Questions about a creative combination of feats and items

[Melcar]

So after having talked a lot of crafting and economy in this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?603884-How-to-make-a-sustainable-income-as-a-high-level-wizard) post... I have a few questions about how to actually implement this in the game and if possible I could combine a few feat for saving time and exp. These might be strait forward questions, but I can't seem to find definite answers to these questions. Hope you guys can help!


First set of questions:

1) Assuming I have Ignore Material Component feat and I wanted to create a dagger out of Oeathblooded Pureore Adamantine. Could I do that using fabricate?

2) Could I make it Dwarvencrafted? And how about Acid-washed, razor-sharp or any other non-magical forging technique?

The above questions are assuming I succeed in a craft check because its an intricate object!


Second set of questions:

1) If I have both the Magical Artisan and Legendary Artisan feats, do I then only pay 50% of the exp cost or 56,25%?

2) If I have the Extraordinary Artisan feat, does it refer the the base, as in market price or base as in 50% of market price?

3) Does the Exceptional Artisan feat affect the time it takes to create magic items (1 day/ 1000 gp)?


Thanks you all in advance!

[Anxe]

First Set
Both seem like an easy Yes. That's what Ignore Material Components is for. And the craft check is all you'd need at that point.

Second Set
1. Due to the way critical multipliers work in D&D, I'm inclined to say it would be 56.25%? I'm not sure of the actual RAW answer. The feats come from different campaign setting books, so they probably were never intended to both be taken by the same character.
2. The base price refers to the market price.
3. Given the prerequisites of Exceptional Artisan, I'd be surprised if that's not what was intended.

[Kayblis]

I feel the first Fabricate question is actually not so easy. The first line in the spell description says "You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material". Sure, you can avoid using any material components, but if you do so you create something out of no material at all, or nothing. The wording implies a material is in fact needed for the proper functioning of a spell. To me, it's one of those cases that the spell goes poof and nothing actually happens, like trying to Plane Shift into the plane you're already on, or casting Darkvision on a sightless creature. I can see the argument of being able to cast Fabricate on a very small piece of a material just to set the material properties, almost as if using a focus, but that's not RAW.

The second question, sure, the only things that these mods change are craft DCs and price, both of which are covered by Fabricate.

[Troacctid]

With fabricate, any modifier based on crafting technique or the skill of the artisan should be fair game if you can beat the check. Any modifier based on the quality of the materials is another story. From the spell: "The quality of items made by this spell is commensurate with the quality of material used as the basis for the new fabrication." And of course, if you don't use any materials at all, you gotta figure that's going to cause some, uh, pretty serious QA issues.

For Extraordinary Artisan, it shouldn't actually matter if you use the market price or 50% of the market price, because multiplication is commutative—but yeah, you use the market price.

[Maat Mons]

If you're talking about the Eschew Materials feat, it can only cover things costing up to 1 gp. Fabricate's components cost the same as the raw materials that would be needed to craft the item normally. That is to say, 1/3rd the market price for whatever's being crafted. So you could make an item worth up to 3 gp out of nothing.

If you're actually talking about Ignore Material Components, the epic feat, then yes, sky's the limit. But by epic levels, couldn't you work out some other way of doing the same thing? Use Dweomerkeeper to ignore the XP cost of True Creation? Shapechange into something with Wish as a spell-like ability?

The argument that Fabricate would fail if used with Eschew Materials / Ignore Material Components is interesting. It raises questions about Psionic Fabricate, since psionic powers never have material components.

[Crichton]

I'm pretty sure that a strict RAW combination of Fabricate and Ignore Material Components would function just fine. Yes, Fabricate says 'You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material' but it also specifies that that original material is the spell's Material Component, which IMC allows you to, well, ignore.


You're not Fabricating your product out of nothingness by ignoring the spell's Material Component, you're Fabricating the product out of whatever Material Component you'd be using if you didn't have IMC, but since you do have IMC, you don't need to actually have that component to still create that effect.

[Ruethgar]

Let’s see, lowest level I can see getting IMC is 15, that’s with Primary Contact, Laborious Training and a Major Bloodline on an Old Loredrake Kobold.

If you’re allowed to take multiple Bloodlines, then the only limiter is the casting which you can get at ECL 5 with Dragonspawn.

Of course, at that point IMC isn’t really the main focus and issue, it’s an ECL 5 mini dragon with CL 33 and 9th level spells.

[Crichton]

Let’s see, lowest level I can see getting IMC is 15, that’s with Primary Contact, Laborious Training and a Major Bloodline on an Old Loredrake Kobold.

If you’re allowed to take multiple Bloodlines, then the only limiter is the casting which you can get at ECL 5 with Dragonspawn.

Of course, at that point IMC isn’t really the main focus and issue, it’s an ECL 5 mini dragon with CL 33 and 9th level spells.

As per the other thread that was linked, the OP is a level 32 Wizard, I think. :)

[Crake]

First set of questions:

1) Assuming I have Ignore Material Component feat and I wanted to create a dagger out of Oeathblooded Pureore Adamantine. Could I do that using fabricate?

2) Could I make it Dwarvencrafted? And how about Acid-washed, razor-sharp or any other non-magical forging technique?

The above questions are assuming I succeed in a craft check because its an intricate object!

All of the above are totally possible, as long as you can make the appropriate craft checks. Naturally, there are ways to boost your craft checks at epic levels to absurd degrees, so that shouldn't be an issue for you.


Second set of questions:

1) If I have both the Magical Artisan and Legendary Artisan feats, do I then only pay 50% of the exp cost or 56,25%?

This one's difficult to give a straighforward answer to, since it's not clear how the percentages interact. Typically percentages in dnd are additive, but that's specified as only relating to abstract values like hit points and damage. The cost of an item isn't an abstract value, but the xp cost is, so the answer to this would be "consult your DM".


2) If I have the Extraordinary Artisan feat, does it refer the the base, as in market price or base as in 50% of market price?

The "base price" refers to the cost of an item before certain extra costs are added. In the case of a scroll for example, the base price is spell level x caster level x 25g. Extra costs include expensive material components, or xp components. So a scroll of wish for example still has a base price of 3,825g, just like any other 9th level spell, but due to extra costs of 25,000gp due to the 5000xp component, it's final price is 28,825g. Extraordinary artisan's cost reduction only applies to the base cost, and thus won't reduce the 5000xp component cost.

Extra costs are listed at the bottom of table 7-33 in the DMG, estimating magic item gold piece values, on page 285. You'll notice the other headings are either "base price", or "base price adjustment", but the last section is listed as "extra cost". Extra costs are flat additions to the price of items, and are not halved while crafting, they do no incur the 1/25 xp/gp cost (though if they're xp costs, you pay that xp, not the gp cost that it ends up as for the market price), and do not adjust the time it takes to craft.

Back to the scroll of wish example, it would only take 4 days to make, not 29, and it would only cost you 1,912.5gp to craft, but cost 153xp from the base cost, plus an additional 5000xp from the xp component of the wish spell, resulting in a final cost to craft of 1,912.5gp, 5153xp, and 4 days of crafting. Extraordinary artisan would only affect the 1,912.5gp, and 153xp, not the 5000xp component of wish, or, if you were making something with an expensive material component, like forcecage, it wouldn't affect that material component cost either.


3) Does the Exceptional Artisan feat affect the time it takes to create magic items (1 day/ 1000 gp)?

In essence, yes. Since you make items in 75% of the time, you are effectively making items at 1 day/1333.33gp. This one I'm a bit confused about, what did you think this feat did?

[magic9mushroom]

If you're actually talking about Ignore Material Components, the epic feat, then yes, sky's the limit. But by epic levels, couldn't you work out some other way of doing the same thing? Use Dweomerkeeper to ignore the XP cost of True Creation? Shapechange into something with Wish as a spell-like ability?

I feel I should point out that while low-epic has a significantly-higher power baseline than 17-20, it's not ordinarily* "SLA Wish" high. SLA Wish is still going to be banned in most low-epic games.

As a point of order, I should also point out that Shapechange doesn't actually grant SLAs, although you can still get it from a Zodar and there are alternatives anyway (Planar Shepherd, Conjuration(Calling)).


*Epic Spellcasting with mitigation abuse is pretty good, but it is still hard to bring it up to the power level of SLA Wish. It's worth remembering also that it has an explicit DM veto.

[Crake]

I feel I should point out that while low-epic has a significantly-higher power baseline than 17-20, it's not ordinarily* "SLA Wish" high. SLA Wish is still going to be banned in most low-epic games.

As a point of order, I should also point out that Shapechange doesn't actually grant SLAs, although you can still get it from a Zodar and there are alternatives anyway (Planar Shepherd, Conjuration(Calling)).


*Epic Spellcasting with mitigation abuse is pretty good, but it is still hard to bring it up to the power level of SLA Wish. It's worth remembering also that it has an explicit DM veto.

Well, I mean, ignore material components fabricate can actually create an absurd amount of high-cost goods, far more than SLA wish with it's meagre 25,000gp value limit. I mentioned this in the previous thread, but creating pure platinum to the volume limit of the fabricate spell results in something like 16 million gp worth of platinum.

As such, per spell slot, ignore material components fabricate far outperforms SLA wish unless you're wishing for magic items of undeterminate value.

[magic9mushroom]

unless you're wishing for magic items of undeterminate value.
That and reverse-scry-and-die are the main things I was thinking of, yes.

[Crichton]

Well, I mean, ignore material components fabricate can actually create an absurd amount of high-cost goods, far more than SLA wish with it's meagre 25,000gp value limit. I mentioned this in the previous thread, but creating pure platinum to the volume limit of the fabricate spell results in something like 16 million gp worth of platinum.

As such, per spell slot, ignore material components fabricate far outperforms SLA wish unless you're wishing for magic items of undeterminate value.



It's actually 6.695 million gp per caster level, so by level 21, you're looking at over 140 million gp per casting of Fabricate, when creating pure platinum, or bars or coins, etc.


This is based on platinum having an in-game value of 500gp per pound, and real world platinum weighing of 1339 pounds per cubic foot (21.45 grams/cm3, converted to lb/ft3 and rounded down), so with Fabricate allowing 10 cubic feet per CL, that's 13390 pounds per CL, or 6.695 million gp worth.

If there's a different density for platinum listed in D&D rules somewhere, we'd have to use that instead, but I don't know of one. Also if D&D rules somewhere specify that they treat elemental metals as minerals, that would reduce it, but I don't think they do.

[Crake]

It's actually 6.695 million gp per caster level, so by level 21, you're looking at over 140 million gp per casting of Fabricate, when creating pure platinum, or bars or coins, etc.


This is based on platinum having an in-game value of 500gp per pound, and real world platinum weighing of 1339 pounds per cubic foot (21.45 grams/cm3, converted to lb/ft3 and rounded down), so with Fabricate allowing 10 cubic feet per CL, that's 13390 pounds per CL, or 6.695 million gp worth.

If there's a different density for platinum listed in D&D rules somewhere, we'd have to use that instead, but I don't know of one. Also if D&D rules somewhere specify that they treat elemental metals as minerals, that would reduce it, but I don't think they do.

There's the error in your math. When working with minerals (like platinum), fabricate only does 1 cubic ft per CL.

[Melcar]

I'm pretty sure that a strict RAW combination of Fabricate and Ignore Material Components would function just fine. Yes, Fabricate says 'You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material' but it also specifies that that original material is the spell's Material Component, which IMC allows you to, well, ignore.


You're not Fabricating your product out of nothingness by ignoring the spell's Material Component, you're Fabricating the product out of whatever Material Component you'd be using if you didn't have IMC, but since you do have IMC, you don't need to actually have that component to still create that effect.

That was my interpretation as well. Good to know.



As per the other thread that was linked, the OP is a level 32 Wizard, I think. :)

Indeed, the character in question, of which I'm referring is indeed level 32.



All of the above are totally possible, as long as you can make the appropriate craft checks. Naturally, there are ways to boost your craft checks at epic levels to absurd degrees, so that shouldn't be an issue for you.

Cool! Thanks!




This one's difficult to give a straighforward answer to, since it's not clear how the percentages interact. Typically percentages in dnd are additive, but that's specified as only relating to abstract values like hit points and damage. The cost of an item isn't an abstract value, but the xp cost is, so the answer to this would be "consult your DM".

Yeah, that was what I thought. It wasn't clear to me either. I would be inclined to think 56.25%, however, if the feats generally procs off base price then maybe it is 50%. Again, however, if one were to find another exp mitigator, then one could get fairly close to zero, if they too were like 25% reduction and they procced off base price...




The "base price" refers to the cost of an item before certain extra costs are added. In the case of a scroll for example, the base price is spell level x caster level x 25g. Extra costs include expensive material components, or xp components. So a scroll of wish for example still has a base price of 3,825g, just like any other 9th level spell, but due to extra costs of 25,000gp due to the 5000xp component, it's final price is 28,825g. Extraordinary artisan's cost reduction only applies to the base cost, and thus won't reduce the 5000xp component cost.

Extra costs are listed at the bottom of table 7-33 in the DMG, estimating magic item gold piece values, on page 285. You'll notice the other headings are either "base price", or "base price adjustment", but the last section is listed as "extra cost". Extra costs are flat additions to the price of items, and are not halved while crafting, they do no incur the 1/25 xp/gp cost (though if they're xp costs, you pay that xp, not the gp cost that it ends up as for the market price), and do not adjust the time it takes to craft.

Back to the scroll of wish example, it would only take 4 days to make, not 29, and it would only cost you 1,912.5gp to craft, but cost 153xp from the base cost, plus an additional 5000xp from the xp component of the wish spell, resulting in a final cost to craft of 1,912.5gp, 5153xp, and 4 days of crafting. Extraordinary artisan would only affect the 1,912.5gp, and 153xp, not the 5000xp component of wish, or, if you were making something with an expensive material component, like forcecage, it wouldn't affect that material component cost either.

Cool thanks. So If I were to create a Tome of Clear Thought +5, what would that cost? Because as I can see, 125.000 of the gp are extra cost, where these feats do not interact with... So again, assuming I have the above mentioned mitigations feats (Legendary Artisan, Magical Artisan, Exceptional Artisan) what exactly would the exp cost and time be?




In essence, yes. Since you make items in 75% of the time, you are effectively making items at 1 day/1333.33gp. This one I'm a bit confused about, what did you think this feat did?

Cool... I thought it might have only affecting the skill crafting, like in crafting the mundane crafting which I believe is the DC x craft modifier in silver pieces per week, until market price is reached...


Again I wanna thank everyone who helped me answer me questions! :smallbiggrin:

[Crichton]

There's the error in your math. When working with minerals (like platinum), fabricate only does 1 cubic ft per CL.

While the strictest real-world definitions allow some overlap, so it wouldn't be entirely impossible to consider it a mineral, platinum is generally listed as an elemental metal, not a mineral, (according to the International Council on Mining and Minerals, among other various scientific organizations, in the real world), especially in any kind of refined or worked form. 'Native metals' is the generally used term for finding these metals in their base state, and that is sometimes referred to as a mineral, but is usually described as being a mineral that is 'bearing' that metal in it.

Is there a game rule somewhere that would overrule that?



Edit: links and quotes

ICMM - What are Minerals and Metals? (https://www.icmm.com/en-gb/metals-and-minerals/producing-metals/what-are-minerals-metals)

"native platinum and related metals and alloys are the predominant minerals bearing these metals." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_metal)

[Crake]

Cool thanks. So If I were to create a Tome of Clear Thought +5, what would that cost? Because as I can see, 125.000 of the gp are extra cost, where these feats do not interact with... So again, assuming I have the above mentioned mitigations feats (Legendary Artisan, Magical Artisan, Exceptional Artisan) what exactly would the exp cost and time be?

So a tome of clear thought +5 would cost you... Assuming 56.25% xp of base cost, not 50%, it would cost 4,687.5gp, 281xp, plus 25,000 xp in extra costs, and would take 10 days to make. That's 75% of the base cost in materials, 75% of the base time to craft, and 56.25% of the base xp cost. Note that while magical artisan reduces the cost of the raw materials, it doesn't actually change the base cost of the item you're crafting, so you don't double up on crafting time reduction with exceptional artisan.



Cool... I thought it might have only affecting the skill crafting, like in crafting the mundane crafting which I believe is the DC x craft modifier in silver pieces per week, until market price is reached...

Ah, well, the feat's description does specifically say magical items "You have mastered the method of creating magic items."

[Melcar]

So a tome of clear thought +5 would cost you... Assuming 56.25% xp of base cost, not 50%, it would cost 4,687.5gp, 281xp, plus 25,000 xp in extra costs, and would take 10 days to make. That's 75% of the base cost in materials, 75% of the base time to craft, and 56.25% of the base xp cost. Note that while magical artisan reduces the cost of the raw materials, it doesn't actually change the base cost of the item you're crafting, so you don't double up on crafting time reduction with exceptional artisan.




Ah, well, the feat's description does specifically say magical items "You have mastered the method of creating magic items."

Thank you... Am I to understand that there is no way of reducing the exp cost of the wish spell, besides casting it like a Supernatural (Su) ability? :smallsigh:

About that feat, I must have been blind... Never read the actual description, only the effect! :smallredface:


Thanks!

[Crake]

Thank you... Am I to understand that there is no way of reducing the exp cost of the wish spell, besides casting it like a Supernatural (Su) ability? :smallsigh:

About that feat, I must have been blind... Never read the actual description, only the effect! :smallredface:


Thanks!

Technically, if you're creating a scroll, you have to expend the 5000xp regardless of how you supply the spell, because the 5000xp cost doesn't come as part of spending the spell slot (otherwise you'd have to pay it every day of crafting which would add up enormously), but rather crafting the scroll. That's why all wish scrolls cost ~28k gp no matter who made them. The same goes for material components.

[Kalkra]

I'm confused. At epic levels, why can't you just use True Creation? That seems to avoid all the rules questions. Is this a purely theoretical exercise?

[Crake]

While the strictest real-world definitions allow some overlap, so it wouldn't be entirely impossible to consider it a mineral, platinum is generally listed as an elemental metal, not a mineral, (according to the International Council on Mining and Minerals, among other various scientific organizations, in the real world), especially in any kind of refined or worked form. 'Native metals' is the generally used term for finding these metals in their base state, and that is sometimes referred to as a mineral, but is usually described as being a mineral that is 'bearing' that metal in it.

Is there a game rule somewhere that would overrule that?



Edit: links and quotes

ICMM - What are Minerals and Metals? (https://www.icmm.com/en-gb/metals-and-minerals/producing-metals/what-are-minerals-metals)

"native platinum and related metals and alloys are the predominant minerals bearing these metals." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_metal)

Oh, I missed this as I was replying to another post, but if we just go by the common definition of mineral, from a quick google search, a mineral is "a naturally occuring (check), solid (check), inorganic substance (check)", so it seems like platinum qualifies. The game doesn't expect you to be a metallurgist, so you should generally stick to laymans terminology, where, it would seem, platinum certainly qualifies as a mineral, while also being a metal.


I'm confused. At epic levels, why can't you just use True Creation? That seems to avoid all the rules questions. Is this a purely theoretical exercise?

Uhh, because this is all talking about creating magic items, and true creation explicitly only creates non-magical items?

[Crichton]

Oh, I missed this as I was replying to another post, but if we just go by the common definition of mineral, from a quick google search, a mineral is "a naturally occuring (check), solid (check), inorganic substance (check)", so it seems like platinum qualifies. The game doesn't expect you to be a metallurgist, so you should generally stick to laymans terminology, where, it would seem, platinum certainly qualifies as a mineral, while also being a metal.

Ok, so this is literally you just (as a self proclaimed non-expert in metals) choosing which definitions or criteria to use to make that decision, and ignoring the classifications that the experts and governing bodies on the subject put forth specifically so those of us who aren't metallurgists or mining experts can have a well-founded definition and classification to use.


The point of citing experts wasn't to imply that you had to be an expert to use it in the game, but rather to defer to how the experts in the field choose to classify them. I trust them far more than I trust you on which category to put them in, since, as I clearly said, there's some category overlap, depending on which form its in and which set of definitions you focus on.

And what they had to say was that in its worked or processed or refined form, it's considered a metal.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Due to how fabricate is (awkwardly) worded and how material components work, you typically need twice the amount of material than what it takes to craft with it. That is, half the material disappears and is consumed as a material component in order to alter the other half. Ignore Material Components simply does away with this problem, leaving you only needing the same amount of material you end up with.


Target: Up to 10 cu. ft./level; see text

...

Material Component: The original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created.


Material (M): A material component is one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process.

So, according to that, you have the stuff you target with the spell, and an equal amount that simply goes *POOF* via being a material component.

Fortunately, psionic fabricate doesn't have that problem, since psionic powers don't have material components. Basically, it's got Ignore Material Components pre-baked-in.

[edit] If anyone says that the target is the material component, then all the spell does is consume matter, destroying it, since there's nothing left to convert. So either the spell annihilates half the material and converts the other half, or it just destroys nonmagical matter. The spell says nothing about creating matter ex nihilo.

[Crake]

Ok, so this is literally you just (as a self proclaimed non-expert in metals) choosing which definitions or criteria to use to make that decision, and ignoring the classifications that the experts and governing bodies on the subject put forth specifically so those of us who aren't metallurgists or mining experts can have a well-founded definition and classification to use.


The point of citing experts wasn't to imply that you had to be an expert to use it in the game, but rather to defer to how the experts in the field choose to classify them. I trust them far more than I trust you on which category to put them in, since, as I clearly said, there's some category overlap, depending on which form its in and which set of definitions you focus on.

And what they had to say was that in its worked or processed or refined form, it's considered a metal.

Well, people also call iron and calcium minerals when referring to diet? The wikipedia page on Native Element Minerals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_element_minerals) also lists platinum as a mineral, so to you, proclaiming that platinum is a metal, I say Por que no los dos? (Por que no los dos!)

[Crichton]

Due to how fabricate is (awkwardly) worded and how material components work, you typically need twice the amount of material than what it takes to craft with it. That is, half the material disappears and is consumed as a material component in order to alter the other half. Ignore Material Components simply does away with this problem, leaving you only needing the same amount of material you end up with.





So, according to that, you have the stuff you target with the spell, and an equal amount that simply goes *POOF* via being a material component.

Fortunately, psionic fabricate doesn't have that problem, since psionic powers don't have material components. Basically, it's got Ignore Material Components pre-baked-in.

[edit] If anyone says that the target is the material component, then all the spell does is consume matter, destroying it, since there's nothing left to convert. So either the spell annihilates half the material and converts the other half, or it just destroys nonmagical matter. The spell says nothing about creating matter ex nihilo.

I see where you're coming from, and it makes sense from the general rules. Two potential counterpoints:

1 - in the Material Component entry, they refer to it as 'the original material' as you quoted. Given the nature of what Fabricate, and by extension Craft does, and how that term is used, couldn't this potentially be creating a specific exemption to the general rule on material components?

2 - The spell text does use the word 'create' (in referring to being unable to produce magic items or creatures), so it can be argued that the spell is consuming the material, and creating the product. Yes, it doesn't unambiguously say that's how it works, but the word is in there. Additionally, the 'convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material' wording can just as easily be taken to mean that it's annihilating (term taken from the Material Component definition) the original material, and what comes of that is the product of the spell, whatever it is you're producing, which is made from the same type of material, but the wording doesn't necessarily have to be taken to mean that it comes from the same instance of that material. In other words, it doesn't specifically say the spell is reshaping that exact chunk of material, only that the product is composed of the same 'sort' of material.


Neither point is necessarily a clear refutation of your point, but it does illustrate that there's enough ambiguity involved in the (admittedly awkward as you say) wording to allow the spell to function without needing double the materials.




Well, people also call iron and calcium minerals when referring to diet? The wikipedia page on Native Element Minerals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_element_minerals) also lists platinum as a mineral, so to you, proclaiming that platinum is a metal, I say Por que no los dos? (Por que no los dos!)

Clearly you're entirely deadset on considering it to be so, and are willing to jump through some hoops to justify that, and since the definitions don't completely disallow that, then hey, go for it. It's not how the metal is commonly classified, so you're needlessly complicating things by sticking to the position of fitting it into that category by a strict technical definition instead of both the common parlance and the category actually used by those who commonly deal in metal and mining. But it's your game, you do what you want at your table. Just don't go arguing that because you choose to do so, that it's the absolute irrrefutable RAWest of RAW ways it has to be taken by everyone. As for me? I say ambiguity favors going with the simplest, most common usage, and when that usage is backed by the field's experts, I stand even firmer in that stance.

[Crake]

Clearly you're entirely deadset on considering it to be so, and are willing to jump through some hoops to justify that, and since the definitions don't completely disallow that, then hey, go for it. It's not how the metal is commonly classified, so you're needlessly complicating things by sticking to the position of fitting it into that category by a strict technical definition instead of both the common parlance and the category actually used by those who commonly deal in metal and mining. But it's your game, you do what you want at your table. Just don't go arguing that because you choose to do so, that it's the absolute irrrefutable RAWest of RAW ways it has to be taken by everyone. As for me? I say ambiguity favors going with the simplest, most common usage, and when that usage is backed by the field's experts, I stand even firmer in that stance.

Something can be classified as more than one thing, you understand that right? Just because it's classified as a metal, doesn't mean it can't also be classified as a mineral. It can be both. I mean, you were the one, just previously, talking about how it's technically and scientifically classified as a metal, now you're talking about common parlance, when I literally was using the common, dictionary defintion of what a mineral was before. There's no hoop jumping, and there's certainly no ambiguity.

Your issue here seems to be that you refuse to accept that platinum cannot be both a metal and a mineral. If fabricate had a different volume limit for metals, then sure, but as it is, it has one volume limit for minerals, and another for non-minerals. Your argument is "platinum is a metal, thus cannot be a mineral". Unless you can show me evidence that says metals and minerals are mutually exclusive categories, then your entire argument falls apart.

[Crichton]

Something can be classified as more than one thing, you understand that right? Just because it's classified as a metal, doesn't mean it can't also be classified as a mineral. It can be both. I mean, you were the one, just previously, talking about how it's technically and scientifically classified as a metal, now you're talking about common parlance, when I literally was using the common, dictionary defintion of what a mineral was before. There's no hoop jumping, and there's certainly no ambiguity.

Your issue here seems to be that you refuse to accept that platinum cannot be both a metal and a mineral. If fabricate had a different volume limit for metals, then sure, but as it is, it has one volume limit for minerals, and another for non-minerals. Your argument is "platinum is a metal, thus cannot be a mineral". Unless you can show me evidence that says metals and minerals are mutually exclusive categories, then your entire argument falls apart.

I fear you've missed the bulk of my point. I haven't anywhere said it couldn't be both. Just that it isn't typically included in both categories, either in general usage, nor by the experts on the subject.

Yes, a thing can be in more than one category. And my point with all the quotes and scientific talk was not at all to discount common parlance. It was to show that the people who are experts about this exact substance we're talking about don't categorize it as a mineral, especially when it's worked or refined. The point was to show that the common parlance is that it's not in the mineral category in the form we're discussing. When it is included in the mineral category, it's in the form of metal-bearing ore, etc. We're not talking about it in that form, so it doesn't really count.

You're misconstruing your own usage of the mineral definition you're quoting, when all it did was show that yes, by the strictest technical definition of what a mineral is, it can count as that. That's really not a common parlance argument, that's an attempt to stretch the definition to fit your side of the argument. You essentially approached it from the standpoint of 'can this thing ever be considered a mineral' as opposed to the more direct question, 'IS this thing generally considered a mineral.' I even agreed in multiple posts that it's not entirely excluded from that category. But it's not commonly included in that category, either, especially not in a refined or shaped form, which is what we're talking about.

In its pure, refined, and worked form, it's not generally categorized as a mineral. That really should be all you need, for interpreting the game rules. Yes, it could be, if you extend the definition to the fullest, most technical extent, but it typically isn't. Not sure why you're so invested in nerfing this particular spell, especially given that even if you nerf it to being a mineral, it's still a crazy amount of money, but you sure seem invested in doing so.

[Crake]

I fear you've missed the bulk of my point. I haven't anywhere said it couldn't be both. Just that it isn't typically included in both categories, either in general usage, nor by the experts on the subject.

Yes, a thing can be in more than one category. And my point with all the quotes and scientific talk was not at all to discount common parlance. It was to show that the people who are experts about this exact substance we're talking about don't categorize it as a mineral, especially when it's worked or refined. The point was to show that the common parlance is that it's not in the mineral category in the form we're discussing. When it is included in the mineral category, it's in the form of metal-bearing ore, etc. We're not talking about it in that form, so it doesn't really count.

You're misconstruing your own usage of the mineral definition you're quoting, when all it did was show that yes, by the strictest technical definition of what a mineral is, it can count as that. That's really not a common parlance argument, that's an attempt to stretch the definition to fit your side of the argument. You essentially approached it from the standpoint of 'can this thing ever be considered a mineral' as opposed to the more direct question, 'IS this thing generally considered a mineral.' I even agreed in multiple posts that it's not entirely excluded from that category. But it's not commonly included in that category, either, especially not in a refined or shaped form, which is what we're talking about.

In its pure, refined, and worked form, it's not generally categorized as a mineral. That really should be all you need, for interpreting the game rules. Yes, it could be, if you extend the definition to the fullest, most technical extent, but it typically isn't. Not sure why you're so invested in nerfing this particular spell, especially given that even if you nerf it to being a mineral, it's still a crazy amount of money, but you sure seem invested in doing so.

Honestly, it feels like you're the one who's leaping through hoops to me. My process was "Is platinum a mineral? I'm not sure. Lets look up what a mineral is. Ok, here's the definition, does platinum fit this definition? Yes. Okay done".

Meanwhile you're here going through mental gymnastics about what's consdiered what, or who categorizes what as what, generally, technically, what the experts say, and so on. You're definitely doing a lot more loop jumping to justify your stance. I'm done arguing this with you.

[Kalkra]

Uhh, because this is all talking about creating magic items, and true creation explicitly only creates non-magical items?

So does Fabricate. Who said anything about creating magic items? The OP specified nonmagical.

[Crake]

So does Fabricate. Who said anything about creating magic items? The OP specified nonmagical.

Oh, sorry, I got caught up in the second set of questions at the time I posted that, I forgot the first set were part of the same thread, whoop, sorry! :smalleek:

[magic9mushroom]

Well, people also call iron and calcium minerals when referring to diet? The wikipedia page on Native Element Minerals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_element_minerals) also lists platinum as a mineral, so to you, proclaiming that platinum is a metal, I say Por que no los dos? (Por que no los dos!)

To be 100% anal, when you're eating iron and calcium you're eating dissolved minerals that contain those elements, not the free metals themselves.

[Crichton]

Honestly, it feels like you're the one who's leaping through hoops to me. My process was "Is platinum a mineral? I'm not sure. Lets look up what a mineral is. Ok, here's the definition, does platinum fit this definition? Yes. Okay done".

Meanwhile you're here going through mental gymnastics about what's consdiered what, or who categorizes what as what, generally, technically, what the experts say, and so on. You're definitely doing a lot more loop jumping to justify your stance. I'm done arguing this with you.


Once again you show you really aren't reading what is being written, and just cherry pick bits to respond to, so you can feel like you're winning, or being correct. You've even shown how you went about it backwards, by beginning with the premise of 'is there any way I can fit platinum into the category of mineral' instead of the more direct and more applicable approach of 'is platinum considered to be a mineral.'


By asking the second, and more appropriate question, you find the answer that no, it's not considered to be a mineral, either generally, or by consensus of those who deal in such things. Only by twisting the category to include outlier cases would it be considered to be so.


You allowed yourself to be distracted by the fact that I cited authoritative, knowledgeable sources, and decided that was me being pedantic or twisting things, when really I was just looking for the most direct, definitive answer to the core question -is platinum considered to be a mineral, generally speaking?- and was looking to provide actual backing for that answer, instead of just deciding how I personally wanted it to be answered and twisting everything I could find into supporting my presupposed answer.

A tangential aside: So why, you might ask, do they bother to put restrictions on the volume of minerals then, in the Fabricate rules? Well, the answer is really simple. Know what substances are both absolutely considered to be minerals, and also are defined as extremely valuable per volume, in the D&D rules? Gemstones (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/treasure.htm#tableGems). All of them. Thus they limited the amount for those.

I've already implored you, a couple times now, to run your table however you want, since the (rather insignificant, really) issue is up for discussion. But please don't portray your answer to the ambiguity as the only one, or the irrefutably correct one. I'll take general usage, and general usage supported by the technical experts at that, to be more probable answer, and the way I choose to go with it.


To be 100% anal, when you're eating iron and calcium you're eating dissolved minerals that contain those elements, not the free metals themselves.

Thank you. I would have brought this up before too, but felt it would just derail things farther than they already had been. Poor Melcar, putting up with all of our frivolous bickering. xD



Edit: Sorry, Melcar, for derailing your thread with our inane ramblings. I do truly hope you found your answers! :smallsmile: