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

[Maxperson]

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?

No. Cut is subjective. Locals might like or hate the princess cut or table cut. The magic of the universe doesn't care. In fact, cutting a gem might make it too small to qualify since you lose gem mass when you cut it. So while a cut might increase the value to the locals, it might reduce it for magic purposes. You could take a gem that would qualify for 5k uncut as far as the magic is concerned and reduce it to 4.5k for the magic, but 8k for the locals who like the cut.

 

[TwoSix]

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

Non-consumable resources (or resources replaceable by a focus) aren't really resources, they're diegetic color to add texture to the setting. They have no value in terms of actual game challenge.

Expensive but non-consumable resources are just the game putting in quest hooks. Which is a good thing, but not a consideration in balance or challenge.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Non-consumable resources (or resources replaceable by a focus) aren't really resources, they're diegetic color to add texture to the setting. They have no value in terms of actual game challenge.

Expensive but non-consumable resources are just the game putting in quest hooks. Which is a good thing, but not a consideration in balance or challenge.

I never liked the arcane (or whatever) focus rules, as an aside. It feels like a way to ignore flavor and setting logic in favor of simplicity. To me you just feel like much more of a wizard if you have to actually use the components to cast the spell.

YMMV though.

 

[TwoSix]

I sure would.

And that guidance would be a conversion chart between "amount" and "valuation".

@Maxperson's idea is the same idea, just in the reverse order. And ideally there would be an identical "conversion chart" providedby the books or DM from "valuation" to "amount".

If it helps, imagine "valuation" as a synonym for an in-universe diegetic term for "magical potential"; "valuation" simply has more game mechanic hooks in a game without a robust economic engine.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I never liked the arcane (or whatever) focus rules, as an aside. It feels like a way to ignore flavor and setting logic in favor of simplicity. To me you just feel like much more of a wizard if you have to actually use the components to cast the spell.

YMMV though.

That I agree with, and that's why I don't use them in my game. But it is basically just a flavour thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And that guidance would be a conversion chart between "amount" and "valuation".

@Maxperson's idea is the same idea, just in the reverse order. And ideally there would be an identical "conversion chart" providedby the books or DM from "valuation" to "amount".

If it helps, imagine "valuation" as a synonym for an in-universe diegetic term for "magical potential"; "valuation" simply has more game mechanic hooks in a game without a robust economic engine.

Like I said, I know it works for the game. I just think amount (and a robust economic engine) makes more sense to me.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

It could absolutely be run that way. For me, though, since the very personal nature of magic and the components is a major part of this hypothetical setting, I'd want it to stand out as more than the default time and cost to scribe.

Yeah, it would be a missed opportunity to reskin a mechanics (that I admitted to find so boring I don't use it). However, I can see some saying that spellcasters are AGAIN stealing the limelight with their quests to learn spells while fighters innately know which end of the pointy stick to use.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, it would be a missed opportunity to reskin a mechanics (that I admitted to find so boring I don't use it). However, I can see some saying that spellcasters are AGAIN stealing the limelight with their quests to learn spells while fighters innately know which end of the pointy stick to use.

I don't really buy that complaint. Not that it wouldn't happen, but rather I don't have any sympathy/empathy for it. We pick settings based on what we the DM/group want to play. Maybe don't pick a setting that highlights casters if you want to play a martial or mixed(assuming you have people who care about the disparity) group. Play a different setting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, it would be a missed opportunity to reskin a mechanics (that I admitted to find so boring I don't use it). However, I can see some saying that spellcasters are AGAIN stealing the limelight with their quests to learn spells while fighters innately know which end of the pointy stick to use.

Quests for cool stuff should and do belong to every class. The fighter can do it just as much as any caster.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

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.

At this point, since we have a market value that can be totally disconnected from the value for spellcasting intent, we must conclude that expressing the usefulness for the spell as gp is the result that the magic cares about gipiness, which is a magical property expressed as gp, which doesn't stand for gold pieces but Gandalf's Potency. And wizard innately knows the exact gipiness present in any item, especially gems ground to dust, so they can cast spell confidently.