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

[Micah Sweet]

The designers did the work and gave you something sufficiently good. You can either take that reasonable method(supply and demand for spellcasting components) or opt to change it to something else on your own. They don't owe you several reasonable options so that you can choose one.

Never said they owed me anything. That's your (mis)interpretation of my words. Just that when they do the work that's nice, and worth paying them for.

 

[tetrasodium]

Of course the GM can do this. As the amount of ruby dust is not specified, they can say the 50gps worth is four ounces on Eberron and a pound on Athas.



I don't understand any of this. I literally do not understand what these "positive gameplay results" you want are.

You literally quoted one "Having the spells drawing from a GM side list would allow the GM to make use of that list as a subjectively desirable form of treasure that players should logically be excited about"

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You literally quoted one "Having the spells drawing from a GM side list would allow the GM to make use of that list as a subjectively desirable form of treasure that players should logically be excited about"

Why you need to know the volume of the gem dust etc for that? Gems and stuff that are usable for spells are already a desirable treasure.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why you need to know the volume of the gem dust etc for that? Gems and stuff that are usable for spells are already a desirable treasure.

Because there is such a volume needed for the spell, we just don't know it for the sake of "simplicity".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because there is such a volume needed for the spell, we just don't know it for the sake of "simplicity".

Yes, and? How this stops you from giving spell components as treasure? "You find a pouch of gem dust, about 50gps worth." Done.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, and? How this stops you from giving spell components as treasure? "You find a pouch of gem dust, about 50gps worth." Done.

It doesn't. Like I said, the system is sufficient for play. I just want more.

 

[tetrasodium]

Why you need to know the volume of the gem dust etc for that? Gems and stuff that are usable for spells are already a desirable treasure.

I feel like you are actively putting in work in order to avoid the point, this has been covered quite a few times through the thread. In order to create the shared commodity/tradegood style list for spells with costly components to draw from you need a unit☆ other than the cost of that unit and the spells themselves need to be tried to costly components with an underlying logical consistency... The spells with costly components fail in both of those.

I linked to & quoted the costly components for a bunch of spells(14) earlier here. In that list you will find examples of problems like singular item with value between 50 & 5000+gp on first third fifth & ninth level spells along with others like bones (commonly eaten & discarded by commoners as trash or left to rot in dungeons) with a GP value & it's not even a significant fraction of spells with costly components

that kind of list can't be done by cost because some of those icostly components exist for balance reasons but get sloppily used for spells that have them for different reasons. The only way to make the list is to redo the entire spells chapter with new components first because there is no logic that would allow it to simply be refluffed & components are often used across spells too disparate in level or function to have any kind of useful list players could be excited about.

When the new list of items would require a flowchart or something like the spells chapter reproduced in pdf/spiral bound table copy in order to be useful it illustrates the root problem in in how costly components are listed in the spells themselves.

☆ ie volume in pounds.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I feel like you are actively putting in work in order to avoid the point, this has been covered quite a few times through the thread. In order to create the shared commodity/tradegood style list for spells with costly components to draw from you need a unit☆ other than the cost of that unit and the spells themselves need to be tried to costly components with an underlying logical consistency... The spells with costly components fail in both of those.

I linked to & quoted the costly components for a bunch of spells(14) earlier here. In that list you will find examples of problems like singular item with value between 50 & 5000+gp on first third fifth & ninth level spells along with others like bones (commonly eaten & discarded by commoners as trash or left to rot in dungeons) with a GP value & it's not even a significant fraction of spells with costly components

that kind of list can't be done by cost because some of those icostly components exist for balance reasons but get sloppily used for spells that have them for different reasons. The only way to make the list is to redo the entire spells chapter with new components first because there is no logic that would allow it to simply be refluffed & components are often used across spells too disparate in level or function to have any kind of useful list players could be excited about.

When the new list of items would require a flowchart or something like the spells chapter reproduced in pdf/spiral bound table copy in order to be useful it illustrates the root problem in in how costly components are listed in the spells themselves.

☆ ie volume in pounds.

Yeah, none of this makes any sense to me. It just seems like babble. You can easily give all those components you listed as treasure. There is no problem to be solved.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah, none of this makes any sense to me. It just seems like babble. You can easily give all those components you listed as treasure. There is no problem to be solved.

Yand how exactly does that provide the GM with a useful tool like a shared list of costly spell components the players can be exited to find items from even if they don't immediately know what that particular find can be used for without crashing into the problems faced in creating such a thing?

The current way is one where the GM can let players find a costly component & players shrug simply while selling it for the huge gold value with no intention of using the spell it goes to or the GM finds that said component is also used to limit/gate a powerful spell for balance reasons. Unfortunately every mechanical aspect of the current way does little other than ensure that players can derail any effort from the GM to create such a list.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yand how exactly does that provide the GM with a useful tool like a shared list of costly spell components the players can be exited to find items from even if they don't immediately know what that particular find can be used for without crashing into the problems faced in creating such a thing?

You literally posted such a list, or at least a part of such. You have items with their prices.

The current way is one where the GM can let players find a costly component & players shrug simply while selling it for the huge gold value with no intention of using the spell it goes to or the GM finds that said component is also used to limit/gate a powerful spell for balance reasons. Unfortunately every mechanical aspect of the current way does little other than ensure that players can derail any effort from the GM to create such a list.

I literally do not understand how any sort of a list affects any of this. If the component has value, it can be sold, completely irrespective whether that value is listed directly in the spell, of whether it is listed in a separate trade goods list.