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

[Xetheral]

I'm not Maxperson, but my intuitive answers are the ones you suggest - basically a correlation of gem value to dust value.

That does mean that, when ruby dust is discovered, it's not straightforward to put a money value on it. I think, in the context of D&D or a similar sort of RPG, I can wear that complexity - because the trade off, which I think is going to come up more often, is that there is a straightforward correlation between finding a gem as treasure and collecting a useful material component.

I think that's an entirely reasonable approach. I just personally find the idea of cutting a gemstone to increase its value when crushed to be just-unpalatable-enough to be worth the added complexity of breaking that straightforward correlation in the specific case of crushed gemstones.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think that's an entirely reasonable approach. I just personally find the idea of cutting a gemstone to increase its value when crushed to be just-unpalatable-enough to be worth the added complexity of breaking that straightforward correlation in the specific case of crushed gemstones.

Yeah, that certainly seems a bit too weird for me. Though I also do not think this is the sort of thing that generally comes up.

 

[TwoSix]

So where do people fall between these two positions?

1) Spells with components operate under emotional and symbolic constraints. The diamonds are meant to represent a non-trivial sacrifice on behalf of the caster; if diamonds somehow became cheap and common, the spell would no longer function without a relative wagonload of diamonds.

2) Spells with components operate under mechanistic constraints. The spell needs diamonds to act as fuel under the impersonal rules governing magic; if someone finds a treasure trove of diamonds or a portal to the Elemental Plane of Diamonds(tm), then revivify and raise dead will become cheap and accessible.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So where do people fall between these two positions?

1) Spells with components operate under emotional and symbolic constraints. The diamonds are meant to represent a non-trivial sacrifice on behalf of the caster; if diamonds somehow became cheap and common, the spell would no longer function without a relative wagonload of diamonds.

2) Spells with components operate under mechanistic constraints. The spell needs diamonds to act as fuel under the impersonal rules governing magic; if someone finds a treasure trove of diamonds or a portal to the Elemental Plane of Diamonds(tm), then revivify and raise dead will become cheap and accessible.

The latter. Whilst with magic I certainly could see the first working as well. Though under that paradigm one could imagine it would not actually matter that much exactly what the sacrifice is, so it is a bit weird that the spells specify items required so precisely.

 

[TwoSix]

The latter. Whilst with magic I certainly could see the first working as well. Though under that paradigm one could imagine it would not actually matter that much exactly what the sacrifice is, so it is a bit weird that the spells specify items required so precisely.

I'm reasonably sure that the game is a hybrid between both positions, which is why it's difficult to disentangle.

 

[Deset Gled]

So where do people fall between these two positions?

Nowhere.

The idea of cost of a spell component is an abstraction. The same way hit points is an abstraction.

Like trying to measure the exact length of a coastline, trying to get a more precise answer by increasing the resolution doesn't provide more insight, it just makes the waters muddier.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Most people have magic items in your world? We run very different games!

Probably we do. But if the demand for ruby dust for magic purpose is equal to the demand of rubies for jewelry purpose, that's a lot of spellcasters consuming ruby dust. So they are either doing continual flame or able to cast 7th level spells. A magic heavy settings with a significant number spellcasters, not "you have the abiltiy of the wizard, you're the seventh son of the seventh son, the first born in the tribe in three generations..." With many wizard, and given the economic incentive of creating Practical Magical Items, over the course of a D&D civilization... That's a lot of items. Galifar in Eberron is 1000 years old. Even discounting the Cannith effect and considering a civilization with 0.1% of wizards and the low population of 15 millions, that's 15 000 wizard cranking common items over the course of a week. For 1,000 years. If they only create one common item a year, that's enough to have a common item for every person in the setting.

 

[Maxperson]

Wait what? Now I'm confused. I thought you were arguing that a solid ruby worth X was still worth X when crushed into dust? But the above post seems to contradict that completely. To make sure I'm understanding you correctly, could you please clarify your answers to the following questions?

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.

If a player in your game finds in a treausre a cut ruby worth 500 gp, and crushes it, how much is the resulting dust worth?

If a player in your game finds in a treasure a rough, uncut ruby worth 500 gp, and crushes it, how much is the resulting dust worth?

If a player in your game finds in a treasure a rough, uncut ruby worth 500 gp, uses gemcutter's tools to cut it into a 1000 gp cut ruby, and crushes it, how much is the resulting dust worth?

I had thought your answers would be 500/500/1000, but maybe I misunderstood? (For reference, my answers are "a whole lot less than 500"/"more, but still a whole lot less than 500"/"identical to the previous, assuming the player kept the trimmings.")

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

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Wait what? Now I'm confused. I thought you were arguing that a solid ruby worth X was still worth X when crushed into dust? But the above post seems to contradict that completely. To make sure I'm understanding you correctly, could you please clarify your answers to the following questions?

If a player in your game finds in a treausre a cut ruby worth 500 gp, and crushes it, how much is the resulting dust worth?

If a player in your game finds in a treasure a rough, uncut ruby worth 500 gp, and crushes it, how much is the resulting dust worth?

If a player in your game finds in a treasure a rough, uncut ruby worth 500 gp, uses gemcutter's tools to cut it into a 1000 gp cut ruby, and crushes it, how much is the resulting dust worth?

I had thought your answers would be 500/500/1000, but maybe I misunderstood? (For reference, my answers are "a whole lot less than 500"/"more, but still a whole lot less than 500"/"identical to the previous, assuming the player kept the trimmings.")

Subsidiary question: how much is the ruby dust created by cutting your 500 gp uncut ruby into a 1,000 gp cut ruby, which can easily weigh over the price of the cut ruby?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

So where do people fall between these two positions?

1) Spells with components operate under emotional and symbolic constraints. The diamonds are meant to represent a non-trivial sacrifice on behalf of the caster; if diamonds somehow became cheap and common, the spell would no longer function without a relative wagonload of diamonds.

2) Spells with components operate under mechanistic constraints. The spell needs diamonds to act as fuel under the impersonal rules governing magic; if someone finds a treasure trove of diamonds or a portal to the Elemental Plane of Diamonds(tm), then revivify and raise dead will become cheap and accessible.

I'd lean toward the first solution, but I understand the second one will be the majority. I rationalize in my settings (which have magic universities and students and a rather mechanistic approach) that spells are formula that are designed to produce the result intended, and people discovered a magical mean to sacrifice a ruby to make a continual flame, and so that's a formula. There is also a formula for making continual flame by doing human sacrifice but it's not taught for obvious reasons, and a formula for sacrificing 3,750 kg of flour, but it is less used for practical reasons. A formula for sacricing sheeps is certainly possible, but would require further research. It's also probable that there is a formula that works with only 47gp of ground ruby, but requires you to chant for three hours standing on your left foot. Few adventurers bother with it.