Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N0Man" data-source="post: 4839377" data-attributes="member: 64066">There are 2 comments I'd like to make on this.First of all, this is the kind of thing I was warning about.  If your players feel that this adds something to the game, and they like this, then great, keep it up.  However, this is something that could very easily become tedious and frustrating to players.  Treasure that they can't spend isn't really treasure.  But again, this is something that seriously should be decided as a group, as it really is a houserule and could potentially have serious impact on fun.Secondly, in 4E, your usage of gems isn't really as intended.  When a gem is worth 100 gold, that shouldn't mean that the players should have to cash it in for gold first, and gold is the actual currency.  I believe what is intended is that you to treat that gem as equivalent of 100 gold in currency.  Maybe that's what you are doing, and I misunderstand, and you are only referring to the village's ability to make change.If that's the case, I'd like to refer you to the earlier comment that treasure that the party can't spend isn't really treasure.  If it's going to be 2 levels before they can actually buy anything with the diamond (either directly or by converting it for gold), then it shouldn't really count as their treasure they've acquired yet, IMHO.</blockquote>