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

[Jfdlsjfd]

The rules for gems in D&D don't make allowance for change in fashions of cut. At least not the ones I'm familiar with (B/X, AD&D and 4e). Maybe the 5e rulebooks discuss this?

Yeah, 5e quite clearly implies that D&D rules aren't an economic simulator. Yet, economy doesn't disappear because it's not taken into account in the rules. If there is a famine and everyone is hungry, the rules will still say that a loaf of bread is worth 5cp, despite all evidence pointing to starving people being willing to pay more instead of dying. And that's fine by me, it's the GM's job to adjust the world to the event occurring. It was established from the start that prices in the book don't reflect market values (which changes according to circumstances) but an "undefined value" disconnected from the economical realities -- which could be an objective, transcendant value of an item, tracked alongside a market value (used by characters when buying and selling goods) and, due to spellcasting, a rubiosity value.

Considering that "the rules aren't an economy simulator" means "economy doesn't exist in world and market value is fixed universe-wide" is a stretch. It makes everything in this discussion work much better, until you start seeing two rich merchants that can't bid over the last dose of medicine during a plague because the price is set, while peasants prefer to die from hunger rather than accepting the profiteering evil grain seller's inflated price, or people paying 50gp for a healing potion when there is a miraculous healing fountain right on the town square. It's a stretch and it breaks verisimilitude for me.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, 5e quite clearly implies that D&D rules aren't an economic simulator. Yet, economy doesn't disappear because it's not taken into account in the rules. If there is a famine and everyone is hungry, the rules will still say that a loaf of bread is worth 5cp, despite all evidence pointing to starving people being willing to pay more instead of dying. It was established from the start that prices in the book don't reflect market values (which changes according to circumstances) but an "undefined value" disconnected from the economical realities -- which could be an objective, transcendant value of an item, tracked alongside a market value (used by characters when buying and selling goods) and, due to spellcasting, a rubiosity value.

Considering that "the rules aren't an economy simulator" means "economy doesn't exist in world" is a stretch. It makes everything in this discussion work much better, until you start seeing two rich merchants that can't bid over the last dose of medicine during a plague because the price is set, while peasants prefer to die from hunger rather than accepting the profiteering evil grain seller's inflated price. It's a stretch and it breaks verisimilitude for me.

I'm not sure about the relationship between "economics simulator" and "D&D doesn't make allowances for changes in fashions of gem cutting".

It seems to me that D&D follows a fair bit of fantasy fiction - LotR, REH, Earthsea, Arthurian legend, etc - in assuming a more-or-less static "now" as far as technology, fashion, etc are concerned. If you want to depart from that, you will have to do some work. Part of that work will be trying to decide what to do with stuff like the material component for Circle of Death (the powder of a crushed black pearl worth 500+ GP: https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/2618969-circle-of-death)

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I'm not sure about the relationship between "economics simulator" and "D&D doesn't make allowances for changes in fashions of gem cutting".

Because fashion is one of the factor of price for gem (alongside with rarity) ? Assuming a static demand everywhere, everytime, quickly breaks verisimilitude as in the examples I provided. I mentionned fashion to illustrate the market value diffrences in a single place over time, but I could also have mentioned that your 50gp ruby as determined by the tables when you find a treasure ("objective" value) is different from the market price in the plane of Earth (just pluck it from ground of the Ruby Plain at no cost, they aren't fashionable as status symbol since any peasant xorn can have one to eat, and them being a status symbol is the main reason to have gem being pricey) and in Waterdeep (regular price). Much like spices being the same price in the rulebook doesn't mean it's the same price in Waterdeep (many rich merchants, spices fashionable, high price), in a hamlet (demand focussing on bread and meat, not spices, sure it makes food taste better but seasoning is totally unnecessary, average price) and in a place at the other side of the world where the spice grows on trees (nearly free). The rules prices don't reflect market prices. They might reflect market price in the home town of the PC the day they start adventuring, but after that, either they are static (breaks quickly) or dynamic, even if slowly moving, and it's the job of the GM to account for it and provide the player with a market value appropriate to the time, place and circumstance where they try to buy or sell things, thus determining the price for their 2cp loaf of bread, 15gp sword and 50gp ruby.


To put it another way:

Case A: If prices are static and disconnected from economy, I can buy a ruby listed in the rules as a 50gp ruby, use it to create 50gp of ruby dust for spellcasting purpose, at the market price of 50gp. Pro: it's damn easy! Con: it relies on static market price, which are quickly causing disbelief around the table as the concept of static price confronts real life reasoning.

Case B: If price are dynamic and the spell requires market value spending, as a PC, when I need to cast the spell, I need ruby dust, in an unknown and variable amount, but I just have to be 50gp poorer at the end of the transaction for magic to happen.Pro: it's simple. Con: it relies on atypical assumptions on the working of magic.

Case C: If price are dynamic and the spell requires a "50 gp ruby", then... as a PC, I can't know if a ruby I buy for 50gp is a 50gp ruby, it could be a 10gp ruby that has a specific history or kardashian markup, or I could be in the wedding seasons and ruby are highly sought-after, or it could be a 1,000gp ruby and in my last adventure I went back from the Earth Plane with enough rubies to depress price a lot. So I am having a hard time buying a 50gp ruby (I can't rely on weight since the spell doesn't mention how much dust I need). Also, since a "50gp-ruby-in-the-rule" depends on size and cut, sometime a pinch of ruby dust (coming from a very sought after cut) will make the spell work, and sometime I will need much more (since it was a rough ruby that was ground, or worse, my dust is a by-product of creating a proper 50gp ruby with no rubiosity left in the dust). And seeing the dust, I really can't tell from what ruby it was made so I really can't know before casting the spell if it will fail or not.

I really prefer case B, despite the drawback, because the other situations sound horrible (in real life for A, in-game for C).

 

[Maxperson]

The rules for gems in D&D don't make allowance for change in fashions of cut. At least not the ones I'm familiar with (B/X, AD&D and 4e). Maybe the 5e rulebooks discuss this?

I have/had a Dragon Magazine that had a chart to roll for cuts on the gems, as well as size(larger or smaller than normal), and quality, with modifiers to value based on what you rolled. I don't remember if the cut altered the value, but size and quality absolutely did.

 

[pemerton]

I have/had a Dragon Magazine that had a chart to roll for cuts on the gems, as well as size(larger or smaller than normal), and quality, with modifiers to value based on what you rolled. I don't remember if the cut altered the value, but size and quality absolutely did.

@Jfdlsjfd was talking about the fact that, in different times/places/cultures, there have been different tastes in what is an elegant or a vulgar cut of a gem.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

@Jfdlsjfd was talking about the fact that, in different times/places/cultures, there have been different tastes in what is an elegant or a vulgar cut of a gem.

Yeah, demand evolving over time or place, or any other circumstances, is something that's not in the rules (they are not an economy simulator) but it doesn't mean that "there is no economy". Prices staying the same irrespective of supply and demand (which is driven, for gems, by fashion that make a small diamond worth more if cut in a certain way than a bigger and rougher diamond) is an option, which IMHO breaks verisimilitude enough to bother me (especially in extreme cases where obvious valuation change would happen), or it's just the GM that sets price and simulate the economy (which is better and intuitive, I'd say for my group need, handwaved variation are enough if they match the description of what is happening in the world). Like in a place where there is a famine and I describe starving peasants resolved to abandon children in the wild so they can feed the remaining ones, my players expect me to set higher price for food than when they are in the land of Plenty.

BTW, Rime of the Frostmaiden, which takes place in the Ten Towns, but where there have been no sun for three years, have rulings for varying prices, so a 2cp loaf of bread is 3cp in Termalaine and 8cp in Lonelywood. EDIT: actually, the exact list is a DMsguild product, the official product only says that price and availability is affected by comfort, friendliness and services level ratings of the town, each valued on a 1-3 snowflakes rating.

Having the base (or magical-worthiness) value of a diamond modified by cut and size in the rule means that I can cast one spell with a rough diamond, but if I find two small, well-cut diamond, that could be created by cutting the former, I can cast 5 helpings of the same spell with the dust I'd get by crushing the small diamonds. And I can cast more spells with the same amount of dust if it comes from a big diamond than I can with the exact same amount of dust, but coming from two separate, smaller diamonds if all of them are cut the exact same way. Also, only cut and size (preference due to fashion) are adding to the magical worth of the diamonds, not other reasons to desire the gem, like its kardashianness, despite both being totally arbitrary criteria born in the hearts of humans.

You mentionned a solution: diamondness is objective because the goddess of gems love them big and well-cut, so their quality for the purpose of spellcasting can be immanent, explaining why it makes sense to have a diamondness increasing with a specific cut and size, but it might be disconnected from market price, and the buyers would have a hard time, lacking a diamondness-calculating device, to distinguish between high-diamondness dust made from a desirable diamond to the goddess and low diamondness dust made from crappy diamonds.

 

[Maxperson]

Having the base (or magical-worthiness) value of a diamond modified by cut and size in the rule means that I can cast one spell with a rough diamond, but if I find two small, well-cut diamond, that could be created by cutting the former, I can cast 5 helpings of the same spell with the dust I'd get by crushing the small diamonds. And I can cast more spells with the same amount of dust if it comes from a big diamond than I can with the exact same amount of dust, but coming from two separate, smaller diamonds if all of them are cut the exact same way. Also, only cut and size (preference due to fashion) are adding to the magical worth of the diamonds, not other reasons to desire the gem, like its kardashianness, despite both being totally arbitrary criteria born in the hearts of humans.

I think it's fine to have prices vary due to local conditions, cut desirability, etc. It makes sense and if you want to get that complicated with gems, I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong. It's wrong for me, but it's not wrong for others unless they decide that it is.

That said, the problem you have with the above paragraph is that magic doesn't have likes and dislikes. Cut isn't going to mean squat to the spell. When you see 500gp of diamond dust, it's set default amount/quality that doesn't care about cut. Perhaps it's just X amount of gem grade diamond dust. By taking a larger(500gp in amount) gem grade uncut diamond and cutting it into smaller more valuable to humans diamonds, you are losing a portion of that 500gp amount and wont have enough to crush for the spell any longer, even if you can sell those diamonds to humans for 1500gp.

This is the same issue I pointed out with the Kardashian value several posts ago. The Kardashian value increases the total amount of that ruby for humans, but doesn't make the ruby itself more valuable. The cut increases the value of the diamond for humans, but wouldn't change the value for the purposes of the spell.

If things like cut desirability did change which diamonds would qualify for the spell, my character could take a small diamond chip that everyone else values at 1gp and because he loves diamond chips more than anything else(they are worth 500gp to him), he could crush it and cast the spell.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think it's fine to have prices vary due to local conditions, cut desirability, etc. It makes sense and if you want to get that complicated with gems, I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong. It's wrong for me, but it's not wrong for others unless they decide that it is.

That said, the problem you have with the above paragraph is that magic doesn't have likes and dislikes. Cut isn't going to mean squat to the spell. When you see 500gp of diamond dust, it's set default amount/quality that doesn't care about cut. Perhaps it's just X amount of gem grade diamond dust. By taking a larger(500gp in amount) gem grade uncut diamond and cutting it into smaller more valuable to humans diamonds, you are losing a portion of that 500gp amount and wont have enough to crush for the spell any longer, even if you can sell those diamonds to humans for 1500gp.

This is the same issue I pointed out with the Kardashian value several posts ago. The Kardashian value increases the total amount of that ruby for humans, but doesn't make the ruby itself more valuable. The cut increases the value of the diamond for humans, but wouldn't change the value for the purposes of the spell.

If things like cut desirability did change which diamonds would qualify for the spell, my character could take a small diamond chip that everyone else values at 1gp and because he loves diamond chips more than anything else(they are worth 500gp to him), he could crush it and cast the spell.

Which is why it should be IMO a fixed amount of material for the spell, rather than anything to do with price.

 

[Maxperson]

Which is why it should be IMO a fixed amount of material for the spell, rather than anything to do with price.

It already is, though. Open the DMG and you will see that the values are fixed. Those are the "amounts" before you get into the weeds with things like quality, size, scarcity, increased/decreased desirability, etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It already is, though. Open the DMG and you will see that the values are fixed. Those are the "amounts" before you get into the weeds with things like quality, size, scarcity, increased/decreased desirability, etc.

But, how much is "50 gp" worth of diamond dust? That's what I'm talking about. If it's in there, then fair enough.