D&D 5E (2024) Uncommon items - actually common?

[Micah Sweet]

It is more realistic in a sense that it is unrealistic that everyone in the world uses the same currency which is neatly decimal. With more abstract system we can assume that there is more realistic variety of money in the fiction without having to deal with the currency conversion and mathematics hell it would produce if we tried to track all these individual valuables.

Quite true. My solution is to generate more than one currency system, for when it matters and makes logical sense.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Quite true. My solution is to generate more than one currency system, for when it matters and makes logical sense.

Yes, but the thing is I don't actually want to deal with the resulting maths. So with my solution I can have realistic fiction but easy maths. That seems like a win-win to me!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, but the thing is I don't actually want to deal with the resulting maths. So with my solution I can have realistic fiction but easy maths. That seems like a win-win to me!

Which is why all of this is about nothing more than taste.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Yeah, that's right. Are you trying to make a point here?

If it's so easy, maybe you should publish it! I think, however, that you'll find that the crowd clamoring for this sort of minutia will reach no consensus on what they actually want. There are so many variables that chasing them is a fool's errand.

Its the very definition of an unpleasable fanbase, and why WOTC has no interest in catering to that small and splintered demographic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If it's so easy, maybe you should publish it! I think, however, that you'll find that the crowd clamoring for this sort of minutia will reach no consensus on what they actually want. There are so many variables that chasing them is a fool's errand.

Its the very definition of an unpleasable fanbase, and why WOTC has no interest in catering to that small and splintered demographic.

I don't need to publish it. I have a 3pp that works very well for me in this area, that can pretty easily be dropped into a 5e campaign.

 

[Xetheral]

This. I would figure out cuts and whatnot if it ever came up, but in 41 years of running the game, it has literally never been asked of me. There was a time period when I used that Dragon Magazine chart I mentioned upthread that dealt with size, quality and cut, but the players never seemed to care so I stopped using it.

Why doesn't it come up every time you hand out high-value gems as treasure to your players and they try to sell it? The high-value gems in the treasure tables are cut (none of the gems are described as "rough" and rough stones wouldn't be transparent as the descriptions in the book specify.) If the listed value in the book is only a gem's uncut value, then how do they know how much to sell their treasure for?

And in 41 years no one has ever taken Jewler's Tools (or the relevant edition equivalent, if applicable--Gem Cutting was introduced at least by 2nd Ed. as a non-weapon proficiency) and tried to make use of them?

 

[tetrasodium]

I disagree; I can see the slippery slope here.

Sure, for the revivify spell they could have said “a 15-karat diamond that costs 300 gp”, but we’d still have the same argument (what if I can buy a 15-karat diamond that costs 295gp? Does it still work?”) and still have people asking for more detail (is that a cut diamond? Does the type of cut count? Or is weight the only factor?)) and even if you answer those questions, there will always be an audience for more details - a shrinking audience, but at some point you’re wasting book space appealing to a tiny niche.

And of course you’d have people arguing over whether the price makes sense and whether it should vary according to campaign and/or local economic conditions…

Not that a bit more detail would hurt, I just don’t think it would solve anything.

No that's not really the case either because the unit there is the singular diamond itself, carats only came up in reference to diamond dust not being measured in a standard in a standard unit☆ because the source makes it dirt cheap & people were asking economic questions & complaining d&d is not an economics simulator while taking the obvious economics answers answers to make bonkers 1:1 conversions that only served to demonstrate how the current setup invites trouble.

That single gem worth X simplicity breaks down when the component is some kind of commodity like [gem] dust worth x , literal trash worth x (should be trash & [expensive thing worth x] or the labor involved in engraving that trash should be part of the casting time. Multiple diamonds worth x so on furthers that problematic trend since the higher tier spells can be ungated & unthrottled by buying costly components for lower tiered spells.

There are further problems involving overuse of a singular component defeating the entire purpose of gating spells behind a costly but not consumed component used by a laundry list of spells though.

Your 295 gp diamond does not work for a spell that requires a 300gp diamond

☆ ie one pound, three standard vials, etc

 

[jmartkdr2]

No that's not really the case either because the unit there is the singular diamond itself, carats only came up in reference to diamond dust not being measured in a standard in a standard unit☆ because the source makes it dirt cheap & people were asking economic questions & complaining d&d is not an economics simulator while taking the obvious economics answers answers to make bonkers 1:1 conversions that only served to demonstrate how the current setup invites trouble.

That single gem worth X simplicity breaks down when the component is some kind of commodity like [gem] dust worth x , literal trash worth x (should be trash & [expensive thing worth x] or the labor involved in engraving that trash should be part of the casting time. Multiple diamonds worth x so on furthers that problematic trend since the higher tier spells can be ungated & unthrottled by buying costly components for lower tiered spells.

There are further problems involving overuse of a singular component defeating the entire purpose of gating spells behind a costly but not consumed component used by a laundry list of spells though.

Your 295 gp diamond does not work for a spell that requires a 300gp diamond

☆ ie one pound, three standard vials, etc

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[TwoSix]

Yes, but the thing is I don't actually want to deal with the resulting maths. So with my solution I can have realistic fiction but easy maths. That seems like a win-win to me!

Nothing would make me happier than having non-decimal currencies or different time systems, but players revolt.

I've tried.

 

[tetrasodium]

Thank you for proving my point.

Not at all. A diamond (singular) is a thing that can be valued. Diamonds plural are a commodity that should be listed however that commodity is valued such as "3 dragonshards worth of diamonds" and an associated 100gp/dragonshard listed somewhere.