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

[Maxperson]

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.

Or else it's just an easy way to represent it in the mechanics for players and DMs alike.

 

[Xetheral]

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.

Ok, so you're treating book prices as "multiversal inherent values" and "multiversal inherent values" are always the uncut value.

Let's say the players find in treasure a cut diamond that the book says is worth 1000 GP. They go into a town in your campaign setting not experiencing any unusual economic pressures and try to sell the diamond. How much do they get for it? If it's 1000 GP, how do gemcutters make a living in your setting if there's no markup for cut gems? If it's more than 1000 GP, then haven't you made the treasure tables far less useful for the ordinary case of treasure liquidation, since you now have to establish a conversion factor between "multiversal inherent value" and sale price, even absent unusual economic conditions?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

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.

I may one day have the party survive barely a storm and end up on the shore of an untamed land, lacking their magical focus, lost in the sank ship. Angry wizard player will enliven the evening...

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or else it's just an easy way to represent it in the mechanics for players and DMs alike.

To easy and too simplistic for my tastes in a living world, but YMMV.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ok, so you're treating book prices as "multiversal inherent values" and "multiversal inherent values" are always the uncut value.

Let's say the players find in treasure a cut diamond that the book says is worth 1000 GP. They go into a town in your campaign setting not experiencing any unusual economic pressures and try to sell the diamond. How much do they get for it? If it's 1000 GP, how do gemcutters make a living in your setting if there's no markup for cut gems? If it's more than 1000 GP, then haven't you made the treasure tables far less useful for the ordinary case of treasure liquidation, since you now have to establish a conversion factor between "multiversal inherent value" and sale price, even absent unusual economic conditions?

The character selling the gem rolls persuasions, and they will get something around 1000 gp for it, a bit more a bit less based on their roll. Then the jeweller cuts it and perhaps puts it in some sort of jewellery and sells it to a noble at somewhat higher price. How much higher exactly that is we don't really care about, nor about the whole process, as at that point the characters are long gone to do something actually interesting.

 

[Xetheral]

The character selling the gem rolls persuasions, and they will get something around 1000 gp for it, a bit more a bit less based on their roll. Then the jeweller cuts it and perhaps puts it in some sort of jewellery and sells it to a noble at somewhat higher price. How much higher exactly that is we don't really care about, nor about the whole process, as at that point the characters are long gone to do something actually interesting.

In my example the gem is already cut.

Edit: To elaborate, I'm assuming the PCs are selling the already-cut gem to an end-user or a broker. If they can't get substantially more for a cut stone than they could for a uncut stone of the same mass, then there's no point in gemcutters existing in the setting, since finished gems are no more valuable than rough, unfinished gems.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In my example the gem is already cut.

Same thing then, the jeweller's markup is just less. But we still don't actually care about it as it doesn't matter.

So I actually care about verisimilitude in my settings quite a lot, but I feel that often adding and defining extraneous detail does not help with that, it could even do the opposite. If we define things exactly, give them concrete numbers and such to be "realistic" then it actually draws attention to the matter and calls us to think whether these numbers are actually realistic and often they aren't. But if we leave things more nebulous, we can then just assume things will work in whatever manner is actually realistic, but we just do not know exactly what that is. Like the jeweller's business obviously works somehow, but we don't actually need to know his entire business plan and his bookkeeping to make that assumption.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Same thing then, the jeweller's markup is just less. But we still don't actually care about it as it doesn't matter.

So I actually care about verisimilitude in my settings quite a lot, but I feel that often adding and defining extraneous detail does not help with that, it could even do the opposite. If we define things exactly, give them concrete numbers and such to be "realistic" then it actually draws attention to the matter and calls us to think whether these numbers are actually realistic and often they aren't. But if we leave things more nebulous, we can then just assume things will work in whatever manner is actually realistic, but we just do not know exactly what that is. Like the jeweller's business obviously works somehow, but we don't actually need to know his entire business plan and his bookkeeping to make that assumption.

This is a matter of taste. I'm definitely not part of whatever "we" you're saying doesn't care about this stuff, and I don't see it as extraneous detail. Saying that things obviously work out "somehow" is simply never going to be enough for me.

 

[Xetheral]

Same thing then, the jeweller's markup is just less. But we still don't actually care about it as it doesn't matter.

So I actually care about verisimilitude in my settings quite a lot, but I feel that often adding and defining extraneous detail does not help with that, it could even do the opposite. If we define things exactly, give them concrete numbers and such to be "realistic" then it actually draws attention to the matter and calls us to think whether these numbers are actually realistic and often they aren't. But if we leave things more nebulous, we can then just assume things will work in whatever manner is actually realistic, but we just do not know exactly what that is. Like the jeweller's business obviously works somehow, but we don't actually need to know his entire business plan and his bookkeeping to make that assumption.

I totally get that versimilitude is idiosyncratic, but I'm having a hard time with this one. You really think think that the difference between a rough, unfinished diamond and a cut, finished diamond is extraneous detail? To me that's like saying that the difference between lumber from the mill and hand-crafted furniture is extraneous detail. I have no problem handwaving the profit margins of gem brokers or art dealers or other commodity dealers, but I wouldn't do the same for gemcutters, carpenters, or (e.g.) blacksmiths. The added value of turning raw materials into finished products is a rather important part of an economy to handwave away!

 

[Oofta]

I generally keep this perspective.

Common - Most people will have one. Modern Equivalent: A basic smartphone or laptop.

Uncommon - Most professionals or power users will have one. Modern Equivalent: High-end workstation or professional camera gear.

Rare - Most high end professionals will have access to one. Modern Equivalent: Private research lab or professional recording studio.

Very Rare - The best high end professionals will have access to one. Modern Equivalent: Advanced robotics lab or electron microscope.

Legendary - Top people in their field will have access to one. Modern Equivalent: NASA Mission Control or Large Hadron Collider.

Leaving artifacts off since they are individual by nature.

(edited to use better examples)

Wait ... we're allowed to actually discuss the topic of a thread? After we've gotten 10 pages in? I'm so confused.