Is there anything stopping you from creating food and water with Prestidigitation?

[sorcererlover]

Is there anything stopping you from creating food and water with Prestidigitation?

[RoboEmperor]

Is there anything stopping you from creating food and water with Prestidigitation?

Nope. I've been doing it for a while. As long as the food you create can be digested in less than 1 hour (or 2 with extend spell) you can subsist off of prestidigitation forever. Prestidigitation even makes the food taste amazing.

[Bavarian itP]

prestidigitation lacks the power to duplicate any other spell effects

source: SRD

[RoboEmperor]

prestidigitation lacks the power to duplicate any other spell effects

source: SRD

How is this relevant? By that logic Prestidigitation can create 0 items because of wish or true creation.

[frogglesmash]

How is this relevant? By that logic Prestidigitation can create 0 items because of wish or true creation.

If creating crude, fragile objects was the totality of what was possible when via a casting of wish, or true creation, you might have a point, on the other hand, creating food and water is the totality of what is possible via the aptly named "Create Food and Water" spell. You could argue that if you only create create food, or water, you are not replicating the spell's effect, but I'd consider that a willful misinterpretation of RAI.

[Florian]

Is there anything stopping you from creating food and water with Prestidigitation?

By the rules, Prestidigitation can't infringe on any other existing spell. We have Create Food And Water, so that sets a hard limit there (you could use it to give the bland paste the taste of a good red curry, tho).

[RoboEmperor]

If creating crude, fragile objects was the totality of what was possible when via a casting of wish, or true creation, you might have a point, on the other hand, creating food and water is the totality of what is possible via the aptly named "Create Food and Water" spell. You could argue that if you only create create food, or water, you are not replicating the spell's effect, but I'd consider that a willful misinterpretation of RAI.


The food that this spell creates is simple fare of your choice—highly nourishing, if rather bland. Food so created decays and becomes inedible within 24 hours, although it can be kept fresh for another 24 hours by casting a purify food and drink spell on it. The water created by this spell is just like clean rain water, and it doesn’t go bad as the food does.

1. You can create highly nourishing non bland food
2. The food created by Prestidigitation doesn't go bad in 24 hours. Extended Persisted Prestidigitation creates, iunno, potatoes that last 48 hours without going bad. Or Sashimi that goes bad in a matter of hours.
3. Prestidigitation isn't restricted to rain water. You can make honey, royal jelly, cactus juice, orange juice, apple juice, whatever you want.

How is this the same effect?

[Promethean]

1. You can create highly nourishing non bland food
2. The food created by Prestidigitation doesn't go bad in 24 hours. Extended Persisted Prestidigitation creates, iunno, potatoes that last 48 hours without going bad.
3. Prestidigitation isn't restricted to rain water. You can make honey, royal jelly, cactus juice, orange juice, apple juice, whatever you want.

How is this the same effect?

It isn't, but what you just described is a spell that now makes "Create Food and Water" worse by comparison. Raw is in "heated argument between DMs" territory and Rai appears to be against making a cantrip with multiple uses better than a 3rd level spell at doing it's only job.

Maybe have food made by Prestidigitation not actually provide any nourishment. That way the wizard Can make a full course meal that's as delicious as a 5 star restaurant's top dishes, but it will satisfy about as well as a small bag of Cheetos.

[RoboEmperor]

It isn't, but what you just described is a spell that now makes "Create Food and Water" worse by comparison. Raw is in "heated argument between DMs" territory and Rai appears to be against making a cantrip with multiple uses better than a 3rd level spell at doing it's only job.

Maybe have food made by Prestidigitation not actually provide any nourishment. That way the wizard Can make a full course meal that's as delicious as a 5 star restaurant's top dishes, but it will satisfy about as well as a small bag of Cheetos.

And why would I care about a T1 using a spell creatively to plagiarize another more powerful T1's noncombat spell that already is completely rendered useless with a take 10 survival check to the point nobody ever prepares and casts it unless they were making food for people other than the party which is something the spell in question cannot replicate?

[Promethean]

And why would I care about a T1 using a spell creatively to plagiarize another more powerful T1's noncombat spell that already is completely rendered useless with a take 10 survival check to the point nobody ever prepares and casts it unless they were making food for people other than the party which is something the spell in question cannot replicate?

Because that's explicitly cited in the book as not the intention of the spell?

Otherwise, and if you're the DM, use Rule 0 to it's fullest. I'm not going to tell you how to play your game, it just seems disingenuous from my perspective for you to read the rules that way.

[RoboEmperor]

Because that's explicitly cited in the book as not the intention of the spell?

Otherwise, and if you're the DM, use Rule 0 to it's fullest. I'm not going to tell you how to play your game, it just seems disingenuous from my perspective for you to read the rules that way.

Where is this explicit citing in the book as not the intention of the spell? One of the intentions of the spell is that you make any object you want as long as it's not used as a tool, weapon, or spell component. So if I want to create a pint of ale in a mug that won't be used as a tool, weapon or spell component then I get to make a pint of ale in a mug that won't be used as a tool, weapon, or spell component. And creating food ain't any different than ale.

If you rule 0 over something this trivial i can only imagine how your games look like.

[The Insanity]

The "Create Food & Water" spell.

[Bronk]

There's quite a bit that prestidigitation can do though...

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20010707

[Jon_Dahl]

You might be fed for one hour, but then all the nutrients disappear from your body and you are back to square one.

Just because you have stuffed something into your mouth does not mean that it won't disappear.

Next question.

[RoboEmperor]

You might be fed for one hour, but then all the nutrients disappear from your body and you are back to square one.

Just because you have stuffed something into your mouth does not mean that it won't disappear.

Next question.

So according to you, create food and water does nothing? Because, after all, just like prestidigitation, Create Food and Water has a duration.

[Jon_Dahl]

So according to you, create food and water does nothing? Because, after all, just like prestidigitation, Create Food and Water has a duration.

In 24 hours, the food and water have already passed through your system and are now feces and urine. We can argue if those disappear or not, if you wish. Just say the word.

[RoboEmperor]

In 24 hours, the food and water have already passed through your system and are now feces and urine. We can argue if those disappear or not, if you wish. Just say the word.

If you're saying prestidigitation doesn't last long enough for the food to be digested you're wrong. Lots of food are digested within an hour. Like potatoes and watermelons.

If you're saying the digested nutrients of prestidigitation disappear while those from create food and water don't, you're being irrational.

I assumed you were saying the latter, but it seems you were saying the former.

[Jay R]

The clear intent of the rule disallowing prestidigitation from duplicating other spell effects is to prevent this cantrip from replacing higher level spells.

The clear intent of using prestidigitation to create food and water is to use this cantrip to replace a higher level spell.

Other DMs may rule differently, but I would not allow it in my game.

[noob]

If you're saying prestidigitation doesn't last long enough for the food to be digested you're wrong. Lots of food are digested within an hour. Like potatoes and watermelons.

If you're saying the digested nutrients of prestidigitation disappear while those from create food and water don't, you're being irrational.

I assumed you were saying the latter, but it seems you were saying the former.

There is text in create food an water which indicates the food does not stops existing at the end of the duration:


The food that this spell creates is simple fare of your choice—highly nourishing, if rather bland. Food so created decays and becomes inedible within 24 hours, although it can be kept fresh for another 24 hours by casting a purify food and drink spell on it. The water created by this spell is just like clean rain water, and it doesn’t go bad as the food does.
It becomes inedible in 24 hours.

Duration: 24 hours; see text
Which suggests that the explanation of what duration means is in the text.

Meanwhile other spells with a duration usually just have their effects vanish at the end(special exceptions for stuff like damage)

[RoboEmperor]

There is text in create food an water which indicates the food does not stops existing at the end of the duration:

It becomes inedible in 24 hours.

Which suggests that the explanation of what duration means is in the text.

Meanwhile other spells with a duration usually just have their effects vanish at the end(special exceptions for stuff like damage)

See text part is just that you can refresh the duration. Why does the food become inedible after the magic goes away? It's because the magic is what makes it edible and nourshing so if you rule that prestidigitation's digested nutrients disappear at the end of the duration you also need to rule that whatever part of create food and water is metabolized in your system becomes unusable and therefore highly hazardous to your health.


The clear intent of the rule disallowing prestidigitation from duplicating other spell effects is to prevent this cantrip from replacing higher level spells.

The clear intent of using prestidigitation to create food and water is to use this cantrip to replace a higher level spell.

Other DMs may rule differently, but I would not allow it in my game.

By that logic you can create literally nothing with prestidigitation because minor creation can create everything prestidigitation can create. The rule is there so you can't replicate Flare or Grease with prestidigitation. It's not there to prevent prestidigitation from creating mechanically irrelevant flares of fire or puddles of grease.

Why people claim a 24 hour refreshable food is identical to a 1 hour duration food is beyond me. If Minor Creation doesn't stop Prestidigitation from creating a stick, why would create food an water stop Prestidigitation from creating one apple?

Anyways, to the OP, you have your answer. The answer is "overreacting house ruling rule 0 DM fiats." because by RAW you can. It's not even questionable RAW. It's direct straightforward RAW. An apple is an object. How more straightforward can you get? "Prestidigitation can't create an apple because create food and water makes bland food!". Seriously.

[frogglesmash]

You're using a 0th level spell, to nearly duplicate a 3rd level spell, I don't see how that can be anything other than a willful misinterpretation of RAI.

[RoboEmperor]

You're using a 0th level spell, to nearly duplicate a 3rd level spell, I don't see how that can be anything other than a willful misinterpretation of RAI.

Again, how is it "nearly duplicating a 3rd level spell". It's a lesser version like how a puddle of grease that doesn't induce a reflex saving throw is a lesser version of the grease spell. Is create food and water overkill? Yes. You don't need enough food to feed 15 or 30 people with one casting. Would using a lesser version make the greater version obsolete? Again, yes, just like how Specified Energy Adaptation makes Energy Adaptation worthless. Is this wilful misinterpretation of RAI? You have got to be kidding me. Creating an apple is willful misinterpretation of RAI?

I need you to say "creating an apple is willful misinterpretation of RAI" and "creating an apple is identical to creating a pile of food that lasts 24hours+".

[Segev]

It clearly is not what the spell was intended for, or the spell would have called out that it can do this around the same point it mentioned the other things it can do with food.

If you use the “crude objects” clause to make something edible, the DM is within his RAW rights, without rule 0, to rule that it has no nutritive value. It’s a crude and fragile form of food, barely real. And it vanishes after an hour.

Create Food and Water calls out that the food it makes is nutritive, so even if it did vanish after its duration expires, it would still have provided nutrition.

[frogglesmash]

Again, how is it "nearly duplicating a 3rd level spell". It's a lesser version like how a puddle of grease that doesn't induce a reflex saving throw is a lesser version of the grease spell. Is create food and water overkill? Yes. You don't need enough food to feed 15 or 30 people with one casting. Would using a lesser version make the greater version obsolete? Again, yes, just like how Specified Energy Adaptation makes Energy Adaptation worthless. Is this wilful misinterpretation of RAI? You have got to be kidding me. Creating an apple is willful misinterpretation of RAI?

I need you to say "creating an apple is willful misinterpretation of RAI" and "creating an apple is identical to creating a pile of food that lasts 24hours+".

The mechanical effect of Create Food and Water is to create an object that can satisfy a creature's need for food and water, making prestidigitation capable of doing the same does render the 3rd level spell obsolete.

[RoboEmperor]

It clearly is not what the spell was intended for, or the spell would have called out that it can do this around the same point it mentioned the other things it can do with food.

If you use the “crude objects” clause to make something edible, the DM is within his RAW rights, without rule 0, to rule that it has no nutritive value. It’s a crude and fragile form of food, barely real. And it vanishes after an hour.

Create Food and Water calls out that the food it makes is nutritive, so even if it did vanish after its duration expires, it would still have provided nutrition.

I will admit that i agree that prestidigitation was not intended for chemical things like oil or digestion but that changes nothing just like WotC's intent for psicrystals to not have feats changing nothing.

You can't have "crude nutrition". You can have sloppily half baked cake that would probably give you an upset stomach. You can have a crumbly ugly shaped piece of bread. But you can't have no nutrition apple just like you can't have a piece of log that can't burn due to not having any fuel inside it because "a crude log is a log with no fuel value."

Seriously. Who is the rule lawyer here? The one that says a potato is an object, or the one that says crude mashed potatoes have no nutrition because crude means no nutrition? Or how about the one that says because create food and water can create a mountain of apples prestidigitation cannot create even one.


The mechanical effect of Create Food and Water is to create an object that can satisfy a creature's need for food and water, making prestidigitation capable of doing the same does render the 3rd level spell obsolete.

Ok, so by that logic using prestidigitation to create fireworks that wow some children is a mechanical effect because it increased their attitude towards you which is illegal because charm person already increases attitude of children towards you.

[sorcererlover]

Anyways, to the OP, you have your answer. The answer is "overreacting house ruling rule 0 DM fiats." because by RAW you can. It's not even questionable RAW. It's direct straightforward RAW. An apple is an object. How more straightforward can you get? "Prestidigitation can't create an apple because create food and water makes bland food!". Seriously.

Thanks. That's all i needed. I don't play in tables where the DM freaks out about naenhoon and persistent spell so DMs freaking about players eating summoned horses from mount or creating food with minor creation is not an issue.

It's funny how so many people freak out at the idea of arcane spellcasters creating food as if clerics are a mundane class that needs to be protected from other spellcasters taking over their shtick. Arcane casters can do everything with a bit of creativity. Deal with it. It's why I constantly think about how i can use prestidigitation. if it weren't for the cant be used as a weapon clause i'd be making alchemists fire with prestidigitation.

[Jay R]

See text part is just that you can refresh the duration. Why does the food become inedible after the magic goes away? It's because the magic is what makes it edible and nourshing so if you rule that prestidigitation's digested nutrients disappear at the end of the duration you also need to rule that whatever part of create food and water is metabolized in your system becomes unusable and therefore highly hazardous to your health.

Unless, of course, the clear intent of Create Food and Water is to create food and water that actually nourishes the body, and the clear intent of Prestidigitation is to not create something that continues having an affect after its duration is up.

Also, the food created by Create Food and Water doesn't disappear after 24 hours. It just doesn't. That food spoils if not eaten, like most other food: "Food so created decays and becomes inedible within 24 hours." This is not how Prestidigitation works. Claiming that these are the same is not RAW.

No, we do not have to rule against the documented use of Create Food and Water just because we don't agree with your non-documented use of Prestidigitation.

I don't agree with the term limit as the reason for preventing you from using Prestidigitation as it has never been documented, but it is NOT TRUE that disagreeing with your undocumented speculation on one spell means we have to ignore the rules of another spell.


By that logic you can create literally nothing with prestidigitation because minor creation can create everything prestidigitation can create. The rule is there so you can't replicate Flare or Grease with prestidigitation. It's not there to prevent prestidigitation from creating mechanically irrelevant flares of fire or puddles of grease.

This is deliberate nonsense. The rules say it can create a crude, artificial, extremely fragile object, that has no effect after an hour.

And by the way, I have no problem with Prestidigitation creating mechanically irrelevant food. The equivalent of your "mechanically irrelevant flares of fire or puddles of grease" would, of course, be food that does not nourish.


Why people claim a 24 hour refreshable food is identical to a 1 hour duration food is beyond me. If Minor Creation doesn't stop Prestidigitation from creating a stick, why would create food an water stop Prestidigitation from creating one apple?

According to the SRD, "Prestidigitation can create small objects, but they look crude and artificial. The materials created by a prestidigitation spell are extremely fragile, .."

Presumably you can make a crude, artificial, extremely fragile apple that is (in your words) "mechanically irrelevant".

According to Tome and Blood, "You do not change the substance's quality or wholesomeness. Spoiled food remains spoiled, a poisoned drink is still deadly, and inedible material provides no nourishment -- you can make a twig taste like steak, but it remains a twig." Presumably the quality and wholesomeness of the crude, artificial, extremely fragile apple is the same as the quality and wholesomeness of the nothing you started with.


Anyways, to the OP, you have your answer. The answer is "overreacting house ruling rule 0 DM fiats."

Wow. Insult received. but there is actually a difference between disagreeing with RoboEmperor and overreacting house ruling rule 0 DM fiats.

You put "Prestidigitation can't create an apple because create food and water makes bland food!" in quotes. That is not a quotation, and pretending it is does not further the discussion in any productive way. Note that everything I've put in quotes is a direct quote of either you or the rulebooks.

Furthermore, your fake quotation is not a re-phrasing of anyone's position. It's as incorrect and misleading as your idea that prestidigitation can make any object, rather than a crude, artificial-looking, extremely fragile object that cannot duplicate any other spell effects.


...because by RAW you can. It's not even questionable RAW. It's direct straightforward RAW. An apple is an object. How more straightforward can you get?

It's a crude, artificial-looking, extremely fragile object that cannot duplicate any other spell effects. You can't create the careful metalwork on a ring, or a nice painting on a box, but you think that you can duplicate the precise molecular structure of organic enzymes, cells, and other complex molecules necessary for nourishment?


"Prestidigitation can't create an apple because create food and water makes bland food!". Seriously.

You put quote marks around "Prestidigitation can't create an apple because create food and water makes bland food!" That is not a quotation, and pretending it is does not further the discussion in any productive way. Note that everything I've put in quotes is a direct quotation of either you or the rulebooks.

You said that your interpretation is RAW, and not even questionable RAW. But you don't seem to have considered the meaning of the actual rules as written. You can make an apple, but only according to the rules as written. It will be crude, it will not look like it came from a tree (artificial looking), and it will not be as sturdy as a real apple. And it will not duplicate any other spell effects

There is a spell to create edible food. You can pretend that blandness and 24 hour limit changes the basic intent of that spell, but all that wording will not change the fact that there is a spell to create edible food, and this isn't it. And no example of the uses of prestidigitation in any book anybody has quoted includes making edible food.

So if you want to develop your position, go find a description in the rules of prestidigitation that includes making edible food, or some equivalent. Or explain why direct, straightforward RAW means that a crude, artificial-looking, extremely fragile apple that cannot duplicate any other spell effects must inherently be edible. Explain how you know that this fake apple contains ascorbic acids and other complex organic compounds for nutrition.

I just don't see how your conclusion is direct straightforward RAW, nor how any other interpretations must be "overreacting house ruling rule 0 DM fiats."

[zlefin]

re: sorceror's most recent post

people are'nt freaking out at all, let alone about the idea of arcane casters creating food. no idea why you'd make that absurd claim.

it's just that it's very obvious what the RAI of it is, and some people want to push it far beyond that in a way that doesn't really have a decent foundation and without having a good argument for so doing. that's a very common phenomenon on the internet; on nearly any topic, someone will insist on an absurdity being true, so it tends up taking a lot of thread time as they ignore all the counterarguments people keep making.

[Crake]

Prestidigitation can create small objects, but they look crude and artificial.

So you can't use prestidigitation to create an apple, nor could you use it to create even a temporary gourmet meal (even a non-nutritious one), because those do both fit into the category of "not crude" and "not artificial". Note it says nothing about the nutritional value of the objects you make, and the default rule in dnd is "not unless stated", so it's not nutritional unless stated otherwise.

I don't understand why this is honestly even an argument, there's nothing in prestidigitation that suggests you can make edible food with the spell at all.

But honestly, anyone suggesting that you could make food, that may even be temporarily nutritious, for the 1 hour duration of prestidigitation, is thus by extension also suggesting that prestidigitation can make endless supplies of various poisons, which of course, are not poisonous beyond the 1 hour duration, but hey, poisons are metabolized in 1 minute in dnd, so that's no issue. I guess we can call prestidigitation the new cantrip black lotus poison dispenser? That's what you're arguing for if you're in favour of prestidigitation being able to make nutritious food.

[The Insanity]

I don't quite get the point of asking a question if you already have your own answer for it and are going to dismiss any answers that disagree with it.

[JNAProductions]

I don't quite get the point of asking a question if you already have your own answer for it and are going to dismiss any answers that disagree with it.

Agreed with this.

Also agreeing with those that say "Prestidigitation cannot make food that nourishes." I'd probably allow you to make gum or chips or something with it, just to have something to munch on, but I wouldn't allow it to actually provide nutrition. You get the sensation of eating, but no sustenance.

[RoboEmperor]

According to Tome and Blood, "You do not change the substance's quality or wholesomeness. Spoiled food remains spoiled, a poisoned drink is still deadly, and inedible material provides no nourishment -- you can make a twig taste like steak, but it remains a twig." Presumably the quality and wholesomeness of the crude, artificial, extremely fragile apple is the same as the quality and wholesomeness of the nothing you started with.

Are you serious? I mean it. Are. You. Serious?

Let me quote the full text

Flavor: You give a substance a better, worse, or different flavor. You could, for example, make porridge taste like lobster bisque. You do not change the substance’s quality or wholesomeness. Spoiled food remains spoiled, a poisoned drink is still deadly, and inedible material provides no nourishment—you can make a twig taste like steak, but it remains a twig.

So... according to you, the entry for Flavor[/B] is also rules for item creation?

Well, i guess flavoring an object also shoots jets of fire from your finger, completely sullies the thing you're flavoring, chills it to almost freezing, dampens it, while at the same time cleaning it as well.


Wow. Insult received. but there is actually a difference between disagreeing with RoboEmperor and overreacting house ruling rule 0 DM fiats.

You put "Prestidigitation can't create an apple because create food and water makes bland food!" in quotes. That is not a quotation, and pretending it is does not further the discussion in any productive way. Note that everything I've put in quotes is a direct quote of either you or the rulebooks.

Furthermore, your fake quotation is not a re-phrasing of anyone's position. It's as incorrect and misleading as your idea that prestidigitation can make any object, rather than a crude, artificial-looking, extremely fragile object that cannot duplicate any other spell effects.

I know i have a way with people but did you just not hastily copy and paste a quote from a completely irrelevant text to shutdown what you perceive as OP with the pretext of RAW? So that's not you looking for anything you can use to shut this down rather than try to look for the truth?


It's a crude, artificial-looking, extremely fragile object that cannot duplicate any other spell effects. You can't create the careful metalwork on a ring, or a nice painting on a box, but you think that you can duplicate the precise molecular structure of organic enzymes, cells, and other complex molecules necessary for nourishment?

I guess not because, I mean, I don't know how flavor works, so to be able to flavor something I'd assume you'd also have to be able to duplicate the precise molecular structure of organic enzymes, cells, and other complex molecules necessary for stimulating your taste buds and olfactory senses?

Or how about crude fragile stick? What kind of precise molecular structure of organic enzymes, cells, and other complex molecules do I need to create a fragile brittle stick? Since I don't know I guess prestidigitation can't make a fragile stick.



I'm gonna stop right here. When someone just pulls in as many random **** as they can like... precise molecular structure of organic enzymes, cells, and other complex molecules or the first rule text they see without seeing what it's for to argue their side, you know they are the type of person who will never admit they are wrong and will just endlessly throw **** at you forever.

I don't want to be hostile to you but I'm sorry, i'm not gonna argue the topic with someone that says you need a doctorate in biochemistry to be able to make a stick. Or someone who says you don't need to have a doctorate in biochemistry to create a stick but you do for an apple because... w.e I don't know nor do i care.

[sorcererlover]

re: sorceror's most recent post

people are'nt freaking out at all, let alone about the idea of arcane casters creating food. no idea why you'd make that absurd claim.

it's just that it's very obvious what the RAI of it is, and some people want to push it far beyond that in a way that doesn't really have a decent foundation and without having a good argument for so doing. that's a very common phenomenon on the internet; on nearly any topic, someone will insist on an absurdity being true, so it tends up taking a lot of thread time as they ignore all the counterarguments people keep making.

I remember some time ago people freaking about someone eating a long duration summoned creature without killing it. It was mount I believe because it lasted 2hr/level. And there was that thread relatively recently about people freaking out about someone using minor creation to eat food.

And this thread. There's someone saying we should rule 0 so that prestidigitation can't feed you. That's not a mechanical argument. That's a freak out argument.


I don't quite get the point of asking a question if you already have your own answer for it and are going to dismiss any answers that disagree with it.


Agreed with this.

Also agreeing with those that say "Prestidigitation cannot make food that nourishes." I'd probably allow you to make gum or chips or something with it, just to have something to munch on, but I wouldn't allow it to actually provide nutrition. You get the sensation of eating, but no sustenance.

I didn't have an answer for it. And if someone points out a valid thing it ends with that. Just like my other post the other day where i asked if prestidigitation can make infinite oil flasks for oil bombing.

[JNAProductions]

I didn't have an answer for it. And if someone points out a valid thing it ends with that. Just like my other post the other day where i asked if prestidigitation can make infinite oil flasks for oil bombing.


Thanks. That's all i needed. I don't play in tables where the DM freaks out about naenhoon and persistent spell so DMs freaking about players eating summoned horses from mount or creating food with minor creation is not an issue.

It's funny how so many people freak out at the idea of arcane spellcasters creating food as if clerics are a mundane class that needs to be protected from other spellcasters taking over their shtick. Arcane casters can do everything with a bit of creativity. Deal with it. It's why I constantly think about how i can use prestidigitation. if it weren't for the cant be used as a weapon clause i'd be making alchemists fire with prestidigitation.

Sounds an awful lot like you think it's RAW and are just looking for validation.

[zlefin]

I remember some time ago people freaking about someone eating a long duration summoned creature without killing it. It was mount I believe because it lasted 2hr/level. And there was that thread relatively recently about people freaking out about someone using minor creation to eat food.

And this thread. There's someone saying we should rule 0 so that prestidigitation can't feed you. That's not a mechanical argument. That's a freak out argument.





I didn't have an answer for it. And if someone points out a valid thing it ends with that. Just like my other post the other day where i asked if prestidigitation can make infinite oil flasks for oil bombing.
rule 0 isn't necessary to say prestidigitation can't feed you. it's necessary to say that it CAN feed you. because by RAW and RAI it can't feed you.

I also think you're not recognizing what "Freaking out" is correctly. You're ascribing people as "freaking out" when they're simply annoyed at someone willfully ignoring RAW and RAI. that's not freaking out. or you're using a definition of freaking out that's very different from standard, in which case you should define it. but it's really better to just use a more standard and apropos word.

and I too wonder why you're bothering to ask if you're going to ignore the arguments that don't validate your position. You can always houserule anything you like after all.

[RoboEmperor]

So you can't use prestidigitation to create an apple, nor could you use it to create even a temporary gourmet meal (even a non-nutritious one), because those do both fit into the category of "not crude" and "not artificial". Note it says nothing about the nutritional value of the objects you make, and the default rule in dnd is "not unless stated", so it's not nutritional unless stated otherwise.

Prestidigitation can create small objects, but they look crude and artificial. The materials created by a prestidigitation spell are extremely fragile, and they cannot be used as tools, weapons, or spell components.

LET'S GET ONE THING STRAIGHT.

Crude and Artificial:
1. It does NOT mean I can only create artificial things
2. It has NO impact on the material, chemical composition, or molecular structure or the like
3. It ONLY influences LOOKS.

As in if I make Uranium-235 with prestidigitation, it will LOOK crude and artificial, it will be brittle and fragile, but it will still reach Criticial Mass and create a nuclear explosion.

Are you saying a potato made by Minor Creation also has no nutritive value because the spell text didn't say you could make vegetable matter with nutrients? Because if not then you can't say an object made by Prestidigitation has no nutritive value because the spell text didn't say you could make objects with nutrients.


I don't understand why this is honestly even an argument, there's nothing in prestidigitation that suggests you can make edible food with the spell at all.

The Opposite is true. Nothing in the spell text suggests you can only make inedible food. Both edible and inedible objects are objects.


But honestly, anyone suggesting that you could make food, that may even be temporarily nutritious, for the 1 hour duration of prestidigitation, is thus by extension also suggesting that prestidigitation can make endless supplies of various poisons, which of course, are not poisonous beyond the 1 hour duration, but hey, poisons are metabolized in 1 minute in dnd, so that's no issue. I guess we can call prestidigitation the new cantrip black lotus poison dispenser? That's what you're arguing for if you're in favour of prestidigitation being able to make nutritious food.

Poison is a weapon isn't it?



If you want RAW here's the RAW.

Apple = Object
Prestidigitation creates Objects
Therefore Prestidigitation creates apples.

THIS MUCH IS IRON CLAD.

The Apple having no nutritive value is B.S. as explained above.

The Apple's digested nutrients vanishing when its duration is up is the one valid contestable point here. The only one. And in my view d&d ends at digestion. Post-chemical-reaction-kinetic-energy and cell replication or the like is not undone by end of spell duration because of this analogy
If I create a bunch of logs with Minor Creation and burn it, do I freeze to death the moment the spell ends because all of that heat energy provided by the log was created by minor creation? The answer is no, so if this chemical reaction is not undone by end of duration, why would others?

[Aldrakan]

I don't want to be hostile to you but I'm sorry, i'm not gonna argue the topic with someone that says you need a doctorate in biochemistry to be able to make a stick. Or someone who says you don't need to have a doctorate in biochemistry to create a stick but you do for an apple because... w.e I don't know nor do i care.

No one said anything about you needing to know any of this. That would be a ridiculous claim. The question is what the spell is capable of. The spell explicitly states it cannot make an inedible object edible, and can only create crude, artificial, fragile items. They are extrapolating from this that the spell cannot make edible objects out of nothing. This seems a reasonable extrapolation to me.

Edit:


[B]


As in if I make Uranium-235 with prestidigitation, it will LOOK crude and artificial, it will be brittle and fragile, but it will still reach Criticial Mass and create a nuclear explosion.

...

Poison is a weapon isn't it?



Are you JOKING?

[Covenant12]

Making claims in bold doesn't make them more true. A level 0 cantrip being allowed to create many permanent effects causes issues, and was not intended. That's not rule 0, it just can't make anything you want.

Not sure why I bother, because it looks like you aren't listening. But no, I am stating I reject your bolded claims.

[RoboEmperor]

Are you JOKING?

Poison being a "weapon"? No, not joking. Creating a nuclear bomb with a cantrip? Yeah, same with creating a nuclear bomb with major creation. I was making a point. Neither of these spells change the material's properties unless specifically stated. So an apple will still be an apple and U-235 will still be U-235, just more brittle.


Making claims in bold doesn't make them more true. A level 0 cantrip being allowed to create many permanent effects causes issues, and was not intended. That's not rule 0, it just can't make anything you want.

Not sure why I bother, because it looks like you aren't listening. But no, I am stating I reject your bolded claims.

Whatever you say man. It's not like I give a damn about what you think. I do care about what Crake thinks though. He's convinced me on more than one occasion with actual facts so I can trust him to be unbiased in this debate.

[Aldrakan]

LET'S GET ONE THING STRAIGHT.

Crude and Artificial:
1. It does NOT mean I can only create artificial things
2. It has NO impact on the material, chemical composition, or molecular structure or the like
3. It ONLY influences LOOKS.



1. The spell does not say this. You are deliberately reading "object" as broadly as possible to reach your pre-set goal, even though severe restrictions upon the nature of the objects that can be created have been set. However it is the strongest of your assumptions in that unlike the others it is not directly contradicted by the text of the spell.

2. This is explicitly not the case, and you can reach this conclusion only by deliberately ignoring the rest of the spell. The objects created are "extremely fragile", and cannot be used as tools, weapons, or spell components. Adamantine that is extremely fragile has clearly had its material, chemical composition, or molecular structure altered because adamantine is an extremely hard material and objects made of it are suitable to be used as a tool or weapon. If you are claiming that you can create any object you like and it will be composed of the material you desire, it is truly absurd to suggest that there has been no impact on the material when they are always fragile.

3. See above. This is so blatantly incorrect that I am not going to bother engaging with you any further.

[sorcererlover]

Sounds an awful lot like you think it's RAW and are just looking for validation.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?585722-Prestidigtation-at-will-oil-bombs

In that thread the very first response gave me a solid reasoning on why I can't use prestidigitation to create oil bombs so it ended there.

In this thread, your opinion that prestidigitation can't create nutrition and only an illusion of eating is baseless, unsupported, and just something you ruled from the top of your head so excuse me while I ignore it and your attitude.


rule 0 isn't necessary to say prestidigitation can't feed you. it's necessary to say that it CAN feed you. because by RAW and RAI it can't feed you.

I also think you're not recognizing what "Freaking out" is correctly. You're ascribing people as "freaking out" when they're simply annoyed at someone willfully ignoring RAW and RAI. that's not freaking out. or you're using a definition of freaking out that's very different from standard, in which case you should define it. but it's really better to just use a more standard and apropos word.

and I too wonder why you're bothering to ask if you're going to ignore the arguments that don't validate your position. You can always houserule anything you like after all.

I'm not ignoring them. There are no arguments on the other side. RoboEmperor has a right of it. If a spell says it creates an object then it creates the object no strings attached. Strings are only attached when the rules say so. In prestidigitaiton's case the object can't be used as a spell component or a weapon or a tool so no healing kits or oil bombs but it doesn't say anything about creating nutritionally empty food so it doesn't.

So give me something like Frogglesmash did in the other thread or stop calling me a blind stubborn idiot when it is you who have nothing that supports your arguments. Something like a General rule that says created objects from any spell lack every property of that item unless the rules specifically say they keep them.

[Jon_Dahl]

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7ZeCi0yTgb9AqXFm/giphy.gif

[glitterbaby]

I don't quite get the point of asking a question if you already have your own answer for it and are going to dismiss any answers that disagree with it.

Confirmation bias explains it pretty well.

[gogogome]

Why do people talk about molecular and chemical composition in a fantasy game?

The rule text assumes whatever object you are creating is made out of solid inorganic material like ceramic or metal. But it does not forbid creating organic material. But whatever you create it must be fragile. So if you create a lump of clay it's not gonna be soft, it's gonna be hard and brittle because soft things cannot be fragile. So the apple is going to be crunchy.

I agree with Crake in that I can't believe how this is even a debate, but my conclusion is the opposite of his. Unless the rules specify otherwise you use the default value. This is true for templates, metamagic, or whatever other effect. So those of you who are arguing that an apple is devoid of all health benefits because the spell didn't explicitly say apples are healthy is incorrect.

Those of you also bringing in molecules are also incorrect. D&D isn't designed with molecules in mind. Molecules are completely irrelevant to everything in d&d. So any of you who says prestidigitation's fragility text infers a complete change in chemical and molecular composition of the created object is preposterous. Prestidigitation is dispellable so any change in fragility is magic, not science. It is never science.

Which leaves the cannot replicate other spells argument. Robo is incorrect that prestidigitation can't make a pile of food because it can. For the entire 1 hour duration you can create an apple as a standard action so that is quite a pile. But Robo is correct that the resulting apple is too different than Create Food and Water to be called the same effect.

So Robo is correct here. Prestidigitation creates a crunchy apple that looks like it was hammered together but otherwise is a normal apple.

I must say I'm surprised how much flak the person who is correct in this thread is receiving. It probably is his demeanor so I advise Robo once again to get your anger issues under control.

[Crake]

So Robo is correct here. Prestidigitation creates a crunchy apple that looks like it was hammered together but otherwise is a normal apple.

So what you're saying is "it's not an apple, but it's an apple"?

[gogogome]

So what you're saying is "it's not an apple, but it's an apple"?

Yes. Ruby dust can normally be used as a spell component for Forcecage but Ruby dust created by Major Creation cannot. "it's not ruby dust, but it's ruby dust".

[Crake]

Yes. Ruby dust can normally be used as a spell component for Forcecage but Ruby dust created by Major Creation cannot. "it's not ruby dust, but it's ruby dust".

Except it is ruby dust, it just can't be used as a spell component, that's not the same thing

[gogogome]

Except it is ruby dust, it just can't be used as a spell component, that's not the same thing

It is. It's just a weirdly shaped fragile apple.

The spell does not say it creates fake items. The spell does not say it's an illusion. I do not see how you can come to the conclusion that a created object with a few of its parameters changed loses the rest of its parameters. If the spell creates a cold iron mug it's gonna be painful to any fey who touches it and its fragility or crude shape has no impact on its cold iron property. Same with mithral. The created weapon may not be used as a weapon but you will still use all of the mithral's weight modifiers on it.

[RoboEmperor]

I must say I'm surprised how much flak the person who is correct in this thread is receiving. It probably is his demeanor so I advise Robo once again to get your anger issues under control.

It's not me it's them. They hate prestidigitation creating food for whatever hair brained reason, come up with the most nonsensical ridiculous thing, and then pelts me with it instead of trying to find the truth. The latest guy who "disengaged" with me, he's the one saying prestidigitation changes the material, chemical composition, or molecular structure of adamantine is the reason why apples have no nutrition. Is that someone who is trying to figure out how the rule works says? Or is that someone who is trying to find any stupid reason to shut this use of prestidigitation down? So how is it my fault i'm saddled with arguing with these people?

Crake had a real argument. I disagree with it but "it's not nutritious unless the spell says it is" is an actual argument.
Your argument, default value unless explicitly specified is an actual argument.
WTF does material, chemical composition, or molecular structure of adamantine remotely have to do with the rules? And then screams "You're Blatantly Wrong, I'm not talking to you anymore".

You seem like you got this so I'll let you handle this. Holy **** the anti-arcane caster sentiment on these forums is just freaking wow.

[Pippin]

Is there anything stopping you from creating food and water with Prestidigitation?
The problem I see with this is the 1 hour duration. If you drink and eat whatever you created with that spell, the nutritive molecules will be incorporated in your muscles, in your heart, in your brain cells. After the 60 minutes have passed, the molecules disappear. This could have dire consequences on yourself. Create Food and Water doesn't have that problem: the created meal keeps existing after the 24 hour duration, only it becomes inedible if you still haven't eaten it.

[Pippa the Pixie]

"It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. NEVER hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, IF it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters give in the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Volumes, YOU are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a WHOLE first, your CAMPAIGN next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons as it was meant to be. May you find as much pleasure in so doing as the rest of us do."

-Gary Gygax

So...by the rules:

Medium characters need at least a gallon of fluids and about a pound of decent food per day to avoid starvation.

So....does Prestidigitation make decent food?

[Crake]

It is. It's just a weirdly shaped fragile apple.

The spell does not say it creates fake items. The spell does not say it's an illusion. I do not see how you can come to the conclusion that a created object with a few of its parameters changed loses the rest of its parameters. If the spell creates a cold iron mug it's gonna be painful to any fey who touches it and its fragility or crude shape has no impact on its cold iron property. Same with mithral. The created weapon may not be used as a weapon but you will still use all of the mithral's weight modifiers on it.

Except what you have just described is not an apple. Apples have certain shapes and compositions, you could create a crude, artificial replica of an apple, but because apples are neither crude nor artificial, you cannot create an apple. And of course, the spell doesn't say it can create nutritional food, thus it is not nutritional.

Something to consider also, is that food allergies exist, and thus technically any food could be considered a weapon as a kind of poison if you're going to use the logic of "poison is a weapon", so too can food be.

[RoboEmperor]

Except what you have just described is not an apple. Apples have certain shapes and compositions, you could create a crude, artificial replica of an apple, but because apples are neither crude nor artificial, you cannot create an apple. And of course, the spell doesn't say it can create nutritional food, thus it is not nutritional.

Something to consider also, is that food allergies exist, and thus technically any food could be considered a weapon as a kind of poison if you're going to use the logic of "poison is a weapon", so too can food be.

By your (earlier) logic Heroes' Feast gives no nutrition and anyone living off of Heroes' Feast will die because no where in the spell description says the food is nourishing. So gogogome and I are right that unless specified otherwise, all objects are their normal selves.

As for your allergy analogy, this apple will be edible by those allergic to apples. The spell doesn't say you can't make weapons. It says you can't use it as a weapon. So make all the poisons you want they just won't do anything.

Your argument seems to be "apples are not fragile, therefore anything made my prestidigitation is not an apple". Then how about we switch apples to potato chips? The healthy kind and avoid this technicality you're using for now.

But consider gogogome's mithral and cold iron analogies. Fragility does not change the material's properties so while the fragile apple does not meet the definition of your apple, it's still has the same properties as an apple.

[lesser_minion]

So, firstly, the spell creates "minor" and "simple" effects. There is nothing to suggest that "create small objects" is excepted from that. Food interacts with complex biological processes, there are spells at every level that can be defeated by not eating, and there are other spells that specifically deal with it. It is, therefore, neither minor nor simple.

Secondly, they're small objects. How small? Small enough that no matter how many of them you make, they don't deal damage even if you drop all of them on someone's head. That implies that you have a negligible combined mass of stuff to work with each casting. Which implies no contribution towards the non-negligible mass of food you need to eat in order to avoid starvation.

Thirdly, the spell creates objects from materials that it creates, and describes the properties of those materials. There's nothing in the rules to suggest that you can make objects of different materials, or add arbitrary other properties to the materials that it creates. Including but not limited to being nourishing, being anti-osmium, or whatever else you want.

[noob]

I prestigitate antimatter.
Now everything explodes.
(a bit in the vein of harry potter and the methods of rationality once harry figures out transfiguration can create nearly everything)

[zlefin]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?585722-Prestidigtation-at-will-oil-bombs

In that thread the very first response gave me a solid reasoning on why I can't use prestidigitation to create oil bombs so it ended there.

In this thread, your opinion that prestidigitation can't create nutrition and only an illusion of eating is baseless, unsupported, and just something you ruled from the top of your head so excuse me while I ignore it and your attitude.



I'm not ignoring them. There are no arguments on the other side. RoboEmperor has a right of it. If a spell says it creates an object then it creates the object no strings attached. Strings are only attached when the rules say so. In prestidigitaiton's case the object can't be used as a spell component or a weapon or a tool so no healing kits or oil bombs but it doesn't say anything about creating nutritionally empty food so it doesn't.

So give me something like Frogglesmash did in the other thread or stop calling me a blind stubborn idiot when it is you who have nothing that supports your arguments. Something like a General rule that says created objects from any spell lack every property of that item unless the rules specifically say they keep them.

stating that you aren't ignoring them when you are (and you most definitely are) just means you're asserting falsehoods.
and if you state false is true you can justify anything.
congratulations, you can now prove anything, as per standard rules of logic. (false implies anything).

your problem is that you can't differentiate between people "freaking out" and people calling out nonsense for what it is. I recommend more courses in basic philosophy, and reading up on the dunning-kruger effect (which is good advice for most people really, and it should be taught more in school).

[sorcererlover]

So, firstly, the spell creates "minor" and "simple" effects. There is nothing to suggest that "create small objects" is excepted from that. Food interacts with complex biological processes, there are spells at every level that can be defeated by not eating, and there are other spells that specifically deal with it. It is, therefore, neither minor nor simple.


For example, you could change a piece of paper into scrap of linen, and then change that into a rose

I think changing a piece of paper into a rose is much more complex than creating food.


Secondly, they're small objects. How small? Small enough that no matter how many of them you make, they don't deal damage even if you drop all of them on someone's head. That implies that you have a negligible combined mass of stuff to work with each casting. Which implies no contribution towards the non-negligible mass of food you need to eat in order to avoid starvation.

Objects less than 1lb deal no damage even when dropped on top of someone from the stratosphere.


Thirdly, the spell creates objects from materials that it creates, and describes the properties of those materials. There's nothing in the rules to suggest that you can make objects of different materials, or add arbitrary other properties to the materials that it creates.

This is actually a decent point. You're saying Prestidigitation can only make items from one type of material that is described in the spell description.

It doesn't specify what the materials are so definitely it can be anything, but it doesn't specify whether the material has to be originally fragile or whether the fragile is added. I'm gonna have to think about this one.

edit:

stating that you aren't ignoring them when you are (and you most definitely are) just means you're asserting falsehoods.
and if you state false is true you can justify anything.
congratulations, you can now prove anything, as per standard rules of logic. (false implies anything).

your problem is that you can't differentiate between people "freaking out" and people calling out nonsense for what it is. I recommend more courses in basic philosophy, and reading up on the dunning-kruger effect.

Please list all the arguments made in this thread that say you can't other than the one lesser_minion posted and i'll tell you why each and every one is wrong by using quotes made by other people of this thread exclusively. Because other than lesser_minion here, none of the arguments hold any water. At all. So it's not ignoring if it's disproved and not worth considering.

[Pippin]

Ok smart guy. Please list all the arguments made in this thread that say you can't other than the one lesser_minion posted and i'll tell you why each and every one is wrong by using quotes made by other people of this thread exclusively. Because other than lesser_minion here, none of the arguments hold any water. At all. So it's not ignoring if it's disproved and not worth considering.
So what happens to you when the molecules you need that you incorporated into all of your key organs vanish? If that was answered, I must have missed it and I apologise.


The problem I see with this is the 1 hour duration. If you drink and eat whatever you created with that spell, the nutritive molecules will be incorporated in your muscles, in your heart, in your brain cells. After the 60 minutes have passed, the molecules disappear. This could have dire consequences on yourself. Create Food and Water doesn't have that problem: the created meal keeps existing after the 24 hour duration, only it becomes inedible if you still haven't eaten it.

[sorcererlover]

So what happens to you when the molecules you need that you incorporated into all of your key organs vanish? If that was answered, I must have missed it and I apologise.

It was a combination of what gogogome and RoboEmperor said.

gogogome said d&d doesn't deal with the molecular level and i agree.

RoboEmperor gave an example with firewood made by minor creation. If a wizard in the cold makes firewood with minor creation and burns it, RoboEmperor said under your interpretation when minor creation ends all heat energy created from burning the logs also disappear instantly killing you by freezing because the heat energy stored in the logs is created by minor creation so it makes sense it would disappear along with the logs, which is clearly not the case.

So I believe if you eat something you turn it into energy, that's the end. You burned the food into energy just like you burned the logs for heat. All this stuff about where nutrients are stored doesn't matter in d&d cause d&d is medieval not sci-fi.

[Pippin]

It was a combination of what gogogome and RoboEmperor said.

gogogome said d&d doesn't deal with the molecular level and i agree.

RoboEmperor gave an example with firewood made by minor creation. If a wizard in the cold makes firewood with minor creation and burns it, RoboEmperor said under your interpretation when minor creation ends all heat energy created from burning the logs also disappear instantly killing you by freezing because the heat energy stored in the logs is created by minor creation so it makes sense it would disappear along with the logs, which is clearly not the case.

So I believe if you eat something you turn it into energy, that's the end. You burned the food into energy just like you burned the logs for heat. All this stuff about where nutrients are stored doesn't matter in d&d cause d&d is medieval not sci-fi.
You can't dismiss the molecular level because it doesn't suit you, and yet accept the energy level because it does.

The energy explanation is somewhat flawed because the wood and the energy it produced as it was burning are two separate things, once the process is over. On the other hand the molecules that you ate - the ones you need - are still there in your cells, they are a part of them. They're not energy. When they disappear, your cells are in big trouble. However the heat is independent from the wood that caused it, so you don't lose it when the wood disappears.

[Faily]

https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/funny-marie-kondo-konmari-method-memes-5c52edd182fba__700.jpg


Prestidigitations are minor tricks that novice spellcasters use for practice. Once cast, a prestidigitation spell enables you to perform simple magical effects for 1 hour. The effects are minor and have severe limitations. A prestidigitation can slowly lift 1 pound of material. It can color, clean, or soil items in a 1-foot cube each round. It can chill, warm, or flavor 1 pound of nonliving material. It cannot deal damage or affect the concentration of spellcasters. Prestidigitation can create small objects, but they look crude and artificial. The materials created by a prestidigitation spell are extremely fragile, and they cannot be used as tools, weapons, or spell components. Finally, prestidigitation lacks the power to duplicate any other spell effects. Any actual change to an object (beyond just moving, cleaning, or soiling it) persists only 1 hour.

So to break it down:
- Minor tricks that novice spellcasters use for practice. This means simple tricks like street performers might use. Feeding a person is not exactly something we'd call a "minor trick" when we compare it to other spell effects of higher levels (Goodberry which can also feed people, is 1st level and one berry affected by the spell can provide nourishment as if it were a normal meal for a Medium creature).

- Enables you to perform simple magical effects. So that means the ballpark should be similar to other cantrip spells, and yet not overshadow them. You *can*, by some stretch, create water under the phrase of "soil items in a 1 foot cube each round" as you choose to soil an item with just clean water, but you won't be able to duplicate Create Water, which is another 0-level spell.

- The effects are minor and have severe limitations. Bolding this entire sentence as it is the key to what you should expect per RAI.

- A prestidigitation can slowly lift 1 pound of material. Once again showing that Prestidigitation falls short even when compared to other cantrips, as this comparison with Mage Hand makes it obvious that it can't fully emulate the functions of other spells.

- It cannot deal damage. To put an end to "let's make a poison" ideas here. Prestidigitation is for harmless special effects.

- Prestidigitation can create small objects, but they look crude and artificial. The materials created by a prestidigitation spell are extremely fragile, and they cannot be used as tools, weapons, or spell components. So nothing made by the spell is functionable, except for looking like the item they're supposed to pretend to be, and even then they look "crude and artificial". I guess it's like conjuring up a blow-up plastic hammer when using the spell when trying to conjure a "hammer". The fact that they cannot be used as spell components is also telling that the object isn't real but just looks like it (so it can look like a cheap and obviously fake plastic apple, but it's not that a plastic or real apple). It's further enhanching the point of the spell that whatever is made isn't real.

- Finally, prestidigitation lacks the power to duplicate any other spell effects. I mean, it kinda sums it up well really.

In closing: What you do at your table and with your group, as long as everyone is having fun, is totally fine! Does your group say that Prestidigitation can summon up meatballs raining from the sky? Then that's fine! HOWEVER, you can't make the argument that it is in line with Rules As Written and especially not Rules As Intended, when it's clearly not.

[RoboEmperor]

Thirdly, the spell creates objects from materials that it creates, and describes the properties of those materials. There's nothing in the rules to suggest that you can make objects of different materials, or add arbitrary other properties to the materials that it creates. Including but not limited to being nourishing, being anti-osmium, or whatever else you want.

Yeah, I'm seeing this now. Instead of "create any object you want but whatever materials is created is fragile", you're saying "whatever object is created it's made up this prestidigitation material that is fragile".

I think I'm gonna concede here. I think the language favors your interpretation over what we've been using.

I hope everyone here learns from you on how to actually come up with a real counter argument instead of this ******ed **** everyone has been spewing out for the past 50 posts.

[RoboEmperor]

You can't dismiss the molecular level because it doesn't suit you, and yet accept the energy level because it does.

The energy explanation is somewhat flawed because the wood and the energy it produced as it was burning are two separate things, once the process is over. On the other hand the molecules that you ate - the ones you need - are still there in your cells, they are a part of them. They're not energy. When they disappear, your cells are in big trouble. However the heat is independent from the wood that caused it, so you don't lose it when the wood disappears.

No it's not. Fire is simply the energy stored in the wood. Just because you converted it doesn't mean it's still not created from magic.

Anyways Heroes' Feast. 12 hour duration. Either eating only Heroes' Feast results in your death because all of your nutrition ends in 12 hours (and no, this spell doesn't have residual inedible stuff like create food and water), or admit in d&d once food has been consumed it stays consumed regardless of spell durations and when they end and any science.

[Pippin]

No it's not. Fire is simply the energy stored in the wood. Just because you converted it doesn't mean it's still not created from magic.

Anyways Heroes' Feast. 12 hour duration. Either eating only Heroes' Feast results in your death because all of your nutrition ends in 12 hours (and no, this spell doesn't have residual inedible stuff like create food and water), or admit in d&d once food has been consumed it stays consumed regardless of spell durations and when they end and any science.
Tell me what's the duration of Heroes' Feast again? Are you sure you read it in full?

[RoboEmperor]

Tell me what's the duration of Heroes' Feast again? Are you sure you read it in full?

Food, chairs, tables, etc. lasts 1 hour.

Morale bonus, immunity to fear, stuff like that 12 hours.

So not even digestion required. The moment you consume it it's consumed unless you're saying a feast is digested in 0 seconds seeing how it takes the full hour to eat the food.

Yeah, I can't believe I never looked up this spell in all of my minor creation potato arguments. This spell proves spell durations stop mattering after the food is consumed, no digestion time.

[Pippin]

Food, chairs, tables, etc. lasts 1 hour.

Morale bonus, immunity to fear, stuff like that 12 hours.

So not even digestion required. The moment you consume it it's consumed unless you're saying a feast is digested in 0 seconds seeing how it takes the full hour to eat the food.

Yeah, I can't believe I never looked up this spell in all of my minor creation potato arguments. This spell proves spell durations stop mattering after the food is consumed, no digestion time.
Why didn't you answer my question. What's the spell duration of Heroes' Feast? I'm specifically using the game term?


In closing: What you do at your table and with your group, as long as everyone is having fun, is totally fine! Does your group say that Prestidigitation can summon up meatballs raining from the sky? Then that's fine! HOWEVER, you can't make the argument that it is in line with Rules As Written and especially not Rules As Intended, when it's clearly not.
This. If the whole party enjoys the houserule, by all means use it. But that's just a houserule.

[RoboEmperor]

Why didn't you answer my question. What's the spell duration of Heroes' Feast? I'm specifically using the game term?

Duration: 1 hour plus 12 hours; see text

[Pippin]

Duration: 1 hour plus 12 hours; see text
Thank you. See the part I just bolded? Create Food and Water has the exact same.

[RoboEmperor]

Thank you. See the part I just bolded? Create Food and Water has the exact same.

Except the text doesn't have residual inedible perished food. Literally everything disappears after the hour is over. Look up the spell yourself instead of doing whatever this is.

[Pippin]

Except the text doesn't have residual inedible perished food. Literally everything disappears after the hour is over. Look up the spell yourself instead of doing whatever this is.
If the only benefit were the buff effect, which lasts another 12 hours, why would they say to see the text at all?

[Biggus]

If the spell creates a cold iron mug it's gonna be painful to any fey who touches it and its fragility or crude shape has no impact on its cold iron property. Same with mithral. The created weapon may not be used as a weapon but you will still use all of the mithral's weight modifiers on it.

A good way to judge whether you're interpreting a spell correctly is to compare it to other spells.

Major Creation, a 5th-level spell, specifies that if you use it make adamantine, alchemical silver, or mithral, they only last for one round per level, and that you can't use it to create cold iron at all.

So, it is clearly way beyond the power of a 0-level spell to create mithral, never mind cold iron.

[Segev]

On the other hand, prestidigitation can make the ultimate diet dessert. A fragile but delicious wafer or other snack which has no nutritive value and this is not fattening no matter how much you eat.

[Crake]

On the other hand, prestidigitation can make the ultimate diet dessert. A fragile but delicious wafer or other snack which has no nutritive value and this is not fattening no matter how much you eat.

Now this I can get behind :smalltongue:

[Florian]

@RoboEmperor:

You will earn flak for trying to game a system with stuff has has already been solved nearly two decades ago. Prestidigitation is a cantrip that foreshadows what can be done with higher spell levels, but that's it. You can only exploit that with a very lenient GM and ignoring that fall-back clause of things acting like in the real world unless there is a rule overwriting that.

[Mnemius]

I always saw prestidigitation, with it's description as two things.
1) All the little tricks a stage magician does with the handkerchiefs/ribbons, sleight of hand, and so on.
and more importantly
2) CLEANING and Laundry

[RoboEmperor]

If you can choose the materials prestidigitation creates then you can live off of it. All food, including very nourshing ones, can be brittle fragile solid things depending on how they're cooked. So while you can't make an apple, you can make some kind of flat deep fried apple mixed with other stuff that makes it crumble and you make it thin enough that it is brittle and fragile.

I took what lesser_minion said as you have 0 control over what materials prestidigitation creates. Let's call this crap ceramic. So if you create a bowl, spear, arrow, w.e with prestidigitation, it's gonna be made up of crap ceramic and you have no choice in the matter. That's why I conceded. Despite the "s" in "materials" in the spell description, I took it to mean there's only one type material create-able by prestidigitation.

If you guys think you can make any material as long as it is originally fragile then I will withdraw my concession.

[Segev]

If you can choose the materials prestidigitation creates then you can live off of it. All food, including very nourshing ones, can be brittle fragile solid things depending on how they're cooked. So while you can't make an apple, you can make some kind of flat deep fried apple mixed with other stuff that makes it crumble and you make it thin enough that it is brittle and fragile.

I took what lesser_minion said as you have 0 control over what materials prestidigitation creates. Let's call this crap ceramic. So if you create a bowl, spear, arrow, w.e with prestidigitation, it's gonna be made up of crap ceramic and you have no choice in the matter. That's why I conceded. Despite the "s" in "materials" in the spell description, I took it to mean there's only one type material create-able by prestidigitation.

If you guys think you can make any material as long as it is originally fragile then I will withdraw my concession.

I don't think things made with prestidigitation have a defined material property. It's always fragile, and I would not even be convinced it's really "material" so much as "weak magical construct that resembles material superficially." It's not going to hurt you to eat it, and it might taste amazing, but it also isn't going to nourish you, because it doesn't say it creates nourishing food (and precedent shows that any magical effect which creates nourishing food specifies how nourishing it is).

Go ahead and create an ice cream cone with prestidigitation; they're fragile objects. It will taste like ice cream, thanks to prestidigitation's ability to flavor food. It just won't have any nutritive value, and will evaporate after an hour. It won't even alleviate hunger for more than an hour. Alleviating hunger at all is a DM call; the spell doesn't say that it can do so.

[RoboEmperor]

I don't think things made with prestidigitation have a defined material property. It's always fragile, and I would not even be convinced it's really "material" so much as "weak magical construct that resembles material superficially." It's not going to hurt you to eat it, and it might taste amazing, but it also isn't going to nourish you, because it doesn't say it creates nourishing food (and precedent shows that any magical effect which creates nourishing food specifies how nourishing it is).

See this is what I have a problem with.

First, Heroes' Feast also makes no mention about how nutritious it is so you're incorrect about spells needing to say "nourishing" in its text.

Second, everyone's claim that prestidigitation food is devoid of nutrition because of its fragility is absolute ***** ****. There is no in-game or real-world correlation between the fragility of food and their nutritive value. So anyone claiming an item's fragility has anything to do at all with the material's properties is house ruling DM fiat. So anyone saying the fragility of the prestidigation material results in no nutrition because of the the precise molecular structure of organic enzymes, cells, and other complex molecules necessary for nourishment or because the fragility has clearly had its material, chemical composition, or molecular structure altered is literally pulling **** out their ass for a crybaby tantrum fiat. These guys made **** up. Literally. Nowhere, literally nowhere, in the game or in real life, does anything say fragility is inversely proportional to nutrition so anyone who tries to BS a correlation by throwing random scientific terms and hoping ones sticks in a fantasy game that not only doesn't abide by the laws of physics but also has been designed without any consideration for the molecular or atomic physics or biochemistry or the like just because they don't like wizards feeding themselves without a survival check is someone who should not be engaging a rule discussion.

Your claim that prestidigitation creates fake, not real material like it's some kind of illusion spell is also completely baseless. The spell isn't illusion or shadow. It's universal so for all you know the effect is a conjuration creation effect which it probably is because if it was an illusion of any kind the spell would give a will save for disbelief. You have no basis or rule text for this claim. Complete 100% speculation and guessing.

lesser_minion's 3rd point, the one I've been constantly referencing, is an argument that is 100% spell text, RAW, and the English language which is why I accepted it. There is no baseless claim in this argument. No random ***** **** someone pulled out their ass because they're crying for god knows why. I can pick it apart because the English Language is far from perfect but I'm not going to because I think lesser_minion is right here that that's what the text meant to say.

Anyways, in conclusion, show me an in-game text or a real-life scientific study that shows fragility is inversely proportional to a food's nutritional value or don't repeat this argument. It is baseless and ******ed. Not that it matters since I've already conceded.

[Segev]

See this is what I have a problem with.

First, Heroes' Feast also makes no mention about how nutritious it is so you're incorrect about spells needing to say "nourishing" in its text.Huh, you're right. Though it does specify the effect is "a feast" for a number of creatures, which suggests that it serves any nutritional requirements a "feast" normally would. But you could make the argument that its only effect is the various listed bonuses, and so having a light meal of create food and water ahead of time might be advisable to meet your nutritional needs.


Second, everyone's claim that prestidigitation food is devoid of nutrition because of its fragility is absolute ***** ****.Fortunately for me, I made no such claim. I simply claimed that it's devoid of nutritional value.


Your claim that prestidigitation creates fake, not real material like it's some kind of illusion spell is also completely baseless. The spell isn't illusion or shadow. It's universal so for all you know the effect is a conjuration creation effect which it probably is because if it was an illusion of any kind the spell would give a will save for disbelief. You have no basis or rule text for this claim. Complete 100% speculation and guessing.Are magic missiles illusion or shadow effects? What about a forcecage? I didn't claim it wasn't real, nor that it was illusory. I claimed that it may or may not be any given material. It's a magical construct that is fragile and crude. Notably, "The materials created by a prestidigitation spell are extremely fragile, and they cannot be used as tools, weapons, or spell components." One could stretch an argument that "food" is a "tool" to prevent hunger. Less of a stretch, between that sentence and the next ("Finally, a prestidigitation lacks the power to duplicate any other spell effects"), one can conclude a general power and utility level of such materials, and "obsoletes a third level spell" doesn't seem to fall within those guidelines.

Additionally, the last sentence of the spell (immediately following the prior two I've quoted) says: "Any actual change to an object (beyond just moving, cleaning, or soiling it) persists only 1 hour." Between this and the inability to do damage, it would be hard to imagine that it can cause permanent changes to creatures beyond moving, cleaning, or soiling them when it cannot damage them and cannot cause permanent changes to objects.

Heck, the inability to be used as a tool likely correlates withto the lack of permanent changes.


lesser_minion's 3rd point, the one I've been constantly referencing, is an argument that is 100% spell text, RAW, and the English language which is why I accepted it. There is no baseless claim in this argument. No random ***** **** someone pulled out their ass because they're crying for god knows why. I can pick it apart because the English Language is far from perfect but I'm not going to because I think lesser_minion is right here that that's what the text meant to say.Sure. Go right ahead. This "crappy ceramic" can have whatever properties of fragility, flavor, texture, temperature, etc. that presditigitation allows. Including making fake ice cream cones of zero nutritional value that can't hurt you when you eat them, taste delicious, and have the right texture.


Anyways, in conclusion, show me an in-game text or a real-life scientific study that shows fragility is inversely proportional to a food's nutritional value or don't repeat this argument. It is baseless and ******ed. Not that it matters since I've already conceded.You're conflating a descriptive element allowing for a particular example with a claim that it's related to the lack of nutritional value. I made no such claim.

[Pippin]

I think his current strategy is to keep fighting the weakest argument (here: the fragility argument) in the hopes of escaping the strongest one altogether (here: the one hour duration argument).

Also filling one's own posts with hatred and anger has never helped anybody in winning anything. Quite the opposite.

[RoboEmperor]

Fortunately for me, I made no such claim. I simply claimed that it's devoid of nutritional value.

That's why I said everyone's claim and not your claim.


Additionally, the last sentence of the spell (immediately following the prior two I've quoted) says: "Any actual change to an object (beyond just moving, cleaning, or soiling it) persists only 1 hour." Between this and the inability to do damage, it would be hard to imagine that it can cause permanent changes to creatures beyond moving, cleaning, or soiling them when it cannot damage them and cannot cause permanent changes to objects.

See this is a great argument. It is 100% spell text, RAW, and English. You can say that feeding a creature is permanent physical effect and prestidigitation creates no permanent physical effects. The only nitpick here is creature =/= object and I can make some noise with this but still this is a real rule discussion argument and I agree with you.


You're conflating a descriptive element allowing for a particular example with a claim that it's related to the lack of nutritional value. I made no such claim.

You may not have but others before you repeatedly have. I kind of just lumped them and you together in my post because you mentioned fragility. Sorry about that.

[Gallowglass]

Wow. This is a first for me.

step 1> someone posts a loaded question looking for confirmation of their point of view on an arguement

step 2> a small number (possibly 1) person takes one side of the argument.

step 3> a large number of others take the other side of the arguement

step 4> several pages of vitriol leading nowhere.

*new to me content below*

step 5> side A eventually changes their mind and agrees that they were wrong.

step 6> side B continues to argue with side A because... they didn't agree the right way or hard enough?

*end new content *

I need to bookmark this. something new!

[Segev]

See this is a great argument. It is 100% spell text, RAW, and English. You can say that feeding a creature is permanent physical effect and prestidigitation creates no permanent physical effects. The only nitpick here is creature =/= object and I can make some noise with this but still this is a real rule discussion argument and I agree with you.Re-reading the text I used for this made me realize something amusing, too: If you spill this "diet ice cream" on your shirt, while any you ate won't make you fat, the stain on your shirt persists, because soiling objects is a possible effect of the spell! :smallbiggrin:


You may not have but others before you repeatedly have. I kind of just lumped them and you together in my post because you mentioned fragility. Sorry about that.Apology accepted; I do see how that kind of thing happens. When you're talking to a lot of people on a forum, it can become frustrating to keep who said what when straight. x_x

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for review. Also, yikes.