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

[Crimson Longinus]

No, that claim doesn't even make sense for eberron or something far beyond eberron Because diamonds can exist in a few states.

• Uncut Gem grade diamond: These can be cut & increase the value
• Cut diamond: These can be used as a display of wealth in jewelry or similar
• Uncut diamonds too small or flawed to be useful as a gem: Not much to do with these other than grind them up or something
• Diamond dust: This can be made from literally any of the diamonds above and give the same result, but the discard from cutting & unusable diamonds are going to be the most cost efficienr.... which is why you can buy 3000carats of diamond dust for 30$ right now (~2268 carats make up a pound)

Creating a scenario where that volume of diamond dust is equal value as the first two (uncut gem grade/cut diamonds) by using small or flawed diamonds in bulk is if the labor is so unfathomably significant that the cost is able to equal or exceed cut gems of a certain common size.

But now you're again making assumptions based on real world which might not be true in a fantasy world where these things are fuel for magic. For example in real world cutting diamonds make them more pretty, thus increase their value. But if spell fuel is the primary use of gems and the spell doesn't care about whether the gem is pretty, just about its volume, then by cutting the gem you're decreasing its value. If spells that require dust and smaller gems are more common and more useful than ones using larger gems and if cutting them to size (so you don't waste extra gem stuff) and powdering them takes expensive labour, such an equilibrium would exist, though as I said, it would be exceedingly unlikely. However, I'd argue that in practice no one can take all these variables into account, so any prices you might arrive for these things are more or less arbitrary, so you might as well go for the ease of use. It doesn't really make things less realistic than you completely flawed real world comparison would.

 

[Maxperson]

So your take is that since there is enough demand for ruby dust for spellcasting purpose, the valuation of ruby dust, which mechanically can't be more than a big ruby crushed to dust, since then people will arbitrate in favor of taing a hammer and shattering the gem, is at the same level, so a 50 gp ruby produces 50 gp's worth of ruby dust.

Why not? There aren't going to be anywhere near as many rubies as here in the real world because they don't have access to modern mining methods and equipment. Nobles and merchants aren't going to just shatter their fine jewelry and gems to sell, because they have money and want the status. Rubies crushed for wizards could easily be as valuable as the whole gem. It's up to you. Keep it the same or over complicate(in my opinion) the system to allow for a fractional increase in realism.

Basically, your gameworld hypothesis is therefore that the demand for ruby dust is similar to the demand for big rubies.

No. I don't bother with a hypothesis since it isn't necessary. I just keep it the same value because I don't see much reason to increase realism by a fractional amount at the cost of a whole lot of book keeping and complication.

If the demand for dust was higher, it would drive ruby prices up and rubies would disappear, siphoned off for spellcasting over the (usually huge) lifetime of fantasy civilizations, and if the demand was lower, there would be a mark-up for big rubies. So, when you say that crushing a 50 gp ruby creates 50 gp of ruby dust, and 3 adventures later, you introduce a huge invaluable ruby as a McGuffin, the players will naturally be "hey, why is it more valuable exactly? I've 10 regular rubies'worth of ruby dust in my inventory, and it's probably more than can be extracted by crushing your mother-of-all-rubies..."

The big rubies are more valuable because they are bigger. Ten 500gp rubies would be 5000gp of dust, and the mega mother of all rubies that's 500,000gp would be 500,000gp of dust, except nobody would crush it because rubies of that size are better off as status symbols.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yeah... It's not like we demand extraordinary things from the game, just "a handful of ruby dust, usually worth 50 gp".

I mean I think that's what most people already assumes it means. Not that I would mind it saying what you suggest, but what I absolutely do not want it saying "Four ounces of high quality ruby dust" and then I need to find the separate gem dust price chart and calculate how much four ounces would cost (and then of course apply the multiplier for the local ruby dust supply/demand ratio.*)

(*And don't get me started on how that is calculated! Determining locations and outputs of all the ruby mines, the ruby consumption of the nobles and spellcasters, the wage levels of the gem smiths and the conditions of the trade routes are just the beginning!)

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah... It's not like we demand extraordinary things from the game, just "a handful of ruby dust, usually worth 50 gp".

Again... The problem is that they present a commodity that would normally allow the GM to make use of it as a subjectively desirable form of treasure that players should logically be excited about, but they fail to provide a relevant commodity/trade good list for spells to share.

If I give the players 100 pounds of pepper silk or saffron it presents an immediate "oh those are on the trade goods list" & players can look to see those are all worth sizable amounts of coin for lower tiered parties, but it fails to keep up with higher tiers and the natural language created commodity using spells can not be converted over to a higher priced commodity list because they are too varied uselessly tiered★ & already have players thinking they can 1:1 gold or gems over to the relevant gem dust as at least one poster has strongly pushed as the obvious truth.

But now you're again making assumptions based on real world which might not be true in a fantasy world where these things are fuel for magic. For example in real world cutting diamonds make them more pretty, thus increase their value. But if spell fuel is the primary use of gems and the spell doesn't care about whether the gem is pretty, just about its volume, then by cutting the gem you're decreasing its value. If spells that require dust and smaller gems are more common and more useful than ones using larger gems and if cutting them to size (so you don't waste extra gem stuff) and powdering them takes expensive labour, such an equilibrium would exist, though as I said, it would be exceedingly unlikely. However, I'd argue that in practice no one can take all these variables into account, so any prices you might arrive for these things are more or less arbitrary, so you might as well go for the ease of use. It doesn't really make things less realistic than you completely flawed real world comparison would.

Christmas tree effect & many bits of fantasy/d&d artwork would disagree with this hard. There's also the obvious problem caused by so few gems with value actually being used by spells

I mean I think that's what most people already assumes it means. Not that I would mind it saying what you suggest, but what I absolutely do not want it saying "Four ounces of high quality ruby dust" and then I need to find the separate gem dust price chart and calculate how much four ounces would cost (and then of course apply the multiplier for the local ruby dust supply/demand ratio.*)

(*And don't get me started on how that is calculated! Determining locations and outputs of all the ruby mines, the ruby consumption of the nobles and spellcasters, the wage levels of the gem smiths and the conditions of the trade routes are just the beginning!)

"one standard unit in a properly shielded container made to preserve purity weighs 1 pound", some spells use one, others use two or more. You are the oe complicating it by adding needless precision

★ ie ruby dust is used byu a second & 7th level spell, diamond dust is all over the place, others use bones worth x instead of bones and [valuable thing], etc

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why not? There aren't going to be anywhere near as many rubies as here in the real world because they don't have access to modern mining methods and equipment.

Shouldn't they logically do better because they have magic and monsters?

There's monsters that just exclusively exist to command earth and stone and a mage of limited competence can conjure them into being.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm pretty sure that this is a problem unique to 5e going by memory. In d&d 2e , material components were an optional rule that allowed. Caster to find/invent them so they could skip a verbal or somatic component.

In 2e they were not an optional rule and did not allow the caster to skip the other components.

"Components: This lists the category of components needed, V for verbal, S for somatic, and M for material. When material components are required, these are listed in the spell description."

There may have been an optional rule somewhere that allowed for some sort of fancy extra component that allowed you to skip other components, but I don't remember it.

 

[Maxperson]

Shouldn't they logically do better because they have magic and monsters?

There's monsters that just exclusively exist to command earth and stone and a mage of limited competence can conjure them into being.

Maybe. Depends on if you can persuade them to do that somehow. There are also monsters that eat gems and poof, they are gone forever. The DM can decide the rarity and methods for his campaign.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Shouldn't they logically do better because they have magic and monsters?

There's monsters that just exclusively exist to command earth and stone and a mage of limited competence can conjure them into being.

Kinda depends on how common magic and spellcasters actually are in the setting. Very much YMMV.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Maybe. Depends on if you can persuade them to do that somehow. There are also monsters that eat gems and poof, they are gone forever.

There is an infinite plane of earth full of infinite gems though.

The default world makes zero sense and probably shouldn't try.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is an infinite plane of earth full of infinite gems though.

The default world makes zero sense and probably shouldn't try.

How many people have regular access to that world? Also, in some versions the good stuff over there is hard to find and/or heavily guarded.