Are you sure Kreynolds? I was using the PHB table 7-9, p. 114 which lists how much it costs to have a spellcaster cast a spell for you. For a second level spell, it's Caster Level X 20 gold.

Yup. You're right.

Heh. Well, at least I know how the editors made their mistake!

 

[candidus_cogitens]

The everburning torch is invalid as evidence because it is the very thing being disputed. For you to offer it as such, we might as well just stoop to "Yes, it is!", "No, it isn't!", "Yes, it is!", "No, it isn't!". Know what I mean?

The very discussion is about the torch itself. A thing can only be evidence if it proves your case about the torch, but simply claiming the torch as your evidence, when its the very thing in question, only brings us to one result (see above).

I know you're speaking about many people here, but I hope you don't feel like I'm attacking you. That certainly is not my intention. I promise.

First of all, it wasn't you who was making the ad hominem attacks. I did not mean to direct that toward you.

Now, the reason the burning torch counts as evidence is simply because it is listed as a magic item. That may not be the most compelling evidence possible, and it could be contraverted, I admit. But my point is that there would have to be some kind of evidence to the contrary. Even though every other magic item requires a feat and an XP cost, it does not automatically prove that this one cannot be the exception to the rule. That's what I was trying to demonstrate with the statement "All men like beer."

It certainly does weigh in your favor that this item is different than the others in those two ways, but it does not close the case.

Your argument that I can't use the burning torch as an example, doesn't make sense. All I was trying to say is that there is a flaw in your argument. Just because 99% or 99.999% of items in a sample all have a given characteristic in common, it doesn't necessarily mean that that characteristic is the criterion that defines the category.

The only thing I was claiming was that the torch is presented in the DMG as a magic item. I don't know what you thought I was trying to claim.

 

[IceBear]

And all I ask, as a DM, what do you say when a PC comes to you and says he's going to make a Torch of Everburing? Unlike, every other magic item, there appears to be no rules to handle that question - you just need to cast continual flame, and unlike virtually every other "odd" magic item, Craft Wonderous Object is not required. I find that telling.

Me, I'm just going to tell him to cast continual flame on the torch as there is no other requirements (as you yourself said). Now, why would I treat that any different than any other spell with permanent duration?

IceBear

 

[kreynolds]

First of all, it wasn't you who was making the ad hominem attacks. I did not mean to direct that toward you.

I was pretty sure you didn't. I was just making sure we were on the same wavelength there.

Now, the reason the burning torch counts as evidence is simply because it is listed as a magic item.

But it's not. It's listed in the magic items chapter, and it's listed with other magic items, but it is not a magic item in the traditional sense. It's a stick with a spell on it, no more different than a rock with Deeper Darkness and Permanency on it. The rock isn't a magic item either, just an object with a spell on it.

Even though every other magic item requires a feat and an XP cost, it does not automatically prove that this one cannot be the exception to the rule.

It does until you can show something that says otherwise. I'm not aware of such a thing, but I've been looking.

Your argument that I can't use the burning torch as an example, doesn't make sense.

Of course it does. You say A is this. I say A is that. You use A as proof that A is this. It's a circular argument that goes nowhere (Kudo's to drnuncheon for the term of the day. He knows what I mean. ).

I don't know what you thought I was trying to claim.

You seemed to be saying that it is a "true" magic item in the traditional sense, as opposed to a stick with a spell on it. Sticks with spells on them do not gain the benefits of magic items in regards to dispel magic (unless the spell itself cannot be dispelled normally), nor are they treated as such, because they're still nothing but sticks.

 

[drnuncheon]

Funny thing, actually...when I was typing up my reply, I said "caster level" instead of "spell level".

EDIT: Even funnier though is that the minimum caster level for a wizard or sorcerer with continual flame is a 3, not a 4.

Er...4th for a sorcerer.

J

 

[kreynolds]

Er...4th for a sorcerer.

Well...yeah...ok fine. Ya' know, I think I'm just gonna take a step back from this thread for a while.