minor conjuration question

[Joe dirt]

would you allow the following?

conjuring a torch and seeing if it lights up,
conjuring a coiled 50ft rope and seeing if u can pull it to its full length,
conjuring a glass of water to see if it can be poured out,
conjuring a block of ice to see if it will melt,
conjuring an hourglass to see if it can accurately measure time,
conjuring a hot glass of tea.

[Segev]

I think each of those work. It doesn't say that it can't extend beyond the 10 ft. cube later, only that it must fit within one. I'm not sure you can conjure potables or consumables, though.

[Bakenal]

I agree that most all of these would work within the ten feet. But things such as heat and light would be limited and anything consumable would have no actual value to your body and would reveal the illusion upon any amount of inspection.

[Shaofoo]

The torch would be fine by me but some RAW sticklers will probably say that since it is on fire it will begin taking damage and thus the conjuration be negated.

I would allow the rope so long as it isn't used for anything too strenuous. Tying up someone will probably not work well but you can climb up a wall with a rope.

Depending on the RAW you can't conjure up a glass of water, you could conjure up a glass or a volume of water equal to a glass but you can't do both at once.

A block of ice that begins to melt will probably be instantly destroyed since it has taken damage from heat.

An hourglass accurately measuring time I would make a check to see if the wizard in question can make one.

Same deal with the glass of water, you can conjure a cup or you can conjure up some hot tea but not both at once, you can do one after another.

[Joe dirt]

thanks for the responses and yeah this is what i thought, nobody can agree with the details of this particular ability... refer to dm for each of these abilities.... i think its one of the nicest abilities a specialist mage can get though, could even break the game in some ways

[Vogonjeltz]

would you allow the following?

conjuring a torch and seeing if it lights up,

Torch yes, burn no.


conjuring a coiled 50ft rope and seeing if u can pull it to its full length

No, that's more than 3 feet on a side.


conjuring a glass of water to see if it can be poured out,

Water is not an inanimate object.


conjuring a block of ice to see if it will melt,

See Water.


conjuring an hourglass to see if it can accurately measure time,

I'd probably let it go, but each grain of sand would constitute a distinct object. So, the glass, sure, the sand, no.


conjuring a hot glass of tea.

See Water.

[Joe dirt]

Torch yes, burn no.



No, that's more than 3 feet on a side.



Water is not an inanimate object.



See Water.



I'd probably let it go, but each grain of sand would constitute a distinct object. So, the glass, sure, the sand, no.



See Water.

interesting thoughts, you keep saying see water... what do you mean? are u thinking water is an animated object because no animated objects are in the monster manual as flying swords and such, you are thinking object with moving parts should be included in this, i completely disagree and i think you are the only one that thinks the sand in an hourglass are separate objects, is each atom or molecule also separate objects?

[RickAllison]

interesting thoughts, you keep saying see water... what do you mean? are u thinking water is an animated object because no animated objects are in the monster manual as flying swords and such, you are thinking object with moving parts should be included in this, i completely disagree and i think you are the only one that thinks the sand in an hourglass are separate objects, is each atom or molecule also separate objects?

See Water was indicating that the same reasoning he applied against the example with water applied to that one as well. It was short-hand to avoid having to repeat himself.

[Joe dirt]

See Water was indicating that the same reasoning he applied against the example with water applied to that one as well. It was short-hand to avoid having to repeat himself.

i think he is thinking water is an animated object... i disagree and so does the monster manual

[Biggstick]

i think he is thinking water is an animated object... i disagree and so does the monster manual

He obviously doesn't think of water as an animated object. What you're not realizing is that water is a liquid, not an object. Liquids are not objects, plain and simple.

[Biggstick]

would you allow the following?

conjuring a torch and seeing if it lights up,
conjuring a coiled 50ft rope and seeing if u can pull it to its full length,
conjuring a glass of water to see if it can be poured out,
conjuring a block of ice to see if it will melt,
conjuring an hourglass to see if it can accurately measure time,
conjuring a hot glass of tea.

You could conjure up what looked like to be 50' of rope, but as soon as you tried to pull it beyond it's 3' cube limit, that would constitute breaking it and the object would disappear. As long as you've seen an hourglass, nothing wrong with that one.

Each other requested conjuring is creating something that will be taking damage (lit on fire, melting) or creates a liquid + an object (You can't create liquids with Minor Conjuration).

[Joe dirt]

He obviously doesn't think of water as an animated object. What you're not realizing is that water is a liquid, not an object. Liquids are not objects, plain and simple.

interesting thoughts, the more i hear from people on this the more i realize this entire ability is a rorschach test

i disagree with you on this though because the term "object" is not defined as you say it is... here is the dictionary definition: a material thing that can be seen and touched.

water can actually be seen and touched

[Saeviomage]

I think any dm who denies you any of those is an ass.
The class feature is supposed to be useful. You could buy any of those things for a pittance.
I would rule that edible and potable conjured items won't sustain you though, since they fade when your body starts to break them down.

[Joe dirt]

I think any dm who denies you any of those is an ass.
The class feature is supposed to be useful. You could buy any of those things for a pittance.
I would rule that edible and potable conjured items won't sustain you though, since they fade when your body starts to break them down.

in some ways i can see some of their arguments, a torch that is lit is both being damaged as it burns away but it is also considered "normal use" so it just depends on how you look at it, I personally would rule against any chemical reaction and deem that to be damage simply because its changing from 1 form to another, and i would do this because then whats to stop someone from saying they make a bomb?... could be game breaking as this is an "at will ability" and not a resource driven ability like a spell slot

50 ft of rope i would say this is legal because nothing in the ability says it has to stay a certain dimension once it is summoned, those that disagree are simply reading too many restrictions into the ability

glass of water and pouring it out.... perfectly legal if u ask me

block of ice to see if it can melt... legal

hourglass... legal

hot glass of tea... legal but as soon as you drink it your body digest it and chemically change it so it becomes "damaged"

just my 2 cents, basically i would allow lots of objects just not things that require chemical reactions like herbal healing potions, alchemist items, poisons. and mainly because they could become game breaking.

[Biggstick]

50 ft of rope i would say this is legal because nothing in the ability says it has to stay a certain dimension once it is summoned, those that disagree are simply reading too many restrictions into the ability

How about folding chairs or tables? Or what about cots that fold out into a bed? A folding stick that can extend your reach by however many feet you've managed to convince the DM to allow you? You've now broken into the realm of as long as it can fit in a 3' by 3' box, it doesn't matter what it can fold out to become. The limiting factor of the object you choose being 3' by 3' keeps it sane. (And come on now, you're not creating a 3' by 3' object if you're creating a 50' rope. You're creating something that is 50' long, regardless of how it's folded up. You don't buy rope or chains from the store based on it's folded size, you buy it based on it's length and multiple other properties).


in some ways i can see some of their arguments, a torch that is lit is both being damaged as it burns away but it is also considered "normal use" so it just depends on how you look at it, I personally would rule against any chemical reaction and deem that to be damage simply because its changing from 1 form to another, and i would do this because then whats to stop someone from saying they make a bomb?... could be game breaking as this is an "at will ability" and not a resource driven ability like a spell slot

glass of water and pouring it out.... perfectly legal if u ask me

block of ice to see if it can melt... legal

hot glass of tea... legal but as soon as you drink it your body digest it and chemically change it so it becomes "damaged"

There are too many variables to consider when you allow liquids to be created with this ability imo, because you have created something that doesn't take damage in the traditional sense that in-animate objects can take damage. The important limiting factor of the ability is that the object you create disappears if it's broken. Every DM will end up ruling this differently regardless of what comes up here.

Regardless of if you're actually consuming or doing anything with this water/ice/tea, you are turning this already very powerful ability into one that could be game breaking that is at will.

[Joe dirt]

How about folding chairs or tables? Or what about cots that fold out into a bed? A folding stick that can extend your reach by however many feet you've managed to convince the DM to allow you? You've now broken into the realm of as long as it can fit in a 3' by 3' box, it doesn't matter what it can fold out to become. The limiting factor of the object you choose being 3' by 3' keeps it sane. (And come on now, you're not creating a 3' by 3' object if you're creating a 50' rope. You're creating something that is 50' long, regardless of how it's folded up. You don't buy rope or chains from the store based on it's folded size, you buy it based on it's length and multiple other properties).



There are too many variables to consider when you allow liquids to be created with this ability imo, because you have created something that doesn't take damage in the traditional sense that in-animate objects can take damage. The important limiting factor of the ability is that the object you create disappears if it's broken. Every DM will end up ruling this differently regardless of what comes up here.

Regardless of if you're actually consuming or doing anything with this water/ice/tea, you are turning this already very powerful ability into one that could be game breaking that is at will.

i would still not have a problem with a folding bed or whatever, remember there is also a 10 lbs limit. so how much rope can u conjure with 10lb limit?

as far as liquids, i still think that only chemical reactions would qualify as damage so water and tea is fine as long as you dont drink it because of digestion you would "damage" it but all other forms of water is fine. but no alchemist, poisons, or herbal healing potions. you could still summon them, but as soon as you try to use them the chemicals would break down and they would be "damaged"

[Vogonjeltz]

i think he is thinking water is an animated object... i disagree and so does the monster manual

No I mean it's not inanimate in the sense that an object is inanimate and life is animate. Water is a cornerstone of life; the other definition of animate (in motion) is applicable as well because it's a liquid.

As for the rope it's 50 on a side (coiled or not the side of the rope is what counts not the side of the space it occupies) and is therefore explicitly disallowed as well.

[Joe dirt]

No I mean it's not inanimate in the sense that an object is inanimate and life is animate. Water is a cornerstone of life; the other definition of animate (in motion) is applicable as well because it's a liquid.

As for the rope it's 50 on a side (coiled or not the side of the rope is what counts not the side of the space it occupies) and is therefore explicitly disallowed as well.

water is not living and that would be like saying you can summon some charcoal because its made of carbon and life has carbon in it... illogical

i disagree once again just because something can be extended beyond 50 ft does not break the ability... it just has to fit inside 3ft at the time that it is summoned.

[Saeviomage]

No I mean it's not inanimate in the sense that an object is inanimate and life is animate. Water is a cornerstone of life; the other definition of animate (in motion) is applicable as well because it's a liquid.

As for the rope it's 50 on a side (coiled or not the side of the rope is what counts not the side of the space it occupies) and is therefore explicitly disallowed as well.

Look out! That player is making use of a class feature! Someone stop him!

[Biggstick]

water is not living and that would be like saying you can summon some charcoal because its made of carbon and life has carbon in it... illogical

i disagree once again just because something can be extended beyond 50 ft does not break the ability... it just has to fit inside 3ft at the time that it is summoned.

The first example doesn't really make sense, very illogical.

And simply disagreeing with the opinion is all well and good, but you initially posted this as a request to see what would and wouldn't be allowed uses of said ability. Most people are giving pretty solid reasons as to why or why not they'd allow things, and you seem to have come here expecting each use you mentioned to be working. All other opinions are "Illogical."


Look out! That player is making use of a class feature! Someone stop him!

It's not a matter of a player making use of a class feature. It's taking a feature that is already extremely useful and attempting to add way more powerful uses to it.

[Vogonjeltz]

water is not living and that would be like saying you can summon some charcoal because its made of carbon and life has carbon in it... illogical

i disagree once again just because something can be extended beyond 50 ft does not break the ability... it just has to fit inside 3ft at the time that it is summoned.

A) Water is animate insofar as the word has meaning, being a liquid at room temperature it moves. Charcoal is inanimate, it does not move.

B) This is wrong. The space taken up is actually not mentioned, the object can only have sides that are less than 3 feet. That something could be squished to fit into a smaller space is immaterial to the length of its sides.

[Joe dirt]

A) Water is animate insofar as the word has meaning, being a liquid at room temperature it moves. Charcoal is inanimate, it does not move.

B) This is wrong. The space taken up is actually not mentioned, the object can only have sides that are less than 3 feet. That something could be squished to fit into a smaller space is immaterial to the length of its sides.

We will need to agree to disagree

[krugaan]

We will need to agree to disagree

Politely, if possible.

[RickAllison]

We will need to agree to disagree

I will go ahead and put in my 2 coppers based on the text:


This object can be
no larger than 3 feet on a side and weigh no more than
10 pounds... The object disappears after 1 hour, when you use this
feature again, or if it takes any damage.

So the folding objects wouldn't be permissible because they are larger than three feet on a side (though this does open it up to the question of multi-faceted polyhedrals that have numerous "sides").

As for a liquid, it is fine as long as it is no more than 3 feet on a side. Therein, however, lies the issue. Because liquids do not have a consolidated form, we have to consider them from the maximum size, when the liquid is fully dispersed along a flat surface. Based on my research, the thickness of water film along a flat surface is less than 1 mm, or 0.03937 inches. A 3'X3' square of that thickness would then have a volume of 5.67 in^3, which becomes 3.14 oz of water. Based on those estimates, it should be possible to make liquids, but the amount is almost negligible.

Note also that the approximations in those calculations were heavily over-estimated. The actual amount would likely be much smaller.

[krugaan]

As for a liquid, it is fine as long as it is no more than 3 feet on a side. Therein, however, lies the issue. Because liquids do not have a consolidated form, we have to consider them from the maximum size, when the liquid is fully dispersed along a flat surface. Based on my research, the thickness of water film along a flat surface is less than 1 mm, or 0.03937 inches. A 3'X3' square of that thickness would then have a volume of 5.67 in^3, which becomes 3.14 oz of water. Based on those estimates, it should be possible to make liquids, but the amount is almost negligible.

Note also that the approximations in those calculations were heavily over-estimated. The actual amount would likely be much smaller.

So this is where all our hard earned tax dollars go:

50,000 gp to conduct a stufy on "thickness of water film along flat surface".

[RickAllison]

So this is where all our hard earned tax dollars go:

50,000 gp to conduct a stufy on "thickness of water film along flat surface".

Actually, studies on that have numerous practical applications! Like..... You know, I'm actually drawing a blank on this one. I'm sure there is a purpose! :smallsmile:

[krugaan]

Actually, studies on that have numerous practical applications! Like..... You know, I'm actually drawing a blank on this one. I'm sure there is a purpose! :smallsmile:

Apparently to keep researchers supplied with ample amounts of alcoholic beverages and fine female elf flesh!

[RickAllison]

Apparently to keep researchers supplied with ample amounts of alcoholic beverages and fine female elf flesh!

Hey, it's still better than the primates and the typewriters...

[krugaan]

Hey, it's still better than the primates and the typewriters...

You know ... I just imagined this whole society of monkeys, who over millions of years built a self sustaining machine for randomly pounding on keys, hoping to be The One.

[Saeviomage]

It's not a matter of a player making use of a class feature. It's taking a feature that is already extremely useful and attempting to add way more powerful uses to it.
So powerful they could have spent starting cash on the abilities you are denying. Compare the ability with arcane ward, portent or minor alchemy.

[Joe dirt]

So powerful they could have spent starting cash on the abilities you are denying. Compare the ability with arcane ward, portent or minor alchemy.

people that think bed rolls and 50 foot ropes are game breaking are simply reading too much into the restrictions. the ability does not say the object cannot fold outside the limit, it merely states that the object must be within 3 ft at the time of summoning.... there is no mention of AFTER something is summoned I also think they are forgetting it must weigh less than 10 lbs so its not like you could summon a folding super fortress

and some people are confusing water with the creature animated object from the monster manual or they are confusing water with life... water does not equal life in my book

[RickAllison]

people that think bed rolls and 50 foot ropes are game breaking are simply reading too much into the restrictions. the ability does not say the object cannot fold outside the limit, it merely states that the object must be within 3 ft at the time of summoning.... there is no mention of AFTER something is summoned I also think they are forgetting it must weigh less than 10 lbs so its not like you could summon a folding super fortress

and some people are confusing water with the creature animated object from the monster manual or they are confusing water with life... water does not equal life in my book

The ability makes no mention of the object needing to fit in an arbitrary box, it states:


This object can be
no larger than 3 feet on a side and weigh no more than
10 pounds

It's syntax was not something like "The object must fit within a 3 foot cube" but that the object itself is no more than 3 feet on a side.

[Vogonjeltz]

We will need to agree to disagree

On what, exactly? Water is animate (not an animated object, that's a spell) it moves. That's literally the definition of the word in english.
And the class option says: "This object can be no larger than 3 feet on a side"

Not sure where you're getting the idea that this means a rope with a 50 foot side qualifies.


You know ... I just imagined this whole society of monkeys, who over millions of years built a self sustaining machine for randomly pounding on keys, hoping to be The One.

You could achieve the same effect by converting very large numbers into binary, converting the binary into english and then seeing if they compile in various programming languages to make a functional program.

That's one way to reach the singularity.


people that think bed rolls and 50 foot ropes are game breaking are simply reading too much into the restrictions. the ability does not say the object cannot fold outside the limit, it merely states that the object must be within 3 ft at the time of summoning.... there is no mention of AFTER something is summoned I also think they are forgetting it must weigh less than 10 lbs so its not like you could summon a folding super fortress

and some people are confusing water with the creature animated object from the monster manual or they are confusing water with life... water does not equal life in my book

Not game breaking, just not allowed by the RAW. I wouldn't particularly care if the ability allowed conjuring bunnies, rain, or even a campfire, but it doesn't.

Similarly, Minor Conjuration would not allow the character to summon something like a high tensile lightweight nanowire that is a mile long but could be coiled up into a 1 foot square. It's still a mile long on one side which is the RAW restriction.

[krugaan]

You could achieve the same effect by converting very large numbers into binary, converting the binary into english and then seeing if they compile in various programming languages to make a functional program.


You've never heard of the monkey-typewriter-Shakespeare conjecture?

It is said that a million monkeys banging away on a million typewriters for a mllion years will eventually produce all the works of Shakespeare.

The joke corollary is "... thanks to the Internet, we now know that to be untrue."

[RickAllison]

Not game breaking, just not allowed by the RAW. I wouldn't particularly care if the ability allowed conjuring bunnies, rain, or even a campfire, but it doesn't.

Similarly, Minor Conjuration would not allow the character to summon something like a high tensile lightweight nanowire that is a mile long but could be coiled up into a 1 foot square. It's still a mile long on one side which is the RAW restriction.

I might be more lenient towards this if it weren't for the abuse that could be construed from it if it were allowed. When designing limitations for abilities, we must be cognizant of not only the intended uses, but the abuses munchkins will take to break the game. After all, if a 50 foot rope were allowed, every foldable object that can fit in the 3X3X3 that fit the other criteria would also be allowed.

[krugaan]

I might be more lenient towards this if it weren't for the abuse that could be construed from it if it were allowed. When designing limitations for abilities, we must be cognizant of not only the intended uses, but the abuses munchkins will take to break the game. After all, if a 50 foot rope were allowed, every foldable object that can fit in the 3X3X3 that fit the other criteria would also be allowed.

Lets give credit where credit is due... Inspector Gadget was the master of minor conjuration back in the day.

Go Go Gadget Roller Skates!

Go Go Gadget Helicopter!

Go Go Gadget Meteor Swarm Projector!

[Segev]

Lets give credit where credit is due... Inspector Gadget was the master of minor conjuration back in the day.

Go Go Gadget Roller Skates!

Go Go Gadget Helicopter!

Go Go Gadget Meteor Swarm Projector!
I think Minor Conjuration fails if things have too many moving parts, too.

Though as has been pointed out, the RAW on it mean that you can have a near-spherical object of any size as long as it has discrete edges (or possibly faces, depending how you read "sides") which are less than 3 feet long.

[krugaan]

I think Minor Conjuration fails if things have too many moving parts, too.

Though as has been pointed out, the RAW on it mean that you can have a near-spherical object of any size as long as it has discrete edges (or possibly faces, depending how you read "sides") which are less than 3 feet long.

im not even sure that minor conjuration allows for discrete parts at all, since those might technically count as separate objects.

[RickAllison]

im not even sure that minor conjuration allows for discrete parts at all, since those might technically count as separate objects.

If that's the case, liquids and gases are right out. Since they don't have any strong bonds between molecules, each would be its own object.

[krugaan]

If that's the case, liquids and gases are right out. Since they don't have any strong bonds between molecules, each would be its own object.

The bonds wouldn't have to be strong. But yeah, no liquids or gases, the potential for abuse is too great. No more "I conjure a 5' cube of the sun and incinerate my enemies" crap.

Besides, doesn't the spell require you be able to hold it in one hand? Water maaaaaaybe, but gas? No.

[RickAllison]

The bonds wouldn't have to be strong. But yeah, no liquids or gases, the potential for abuse is too great. No more "I conjure a 5' cube of the sun and incinerate my enemies" crap.

Besides, doesn't the spell require you be able to hold it in one hand? Water maaaaaaybe, but gas? No.

When I say they aren't strong, I mean that you can't hold more than a few molecules together without some other surface. Those raindrops that you see falling from the sky? That is as large as you are liable to get a specimen of water from it.

Solids have stagnant connections between the molecules. Whether it is a crystal structure or amorphous, the molecules are held together independently of outside forces. Water, which has particularly strong cohesive forces, but even it can only remain as something possibly considered an "object" as long as it remains smaller than a 2 mm radius sphere (according to the U.S. geological Survey and Professor Alistair Fraser of Penn State). Any larger than that, however, and the cohesive forces are insufficient and it would split into two droplets.

Basically, the maximum volume you would get out of a liquid and still be able to have any justification of it as an independent object is 33.5 cubic millimeters.

[krugaan]

When I say they aren't strong, I mean that you can't hold more than a few molecules together without some other surface. Those raindrops that you see falling from the sky? That is as large as you are liable to get a specimen of water from it.

Solids have stagnant connections between the molecules. Whether it is a crystal structure or amorphous, the molecules are held together independently of outside forces. Water, which has particularly strong cohesive forces, but even it can only remain as something possibly considered an "object" as long as it remains smaller than a 2 mm radius sphere (according to the U.S. geological Survey and Professor Alistair Fraser of Penn State). Any larger than that, however, and the cohesive forces are insufficient and it would split into two droplets.

Basically, the maximum volume you would get out of a liquid and still be able to have any justification of it as an independent object is 33.5 cubic millimeters.

what? I thought said it was 2mm earlier.

GTFO with your science, nerd!

[RickAllison]

what? I thought said it was 2mm earlier.

GTFO with your science, nerd!

Never! I must do this FOR SCIENCE!!!

... I'll stop now...

[Saeviomage]

So... about that infinite sized sphere of steel argument. How does that mesh with the "rope has a 50ft side, so is ineligible" ruling?

[Vogonjeltz]

You've never heard of the monkey-typewriter-Shakespeare conjecture?

It is said that a million monkeys banging away on a million typewriters for a mllion years will eventually produce all the works of Shakespeare.

The joke corollary is "... thanks to the Internet, we now know that to be untrue."

No. I was giving a modern corollary to the infinite monkeys at typewriters almost surely recreating shakespeare.


I might be more lenient towards this if it weren't for the abuse that could be construed from it if it were allowed. When designing limitations for abilities, we must be cognizant of not only the intended uses, but the abuses munchkins will take to break the game. After all, if a 50 foot rope were allowed, every foldable object that can fit in the 3X3X3 that fit the other criteria would also be allowed.

True, I'd also have to take into consideration that there are far more powerful spells/abilities which would be obsolete.

[RickAllison]

No. I was giving a modern corollary to the infinite monkeys at typewriters almost surely recreating shakespeare.



True, I'd also have to take into consideration that there are far more powerful spells/abilities which would be obsolete.

My strategy? I look at it and try to break the game myself. Once I can't find any potential extreme loopholes, I pass it off to my TT buddies (which include That Guy who has previously made a plasma-spewing fungus...). I find it fun to see how much leeway I can get out of it :smallwink: