More thoughts on Minor Conjuration

[Dalebert]

Some thoughts I had about this regarding RAW, RAI, and how I'm going to handle it in my games. Some of this is in response to thought-provoking posts in a previous thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?372247-Minor-Conjuration-Use-and-Abuse/).

The size of the object is ambiguously worded. My first thought is 3 feet on a side means you can make a 3 x 3 x 3 foot cube. That means the diagonal of the cube is over 4 feet. RAW, you can't make a 4 ft staff even though said staff would easily fit diagonally within the cube that you CAN create. Think about a polyhedron like a giant 12-sided die. If no side was > 3ft, how big could it be? I don't want to do the math but suffice to say "3 feet per side" is horrible wording. I'll be house-ruling that no single dimension of the object can exceed 3 ft. This means you could make a 3 foot sphere but not a 3 foot cube.

It says you have to have seen the object. Even if it's a very simple object that you can imagine well, you can't create it if you've never seen it. I have a character who makes wood carvings. I assume I have to actually make a bunch of woodcarvings before I can later create them. I can't spontaneously create even simple shapes. The implication is the original object is being used as a template or mold. RAW, you can create a book that you saw with all the contents intact, but I would house-rule against this and simplify overly-complex items, e.g. the book would have the same cover but have blank pages. There's some DM FIAT required there, obviously to decide what's overly complex. I'd probably allow a one-page map, a pair of manacles, or maybe even a very simple clockwork.

Even if you let someone copy an entire book, spells require 50gp per level the first time you copy them because you're also deciphering them. You can't prepare spells from someone else's book nor a copy of it. You have to spend the time and money to copy it into your own and that process also entails you figuring out how to cast it yourself. This is explained in the spellbooks section. As I said before, I wouldn't allow this anyway so it's moot in my games.

I would posit that by RAW you can make a spell focus item or non-expensive components that you've seen and a magic weapon. A weapon doesn't get "damaged" in the game terms of what that word means when you use it. There are specific events that damage weapons, such as a Shatter spell, that would cause your weapon to vanish. If you say a tiny nick or a scratch is all it takes to meet that qualification, than most tools you make would also vanish the moment you use them. Imagine a crowbar scraping against stone. That's what I think is an intended use of this. Otherwise it's starting to seem pretty worthless. I think they intended for you to make working weapons as well though whether they meant them to count as magical for bypassing resistance remains ambiguous. I'm going to allow it because it's not game-breaking at all. Compare to shillelagh which is easily better and available at 1st level.

Also strictly by RAW, I posit you cannot make expensive spell components, e.g. anything that says something like "worth at least". Why? What does it mean to say something is "worth" X amount? It means someone would reasonably be willing to pay that much for it. It's a market-based price even though the market is rather rigid and simplified in the books. It also assumes no con-job because cons pawn off worthless items for more than they're actually worth. Assume you're telling the person "this is going to vanish in an hour". Will they pay 100gp for a very nice pearl that's going to vanish in an hour? Absolutely not. So while it might match that 100gp pearl exactly (except glowing), it's not worth much at all. Therefore it doesn't meet the "worth at least X gp" requirements of the spell.

People wanting to create a bundle of caltrops bound by some vaguely sticky substance so they release the caltrops. Well, guess what? You designed an object that's designed to break immediately, so they immediately vanish. Same thing as far as making alchemical things that explode. Go ahead and make a vial of oil. You want to make a molotav cocktail? The moment you pull the cork to insert the cloth, it's broken and immediately vanishes. Create it with the cloth already? The moment you light it, it's burning, i.e. broken. Anything you make to have some sort of chemical reaction is immediately broken before that reaction can become useful. If you make "an" object, it's no longer one object if the parts do not remain in contact. You can make a chain. You can make a weapon. You can't make a sheathed weapon. That's two objects. A vial of oil is one object until you pull the cork or pour anything out of it. A bomb is broken the moment it goes off and before it can inflict any damage.

Another way of looking at it--think of the term "broken" and what it means. It's subjective obviously and the DM has to rule, but my thought is "Is it still capable of performing it's intended function to its full extent?" Can a dagger still stab and do full damage? Can a vial of oil still fuel a lantern for 8 hours? If you infinitesimally blunt a dagger hitting someone's shield, no it's not broken, but if you pour out some of the oil, it's no longer a full vial of oil and it can no longer fuel a lantern for 8 hours. It's been noticeably reduced in effectiveness. It takes a lot longer for a dagger to be reduced in effectiveness than one hour. Presumably people are stopping to sharpen their weapons when they're on rests and such but we don't consider a weapon to be broken in an hour of normal usage.

[Easy_Lee]

I think your ruling is too complex. House rules should be simple and clean, so players understand them immediately. Otherwise you invite players to call foul when a particular word or interpretation prevents them from doing something.

I might stick with something simple. How about this:
Minor Conjuration
You conjure an item which you can hold in your hand. This item can be anything you have seen before, so long as you can hold it in one hand.

No matter the object, it is made out of pure magical substance. You can opt to copy certain qualities from the target object, such as maleability, viscosity, or tearability. Otherwise the substance is the hardness of magical adamantine. It does not gain any qualities particular to a substance such as explisiveness or being poisonous, as it merely appears to be the target object. It glows faintly with obvious magic.

The conjured object cannot be used in place of expensive spell components. Spells are governed by the weave of magic, and the weave requires sacrifice for certain effects; thus, it knows the difference.

Conjuring another object destroys the first, and it cannot persist through a long rest or the caster's death.

[Fwiffo86]

The size of the object is ambiguously worded. My first thought is 3 feet on a side means you can make a 3 x 3 x 3 foot cube. That means the diagonal of the cube is over 4 feet. RAW, you can't make a 4 ft staff even though said staff would easily fit diagonally within the cube that you CAN create. Think about a polyhedron like a giant 12-sided die. If no side was > 3ft, how big could it be? I don't want to do the math but suffice to say "3 feet per side" is horrible wording. I'll be house-ruling that no single dimension of the object can exceed 3 ft. This means you could make a 3 foot sphere but not a 3 foot cube.


This is how I understood the rule as well. No single side can be larger than 3 feet.



It says you have to have seen the object. Even if it's a very simple object that you can imagine well, you can't create it if you've never seen it. I have a character who makes wood carvings. I assume I have to actually make a bunch of woodcarvings before I can later create them. I can't spontaneously create even simple shapes. The implication is the original object is being used as a template or mold. RAW, you can create a book that you saw with all the contents intact, but I would house-rule against this and simplify overly-complex items, e.g. the book would have the same cover but have blank pages. There's some DM FIAT required there, obviously to decide what's overly complex. I'd probably allow a one-page map, a pair of manacles, or maybe even a very simple clockwork.


I always figured you had to have seen it because you are actually weaving it out of magical thread. Which stands to reason its like filling a bucket. You have the "mould", you just have to fill it with semi-permanent magic to create it.



I would posit that by RAW you can make a spell focus item or non-expensive components that you've seen and a magic weapon. A weapon doesn't get "damaged" in the game terms of what that word means when you use it. There are specific events that damage weapons, such as a Shatter spell, that would cause your weapon to vanish. If you say a tiny nick or a scratch is all it takes to meet that qualification, than most tools you make would also vanish the moment you use them. Imagine a crowbar scraping against stone. That's what I think is an intended use of this. Otherwise it's starting to seem pretty worthless. I think they intended for you to make working weapons as well though whether they meant them to count as magical for bypassing resistance remains ambiguous. I'm going to allow it because it's not game-breaking at all. Compare to shillelagh which is easily better and available at 1st level.


If you stick with simpler is the rule, books have no text, conjured weapons have no enchantment (but are still sharp for example), and conjured spell components have no power to assist in magic (though they look the part). Items conjured are of a simplistic nature, lacking markings such as royal seals (for coins), intelligible words (scrolls) and the like. While this does limit the use somewhat, you are still left with conjuring door stops, buckets, chairs, stairs, ladders, thief tools, crowbars, chalk, etc.

This is of course, my interpretation. Conjuring something out of thin air for essentially free all day long is pretty powerful. Just my thoughts of your thoughts.

[Shadow]

Personally I'd limit it to items of a single construction material. For my games, it needs to be a single item. If that item has multiple parts then they all need to be the same material. Multiple materials means multiple items are being created in conjunction.

Manacles, as per your example, would be fine because it's one material.
A book would not be fine, as it consists of many different materials. Same goes for a map. You could make paper/parchment, but not a map. Paper and ink are two different conjurations.
A ball of caltrops held together by something? Nope, that's many items held together by a different item, and it's ridiculous to me.

I'd even allow lock picks, or something similar which consists of multiple pieces all of the same material, as long as the item(s) in question was/were made from one material and is part of a greater whole or a set.

Also for me, conjured weapons are visibly magical, as in it's obvious that they were created with magic.
That's entirely different from being enchanted, so No to bypassing resistance.

[Fwiffo86]

Personally I'd limit it to items of a single construction material. For my games, it needs to be a single item. If that item has multiple parts then they all need to be the same material. Multiple materials means multiple items are being created in conjunction.

Manacles, as per your example, would be fine because it's one material.
A book would not be fine, as it consists of many different materials. Same goes for a map. You could make paper/parchment, but not a map. Paper and ink are two different conjurations.
A ball of caltrops held together by something? Nope, that's many items held together by a different item, and it's ridiculous to me.

I'd even allow lock picks, or something similar which consists of multiple pieces all of the same material, as long as the item(s) in question was/were made from one material and is part of a greater whole or a set.

Also for me, conjured weapons are visibly magical, as in it's obvious that they were created with magic.
That's entirely different from being enchanted, so No to bypassing resistance.

My name is Fwiffo86, and I support this message.

[Dalebert]

I think your ruling is too complex.

That post is pretty long and complex because I'm responding to a lot of issues that came up in the previous thread that I linked (but avoided necroing). That post is not my house rules, FWIW. I think my house rules are fairly straight-forward.

Most of my post is just pointing out that what the RAW stipulates and how some things are not viable strictly per RAW. Making expensive spell components doesn't work by RAW for instance. I simply pointed out why. House-ruling that no single dimension can exceed 3 feet is actually simpler because it's less ambiguous, e.g. no giant polyhedron aluminum latticeworks with no side being greater than 3 feet. :smallbiggrin:

[Shadow]

Also: spell components, No.
A simple spell focus such as a wand or orb, Fine.
So if a Conjurer had no components, he could still cast as long as the spell didn't require any costly or consumed material components.

[Dalebert]

Also: spell components, No.
A simple spell focus such as a wand or orb, Fine.

Aren't these functionally equivalent? Or do you refer to non-expensive components that are consumed?

I'm still unfamiliar with a lot of the spells. Are there any spells that consume non-expensive components?

[Shadow]

Aren't these functionally equivalent? Or do you refer to non-expensive components that are consumed?

I'm still unfamiliar with a lot of the spells. Are there any spells that consume non-expensive components?

The problem here is that the definition of "expensive" is subjective.
Not allowing any components which are consumed or have a price listed nips that potential problem in the bud before it ever becomes a problem.
So allowing components becomes a slippery slope. "Why can I make component X but not component Y?"
My answer is to allow a simple focus, but not specific components.

As for the second part of your question, it's actually the opposite. There are plenty of spells which require a costly component which is not consumed upon casting. The caster stills needs it though, as the focus isn't enough.
The conjured elements are obviously magical, meaning they are clearly not real, meaning they are not truly what you need and are insufficient to cast the spell.
Simple material components which can be circumvented by a focus can also be circumvented by a conjured focus. Anything else which would not be replaced by a focus need to be legitimate components.

[Foodle]

What about something that unfolds or extends?
Telescoping 10ft pole/ladder? The canvas for a tent (not the poles and pegs though), a magical glowing replica of the princesses wedding gown (should be able to sell that to any bride, even if they know it wont last forever)

[jkat718]

The problem here is that the definition of "expensive" is subjective.
Not allowing any components which are consumed or have a price listed nips that potential problem in the bud before it ever becomes a problem.
So allowing components becomes a slippery slope. "Why can I make component X but not component Y?"
My answer is to allow a simple focus, but not specific components.

I've only ever heard of "expensive" in relation to spell components as meaning "having an expense," ie having a listed price. Therefore, the spell allows you to replace all commitments that an arcane or divine focus does, which makes sense to me, at least.

[Mellack]

What about food products? I bet people would pay for some caviar or lobster, even if it were only going to last an hour. Heck, if that means no calories, they might pay extra for it.

[Dalebert]

What about something that unfolds or extends?
Telescoping 10ft pole/ladder? The canvas for a tent (not the poles and pegs though), a magical glowing replica of the princesses wedding gown (should be able to sell that to any bride, even if they know it wont last forever)

I wondered the same thing but it's quite a stretch *snicker* even by RAW which says "no more than 3 feet on a side". Those items are more than 3 feet on a side even though the "side" may be folded up or telescoped down to occupy a smaller space.

I'm following Shadow's case and simply disallowing these to function as components other than spell focus items but I imagine you would have a hard time finding a spell that uses food or clothing of a specified value as a component anyway. As far as convincing someone to buy what you make, I say go for it. Maybe a gnome wedding dress? If they understood that it could vanish at any time if you summoned something else, they might be leery. It's going to be quite a challenging market.

It always amuses me when people contemplate trivial ways to make a little petty cash when they could almost certainly do better adventuring and actually have more fun doing it. Sure, you'd be better off than a commoner but you're better off still by killing monsters and looting their treasure.


What about food products? I bet people would pay for some caviar or lobster, even if it were only going to last an hour. Heck, if that means no calories, they might pay extra for it.

You can make food but it's pointless because it's damaged as soon as you bite into it and promptly vanishes, right out of your mouth and your hands.

[Easy_Lee]

Would just like to add that considering the substance produced to be "generic magical substance" fixes the poison, explosives, and expensive spell component problems.

[pwykersotz]

a magical glowing replica of the princesses wedding gown (should be able to sell that to any bride, even if they know it wont last forever)

Be careful that they know about the time limit. If that thing vanishes at the wrong time, you might have to face a very embarrassed bride and a very angry groom. And make sure the floor and aisle are free of anything that could snag it. :smalleek:

[Sartharina]

Personally I'd limit it to items of a single construction material.... define 'single construction material', please, because Ink+Paper (or cloth) are largely considered a single material, given the chemical effects. And you also make weapons impossible, and other things.

I think this is an unnecessarily draconian and restrictive ruling.
Be careful that they know about the time limit. If that thing vanishes at the wrong time, you might have to face a very embarrassed bride and a very angry groom. And make sure the floor and aisle are free of anything that could snag it. :smalleek:Sounds fun!

[Shadow]

... define 'single construction material', please, because Ink+Paper (or cloth) are largely considered a single material, given the chemical effects. And you also make weapons impossible, and other things.

I think this is an unnecessarily draconian and restrictive ruling.Sounds fun!

Weapons aren't impossible, except for anything with a haft, which is too big and violates the dimensional requirements to begin with.
You can make a short sword, it just doesn't have a leather wrapped hilt.

[pwykersotz]

Sounds fun!

Of course you think so. :smalltongue:

Actually, this could make for a great "Emperor's New Clothes" play. Not sure how that's relevant to game. Dangit, we need this ability in real life!

[GiantOctopodes]

My 2cp on this:

I agree, in terms of rather than it being "no more than 3 feet on a side" it should be "The distance between any 2 points on the object cannot exceed 3 feet" essentially setting a 3' sphere as the containing limit for the size of the object. Just like the object instantly vanishes when damaged, I would also personally have it instantly vanish if this rule was violated. Thus, I would allow someone to summon a coiled 50' length of rope, and then as soon as they spooled out over 3' of it, it would instantly vanish, as it was stretched beyond the constraints of the magic. But that's just me.

In terms of it being an item, singular, I also agree, so no things that come apart or break, or else when they do so, they vanish. So no potions etc, and if you summon oil, as soon as it is ignited, it vanishes, removing the fuel for the flame with it. Acid (sans container, let's assume you have a glass container already you're summoning it into) seems a more viable "consumable" to summon, and unlike others, I do feel that if it does not take on the properties of matter held by the object in question (acidity, malleability, elasticity, magnetic, etc) then it has not in fact taken the form of the object. The same rules would apply in terms of exceeding 3' or breaking apart into multiple objects, so PCs would find they have a difficult time doing much of anything with liquids, and it certainly could not be splashed on more than one person. Ultimately, too, I wouldn't let it do more damage than acid (the item), so I don't feel that using an action to summon acid and then an action to hurl it at someone for 2d6 damage when you could be using Acid Splash for the same damage or more is going to break anything.

In terms of it replacing non-expensive spell components, why not? It takes an action to summon, and it replaces the need for a spell component pouch, which is only 25GP for *everything* that doesn't have a listed price. You're an expert at conjuration, I see absolutely no reason why you could not (should you wish to spend 2 actions on a spell, such as if you were separated from your component pouch for some reason) summon up a pinch of bat guano for that fireball. This is doubly true because in the example in question, they could summon bat guano *or* sulphur, but not both, so they would still need to locate one of the two components. I don't see any way that allowing it to work for spell components would create any balance issues, and in terms of the "rule of cool", summoning components, frankly, seems like the kind of thing this ability was made for.

Obviously in terms of any components with a listed value it would not work, of course. This is a magic conjuration, it has no value, and the somehow intrinsic value of the item in question is somehow important to the casting of the spell (as the Leomund's Secret Chest spell *knows* if you skimped and got that cheap local wood instead of that expensive foreign import materials, or if your cousin cut you a deal on the cost of it in exchange for that favor back then, so you'd *best* slap on some gold to compensate or the magic just won't work). Regardless of how odd the whole costly material component thing is to me in the first place, it's a mechanic which is never allowed to be circumvented, with any summoning or creation tools, the only way those spells work is if you pony up the GP, so certainly this is no different.

Edit: I also obviously disagree with the whole "single construction material" thing. A Chest, as an example, is a single object, just as much as a sack or a rope (both of which are actually made of many, many interwoven strands), and it being wood and metal vs metal and metal does not suddenly make it not a single object. I would allow a character to summon a book with pages intact, as long as they had seen the pages in question. So, in that aspect, if they read a book, I would allow it to be summoned in full, but if they just saw the cover, then yeah, the pages inside are blank, as they have not seen them.

[Dalebert]

I agree, in terms of rather than it being "no more than 3 feet on a side" it should be "The distance between any 2 points on the object cannot exceed 3 feet" essentially setting a 3' sphere as the containing limit for the size of the object. Just like the object instantly vanishes when damaged, I would also personally have it instantly vanish if this rule was violated.

While I think the power already precludes objects that are capable of expanding outside of the size limit (because their uncoiled, or unfolded, or telescoped out size IS their actual size), I think it's a good idea to explain it this way for clarity's sake. So for instance, someone could summon a coiled rope, but as soon as they uncoiled it past 3 ft, it vanishes.


So, in that aspect, if they read a book, I would allow it to be summoned in full, but if they just saw the cover, then yeah, the pages inside are blank, as they have not seen them.

But then you're giving them the eidetic memory feat for free, letting them potentially contain a vast library in their heads. I'm going to limit such fine details to the limits of their normal memory. I imagine someone comparing the conjured book to an original and seeing things worded a little differently, summarized with details obscure, some parts left out completely, based on how our memories are inherently quite flawed.

[jkat718]

Perhaps require an INT check, DC 15 + page count, with advantage if they studied the material beforehand? Or just and INT check, and every point the score is worth x pages in the book being copied properly. I'm normally against separate mechanics for everything, but this seems like a perfect case for it. The second method is more random (chance of production = 1d20 - 15 + INT, but no max pages), and the second is more restrictive (max pages = (1d20 + INT)*x, but no chance of failure).

[Dalebert]

Meh. I wouldn't try to figure out a standing rule for those kinds of details. Just assign a reasonable DC for an INT check by fiat when the attempt is made and try to use good judgment.

[jkat718]

Okay, so the exact numbers would be up to the DM, but which method of determining pages do you think works better?

[Cactuar]

People wanting to create a bundle of caltrops bound by some vaguely sticky substance so they release the caltrops. Well, guess what? You designed an object that's designed to break immediately, so they immediately vanish. Same thing as far as making alchemical things that explode. Go ahead and make a vial of oil. You want to make a molotav cocktail? The moment you pull the cork to insert the cloth, it's broken and immediately vanishes. Create it with the cloth already? The moment you light it, it's burning, i.e. broken. Anything you make to have some sort of chemical reaction is immediately broken before that reaction can become useful. If you make "an" object, it's no longer one object if the parts do not remain in contact. You can make a chain. You can make a weapon. You can't make a sheathed weapon. That's two objects. A vial of oil is one object until you pull the cork or pour anything out of it. A bomb is broken the moment it goes off and before it can inflict any damage.

Another way of looking at it--think of the term "broken" and what it means. It's subjective obviously and the DM has to rule, but my thought is "Is it still capable of performing it's intended function to its full extent?" Can a dagger still stab and do full damage? Can a vial of oil still fuel a lantern for 8 hours? If you infinitesimally blunt a dagger hitting someone's shield, no it's not broken, but if you pour out some of the oil, it's no longer a full vial of oil and it can no longer fuel a lantern for 8 hours. It's been noticeably reduced in effectiveness. It takes a lot longer for a dagger to be reduced in effectiveness than one hour. Presumably people are stopping to sharpen their weapons when they're on rests and such but we don't consider a weapon to be broken in an hour of normal usage.

Honestly, I think saying it's generic magical substance is preferable to this. "The moment you light the cloth it counts as breaking the object" is incredibly arbitrary.

[Dalebert]

Honestly, I think saying it's generic magical substance is preferable to this. "The moment you light the cloth it counts as breaking the object" is incredibly arbitrary.

I agree. That was just a response to a lot of suggestions in that thread for making those sorts of things. It's merely a response strictly via interpretation of the RAW. You can nip those in the bud by just clarifying up front that such alchemical things just aren't make-able in the first place.

[JoeJ]

Honestly, I think saying it's generic magical substance is preferable to this. "The moment you light the cloth it counts as breaking the object" is incredibly arbitrary.

Based on the description, I'd interpret it as some kind of magical "stuff," kind of like the way anything a Green Lantern creates is made out of the same energy.