Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 9510007" data-attributes="member: 6802765">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: &quot;Ruby dust worth 50 gp, which the spell consumes.&quot; If they intended it the way you're suggesting, it would have been a lot clearer and only slightly longer to write: &quot;50 gp worth of rubies, crushed, which the spell consumes.&quot;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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 9510007, member: 6802765"] I suppose it's possible that's what the designers intended. However, the wording for the material component for the [I]Continual Flame[/I] 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." 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 [I]rubies[/I] 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 [I]ruby dust[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification