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

[Crimson Longinus]

No. It would only make for equal value between a cut gem & dust made from that gem being ground up unless the unknowable far realm has a situation where it only produces gems of a certain size & quality but never lower. Gem dust is less expensive than gems because it can be made with waste from cutting raw gems & substandard gems with too many flaws to be useful as gem grade.

But if dust consuming spells are common and useful enough, then dust gained as byproduct of cutting gems will not suffice. This makes the price of the dust go up, and as producing dust actually takes some labour* this will be reflected in the price.

* Also note that current methods of cutting gems are mechanised, so producing dust is super easy as long as you have gems to cut. If you need to do this by hand, it is way more labour intensive.

I pointed iot out because you responded to a post reinforcing the fact that there is no reason to assume they should be & gave yet another reason why they would not be.

Such an equilibrium where this is the case could exist, though of course it is very unlikely. But then again, so is any specific price ratio you might choose. Also, for a person who has talked a lot about realism, I think your axioms here are wildly unrealistic given the sort of worlds we're talking about. Comparing modern gem and gem dust prices is basically meaningless. In our world gem dust is useless byproduct of mechanised process to make gems look pretty (which is basically their only use.) That is apples to capybaras when compared to world where gems and gem dust can power mighty magic, (which probably doesn't care whether the gems are cut to look pretty) and where you need to produce the dust by arduous labour intensive process.

 

[pemerton]

I can't agree that a gem worth X gp is still worth X gp after being crushed into dust. That would imply that if the party buys an uncut rough diamond for X and crushes it, the resulting dust is worth X, but if they cut it first to increase its value to Y, the resulting dust is instead worth Y, despite the end result being effectively indistinguishable. That crosses my personal, idiosyncratic line between "useful abstraction" and "distracting contrivance."

But maybe 50 gp of ruby dust is shorthand for the dust from crushing rubies worth 50 gp. That's certainly how I've always interpreted it, it seems to be how @Maxperson is interpreting it, and I wouldn't be surprised if many others do too.

That does mean that different volumes of gem dust can have the same value, and vice versa - because their value depends on their origin and not their quantity. But this is not ridiculous for a fantasy game. I seem to remember that, in AD&D, the Magic Mirror spell requires a mirror having a certain minimum value: that would almost certainly be a function not just of the value of its raw materials, but the value of it as an art object, which may (among other things) reflect rarity and the person who crafted it.

Or suppose a spell that curses a person requires a portrait of that person worth at least 100 gp. Do we think it doesn't matter to working out if a portrait meets that requirement that it was painted by Rembrandt rather than by me?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I mean if you want to try to be "realistic" about this, then you really cannot discount the massive impact of te pricing of various gems and gem products their usability as spell components would cause.

Indeed, which is also a link between setting and economics. When you say it would have a massive impact, you're saying that there are enough powerful spellcasters in your universe able to cast the spell that require diamond dust to create a significant demand for diamond dust. Which is an Eberron-like take, but maybe not true in another setting where arcane magic is shunned or simply less present because 5th level spellcasters are about the top level available in a kingdom outside of the PC.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Or suppose a spell that curses a person requires a portrait of that person worth at least 100 gp. Do we think it doesn't matter to working out if a portrait meets that requirement that it was painted by Rembrandt rather than by me?

That's where flavor can be extracted from rule. A spell that would need such a component, IMHO, would certainly be explained in setting by the idea that monetary sacrifice is what makes the spell work rather than market value. I think that in many settings D&D wizards are "engineers and scientists". So they would be the first to say that it's strange that a portrait can work for the spell in frame A, but if you reframe it 10 years later in a cheaper frame, suddenly the spell stops working. And they would wonder why Rembrandt can curse you by drawing a stick figure and signing "Rembrandt" while you'd be hard pressed to paint a portrait good enough of Bob to fetch 100 gp (or 2 pounds of gold) and curse him?

 

[Xetheral]

But maybe 50 gp of ruby dust is shorthand for the dust from crushing rubies worth 50 gp. That's certainly how I've always interpreted it, it seems to be how @Maxperson is interpreting it, and I wouldn't be surprised if many others do too.

I suppose it's possible that's what the designers intended. However, the wording for the material component for the Continual Flame spell in 5e is: "Ruby dust worth 50 gp, which the spell consumes." If they intended it the way you're suggesting, it would have been a lot clearer and only slightly longer to write: "50 gp worth of rubies, crushed, which the spell consumes."

That does mean that different volumes of gem dust can have the same value, and vice versa - because their value depends on their origin and not their quantity. But this is not ridiculous for a fantasy game. I seem to remember that, in AD&D, the Magic Mirror spell requires a mirror having a certain minimum value: that would almost certainly be a function not just of the value of its raw materials, but the value of it as an art object, which may (among other things) reflect rarity and the person who crafted it.

Or suppose a spell that curses a person requires a portrait of that person worth at least 100 gp. Do we think it doesn't matter to working out if a portrait meets that requirement that it was painted by Rembrandt rather than by me?

For spells that require valuable art objects as components, I'm completely on board with the skill of the creator being integral to the value of the art. But ruby dust is a type of raw material, not an art object.

In other words, if the spell instead called for rubies worth 50 gp, I'd be totally fine with the PCs buying a cheaper uncut gem and (with the appropriate tool proficiency) cutting it to improve its value in order to save money on spell components. But the spell calls for ruby dust worth 50 gp, and there is no artistic component to the value of ruby dust. I'd accordingly find it disagreeable if the PCs tried to use their artistic skills to inflate the value of dust that could be made from a given quantity of ruby.

I want to emphasize that my sensibilities on this topic are entirely idiosyncratic, and unlikely to matter in an actual game. Consider that in a sufficiently large city the party could simply cut rough rubies to increase their value and then trade the now-more-valuable gems for an equivalent value (and presumably much larger mass!) of ruby dust. I'd find that entirely sensible, even though in both scenarios the PCs are effectively transforming uncut rubies into ruby dust.

 

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson, on your general point that it's sufficient to know the value of diamond (or ruby, etc.) dust required to cast the spell, I agree with you. I also agree that the price paid for that same amount of dust might change depending on local economic conditions, and that such can be adjudicated without needing to know exactly how much dust we're talking about.

But I can't agree that a gem worth X gp is still worth X gp after being crushed into dust. That would imply that if the party buys an uncut rough diamond for X and crushes it, the resulting dust is worth X, but if they cut it first to increase its value to Y, the resulting dust is instead worth Y, despite the end result being effectively indistinguishable. That crosses my personal, idiosyncratic line between "useful abstraction" and "distracting contrivance."

I understand what you are saying, but I just don't think it's a big enough deal to add the complication of how much dust of every gem is worth how much and which cuts are worth more than others. And then to do the same to all of the other costly components.

As I pointed out earlier, gem dust that is used in powerful spells would be worth more as dust for that reason. That added demand for the dust will raise the value of it.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

As I pointed out earlier, gem dust that is used in powerful spells would be worth more as dust for that reason. That added demand for the dust will raise the value of it.

So your take is that since there is enough demand for ruby dust for spellcasting purpose, the valuation of ruby dust, which mechanically can't be more than a big ruby crushed to dust, since then people will arbitrate in favor of taing a hammer and shattering the gem, is at the same level, so a 50 gp ruby produces 50 gp's worth of ruby dust. Basically, your gameworld hypothesis is therefore that the demand for ruby dust is similar to the demand for big rubies. If the demand for dust was higher, it would drive ruby prices up and rubies would disappear, siphoned off for spellcasting over the (usually huge) lifetime of fantasy civilizations, and if the demand was lower, there would be a mark-up for big rubies. So, when you say that crushing a 50 gp ruby creates 50 gp of ruby dust, and 3 adventures later, you introduce a huge invaluable ruby as a McGuffin, the players will naturally be "hey, why is it more valuable exactly? I've 10 regular rubies'worth of ruby dust in my inventory, and it's probably more than can be extracted by crushing your mother-of-all-rubies..."

D&D rulebooks aren't an economic simulator, but the price assumptions are having economic effects within the world and it can't be ignored anymore than in game, the PCs know that a long rest will cure all their wounds and live according to this situation (I can afford to be badly wounded today if we have three days to do X, because I know I'll be fully operational tommorow, whereas if it took me 3 month of bedrest to recover as it would if I were a regular peasant, I'd behave much more cautiously). The heroes in-universe, being possibily superhuman smart, wil notice easily economic strangeness and opportunities and act upon them, much like they do with any other rule. We have heroes that jump from a balcony on a horseback, because they know they can, instead of saying "it will severely injure the horse, so it's a very bad plan", while they wouldn't if playing CoC which is supposed to be set in our universe. Same with getting to the upper level by jumping from one falling rock to another, Legolas-style.

 

[kigmatzomat]

But I can't agree that a gem worth X gp is still worth X gp after being crushed into dust. That would imply that if the party buys an uncut rough diamond for X and crushes it, the resulting dust is worth X, but if they cut it first to increase its value to Y, the resulting dust is instead worth Y, despite the end result being effectively indistinguishable. That crosses my personal, idiosyncratic line between "useful abstraction" and "distracting contrivance."

That is plausible, if you assume that all gem cutting is less about "sparkly" and more about "purity". If a gem cutter is doing the equivalent of removing non-gem mass (quartz, granite, other impurities) that corrupt the stone and make it less useful for magic (think "negative value" material), then it works.

Because those impurities would have the same "negative value" when in dust as much as a whole stone.

IRL, there are a lot of things we crush to dust first so we can refine out the impurities and then fuse the pure stuff together at the end. That's actually how manufactured gems work. Get pure materials then combine in a heated pressure chamber. It's almost like magic.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm pretty sure that this is a problem unique to 5e going by memory. In d&d 2e , material components were an optional rule that allowed. Caster to find/invent them so they could skip a verbal or somatic component. In 3.x spell components were closer to 5e mechanically but at least for the raise dead type spells they used "diamonds" worth xxx or had more careful wording like "the ground dust of a piece of jade worth at least 250 gp" "A pinch of diamond dust worth 50 gp" & "Ruby dust worth 1,500 gp, which is tossed into the air and disappears when you cast the spell. "★. 4e just used gold pieces and maybe residuum in some cases. 5e messed it up by using ground/dust from gems listing dust value not source gem value in the case of some spells & failing to pick between if that should be currency or a commodity by requiring both and neither. As usual, natural language for the obvious lose.

Such an equilibrium where this is the case could exist, though of course it is very unlikely. But then again, so is any specific price ratio you might choose. Also, for a person who has talked a lot about realism, I think your axioms here are wildly unrealistic given the sort of worlds we're talking about. Comparing modern gem and gem dust prices is basically meaningless. In our world gem dust is useless byproduct of mechanised process to make gems look pretty (which is basically their only use.) That is apples to capybaras when compared to world where gems and gem dust can power mighty magic, (which probably doesn't care whether the gems are cut to look pretty) and where you need to produce the dust by arduous labour intensive process.

The "price ratio" in dispute is 1:1 between dust and a cut gem or any ratio that somehow results in dust made from ground diamonds of any size or quality being equal or greater than the value of a similarly sized cut gem that could be used as a currency substitute mounted in jewelry or ground to dust.. That sort of inversion obviously impossible unless you limit discussion to an unknowable setting located deep within the far realm.

The whole situation is created by listing a cost as a volume. In setting demand can't impact "50gp of ruby dust" because the volume required is nonsensically a cost.

Indeed, which is also a link between setting and economics. When you say it would have a massive impact, you're saying that there are enough powerful spellcasters in your universe able to cast the spell that require diamond dust to create a significant demand for diamond dust. Which is an Eberron-like take, but maybe not true in another setting where arcane magic is shunned or simply less present because 5th level spellcasters are about the top level available in a kingdom outside of the PC.

No, that claim doesn't even make sense for eberron or something far beyond eberron Because diamonds can exist in a few states.

• Uncut Gem grade diamond: These can be cut & increase the value
• Cut diamond: These can be used as a display of wealth in jewelry or similar
• Uncut diamonds too small or flawed to be useful as a gem: Not much to do with these other than grind them up or something
• Diamond dust: This can be made from literally any of the diamonds above and give the same result, but the discard from cutting & unusable diamonds are going to be the most cost efficienr.... which is why you can buy 3000carats of diamond dust for 30$ right now (~2268 carats make up a pound)

Creating a scenario where that volume of diamond dust is equal value as the first two (uncut gem grade/cut diamonds) by using small or flawed diamonds in bulk is if the labor is so unfathomably significant that the cost is able to equal or exceed cut gems of a certain common size.

★I'm sure 3.5 had exceptions, but it had enough examples that were worded carefully enough that making it clear what is valued was a triviality that ruled out quibbling over edge case spells fast.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

The whole situation is created by listing a cost as a volume. In setting demand can't impact "50gp of ruby dust" because the volume required is nonsensically a cost.

Yeah... It's not like we demand extraordinary things from the game, just "a handful of ruby dust, usually worth 50 gp".