Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Yaarel" data-source="post: 8668055" data-attributes="member: 58172">These are all examples of artificial technologies and magical technologies. The artifice is the opposite of innate.Specifically, I hope 50e removes gold pieces as part of a spell description. There are other more magical, more innate, mechanics to prevent spamming.Avoiding costly components is also less setting dependent. Money might be more accessible to nobles and less accessible to remote or rural communities. This presence or absence of money shouldnt interfere with innate magical talent. Eschewing material components needs to eschew costly components too. But yet, the costly component should never be part of the spell description in the first place.Magic items are in a different category from spells. Magic items are tools − are technology. But personally, I dont even want to see trafficking in magic items for money in magic shops, as if it is merely a mundane technology. These items are magical − personal, relational, existential, spiritual.I do like the 5e concept of &quot;attuning&quot; with a magic item, because that feels more innately magical. It is possible to have a personal affinity for certain magical items and not others. Viceversa, whoever made the magical item might have imbued the item with affinity for certain persons for certain reasons.In any case, the costly component gets in the way of many magical concepts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Yaarel, post: 8668055, member: 58172"] These are all examples of artificial technologies and magical technologies. The artifice is the opposite of innate. Specifically, I hope 50e removes gold pieces as part of a spell description. There are other more magical, more innate, mechanics to prevent spamming. Avoiding costly components is also less setting dependent. Money might be more accessible to nobles and less accessible to remote or rural communities. This presence or absence of money shouldnt interfere with innate magical talent. Eschewing material components needs to eschew costly components too. But yet, the costly component should never be part of the spell description in the first place. Magic items are in a different category from spells. Magic items are tools − are technology. But personally, I dont even want to see trafficking in magic items for money in magic shops, as if it is merely a mundane technology. These items are magical − personal, relational, existential, spiritual. I do like the 5e concept of "attuning" with a magic item, because that feels more innately magical. It is possible to have a personal affinity for certain magical items and not others. Viceversa, whoever made the magical item might have imbued the item with affinity for certain persons for certain reasons. In any case, the costly component gets in the way of many magical concepts. [/QUOTE]

Verification