Jewellery

[Sans.]

Would it be possible to store money in the form of jewellery, which is both more compact and more likely to be noticed if stolen? Would you allow players to just buy and sell jewellery, akin to bartering?

[Slipperychicken]

Yes. Converting coins to precious rocks is an old way for dnd characters to transport vast wealth without servants or pack animals.


Gems, diamonds, etc should all be considered trade goods for the purpose of barter. That is, they can be used like money, in the same way as bars of gold and platinum. The tradeoff, apart from the usual hazards of portable untraceable wealth, is that most potato-farmers and tavern-keepers won't have change for a black opal, so for them you'll want to keep some "small change" in the form of coins.

[RickAllison]

As slipperychicken says, trade goods and art objects like jewelry only lose value in certain circumstances when trading. Trade goods lose value by going bad (so they are bad for storage) while art objects lose value when the art depreciates. This does not matter for any jewelry you will be trading, for the most part, and more has to do with pieces by artists that are special because they are original and haven't been shown off. As soon as the piece enters circulation, it loses some of its value as it isn't so special to wear. That is more important for nobles that will be showing off for the balls than for adventurers just trading out money for gems.

[Honest Tiefling]

Depends. Some areas might have sumptary laws, so certain items such as gold and precious gems would have a limited market...Unless one found out a way to get an audience with a particular merchant or noble. Other areas would have different values for metals/gems/art, so taking a silver and jade bracelet from one bit of the world might not fetch a good price in a country that prefers gold, rubies and their own styles.

I think I would probably say that using jewelry reduces the amount of theft, but in turn, requires a bit more finesse and skill checks then simply using coinage. On the flip side, if one was good at trade one might be able to get some favors, reputation or increased money if they spend the time getting the right buyer. I am a fan of putting in art objects into loot, so the party can decide to either sell as is or try to determine what might have a higher price if they do some leg work.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I'm generally in favour of using gems and jewellery as a form of currency. Obviously small towns and villages won't have jewellery shops or finesmiths; the market isn't big enough; and small businesses aren't going to have 100gp in loose coins if you want to 'break' a pearl, but in the larger cities I'd expect no issues. The nice thing about gems is that they basically have the same worth everywhere, since their value is intrinsic, whereas minted currency only spends in places that recognise the authority of the person/polity that minted it.

'Course, wearing a load of Flashy rings is going to make you a prime target for pickpockets...

[lebefrei]

Treasure should always be a valid form of barter currency, but it has its own risks. First, not everyone is capable of exchanging goods of value worth the ruby studded crown that you have. Second, if word gets around that your party is hoarding valuable treasures, that puts a target on their backs. I always let my players loot and keep valuables if they are so interested, as I feel it encourages a more realistic world. Most D&D characters are basically raiders, after all. Taking loot is part of that.

[Honest Tiefling]

The nice thing about gems is that they basically have the same worth everywhere, since their value is intrinsic...

Actually, no. The value of a gem is due to its rarity in a region and it's appeal. Gems, even in the modern world, go in and out of fashion in various regions. A place on the sea that is big on pearl farming is going to have a drastically different idea of the value of a pearl as opposed to an inland country that worships a moon god with a particular sacred gem.

[JackPhoenix]

Actually, no. The value of a gem is due to its rarity in a region and it's appeal. Gems, even in the modern world, go in and out of fashion in various regions. A place on the sea that is big on pearl farming is going to have a drastically different idea of the value of a pearl as opposed to an inland country that worships a moon god with a particular sacred gem.

Not in D&D where certain gems have fixed value as spell components.

[Specter]

Not in D&D where certain gems have fixed value as spell components.

Yep. It would be dull not to allow a cleric to Raise Dead in a place where diamonds are abundant.

[Honest Tiefling]

I assume that's to handwave trying to teach people about the qualities of a gem needed for the actual ritual, because otherwise casting the spell would take a very long time in trying to figure out which diamond is usable or not. DnD has a long tradition of hand-waving spell components.

However, if you're going to try to get an advantage when using a different currency, I would think it would be reasonable for the DM to expect the players to pay attention to the setting. Some things need to be streamlined, but other things can lead to a use of diplomacy or knowledge rolls depending on the taste and attitudes of the table.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yep. It would be dull not to allow a cleric to Raise Dead in a place where diamonds are abundant.

That brings up an idea (mostly joking, but...):

What if a nation used the resurrection standard for currency? Assume that it's something intrinsic to the diamond that allows casting raise dead. Then define the smallest diamond that functions in a casting of raise dead as 1 currency unit. Since that's a lot for most purposes, define smaller units--GP, SP, etc. Et voila. A stable currency. Since the nature of the diamond required doesn't change (citation needed), the value of a GP in terms of that doesn't change. Not much good for things like food, but in terms of spell components, it's great. Proof wizards and clerics rule the universe from behind the scenes! It's a conspiracy!

[Slipperychicken]

I assume that's to handwave trying to teach people about the qualities of a gem needed for the actual ritual, because otherwise casting the spell would take a very long time in trying to figure out which diamond is usable or not. DnD has a long tradition of hand-waving spell components.

This is it, really. Some game designer wanted to make sure players didn't circumvent an important cost (imagine someone chipping off tiny fragments of diamond for cheap resurrections), but also didn't want to bog down his action-adventure RPG with comprehensive rules relating to the suitability of precious rocks for use in magic spells.

And I think the lack of emphasis on spell components is important to remember here too. Many material spell components originated as cheap puns, and almost nobody bothers to use that lore because it came from an earlier, more whimsical period of D&D when magicians needed wacky antics to make spells happen. D&D 5e's take on foci makes non-costly spell components all but unnecessary. I suspect the main reason they're still in the newest edition at all was to avoid scaring off 3e and AD&D players who were already skeptical and would have been wary of axing too many sacred cows.

[Saeviomage]

That brings up an idea (mostly joking, but...):

What if a nation used the resurrection standard for currency? Assume that it's something intrinsic to the diamond that allows casting raise dead. Then define the smallest diamond that functions in a casting of raise dead as 1 currency unit. Since that's a lot for most purposes, define smaller units--GP, SP, etc. Et voila. A stable currency. Since the nature of the diamond required doesn't change (citation needed), the value of a GP in terms of that doesn't change. Not much good for things like food, but in terms of spell components, it's great. Proof wizards and clerics rule the universe from behind the scenes! It's a conspiracy!

This is a great world building idea. It also has some other flow on effects.

Somewhere there is a gem or gems that are the resurrection standard, cut identically to another stone that was then successfully used in a resurrection. What happens if people tamper with that, or try to?

What is the punishment for trying to pass off a sub-life gem as a lifer? Who is responsible for checking that?

Does it effect the terminology of currency? If I save up 500gp, do people refer to me as a lifer? Are people with less than 500gp to their name referred to as unlived? Are the stupendously rich referred to as immortals? Is 50gp a decilife? Is 5 silver a millilife? Are coppers referred to as little deaths?

If I murder someone, do I just have to pay a bill of 500gp or is there a bit extra as a punishment? Is murder considered a less heinous crime than chopping off someones finger (because raise dead won't fix that)? Is the punishment for truly heinous crimes being turned into undead (so you cannot be resurrected) and then imprisoned? Or simply having extremities removed?

[Honest Tiefling]

I think the main problem with using diamonds as currency would be the fact that diamonds are pretty easy to break. Sure, you might have indents in a coin, but it doesn't break in half. Given that the main target would be people who are too lofty to go to the market like mere commoners, it would make more sense if it was a form of currency that was traded in important negotiations, and traded carefully, which does make sense if it is only used in trade between very powerful people or groups.

[RickAllison]

I assume that's to handwave trying to teach people about the qualities of a gem needed for the actual ritual, because otherwise casting the spell would take a very long time in trying to figure out which diamond is usable or not. DnD has a long tradition of hand-waving spell components.

However, if you're going to try to get an advantage when using a different currency, I would think it would be reasonable for the DM to expect the players to pay attention to the setting. Some things need to be streamlined, but other things can lead to a use of diplomacy or knowledge rolls depending on the taste and attitudes of the table.

Honestly, you don't need to institute an disadvantage because using jewelry as a currency already has one. The best representation I can think of for this is playing Skyrim with mods that give coins weight. If you don't have a place to store wealth, gems and rings, as well as magic items quickly become more useful in the original form than sold for its value, but buying things with them become difficult. It was not uncommon to want to buy a merchant's stock of arrows and find that I have to buy a magic bow I don't really want because the poor merchant doesn't have enough gold and arrows for the full value of the sold item.

And that rapidly could become what happens for players that keep large amounts of gold in art object form. Yes, it is compact money. No, not every merchant is a bank. To put things in a real-world situation, the hardware store I worked summers at in high school started the day with something like $800 at the front for change, between three registers and the rolls of coins and bills from the bank. Based on 2e rough conversion rates, $20 is 1 gp (discounting certain items that have greatly different relative values such as livestock and precision glass) and so that hardware store in D&D starts the day with maybe 40 gp worth of coins in various denominations, in what would be a very large town (3500 people). That 100 gp diamond becomes a little less attractive as a currency when trying to buy 50 feet of chain with it has to come with a cloning kit and two healing kits to get the full value of the money. This is how you end up with Fallout transactions, where most of the change is in other items you bought rather than cash.

[Honest Tiefling]

Honestly, you don't need to institute an disadvantage because using jewelry as a currency already has one. The best representation I can think of for this is playing Skyrim with mods that give coins weight. If you don't have a place to store wealth, gems and rings, as well as magic items quickly become more useful in the original form than sold for its value, but buying things with them become difficult. It was not uncommon to want to buy a merchant's stock of arrows and find that I have to buy a magic bow I don't really want because the poor merchant doesn't have enough gold and arrows for the full value of the sold item.

That...Seems unnecessarily complicated. I still maintain that for my own games, use of jewelry/art objects to generate additional wealth or plot hooks requires skills. It's entirely opt-in on the part of the players, and it doesn't slow down the game except when the entire table is on board. It also allows skills to be used to try to generate more coin.

Given that the default encumbrance rules are VERY generous, I see more appeal in making the system a choice on the part of the players then trying to tweak carrying capacity to punish everyone.

[RickAllison]

That...Seems unnecessarily complicated. I still maintain that for my own games, use of jewelry/art objects to generate additional wealth or plot hooks requires skills. It's entirely opt-in on the part of the players, and it doesn't slow down the game except when the entire table is on board. It also allows skills to be used to try to generate more coin.

Given that the default encumbrance rules are VERY generous, I see more appeal in making the system a choice on the part of the players then trying to tweak carrying capacity to punish everyone.

More complicated than not knowing just how much your money is actually worth because it depends on the area? Running it by the book is no different than running around with platinum when everything is bought in silver, or gold when everything is in coppers. What is difficult about small-time shops not having change for a hundred?

[Honest Tiefling]

More complicated than not knowing just how much your money is actually worth because it depends on the area?

Appropriate backgrounds or skills can negate not knowing the value of the item. Diplomacy or Insight can be used to figure it out if no one has the right skills. And most of the time, player characters only obtain jewelry because they went out and looted it, since most monsters and bandits don't often carry valuable jewelry. (Bandits might have lower quality items, but I would be okay hand waving that into currency).

The issue isn't small time shops not having change, since that's likely an issue regardless. It's just that I think having it be an option to try to use skills to obtain more loot isn't a bad thing. If you don't want to use the skills, focus on coinage and other loot.

[Slipperychicken]

I think the main problem with using diamonds as currency would be the fact that diamonds are pretty easy to break. Sure, you might have indents in a coin, but it doesn't break in half. Given that the main target would be people who are too lofty to go to the market like mere commoners, it would make more sense if it was a form of currency that was traded in important negotiations, and traded carefully, which does make sense if it is only used in trade between very powerful people or groups.

D&D hasn't done equipment damage in a very long time. Even when it was a thing, basically no-one used it.

If they did start doing it, then we'd all have to either explain why the bard's mandolin doesn't get smashed to pieces (or at least sent way out-of-tune) in literally every combat he participates in, or w'd have to spend time every session tracking how many times our equipment has been impacted by hazards, and deal with it all being damaged or destroyed by constant heavy combat. Since getting a D&D group to even track encumbrance is like pulling teeth, I think we can safely say that D&D players want neither of those things.

[Honest Tiefling]

D&D hasn't done equipment damage in a very long time. Even when it was a thing, basically no-one used it.

Sometimes, there needs to be a separation of mechanics and setting, or players will try to beat everything with a broom because it won't break or use it as a lever. And if it exists, PCs will try to destroy it without fail. So through there is no equipment damage, there is still damage to everyday objects, such as valuable items someone wants to destroy. Else, a lot of characters would swing into a window and get really injured without actually going through said window...

[Slipperychicken]

Sometimes, there needs to be a separation of mechanics and setting, or players will try to beat everything with a broom because it won't break or use it as a lever. And if it exists, PCs will try to destroy it without fail. So through there is no equipment damage, there is still damage to everyday objects, such as valuable items someone wants to destroy. Else, a lot of characters would swing into a window and get really injured without actually going through said window...

This is true. Most groups do resolve damage to the environment as needed.

Now that I actually look through the DMG, there is a section for armor class and hit points for objects. All we'd need is good rules-structure to determine damage to objects within players' inventory or being wielded by PCs. It's probably a good subject for another thread, but we could perhaps something involving an attack roll against the object's AC in situations where it might sustain damage, and perhaps have extra containers like backpacks adding to the object's AC.

[JPicasso]

Generally, if the PCs have more money than they can carry, converting to gems is a nice way to relieve them of some of it.

I treat the "value" of an item the cost to buy an item. So they can easily convert 500gp to a 500gp gem.
However, no merchant buys and sells an item for the same price. Gems are one area where an object would hold it's value more or less. So when they go to sell it, they only get 90-95% of it's value back. I'd let them try and negotiate, a bit, but it would be rare to not lose money on the transaction. Other forms of wealth storage would vary by much more. Art, and such could go up or down based on what' popular in the area. Magic objects are generally a utility pricing model, one person might think an item is mostly useless luxury, while another might make his entire work/life around it.

PCs have tried to eek out every last coin from every last transaction, but that gets tiring, and save for some unique circumstances, we have to remember that they are adventurers, not art dealers or savvy caravan backers, and not the experts on what things are worth to everyone. Usually they are people-wary enough to avoid getting totally scammed, but there are always transaction fees at the bank.

[Seclora]

I've always heard it refered to as 'ring treasure', but it was one of the ways germanic and scandinavian tribes carried wealth and status. Rather than purses of coin, which are easily snatched, cut, or lost, you would wear arm rings of silver and gold. You could cut pieces of these rings off to pay for things, but more often would give them to your huskarls after battle as a show of appreciation and reward for their service. 'Beowulf' and 'Judith and Holofernes'[Saxon tradition] both make reference to the tradition.
I have also heard that it was good practice to let your wife wear your rings, since she was probably going to be running the household. I have no source for this though.

Jewelry is a fantastic way to carry your wealth, with the small-ish downside of also flaunting your wealth. In the right places, it makes you one of the elite. In the wrong ones, it makes you a target for bandits and thieves. I actually have all of my NPC healers wear diamond jewelry of various qualities to be used specifically for Resurrection spells if needed. I also have the Dwarven tendency toward wealth hoarding be responsible for the inflated value of Gemstones.

[Saeviomage]

I think the main problem with using diamonds as currency would be the fact that diamonds are pretty easy to break. Sure, you might have indents in a coin, but it doesn't break in half.
I think you'll find it's easier to damage a coin badly enough that it might not be recognizable than to break a diamond.

And since the spell mending exists, it's not actually a problem if you split a diamond in two - it only takes 10 minutes of effort to fix it again.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think you'll find it's easier to damage a coin badly enough that it might not be recognizable than to break a diamond.

Not really. Diamonds are fragile little things. Put them down on a stone counter and BAM! Time for a new engagement ring. You can't say the same for a coin, since repeated throws against stone won't damage them to the point of not being recognized.

[Laserlight]

Would it be possible to store money in the form of jewellery, which is both more compact and more likely to be noticed if stolen? Would you allow players to just buy and sell jewellery, akin to bartering?

Yes.

You might also allow them to deposit money with Antonio, a member of a banking family in City A, who will provide them with a letter of credit which they can turn in to Bartolomeo, the banker's cousin in City B, and withdraw funds there. In fact, you need not even have a letter; just have Antonio use Sending to tell Bartolomeo "Toraulethon Ironhand, half elf, forty two hundred gold, password Rambunctious Wombat". Per the spell description, range is unlimited and Bartolomeo will recognize that Antonio is the sender.

[Erit]

You might also allow them to deposit money with Antonio, a member of a banking family in City A, who will provide them with a letter of credit which they can turn in to Bartolomeo, the banker's cousin in City B, and withdraw funds there. In fact, you need not even have a letter; just have Antonio use Sending to tell Bartolomeo "Toraulethon Ironhand, half elf, forty two hundred gold, password Rambunctious Wombat". Per the spell description, range is unlimited and Bartolomeo will recognize that Antonio is the sender.

The beginnings of paper currency and debit cards.

[Saeviomage]

Not really. Diamonds are fragile little things. Put them down on a stone counter and BAM! Time for a new engagement ring. You can't say the same for a coin, since repeated throws against stone won't damage them to the point of not being recognized.

That may have happened to you, but it's far from a common experience. And once again - when it does happen, it's a 10 minute casting of a zero level spell to return it to pristine condition.

[Honest Tiefling]

That may have happened to you, but it's far from a common experience. And once again - when it does happen, it's a 10 minute casting of a zero level spell to return it to pristine condition.

It's actually a very common experience, I don't know why you think diamonds are particularly tough? Diamonds ARE fragile, and many rings are reset with larger diamonds to compensate for the wear and tear of wearing it on a finger. And unless you have a lot of mages, it's going to be hard to repair since not everyone can cast that spell.

A diamond, once fractured, loses a great deal of its value as it can't be put back together without magical assistance. A coin on the other is always a hunk of metal you can reforge very easily.

[Erit]

And unless you have a lot of mages, it's going to be hard to repair since not everyone can cast that spell.

There is little and less reason for most arcanists to not have access to Mending, if only for maintaining spellbooks and/or foci.

[Honest Tiefling]

There is little and less reason for most arcanists to not have access to Mending, if only for maintaining spellbooks and/or foci.

Which means they wouldn't want to bother fixing a very fragile currency when the local gold smith can re-smelt coins with a bit of extra metal.

[Erit]

Which means they wouldn't want to bother fixing a very fragile currency when the local gold smith can re-smelt coins with a bit of extra metal.

... I don't... that isn't... You seem to be arguing against the opposite of the point I made. I said most spellcasters would have Mending, because it's a very handy cantrip. And since they can cast the cantrip literally for free, why would they waste metal fixing coins? They could fix the coin or gem themselves in just a minute.

[Honest Tiefling]

... I don't... that isn't... You seem to be arguing against the opposite of the point I made. I said most spellcasters would have Mending, because it's a very handy cantrip. And since they can cast the cantrip literally for free, why would they waste metal fixing coins? They could fix the coin or gem themselves in just a minute.

I was thinking more of the aspect of pride, and that most casters with those cantrips probably aren't reachable. Sorry for the confusion!

[RickAllison]

Which means they wouldn't want to bother fixing a very fragile currency when the local gold smith can re-smelt coins with a bit of extra metal.

This is what is called counterfeiting, and it is very much illegal. To repair a coin, you have to resubmit it to the ruler and the mint, and it is unlikely said coin would be returned to you.

[Honest Tiefling]

This is what is called counterfeiting, and it is very much illegal. To repair a coin, you have to resubmit it to the ruler and the mint, and it is unlikely said coin would be returned to you.

You assume that I assume that the player characters or the majority of NPCs are following the laws. Or that the people in charge of the currency aren't the ones doing the repairing, returning or no.

[Saeviomage]

It's actually a very common experience, I don't know why you think diamonds are particularly tough?

It's an uncommon enough experience that wherever I look on the internet, people are surprised that it can happen with jewelry, and most cases cannot rule out an inclusion, imperfection or poor mounting that contributed.

If we're using them as currency, then the odds of us dropping a sizeable gem onto a marble surface from an appreciable distance is... slim to say the least.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fracture_toughness_vs._Strength.jpg

Sums it up fairly well: diamonds basically stand up to the same punishment as engineering polymers, but the form of damage to them takes the shape of a catastrophic failure (ie - a shear) instead of a deformation.

Incidentally if you talk to rare coin collectors, then there is a fair incidence of coins breaking too, since they're often not high purity metal.


Diamonds ARE fragile, and many rings are reset with larger diamonds to compensate for the wear and tear of wearing it on a finger.
I get that they can be broken, but fragile is being ridiculous. They need to be hit with significant force on an unyielding surface at the right angle.


And unless you have a lot of mages, it's going to be hard to repair since not everyone can cast that spell.

A diamond, once fractured, loses a great deal of its value as it can't be put back together without magical assistance. A coin on the other is always a hunk of metal you can reforge very easily.

People who have the specific facilities and tools required to 'reforge' coins are spending their time doing much more lucrative things than helping you fix your currency.

The main reasons you keep coins over diamonds are:
1. Creating coins from metal typically increases the wealth of the treasury.
2. Just about every treasury has access to some sort of metal suitable for making coins, while gemstones are less common.
3. You have control over coins. You can ban foreign currency and you can change the amount of coins in circulation.
4. Coins are a propaganda tool.
5. You can keep the value of a coin more-or-less constant and vary it's size. If I want a diamond that is worth 1 cp, then it's going to be a speck, whereas a copper coin is still a usable size.
6. You can (fairly) easily determine whether a coin is worth it's face value without destroying it permanently.

Anyway, it's all academic: the initial discussion was that diamonds might be used as the currency standard, not replace all currency. However I would certainly think that any wealthy individual in D&D would probably have at least one item of diamond jewelry that is sufficient to pull off a resurrection.

I would half expect it to be a law or custom that if you resurrect someone with a diamond from their person, then you are entitled to some form of restitution from their estate (such as the setting the diamond was in, for instance).

[Slipperychicken]

A mass of gold coins has value equal to its weight in gold. 50 coins weigh 1lb. One pound of gold is worth 50 gold coins. That indicates to me that the coins are pure gold if not close to it, so it shouldn't be too much trouble to use them as trade goods, or at least melt them into a gold bar for use in trade.

Though if you ask me, if the PCs are getting so thrashed that the coins in their backpacks are being dented or melted, they should have died several times over before that point.

[Honest Tiefling]

I would half expect it to be a law or custom that if you resurrect someone with a diamond from their person, then you are entitled to some form of restitution from their estate (such as the setting the diamond was in, for instance).

Wouldn't that just encourage people to keep them in silver settings to avoid the issue? (copper would turn your hand green, which I guess isn't a big issue, but it also would only last so long due to skin contact).

I'm not convinced on the whole diamond issue (Heard a little too much swearing from people trying to do it), but if you're carrying a diamond around for resurrection purposes, why is it in the brilliant cut? The pointy bits are notorious for breaking off, and if you get a large enough chunk it could be acid yellow green and look horrible. The fact that it can bring people back to life already increases the cost of the thing, so you might not wind up with the most fancy item ever. In which case, why does it have a precious metal setting as long as it's in a form that won't travel (such as an anklet)?

[Slipperychicken]

Wouldn't that just encourage people to keep them in silver settings to avoid the issue? (copper would turn your hand green, which I guess isn't a big issue, but it also would only last so long due to skin contact).

I'm not convinced on the whole diamond issue (Heard a little too much swearing from people trying to do it), but if you're carrying a diamond around for resurrection purposes, why is it in the brilliant cut? The pointy bits are notorious for breaking off, and if you get a large enough chunk it could be acid yellow green and look horrible. The fact that it can bring people back to life already increases the cost of the thing, so you might not wind up with the most fancy item ever. In which case, why does it have a precious metal setting as long as it's in a form that won't travel (such as an anklet)?

The people with enough influence to convince clergymen to return them to life? Those people can afford to do it in style.


Though personally, I disagree with the restitution thing. If you dumped 300-5,000 gold into someone's dead body with no prior arrangement, just to get them back to life, then you already had a reason which was worth more than the diamond.

[Corsair14]

Diamonds realistically are crap for gemstones. Very common as far as precious stones go, so much in fact they only really had any value in recent history. In the middle ages they were considered boring compared to rubies, emeralds and sapphires. They would be cheap as good agate or jade today if it wasn't for cartels making a limited supply of jewelry quality and a great marketing campaign. They were grinded up for the powder and used as a polishing material for other stones for centuries and still are today.

Historically the substitution of money into precious goods has taken place for millennia. Off hand I know Roman soldiers did it extensively. They traded pay or took pay for salt or purchased decorative weapons and equipment that was easier to carry and could be traded off at a later point. One item I can think of off hand is a centurion who had a stupidly decorated and bejeweled dagger in his belt, sort of functional and didn't weigh him down much more than his other gear.

Gemstones vary in price. A trader is going to want to make money off the item thus is not going to give full price when buying. On the other hand gold coins from one place might not be accepted in a rival kingdom so it might be a better idea to swap for gemstones even if you would take a loss when trying to trade them. Further a town might be located near a mine of a gemstone and thus its price may be reduced due to being fairly common or worse, the gemstone is controlled by a cartel that doesn't allowed unlicensed trade in the stone.

[Willie the Duck]

Diamonds realistically are crap for gemstones. Very common as far as precious stones go, so much in fact they only really had any value in recent history. In the middle ages they were considered boring compared to rubies, emeralds and sapphires. They would be cheap as good agate or jade today if it wasn't for cartels making a limited supply of jewelry quality and a great marketing campaign. They were grinded up for the powder and used as a polishing material for other stones for centuries and still are today.

As sympathetic as I am to a good anti DeBeers tirade, diamonds are not that common, just a lot more common than a corporate inspired mythology leads us to believe (alongside a created demand based on selling the engagement ring mythology). Diamonds were valued less than rubies, emeralds and sapphires, mostly because the stonecutting techniques that make diamonds so lustrous are modern inventions (the most popular stones of the time being the ones which prospered with a Cabochon cut).

Note that, to make a gem be truly valuable, being too rare isn't necessarily a good thing. Gold and silver were considered precious metals at the time, platinum, despite its appearance in D&D, was not. Something has to be common enough that noble guy over there has some of it and you want to be like them, so you want it too.


Gemstones vary in price. A trader is going to want to make money off the item thus is not going to give full price when buying. On the other hand gold coins from one place might not be accepted in a rival kingdom so it might be a better idea to swap for gemstones even if you would take a loss when trying to trade them. Further a town might be located near a mine of a gemstone and thus its price may be reduced due to being fairly common or worse, the gemstone is controlled by a cartel that doesn't allowed unlicensed trade in the stone.

In my mind, making a routine profit off of buying and selling gemstones (as opposed to looting it off another guy, which anyone, even adventurers, can do) is something that can only be accomplished by being an accomplished merchant, and investing your time, resources and efforts predominantly to that endeavor. Therefor in my mind it makes perfect sense that PCs can only buy a '100 gp gem' by spending more than 100 gp, which they do to create more portable wealth. That's enough justification for me to not just let my Players convert all their copper+silver+gold into gemstones without losing some value. That, plus as you say the trader needs to make some money off his exchanges, else why is he there?

[Saeviomage]

Wouldn't that just encourage people to keep them in silver settings to avoid the issue? (copper would turn your hand green, which I guess isn't a big issue, but it also would only last so long due to skin contact).

Silver can tarnish, but again, not a big deal. The main reason is the same reason that pirates supposedly wore an earring - so that if their body were found, they had enough wealth that someone would give them a proper burial (only in this case, not so much a burial)


I'm not convinced on the whole diamond issue (Heard a little too much swearing from people trying to do it), but if you're carrying a diamond around for resurrection purposes, why is it in the brilliant cut?

Well, in our world cutting a diamond increases it's value. Since resurrections are magic, maybe the gods need a bit of impressing and aren't going to put up with uncut stones. Or maybe there's some property they have. Or maybe it's just for looks?


The pointy bits are notorious for breaking off, and if you get a large enough chunk it could be acid yellow green and look horrible. The fact that it can bring people back to life already increases the cost of the thing, so you might not wind up with the most fancy item ever. In which case, why does it have a precious metal setting as long as it's in a form that won't travel (such as an anklet)?
To encourage people to carry your dead ass to a priest :) If you see a guy with a big diamond in a copper setting, you might not bother. If it's in a gold one, that's probably at least a day's wages right there.