Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Welcome 10-25-05, 04:25 PM	I've heard many times that weapon abilities can't be reverse-engineered by the RAW. Well, that may be true, but does it really mean you can't have a Many-fanged greatsword or a rapier of the Assassin ? Step 1 : buy a canon Many-fanged dagger (BTW, can anyone tell me in which book this one is in ?) Step 2 : Tack on the Morphing enchantment from Underdark (+1). Adding enchantments to specific weapons is possible by the RAW : Adding New Abilities A creator can add new magical abilities to a magic item with no restrictions. The cost to do this is the same as if the item was not magical. Step 3 : You can now have a Many-fanged [insert any light weapon here]. Add the Sizing enchantment from the same book (also +1). The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all. By sizing your weapon two sizes up (there's no limit on the Sizing enchantment), you can now have a Many-fanged greatsword. Okay, so it costs you an additional +2 net enchantment on top of the cost of the original special weapon. Still, in some cases I'm sure if can be worth it. For example, if the Many-fanged ability is all I heard it to be, then - as was suggested in the latest Iaijutsu Master thread - a Iaijutsu Master can seriously own with that.
Nazzareth 10-25-05, 05:25 PM	.For example, if the Many-fanged ability is all I heard it to be, then - as was suggested in the latest Iaijutsu Master thread - a Iaijutsu Master can seriously own with that. Nice one, Except that you can't do this with the samurai's ancestral diasho ability.
Rigeld 10-25-05, 05:41 PM	Okay, so it costs you an additional +2 net enchantment on top of the cost of the original special weapon. Still, in some cases I'm sure if can be worth it. For example, if the Many-fanged ability is all I heard it to be, then - as was suggested in the latest Iaijutsu Master thread - a Iaijutsu Master can seriously own with that. Great! ..... Now.. how much does that extra +2 cost? Its more than just a +3 weapon, since im sure youd agree that Manyfanged is more than a +1 enhancement, but how MUCH more? Hence the reverse engineering.
Welcome 10-25-05, 05:44 PM	I assume you're talking the Rokugan Samurai, but I don't have that book. But assuming it's like the 3.5 Kensai's Signature Weapon ability, then yeah, you can't get the unique ability with that. Can't win them all :). @Rigeld : Not sure what you mean there. How much does it cost ? Well, the standard Manyfanged dagger probably carries a +1 or +2 bonus on top of its special ability (as I said, I don't know where it's from so I can't tell atm). The extra +2 costs exactly the same as it would to increase a vanilla +1 or +2 weapon to +3 or +4. Concrete example : Assassin's Dagger : +2 dagger, grants +1 to DC of death attack, total price : 18,302 gp. Total cost to make an Assassin's Rapier : 18,302(base) + 24,000(cost to go from +2 to +4) = 42,302.
RadicalTaoist 10-25-05, 05:50 PM	I don't think normal crafting works. The key, as is often the case, is the Artificer. Have him infuse the dagger in question with the necessary enhancements and you're good to go.
nihility 10-25-05, 05:51 PM	Now.. how much does that extra +2 cost? His quoted reference indicates that it would cost the same as a +2 enhancement applied to a nonmagical weapon, or 8000gp, provided that you're starting from the special weapon to begin with. That assumes the passage is directly applicable and that there's not more to the rule, of course, which I haven't bothered to check.
SigmaJargon 10-25-05, 05:51 PM	Great! ..... Now.. how much does that extra +2 cost? Its more than just a +3 weapon, since im sure youd agree that Manyfanged is more than a +1 enhancement, but how MUCH more? Hence the reverse engineering.Agreed. The section of text you quote goes on to give a wonderful example (even in the SRD) where the creator pays the difference in the cost of the weapon before and after the new enchantments. But how much more is a Morphing Sizing Manyfanged Dagger worth than a normal Manyfanged Dagger?
Welcome 10-25-05, 05:52 PM	I don't think normal crafting works. Well, why not ? @Rigeld, nihility, et al. : I edited my above post with an example.
RadicalTaoist 10-25-05, 05:56 PM	Well, why not ? Because, the only example given, the one you just gave, is partial reverse-engineering. As far as I can tell, you can only alter a special weapon like that after the craft. With the likes of Greater Magic Weapon, or in the case of the Artificer, that infusion (name escapes me right now).
Welcome 10-25-05, 06:19 PM	Hm, I can see what you mean. It only makes it worse, though. Because if we go to the end of the line of reasoning and take a Specific Weapon as a whole without ever trying to break it down in components, then by the first quote in my original post, nihility is right and the cost would simply be that of turning a nonmagical weapon into a +2 equivalent weapon.
Nazzareth 10-25-05, 07:32 PM	Polymorph any object would do the trick, just transform the dagger into the desired weapon. Doh Just read up on Polymorph any object non magic items can not be affected by the spell, so cast dispell magic on it first before you cast Polymorph any object.
nihility 10-25-05, 07:48 PM	Polymorph any object would do the trick, just transform the dagger into the desired weapon. Doh Just read up on Polymorph any object non magic items can not be affected by the spell, so cast dispell magic on it first before you cast Polymorph any object. Brilliant! You'd best be quick with the enchanting, though, gotta do it in 1d4 rounds. Hmm... I wonder, do you think it would be a good cost savings to hire people to chain-cast dispel magic on your item while you enchanted it? Also, can't Artificers enchant things very quickly?
Caelic 10-25-05, 08:53 PM	Err...Dispel Magic may suppress the abilities of a magic item, but I've seen nothing in the rules to suggest that it makes it cease to BE a magic item.
X-Codes 10-25-05, 08:53 PM	Changing the base item as far as I'm concerned is no biggie since the cost of the base item has no relation whatsoever to the cost of the enhancements put on the weapon. If you want a Manyfang Greatsword then just plop down an extra 48 gp. Anyway, the Manyfang Dagger in Serpent Kingdoms has the same price as a +4 dagger. Read into that as much as you want, and don't bother taking Keen or Bursts on it since it's not going to give that much extra damage. From what I can tell, reverse engineering is done to combine unique item abilities such as the un-flankable portion of the Dagger of Defense from CV with the Assassin's Dagger's +1 Death Attack DC ability or the 1/day reroll from the Luckblade on a single weapon (and is generally much more useful in this respect).
nihility 10-25-05, 08:58 PM	Err...Dispel Magic may suppress the abilities of a magic item, but I've seen nothing in the rules to suggest that it makes it cease to BE a magic item. Well, yeah, I was being a bit facetious. Still, who knows? It might work, I just can't think of a compelling reason why it would work. Plus, on the off chance it does work, now you've got a masterwork item. Thus, you're stuck putting on a +1 every time. I doubt that's going to stack when the old magic comes back, assuming it even works.
catharz 10-25-05, 09:33 PM	Well, yeah, I was being a bit facetious. Still, who knows? It might work, I just can't think of a compelling reason why it would work. Plus, on the off chance it does work, now you've got a masterwork item. Thus, you're stuck putting on a +1 every time. I doubt that's going to stack when the old magic comes back, assuming it even works. Ya, you'd basically end up with two 'magic items' occupying the same 'slot' (physical object). If your DM is nice he might let you switch between the two at will. If he isn't maybe you're stuck with one enhancement obliterating the other, or both being mutually supressed. I believe that the rules for multiple items in the same slot are such that the second item worn is supressed, and this sort of re-enchantment might work similarly.
Nazzareth 10-25-05, 10:32 PM	I have heard of dispell magic been used on magic items to make them vunerable to shatter spells (and other effects), so why not to polymorph other spells.
Caelic 10-25-05, 11:08 PM	I have heard of dispell magic been used on magic items to make them vunerable to shatter spells (and other effects), so why not to polymorph other spells. Well, I've "heard of" lots of thing--that doesn't necessarily make them RAW. Nonetheless, Dispel does, as it turns out, have specific wording that says the item becomes nonmagical. Here's where it gets weird. I don't think you can make a solid case for the polymorphed item still having any magical abilities at all. Consider: Any item created by PaO is, by definition, nonmagical. PaO does NOT have any sort of clause stating that items retain any of their properties after being Polymorphed. An adamantine sword polymorphed into a feather would not retain its hardness, for instance. There is simply no clause in the spell suggesting, implying, or stating that magical abilities (even temporarily suppressed ones) would carry over--and while there are no clauses stating that they wouldn't carry over, there are several that IMPLY that they wouldn't. It's my contention, therefore, that you can make at LEAST as strong a case for the temporarily-nonmagical-Manyfang Dagger-polymorphed-into-a-greatsword becoming a plain, old, nonmagical greatsword as becoming a Manyfang Greatsword.
Tempest Stormwind 10-25-05, 11:24 PM	Furthermore, sometimes, when you reverse-engineer an item to determine costs, and then acid-test compare it with the guidelines, you find out that insanely powerful abilities have NEGATIVE costs... my first brush with this was dissecting the Halberd of Vaulting in the A&EG. I used the 3.0 rules it was based on, and determined that the most powerful ability (the "make a jump check to double damage on a charge" bit) cost less than nothing, since the sum of the other abilities was more than the cost of the Halberd of Vaulting.
Nazzareth 10-25-05, 11:42 PM	SRD:If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the item’s caster level. If you succeed, all the item’s magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers on its own. A suppressed item becomes nonmagical for the duration of the effect. An interdimensional interface (such as a bag of holding) is temporarily closed. A magic item’s physical properties are unchanged: A suppressed magic sword is still a sword (a masterwork sword, in fact). Yes I did read dispel magic before posting, the dispel part. SRD:Unlike polymorph, polymorph any object does grant the creature the Intelligence score of its new form. If the original form didn’t have a Wisdom or Charisma score, it gains those scores as appropriate for the new form. Damage taken by the new form can result in the injury or death of the polymorphed creature. In general, damage occurs when the new form is changed through physical force. A nonmagical object cannot be made into a magic item with this spell. Magic items aren’t affected by this spell. This spell cannot create material of great intrinsic value, such as copper, silver, gems, silk, gold, platinum, mithral, or adamantine. It also cannot reproduce the special properties of cold iron in order to overcome the damage reduction of certain creatures. This spell can also be used to duplicate the effects of baleful polymorph, polymorph, flesh to stone, stone to flesh, transmute mud to rock, transmute metal to wood, or transmute rock to mud. Arcane Material Component: Mercury, gum arabic, and smoke. What is it that implies that the magical abilities do not carry over. There is nothing saying or implying that polymorph other would negate the original magical abilities once the dispell wore off. It is possible to enchant polymorphed object (if it is master work) or cast spells on it, polymorph other does not negate these effects. The only problem I can see is if the master work quality does or does not transfer over or if you can polymorph a non-master work object into a master work object (craft checks maybe).
DavidWL 10-26-05, 12:40 AM	Step 1 : buy a canon Many-fanged dagger (BTW, can anyone tell me in which book this one is in ?) Good exploit. Add morphing to sizing, and it can be any weapon you want. Many-fanged dagger is from Forgotten Realms - Serpent Kingdom. David
MechaboyDos 10-26-05, 12:46 AM	I might be missing something here, but why can't you just take the price of the Many Fanged Dagger, subtract out the cost of a Masterwork Dagger, and add in the cost of a Masterwork Greatsword?
Quenditar 10-26-05, 01:00 AM	I might be missing something here, but why can't you just take the price of the Many Fanged Dagger, subtract out the cost of a Masterwork Dagger, and add in the cost of a Masterwork Greatsword? Because the whole point of this thread is alternatives to reverse-engineering like that.
MechaboyDos 10-26-05, 01:08 AM	Well, okay, but I don't really see why you want to throw several expensive enchantments on top of the weapon when you could very easily and cheaply just switch out the base weapon itself.
Kilo24 10-26-05, 01:22 AM	This should (assuming the claim doesn't get shot down) work by RAW, and you don't need explicit DM ruling to allow it. Edit: That being said, that quoted portion about adding new abilities does seem to contradict my understanding of the rules. What context was that in? That single portion basically seems to disregard that x2 cost guideline in the DMG about similar abilities. What's to stop a weapon being enchanted twice, once a +1 keen vorpal enchantment and again as a +5 of collision enchantment at a lower cost than a +10 weapon would be? Either there's more to that quote or another gaping discrepancy has been discovered. Or, I'm simply overlooking something obvious. Further Edit: Ok, full quote for that section. ADDING NEW ABILITIES A creator can add new magical abilities to a magic item with no restrictions. The cost to do this is the same as if the item was not magical. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 sword. If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character’s body the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5. So, it first says that the cost to do this is the same as if the item were nonmagical. Then, the example it gives says that the total cost equals the cost to enchant the nonmagical item minus the current enchantment. Last, it says that as long as the item occupies a slot on the body, then adding an ability costs %150 the normal cost. So, not assuming RAI, you've got three different values when enchanting a previously enchanted item: CEMI (Cost to Enchant Already Magical Item) = NNEC (Normal Nonmagical Enchantment Cost) CEMI = NNEC - PEC (Previous Enchantment Cost) CEMI = 1.5 NNEC (assuming it occupies a slot on the body) Anyone else see this section and think it makes sense until they actually thought about it? Applying rules as intended, (to our best knowledge anyway, no one really knows what the minds who devised the alter self/polymorph/shapechange rules are really capable of) we can say that the second equation applies only to abilities that involve enchanting a less powerful item into a more powerful version of the same item based on the example. The third equation says that, for items that take up a body slot, adding new abilities cost half again as much for abilities that don't directly translate into increase of powers. This seems to make sense, and is how I understood it before, but what's with the first equation? Assuming the previous two, it only applies for ioun stones or other non body slot iouns (all two of them in the entire D&D 3.5 rules.) The first equation is stated explicitly as it equalling the nonmagical enchantment cost. Then, the example from which it seems as if it should support the first, given the wording, gives the entirely contradictory secondary equation. And this doesn't even take into account the discrepancies between adding abilities after enchanting (using one of these equations, probably the third) and the DMG guidelines for creating an item in one go (multiplying higher ability base price by 2.) ...Help. It's late and I'm under attack by phantasmal killers creating rules disputes that only exist in my mind.
Tony Vargas 10-26-05, 01:22 PM	Adding enchantments to specific weapons is possible by the RAW I don't think it is. For one thing, that /would/ be 'reverse engineering,' in itself, to figure the cost of the item after the added enchantment. For another, you need to be able to make the final item. Specific items are supposed to be unique and as-is. Of course, nothing stops you from making new specific items, it's just harder for the DM to adjudicate the cost. Honestly, for pruposes of serious 'RAW' powergaming, it'd almost make more sense to ignore such items entirely, since they often go against the RAW, themselves, for 'flavor' purposes.
Welcome 10-26-05, 02:14 PM	I don't think it is. For one thing, that /would/ be 'reverse engineering,' in itself, to figure the cost of the item after the added enchantment. For another, you need to be able to make the final item. Specific items are supposed to be unique and as-is. Of course, nothing stops you from making new specific items, it's just harder for the DM to adjudicate the cost. Honestly, for pruposes of serious 'RAW' powergaming, it'd almost make more sense to ignore such items entirely, since they often go against the RAW, themselves, for 'flavor' purposes. How can they go against the RAW ? They are the RAW. Anyway, from my understanding of the RAW, summed up in my previous posts, a specific weapon is a full package. Thus, we have no alternative than to consider it, for our current purposes, as a nondescript object costing X gold. In other words, you have no other option than to consider, say, an Assassin's Dagger simply as an incredibly expensive base weapon, which happens to be magical in nature. This is, by the way, exactly the opposite of reverse-engineering. In fact, it's carefully avoiding to reverse-engineer anything. After all, you know the RAW doesn't support reverse-engineering, and you know the RAW supports adding abilities to magic items : "A creator can add new magical abilities to a magic item with no restrictions."). So what other choice do you have left ? From there, using the "enchanted as a nonmagical item" rule quoted above, you can add the Sizing/Morphing enchantments for a cost of 8,000 gp.
Hawk1816 10-26-05, 02:36 PM	This should (assuming the claim doesn't get shot down) work by RAW, and you don't need explicit DM ruling to allow it. Edit: That being said, that quoted portion about adding new abilities does seem to contradict my understanding of the rules. What context was that in? That single portion basically seems to disregard that x2 cost guideline in the DMG about similar abilities. What's to stop a weapon being enchanted twice, once a +1 keen vorpal enchantment and again as a +5 of collision enchantment at a lower cost than a +10 weapon would be? Either there's more to that quote or another gaping discrepancy has been discovered. Or, I'm simply overlooking something obvious. Further Edit: Ok, full quote for that section. So, it first says that the cost to do this is the same as if the item were nonmagical. Then, the example it gives says that the total cost equals the cost to enchant the nonmagical item minus the current enchantment. Last, it says that as long as the item occupies a slot on the body, then adding an ability costs %150 the normal cost. So, not assuming RAI, you've got three different values when enchanting a previously enchanted item: CEMI (Cost to Enchant Already Magical Item) = NNEC (Normal Nonmagical Enchantment Cost) CEMI = NNEC - PEC (Previous Enchantment Cost) CEMI = 1.5 NNEC (assuming it occupies a slot on the body) Anyone else see this section and think it makes sense until they actually thought about it? I believe the rules are perfectly clear. The first says that there is no extra cost in further enhancing an item rather than creating one from scratch with the same abilities. Using your +1 sword being made into a +1 vorpal sword, the +1 vorpal sword that you made out of a previously +1 magic sword would be worth the same as a +1 vorpal sword made from scratch. Thus the second part. To figure out the cost of making a +1 sword into a +1 vorpal sword, take the cost of the +1 vorpal sword, and subtract the cost of the +1 sword. This way you are only paying for the vorpal part and the sword is worth the same as a +1 vorpal made from scratch. The third part is because a person has only so many body slots. As such, taking two magical items and combining them into one is worth more than the sum of the parts. It effectively gives you an extra body slot. My question is does this apply to other magical items. If I want a rod of metamagic quickening, but i also want it to act like a +1 dagger, how do I price that?
Quenditar 10-26-05, 03:01 PM	My question is does this apply to other magical items. If I want a rod of metamagic quickening, but i also want it to act like a +1 dagger, how do I price that? Neither take up slots, so I'd just add the prices. I don't think there is some specific subset of the rules covering that.
Caelic 10-26-05, 03:54 PM	What is it that implies that the magical abilities do not carry over. There is nothing saying or implying that polymorph other would negate the original magical abilities once the dispell wore off. It is possible to enchant polymorphed object (if it is master work) or cast spells on it, polymorph other does not negate these effects. Well, of course there isn't--because the spell isn't supposed to affect objects with such properties in the first place. However, there is nothing saying or implying that PaO would allow assumption of a form that HAS such abilities. That's crucial. What we DO have is clear implication that the "new" item created by PaO is, by definition, nonmagical--not "kinda sorta temporarily nonmagical thanks to yet ANOTHER magical effect." If I turn a +1 vorpal sword into a glass of water (using this supposed tactic,) does it remain a +1 vorpal glass of water? Does anyone drinking it take 1d8+1 damage and run the risk of having their head chopped off? No. PaO turns it into a nonmagical, ordinary glass of water--the implication is quite clear. The only problem I can see is if the master work quality does or does not transfer over or if you can polymorph a non-master work object into a master work object (craft checks maybe). A masterwork weapon has intrinsic value; thus, strictly by the RAW, it cannot be produced by PaO. Attempts to argue that the "intrinsic value" of a masterwork weapon is different than the "intrinsic value" of a silver one are arguments of intent.
Tony Vargas 10-26-05, 05:33 PM	How can they go against the RAW ? They are the RAW.In the sense that they're not designed like other items, but just given an arbitrary gp value. From there, using the "enchanted as a nonmagical item" rule quoted above, you can add the Sizing/Morphing enchantments for a cost of 8,000 gp. OK, if the enchantment is a fixed-cost one, rather than a +X equivalent, then, I could see thinking it'd be OK to just tack it onto something. However, when you do add to a weapon, the cost is figured as the cost of the resulting item, less the cost of the original. That means you have to figure the cost of the resulting item, which requires you to reverse engineer. It's obvious a +X equivalent item. Say you wanted ghost-touch Celestial Mail, how much would it cost? Well, celestial mail is +3, and ghost touch is +3, so, you'd subtract the cost of +3 from the celestial mail, sub in the cost of +6 - and you've just reverse-engineered it. Similarly, if you assumed the cost of Celestial mail included some +X equivalent over +3 you'd be reverse engineering. Though it's less obvious with a fixed-cost enchantement (like say, Shadow or Galmoured), you're still creating a new, specific item, and thus reverse-engineering (just in a very easy, very obvious way) to figure it's cost.
RadicalTaoist 10-26-05, 08:41 PM	Does anyone drinking it take 1d8+1 damage and run the risk of having their head chopped off? I've been to places where glasses of water could do that. Ashbridges Bay in Toronto and Boston Harbor for starters...
Kilo24 10-26-05, 09:17 PM	I think I understand the reasoning behind the rules, but I don't understand exactly how they play out by RAW. I believe the rules are perfectly clear. The first says that there is no extra cost in further enhancing an item rather than creating one from scratch with the same abilities. Not quite. It says that the cost is the same as if the item were not magical, meaning that, yes, there would be no increases in cost to enchant a magical item (as compared to if it was nonmagical,) but neither would there be decreases in the cost. Which is violated by the 'example' of: Using your +1 sword being made into a +1 vorpal sword, the +1 vorpal sword that you made out of a previously +1 magic sword would be worth the same as a +1 vorpal sword made from scratch. Thus the second part. To figure out the cost of making a +1 sword into a +1 vorpal sword, take the cost of the +1 vorpal sword, and subtract the cost of the +1 sword. This way you are only paying for the vorpal part and the sword is worth the same as a +1 vorpal made from scratch. Do note that overall worth is not mentioned in the section of the SRD. (Not that it particularly applies to much in this discussion over cost to enchant, but I just wanted to clarify that.) The sentence pertaining seems to back up the the first statement on virtue of its placing and wording, but its content clearly contradicts the first statement. A sword +1 should be considered nonmagical by the first statement. But it is, without any previously stated rules, deducted from the enchantment cost of a +1 vorpal sword. And wouldn't the vorpal enchantment be a new ability to an already magical partaker of the hand slot, thus bumping the cost up by %50? The third part is because a person has only so many body slots. As such, taking two magical items and combining them into one is worth more than the sum of the parts. It effectively gives you an extra body slot. I know why they put the rules in, but the wording conflicts with DMG guidelines and, unless construed to be an exception to the whole section (which I believe most people, myself included, would agree that it is,) conflicts with the rules. My previous understanding was that enhancing a lesser powerful version of a weapon would result in a cost deduction and adding new abilities cost half again as much. But, the cost deduction has no RAW basis aside from a single example and enchanting an item costs the same as enchanting a nonmagical item. My question is does this apply to other magical items. If I want a rod of metamagic quickening, but i also want it to act like a +1 dagger, how do I price that? Well, according to this RAWwise, I can see it a few ways: -Create it in one go, and, (off my memory) as per adding a new enchantment by custom item guidelines, multiply the cost of the quickening rod by 2 and add 1000 for the dagger enchantment, plus some amount to enchant it into a dagger form (as it's a custom ability.) Because it takes no body slot, double the price again. This will be the market price of the item, and it will take half of that to make. If you add the dagger enchantment onto the rod, the cost of placing it on there would be: -You add 1000 + custom enchantment cost that turns it into a dagger. 'Nuff said. -Deduct the cost of the metamagic rod from the dagger enchantment. That's right, pay a negative amount of exp and gold to enchant it. -It would be a new ability. Thus 1000 + custom enchantment cost of daggershape would be multiplied by 1.5. The rules aren't making much sense. Meh. Anyway, for the topic of a cost of a many-fanged dagger + sizing and morphing: -Reverse engineering is mentioned nowhere in the RAW. Thus, adding a morphing/sizing enchantment would be either the nonmagical item cost or the nonmagical item cost times 1.5 (if it were considered a new ability.) -The +1 directly translates into an increasable enchantment. Thus, the overall cost would be a +3 weapon plus manyfanged dagger cost minus 1000. -The whole thing's an increasable enchantment. Pull some number out of a hat to make the manyfanged modifier apply to, and and that to a +3 for the overall value of a +4 or higher normal enchanted weapon.