L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
No, I'm not. This is what I was discussing before- it is really, really hard for someone, today, to try and understand all the changes that would occur. In fact, it would be impossible.
Heck, just look at the cantrip- mending. Always able to be case (so no real cost). Think about how the (assumedly) widespread use of this cantrip would affect the second-hand market. Go on.
Then what about continual flame? What would the effect of a wide-spread market for that be on the price and availability of rubies? Because, dang, who wouldn't want continual flames everywhere? It has no "cost" other than the material component, so any caster who can cast it likely would equal to their spell slots on every day off, and then profit (50gp cost, .... well, supply and demand would raise that but whatever, and then sell for 70gp).
If you are interested in how light affected us all, there are books and stuff, like I said. Feel free to incorporate those ideas into your campaign ...
Or, just ignore them. Which is what most people do.
Yep. Animated Object for example is a fifth level spell that lasts for a whopping minute. So animating that plow isn't going to be very efficient.
I've actually had some games surrounding this question in the past. The gnomish inventor tries to make a more efficient threshing machine and it actually works for a while. But then there's an accident and a young woman gets injured by it when the moon is waning and the next thing you know they've accidentally done a ritual of dark magic requiring the blood of a virgin. The threshing machine goes berserk and starts harvesting people. Maybe I've just read too many Stephen King short stories.
I just don't see a reason to go from magic has no impact on society at all to a steam-punk type world powered by magic. Given that the majority of PC classes and archetypes are magic users or supernaturally powerful, it seems like the default assumption that magic permeates the world.
If practically every night-time light source in a campaign world was continual-flame based, how much difference would it really make? People wouldn't need as many candles. Whales would not be hunted to near extinction for their blubber. What else would change?
Yes and no.Large cities might have lamplighters who make sure that main thoroughfares are well lit, but smaller cities probably just have torchbearers for hire. Palaces may have empty hallways lit, but only the very rich would bother with such a thing, and so they may find continual flames to be a viable alternative.
Something else to consider is that people generally didn't stay awake long after dark. The use of candles and lamp would be fairly limited, not running all night. Additionally, fireplaces would provide light, and would be banked to provide warmth overnight, still providing dim light for the room. I would say that no more than an hours worth of light would be needed for most people each night. This greatly reduces the assumed cost, making continual light an unneeded luxury.
O.
M.
G.
Do you not see that you're doing exactly what I said?
I don't have to repair clothes because ... wait for it ... we live in a time with an overflow of abundance. Other than a very few examples, it is more cost-effective to buy a new t-shirt than to "repair" one.
THIS ISN'T HOW IT USED TO BE. I honestly don't know how else I can explain this to you?
The majority of people didn't used to have tons of clothes and shop at the Gap (or get it delivered from Amazon). You know that, right? You understand that "repairing" clothes used to be an incredibly important skill (usually for the woman in the poor household, or for domestics in a rich household).
You also remember that mending isn't just about clothes- it works on objects; it would replace the itinerant tinker; if your plow has damage or a break less than a foot, mending works on it.
These things do not just have a minor impact. Just like living in a society where people knew you could raise the dea would not just have a minor impact (every noble person, I would assume, would have a raise dead kitty, and most villages would try to raise the funds if they lost someone important).
IOW, it is incredibly difficult to extrapolate how things matter. Antibiotics (to use an example) don't just help against kids and strep throat- they make combat more likely to wound than to kill, they make agriculture more productive, and they make advanced medical techniques (via successful invasiv surgery) possible. I mean, heck, if "cure disease" works on bacteria, and you can put someone to "sleep," who is to say they don't have surgery ... except for the fact that it would be easier to correct with magic.
Why are you assuming it's static? It's far simpler to assume that the 50 gp value is what continual flame components cost today, factoring in supply and demand from all sources including the spell itself.Your post is very well-thought out, but I wanted to key in on this part.
The problem with this extrapolation is three-fold. First, the numbers are all made up for gamist reasons. How do we know that a skilled worked makes that much? Because the game says so. Because it is divorced from a real-world economy, we can't really say much about it,
Second, it's static.
Your post is very well-thought out, but I wanted to key in on this part.
The problem with this extrapolation is three-fold. First, the numbers are all made up for gamist reasons. How do we know that a skilled worked makes that much? Because the game says so. Because it is divorced from a real-world economy, we can't really say much about it,
Second, it's static. As I alluded to earlier, if there was a high demand for continual flame (which I would argue there would be), then this would have an effect on the price of rubies over time as opposed to purely "decorative" gemstones- first, driving the price up (demand) then the price would likely drop as increased resources went to uncovering rubies.
Third, it is likely that some place (maybe close to a mine that produces, inter alia, rubies) would be producing continual flames at a much lower cost than the cost of the spell component qua spell component.
Or, we can ignore all of this. Because modeling real economics is hard, and does not result in an appreciable gain for the game system compared to the effort that would have to be put into it.