Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 9505249" data-attributes="member: 6802765">The rarity of rubies in a game world is inherently linked to the price of them. In a world where rubies are particularly rare, they would be more expensive, and so 50gp worth of ruby dust would be a smaller amount. Conversely, in a world where rubies are particularly common, they would be cheaper, and 50gp worth of ruby dust would be a larger amount. Ergo, the rarity of rubies wouldn't affect the overall prevalence of Continual Flames in a setting.For everyone's sanity the &quot;worth&quot; of ruby in a game world should probably be evaluated at a macro level, not a micro level, to avoid situations like this (first panel only): <a href="https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0677.html" target="_blank">677 This Never Happens to Jiminy Cricket - Giant in the Playground Games</a>. So there could certainly be temporary or local shortages that impede the casting of Continual Flame at any given time or place, but that still wouldn't affect the number of Continual Flames that would exist in the setting overall.One can of course design a setting where Continual Flames are more or less common. One could even do so deliberately through idiosyncratic ruby economics if one really wanted to. But absent that effort, making rubies generally more or less prevalent wouldn't have any impact on the number of Continual Flames in the setting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 9505249, member: 6802765"] The rarity of rubies in a game world is inherently linked to the price of them. In a world where rubies are particularly rare, they would be more expensive, and so 50gp worth of ruby dust would be a smaller amount. Conversely, in a world where rubies are particularly common, they would be cheaper, and 50gp worth of ruby dust would be a larger amount. Ergo, the rarity of rubies wouldn't affect the overall prevalence of [I]Continual Flames[/I] in a setting. For everyone's sanity the "worth" of ruby in a game world should probably be evaluated at a macro level, not a micro level, to avoid situations like this (first panel only): [URL="https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0677.html"]677 This Never Happens to Jiminy Cricket - Giant in the Playground Games[/URL]. So there could certainly be temporary or local shortages that impede the casting of [I]Continual Flame[/I] at any given time or place, but that still wouldn't affect the number of [I]Continual Flames[/I] that would exist in the setting overall. One can of course design a setting where [I]Continual Flames[/I] are more or less common. One could even do so deliberately through idiosyncratic ruby economics if one really wanted to. But absent that effort, making rubies generally more or less prevalent wouldn't have any impact on the number of [I]Continual Flames[/I] in the setting. [/QUOTE]

Verification