Spell Component Question

[Altalazar]

This is more out of curiosity than anything else, but I was wondering if anyone else did spell components this way.

For components for spells such as identify, which is a 100gp pearl that is crushed, or stoneskin (1000gp diamond?) and so forth, I allow this:

A 500 gp pearl could be crushed down into enough components for 5 identify spells. The spell says a single 100gp pearl, but I figure that means 100gp worth of pearl dust, if you look at the description.

It seems a reasonable way to handle it, though not strictly by the book.

Any thoughts from anyone about this?

 

[hong]

This is more out of curiosity than anything else, but I was wondering if anyone else did spell components this way.

For components for spells such as identify, which is a 100gp pearl that is crushed, or stoneskin (1000gp diamond?) and so forth, I allow this:

A 500 gp pearl could be crushed down into enough components for 5 identify spells. The spell says a single 100gp pearl, but I figure that means 100gp worth of pearl dust, if you look at the description.

The spell description says "100 gp pearl", not "100 gp pearl dust". That said, I don't see anything wrong with doing it this way. Most games I'm been in, we only track total gp costs as opposed to individual gems anyway, so the rule is moot.

 

[Bronn Spellforger]

Re: Re: Spell Component Question

The spell description says "100 gp pearl", not "100 gp pearl dust". That said, I don't see anything wrong with doing it this way. Most games I'm been in, we only track total gp costs as opposed to individual gems anyway, so the rule is moot.

I agree. In fact, I believe the spell description also says something about the pearl turning to dust once you've cast the spell. Other spells specifically call for "diamond dust."

But I also agree that as a house rule, it's pretty good. Our DM (who reads these boards) is constantly screwing us on the value and cost of our gems. We rarely get much more than 1/2 or 2/3 the value of our gems in sale, and we've often got to pay more than gems are worth (or we're forced to use a 300 gp pearl for th spell). So I would love this rule!

Other than that, though, the DM is an OK guy ...

 

[bret]

Re: Re: Re: Spell Component Question

Our DM (who reads these boards) is constantly screwing us on the value and cost of our gems. We rarely get much more than 1/2 or 2/3 the value of our gems in sale, and we've often got to pay more than gems are worth (or we're forced to use a 300 gp pearl for th spell). So I would love this rule!

Other than that, though, the DM is an OK guy ...

Ever thinking of asking for a Spellcraft roll to determine if a particular pearl/gem/etc is of sufficient quality to satisfy the spell requirements? If there isn't some mystical requirement, then you just use any gem you paid 100gp for.

The other thing to keep in mind is that with a single rank in Appraise, you get a much more accurate guestimate of value. Many of my characters have put a single rank in it, just so they have a chance to know when someone is trying to rip them off.

 

[Crothian]

You could try argueing that a gem is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. There fore if you pay 100gp for a pearl, it's worth 100gp to you. Who cares if the gemologist says it's worth 60gp?

Ya, this arguement will get you no where with any GM, but it could be fun and distract him while you erase the number of 100gp pearls you have and write a larger numger.

 

[Altalazar]

Actually, I thought for identify it said you had to powder the pearl, but it in liquid, and drink it!

And I think your DM is being rather ridiculous - gems are more of a commodity like gold and platinum, so you should get close to value for buying and selling. The profit margins just aren't that large.

I do that for used equipment, 1/2 book price to sell, full price to buy, but that isn't the same thing as currency and precious stones.