Using Fabricate to turn diamond dust into diamonds


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Drachasor wrote:
Yeah, but Make Whole and Mending aren't what is being discussed. So why mention them?...

spells don't usually exist in a vacuum. its nice to compare them to similar spells, to gauge what might be appropriate. Make Whole and Mending are valid if you're talking repairing a 25k gp diamond that got shattered.

Fabricate is good to compare with Minor Creation and Major Creation.

Sovereign Court

Ramarren wrote:
In the same fashion, I wouldn't allow the spell to turn sawdust into a tree (even a dead one), or powdered rock into a boulder (bricks would be OK, but not solid rock).

Would you allow sawdust to be fabricated into a wooden plank? That would be more in line for an accurate analogy.


wraithstrike wrote:

The problem is that a diamond can not be crafted. It does not just say x=y in gold. The final item has to be something that could actually be crafted.

Does it really say that in the spell description? I don't think so.


Thank you all. There may be no decided upon one right answer, but this is been a very illuminating discussion. Diamonds to you all!


Isn't the original argument for making money with diamonds and fabricate to take raw uncut diamonds and cast fabricate to make them cut diamonds, thus increasing their value? With a craft: Gemcutting roll of course.


how about craft (alchemy)?

you know, you're turning something, who knows what really, into a substance that breaks the rules of physics.

Like, take snake venom for instance. If you want to poison someone IRL with snake venom, a) milk a snake, b) keep the venom *cold*, and c) use it quickly. With alchemy? Eh, make the check, and then you get a vial of (admittedly overpriced) shelf-stable snake venom. How? bubbly tubes.

You want to fuse a pile of diamond dust, charcoal, or pencils into an uncut gemstone worth three times as much using fabricate? The craft check is Craft (alchemy). According to the crafting rules, actually doing this without the spell would takes decades. I call that a win.

Then you want to turn your giant blob diamond into a cut gemstone worth three times the price using fabricate? The check this time is Craft(jewelry), and I can tell you that there are no non-elven non-wizard jewelers in existence doing this.

Frankly, I'm not sure I would bother with jewelry. I mean, RL jewels are made that way because that's how uncut stones are formed. But who says alchemical diamond has to be a rock of a certain size? Why not a super-strong thread or sheet?

I'd go with weaving diamond-yarn shirts, or maybe just making a castle out of diamond bricks.


well, so many people have missed the point of the question.
Can I use Fabricate to convert diamond dust and/or lesser diamonds into a bigger diamond?

Remember that Pathfinder is a game of the Imaginary, it is not Real. Thus the bounds and rules on the Real world don't exist in the game (that's why there's magic).
So let's start simple.

Since there is no Craft skill result that would result in you turning powdered diamond into a single solid diamond of a few crystal lattices(which is what you are really talking about) nor does the text reach this level of in-depth complexity, it cannot be done using the current technology level in a standard game. Notice I used an odd qualifier as you can turn diamond powder into a composite diamond with a multitude of crystals using glue, so Soverign Glue to the rescue.

There's also the problem of mixing metaphors. Magic talks about the "elements" and shapes and forms. In the Real world we talk about atoms, molecules, crystal lattices and planes, Joules, Pascals, and nanotubes. So let's avoid trying to explain game things in Real world terms if we can.

So failing that the GM and player are unhappy with the first response, and saying magic represents doing the impossible and this is a 5th level spell, what's your gray area Mr. GM?

In Organized Play there is "no crafting", so I believe the first response is appropriate. #1 Sell your gem dust to a jeweler at a 50% loss and he'll give you a big gem of that value. Yes, it would be cheaper to just buy the gem at it's value using gold. #2, what scenario did you get all that diamond powder in? lol... so the question is effectively sidestepped.

In a home game the real question is in view of Minor Creation 4th, Fabricate 5th, Major Creation 6th, does it seem a reasonable use of power for Fabricate to turn saw dust into presswood or with enough skill into full grained wood or something that looks like full grained wood?
If the answer is yes then proceed, otherwise explain to your player the problem and that he should research a 7th or 8th level spell called "Reconstruction".

Looking at the Table: Craft Skills, 20 is listed for Complex or superior item(lock), and 25 for simple alchemical items. This task would certainly require the best alchemist as it is akin to turning lead into gold. So a DC of 25 or greater is not unreasonable.
For a $25000 diamond, at DC30 with Craft roll of 30, 1 wks effort = $90, so it will take 186 weeks and 1/3 starting value at this rate. I'm laying this out as this is the mundane work rule you will be circumventing with this spell.
As this is a "quick" process, adding 5 to the DC also seems reasonable (if not really nice).
You will have to determine in this ruling how much work a Fabricate spell can do. Most practical GMs will say as long as the money equates (before and after) work time can be handwaived(done) by the spell, otherwise it can do 1 weeks worth of work per spell caster level you have. To me this seems a good practical limit otherwise make up your own.

In a practical solution, I think most GMs would agree that so long as you have $25000(or more) in diamond dust, succeed in a Craft:Jewelry or Gemcutting DC35(or so), that you could make a single diamond worth $25000 using Fabricate (see above).
While no loss is mentioned in the spell, I can see many GMs imposing a 10% to 50% loss in the process. Failing a craft roll by 5 would imply that $4167 is lost (50% of 1/3 base materials cost) and it is not a pleasing shape, has a flaw (like an inclusion), or something similar to bring it's value down to $20833. So wise Spellcasters will start with $29167 in diamond dust to cover 1 botch.

Turning coal into diamonds requires mixing the metaphors of Pathfinder and Real world at a deeper level. Thus Wish or Limited Wish would be required for the casters to use their Spellcraft as Technocraft. *grin*


Drachasor wrote:


Yes, it is odd writing, but everything is consistent with the material being the focus of the spell. The original material IS consumed to produce the final product. Just like raw materials when using a Craft skill are consumed.

I'm not saying it is well-written. Merely that to assume the material component isn't the target means you have to ignore some of the text. If the material component is the target, then there's no text you have to ignore.

Everything is consistent with the material being a focus - except that it isn't. It's a (M)aterial component, not a (F)ocus. And "A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process"

Say we want to create bricks out of 10 cubic feet of clay. We have three possible interpretations:

1. The material component is the same as the target (RAW possible, certainly not RAI)

In this case, in the line "Components V, S, M (the original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created)", "the original material" refers to needing the 10ft of clay you want to become bricks.

So you cast the spell, the clay is annihilated (as per the magic chapter), the spell fails.
Clearly this is not intended.

2. The material component is not the same as the target (RAW possible, potentially RAI)

In this case, in the line "Components V, S, M (the original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created)", "the original material" refers to needing 10ft³ of clay as a component in addition to the 10ft³ you have as a target. Noting this as "the original material" rather than just "material" may be to clarify that you need clay, not bricks, as a component.

3. The material component is incorrectly labeled as such and is actually a focus (Likely RAI, but not RAW)

Basically how it's usually run - you cast the spell and the clay becomes bricks, without usage of any material component.


MorganS wrote:

[edited]

4. You don't CRAFT gems. That's why there's no craft (gem) skill. DnD / Pathfinder have never considered gems to be "crafted". From the RAW perspective, it makes no sense that a craft check would be needed to make a diamond. There is no craft (gem cutting) skill, nor has there ever been. Even in the real world, gem cutting involves removing the...

Actually your wrong on that one. this is from my ACTUAL 3.5 handbook. though this does not show on any of the website entries.

D&D 3.5 actual players handbook.

Craft:
You are trained in a craft, trade, or art, such as alchemy, armorsmithing, basketweaving, bookbinding, bowmaking, blacksmithing, calligraphy, carpentry, cobbling, gemcutting, leatherworking, locksmithing, painting, pottery, sculpting, shipmaking, stonemasonry, trapmaking, weaponsmithing, or weaving.

Gemcutting has been a stapple in D&D for quite some time now, and often used by rogues in my older campaigns. there where even races who got bonuses to gemcutting, svirneblin i believe...

as for the rules, there stated very clearly in craft.

i would say a diamond is a Complex or superior item because of its value relative to other items and therefor a DC 20.

*In some cases, the fabricate spell can be used to achieve the results of a Craft check with no actual check involved. You must still make an appropriate Craft check when using the spell to make articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship.

Since a gems requires a high degree of craftsmanship a check is still required.

1. Find the item's price in silver pieces (1 gp = 10 sp). a 25k diamond is 250,000 sp!

2. Find the item's DC from Table: Craft Skills. Superior= DC 20

3. Pay 1/3 of the item's price for the raw material cost. 25k diamond require a large hunk of uncut diamond valued at 8,334 gold.

4. Make an appropriate Craft check representing one week's worth of work. If the check succeeds, multiply your check result by the DC. If the result × the DC equals the price of the item in sp, then you have completed the item. (If the result × the DC equals double or triple the price of the item in silver pieces, then you've completed the task in one-half or one-third of the time. Other multiples of the DC reduce the time in the same manner.) If the result × the DC doesn't equal the price, then it represents the progress you've made this week. Record the result and make a new Craft check for the next week. Each week, you make more progress until your total reaches the price of the item in silver pieces.

obviously a diamond is not going to be created in a week. if we assume a check of 20 each week it will take 625 WEEKS to craft a beautiful 25k diamond and 8,334 in raw materials.

This is what im unsure about. i THINK a fabricate spell can only be used in PLACE of a weeks worth of work- since it requires a DC check a week. so a 25k diamond could be created with 625 casting of fabricate. basically either a player can play the game adventuring or retire and craft gems.

Back to the OP i dont think it's within the rules to use fabricate to craft diamond dust into a diamond as crafting a diamond requires raw material of an uncut gemstone ( a raw stone). HOWEVER with how long it would still take to craft the diamond i dont think it would be overpowered to allow diamond dust to be made into a diamond raw material, uncut stone, with make whole but this is not RAW. i think diamond dust is still treated as a gem though so you could possibly trade diamond dust for equal value uncut stones or cut stones at a 1:1 rate.

This was posted in the rules forum so instead of everyone jumping to conclusions and posting opinion the crafting rules should have been at least looked over before answering. i feel the rules are fairly clear and that my interpretation of the RAW is correct- this time lol. However im sure there will be some who will state how im wrong or just dont like the answer. In that case at least back up your claim with actual writing from the prd like i did. hope this helps.


Ilja wrote:

Everything is consistent with the material being a focus - except that it isn't. It's a (M)aterial component, not a (F)ocus. And "A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process"

Say we want to create bricks out of 10 cubic feet of clay. We have three possible interpretations:

1. The material component is the same as the target (RAW possible, certainly not RAI)

In this case, in the line "Components V, S, M (the original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created)", "the original material" refers to needing the 10ft of clay you want to become bricks.

So you cast the spell, the clay is annihilated (as per the magic chapter), the spell fails.
Clearly this is not intended.

2. The material component is not the same as the target (RAW possible, potentially RAI)

In this case, in the line "Components V, S, M (the original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created)", "the original material" refers to needing 10ft³ of clay as a component in addition to the 10ft³ you have as a target. Noting this as "the original material" rather than just "material" may be to clarify that you need clay, not bricks, as a component.

3. The material component is incorrectly labeled as such and is actually a focus (Likely RAI, but not RAW)

Basically how it's usually run - you cast the spell and the...

My apologies. A bad word choice. When I said "focus of the spell" I meant "target of the spell." Everything is consistent with the material component also being the target of the spell. You are right in that being a focus would not make sense, since a focus is preserved. Material components are not -- and there are several spells where what is done with the material component is spelled out in the spell.

Regarding your point (2), that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense in terms of the language use. They don't say a "sample of the original material" or anything like that. They said "the original material" and then specify how much it should be worth. The use of a definite article and then a description makes it pretty darn clear what they are talking about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, I cast fabricate on dirt to turn it into adamantine -- it's a little-known fact, but they're both made from, you know, sub-atomic particles. It just takes a lot of dirt, so that you have equal gp value, right?


I think it's utterly clear that the intent of the rules is that the "material component" is the specific matter that then turns into the finished item. The reason it's called a "material component" and not a "focus" is that if it were called a focus, people would turn a pile of iron ingots into platemail, then insist that they still have the pile of iron ingots, because you explicitly retain and can re-use the focus.

So you can think of it two ways:
1. Your iron ingots are annihilated, and plate mail is created from nothingness.
2. Your iron ingots are turned into plate mail, and the term "material component" is a little imprecise.

Me, I'd go with the latter, and just say "specific trumps general". The general rule is material components are annihilated. The specific rule for this particular spell is that they are instead transformed.

For other examples, consider instant summons and trap the soul, or just about any other spell which uses a gem that is crushed later. If you follow the "components are destroyed" interpretation, then neither of those spells can work unless you also double up on their components. And each of those spells does describe the fate of the listed component in some way.

So my conclusion is: If a spell states specifically what happens to a material component, that happens to it instead of it being annihilated.

Sovereign Court

RunebladeX wrote:
stuff about how long it would take ...

Actually, there is no mention of fabricate substituting for x amount of time for creation. It just creates the item. The skill check only comes into play to achieve a high level of quality, not for simple creation (so no craft skill is needed to create field plate, but one is needed to create masterwork field plate). And with a spell duration of instantaneous, the creation should be completed as soon as the spell is cast.

So it would not take 625 castings, but it would take 25,000 (or one could argue 33,250gp) of diamond dust to create the end result.

EDIT: and it was an hour and 42 minutes. ;)

To be clear, if there was a means to mundanely create diamonds from diamond dust simply using the appropriate craft skill, then yes, you would be correct. In this case, the spell kinda turns all that on its head.


zylphryx wrote:

In response to the folks who keep saying that crafting a diamond is not accomplished by using diamond dust IN THE REAL WORLD, I must simply respond "because magic".

It would seem to me that craft (jewelry) would allow for the creation of a finished diamond (that is cut and polished as opposed to a raw diamond). As fabricate does not state the raw materials must be in a particular form, one should be able to fabricate a finished diamond from diamond dust. Additionally, one should be able to create full plate from a significant amount of iron shavings or a glass window or wine glass from shattered glass.

I reply with "because rules". The intent is clear. House rules are fine, just not in the "rules" forum.


Bill Dunn wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The problem is that a diamond can not be crafted. It does not just say x=y in gold. The final item has to be something that could actually be crafted.

Does it really say that in the spell description? I don't think so.

Actually it does. "You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material."

You convert material into a product that is made of the same material. The diamond as found is the material. Whatever you get from the diamond is the product. Diamond dust is basically residue from cut diamonds. It is not the original material, but it is part of the production process.

The spell also goes on to say "The quality of items made by this spell is commensurate with the quality of material used as the basis for the new fabrication"


I am both

1. Entirely not surprised that I'm not the only one to use this trick
2. totally not surprised by the names of the folks who suggest it shouldn't be possible or they wouldn't allow it.

The good news is with the proper amount of temperature and pressure you can turn diamond dust into a pure crystal gemstone, how gemstone diamonds were created in the first place... These fantastic pressures can easily be found up the butt of the gm who says such things can't be done. ^_^

You will end up with one large, 25000gp diamond that is....

Either gemstone quality and very smelly or very glossy and apparently black like onyx.

Artificial diamond creation
what a diamond 'built' of diamond dust is atomically organized like
What a "PCD" polycrystal diamond looks like
PCD's are commonly referred to as Carbonado

The question is can the magic reorganize the powder material into a purely crystalline organization or is it limited to creating patchwork PCD's.

The answer to that question being yes or no is entirely fiat.

The Exchange

Craft DC for a 2,500gp raw diamond to add 2d4X 500gp in value is 25 (for a maximum value of 5,000gp), that is the highest value I have found with a DC and the value is fluctuating.
Link to gem values...

I really think that making a gemstone with a 25,000gp value would be much higher than the one with a max value of 5k.....maybe a DC 35?

Sovereign Court

wraithstrike wrote:


Actually it does. "You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material."

Which would then cover diamond dust being used to create a worked diamond (they are the same material). Perhaps the difference is that you are viewing it as not only being made of the same material but being able to be created outside of the magic being used to create it. RAW does NOT say it must be in a specific form. It simply says it must be of the same material. Diamond dust and a 25k worked diamond ARE of the same material.

wraithstrike wrote:


You convert material into a product that is made of the same material. The diamond as found is the material. Whatever you get from the diamond is the product. Diamond dust is basically residue from cut diamonds. It is not the original material, but it is part of the production process.

The value is the important thing here. If you have 25k of diamond dust, you have have 25k of material which is the same as what the final product would be made of.

wraithstrike wrote:


The spell also goes on to say "The quality of items made by this spell is commensurate with the quality of material used as the basis for the new fabrication"

Which is great if you are trying to make a masterwork diamond (if there is such a thing). If you are not trying to have a masterwork quality gem (and to be clear, if you need a 25k diamond for a spell, it does not state that it must be a masterwork stone the size of a walnut instead of a average cut stone the size of a pineapple ... just that it is worth 25k). So you will still end up with a 25k diamond, though it may be flawed ... which really does not matter.


zylphryx wrote:
The value is the important thing here. If you have 25k of diamond dust, you have have 25k of material which is the same as what the final product would be made of.

Crafting rules state that raw materials are worth 1/3 as much as the finished product. So 25k of diamond dust would make 75k of diamonds, if the DM lets you make diamonds this way.

The spell is pretty clear that it is using crafting rules and that the material component should be worth as much as the raw material to craft the product.

Sovereign Court

wraithstrike wrote:
zylphryx wrote:

In response to the folks who keep saying that crafting a diamond is not accomplished by using diamond dust IN THE REAL WORLD, I must simply respond "because magic".

It would seem to me that craft (jewelry) would allow for the creation of a finished diamond (that is cut and polished as opposed to a raw diamond). As fabricate does not state the raw materials must be in a particular form, one should be able to fabricate a finished diamond from diamond dust. Additionally, one should be able to create full plate from a significant amount of iron shavings or a glass window or wine glass from shattered glass.

I reply with "because rules". The intent is clear. House rules are fine, just not in the "rules" forum.

No, in this instance, I would argue the rules are not entirely clear. It really depends on how you view a worked diamond. Is it a final product (as I believe it to be) or is it raw material (which you seems to be arguing).

Additionally, the "Because Magic" comment was directed at folks stating that IRL there is no way to make a diamond from diamond dust and so there should be no way in game. Your response of "Because Rules" actually doe not work in this instance, because in this instance the wording allows for interpretation either way.

Both diamond dust and a finished worked diamond are made of the same material. Would you not allow armor to be made from a large pile of iron shavings with the required GP value? What about wooden furniture from a pile of sawdust with a like value?

Sovereign Court

Drachasor wrote:
zylphryx wrote:
The value is the important thing here. If you have 25k of diamond dust, you have have 25k of material which is the same as what the final product would be made of.

Crafting rules state that raw materials are worth 1/3 as much as the finished product. So 25k of diamond dust would make 75k of diamonds, if the DM lets you make diamonds this way.

The spell is pretty clear that it is using crafting rules and that the material component should be worth as much as the raw material to craft the product.

The spell is clear the craft skill is needed as follows:

PRD wrote:
You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship.

As I stated earlier, one could make the argument it would take 33,333 GP worth of diamond dust to accomplish making the whole 25k diamond, though the spell does state it requires an equal value, so the 1/3 cost is moot. That said, if a Craft skill check is required, then yes, you could lose HALF the raw materials ... quite a bit more than the 1/3 cost. Of course if you want a 25k diamond of average quality, then one could argue no craft check would be required (as it would be of average quality and pretty honking huge).

EDIT: Misread what you were saying Drachasor. You raise a good point ... so really, in order to fabricate a 25k diamond, you really need an 8333gp diamond. ;) As such, a player wanting to burn 25k in diamond dust for a 25k diamond is nothing. ;)


zylphryx wrote:
Ramarren wrote:
In the same fashion, I wouldn't allow the spell to turn sawdust into a tree (even a dead one), or powdered rock into a boulder (bricks would be OK, but not solid rock).
Would you allow sawdust to be fabricated into a wooden plank? That would be more in line for an accurate analogy.

If materials were also provided to make an appropriate wood bonding glue, and the non-magical technology existed in game to produce enough pressure, I would allow it to create fiberboard.

I'm also perfectly comfortable with the spell cutting rough diamonds into more valuable diamonds (with a Craft check). I just see the 'dust to solid diamond' as being beyond the pale.

Ultimately, this would be a GM call. I don't think the spell is written to be bulletproof. There are enough very good uses to the spell in regular situations that I don't see a need to expand it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

2nd Fabricate:
(Enchantment, Alteration)

Range: 5 yds./level Components: V, S, M
Duration: Permanent Casting Time: Special
Area of Effect: 1 cu. yd./level Saving Throw: None

By means of this spell, the wizard is able to convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material. Thus, the spellcaster can fabricate a wooden bridge from a clump of trees, a rope from a patch of hemp, clothes from flax or wool, and so forth. Magical or living things cannot be created or altered by a fabricate spell. The quality of items made by this spell is commensurate with the quality of material used as the basis for the new fabrication. If the caster works with a mineral, the area of effect is reduced by a factor of 27 (1 cubic foot per level instead of 1 cubic yard).
Articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship (jewelry, swords, glass, crystal, etc.) cannot be fabricated unless the wizard otherwise has great skill in the appropriate craft.
Casting requires one full round per cubic yard (or foot) or material to be affected by the spell.


3.5 Fabricate:
Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: See text
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: Up to 10 cu. ft./per level; see text
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material. Thus you can fabricate a wooden bridge from a clump of trees, a rope from a patch of hemp, clothes from flax or wool, and so forth. Creatures or magic items cannot be created or transmuted by the fabricate spell. The quality of items made by this spell is commensurate with the quality of material used as the basis for the new fabrication. If you work with a mineral, the target is reduced to 1 cubic foot per level instead of 10 cubic feet.
You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship (jewelry, swords, glass, crystal, and the like).
Casting requires 1 round per 10 cubic feet (or 1 cubic foot) of material to be affected by the spell.
Material Component: The original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created.

PF Fabricate:
School transmutation; Level sorcerer/wizard 5
Casting Time see text
Components V, S, M (the original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created)
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target up to 10 cu. ft./level; see text
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material. Creatures or magic items cannot be created or transmuted by the fabricate spell. The quality of items made by this spell is commensurate with the quality of material used as the basis for the new fabrication. If you work with a mineral, the target is reduced to 1 cubic foot per level instead of 10 cubic feet.
You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship.
Casting requires 1 round per 10 cubic feet of material to be affected by the spell.

The text changed, dropping "(jewelry, swords, glass, crystal, and the like)". Diamonds are crystals, and this dropped text implies you can craft crystal items. The DC needed, however is not specified.

Also note that fabricate cannot make a composite item. The example above of sawdust+glue=fiberboard is something the spell cannot do.

/cevah

EDIT: added comment on fiberboard.


Seems the more you read into fabricate its seems the answer is.... maybe. I guess its a good question. Its seems like the implied use is for cheap items that you need to make use of. Actually the more I read the spell I just don't like it and will probably just ban it. The spell is just to vague and left to too much interpretation. In the case of gem cutting its an art to turn a natural stone into a gem. While I think it would be reasonable to allow turning diamond dust into an equal value uncut stone that could then be refined with the skill using it as the base matieria,l this opens up a can of worms. I don't think the purpose of the spell is "I cast magic to gold". In the example about wool to clothes, could you turn wool into a royal outfit? 50 pounds of iron into fullplate?


wraithstrike wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The problem is that a diamond can not be crafted. It does not just say x=y in gold. The final item has to be something that could actually be crafted.

Does it really say that in the spell description? I don't think so.

Actually it does. "You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material."

You convert material into a product that is made of the same material. The diamond as found is the material. Whatever you get from the diamond is the product. Diamond dust is basically residue from cut diamonds. It is not the original material, but it is part of the production process.

The spell also goes on to say "The quality of items made by this spell is commensurate with the quality of material used as the basis for the new fabrication"

Bold is my emphasis, and as I see it, under that interpretation, one would need iron ore if they wanted to make an iron breastplate, or adamantine ore to make an adamantine breastplate, as iron ingots and adamantine ingots are a product of their respective ores, making the spell way cheaper as I assume(maybe wrongly) that unprocessed ore would be cheaper than refined items like ingots.

I guess what matters is when your definition of material turns into a product.

And to all those people(I think there were a few) who said they would require the diamond dust be from the same diamond they are making, would you require all the iron be from the same iron deposit?


I am confused. What do you gain out of taking 25000 gps in one form and changing it to 25000 gps in another form? what is gained or lost?


DrDeth wrote:
I am confused. What do you gain out of taking 25000 gps in one form and changing it to 25000 gps in another form? what is gained or lost?

A wish spell needs a gem of 25k GP to cast, so in essence you would change your 25k dust into a useable 25k diamond.


It is essentially an arguement for bypassing limited access to rare spell components (25,000 g.p. valued diamonds) so players can use Wish more often.

There should be more dicussion about the reason spells like Wish require rare components. It may be just fluffed expense (diamond-25k), or it may be that those types of spells should be limited by cost and availability of components.

I'm curious what an official opinion would be on the matter.

My opinion could be wrong, but when it comes to something like Wish my DM-BS radar goes on high alert.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vincent Takeda wrote:


2. totally not surprised by the names of the folks who suggest it shouldn't be possible or they wouldn't allow it

He asked for opinions, he's getting them. No reason for the digs on people that have an opinion that opposes yours.


Cevah wrote:

The text changed, dropping "(jewelry, swords, glass, crystal, and the like)". Diamonds are crystals, and this dropped text implies you can craft crystal items. The DC needed, however is not specified.

Also note that fabricate cannot make a composite item. The example above of sawdust+glue=fiberboard is something the spell cannot do.

/cevah

Except "material" can mean more than one substance...

"the substance or substances of which a thing is made or composed: Stone is a durable material. "

I will say old editions can't be used to judge what a spell does, but making swords has been a traditional part of the spell even in 3rd (Devs even talked about it). Swords are composed of more than just metal.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Belazoar wrote:
Vincent Takeda wrote:


2. totally not surprised by the names of the folks who suggest it shouldn't be possible or they wouldn't allow it
He asked for opinions, he's getting them. No reason for the digs on people that have an opinion that opposes yours.

There is no opinion that opposes mine as my opinion is that it is entirely fiat. It's yes or no based on the table you play at. There can be no 'dig at an opposing view' unless you presume I'm taking a dig at people who believe the rule is very specific and uncontrovertable.

The fact that we all know this spell is being used to create material component for a wish and that this fact alone should make one rethink the intent of the limitations of the wording of the spell is particularly as you say 'putting my BS radar on high alert in the opposite direction of yours.

If your 'reason that it cant' is purely based on the premise of 'no wishy dont likey' then yeah. You're interpreting based on a personal value system instead of interpreting based on the language itself. Results based opinion. Possibly results that were *intended* by the developers. Without DEV input its hard to know if the intent was to allow wish diamonds from diamond dust or not. Making a ruling based on the result is weighing an opinion based on a 'me no likey result' and not on the facts as much as 'sure it can' might be based on 'yay wish components me likey'... Calling one more bs than the other is BS.

Lets take a 1 foot cube of wood. There is literally no way using crafting to 'carve this 1 foot cube into a bo staff. Not one thats built in a way that it wouldnt fall apart because it's built like a staff shaped puzzle. So the question is does the spell provide enough magic to change the shape of the wooden cube into the shape of a staff. Could you craft a chair from 6 pounds of wood chips and would that chair fall apart into a pile of wood chips when you sat on it? Can it turn an elk carcass into 60 pounts of beef jerky? Can it turn a bowl of grapes into a bowl of grape juice? If it can't then yeah. Fabricate is a foolish spell to even have in the book. I wonder why they bothered to print such a thing.

What seems like the rational iintent of the spell is more important than 'oh noes.... wishy components! My game is doomed!' If you like fiatting things you dont like, read the wish spell. As a gm you still have huge control over how wasted that 25000gp diamond ends up being. If you're that kinda guy.

While we're at it we might as well chat about if its poweful enough to turn a bowl of pancakes into a bowl of waffles or a bowl of donuts... I mean thats more than one 'ingredient'... Maybe we need to use the spell once to turn it into a bowl of 'batter' and then another casting to turn it into a bowl of waffles. Personally I think it would take more than a 50 on a cooking skill roll to convince me you'd turned pancakes into donuts. That would take ... I don't know... Magic. Like I don't know.. A spell... Probably a transmutation spell... I know we're overpowered because we can turn waggling fingers and fart noises into lightning and green rays of disintegration... But we better not be using our foul powers to turn waffles into donuts... We'll have the magic police knockin on our door in no time.

Khelben Blackstaff Arunsen has broken version to arrive and fine you 1000 quatloos for a violation of the 'using magic to bake brownies and sell them on a street corner statute, thus destroying WBL, versimilitude and the world around you as a result. May the gods have mercy on your soul.

I'll be happy to label this post argumentum ad absurdem fallacy to save you the time.

If you're going to make arbitrary rulings based on 'me no likey' its *sooooo* much easier to simply say 'theres no such thing as wish in my campaign' Hope you announced that houserule before your campaign started...


Takeda uses fabricate spell to craft various opinions into a 'learning experience'


You also cannot use fabricate to create babies because the spell DOES have the specific wording that you cannot use fabricate to make creatures or magic items... Babies, sorry to say... are creatures. Golems are also creatures. They're listed under creature types so they're creatures.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The joke we use to describe the absurdity of this thought process goes like this:

Hey. heres 25000 gold pieces. go to the jeweler and get me a 25000gp diamond.

I'm back! Here you go... Good news. I used my diplomacy to talk the jeweler down in price. we got the 25000gp diamond for only 20000!

Thats not good enough for my spell. Go back and pay him the rest of the 5000 or my spell wont work.

another version of this foolishness is

Here's 25000 gold pieces. go to the jeweler and get me a 25000gp diamond.

I'm back! Here's your diamond!

If I didn't know better I'd think you just handed me a fused pile of deer scat.

It cost me 25000 though.... The guy said it was 'highly faceted..' very valuable because it's so hard to make a diamond look like deer scat.

Good enough for me. Lets get casting....


You could certainly rewrite the text to say

You convert material of one sort into a product comprised of THE EXACT MATERIAL PROVIDED.
or
You convert material of one sort into a product comprised of the same TYPE of material...

But neither of those is what's actually written.

You convert material (not quantitatively specific. neither *a* material. nor *a piile* of material) of one sort (wooden nickels which are made of wood) into a product (singular) that is of the same material (wood). (ie: not a wood chair made of wood nickels... just a wood chair made of wood..)

The spell IN NO WAY states or implies that the final product must be something that requires a crafting skill. You could turn a chair into a 4 pound block of wood. You might not be able to make a 4 pound pile of wooden nickels because the spell is clear that the end result of the fabrication is a single item and not a pile of items. This distinction is covered under the words 'into A PRODUCT that is of the same material'

The difficulty of working with minerals is already accounted for in the fact that your target must be 1/10th of the non mineral version of your target.

The post above is a clarification on why the value of a diamond is subjective to the buyer and seller and makes the argument silly.

This thread isn't about any of the semantics of that. This thread is about 'can I make a 25000gp diamond if my gm is too stodgy to let me buy one from a jeweler.'

And the bottom line is your gm is going to be as resistant to one version of getting a wish as he would be about another. Hopefully his version of fun matches his players version of fun. Whatever that version is.


Polymorph any object: Fleck of diamond dust -> Diamond. Then sell those (permanent duration) diamonds for real diamonds. Just don't get caught? May want to throw a few magic aura spells on them to negate the light transmutation aura.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Polymorph any object: Fleck of diamond dust -> Diamond. Then sell those (permanent duration) diamonds for real diamonds. Just don't get caught? May want to throw a few magic aura spells on them to negate the light transmutation aura.

Or buy Adamantine and make stuff out of it with Fabricate. Other expensive materials work well too. Gold items can just be made out of your coins directly. Sell it and make a profit.

The problems with Fabricate have nothing to do with making diamonds.


Drachasor wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Polymorph any object: Fleck of diamond dust -> Diamond. Then sell those (permanent duration) diamonds for real diamonds. Just don't get caught? May want to throw a few magic aura spells on them to negate the light transmutation aura.

Or buy Adamantine and make stuff out of it with Fabricate. Other expensive materials work well too. Gold items can just be made out of your coins directly. Sell it and make a profit.

The problems with Fabricate have nothing to do with making diamonds.

Apologies. I should stay more on topic.

Most DM's with either say no or allow a 1gp=1gp exchange of diamond dust for whole diamond via fabricate.

Any DM that doesn't should be prepared to deal with an abundance of wealth.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Diamond dust is not a raw material for making diamonds. It is the product of crushing low value diamonds.
A raw uncut diamond is the proper raw material for making a diamond.

A block of wood is not the proper material for making a bo staff. A pole of wood or piece of timber from which a bo staff could be carved and shaped is the raw material for a bo staff.

Yay, they specifically ruled you can't make babies. However, the absurdity of making diamonds from diamond dust is exactly the same as making diamonds from coal. If 'raw material in any format' is all you desire, then you can make blocks of granite from sand, darkwood boards from birch chips, and a masterwork suit of armor from piles of rust monster doo doo.

Meh.

If you're going to abuse the spell, at least just follow the tripling wealth formula, and do not bypass the crafting aspect of the spell.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

Diamond dust is not a raw material for making diamonds. It is the product of crushing low value diamonds.

A raw uncut diamond is the proper raw material for making a diamond.

A block of wood is not the proper material for making a bo staff. A pole of wood or piece of timber from which a bo staff could be carved and shaped is the raw material for a bo staff.

Yay, they specifically ruled you can't make babies. However, the absurdity of making diamonds from diamond dust is exactly the same as making diamonds from coal. If 'raw material in any format' is all you desire, then you can make blocks of granite from sand, darkwood boards from birch chips, and a masterwork suit of armor from piles of rust monster doo doo.

Meh.

If you're going to abuse the spell, at least just follow the tripling wealth formula, and do not bypass the crafting aspect of the spell.

==Aelryinth

What...you can't make babies? That's insane. So are you telling me my Wizard's Infertility clinic won't work? I figured we just needed some organic matter (mostly human breastmilk, I think), sperm, and an egg*. Toss in Fabricate and you got a baby!

*a people egg, not a chicken egg.


ohako wrote:

how about craft (alchemy)?

you know, you're turning something, who knows what really, into a substance that breaks the rules of physics.

Like, take snake venom for instance. If you want to poison someone IRL with snake venom, a) milk a snake, b) keep the venom *cold*, and c) use it quickly. With alchemy? Eh, make the check, and then you get a vial of (admittedly overpriced) shelf-stable snake venom. How? bubbly tubes.

You want to fuse a pile of diamond dust, charcoal, or pencils into an uncut gemstone worth three times as much using fabricate? The craft check is Craft (alchemy). According to the crafting rules, actually doing this without the spell would takes decades. I call that a win.

Then you want to turn your giant blob diamond into a cut gemstone worth three times the price using fabricate? The check this time is Craft(jewelry), and I can tell you that there are no non-elven non-wizard jewelers in existence doing this.

Frankly, I'm not sure I would bother with jewelry. I mean, RL jewels are made that way because that's how uncut stones are formed. But who says alchemical diamond has to be a rock of a certain size? Why not a super-strong thread or sheet?

I'd go with weaving diamond-yarn shirts, or maybe just making a castle out of diamond bricks.

Is Minecraft a skill now? : D


You could make babies. Well, you could make soulless, lifeless meat in the shape and configuration of a baby. (That'd take quite a Craft check.) It wouldn't be a creature, and there's no soul associated with it so you could never raise, resurrect, or animate dead it, but you might be able to use the result for crafting a construct or something.

There's an idea: Fabricate a baby-like object, then cast animate object. Fauxcromancy! (Okay, it needs a better name.) You could even craft really expensive "zombies" and "skeletons" this way. I don't know why you would, but you could.


Can't we just call it a Craft (Alchemy) check to convert dust to a whole diamond?


blahpers wrote:

You could make babies. Well, you could make soulless, lifeless meat in the shape and configuration of a baby. (That'd take quite a Craft check.) It wouldn't be a creature, and there's no soul associated with it so you could never raise, resurrect, or animate dead it, but you might be able to use the result for crafting a construct or something.

There's an idea: Fabricate a baby-like object, then cast animate object. Fauxcromancy! (Okay, it needs a better name.) You could even craft really expensive "zombies" and "skeletons" this way. I don't know why you would, but you could.

Whether or not it has a soul depends on the metaphysics of the setting which isn't described in the rules.


CrystalSpellblade wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
I am confused. What do you gain out of taking 25000 gps in one form and changing it to 25000 gps in another form? what is gained or lost?
A wish spell needs a gem of 25k GP to cast, so in essence you would change your 25k dust into a useable 25k diamond.

Which you could do in any decent sized town, for no charge. Big deal. You gain no funds. You could also change a 25K diamond into dust, too.


Belazoar wrote:

It is essentially an arguement for bypassing limited access to rare spell components (25,000 g.p. valued diamonds) so players can use Wish more often.

.

No, since 25000gps of gold, diamond dust or gems all have the same value and can be converted in any city more or less at will. A 25K diamond is no harder to get than 25K of diamond dust. Each cost...25000 gps.

There is no value gained. The only advantage is that if you're out somewhere so remote you can't even teleport and need one or the other and have the wrong one. Big deal. I would reward the player's "out of the box" thinking.

This is not a "sno-cone wish machine' "break the game" issue. It might occur once in an entire campaign.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

There is no opinion that opposes mine as my opinion is that it is entirely fiat. It's yes or no based on the table you play at. There can be no 'dig at an opposing view' unless you presume I'm taking a dig at people who believe the rule is very specific and uncontrovertable.

The fact that we all know this spell is being used to create material component for a wish and that this fact alone should make one rethink the intent of the limitations of the wording of the spell is particularly as you say 'putting my BS radar on high alert in the opposite direction of yours.

If your 'reason that it cant' is purely based on the premise of 'no wishy dont likey' then yeah. You're interpreting based on a personal value system instead of interpreting based on the language itself. Results based opinion. Possibly results that were *intended* by the developers. Without DEV input its hard to know if the intent was to allow wish diamonds from diamond dust or not. Making a ruling based on the result is weighing an opinion based on a 'me no likey result' and not on the facts as much as 'sure it can' might be based on 'yay wish components me likey'... Calling one more bs than the other is BS.

Naturally when ones BS radar goes to high alert, someone gets BH when they are picked up. "Me no likely" is a valid reason for a DM to pause the game or put a players actions on hold until further review. Saying "no" is always better than saying "yes" realizing it was a mistake and then pulling it out from uder the guy.

Fiat? Players trying to pull stuff like this is why DM fiat is even a thing. No, no, there are legitimate reasons why players can't throw gold in the air and rare gems fall down, but passive-aggresive, snarky diatribes are my weakness, wish away.

DM's get free reign to interpret and inact the results of wishes anyway. There's always the option of letting the player waste a diamond, and twist the wish (as appropriate).

I here pickaxes are quite affordable though. If you do have a DM who is like, the worst guy ever, you may have to resort to roleplaying.


Aelryinth wrote:

Diamond dust is not a raw material for making diamonds. It is the product of crushing low value diamonds.

A raw uncut diamond is the proper raw material for making a diamond.

A block of wood is not the proper material for making a bo staff. A pole of wood or piece of timber from which a bo staff could be carved and shaped is the raw material for a bo staff.

Yeah, but you're still converting material of one sort into a product of the same material. What does it matter what the initial shape or form the initial material is in? The spell doesn't seem to require that.


You do realize if a DM ruled that this is possible you wouldn't be able buy diamonds or diamond dust as arcane casters all over the world compete over all diamond resources.

This isn't about simple x=y. Diamonds smaller then 25k would be getting broke down into dust so a low lvl spell could convert them to wish diamonds. All casters high enough to cast wish would all have +5 to all attributes, etc.

Diamond mines would be controlled by powerful wizard/sorcerer guilds to stockpile and control them, and assassin/thief guilds would always be hunting down explorer/adventurers to kill/rob them.


Belazoar wrote:

You do realize if a DM ruled that this is possible you wouldn't be able buy diamonds or diamond dust as arcane casters all over the world compete over all diamond resources.

This isn't about simple x=y. Diamonds smaller then 25k would be getting broke down into dust so a low lvl spell could convert them to wish diamonds. All casters high enough to cast wish would all have +5 to all attributes, etc.

Diamond mines would be controlled by powerful wizard/sorcerer guilds to stockpile and control them, and assassin/thief guilds would always be hunting down explorer/adventurers to kill/rob them.

Fabricate just used to replicate Craft skills listed in the book breaks the economy just as badly.

The game does not consider these sorts of things.

51 to 100 of 141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Using Fabricate to turn diamond dust into diamonds All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.