Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 2152172" data-attributes="member: 2525">Ahem...perhaps you should read the item again.&nbsp; It SPECIFICALLY mentions that the item can in fact be priced for fewer beads.&nbsp; That is the whole purpose of the formula they provide to begin with.I didn't say I *know* what the author of the vow of poverty meant...I said I *know* what the author of the prayer beads meant.EVERYONE knows that the author of the prayer beads meant that you should subtract from the most expensive Karma Bead listed (the third one, &quot;greater&quot;).&nbsp; It's blatantly obvious from even a casual reading of the item.&nbsp; Seriously, have you even read the item we are talking about?Here...enough of this silliness.&nbsp; Here is the SRD quote:Now, you tell me you have doubt about what the author meant when he mentions &quot;Reduce the price of a strand of prayer beads that is missing one or more beads by the following amounts&quot;.&nbsp; Did he mean that you get PAID 11000 gp by the DM for accepting the &quot;burden&quot; of a &quot;strand of prayer beads&quot; that is missing the bead of karma and bead of smiting (25800 - 36800 = -11000)?&nbsp; Or do you think perhaps the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS intepretation is that the &quot;Reduce the price&quot; quote is referencing the starting price for the greater strand?Yes, I can honestly say I &quot;know&quot; what the author meant by this item.&nbsp; I am sure of it.As for the vow...I am not claiming to *know* what was meant...only offerring my interpretation (backed up by quotes from the rule) of what was meant, which seems to be shared for the most part by almost everyone here.Given you can specifically beg expensive spell componants from another character for USE in casting a spell, what is YOUR interpretation of that rule given the &quot;no use&quot; portion of the vow and it's lack of mentioning begging such items as an exception to the &quot;no use&quot; rule?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 2152172, member: 2525"] Ahem...perhaps you should read the item again. It SPECIFICALLY mentions that the item can in fact be priced for fewer beads. That is the whole purpose of the formula they provide to begin with. I didn't say I *know* what the author of the vow of poverty meant...I said I *know* what the author of the prayer beads meant. EVERYONE knows that the author of the prayer beads meant that you should subtract from the most expensive Karma Bead listed (the third one, "greater"). It's blatantly obvious from even a casual reading of the item. Seriously, have you even read the item we are talking about? Here...enough of this silliness. Here is the SRD quote: Now, you tell me you have doubt about what the author meant when he mentions "Reduce the price of a strand of prayer beads that is missing one or more beads by the following amounts". Did he mean that you get PAID 11000 gp by the DM for accepting the "burden" of a "strand of prayer beads" that is missing the bead of karma and bead of smiting (25800 - 36800 = -11000)? Or do you think perhaps the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS intepretation is that the "Reduce the price" quote is referencing the starting price for the greater strand? Yes, I can honestly say I "know" what the author meant by this item. I am sure of it. As for the vow...I am not claiming to *know* what was meant...only offerring my interpretation (backed up by quotes from the rule) of what was meant, which seems to be shared for the most part by almost everyone here. Given you can specifically beg expensive spell componants from another character for USE in casting a spell, what is YOUR interpretation of that rule given the "no use" portion of the vow and it's lack of mentioning begging such items as an exception to the "no use" rule? [/QUOTE]

Verification