Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Fiery_Fighter_Drake 01-16-08, 09:13 AM	Okay, so I know we have to pay x5 cost for expensive spell components and the Campaign Standards state on page 11 that "The exception to this rule are those components that can be treated as currency, such as coins, valuable stones such as jade, and gems". What I'd like to know is, those diamond dust (the spell component for Restoration) qualify?
Timlagor 01-16-08, 01:49 PM	Sounds like gems to me
Skerrit 01-16-08, 02:04 PM	Sounds like gems to me as well, and I write the rules.
bertman4 01-16-08, 03:22 PM	I would say no. The intrinsic value of the gem as a trading commodity comes from its rarity, size and quality. When you have diamond dust, there is no way to discern if that dust was made from high quality diamonds, or was made from poor quality diamonds. You will know (since you turned it into dust) and in magical terms, there is some intrinsic value in diamond dust, but you can't trade it because the buyer will not know if that dust is any good. Let's say your buddy turns 1 pound of poor quality diamonds that was worth 250gp into dust. Let's say you turn 1 ounce of extremely high quality diamonds worth 250gp into dust. You both go to a gem shop to sell your diamond dust. How are they going to tell if your 1 ounce is equivalent in quality to his pound now that it is ground to dust? Intact diamonds, whether cut or raw, is a trading commodity. Diamond dust is not. Bertman
Wuafeeldh 01-16-08, 04:09 PM	To counter-argue (since the practical question is already settled), the price of a diamond is related to its color and size: once it is ground to dust, those are, put mildly, moot. The spell component does not specify "Diamonds worth 100 GP, subsequently ground to dust", so the prior value of those diamonds should also (conveniently enough) be moot. Leaving us with a gemstone-derived commodity, which has value to gemcutters and (incidentally) to certain moderately-powerful divine spellcasters.
bertman4 01-16-08, 04:19 PM	Leaving us with a gemstone-derived commodity, which has value to gemcutters and (incidentally) to certain moderately-powerful divine spellcasters. If that is the case, then my point is made. If diamond dust is only valuable to gemcutters and spellcasters, it is not "components that can be treated as currency, such as coins, valuable stones such as jade, and gems." Bertman
Skerrit 01-16-08, 05:42 PM	Just for you, I will include powdered gemstones in the next version of XECS. It's really more of a meta-game rule than a real world explaination.
Shadowed Intent 01-16-08, 07:37 PM	I would say no. The intrinsic value of the gem as a trading commodity comes from its rarity, size and quality. When you have diamond dust, there is no way to discern if that dust was made from high quality diamonds, or was made from poor quality diamonds. You will know (since you turned it into dust) and in magical terms, there is some intrinsic value in diamond dust, but you can't trade it because the buyer will not know if that dust is any good. Let's say your buddy turns 1 pound of poor quality diamonds that was worth 250gp into dust. Let's say you turn 1 ounce of extremely high quality diamonds worth 250gp into dust. You both go to a gem shop to sell your diamond dust. How are they going to tell if your 1 ounce is equivalent in quality to his pound now that it is ground to dust? Intact diamonds, whether cut or raw, is a trading commodity. Diamond dust is not. Bertman While diamonds are considered currency, they can not be used as currency everywhere. If you go to a convenience store to buy a soda, they aren't going to accept a small diamond as payment, (to use a real world example) I would think most businesses would not be willing to accept a precious gemstone as payment. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, to think that someone who could determine the value of a diamond, would be able to determine the value of diamond dust. More importantly, Skerrit already made a ruling on it. :)
Fiery_Fighter_Drake 01-17-08, 01:44 AM	Yes, let's not turn an game discussion into something that concerns real life. Thanks for the ruling Skerrit.
Uthrac 01-17-08, 08:29 AM	Lots and lots of Stoneskin . . . . ;)
bertman4 01-17-08, 12:22 PM	More importantly, Skerrit already made a ruling on it. :) And I am simply disagreeing with his ruling since he is 1 of 4 faction masters, and there is oversight. Until it's in the Campaign Standards, I am not going to allow it at my table. As someone pointed out, lots of Stoneskins for cheap (because of resetting EV and COH), which is my main problem with this ruling. Also, Stone Construct infusion. I do not mind it so much for Restoration and other fix-the-problem spells, but you can't make an exception just for that. Bertman
smerwin29 01-17-08, 12:43 PM	Well now you have 2 of 4 Factionmasters telling you that ruling is official for the campaign, and it will be in the next Campaign Standards. If/When the other two factionmasters read this, they will concur. Plus it is already in the standards; this is just a clarification that diamond dust is a commodity. Shawn
bertman4 01-17-08, 01:42 PM	I still disagree but so be it. It mainly screws Artificers more than other casters (I think, as I haven't checked high material component spells for Wiz and Clr) as many of the artificers high priced material components are "ointment made from XXX" and not something that could be treated as currency, such as diamond dust or a pearl. Bertman
Timlagor 01-20-08, 09:25 AM	I play an Artificer and those costs are most definitely not unreasonable at 5x on the equipment sheet -you only need to use it in 5 modules to be ahead.
Mherduwynn 01-28-08, 04:22 PM	Consider this three out of four now, which I believe makes a majority (not that one is required since Greg handles the rules and there is no need for oversight on his decisions here). The ruling is official and, as of XECS 3.0, will be quantified in the text. -August