D&D (2024) Uncommon items - actually common?

[Maxperson]

You and I live in a world where 3000 carats of diamond dust (bit over a pound) costs about 30$.

You and I don't live in a world where diamond dust fuels magic spells of great value. If we did, you sure as hell wouldn't be getting it for $30.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Imagine the size of the crater in the place Deberes would be if they tried to price-fix in the world where that affected how you could cast spells.

Bat guano is free.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. I'm saying water, ice and crushed ice are all water. The state changes, not the item. A diamond and a crushed diamond are the same thing, but different states.

A good analogy for your post would be a chopped down tree and then the fallen trunk cut into pieces. It's all wood.

Labor increases value. Otherwise no one could afford to run a lumber mill.

 

[tetrasodium]

Q

You and I don't live in a world where diamond dust fuels magic spells of great value. If we did, you sure as hell wouldn't be getting it for $30.

So are you describing play that takes place on a world set in the unknowable far realm? Drawing on "because fantasy" or "it's only a game" doesn't cover for the claims you are trying to make unless you admit that your posts are describing the unknowable far realm. Not all diamonds pulled from the ground are of equal worth but all diamonds grind to the same "diamond dust" no matter how useless as a gem.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Q

So are you describing play that takes place on a world set in the unknowable far realm? Drawing on "because fantasy" or "it's only a game" doesn't cover for the claims you are trying to make unless you admit that your posts are describing the unknowable far realm. Not all diamonds pulled from the ground are of equal worth but all diamonds grind to the same "diamond dust" no matter how useless as a gem.

I mean if you want to try to be "realistic" about this, then you really cannot discount the massive impact of te pricing of various gems and gem products their usability as spell components would cause.

 

[tetrasodium]

I mean if you want to try to be "realistic" about this, then you really cannot discount the massive impact of te pricing of various gems and gem products their usability as spell components would cause.

Wrong side of the discussion. That's one of the many reasons why"[gemtype] worth xxxgp & "xxxgp worth of [gemtype] dust"over a standardized tradegood/mount/etc style per pound/per unit list that spells draw from and why xxxgp of [gemtype] dust should obviously not be interchangeable with decorative cut gems. See spme of the earlier discussion about trees lumber sawdust & chairs for examples.

Even if that had a significant impact, it would increase the problems for max's claims that a gem worth xxx& dust made from that gem still being worth the same xxx

 

[Maxperson]

I mean if you want to try to be "realistic" about this, then you really cannot discount the massive impact of te pricing of various gems and gem products their usability as spell components would cause.

It would be a cluster.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Wrong side of the discussion. That's one of the many reasons why"[gemtype] worth xxxgp & "xxxgp worth of [gemtype] dust"over a standardized tradegood/mount/etc style per pound/per unit list that spells draw from and why xxxgp of [gemtype] dust should obviously not be interchangeable with decorative cut gems. See spme of the earlier discussion about trees lumber sawdust & chairs for examples.

Even if that had a significant impact, it would increase the problems for max's claims that a gem worth xxx& dust made from that gem still being worth the same xxx

That certainly would depend on how common and useful spells requiring dust are compared to the spells requiring whole gems, wouldn't it?

In any case, I did not make claim that different sized gems and gem dust are fungible, so not my problem really. But I have to say I have never needed the sort of information regarding this stuff you seem to want and I am fairly certain the same is true for 99.9% of D&D users. If there was genuine interest for such useless minutiae it would be in the rules and if there was even modicum of interest there would be a fairly popular third party book for it. (And I don't think there is, but I could be wrong as I don't actually care.)

 

[tetrasodium]

That certainly would depend on how common and useful spells requiring dust are compared to the spells requiring whole gems are wouldn't it?

No. It would only make for equal value between a cut gem & dust made from that gem being ground up unless the unknowable far realm has a situation where it only produces gems of a certain size & quality but never lower. Gem dust is less expensive than gems because it can be made with waste from cutting raw gems & substandard gems with too many flaws to be useful as gem grade.

In any case, I did not make claim that different sized gems and gem dust are fungible,

I pointed it out because you responded to a post reinforcing the fact that there is no reason to assume they should be & gave yet another reason why they would not be.

 

[Xetheral]

@Maxperson, on your general point that it's sufficient to know the value of diamond (or ruby, etc.) dust required to cast the spell, I agree with you. I also agree that the price paid for that same amount of dust might change depending on local economic conditions, and that such can be adjudicated without needing to know exactly how much dust we're talking about.

But I can't agree that a gem worth X gp is still worth X gp after being crushed into dust. That would imply that if the party buys an uncut rough diamond for X and crushes it, the resulting dust is worth X, but if they cut it first to increase its value to Y, the resulting dust is instead worth Y, despite the end result being effectively indistinguishable. That crosses my personal, idiosyncratic line between "useful abstraction" and "distracting contrivance."