How does adding "Transformative" or "Dueling" to a magic weapon affect cost of future enhancements?

[silverace99]

So in the cost tables, most magic weapon abilities seem to cost based on +x bonus (i.e. keen costs whatever it costs to add a +1 enhancement bonus to your weapon)

However "Transformative" and "Dueling" abilities have a flat cost of +10000 and +14000 respectively instead of saying "+x bonus"

My question is this: If you add a flat-cost weapon property to a magic weapon, does it count towards the weapon's total enhancement bonus limit of +10?

For instance if i understand right a Vorpal +5 Longsword is maxed out for enhancements because "Vorpal" has a cost of +5 bonus. It "eats" 5 of the 10 bonus slots your magic weapon can be upgraded with. But what about flat-cost enhancements which do not say +x bonus cost?

Say I have a +1 Transformative Longsword. Let's say I want to add an enhancement bonus on top of that. Is it still at +1 for the purpose of calculating how much the next enhancement costs, and how many enhancements you can still put on it? Since it's cost doesn't say "+x" I have no idea how many enhancement slots it consumes.

If these flat-cost abilities DO count towards the enhancement bonus limit, it would seem like you would rather not get them until your weapon is at +9, because then even though you are making a +10 weapon you still only pay the same flat fee which is nowhere near what any other ability would cost. That seems stupid....

[Mortalis]

I'm of the mind that these abilities don't count against the enhancement total, but I don't actually know. I'm curious to see the answer as well.

[Thanael]

Nope, they don't. That's why they have a flat cost.

[Ashram]

A magic weapon can cost a maximum, excluding cost of the weapon, the masterwork cost, and special materials cost, a hard maximum of 200,000 gold. (100k if crafted.)

Anything higher is considered epic if we go by 3.5.

[silverace99]

Ashram wrote:

A magic weapon can cost a maximum, excluding cost of the weapon, the masterwork cost, and special materials cost, a hard maximum of 200,000 gold. (100k if crafted.)

Anything higher is considered epic if we go by 3.5.

So if what you are saying is true, Adding a flat-cost ability will prevent you from getting that last +10 enhancement. So while they don't raise the expense level of future upgrades, "Transformative" and "Dueling" eat a bonus slot that counts towards the +10 limit.

[Pirate]

Yar!

Ashram wrote:

A magic weapon can cost a maximum, excluding cost of the weapon, the masterwork cost, and special materials cost, a hard maximum of 200,000 gold. (100k if crafted.)

Anything higher is considered epic if we go by 3.5.

Uhm... where is that stated? I cannot seem to find such a rule anywhere.

However, there is precedent (in the Intelligent Magic Item section) that 200,000 is NOT a "hard" cap on items. Only the effective enhancement bonus is a hard cap. It just happens that an effective +10 weapon is 200,000 gp, but then you can still add flat costs, material costs, and intelligence to it.

Heck, a theoretical non-magical intelligent weapon can easily have a value of over 200,000. One of the potential purpose powers is a flat +200,000 to the value, let alone the plethora of other powers it needs first before it can even get there. The table for ego modifiers has a 200,001+ entry as well.

Of course, I only have access to the books I happen to own, plus the PRD and SRD, so there may be some new rules that I've missed, or perhaps an official forum ruling that turned into an errata or FAQ, but as it stands, I cannot find any rule that states 200,000 gp is a hard limit on item value. Until I see such a rule, I have to say that 200,000 is NOT a hard limit. The only hard limit is the effective enhancement bonus, and flat costs get added separately and thus on top of it. Meaning a +5 Adamantine Vorpal dueling transformative Elven Curve Blade would have a value of 227,000 gp. If that same weapon were also intelligent, had all three mental scores at 16, 60' senses, darkvision, speech and telepathy, can cast a 4th level spell 3/day, is purposed to kill spellcasters, and can cast True Resurrection on it's wielder once per month while pursuing the death of spellcasters, would have a new total value of 469,100 gp.

EDIT: added an example of the rules as I understand them and the high potential values of weapons with them.

~P

[Ashram]

I could be completely wrong, though. I've always interpreted it as such.

[blackbloodtroll]

Not even true, in any way.

Flat cost enchantments effect limits and additional costs in no way whatsoever.

[Chemlak]

The 200,000 gp "limit" is very (VERY) loose. I believe that SKR has it on his list of "crash and burn" qualifications for RPG Superstar items, and (other than intelligent items) the only items that exceed it are a couple of staves. In general any item where the price exceeds 200,000 gp is an artefact (and therefore unpriced). Specific combinations of abilities that push an item over the "limit" (such as intelligence, or the weapon properties mentioned) do not suddenly turn an item into an artefact, however, but official items mostly follow that "rule" (more of a guideline).

It is worth noting that any +10 weapon has a price in excess of 200,000, because of the masterwork weapon (minimum 300 gp).

[Ughbash]

200k cost for epic was a 3.5 rule that was not specifically carried over to pathfinder.

[Damon Griffin]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Not even true, in any way.

Flat cost enchantments effect limits and additional costs in no way whatsoever.

On page 139 of UE, adaptive is a +1000gp flat cost but is listed on Table 3-10 as a +1 Weapon Special Ability (along with impervious and glamered.)

If it's a +1 ability, then that does at least create some ambiguity. Right now I have a character with a +1 adaptive composite bow. I want to add corrosive. If adaptive is a +1 special ability with a reduced cost, do I currently have:

(a) an effective +2 weapon worth 3000gp instead of 8000gp
(b) an effective +1 weapon worth 3000gp instead of 2000gp

If (a), is the cost of adding corrosive +15000gp or +10000gp?

Please provide citation for your answer; I'm not interested in opinions here, I'm trying to verify the RAW. Where does it say, in print or online FAQ, that flat cost modifiers are ignored when calculating the cost of adding enhancement bonuses and weapon special abilities?

[Diego Rossi]

Ultimate Equipment wrote:

Table 3—10: Ranged Weapon Special Abilities
+1 WEAPON BASE PRICE
d% SPECIAL ABILITY MODIFIER1
01 Adaptive2 +1,000 gp
02 Impervious +3,000 gp
03 Glamered +4,000 gp

It was very hard to get what was you problem.

You are speaking of the part that I have italicized for ease of reference, right? Not of the bolded part.

The italicized part is not a reference to the +x to add to the cost of the weapon, is a reference to the 3-7 series of tables.

When generating a random weapon you roll on the appropriate 3-7 table, then if you roll a special ability you go to the 3-8, 3-10 or 3-11 table with the appropriate +X WEAPON BASE PRICE and roll to see what special ability you get and its cost, but that don't mean that all the abilities will cost +X. Two of those tables have a larger range of possible powers, the +1 table has flat cost special abilities and +1 special abilities, the +4 or +5 table for melee weapon include +4 or +5 special abilities and +3 or +4 table for missile weapons +3 or +4 special abilities

let's make an example:
you roll a 33 on the LESSER MEDIUM WEAPON table for a bow
you get: 33–44 +1 weapon with one +1 special ability*

You go to the 3-10 table
Table 3—10: Ranged Weapon Special Abilities
+1 WEAPON BASE PRICE d% SPECIAL ABILITY MODIFIER1
You roll 01
you get: 1 Adaptive2 +1,000 gp

About the "where is written, citation needed" read note 1 on the Base price modifier column:

PRD wrote:

1 Add to enhancement bonus on Table 3–9 to determine

total price.

It reference the column contents, not the table heading.

[Damon Griffin]

Diego Rossi wrote:

You are speaking of the part that I have italicized for ease of reference, right? Not of the bolded part.

Yes.

Diego Rossi wrote:

The italicized part is not a reference to the +x to add to the cost of the weapon, is a reference to the 3-7 series of tables.

Yeah, I see that. My issue isn't with determining the price of a weapon whose last added ability is one with a flat cost. The question is whether flat costed abilities are always shifted to the end when figuring the cost as new abilities are added. It's always been the case in 3.x/pathfinder that upgrading a weapon to a total effective modifier of "X" costs you the difference between the value of "X" as a modifer minus the value of "X-1" as a modifier.

The flat-costed abilities appear on the +1 or +2 tables and are never called anything else, even if they are priced differently. Does a +1 adaptive composite bow have a total value of +1, +1.5 or +2? Would a +5 adaptive seeking brilliant energy composite bow -- independent of its cost -- be a legal +10 weapon or an illegal +11 weapon?

Look, I think you're right. And I want you to be right, because it means the difference between being able to add corrosive to my character's bow just as we start the underground latter half of Serpent's Skull. But I need to be certain we're right about this to convince my GM that it's perfectly legitimate for me to suddenly start doing up to an additional +4d6 acid damage per round, when my DPR can already be 4*(1d8+14) without being hasted or spell-buffed.

To be certain, "here it is in explicit black and white in the RAW" will carry more weight than "some guy on the boards made a good argument for interpreting it this way."

[Chemlak]

It's all tied into the superscript in the bonus column.

Quote:

1 Add to enhancement bonus on the Weapon Pricing by Bonus table to determine total price.

A +1 adaptive bow goes "+1 = 2,000 gp and add 1,000 gp". If you later upgrade that to a +2 adaptive bow, the total price is "+2 = 8,000 gp and add 1,000 gp". Now we turn that into a +2 flaming adaptive bow: "+3 (total of +2 and flaming) = 18,000 gp and add 1,000 gp". There's really no other way to read it.

[Diego Rossi]

Damon Griffin wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

You are speaking of the part that I have italicized for ease of reference, right? Not of the bolded part.

Yes.

Diego Rossi wrote:

The italicized part is not a reference to the +x to add to the cost of the weapon, is a reference to the 3-7 series of tables.

Yeah, I see that. My issue isn't with determining the price of a weapon whose last added ability is one with a flat cost. The question is whether flat costed abilities are always shifted to the end when figuring the cost as new abilities are added. It's always been the case in 3.x/pathfinder that upgrading a weapon to a total effective modifier of "X" costs you the difference between the value of "X" as a modifer minus the value of "X-1" as a modifier.

The flat-costed abilities appear on the +1 or +2 tables and are never called anything else, even if they are priced differently. Does a +1 adaptive composite bow have a total value of +1, +1.5 or +2? Would a +5 adaptive seeking brilliant energy composite bow -- independent of its cost -- be a legal +10 weapon or an illegal +11 weapon?

Look, I think you're right. And I want you to be right, because it means the difference between being able to add corrosive to my character's bow just as we start the underground latter half of Serpent's Skull. But I need to be certain we're right about this to convince my GM that it's perfectly legitimate for me to suddenly start doing up to an additional +4d6 acid damage per round, when my DPR can already be 4*(1d8+14) without being hasted or spell-buffed.

To be certain, "here it is in explicit black and white in the RAW" will carry more weight than "some guy on the boards made a good argument for interpreting it this way."

"This car radio cost 200 $."

"But it will cost 200 $ if I mount it on a Lamborghini or it will cost more?"

If a ability has a flat cost it has a flat cost. Full stop.
It don't matter if it is added first, last or in the middle. It is added as a flat cost.

Following your idea, explain this:

d% +4 or +5 Weapon Special Ability Base Price Modifier1
01–40 Brilliant energy +4 bonus
41–80 Dancing +4 bonus
81–90 Vorpal3 +5 bonus
91–95 Transformative +10,000 gp
96–100 Dueling +14,000 gp

So trasformative and dueling are at least a +4 ability.
but if a +1 trasformative weapon is the equivalent of a +5 weapon, why it cost 12,000 gp and not 50,000 gp like a +5 weapon should? Or that +10,000 don't have any meaning and it is in reality a +4 with a good disguise?

Following your idea the order in which you add enchantment matter.
I can add dueling to my +5 vorpal sword as it is a flat cost, but if I have a +5 dueling sword I can't add vorpal as, as soon as I start to incant it, the dueling property become a +4 modifier.
Even worse, my +1 dueling dagger count as a +5 weapon as soon as I start enchanting it.

Madness.