It's always interesting to me that some people will read through a rules section that includes
Selling magic items is difficult in most D&D worlds primarily because of the challenge of finding a buyer. Plenty of people might like to have a magic sword, but few of them can afford it.
and come to the conclusion that magic items don't have any value. I guess they're literally interpreting "priceless."
A magic rapier is, first and foremost, a rapier. We know this because proficiency with a rapier grants proficiency with a magic rapier. It really doesn't matter how much its value is because at its core, the rapier aspect alone satisfies the minimum for the spell.
A magic rapier is, first and foremost, a rapier. We know this because proficiency with a rapier grants proficiency with a magic rapier. It really doesn't matter how much its value is because at its core, the rapier aspect alone satisfies the minimum for the spell.
Come on.
Of course it's a rapier. I specifically said it was a rapier in my post.
But being a rapier does not qualify the weapon for the spell.
I suspect you are conflating the RAI (which we absolutely know - JC doesn't play the spell RAW post-errata, he by and large ignores the errata entirely and plays the old version) with the new RAW, which is absolutely as tragic as I am describing, because "Come on" suggests you may think I am defending the RAW as being sensibly written. I am doing no such thing. The errata was a travesty that did far more to make the spell unplayable than the old wording ever did and it was a poor choice all around for WOTC to implement it.
A rapier has a cost (greater than 1 sp), therefore qualifies. A +3 rapier also qualifies, by virtue of having a cost (all magic items have a cost, albeit within a range based on their rarity, but they are all greater than 1 sp --- a +3 weapon is Very Rare, thus 5,001–50,000 gp) and by virtue of being a rapier (which is a previously solved problem). This is RAW.
A rapier has a cost (greater than 1 sp), therefore qualifies. A +3 rapier also qualifies, by virtue of having a cost (all magic items have a cost, albeit within a range based on their rarity, but they are all greater than 1 sp --- a +3 weapon is Very Rare, thus 5,001–50,000 gp) and by virtue of being a rapier (which is a previously solved problem). This is RAW.
It is not RAW. I provided the RAW in an earlier post which explicitly states that magic items do not have a cost unless the DM decides to assign one in their campaign. This means the default state of the game is that they don't have a cost, and the DM can give them one like the DM can do anything else.
If you want a rules citation link to the DMG stating this, scroll up.
A rapier has a cost (greater than 1 sp), therefore qualifies. A +3 rapier also qualifies, by virtue of having a cost (all magic items have a cost, albeit within a range based on their rarity, but they are all greater than 1 sp --- a +3 weapon is Very Rare, thus 5,001–50,000 gp) and by virtue of being a rapier (which is a previously solved problem). This is RAW.
It is not RAW. I provided the RAW in an earlier post which explicitly states that magic items do not have a cost unless the DM decides to assign one in their campaign. This means the default state of the game is that they don't have a cost, and the DM can give them one like the DM can do anything else.
If you want a rules citation link to the DMG stating this, scroll up.
I will point out that you haven't done what you think you did. You pointed to a quote that says that players cannot buy or sell magic items unless the DM says so. But the DMG flat out says that it is because they're so valuable that they're difficult to buy and sell.
But the downtime activities sections of both the DMG and XgtE provide concrete ranges for each rarity of magic item. The DM's choice is whether to allow players to sell using those rules, not the value.
It's always interesting to me that some people will read through a rules section that includes
and come to the conclusion that magic items don't have any value. I guess they're literally interpreting "priceless."
A magic rapier is, first and foremost, a rapier. We know this because proficiency with a rapier grants proficiency with a magic rapier. It really doesn't matter how much its value is because at its core, the rapier aspect alone satisfies the minimum for the spell.
Come on.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Of course it's a rapier. I specifically said it was a rapier in my post.
But being a rapier does not qualify the weapon for the spell.
I suspect you are conflating the RAI (which we absolutely know - JC doesn't play the spell RAW post-errata, he by and large ignores the errata entirely and plays the old version) with the new RAW, which is absolutely as tragic as I am describing, because "Come on" suggests you may think I am defending the RAW as being sensibly written. I am doing no such thing. The errata was a travesty that did far more to make the spell unplayable than the old wording ever did and it was a poor choice all around for WOTC to implement it.
I have nothing else to add to this conversation, so I'm going to leave it there.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
A rapier has a cost (greater than 1 sp), therefore qualifies. A +3 rapier also qualifies, by virtue of having a cost (all magic items have a cost, albeit within a range based on their rarity, but they are all greater than 1 sp --- a +3 weapon is Very Rare, thus 5,001–50,000 gp) and by virtue of being a rapier (which is a previously solved problem). This is RAW.
It is not RAW. I provided the RAW in an earlier post which explicitly states that magic items do not have a cost unless the DM decides to assign one in their campaign. This means the default state of the game is that they don't have a cost, and the DM can give them one like the DM can do anything else.
If you want a rules citation link to the DMG stating this, scroll up.
I will point out that you haven't done what you think you did. You pointed to a quote that says that players cannot buy or sell magic items unless the DM says so. But the DMG flat out says that it is because they're so valuable that they're difficult to buy and sell.
But the downtime activities sections of both the DMG and XgtE provide concrete ranges for each rarity of magic item. The DM's choice is whether to allow players to sell using those rules, not the value.