Can Chest of Preserving keep good berries potency indefinitely?
Yes, it must. A chest of preserving ensures that "[...] perishable items do not age or decay while inside it", and goodberry is instantaneous, which means the spell is over once the berries are created - at that point you simply have a magic item whose potency is lost after a period of time, which is the common English definition of a perishable item decaying.
I disagree. Keep in mind that the language of goodberry isn't that it rots or goes bad after 24 hours... Just that it loses its "potency". That says, to me, that the magical power of the goodberry is separate from its physical state.
That is NOT the common English definition of a perishable item decaying. Decaying is a synonym of rot, which is not how the spell works. Rot happens slowly, not instantly. Magic fading is not the same as decaying, it is a binary thing. One second they are good, the next they cease to be magical, but continue to exist.
That said, the words 'other perishable items do not age' are more important. An argument could be made that a)it is an 'other perishable item' and b) it ages. But a common magic item should definitely not extend the duration of even a first level spell. But this is not actually the duration, as the spell is instant.
So there is no clear RAW ruling. It is very clearly NOT the intent of RAI of the spell, and potentially very abusive. Assuming you simply cast one goodberry every day, after a mere year, you could have over 3,650 goodberries in the chest. Lots of hp, lots of meals. Far more than the chest is intended for either, so it is not RAI of the chest.
I would not allow it because of abuse potential, but I would state that the RAW is not clear on what it does.
I disagree. Keep in mind that the language of goodberry isn't that it rots or goes bad after 24 hours... Just that it loses its "potency". That says, to me, that the magical power of the goodberry is separate from its physical state.
But "decay" does not require a physical state. Non-physical states can decay and the word "decay" applies. If you admit it loses its potency, then you admit its potency decays.
Honestly, I think Mog broke it down better than I did. I think that there is precedent to extend the life of a Goodberry, but the "Potency" is not tied to the item decaying in any meaningful way. I think the fact that Goodberries are 100% potent until exactly 24 hours implies that it's not a matter of the physical properties of the berry itself... it's clearly magic related. Whether or not the berry itself decays or rots at that moment isn't addressed in the spell itself... I think a DM could roleplay it that way, but there's nothing that says that it must.
That said... the chest of preserving does include the specific wording "do not age", which I feel complicates the process far more. I feel like that gives more legitimacy to the idea that the berries can continue to function more than any argument related to potency/decay/ripeness/whateveryouwanttocallthis
That is NOT the common English definition of a perishable item decaying.
"to decrease in size, quantity, activity, or force" is the general definition, although anything that quantifiably decreases generally counts - the dictionary I found this in simply decided to offer an explicit list.
Decaying is a synonym of rot, which is not how the spell works. Rot happens slowly, not instantly.
That's absolute nonsense. Decaying can happen slowly or quickly. You are fundamentally violating English if you claim decay must be slow.
Magic fading is not the same as decaying, it is a binary thing. One second they are good, the next they cease to be magical, but continue to exist.
That's the magic decaying. By definition of decay.
That said, the words 'other perishable items do not age' are more important. An argument could be made that a)it is an 'other perishable item'
There is no argument. It is a perishable item, because it is an item and it can perish.
and b) it ages.
As do all things. Note that you can age without perishing and perish without aging, in general.
But a common magic item should definitely not extend the duration of even a first level spell.
So tell WOTC they need to make the item rarer. Also, as you yourself admit...
But this is not actually the duration, as the spell is instant.
Correct. The chest is not extending the spell. The spell is over. It is preserving the item inside.
So there is no clear RAW ruling.
Yes there is.
It is very clearly NOT the intent of RAI of the spell,
That's your opinion.
and potentially very abusive. Assuming you simply cast one goodberry every day, after a mere year, you could have over 3,650 goodberries in the chest.
You're making some serious assumptions about the volume of a goodberry. Remember, the chest has finite volume.
Lots of hp, lots of meals. Far more than the chest is intended for either, so it is not RAI of the chest.
You have presented no basis at all for your RAI argument.
I would not allow it because of abuse potential, but I would state that the RAW is not clear on what it does.
If you're not going to allow it to do the only thing it does, why let your players have it in the first place? Better to either ban the item or make it much harder to acquire (i.e. increase the rarity, assuming you dole out rewards based on rarity).
While quindraco makes a very, um… ok… argument that the berries don’t decay, I don’t really think that’s the question here.
The question, which I think Kotath alludes to, is whether a spell effect with a limited time duration (in the English sense, not the rules sense) is what is meant by “other perishable item.” In other words, is limited timeframe magic “perishable”? I wouldn’t assume so, at least not in the normal common usage sense. You might be able to find a definition that says anything you’d like is perishable, but that probably isn’t common usage. I think I agree with Kotath that the rules-duration of a spell would not be extended in the chest, and therefore I wouldn’t extend the limited time effects of this instantaneous spell either.
That's the magic decaying. By definition of decay.
This is the aspect I disagree with. The wording of the spell is fairly explicit - the berries lose their potency if not consumed within 24 hours of the casting of the spell. It's not a decaying of magic by any definition, so much as it's a process with a firmly defined trigger. IF the time elapsed since casting equals 24 hours, THEN the spell function ends - the state of the berries, over and above whether they've been eaten, is largely irrelevant.
Likewise, there's nothing in the description of the chest that suggests it delays or alters the specific parameters of a spell. At best it might interfere with a magical effect that specifically ages or decays a foodstuff or perishable item, which doesn't really apply here. To my mind, once that 24 hour period has elapsed, you're left with average, everyday berries.
"to decrease in size, quantity, activity, or force" is the general definition, although anything that quantifiably decreases generally counts - the dictionary I found this in simply decided to offer an explicit list.
As a side note, I have to take issue with this definition, because it's unreasonably broad. "Decay" in the context of organic matter is absolutely distinct from decay in the context of physics or technical measurement, and it would be disingenuous to suggest that the chest is designed to prevent the emission of radiation, for example. What the chest does is refer to foodstuffs and perishable items, to which the definition of decay in relation to organic matter (i.e. rotting or decomposing) very specifically applies.
Per my answer above, I don't think this is even relevant to whether the chest preserves the magical effect of goodberries, but it's not a reasonable argument to suggest that all definitions of decay apply.
Can Chest of Preserving keep good berries potency indefinitely?
While food and other perishable items do not age or decay while inside a chest of preserving and would thus preserve the freshness of the berries used in the casting of goodberry, they would still lose their potency after 24 hours this casting because it's the duration of it's magical effect infused. In other words, their benefits isn't tied to their condition but to the magic infused.
For me the goodberry spell is quite clear - they lose their potency after 24 hours. The berries don’t decay or vanish, they just become normal everyday berries and would decay like any other. The chest would prevent the physical decay but not prevent them losing their magical effect.
forrget the definition of decay, if the goodberry don't age in A chest of preserving i would say that the magic would not age as well
after all A chest of preserving ensures that "[...] perishable items do notage or decay while inside it" and i would say goodberry is a perishable items
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He who fight and runaway live to fight another day
This common wondrous item has the following magical property: food and other perishable items do not age or decay while inside it.
Perishable: liable to spoil or decay
goodberries aren't described as spoiling or decaying; they simply lose their magical benefits after 24 hours. Contrast that with create food and water, which explicitly does state the food spoils after 24 hours
The berries lose their potency if they have not been consumed within 24 hours of the casting of this spell.
You create 45 pounds of food and 30 gallons of water on the ground or in containers within range, enough to sustain up to fifteen humanoids or five steeds for 24 hours. The food is bland but nourishing, and spoils if uneaten after 24 hours.
Ergo, the chest wouldn't have any effect on those magical benefits, any more than it would prolong a different spell that had a lingering effect. To pick a truly absurd example, if you used ceremony to perform Funeral Rites on a dead pixie, putting the pixie's corpse in the chest wouldn't extend the period in which it was prevented from becoming undead beyond the listed 7 days, because the magical effect isn't tied to the condition of the corpse
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Seems like to me the physical state of the berry is separate from its magical potency. Since (1) this is a reasonable interpretation of the language; and (2) a common magic item shouldn't be able to allow you to carry around 2400 goodberries, I'd go with that interpretation.
Radioactive decay, the type involved in fission bombs, is entirely different from decomposition, the type involved in food. Decomposition, which is usually what decay means, has causes, like moisture and detritivores, and is molecular. Radioactive decay is based off of atomic structure and involes radiation destabilizing atomic nuclei.
By my interpretation of RAW, it's unclear and could go either way. As a DM trying to keep the game balanced, I would say it doesn't work.
Radioactive decay, the type involved in fission bombs, is entirely different from decomposition, the type involved in food.
We're not talking about food or decomposition. We're talking about "items" (e.g. apples and piles of uranium) "decay"ing.
Decomposition, which is usually what decay means,
Citation needed.
has causes, like moisture and detritivores, and is molecular. Radioactive decay is based off of atomic structure and involes radiation destabilizing atomic nuclei.
Nonetheless, both are decay, and the item we're discussing stops decay.
By my interpretation of RAW, it's unclear and could go either way.
It's disingenuous to refer to that as an interpretation. You've admitted decay has a definition, then declared you don't like that definition, so you're going to disregard it.
But lest we get off on a tangent, let me be clear: this isn't about what I think the rules ought to be, nor is it about what you think the rules ought to be. That's why it's problematic for you to insist that you're merely bringing an alternative "interpretation" to the table when, by your own admission, you're disregarding what the words in the rules actually mean: the whole point of this forum and the threads in it is to decipher the RAW so when a DM makes a decision about it they do so with as full an understanding as possible of what the RAW is that they're changing to conform to their world.
It is perfectly acceptable in every possible way for you, when you DM, to ban the chest of preserving, to change its rarity, to change its rules text - anything you say goes. It's also perfectly acceptable in every possible way for you, when you PC, to point out to the DM if they offer you such a chest that you think it should be changed in some way. What's not acceptable is misleading other DMs about the text of a rule or what the words in that text mean, per standard English dictionaries when we don't have a game definition and per the game when we do. That defeats the purpose of having this forum in the first place.
As a DM trying to keep the game balanced, I would say it doesn't work.
Well, of course. This is the wrong forum entirely for an in-the-weeds discussion of what is and isn't balanced and what sort of a decision a good DM should make for a fun and/or balanced game. This is the forum for analyzing the RAW to determine what it does and does not say.
Regarding the definition of Decay, it is true that the word decay has multiple different meanings, I quote from the dictionary:
decay
intransitive verb
To break down into component parts; rot.
To disintegrate in a process of radioactive decay or particle decay.
To decrease gradually in magnitude. Used of voltage or current.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
Those are not the SAME definition, they are three DIFFERENT definitions, for different meanings. For example, here is the definition of the word coupon, from the same dictionary:
coupon
noun
A code or detachable part of a ticket, card, or advertisement that entitles the holder to a certain benefit, such as a cash refund or a gift.
A periodic interest payment due to the holder of a bond.
The interest rate of a bond that pays a coupon.
These are not multiple definitions of the same word, they are instead, DIFFERENT meanings for the same word. When one is talking about radioactive Decay, one is NOT talking about perishables rotting. When one is talking about perishables rotting, one is NOT talking about radioactive decay. Decay/Rot is about slow, consistent breakdown of food. Decay/radioactive is something else, and is NOT in the SRD. No radioactive substances in RAW. You an house rule otherwise, but that definition does not apply to this discussion at all.
As for the rest, you seriously misunderstood my argument. You thought my evidence was the argument and I gave no evidence. I will simplify my argument for you, pointing out the evidence
1) RAW is unclear (for all the things I talked about some of which you said were 'wrong') Evidence for this: Decay does not apply, but perishable and ages does, power of the magic item, not actually duration, I.e. I listed multiple items that seem to contradict each other, non clearly.
2) RAI Part a) is that the item does NOT mention magic items at all, let alone healing. The very first word mentioned is FOOD. This is clearly about preventing non-magical food from rotting. Moreover, there is no size listed for goodberry, so it is unclear how many you could fit in it. No way to do math, because someone could just say their goodberries are the size of poppy seeds. RAI, as you can not calculate how many goodberries will fit, it is not intended to store goodberries.
2b) RAI part b) is that the item is listed as a common magic item, and an item that lets you turn extend the EFFECTIVE (not listed) duration of any spell from hours to infinite, should not be a common magic item.
The rest of your argument is confusing RAI (Rules as Intended) with RAW (Rules as Written). RAW is about the words WoTC wrote. RAI is about reading the words, accepting them as true, and trying to figure out the implications and what they must have been trying to do. Arguments about RAI do NOT involve changing the words WoTC wrote ever. The second you decided someone should complain about changing a word WoTC wrote for a RAI discussion, you are wrong and will ALWAYS be wrong. RAI accepts that the words are what they are and therefore you have to accept them and figure out what that means, not change those words.
Finally, as to allowing it to do the only thing it does, I DO ALLOW that. Not allowing magical items with a clearly listed duration does not mean I do not allow non-magical items or even magic items that do NOT have a clearly listed duration. The item does not mention magic items either way, so it is up the DM, and I would say no. It does include:
Food
Dead bodies of anyone small enough to fit in it (for use in spells like Revivfy)
Water, alcohol, etc.
Scrolls (even magical ones) for thousands of years.
That is what the item does. Works great, very useful magic item, but not over-powered. It is not something that a bunch of druids can use to take over the world, but it can be used to carry more food, rescue a small or tiny ally, and by the DM to let the players get written treasures from thousands of years ago.
I disagree. Keep in mind that the language of goodberry isn't that it rots or goes bad after 24 hours... Just that it loses its "potency". That says, to me, that the magical power of the goodberry is separate from its physical state.
Then the 'potency' is decaying/rotting, which the chest of preserving prevents.
This clearly does not apply to Goodberries. As others have said, the magical property and the item's "state of decay" are two entirely separate things.
Let's not be pedantic about the semantics here. Decay has so many definitions, you could pick the one you like if you want it to do what you want it to do. As this is a game with clear rules, we can actually solve this pretty easily.
By RAW, this item would not extend the magical duration of the Goodberries. Just use common sense and think of any other spell that has a time duration and whether it would make sense for the chest to preserve it. "Food and perishable items."
Would you use the word "perishable" to describe a non-organic object? Like a rock? No. Yet it will eventually erode and decade.
Is copper perishable? No, but it changes states and will eventually decay.
Is magic perishable? No, but it does end eventually. It may even decay. Yet, the item does not state that it will extend magical effects.
As you an see, using the word "decay" to classify anything that fits in the item is foolhardy at best. It's clearly not the RAI or RAW effect of the chest of preserving to preserve magical effects, otherwise, it would explicitly say so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Can Chest of Preserving keep good berries potency indefinitely?
Yes, it must. A chest of preserving ensures that "[...] perishable items do not age or decay while inside it", and goodberry is instantaneous, which means the spell is over once the berries are created - at that point you simply have a magic item whose potency is lost after a period of time, which is the common English definition of a perishable item decaying.
I disagree. Keep in mind that the language of goodberry isn't that it rots or goes bad after 24 hours... Just that it loses its "potency". That says, to me, that the magical power of the goodberry is separate from its physical state.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
That is NOT the common English definition of a perishable item decaying. Decaying is a synonym of rot, which is not how the spell works. Rot happens slowly, not instantly. Magic fading is not the same as decaying, it is a binary thing. One second they are good, the next they cease to be magical, but continue to exist.
That said, the words 'other perishable items do not age' are more important. An argument could be made that a)it is an 'other perishable item' and b) it ages. But a common magic item should definitely not extend the duration of even a first level spell. But this is not actually the duration, as the spell is instant.
So there is no clear RAW ruling. It is very clearly NOT the intent of RAI of the spell, and potentially very abusive. Assuming you simply cast one goodberry every day, after a mere year, you could have over 3,650 goodberries in the chest. Lots of hp, lots of meals. Far more than the chest is intended for either, so it is not RAI of the chest.
I would not allow it because of abuse potential, but I would state that the RAW is not clear on what it does.
But "decay" does not require a physical state. Non-physical states can decay and the word "decay" applies. If you admit it loses its potency, then you admit its potency decays.
Honestly, I think Mog broke it down better than I did. I think that there is precedent to extend the life of a Goodberry, but the "Potency" is not tied to the item decaying in any meaningful way. I think the fact that Goodberries are 100% potent until exactly 24 hours implies that it's not a matter of the physical properties of the berry itself... it's clearly magic related. Whether or not the berry itself decays or rots at that moment isn't addressed in the spell itself... I think a DM could roleplay it that way, but there's nothing that says that it must.
That said... the chest of preserving does include the specific wording "do not age", which I feel complicates the process far more. I feel like that gives more legitimacy to the idea that the berries can continue to function more than any argument related to potency/decay/ripeness/whateveryouwanttocallthis
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
"to decrease in size, quantity, activity, or force" is the general definition, although anything that quantifiably decreases generally counts - the dictionary I found this in simply decided to offer an explicit list.
That's absolute nonsense. Decaying can happen slowly or quickly. You are fundamentally violating English if you claim decay must be slow.
In particular, fission bombs only work because decay can be fast.
That's the magic decaying. By definition of decay.
There is no argument. It is a perishable item, because it is an item and it can perish.
As do all things. Note that you can age without perishing and perish without aging, in general.
So tell WOTC they need to make the item rarer. Also, as you yourself admit...
Correct. The chest is not extending the spell. The spell is over. It is preserving the item inside.
Yes there is.
That's your opinion.
You're making some serious assumptions about the volume of a goodberry. Remember, the chest has finite volume.
You have presented no basis at all for your RAI argument.
If you're not going to allow it to do the only thing it does, why let your players have it in the first place? Better to either ban the item or make it much harder to acquire (i.e. increase the rarity, assuming you dole out rewards based on rarity).
While quindraco makes a very, um… ok… argument that the berries don’t decay, I don’t really think that’s the question here.
The question, which I think Kotath alludes to, is whether a spell effect with a limited time duration (in the English sense, not the rules sense) is what is meant by “other perishable item.” In other words, is limited timeframe magic “perishable”? I wouldn’t assume so, at least not in the normal common usage sense. You might be able to find a definition that says anything you’d like is perishable, but that probably isn’t common usage. I think I agree with Kotath that the rules-duration of a spell would not be extended in the chest, and therefore I wouldn’t extend the limited time effects of this instantaneous spell either.
This is the aspect I disagree with. The wording of the spell is fairly explicit - the berries lose their potency if not consumed within 24 hours of the casting of the spell. It's not a decaying of magic by any definition, so much as it's a process with a firmly defined trigger. IF the time elapsed since casting equals 24 hours, THEN the spell function ends - the state of the berries, over and above whether they've been eaten, is largely irrelevant.
Likewise, there's nothing in the description of the chest that suggests it delays or alters the specific parameters of a spell. At best it might interfere with a magical effect that specifically ages or decays a foodstuff or perishable item, which doesn't really apply here. To my mind, once that 24 hour period has elapsed, you're left with average, everyday berries.
As a side note, I have to take issue with this definition, because it's unreasonably broad. "Decay" in the context of organic matter is absolutely distinct from decay in the context of physics or technical measurement, and it would be disingenuous to suggest that the chest is designed to prevent the emission of radiation, for example. What the chest does is refer to foodstuffs and perishable items, to which the definition of decay in relation to organic matter (i.e. rotting or decomposing) very specifically applies.
Per my answer above, I don't think this is even relevant to whether the chest preserves the magical effect of goodberries, but it's not a reasonable argument to suggest that all definitions of decay apply.
While food and other perishable items do not age or decay while inside a chest of preserving and would thus preserve the freshness of the berries used in the casting of goodberry, they would still lose their potency after 24 hours this casting because it's the duration of it's magical effect infused. In other words, their benefits isn't tied to their condition but to the magic infused.
For me the goodberry spell is quite clear - they lose their potency after 24 hours. The berries don’t decay or vanish, they just become normal everyday berries and would decay like any other. The chest would prevent the physical decay but not prevent them losing their magical effect.
Good news! The descriptions of the two items provide the DM viable options for ruling it either way.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
forrget the definition of decay, if the goodberry don't age in A chest of preserving i would say that the magic would not age as well
after all A chest of preserving ensures that "[...] perishable items do not age or decay while inside it" and i would say goodberry is a perishable items
He who fight and runaway live to fight another day
If we're playing the dictionary game here...
Perishable: liable to spoil or decay
goodberries aren't described as spoiling or decaying; they simply lose their magical benefits after 24 hours. Contrast that with create food and water, which explicitly does state the food spoils after 24 hours
Ergo, the chest wouldn't have any effect on those magical benefits, any more than it would prolong a different spell that had a lingering effect. To pick a truly absurd example, if you used ceremony to perform Funeral Rites on a dead pixie, putting the pixie's corpse in the chest wouldn't extend the period in which it was prevented from becoming undead beyond the listed 7 days, because the magical effect isn't tied to the condition of the corpse
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Seems like to me the physical state of the berry is separate from its magical potency. Since (1) this is a reasonable interpretation of the language; and (2) a common magic item shouldn't be able to allow you to carry around 2400 goodberries, I'd go with that interpretation.
Radioactive decay, the type involved in fission bombs, is entirely different from decomposition, the type involved in food. Decomposition, which is usually what decay means, has causes, like moisture and detritivores, and is molecular. Radioactive decay is based off of atomic structure and involes radiation destabilizing atomic nuclei.
By my interpretation of RAW, it's unclear and could go either way. As a DM trying to keep the game balanced, I would say it doesn't work.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
We're not talking about food or decomposition. We're talking about "items" (e.g. apples and piles of uranium) "decay"ing.
Citation needed.
Nonetheless, both are decay, and the item we're discussing stops decay.
It's disingenuous to refer to that as an interpretation. You've admitted decay has a definition, then declared you don't like that definition, so you're going to disregard it.
But lest we get off on a tangent, let me be clear: this isn't about what I think the rules ought to be, nor is it about what you think the rules ought to be. That's why it's problematic for you to insist that you're merely bringing an alternative "interpretation" to the table when, by your own admission, you're disregarding what the words in the rules actually mean: the whole point of this forum and the threads in it is to decipher the RAW so when a DM makes a decision about it they do so with as full an understanding as possible of what the RAW is that they're changing to conform to their world.
It is perfectly acceptable in every possible way for you, when you DM, to ban the chest of preserving, to change its rarity, to change its rules text - anything you say goes. It's also perfectly acceptable in every possible way for you, when you PC, to point out to the DM if they offer you such a chest that you think it should be changed in some way. What's not acceptable is misleading other DMs about the text of a rule or what the words in that text mean, per standard English dictionaries when we don't have a game definition and per the game when we do. That defeats the purpose of having this forum in the first place.
Well, of course. This is the wrong forum entirely for an in-the-weeds discussion of what is and isn't balanced and what sort of a decision a good DM should make for a fun and/or balanced game. This is the forum for analyzing the RAW to determine what it does and does not say.
Regarding the definition of Decay, it is true that the word decay has multiple different meanings, I quote from the dictionary:
Those are not the SAME definition, they are three DIFFERENT definitions, for different meanings. For example, here is the definition of the word coupon, from the same dictionary:
These are not multiple definitions of the same word, they are instead, DIFFERENT meanings for the same word. When one is talking about radioactive Decay, one is NOT talking about perishables rotting. When one is talking about perishables rotting, one is NOT talking about radioactive decay. Decay/Rot is about slow, consistent breakdown of food. Decay/radioactive is something else, and is NOT in the SRD. No radioactive substances in RAW. You an house rule otherwise, but that definition does not apply to this discussion at all.
As for the rest, you seriously misunderstood my argument. You thought my evidence was the argument and I gave no evidence. I will simplify my argument for you, pointing out the evidence
1) RAW is unclear (for all the things I talked about some of which you said were 'wrong') Evidence for this: Decay does not apply, but perishable and ages does, power of the magic item, not actually duration, I.e. I listed multiple items that seem to contradict each other, non clearly.
2) RAI Part a) is that the item does NOT mention magic items at all, let alone healing. The very first word mentioned is FOOD. This is clearly about preventing non-magical food from rotting. Moreover, there is no size listed for goodberry, so it is unclear how many you could fit in it. No way to do math, because someone could just say their goodberries are the size of poppy seeds. RAI, as you can not calculate how many goodberries will fit, it is not intended to store goodberries.
2b) RAI part b) is that the item is listed as a common magic item, and an item that lets you turn extend the EFFECTIVE (not listed) duration of any spell from hours to infinite, should not be a common magic item.
The rest of your argument is confusing RAI (Rules as Intended) with RAW (Rules as Written). RAW is about the words WoTC wrote. RAI is about reading the words, accepting them as true, and trying to figure out the implications and what they must have been trying to do. Arguments about RAI do NOT involve changing the words WoTC wrote ever. The second you decided someone should complain about changing a word WoTC wrote for a RAI discussion, you are wrong and will ALWAYS be wrong. RAI accepts that the words are what they are and therefore you have to accept them and figure out what that means, not change those words.
Finally, as to allowing it to do the only thing it does, I DO ALLOW that. Not allowing magical items with a clearly listed duration does not mean I do not allow non-magical items or even magic items that do NOT have a clearly listed duration. The item does not mention magic items either way, so it is up the DM, and I would say no. It does include:
That is what the item does. Works great, very useful magic item, but not over-powered. It is not something that a bunch of druids can use to take over the world, but it can be used to carry more food, rescue a small or tiny ally, and by the DM to let the players get written treasures from thousands of years ago.
Then the 'potency' is decaying/rotting, which the chest of preserving prevents.
Homebrew: Creatures | Magic Items | Races | Spells | Subclasses
This clearly does not apply to Goodberries. As others have said, the magical property and the item's "state of decay" are two entirely separate things.
Let's not be pedantic about the semantics here. Decay has so many definitions, you could pick the one you like if you want it to do what you want it to do. As this is a game with clear rules, we can actually solve this pretty easily.
By RAW, this item would not extend the magical duration of the Goodberries. Just use common sense and think of any other spell that has a time duration and whether it would make sense for the chest to preserve it. "Food and perishable items."
Would you use the word "perishable" to describe a non-organic object? Like a rock? No. Yet it will eventually erode and decade.
Is copper perishable? No, but it changes states and will eventually decay.
Is magic perishable? No, but it does end eventually. It may even decay. Yet, the item does not state that it will extend magical effects.
As you an see, using the word "decay" to classify anything that fits in the item is foolhardy at best. It's clearly not the RAI or RAW effect of the chest of preserving to preserve magical effects, otherwise, it would explicitly say so.