Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9511141" data-attributes="member: 93670">I feel like you are actively putting in work in order to avoid the point, this has been covered quite a few times through the thread.&nbsp; In order to create the shared&nbsp; commodity/tradegood style list for spells with costly components to&nbsp; draw from you need a unit☆ other than the cost of that unit and the spells themselves need to be tried to costly components with an underlying logical consistency...&nbsp;&nbsp; The spells with costly components fail in both of those.I linked to &amp; quoted the costly components for a bunch of spells(14) earlier <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/uncommon-items-actually-common.707720/post-9511061" target="_blank">here</a>.&nbsp; In that list you will find examples of problems like singular item with value between 50 &amp; 5000+gp on first third fifth &amp; ninth level spells along with others like bones (<a href="https://www.simplyrecipes.com/recipes/how_to_make_beef_stock/" target="_blank">commonly eaten &amp; discarded by commoners as trash</a> or left to rot in dungeons) with a GP value &amp; it's not even a significant fraction of spells with costly componentsthat kind of list can't be done by cost because some of those icostly components exist for balance reasons but get sloppily used for spells that have them for different reasons.&nbsp; The only way to make the list is to redo the entire spells chapter with new components first because there is no logic that would allow it to simply be refluffed &amp; components are often used across spells too disparate in level or function to have any kind of useful list players could be excited about. When the new list of items&nbsp; would require&nbsp; a flowchart or something like the spells chapter reproduced in pdf/spiral bound table copy in order to be useful it illustrates the root problem in in how costly components are listed in the spells themselves. ☆ ie volume in pounds.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 9511141, member: 93670"] I feel like you are actively putting in work in order to avoid the point, this has been covered quite a few times through the thread. In order to create the shared commodity/tradegood style list for spells with costly components to draw from you need a unit☆ other than the cost of that unit [I]and[/I] the spells themselves need to be tried to costly components with an underlying logical consistency... The spells with costly components fail in both of those. I linked to & quoted the costly components for a bunch of spells(14) earlier [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/uncommon-items-actually-common.707720/post-9511061']here[/URL]. In that list you will find examples of problems like singular item with value between 50 & 5000+gp on first third fifth & ninth level spells along with others like bones ([URL='https://www.simplyrecipes.com/recipes/how_to_make_beef_stock/']commonly eaten & discarded by commoners as trash[/URL] or left to rot in dungeons) with a GP value & it's not even a significant fraction of spells with costly components that kind of list can't be done by cost because some of those icostly components exist for balance reasons but get sloppily used for spells that have them for different reasons. The only way to make the list is to redo the entire spells chapter with new components first because there is no logic that would allow it to simply be refluffed & components are often used across spells too disparate in level or function to have any kind of useful list players could be excited about. When the new list of items would require a flowchart or something like the spells chapter reproduced in pdf/spiral bound table copy in order to be useful it illustrates the root problem in in how costly components are listed in the spells themselves. ☆ ie volume in pounds. [/QUOTE]

Verification