3e, realism, and the standard of living
Douglas Muir
"realistic", but it occurred to me that a 3e world would have some quirks that
aren't accounted for in the rules.
Frex, street lamps and other forms of public lighting. Continual Torch is a
low level spell, and it lasts forever. Any self respecting city would have
CTs all along the major boulevards. They can't be extinguished except by
magic or destruction... they could be stolen, I suppose, but there are ways to
deter if not completely stop that (make the CT object heavy and bulky, bolt
it securely to the side of a building, and brand the city's logo all over it).
Now, streetlighting is a nontrivial change to a medieval setting. It cuts
crime way down, and allows people to be much more active after dark. Shops
can stay open longer, trade is increased, there are all sorts of knock-on effects.
Or Cure Disease. You've just chopped the death rate way, way down. Yes, it
needs a 5th lev cleric or higher, but they're not /that/ rare, and they can do
it every day, again and again. Again, there are knock-on effects. Women in
medieval settings didn't live as long as men, because childbirth was as
dangerous as battle. One out of three marriages ended with the death of the
wife in childbirth. Changing that had huge effects in our world...
Again, a lot of this depends on how deeply you want to dig. And it's limited
by the fact that, in the end, it's fantasy, and it /doesn't/ really make sense.
Still, I'd have CTs up and down my streets...
Doug M.
Ian R Malcomson
>Now, streetlighting is a nontrivial change to a medieval setting. It cuts
>crime way down, and allows people to be much more active after dark. Shops
>can stay open longer, trade is increased, there are all sorts of knock-on
>effects.
...such as thieves who can cast dispel magic etc.
You have to bear in mind that the tech level described in D&D isn't
really Medieval - it's closer to Renaissance. By this time, and even
earlier, street lighting (in the form of torches, lanterns, etc.) wasn't
that uncommon. One of those things that the Romans had, then
disappeared for a bit on all but the most rudimentary level, then came
back again. CT just makes it more convenient and efficient, not merely
present.
>Or Cure Disease. You've just chopped the death rate way, way down. Yes, it
>needs a 5th lev cleric or higher, but they're not /that/ rare, and they can do
>it every day, again and again. Again, there are knock-on effects. Women in
>medieval settings didn't live as long as men, because childbirth was as
>dangerous as battle. One out of three marriages ended with the death of the
>wife in childbirth. Changing that had huge effects in our world...
This aspect of D&D vs. the real world was explored quite nicely in the
DragonLance series of things. Imagine a world that has become used to
clerics throwing cure disease etc. around, and then loses such folk or
their powers. Having not developed healing tech in lieu of magic, the
effects of plague, injury, advanced midwifery (!), etc. would crash down
hard on the folk of such a world.
--
Ian R Malcomson
Erstwhile Domicus bloke
Domicus website: http://www.domicus.demon.co.uk
ProFantasy Freelancer: http://www.profantasy.com
cra...@hotmail.com
Douglas Muir <dougla...@yale.edu> wrote:
> Not that I spend a lot of time on trying to make a fantasy RPG
> campaign "realistic", but it occurred to me that a 3e world would
> have some quirks that aren't accounted for in the rules.
Are D&D worlds even covered in 3E rules? Somebody named Wick
was spouting off about that recently...
>
> Frex, street lamps and other forms of public lighting. Continual
> Torch is a low level spell, and it lasts forever. Any self
> respecting city would have CTs all along the major boulevards.
Good point. "CT: how mages pay for tuition at the university."
>
> Or Cure Disease. You've just chopped the death rate way, way down.
Yeah. You need to counterbalance with decent orc hordes and
dragon raids or you'll be neck-deep in people in no time. :)
> Yes, it needs a 5th lev cleric or higher, but they're not /that/
> rare, and they can do it every day, again and again.
Yup.
> Again, there are knock-on effects. Women in
> medieval settings didn't live as long as men, because childbirth
> was as dangerous as battle. One out of three marriages ended with
> the death of the wife in childbirth. Changing that had huge
> effects in our world...
Interesting implications for cleanliness, too. Does anyone give
a damn about stinks and filth when the local cleric can heal
even the most filth-filled barnyard injuries? Does some bored
mage playing around with divination magic discover the basic
idea of "disease lives in filth and dirt - so stay clean"?
Are clerics common enough in a world to keep everyone healthy?
Do religious conflicts keep the healing gods away from
large portions of the population?
> Again, a lot of this depends on how deeply you want to dig.
> And it's limited by the fact that, in the end, it's fantasy, and
> it /doesn't/ really make sense.
Unless you're talking about published game systems, sure
they make sense. For a really thorough GM, at least.
Earthdawn might be a good place to look for ideas of incorporating
magic into everyday life.
--
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
"It turned out to be a monster of a technical problem. We just
kept bashing our heads against the wall until we got tired of
the squishy sound."
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Blake
campaign
> "realistic", but it occurred to me that a 3e world would have some
quirks that
> aren't accounted for in the rules.
>
> Frex, street lamps and other forms of public lighting. Continual
Torch
Yep. Things like that have occurred to me. One city in my campaign
world was Pantheistic, so all priesthoods were wolcome. It was also a
participating democracy, and all citizens were required to perfrom
public service or military duty for part of each year. Given the
choice between casting Continual Light on poles lining the major
streets, or casting /Stinking Cloud/ against bandits... well, they had
plenty of lighting... ;)
Another example was a country that consisted of scattered settlements
in a huge forest. Each settlement had at least a 3rd level druid - a
1E Druid could cast Cure Disease at 3rd level! - that and the scattered
population made plague a rarity. Those settlements were also built
along 'ley lines' - natural conduits of magical power that any
spellcaster could draw on - as long as travellers were accompanied by a
druid or magic-user, they were pretty safe...
Rupert Boleyn
<i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Or Cure Disease. You've just chopped the death rate way, way down. Yes, it
>>needs a 5th lev cleric or higher, but they're not /that/ rare, and they can do
>>it every day, again and again. Again, there are knock-on effects. Women in
>>medieval settings didn't live as long as men, because childbirth was as
>>dangerous as battle. One out of three marriages ended with the death of the
>>wife in childbirth. Changing that had huge effects in our world...
IIRC even in the MA the life expectancy of urban women was higher than
that of men. However in rural area men lived longer than women. This
would partly have been because women's better (on average) immune
systems would've made more difference in towns, and partly because
city dwellers tended to not have many children. BTW can anyone give a
source for "One out of three marriages ended with the death of the
wife in childbirth." or some decent data on medieval death rates,
birth rates and in particular perinatal, meternal, etc death rates?
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Inside every cynic is a romantic trying to get out."
Rupert Boleyn
<dougla...@yale.edu> wrote:
>Now, streetlighting is a nontrivial change to a medieval setting. It cuts
>crime way down, and allows people to be much more active after dark. Shops
>can stay open longer, trade is increased, there are all sorts of knock-on effects.
OTOH Renaissance and Age of Reason cities were lit, and their crime
rate was just as high as a medieval city's.
>Or Cure Disease. You've just chopped the death rate way, way down. Yes, it
>needs a 5th lev cleric or higher, but they're not /that/ rare, and they can do
>it every day, again and again. Again, there are knock-on effects. Women in
>medieval settings didn't live as long as men, because childbirth was as
>dangerous as battle. One out of three marriages ended with the death of the
>wife in childbirth. Changing that had huge effects in our world...
Even Cure Minor and Cure Light Wounds will help with childbirth, as
would Bless, Resistance, etc. The also help with those accidents that
killed so many fram labourers, etc. My thinking is that while these
miracles give the same (or) better capacity for health care, etc their
rarity (and the difficulty of transporting someone to the clerics, or
vice cersa) will stop them having the impact that modern medicine has
had. In effect we'd get a similar result to modern third world
countries, with the rich and powerful having really, really good
health care and the poor having really bad health care.
Apparently the worst life expectancy in the world today (barring
genocides, etc) is about the same as the the US and Europe in the 19th
century - around 40 years, so this seems appropriate for a D&D
setting. Fooling around with some back-on-an-envelope maths I've
concluded that this means that you need a birth rate of about 25 per
1000 (per year), and about 3.3 children born per woman to maintain the
population. As this is well within the capacity of a human population
either there's a huge population growth going on (implied in FR, at
least), or there's an active attempt to kepp the birth rate down
(contraception, abortion, etc), or there's a hell of a lot of wars,
raiding, etc.
Fitz
<dougla...@yale.edu> wrote:
[snippage]
>Again, a lot of this depends on how deeply you want to dig. And it's limited
>by the fact that, in the end, it's fantasy, and it /doesn't/ really make sense.
>
>Still, I'd have CTs (Continual Torch) up and down my streets...
In the well-to-do areas maybe. Let the riff-raff and scum blunder
about in the dark; they don't know any better and they don't feel
things the way *we* do.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fitz
http://fitz.jsr.com
http://usa.spis.co.nz/fitz
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Graeme Lindsell
<3A76EC64...@yale.edu>:
>Not that I spend a lot of time on trying to make a fantasy RPG campaign
>"realistic", but it occurred to me that a 3e world would have some
>quirks that aren't accounted for in the rules.
These aren't unique to 3e though. Continual Light and Cure Disease
were there in 1st ed, and available at the same levels as well.
They've actually made Continual Flame harder to turn into street
lighting than the old Continual Light was. CF has an expensive
material compnent, 50 gp of diamond dust, while CL had either no
component or a cheap one, I can't recall. The bag of stones with Cl on
them, used for lighting up dark dungeons, is now a much more expensive
option.
Or Cure Disease. You've just chopped the death rate way, way down.
>Yes, it needs a 5th lev cleric or higher, but they're not /that/ rare,
There is the question of how rare the higher level characters really
are. But you're right, you don't need many clerics. How many doctors do the
first world nations have, about 1 per 800-900 people isn't it? At 7th level,
Restoration will even remove the long term effects (permanent characteristic
loss) of the nastiest diseases.
(One thing I've just noticed is that Restoration needs diamond dust as
a material component. So does Continual Flame. I don't think you'll find many
diamonds running around as gemstones in a 3e world, everyone will be busy
grinding them up into dust.)
One thing - can clerics treat failures of internal organs - diabetes, heart
disease, cancer?
With some cure spells to keep the patient alive, they can try some pretty
invasive surgery.
And with Raise Dead spells to bring the patient back, they can try some
_really_ invasive surgery...
Healing in the D&D world is much more effective than in ours - depending on
the level of available clerics, instant reliable cures for all illnesses
_except_ death by old age. The experiemental wizards and clerics have to do
some serious research into that one. Their world is like the future seen from
1970: no contagious diseases and only illnesses of age as a problem.
>Still, I'd have CTs up and down my streets...
>
In the better areas of town. Where the clerics still make house calls.
Bryan J. Maloney
>Not that I spend a lot of time on trying to make a fantasy RPG campaign
>"realistic", but it occurred to me that a 3e world would have some
>quirks that aren't accounted for in the rules.
>
>Frex, street lamps and other forms of public lighting. Continual Torch
>is a low level spell, and it lasts forever. Any self respecting city
>would have CTs all along the major boulevards. They can't be
Back in 1983, the group I was playing in called them "kabutos" and they
were as trivial an item as flashlights are in our world.
The D&D default setting requires that DM and players disengage all thought
and never try to think things through sensibly. If you want to think
things throught sensibly, that's fine, but you'll have to design your own
setting.
Bryan J. Maloney
<903AF85D6linds...@139.134.5.33>:
>Healing in the D&D world is much more effective than in ours - depending
>on the level of available clerics, instant reliable cures for all
>illnesses _except_ death by old age. The experiemental wizards and
>clerics have to do some serious research into that one. Their world is
>like the future seen from 1970: no contagious diseases and only
>illnesses of age as a problem.
Consider the bloodiness of war. With access to such "technology", 70%
casualties for a battle's victor might be considered "acceptable losses" to
sustain on a repeated basis.
Robin Lim
"Graeme Lindsell" <lind...@rsc.anu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:903AF85D6linds...@139.134.5.33...
> were there in 1st ed, and available at the same levels as well.
>
> They've actually made Continual Flame harder to turn into street
> lighting than the old Continual Light was. CF has an expensive
> material compnent, 50 gp of diamond dust, while CL had either no
> component or a cheap one, I can't recall. The bag of stones with Cl on
> them, used for lighting up dark dungeons, is now a much more expensive
> option.
There was a big joke in my campaign where Mages would just fork over the
money for diamond dust and turn a blind eye to the quality of what they were
getting. After all, from a game perspective, what really matters is that it
costs X GP to cast the spell. Its also completely unclear how much diamond
dust and of what quality, say, 1000 GP would buy. What happens if the
bottom falls out of the dust market? Are mages going to have to buy more
dust? :)
Yes, its silly. I know.
Rob
Peter Newman
>
> Not that I spend a lot of time on trying to make a fantasy RPG campaign
> "realistic", but it occurred to me that a 3e world would have some quirks that
> aren't accounted for in the rules.
>
> Frex, street lamps and other forms of public lighting. Continual Torch is a
> low level spell, and it lasts forever.
Yes but it sells for 90 GP's. A torch sells for 1 CP of 0.01
GP. It would be cheaper to pay for 2 years worth of torches,
12 hours a day, 365 days a year then to buy 1 Continual Flame
torch. Therefore only cities with sufficiently large capital
budgets will go for them. The Continual Flame is a better deal
in the long run but the city may not care. (OTOH this does not
include the wages of the torch lighters as I'm not sure how many
torches per hour each could light and replace).
Moreover if and when a Continual Flame Torch is stolen it
will be a major loss. Ninety gold is a lot of money so
the torches may have to be locked up and locks are expensive.
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>Yes but it sells for 90 GP's. A torch sells for 1 CP of 0.01
>GP. It would be cheaper to pay for 2 years worth of torches,
>12 hours a day, 365 days a year then to buy 1 Continual Flame
>torch. Therefore only cities with sufficiently large capital
>budgets will go for them. The Continual Flame is a better deal
>in the long run but the city may not care. (OTOH this does not
>include the wages of the torch lighters as I'm not sure how many
>torches per hour each could light and replace).
>
>Moreover if and when a Continual Flame Torch is stolen it
>will be a major loss. Ninety gold is a lot of money so
>the torches may have to be locked up and locks are expensive.
This would tend to make CT the sort of thing that the wealthy put on
the their frontage as a status symbol, and donate to the city for
similar reasons.
Helge Moulding
>Moreover if and when a Continual Flame Torch is stolen it
>will be a major loss. Ninety gold is a lot of money so
>the torches may have to be locked up and locks are expensive.
Make the torch large enough - like a telephone pole, for
example - and you'll limit the thieving opportunities
considerably. Street lighting becomes a definite possibility.
Of course, this being a medieval setting where the understanding
of crime prevention was quite limited, the lighting would
probably be limited to the better parts of town.
(As DM I'd rule that attempts to cut bits off such a pole to
make CF torches would fail: either the Flame would stay on the
larger piece, or the magic would be ruined entirely.)
Interior lighting doesn't have to be portable torches. Since
*anything* can be made to have Continual Flame cast on it,
reasonably wealthy home owners could light their corridors by
having Continual Flame knobs bolted to the walls. Put crystal
covers over them for attractive accents. Here's a whole new
business: Rodiron Lighting Design, Redbeard "Bruce" Ironcap,
proprietor. "Our lighting fixtures will put that sparkle back
into your home or dungeon. Lifetime warranty."
Of course, less well to do homes might use CF torches, in
which case you might hear the wife tell the husband, once his
disreputable friends have left, "Now that they're gone you
better go and count the torches. And the silver."
--
Helge Moulding
mailto:hmou...@excite.com Just another guy
http://hmoulding.cjb.net/ with a weird name
Peter Newman
> There was a big joke in my campaign where Mages would just fork over the
> money for diamond dust and turn a blind eye to the quality of what they were
> getting. After all, from a game perspective, what really matters is that it
> costs X GP to cast the spell. Its also completely unclear how much diamond
> dust and of what quality, say, 1000 GP would buy. What happens if the
> bottom falls out of the dust market? Are mages going to have to buy more
> dust? :)
No. If the mage paid 250 Gp's for the diamond dust then (by
definition) it _is_ 250 Gp's worth of diamond dust. If a wizard
want's to cast 'Stoneskin' but the town he is in lacks that
much dust then all he has to do is offer to pay 250 Gp's for 20
GP's worth of diamond dust. When he pays 250 GP's for it it becomes
250 GP's worth of dust :)
Ian R Malcomson
>No. If the mage paid 250 Gp's for the diamond dust then (by
>definition) it _is_ 250 Gp's worth of diamond dust. If a wizard
>want's to cast 'Stoneskin' but the town he is in lacks that
>much dust then all he has to do is offer to pay 250 Gp's for 20
>GP's worth of diamond dust. When he pays 250 GP's for it it becomes
>250 GP's worth of dust :)
No it doesn't. It's still 20gp worth of dust the wizard was stupid
enough to pay over the odds for. It's only worth 250gp to the wizard -
not to the general populace at large, the spell, etc. (although, if an
abundance of wizards tried this trick, the diamond dust sellers may
quickly catch on that there are a lot of idiots out there....).
If you went into a shop, for example, and bought a book for $300, but
the shop price was only $10, would you have a $300 book? No. You'd
have a $10 book, an empty wallet, and not a lot of wisdom. You could
try selling the book to someone for $300, but you'd be hard pushed to
find someone that stupid - unless you used ebay, of course :-)
Nephilim2038
> Now, streetlighting is a nontrivial change to a medieval setting.
> It cuts crime way down
And explains why every time you venture into a forest you are
beset upon by brigands, where there's less lighting. :^)
--
Jeff <jtho...@esker.com> "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily"
Egoslayer1
mine, I tend to think magic would advance things greatly, particularly
in area such as metalurgy, where magic could allow a forge to reach
working temperatures never seen before...I would reason that a large
amount of the continual light/torch item must be destroyed before the
magic is lost...lit streets is one effect, other effects could be very
great, even with spell casters being rare...a single caster could keep
a city/towns drinking water supply germ free, which would have a large
impact on renescience level health and disease prevention. Area of
effect spells could be created which prevented desease in an area, like
say a room/hospital...imagine a PERFECTLY STERILE hospital, this would
do wonders for recovery rates, for childbirth, injuries, surgery, etc...
A simple spell like metamorphose liquids would drastically alter the
production of lamp oil, greek fire, rare and expensive inks and dyes,
natural poisons...Does metamorphose liquids work on a solid in liquid
form? if not who decides what form is a substances 'natural' one? this
could be different depending on what part of the world you live in
(i.e. arctic vs tropical)...if it does work, melt platinum and then
create 1 gallon per level, how much damage could 1 drop of molten
platinum possibly do to your tongue? I bet you could buy a lot of
curelights with all those millions afterwards...
--
Egoslayer1
_______________________________________
O=[_______________________________________]=O
} {
{ Our species is suffering from }
} devolution, and a sad side effect {
{ is that it leaves us too stupid to }
} even realize it... }
} }
} Egoslayer1@[remove this]hotmail.com }
{_______________________________________{
O=[_______________________________________]=O
Andrew Tellez
Peter Newman wrote:
>
> Yes but it sells for 90 GP's. A torch sells for 1 CP of 0.01
> GP. It would be cheaper to pay for 2 years worth of torches,
> 12 hours a day, 365 days a year then to buy 1 Continual Flame
> torch. Therefore only cities with sufficiently large capital
> budgets will go for them. The Continual Flame is a better deal
> in the long run but the city may not care.
The most reasonable way to get them is from spellcasters in place of
taxation.
However, they're actually free to spellcasters of sufficient level. If
one can summon a Lantern Archon or similar creature that has the
Continual Flame ability at will, one can almost mass-produce the
things. Of course, the city government doesn't need to know how much
they actually cost.
Ben Buckner
Egoslayer1 wrote:
>
> obviosly the facts can be logiced howevre you like in your campaign, in
> mine, I tend to think magic would advance things greatly, particularly
> in area such as metalurgy, where magic could allow a forge to reach
> working temperatures never seen before...I would reason that a large
> amount of the continual light/torch item must be destroyed before the
> magic is lost...lit streets is one effect, other effects could be very
> great, even with spell casters being rare...a single caster could keep
> a city/towns drinking water supply germ free, which would have a large
> impact on renescience level health and disease prevention. Area of
> effect spells could be created which prevented desease in an area, like
> say a room/hospital...imagine a PERFECTLY STERILE hospital, this would
The problem with sterilization was not in sterilizing
things, which is not particularly difficult, but in
realizing that you needed to sterilize anything in the
first place. It wasn't really until the mid-to-late
19th century it was realized that contaminated water
was what carried many major diseases, and it took
extensive public health records to make that discovery
possible.
Ben B.
Egoslayer1
> "The problem with sterilization was not in sterilizing
> things, which is not particularly difficult, but in
> realizing that you needed to sterilize anything in the
> first place. It wasn't really until the mid-to-late
> 19th century it was realized that contaminated water
> was what carried many major diseases, and it took
> extensive public health records to make that discovery
***
Granted, but I think the fact that cleansing a volume of water is only
a single round away, a single spell, would lead to such discoveries
quicker...as in , anyone would know that old food can make you sick, I
don't think this was difficult to determine...figuring out there are
germs in water which 'looks' clean, might not ever happen, but surely
someone would eventually cast purify food and drink on seemingly clean
water sooner or later, either to free up a spell slot, or in
desperation or as scientific investigation....(i.e., everone in
smallville is getting sick, lets cast spells to heal/cure all thier
livestock, ok now thier fields, ok now thier meat stores, ok now there
water....WOW, new cases have stopped developing, lets try that in other
towns...)....it's just that even TRYING to sterilize things, however
easy it might be to do, wouldn't likely EVER come about accidentally,
you would have to know you needed to. Casting a spell on water to
effectively sterilize it seems more likely to happen sooner on accident
to me, either directly, or as a side effect of someother spell casting
going on...
Ben Buckner
It was easy enough to sterilize water by boiling, and
yet the connection was never made in the entire 5,000
year history of boiling water. John Snow originally
deduced the water-borne hypothesis from a theoretical
argument based on the physical pathology of the disease,
honed by observations of the geographic distribution.
It wouldn't have been discovered without an accurate
theory of physiology, which was not even close to
existing in medieval times, or without a scientific
methodology for investigating it and the public
health data (and a convenient pump handle), with which
he proved that his theory was correct. That was also
lacking for the most part in medieval times. Most
rulers of pre-modern states barely knew what their
population was (if at all), let alone what the major
causes of death were in relation to geography, as if
they had accurate maps anyway. Magic is nice, but
like any technology, it's only useful when its
practitioners know what to do with it. Not in
ten thousand years would anyone ever divine the cause
of cholera from the occasional random purify spell
cast on water.
People make assumptions like this all the time
in D&D though, assuming that their characters know
what oxygen is (discovered 1774), that the brain
is used for thinking, or what the heart does, why
bleeding is bad for you, what a map is, etc. I always
find it amusing too when people "discover" gunpowder
somehow.
Ben B.
Jason Stitt
>
> >No. If the mage paid 250 Gp's for the diamond dust then (by
> >definition) it _is_ 250 Gp's worth of diamond dust. If a wizard
> >want's to cast 'Stoneskin' but the town he is in lacks that
> >much dust then all he has to do is offer to pay 250 Gp's for 20
> >GP's worth of diamond dust. When he pays 250 GP's for it it becomes
> >250 GP's worth of dust :)
>
> No it doesn't. It's still 20gp worth of dust the wizard was stupid
> enough to pay over the odds for. It's only worth 250gp to the wizard -
> not to the general populace at large, the spell, etc. (although, if an
> abundance of wizards tried this trick, the diamond dust sellers may
> quickly catch on that there are a lot of idiots out there....).
>
> If you went into a shop, for example, and bought a book for $300, but
> the shop price was only $10, would you have a $300 book? No. You'd
> have a $10 book, an empty wallet, and not a lot of wisdom. You could
> try selling the book to someone for $300, but you'd be hard pushed to
> find someone that stupid - unless you used ebay, of course :-)
What if there were three shops in town, one sold the book for $10,
another for $15, and the third for $8, and you went to the second
bookstore and bargained them down to $7, but the first bookstore
then re-marked all copies of the book to $6.50, and then......
;)
> --
> Ian R Malcomson
> Erstwhile Domicus bloke
> Domicus website: http://www.domicus.demon.co.uk
> ProFantasy Freelancer: http://www.profantasy.com
--
Jason Stitt
"The hardest worked cliche is better than the phrase that fails."
-Gene Wolfe
Ian R Malcomson
>What if there were three shops in town, one sold the book for $10,
>another for $15, and the third for $8, and you went to the second
>bookstore and bargained them down to $7, but the first bookstore
>then re-marked all copies of the book to $6.50, and then......
You'd have a book worth $6.50 in that area. It'd be a bit different if
one shop sold the book for $300, and another re-marked its copies at
$6.50..... :-)
Cheryl Trooskin
>Its also completely unclear how much diamond
>dust and of what quality, say, 1000 GP would buy. What happens if the
>bottom falls out of the dust market? Are mages going to have to buy more
>dust? :)
I maintain two systems of prices -- one "standard" to use against things
like spells, and one "actual" which tends to differ from area to area
(things are much more expensive out on the frontier, but that doesn't
mean the players can use a smaller pearl for their idenitfy spells).
It makes me a little crazy sometimes ("How much did I charge you for
that last time? Are you sure?"), but things feel more consistent
that way.
I still don't have a good idea as to how much diamond dust you can
get for a gp on the 'standard' table, though. Eventually, my players
will want to know and I'll have to make something up.
sev, making-shit-up seems to be my middle name
--
s...@byz.org can also be found at http://www.byz.org/~sev
"rationality is notoriously unstable and culture dependent" (John Lyons)
Peter Newman
>
> >No. If the mage paid 250 Gp's for the diamond dust then (by
> >definition) it _is_ 250 Gp's worth of diamond dust. If a wizard
> >want's to cast 'Stoneskin' but the town he is in lacks that
> >much dust then all he has to do is offer to pay 250 Gp's for 20
> >GP's worth of diamond dust. When he pays 250 GP's for it it becomes
> >250 GP's worth of dust :)
>
> No it doesn't. It's still 20gp worth of dust the wizard was stupid
> enough to pay over the odds for. It's only worth 250gp to the wizard -
> not to the general populace at large, the spell, etc. (although, if an
> abundance of wizards tried this trick, the diamond dust sellers may
> quickly catch on that there are a lot of idiots out there....).
The worth of a thing is what it will bring. The spell says
250 GP's worth of diamond dust. Obviously if a Wizard is
willing to pay 250 Gp's for it than it _is_ 250 Gp's worth
of diamond dust.
The spell does not say that its material component is the
dust of a diamond worth 250 Gp's it says its material component
is 250 Gp's worth of diamond dust. Since different diamonds
of the same size may have very different values depending on
their color, cut, flaws. etc obviously 250 Gp's worth of
diamond dust is not a set volume it is a set value.
> If you went into a shop, for example, and bought a book for $300, but
> the shop price was only $10, would you have a $300 book?
Of course. There is not one price for any object. The proper
price to sell anything for is as much as you can possibly get for
it. If the book was not worth _$300_ to me than I would not
have paid $300 for it. The fact that it might be worth $10\
to someone else is totally irrelevant.
> No. You'd
> have a $10 book, an empty wallet, and not a lot of wisdom. You could
> try selling the book to someone for $300, but you'd be hard pushed to
> find someone that stupid - unless you used ebay, of course :-)
If I needed a $300 book to cast 'Stoneskin' with than any
book I paid $300 for would be a $300 book.
Moreover the purpose of the 250 Gp's of diamond dust rule
(and the limited duration) is to ensure that 3rd ed is different
from 2nd ed, where adventurers would walk around with multiple
Stoneskins on at all times.
Peter Seebach
>Moreover the purpose of the 250 Gp's of diamond dust rule
>(and the limited duration) is to ensure that 3rd ed is different
>from 2nd ed, where adventurers would walk around with multiple
>Stoneskins on at all times.
Heh. I seem to recall that, at one point, I saw something saying the
components for stoneskin cost 1000gp, but I can't find that in 2E now.
UA, maybe?
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>The worth of a thing is what it will bring. The spell says
>250 GP's worth of diamond dust. Obviously if a Wizard is
>willing to pay 250 Gp's for it than it _is_ 250 Gp's worth
>of diamond dust.
Heh. Looking at things this way diamond dust taken from others won't
work - it cost nothing. :)
IMO a better measure of value isn't what the mage paid for the dust -
it's what he could get for it.
Ian R Malcomson
>The worth of a thing is what it will bring.
Exactly. Not what it was taken for.
>The spell says
>250 GP's worth of diamond dust. Obviously if a Wizard is
>willing to pay 250 Gp's for it than it _is_ 250 Gp's worth
>of diamond dust.
Now, that's not correct by *your* definition. "What it will bring".
What will it *bring* the wizard, if he tried to sell it? 20gp, that's
what. Therefore, it's *not* 250gp worth of diamond dust - the wizard's
net assets have not gone up by 250gp (or remained even, if he paid for
the dust), they've gone *down* by 230gp.
Peter Newman
>
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:38:23 -0900, Peter Newman <pne...@gci.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The worth of a thing is what it will bring. The spell says
> >250 GP's worth of diamond dust. Obviously if a Wizard is
> >willing to pay 250 Gp's for it than it _is_ 250 Gp's worth
> >of diamond dust.
>
> Heh. Looking at things this way diamond dust taken from others won't
> work - it cost nothing. :)
No, what needs to happen is that a party member other than
the Mage must claim the diamond dust as part of her treasure share
and the Mage must later pay them 250 Gp's for it. If the Wizard
kills someone they cant simply grab their diamond dust.
Note that you can't use 251 Gp's worth od diamond dust as the
component is 250 Gp's worth not 'at least 250 Gp's worth'
therefore any time the Wizard wants to buy enough diamond
dust for several 'Stoneskins' she must make multiple transactions
to do so. After all taking 1000 GP's worth od diamond dust
and dividing it into four equal sized piles might mean that
one pile is 0.4% bigger than the other piles, and thus both
spells will fail, the first since it will have 249 Gp's worth
of dust and the second because it will have 251 Gp's worth :)
> IMO a better measure of value isn't what the mage paid for the dust -
> it's what he could get for it.
That's completely irrelevant. If the spell component was
supposed to be 'diamond dust that the Wizard could sell
for 250 GP's' than that is what would be required. Since
the rules don't say that then obviously that is not what
is required.
Peter Newman
>
> >The worth of a thing is what it will bring.
>
> Exactly. Not what it was taken for.
>
> >The spell says
> >250 GP's worth of diamond dust. Obviously if a Wizard is
> >willing to pay 250 Gp's for it than it _is_ 250 Gp's worth
> >of diamond dust.
>
> Now, that's not correct by *your* definition. "What it will bring".
The only way to answer that question is by selling it.
If one wizard has a pile of diamond dust that he paid
250 gold for then that's enough gold for him to cast 'Stoneskin'
with. OTOH if he sells this dust to a second Wizard for 20
gold then the second Wizard may not use that dust to cast
'Stoneskin' with as it's not 250 GP's worth of dust to him.
Similarly if the first Wizard buys the dust back for 30 gold
it is no longer enough to cast 'Stoneskin' with but if he
pays 250 gold he can. The spell knows how much was paid for
the dust. If not enough was paid for the dust then the spell
isn't important enough to the caster and the magic will fail. :)
> What will it *bring* the wizard, if he tried to sell it? 20gp, that's
> what. Therefore, it's *not* 250gp worth of diamond dust - the wizard's
> net assets have not gone up by 250gp (or remained even, if he paid for
> the dust), they've gone *down* by 230gp.
Hypothetical future sales are irrelevant. The value of an
item is established by its last sale price. If that was when
the Wizard paid 250 gold for it then it's worth 250 gold.
Ian R Malcomson
>Hypothetical future sales are irrelevant. The value of an
>item is established by its last sale price.
How does that work with depreciation etc.? No, the value of an item is
established by the current market for said item. That is not to say
that the market could not be affected by the last sale (word getting
around to diamond dust sellers that wizards will pay 1250% over the odds
for their wares), but one instance of a sale does not determine the
value of an item, unless it is unique.
>If that was when
>the Wizard paid 250 gold for it then it's worth 250 gold.
As I've said before, to him alone. Not to the spell, not to other
wizards, and only to one diamond dust seller.
Andrew Tellez
Peter Newman wrote:
>
> The worth of a thing is what it will bring. The spell says
> 250 GP's worth of diamond dust. Obviously if a Wizard is
> willing to pay 250 Gp's for it than it _is_ 250 Gp's worth
> of diamond dust.
Given the default economy assumed in 3E, what was probably meant was "an
amount of dust that, if valued consistently with the rest of the prices
in the book, would be worth 250gp". Perhaps there's some deity who acts
as the Setter of Prices and Buyer of Last Resort, whose temples will buy
and sell endless quantities of any item at the listed prices.
However, your method is entirely plausible, too. Perhaps the magic
doesn't care so much about the actual diamond dust, it may not even need
to be diamond dust. What powers the magic is that the mage is willing
to sacrifice resources for it. It's the expenditure of 250 gp that is
important, not the token consumed in the spell.
Peter Newman
>
> >Hypothetical future sales are irrelevant. The value of an
> >item is established by its last sale price.
>
> How does that work with depreciation etc.?
It doesn't. The dust is too vain to admit that its value
might depreciate so it believes itself to be worth whatever
it was last sold for. :)
> No, the value of an item is
> established by the current market for said item. That is not to say
> that the market could not be affected by the last sale (word getting
> around to diamond dust sellers that wizards will pay 1250% over the odds
> for their wares), but one instance of a sale does not determine the
> value of an item, unless it is unique.
Of course it does. One sale may not necessarily reflect the
market equilibrium price for other loads of diamond dust but
it does clearly establish what the dust was worth to that
wizard at that time.
>
> >If that was when
> >the Wizard paid 250 gold for it then it's worth 250 gold.
>
> As I've said before, to him alone.
He's the one casting the spell. Thus he is the only relevant
point of reference.
> Not to the spell, not to other
> wizards, and only to one diamond dust seller.
Yes, so?
epic_sou...@my-deja.com
I can see that, but why bother having material components at all, then? If
that's what it is, then why not just sacrifice the gold directly. I do kinda
like the thought that hyper-inflation could turn mages in gods, though. Epic
Ian R Malcomson
>> Not to the spell, not to other
>> wizards, and only to one diamond dust seller.
>
>Yes, so?
So he tries to cast the spell, which goes "cheapskate" and refuses to
work.
David R. Klassen
>
> Given the default economy assumed in 3E, what was probably meant was "an
> amount of dust that, if valued consistently with the rest of the prices
> in the book, would be worth 250gp".
20th century free market economy.
> Perhaps there's some deity who acts
> as the Setter of Prices and Buyer of Last Resort, whose temples will buy
> and sell endless quantities of any item at the listed prices.
Hermes.
> to sacrifice resources for it. It's the expenditure of 250 gp that is
> important, not the token consumed in the spell.
Interesting thought... However, I would assume the use of diamond
*is* integral to the stoneskin spell. Using the principle of
sympathy, you are getting a tough shell around you to absorb
damage because you are sprinkling yourself with the hardest
natural substance.
--
David R. Klassen voice: 856-256-4500 x3273
Department of Chemistry & Physics fax: 856-256-4478
Rowan University
201 Mullica Hill Road kla...@rowan.edu
Glassboro, NJ 08028 http://elvis.rowan.edu/~klassen
Andrew Tellez
epic_sou...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> I can see that, but why bother having material components at all, then? If
> that's what it is, then why not just sacrifice the gold directly. I do
The cost is to discourage the PC from using it. The nature of the item
lets the DM restrict the spell's use through the supply of <whatever>.
KiM
> > However, your method is entirely plausible, too. Perhaps the magic
> > doesn't care so much about the actual diamond dust, it may not even need
> > to be diamond dust. What powers the magic is that the mage is willing
> > to sacrifice resources for it. It's the expenditure of 250 gp that is
> > important, not the token consumed in the spell.
>
> I can see that, but why bother having material components at all, then? If
> that's what it is, then why not just sacrifice the gold directly. I do kinda
> like the thought that hyper-inflation could turn mages in gods, though. Epic
In addition to maintianing the arcane feel of spellcasting rather than turning it
into spell shopping I think that the idea of mages sacrificing gold would shatter
an economy. After all if they have to spend their gold on a variety of luxury
components then the loss is distributed across all the items required with no
real harm to the economy (the amount of gold is still the same etc).
Spells requiring a direct gold coin sacrifice would certainly create issues
regarding the value of gold coins in areas where wizards are plentiful (Evil
wizards in the Realms would be hunting dragons down just to steal the gold coins
outta their treasure piles etc).
--
KiM
email: ki...@dingoblue.net.au
url: http://www.geocities.com/k_i_m_13
"A kind word and a loaded .45 generally gets you more than a kind word alone."
Jason Stitt
>
> >> Not to the spell, not to other
> >> wizards, and only to one diamond dust seller.
> >
> >Yes, so?
>
> So he tries to cast the spell, which goes "cheapskate" and refuses to
> work.
Might I humbly suggest just using weights and/or volumes?
For example, "Material Component: A third of an ounce (or about 10g)
of diamond dust." You still have to decide how much it sells for, but
at least different selling prices don't affect the spell itself.
> --
> Ian R Malcomson
> Erstwhile Domicus bloke
> Domicus website: http://www.domicus.demon.co.uk
> ProFantasy Freelancer: http://www.profantasy.com
--
Ian R Malcomson
>It's the expenditure of 250 gp that is
>important, not the token consumed in the spell.
Aaaargh!
Imagine this:
The recipe says: 2 eggs, 3 oranges, and half a pound of sugar.
You don't have any oranges. But hey - a bottle of vinegar costs the
about the same, and weighs about the same, so let's shove that in
instead.
Yeah, right. That's going to work.....
IMO, and IMC, messing about with spells can be dangerous. Just as
replacing oranges for vinegar in a recipe could produce something quite
vile, substituting spell components can also be a risky business. More
so, in fact. Substituting 250gp worth of diamond dust for a lesser
value, or for an entirely different substance, is going to cause you
problems - either the spell won't work, or something hitherto unexpected
will occur.
Accidental spell research can seriously damage your health, mind, and
atomic cohesion....
Bryant Berggren
<tar...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote:
> People make assumptions like this all the time
> in D&D though, assuming that their characters know
> what oxygen is (discovered 1774), that the brain
> is used for thinking, or what the heart does, why
> bleeding is bad for you, what a map is, etc.
Especially when you consider that the rules aren't necessarily going
to be the same. There may *be* no "oxygen" in a D&D campaign, simply
"elemental air" (which is a single substance rather than a composition
of several gasses). Maybe the brain really is for cooling blood, and
brain damage is harmful because it leads to unbalanced humors. Maybe
matter is infinitely divisible.
On the other hand, this cuts both ways. Oxygen was discovered *in our
world* in 1774. If the DM says it was "revealed knowledge from the
high priest Lee since time immemorial", then the characters may well
know what it is. (I'm fairly sure you were talking more about
assumptions without DM input, though).
BTW -- what's wrong with maps? Ptolemy had maps. Obviously they won't
be highly accurate aerial projections, but ...
BRB
Mr. M.J. Lush
Bryant Berggren <vo...@theramp.net> wrote:
<snip>
>BTW -- what's wrong with maps? Ptolemy had maps. Obviously they won't
>be highly accurate aerial projections, but ...
This got me thinking Assuming there is no Map kingdom
spell, mages would be still be very useful cartographers.
All you'd need would be say a mage of perhaps 6th lvl and
an assistant, the mage uses levitate to get some sort of gondola
up to altitude (one 6th lvl 3rd Ed levitate would last 60 minutes
and get to an altitude of about 12000 ft, lower altitudes would probably
be more useful) stores could be taken up as Shrunk Items or on additional
levitates. Once in place Extended Rope Trick is cast for a 12 hour duration
the gondola is tied to the rope and the mage rests to recover spells.
One extended and two normal Rope Tricks are more than enough to
keep them up there indefinitely, more than long enough to take more than
enough bearings to map the area (probably working at night taking bearings
on apprentices with light spells)... nice work for the mage, well payed
little work and plenty of (near) solitude to study (the assistant sleeps
in the gondola works _very_ quietly at night... if they know whats good
for them!)
--
Michael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPC rights activist | Nameless Abominations are people too.
Phaedyme
Bryant Berggren wrote:
>
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:25:30 -0500, Ben Buckner
> <tar...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote:
> > People make assumptions like this all the time
> > in D&D though, assuming that their characters know
> > what oxygen is (discovered 1774), that the brain
> > is used for thinking, or what the heart does, why
> > bleeding is bad for you, what a map is, etc.
Especially, people assume that it's impossible to learn these things
through magical study as opposed to rigorous scientific study, because
as we all know, the scientific mindset is superior.
> Especially when you consider that the rules aren't necessarily going
> to be the same. There may *be* no "oxygen" in a D&D campaign, simply
> "elemental air" (which is a single substance rather than a composition
> of several gasses). Maybe the brain really is for cooling blood, and
> brain damage is harmful because it leads to unbalanced humors. Maybe
> matter is infinitely divisible.
This is certainly a distinct possibility as well.
> On the other hand, this cuts both ways. Oxygen was discovered *in our
> world* in 1774. If the DM says it was "revealed knowledge from the
> high priest Lee since time immemorial", then the characters may well
> know what it is. (I'm fairly sure you were talking more about
> assumptions without DM input, though).
He probably was. I still find the assumption that it's impossible to
discover the properties and laws the universe works under with magic to
be pretty laughable. This assumes that people who learn how to
manipulate the world through metaphysical means have no curiosity as to
*how* the world works.
> BTW -- what's wrong with maps? Ptolemy had maps. Obviously they won't
> be highly accurate aerial projections, but ...
Because no one would ever *think* of drawing out the lay of the land so
they could find their way around.
--
Watch This Space | xe...@teleport.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
"...oh Brave New World that has such people in it."
http://www.teleport.com/~xenya | -- The Tempest, Shakespeare
John Hwang
> Women in medieval settings didn't live as long as men, because
> childbirth was as dangerous as battle. One out of three marriages
> ended with the death of the wife in childbirth. Changing that had
> huge effects in our world...
OTOH, with clerics and healers all over with the ability to cast Cure
Wounds or whatever, I can't doubt that the local midwives haven't
figured out that curing would be a good thing. This is even easier
than Cure Disease, being available more often and at a lower level.
Considering that pregnancy was probably even less common than disease,
I'd guess that both infant and maternal mortality rates would be a lot
better than medieval norms.
--
--- John Hwang "J_H...@my-deja.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Andrew Tellez
Ian R Malcomson wrote:
>
> >It's the expenditure of 250 gp that is
> >important, not the token consumed in the spell.
>
> Aaaargh!
>
> Imagine this:
>
> The recipe says: 2 eggs, 3 oranges, and half a pound of sugar.
>
> You don't have any oranges. But hey - a bottle of vinegar costs the
> about the same, and weighs about the same, so let's shove that in
> instead.
>
> Yeah, right. That's going to work.....
A better analogy is that the recipe says "$1.20 worth of tomatoes ..."
in which it's not clear whether several cherry tomatoes or part of a
larger one is what's intended. It needs to be the right type of token,
but if the measurement given is a unit of price, the amount will vary.
Unless we're back to the practive of using gp as a measure of weight as
well.
Andrew Tellez
"David R. Klassen" wrote:
>
> Andrew Tellez wrote:
> >
> > Given the default economy assumed in 3E, what was probably meant was "an
> > amount of dust that, if valued consistently with the rest of the prices
> > in the book, would be worth 250gp".
> This is most definately the meaning. D&D 3e does not assume a
> 20th century free market economy.
Quite likely, and the one I'll be using IMC. Were I still into Living
City, though, well, I'd take the opportunity to be pedantic.
> > Perhaps there's some deity who acts
> > as the Setter of Prices and Buyer of Last Resort, whose temples will buy
> > and sell endless quantities of any item at the listed prices.
> Hermes.
How did he get that job? I'd think that it would be the same guy that's
responsible for giving forest animals their treasure.
> > to sacrifice resources for it. It's the expenditure of 250 gp that is
> > important, not the token consumed in the spell.
> Interesting thought... However, I would assume the use of diamond
> *is* integral to the stoneskin spell. Using the principle of
I would as well, however the amount of diamond dust might be variable.
And wouldn't an intact diamond represent toughness better than a broken
one?
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>> BTW -- what's wrong with maps? Ptolemy had maps. Obviously they won't
>> be highly accurate aerial projections, but ...
If you want an interesting set of maps, take a look at roman military
maps. They're nothing like what we'd call a map, and much more like a
route schematic for, say the public transport system of a medium sized
city. The result is that they can give some quite erroneous ideas as
to how long it will take to go by one route as opposed to another, and
they're next to worthless once you're off the roads. It's easy to see
why late empire commanders had real trouble if invaders cut the road
nets.
Eric Tolle
>
> He probably was. I still find the assumption that it's impossible to
> discover the properties and laws the universe works under with magic to
> be pretty laughable. This assumes that people who learn how to
> manipulate the world through metaphysical means have no curiosity as to
> *how* the world works.
I was in an AD&D game fairly recently where there was a fairly high
degree of scientific knowledge- most of it from magical study.
There was a germ theory of disease, orbital dynamics were well
known, physics and engineering were at least as advanced as the
17th century...it was interesting- especially since much of the
"space science" came from the fact that the campaign world was a
moon of a larger planet in a sort of Jovian system where nearly all
the moons (and the main planet) were livable. No real night, and
astronomical maps that were more complicated then you would believe.
--
Eric Tolle sch...@silcom.com
People tend to underestimate the impact of scientific progress.
Why just fifty years ago, only a few people had even heard of DNA,
and now everybody who is somebody uses it!