[PnP] Sizing your stones

[Scott Adams]

At 09:30 PM 10/14/04 -0800, you wrote:
>Hi Richard,
>
>    I have a question regarding the size of gems, jewels and natural magic
>item stones. You have 1 out of 10 being large in table 2.222.
>    In volume or weight what constitutes Large (as in large and flawless).
>
>    Does it vary from type to type? (Diamonds being smaller than rubies,
>which in turn are smaller then emeralds...).
>
>    Specifically, what size would a Chalcedony have to be to be enhanceable?
>Would it have to be in a specific form? Example Tiger's Eye?

Just to back this up.  Me and Alex did research and we found typical
specimens of Chalc. ranging from 0.6 to 1.7 pounds.  So this is a good
question :)

To me the more powerful item the larger it should be.  Ie Chalc stone is a
very powerful (MLx2) stone to me thus it should be large (necklace/amulet
size min.).  But something that only does say +4 Dex stone could fit in a
Ring...At least I see it.  The more powerful the stone the more 'space' it
needs to take up to use that energy and plus making it a better target for
grabbing and such :)


>
>            Alex Koponen
>
>P.S. Just a thought:
>Would a ring require a more flawless / brilliant stone than a larger stone
>in a brooch or hung on a necklace to be enhancable?

Good question too!

Table of weights and such would be nice but theres so many items out there
it would take hard time to standardize it.

Longshot - ZC of AdventureNet International Echomail Network
Fringe BBS - EWOG II - 904-733-1721
Telegard / Allfix Beta Site
Website: http://users.cybermax.net/~longshot
ICQ: 24436933