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

[Maxperson]

In setting, one of the problem I see with that is if I go to a jeweller and see a marvelously cut diamond, and the price tag is 10,000 gp, how can I determine how much diamond's dust worth of it I will extract from it?

Ask?

Player: Will that diamond work for X spell?

DM: "Yes."

or...

DM: "No."

Edit: But really it will be simpler than that. It should be easily determined if gems are valued more or less than standard, or if the gem is larger or smaller than standard.

 

[TwoSix]

It makes sense mechanically, but I don't see how it makes sense in any setting resembling one I've ever seen or made.

It's actually pretty much what you were asking for before.

"Valuation" is an intrinisic property of a material, and is a function of the "type of object" and the "mass of the object". (Note that the relation may not be linear.)

Everywhere in the multiverse, as an example, 15 g of diamond dust is sufficient to cast revivify, because the "valuation" of diamond dust is 20 gp per gram. (Numbers are totally made-up, and that's where the DM would have to step in, to create these values.)

 

[TwoSix]

I don't think that there is actually any universal objective value that the spell "knows." It is just that the spell requires a gem with certain properties, and such gems generally cost about X, and this what is listed for your convenience, so that you don't need to flip to another part of the book to learn how much you can be expected to pay for such a gem when you go to buy it. That's all.

Oh, I know that's the intent. But @Maxperson's idea is quite workable and the premise is coherent and passes a verisimilitude test.

 

[TwoSix]

Agreed. Hence my position that amount of material makes more sense IMO than price.

I look at it this way. If a mechanistic system (my scenario 2) is the desired outcome, I agree that a focusing on the amount of material would make sense if the system also had a workable economic system.

Because the point of any resource system is ultimately to indicate whether casting a particular spell is cheap or expensive, at both the PC level and the worldbuilding level. Resurrection-type spells cost lots of resources because the game designers don't want resurrection to be common, partly at the PC level but mostly at the implicit setting building level.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's actually pretty much what you were asking for before.

"Valuation" is an intrinisic property of a material, and is a function of the "type of object" and the "mass of the object". (Note that the relation may not be linear.)

Everywhere in the multiverse, as an example, 15 g of diamond dust is sufficient to cast revivify, because the "valuation" of diamond dust is 20 gp per gram. (Numbers are totally made-up, and that's where the DM would have to step in, to create these values.)

Price as a metric (as opposed to amount), just makes no sense to me. Why use gp at all? Money is a whole different way to determine value, and it IME varies in a logical world. A lot.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I look at it this way. If a mechanistic system (my scenario 2) is the desired outcome, I agree that a focusing on the amount of material would make sense if the system also had a workable economic system.

Because the point of any resource system is ultimately to indicate whether casting a particular spell is cheap or expensive, at both the PC level and the worldbuilding level. Resurrection-type spells cost lots of resources because the game designers don't want resurrection to be common, partly at the PC level but mostly at the implicit setting building level.

Sure. That's why I would also want an economic system.

 

[Xetheral]

The value in the books is not necessarily the value in the fiction. The value given in the DMG is more or less a multiversal inherent value. A base that is modified by setting, subjective values, economic pressures, etc. So if you need a 5000gp diamond, the typical diamond from the DMG will do, even if the people of the setting hate them and they are found like sand on the beach and they sell them for 1sp. The magic only cares about that book value, not the value modified by other fiction influences.

The dust from that 5000gp diamond will also be 5000gp worth of diamond dust, regardless of what the locals will pay or sell it for.

It the diamond is say half the typical size, then the diamond and dust will be worth 2500gp for spell purposes.

See my above response. Hopefully that clarifies your questions. If not, ask more questions and I will try to explain.

Thanks for the expanded explanation. I'm still not entirely sure whether you're considering the increased value of cut diamonds to be included or excluded from the "multiversal inherent value." In the case of an uncut gem with a value listed in the book, can its "multiversal inherent value" be increased by cutting it?

If yes, cool, I understand your approach and it's one I think is reasonable, even though I don't personally prefer it. If no, then I'll have further questions, because in that case I'm apparently still missing something.

 

[tetrasodium]

I look at it this way. If a mechanistic system (my scenario 2) is the desired outcome, I agree that a focusing on the amount of material would make sense if the system also had a workable economic system.

Because the point of any resource system is ultimately to indicate whether casting a particular spell is cheap or expensive, at both the PC level and the worldbuilding level. Resurrection-type spells cost lots of resources because the game designers don't want resurrection to be common, partly at the PC level but mostly at the implicit setting building level.

There are few spells with a costly component that even try to do that bolded bit. Duplication of components to spells that do not consume the component even undercuts any actual possibility of that happening.

There is this weird design thought where players are expected to burn the diamonds for a spell like chromatic orb for one like revivify(or vice versa) when I'm reality the player just gets the complement for each and never looks back

 

[TwoSix]

Sure. That's why I would also want an economic system.

Well, let's consider the converse for the minute.

Let's say, hypothetically, that a 5e variant was published that converted all spell resource requirements into physical amounts. Say that animate dead required a 2 gram black onyx, as an example. And revivify required 5 grams of diamond dust.

You would expect that book to provide some guidance as to the relative value and scarcity of those materials, correct?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, let's consider the converse for the minute.

Let's say, hypothetically, that a 5e variant was published that converted all spell resource requirements into physical amounts. Say that animate dead required a 2 gram black onyx, as an example. And revivify required 5 grams of diamond dust.

You would expect that book to provide some guidance as to the relative value and scarcity of those materials, correct?

I sure would.