Everburning Torch question ...

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Everburning Torch question ...

Now that's worth 12 grand.

Very good point. It would be great for lighting walkways at your parties.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

You haven't provided any evidence in the first place, so there is no evidence for me to remove.

If it isn't evidence enough that it is listed as a Magic Item, then we would have to ask ourselves what evidence is necessary to establish that a vorpal sword or a helm of telepathy is a magic item.

Even if you find the evidence insignificant or unpersuasive, it is still evidence.

Look guys, I have admitted that it is an equivocal position. I just want to draw a conclusion for the right reason. And if there are no compelling arguments on either side, then we would have to just say it's up to the particular DM. In the end, I myself might very well decide that the most reasonable decision is to regard it as a normal spell that can be dispelled.

Allow me to play the devil's advocate here, without ad hominem attacks. I'm not doing so just to be contrary. I'm trying to contribute to what was a civil debate.

..............

As for the fact that the DMG says it is "a torch with continual flame cast upon it," this is not incontrovertible evidence either. Most magic items involve the casting of a spell upon an item; so that does not distinguish this item from any other. The fact that this description specifically states it in those terms may simply be for the sake of referring you to the PHB spell description, rather than repeating the information that is given there about the nature of the dweomer.

 

[IceBear]

I can understand playing devil's advocate, but as you said all that's needed to make this magic item is to cast the spell, then that's not enough to make it a magic item and not a spell effect. If I cast invisibility on a ring, do I have a ring of invisibilty? No, I have an invisible ring. Now, if I used the craft ring feat and spent the gold and XP to make the ring susceptible to magic, casting invisibility into it suddenly makes it a ring of invisibility.

Isn't it more logical to assume that a human being made a mistake and put it into the magic item section instead of in with some of the other special items, than this is a magic item unlike all others, when any spellcaster can make one just by casting continual flame on a stick?

Playing devil's advocate is fine, but once there is overwhelming evidence/opinion that your position is wrong then it should stop.

IceBear

 

[kreynolds]

If it isn't evidence enough that it is listed as a Magic Item, then we would have to ask ourselves what evidence is necessary to establish that a vorpal sword or a helm of telepathy is a magic item.

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?

Even if you find the evidence insignificant or unpersuasive, it is still evidence.

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).

Allow me to play the devil's advocate here, without ad hominem attacks.

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.

 

[dcollins]

Against my own advice... other nonmagical items in the DMG tables -- Dwarven plate, Elven chain, Mithral shirt, Adamantine shield, Darkwood shield, Mithral large shield, Adamantine battleaxe, Adamantine dagger.

 

[jasper]

...about the spell, the price should be 110 GP instead of 90 GP (Caster Level (3) X 20 GP to cast the spell, +50 GP for components = 110).

Or be a sorcerer (4) * 20gp + 50 = 130 gp
So it looks someone made a math error while writing the description.
And for the people making money stockpiling the everburning torches whoa to you if some mage cast dispel magic in your shop.

 

[kreynolds]

Or be a sorcerer (4) * 20gp + 50 = 130 gp
So it looks someone made a math error while writing the description.

Actually, both you and Lucius are incorrect. For a wizard/sorcerer, it's 2 (spell level) x 20gp = 40gp + 50gp (material components) = 90gp. It's just the casting of a spell, not a potion, so you don't square the spell level. When you purchase an item, you use the lowest value when multiple classes can create the item. If you buy it directly from a Cleric though, that would be different.

 

[jasper]

oops my bad I thought was the caster not spell level.

 

[kreynolds]

oops my bad I thought was the caster not spell level.

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.

 

[Lucius Foxhound]

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.

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.