... it's completely against what the game actually tells us...
Really? What does the game actually tell us? I don't see any mention of filing down silverware in the rules, but maybe I overlooked it?
The game tells us nothing about how you need a certain quality of silvered powder nor that you need proficiency in any particular tool to create it.
The game tells us nothing either way, just like it doesn't tell us anything about the cut of a diamond used in spellcasting or the fabrication of the specific items needed for some spells. I assume most DMs don't allow players to harvest their own diamond from a line without proficiency, or slap some arts and crafts materials together without proficiency and let the result count as just anything either. But even if some do, that doesn't prove anything. It's clearly up to the DM, and whatever any given DM chooses to go with is valid and within the RAW.
Sure, if in your world there is no difference between using a simple tool and using advanced techniques then you are correct. D&D disagrees with you though. And no, despite your obvious contradiction not everything that the DM chooses is within RAW. The DM can always choose to go beyond RAW though, but in this case, the point being argued clearly has no support in the RAW.
There *is* a difference between using a simple tool and advanced techniques in my world - that's the exact reason filing down a hunk of silver doesn't work and alchemically powdering silver does, because it makes a difference. If D&D disagrees with that, I'm sure you can provide a quote.
The point you're arguing doesn't actually have any more support in the RAW than mine. The RAW says "powdered silver" and any assumptions about what that is or how it's made are unsupported by the RAW - they don't suggest filing is ok, they don't suggest requiring alchemy is ok, they don't suggest anything about the providence at all. If the RAW doesn't specify any details though, anything and everything that makes logical sense and isn't contradicted by the RAW fits within the RAW.
To look at other examples, Find Familiar requires "incense". Incense is really nothing more than a mix of something aromatic and some combustible binding material. Rubbing some shit on a piece of wood technically counts as adding something aromatic to a combustible binding material (actually, shit by itself is already a mix of aromatics and combustible materials bound together). I doubt any DMs would allow a wizard to use shit-on-a-stick as incense though. On the other hand, what some DMs might allow to pass for incense likely varies - a mix of charcoal, tallow and herbs? Why not? Icingdeath's Frost (UA) requires a vial of smeltwater. Pretty much all water on the planet has been frozen at some point, but I don't think that means all water counts as smeltwater. Levitate requires a "long shank". How long is "long"? And does a leg count while it's still attached to a living person? Clairvoyance needs a jeweled horn, does gluing some assorted gemstones on a hollowed out animal horn qualify or does it need to be an actual instrument that sounds reasonably on key? Summon Fey requires a gilded flower: is that an actual flower adorned with gold leaf, a metal object shaped like a flower and gilded, a regular flower that's naturally golden in color, all of the above or none of the above? Tongues needs a small clay model of a ziggurat - is that any kind of tower-shaped piece of clay, or does it have to be modeled after an actual ziggurat, and either way does it count if I just scoop a handful of clay from a hole in the ground and shape it by hand there and then? There are tons of examples from the rules that leave a lot of room for interpretation well within the boundaries of the RAW.
As an aside, "sterling" silver silverware is only 92.5% silver and silverware marked "coin", literally made from melted down coins, is only 90% silver.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
... it's completely against what the game actually tells us...
Really? What does the game actually tell us? I don't see any mention of filing down silverware in the rules, but maybe I overlooked it?
The game tells us nothing about how you need a certain quality of silvered powder nor that you need proficiency in any particular tool to create it.
The game tells us nothing either way, just like it doesn't tell us anything about the cut of a diamond used in spellcasting or the fabrication of the specific items needed for some spells. I assume most DMs don't allow players to harvest their own diamond from a line without proficiency, or slap some arts and crafts materials together without proficiency and let the result count as just anything either. But even if some do, that doesn't prove anything. It's clearly up to the DM, and whatever any given DM chooses to go with is valid and within the RAW.
Sure, if in your world there is no difference between using a simple tool and using advanced techniques then you are correct. D&D disagrees with you though. And no, despite your obvious contradiction not everything that the DM chooses is within RAW. The DM can always choose to go beyond RAW though, but in this case, the point being argued clearly has no support in the RAW.
There *is* a difference between using a simple tool and advanced techniques in my world - that's the exact reason filing down a hunk of silver doesn't work and alchemically powdering silver does, because it makes a difference.
What difference is that and where in the PHB or DMG does it say that it make sthat difference?
If D&D disagrees with that, I'm sure you can provide a quote.
You are the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
The point you're arguing doesn't actually have any more support in the RAW than mine. The RAW says "powdered silver" and any assumptions about what that is or how it's made are unsupported by the RAW - they don't suggest filing is ok, they don't suggest requiring alchemy is ok, they don't suggest anything about the providence at all. If the RAW doesn't specify any details though, anything and everything that makes logical sense and isn't contradicted by the RAW fits within the RAW.
I suggest you go back and read the original discussion. Someone pointed out that the powder could easily be made using a file and a silver object. Then the claim was made that you would need special skills to use a file to produce the powder. I questioned this claim (and, as a side not, that question has yet to be answered by anyone in this thread). Alchemy is a strawman in this case since that wasn't what I was talking about. If you want to talk about using alchemy to produce powdered silver you are of course free to do so but that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Maybe start a new thread about that?
But RAW though, you are wrong. There is nothing in the spell description that, as per the objection I was making, says that the powdered silver has to be of a certain grit or grade and that it can't be produced by filing a silver object.
To look at other examples, Find Familiar requires "incense". Incense is really nothing more than a mix of something aromatic and some combustible binding material. Rubbing some shit on a piece of wood technically counts as adding something aromatic to a combustible binding material (actually, shit by itself is already a mix of aromatics and combustible materials bound together). I doubt any DMs would allow a wizard to use shit-on-a-stick as incense though. On the other hand, what some DMs might allow to pass for incense likely varies - a mix of charcoal, tallow and herbs? Why not? Icingdeath's Frost (UA) requires a vial of smeltwater. Pretty much all water on the planet has been frozen at some point, but I don't think that means all water counts as smeltwater. Levitate requires a "long shank". How long is "long"? And does a leg count while it's still attached to a living person? Clairvoyance needs a jeweled horn, does gluing some assorted gemstones on a hollowed out animal horn qualify or does it need to be an actual instrument that sounds reasonably on key? Summon Fey requires a gilded flower: is that an actual flower adorned with gold leaf, a metal object shaped like a flower and gilded, a regular flower that's naturally golden in color, all of the above or none of the above? Tongues needs a small clay model of a ziggurat - is that any kind of tower-shaped piece of clay, or does it have to be modeled after an actual ziggurat, and either way does it count if I just scoop a handful of clay from a hole in the ground and shape it by hand there and then? There are tons of examples from the rules that leave a lot of room for interpretation well within the boundaries of the RAW.
Again, you should really go back and actually read the thread because you are basically repeating my argument. There is literally nothing (except perhaps the value of certain items) that says anything about the quality of the spell components. So why should the powdered silver be the only exception?
As an aside, "sterling" silver silverware is only 92.5% silver and silverware marked "coin", literally made from melted down coins, is only 90% silver.
And this is in any way relevant to a fantasy world containing dragons, demons and deities exactly how?
... it's completely against what the game actually tells us...
Really? What does the game actually tell us? I don't see any mention of filing down silverware in the rules, but maybe I overlooked it?
The game tells us nothing about how you need a certain quality of silvered powder nor that you need proficiency in any particular tool to create it.
The game tells us nothing either way, just like it doesn't tell us anything about the cut of a diamond used in spellcasting or the fabrication of the specific items needed for some spells. I assume most DMs don't allow players to harvest their own diamond from a line without proficiency, or slap some arts and crafts materials together without proficiency and let the result count as just anything either. But even if some do, that doesn't prove anything. It's clearly up to the DM, and whatever any given DM chooses to go with is valid and within the RAW.
Sure, if in your world there is no difference between using a simple tool and using advanced techniques then you are correct. D&D disagrees with you though. And no, despite your obvious contradiction not everything that the DM chooses is within RAW. The DM can always choose to go beyond RAW though, but in this case, the point being argued clearly has no support in the RAW.
As you say, though, it does not say either way. It does not even define 'powdered.' Just because some things DM's choose are outside of RAW does not mean everything a DM chooses is outside of RAW. There is nothing in RAW explaining how one obtains powdered silver at all. There is nothing in RAW that explains the value of powdered silver. Does this mean it is impossible to obtain?
There is nothing in RAW that says anything about silver coins, bars, jewelry pieces, etc being powder-able. It is merely a reasonable assumption that it is possible, somehow, to reduce silver to powder. Thus any answer a DM gives is 'outside RAW.'
Or inside RAW since RAW says DM's can decide such things.
The claim being made was that you needed special skills to use a file to file silver into powder. That claim has no basis in RAW.
The claim being made was that you needed special skills to use a file to file silver into powder. That claim has no basis in RAW.
BS. The claim being made was that it's not contradictory to RAW that making powdered silver for the purpose of creating holy water with might - might, not does; what we're saying is that the rules as written don't disallow this possibility - require a more exacting process than filing down silver items.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
LOL
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
There *is* a difference between using a simple tool and advanced techniques in my world - that's the exact reason filing down a hunk of silver doesn't work and alchemically powdering silver does, because it makes a difference. If D&D disagrees with that, I'm sure you can provide a quote.
The point you're arguing doesn't actually have any more support in the RAW than mine. The RAW says "powdered silver" and any assumptions about what that is or how it's made are unsupported by the RAW - they don't suggest filing is ok, they don't suggest requiring alchemy is ok, they don't suggest anything about the providence at all. If the RAW doesn't specify any details though, anything and everything that makes logical sense and isn't contradicted by the RAW fits within the RAW.
To look at other examples, Find Familiar requires "incense". Incense is really nothing more than a mix of something aromatic and some combustible binding material. Rubbing some shit on a piece of wood technically counts as adding something aromatic to a combustible binding material (actually, shit by itself is already a mix of aromatics and combustible materials bound together). I doubt any DMs would allow a wizard to use shit-on-a-stick as incense though. On the other hand, what some DMs might allow to pass for incense likely varies - a mix of charcoal, tallow and herbs? Why not? Icingdeath's Frost (UA) requires a vial of smeltwater. Pretty much all water on the planet has been frozen at some point, but I don't think that means all water counts as smeltwater. Levitate requires a "long shank". How long is "long"? And does a leg count while it's still attached to a living person? Clairvoyance needs a jeweled horn, does gluing some assorted gemstones on a hollowed out animal horn qualify or does it need to be an actual instrument that sounds reasonably on key? Summon Fey requires a gilded flower: is that an actual flower adorned with gold leaf, a metal object shaped like a flower and gilded, a regular flower that's naturally golden in color, all of the above or none of the above? Tongues needs a small clay model of a ziggurat - is that any kind of tower-shaped piece of clay, or does it have to be modeled after an actual ziggurat, and either way does it count if I just scoop a handful of clay from a hole in the ground and shape it by hand there and then? There are tons of examples from the rules that leave a lot of room for interpretation well within the boundaries of the RAW.
As an aside, "sterling" silver silverware is only 92.5% silver and silverware marked "coin", literally made from melted down coins, is only 90% silver.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What difference is that and where in the PHB or DMG does it say that it make sthat difference?
You are the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
I suggest you go back and read the original discussion. Someone pointed out that the powder could easily be made using a file and a silver object. Then the claim was made that you would need special skills to use a file to produce the powder. I questioned this claim (and, as a side not, that question has yet to be answered by anyone in this thread). Alchemy is a strawman in this case since that wasn't what I was talking about. If you want to talk about using alchemy to produce powdered silver you are of course free to do so but that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Maybe start a new thread about that?
But RAW though, you are wrong. There is nothing in the spell description that, as per the objection I was making, says that the powdered silver has to be of a certain grit or grade and that it can't be produced by filing a silver object.
Again, you should really go back and actually read the thread because you are basically repeating my argument. There is literally nothing (except perhaps the value of certain items) that says anything about the quality of the spell components. So why should the powdered silver be the only exception?
And this is in any way relevant to a fantasy world containing dragons, demons and deities exactly how?
The claim being made was that you needed special skills to use a file to file silver into powder. That claim has no basis in RAW.
BS. The claim being made was that it's not contradictory to RAW that making powdered silver for the purpose of creating holy water with might - might, not does; what we're saying is that the rules as written don't disallow this possibility - require a more exacting process than filing down silver items.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Um, you are the one making the claim that D&D disagrees with me. The burden of proof is on you.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].