Debate with DM. Magic item costs.

[Kin Silvion]

Alright, so I was in a debate with the DM of my campaign. He says that for the cost of a magical weapon, it's +1, plus the cost of the enchantment, so the cost of a flame sword would be the cost of a +2 weapon.

I believe that it's just the cost of the enchantment, plus the cost of a masterwork weapon. Which one of us is correct?

Please help us end this debate.

[KillianHawkeye]

Your DM is correct, because you can't have a sword that's just flaming. It has to be at least a +1 flaming sword. Same goes for shields and armors.


In addition to enhancement bonuses, weapons can have one or more of the special abilities detailed below. A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.
See Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm)

[Serpentine]

He is. To be magic, an item (base cost) has to be masterwork (+mwk cost). To have a magic ability (+enchantment cost), it must first be +1 (+1 cost). Put it another way, your flame sword would be a +1 Flaming masterwork sword, costed appropriately.

Someone check my work.

[Kin Silvion]

Right, so that means... If I wanted a +1 flaming longsword, I would have to add the masterwork cost, plus the 2k for making it +1, and then another 2k for flaming, or would it cost the same amount as a +2 weapon?

[DragonOfUndeath]

Your DM for 2 reasons:

1. He is the DM, Rule 0 solves debates
2. You need a +1 enchantment before you can buy other things for it. After that though it's free game.
You would end up with a +1 Flaming weapons

EDIT: Wow ninja'ed so much

[Divide by Zero]

Right, so that means... If I wanted a +1 flaming longsword, I would have to add the masterwork cost, plus the 2k for making it +1, and then another 2k for flaming, or would it cost the same amount as a +2 weapon?

No, it would cost 8000 plus base costs, because a +2 weapon enhancement costs 8000.

Edit: if you add them separately, as you seem to be doing, the first one would cost 2000, while the second would cost 6000, the difference between a +1 and +2.

[Serpentine]

Right, so that means... If I wanted a +1 flaming longsword, I would have to add the masterwork cost, plus the 2k for making it +1, and then another 2k for flaming, or would it cost the same amount as a +2 weapon?I believe (someone check...) that - assuming a +1 enchantment - it would be the cost of a +2 weapon on top of the cost of the base masterwork weapon, if you're buying it ready-made.

[KillianHawkeye]

Yeah, the entire point of +N equivalent magical special abilities is that you add them to the actual enhancement bonus to get the "effective" enhancement bonus, and use that for pricing.

[Chess435]

Wrong again. The total enchantment cost of the item is the enhancement bonus squared times 2,000, plus any fixed-cost enhancements. So a +1 flaming weapon has a cost of 8,000 gold plus the price of the masterwork weapon.

Edit: Holy Pelor, I was triple-ninjaed!

[Kin Silvion]

No, it would cost 8000 plus base costs, because a +2 weapon enhancement costs 8000.

Edit: if you add them separately, as you seem to be doing, the first one would cost 2000, while the second would cost 6000, the difference between a +1 and +2.

Ah, alright, I figured as much.


1. He is the DM, Rule 0 solves debates

He's a newer DM, and mostly plays 2nd edition. Debates are ended via RAW, as he's both newer to DMing, and 3.5. Ironically, I'm the local 3.5 rules master.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

He's a newer DM, and mostly plays 2nd edition. Debates are ended via RAW, as he's both newer to DMing, and 3.5. Ironically, I'm the local 3.5 rules master.
The DM always gets to use rule 0, no matter how n00b they are, nor how experienced you are - it's their game.

Also, you - "the local 3.5 rules master" - are wrong by the RAW in this case, and your inexperienced DM is right. Sorry.

[Kin Silvion]

I realize, but my DM is new and so he doesn't want his inexperience to ruin something, so he sticks to the rules.

However, I was wrong in this one instance, there was still more than enough times I was able to quell an argument at the table. Besides, I'm usually a caster and so magic weapons never really were something I needed to worry about. All I needed to know where minor/major wondrous items.

[Serpentine]

I don't see why Rule 0 is even getting brought up here :smallconfused: The original question is clearly a RAW one, and if the DM wants to institute his version as a houserule that's a different matter.

[herrhauptmann]

I realize, but my DM is new and so he doesn't want his inexperience to ruin something, so he sticks to the rules.

However, I was wrong in this one instance, there was still more than enough times I was able to quell an argument at the table. Besides, I'm usually a caster and so magic weapons never really were something I needed to worry about. All I needed to know where minor/major wondrous items.

If you know 3.5 that much better than him, perhaps you should run the game until he gets used to the rules.

[Kin Silvion]

I know the rules, the campaign is his. Just because I'm better at knowing things doesn't mean I should take over the campaign.

[herrhauptmann]

You don't have to take over HIS campaign. Make your own up.
Either that, or stop arguing with him over the rules unless he asks you for clarification.

[Kin Silvion]

It was a debate about magic item costs, not some huge debacle over the general mechanics of the campaign. {{scrubbed}}

[herrhauptmann]

{Scrubbed}

[Serpentine]

This is ridiculous. A guy comes in with a simple rules clarification question, and you start insisting he should take over the game or "stop arguing with him over the rules"? Nonsense :smallannoyed:

[The Rabbler]

I think herrhauptmann was suggesting that the OP DM for that group instead of the more inexperienced DM, so that disagreements like this don't arise. It tends to be a bit stressful on the group dynamic if the most experienced player at the table doesn't also have the power of Rule 0.

however, this usually only creates bad vibes if the DM is also acting immature and refuses to accept being wrong; no reason to mess up the group if they've got a system that works. Let's not get angry at each other over a misspoken suggestion.

[herrhauptmann]

I think herrhauptmann was suggesting that the OP DM for that group instead of the more inexperienced DM, so that disagreements like this don't arise. It tends to be a bit stressful on the group dynamic if the most experienced player at the table doesn't also have the power of Rule 0.

however, this usually only creates bad vibes if the DM is also acting immature and refuses to accept being wrong; no reason to mess up the group if they've got a system that works. Let's not get angry at each other over a misspoken suggestion.

Yes, this.
It's pretty ridiculous to actually take over someone elses campaign, especially if they're now going to be playing in it. Plus most DMs enjoy the chance to play once in a while.

Edit:
Anyway, my response to most people having complaints with their DM that they have to bring up here, is to try DMing. Once both personalities swap places around the DM screen, issues tend to go away as they've walked a mile in the other guys shoes. Unless of course the new DM is intent on getting back at the old DM.
At that point, with that kind of vengeful/petty player, I have to ask, why bother playing? This is a game, if it makes you angry, it's no longer fun. Best thing to do would be to stop before the game is tainted in your mind forever. That's the reason I don't play 4E anymore.