Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Uncommon items - actually common?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9510619" data-attributes="member: 42856"><p>We are not in disagreement that it's a way to do it (and I'd prefer to think it as a sacrifice than an amount of matter as well, but I like my magic weird) But then, all gems must have the same value, not exponential value as they get bigger/better cut/or even just <em>famous</em>.</p><p></p><p>Imagine the case. You have a regular-sized ruby generating ruby dust in sufficent quanitty to cast the spell. That's OK, so one day you have a regular ruby worth 5,000 dollars, and you powder it to propel the spell and it works. Great. However, instead of doing that, you just sell it and this exact same ruby is used to adorn the left nipplering worn by Kim Kardashian. I am pretty sure the same ruby would be worth several times the price of the former ruby, despite being exactly the same -- let's assume it is twice the price, as I am unsure what the actual markup would be, for the purpose of the discussion. So you buy it back for 10,000 dollars, and suddenly the same ruby can power TWO castings of the spell, one from its rubiosity and a second time from its kardashianness. That's OK for some worlds, but not those with a more "scientific" approach to spellcasting, which tend to be more common, IMHO, as the default assumption for D&D.</p><p></p><p><sillyness mode></p><p>And then, an enterprising character notice this, retires from adventuring and since the nipple-ring is destroyed when used for spellcasting and can't increase the supply, driving down the price, hires Kim Kardashian to wear ruby nipple-ring so they can get this increased market value and be used for more spellcasting than there are actual rubies available, buying cheap rubies and reselling kardashian-activated ruby dust to other spellcasters, making huge amount of money in the process.</p><p></sillyness mode></p><p></p><p>Another reason I prefer to reason in sacrifice value rather than a market value is that I am pretty sure a sentient demon would deny the spell if you gamed it, by buying a 1gp diamond at 50gp from another party member so it becomes a 50gp diamond for the purpose of spellcasting. The demon would be seeing throughthe trick, while he would honor the Kardashian-powered spellcasting because you effectively end up poorer.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jfdlsjfd, post: 9510619, member: 42856"] We are not in disagreement that it's a way to do it (and I'd prefer to think it as a sacrifice than an amount of matter as well, but I like my magic weird) But then, all gems must have the same value, not exponential value as they get bigger/better cut/or even just [I]famous[/I]. Imagine the case. You have a regular-sized ruby generating ruby dust in sufficent quanitty to cast the spell. That's OK, so one day you have a regular ruby worth 5,000 dollars, and you powder it to propel the spell and it works. Great. However, instead of doing that, you just sell it and this exact same ruby is used to adorn the left nipplering worn by Kim Kardashian. I am pretty sure the same ruby would be worth several times the price of the former ruby, despite being exactly the same -- let's assume it is twice the price, as I am unsure what the actual markup would be, for the purpose of the discussion. So you buy it back for 10,000 dollars, and suddenly the same ruby can power TWO castings of the spell, one from its rubiosity and a second time from its kardashianness. That's OK for some worlds, but not those with a more "scientific" approach to spellcasting, which tend to be more common, IMHO, as the default assumption for D&D. <sillyness mode> And then, an enterprising character notice this, retires from adventuring and since the nipple-ring is destroyed when used for spellcasting and can't increase the supply, driving down the price, hires Kim Kardashian to wear ruby nipple-ring so they can get this increased market value and be used for more spellcasting than there are actual rubies available, buying cheap rubies and reselling kardashian-activated ruby dust to other spellcasters, making huge amount of money in the process. </sillyness mode> Another reason I prefer to reason in sacrifice value rather than a market value is that I am pretty sure a sentient demon would deny the spell if you gamed it, by buying a 1gp diamond at 50gp from another party member so it becomes a 50gp diamond for the purpose of spellcasting. The demon would be seeing throughthe trick, while he would honor the Kardashian-powered spellcasting because you effectively end up poorer. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Uncommon items - actually common?
Top