Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8176351" data-attributes="member: 71699">Entailed is that a party might continuously benefit from warding bond, and structures belonging to the wealthy could be expected to be well lit by continual light and secured with plentiful arcane locks. Judging from threads on demographics in typical D&D worlds, tier 3 artificers aren't going to be so common that their casts impact the world more broadly. Given the background cost of such spells, however, one might expect such artificers to be extremely wealthy even if they transiently deflate the prices per cast.These don't seem to me like dramatically dire consequences, and I do feel that "produce" in place of "cast" must have been consciously chosen wording. So it seems to me possible that the designer looked at the exploits and decided they could be lived with. The alternative must be something like to even store 10 productions of continual flame requires burning 500gp of ruby dust, which is then... lost if you store a different spell? Of do you have to give the dust to your ally or controlled servant? Both somewhat clunky.Even so, pending errata or SA, I think I will rule that controlled servants and such can use the item, but house rule that costly components must be provided at the time of using the item by the user. I won't rule that, that constitutes a cast: the item is still just producing the effect.</blockquote>