Minor/Ectoplasmic Creation: Is blood or octopus ink organic matter? How about saline?

[Segev]

This is a bit of a weird thought, because I was actually starting from the point of thinking about making water with these powers, and then realized they only make organic matter. And, "Oh, water isn't organic," I thought to myself.

But then again, a lot of organisms are largely made of water, and a number of materials you might think of as "organic" are going to have a lot of water in them. In fact, one of the most popular optimization tricks with minor creation is to make a particular organic poison. Which all but certainly has a high water content in it.

So, just how pure can you make water and have it count as "organic matter?" Is seawater "organic?" What about saline suitable for injection into a person's veins? What about blood plasma? Blood?

How close to "water" can you get if you're just filling a bucket with 1 cubic foot of magically( or psionically)-generated "organic matter?"

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Plant sap is inarguably organic, and stuff like cactus juice (no, not this cactus juice (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjQHpD2WQL4)) and coconut water is totally viable, and a lot of it is almost 100% water (plus vitamins and some sugars). Aloe vera juice, as well.

What do you need it for? That would determine what's useful and what's not. If nothing else, you can physically extract water from plant juices, if you need to. Or magically, via purify food and drink.

[Segev]

Plant sap is inarguably organic, and stuff like cactus juice (no, not this cactus juice (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjQHpD2WQL4)) and coconut water is totally viable, and a lot of it is almost 100% water (plus vitamins and some sugars). Aloe vera juice, as well.

What do you need it for? That would determine what's useful and what's not. If nothing else, you can physically extract water from plant juices, if you need to. Or magically, via purify food and drink.

I was actually contemplating the silliness of a merfolk Nomad->Elocator. At low level, though, he'd be slowly going around with Burst to get up to 15 ft land speed. If he went dual-discipline, though, he could get at-will ectoplasmic creation, and I was contemplating filling a barrel to sit in with water rather than carrying a barrel of water around. It wouldn't be highly practical, but it might be moderately more convenient.

So, for use, "to bathe/swim in." With less focus on getting clean than on moisturizing and enjoying a load off one's fins.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I was actually contemplating the silliness of a merfolk Nomad->Elocator. At low level, though, he'd be slowly going around with Burst to get up to 15 ft land speed. If he went dual-discipline, though, he could get at-will ectoplasmic creation, and I was contemplating filling a barrel to sit in with water rather than carrying a barrel of water around. It wouldn't be highly practical, but it might be moderately more convenient.

So, for use, "to bathe/swim in." With less focus on getting clean than on moisturizing and enjoying a load off one's fins.I'm pretty sure coconut water is pure enough that it can actually be pumped intravenously without issue, so breathing oxygenated coconut water shouldn't be a problem, either.

[Vizzerdrix]

I could see ink and aloe juice making a nice topical cream for your aquatic traveler as well. Wouldn't want to dry out in the sun.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry
I'm pretty sure coconut water is pure enough that it can actually be pumped intravenously without issue….

Today’s doctors disagree (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/08/15/139638930/saved-by-the-coconut-water-parsing-coconut-waters-medical-claims), and Snopes rates this myth false (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/can-coconut-water-substitute-blood-plasma/).


Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry
…so breathing oxygenated coconut water shouldn't be a problem, either.

Given the above, this is likely not feasible either.


Originally Posted by Segev
Is seawater "organic?"

Seawater is a thin slurry of bacteria, viruses, plankton and larger organisms, as well as their collective wastes (solids, liquids and gases) and other byproducts, ranging from empty egg cases to the sleep cocoon of mucus secreted by some parrotfish.

It’s immensely complex, comprising potentially millions of species and all their life processes, so whether or not this could be duplicated with a spell or ability is entirely up to the DM.

[Fizban]

The spell creates an object. And not to get too dictionary, but "noun: 1 anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form."

Is a volume of water/juice/etc an object? No, it is a fluid, and fluids do not have a stable form. They take the shape defined by their container and forces such as gravity.

Furthermore, the requirement to make skill checks for complex items suggests that what the spell is making is not "any 'object'," but rather specifically a man-made object whose base materials are vegetable in nature (why they use the term "matter" is beyond me)- and thus you couldn't even make a raw coconut. This is of course where the "put poiiisssoooon" comes back because craft skills, but again, a liquid is not an object, and a container holding a liquid is in fact an object holding a liquid, not a single object or even two objects (an "item" in many game terms, but if you sundered it, the object you'd be sundering is a vial with a vial's hit points and hardness, there are no stats for "vial full of poison").

It's a reasonable ask based on the actual power level of the spell of course. Create Water is 0th, and while this creates far more volume, the fact that the Decanter of Endless Water uses Control Water (also 4th) rather than Create suggests that Control Water is actually meant to be a massive temporary creation, far more than you'd get with Minor Creation. But "as written" it's even less viable than the already bogus poison "exploit."

[Segev]

On the subject of liquid not being an object, “ice cubes” or “ice sculptures” are unquestionably objects. So, the dismissal of liquids, while a nuisance for my inspiration for the question, doesn’t answer the core question. Is a cube of frozen blood, seawater, coconut juice, ink, or the like “organic?”

[MaxiDuRaritry]

On the subject of liquid not being an object, “ice cubes” or “ice sculptures” are unquestionably objects. So, the dismissal of liquids, while a nuisance for my inspiration for the question, doesn’t answer the core question. Is a cube of frozen blood, seawater, coconut juice, ink, or the like “organic?”How much do they sell for at the local grocery store? Because if they're like five times more than everything else? Probably.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Segev
Is a cube of frozen blood, seawater, coconut juice, ink, or the like “organic?”

Seawater has already been addressed.

Frozen blood, unquestionably organic. The same for coconut juice, assuming it's actual coconut milk and not flavored water. Ink depends on the source. If it's from a cephalopod, then yes, organic.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Seawater has already been addressed.

Frozen blood, unquestionably organic. The same for coconut juice, assuming it's actual coconut milk and not flavored water. Ink depends on the source. If it's from a cephalopod, then yes, organic.Minor point of order: coconut water (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconut_water) (juice) and coconut milk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconut_milk) (extract) are not the same.

[Fizban]

On the subject of liquid not being an object, “ice cubes” or “ice sculptures” are unquestionably objects. So, the dismissal of liquids, while a nuisance for my inspiration for the question, doesn’t answer the core question. Is a cube of frozen blood, seawater, coconut juice, ink, or the like “organic?”
For the purposes of the words "object," "organic," and "matter," yes. For what I think is the (less clear than it should be but still clear enough) intent of the spell, no.

Even if you're in a sufficiently below freezing environment, such that the default existence of such a liquid outside of the body it's meant for is frozen solid, you still have to define it as "state change, original substance," clearly indicating that this is not a normal object. If I Minor Create a spoon, comma, wooden, that's a normal object. If I create "frozen cube of blood," comma, "[animal]," that's not an object and the material it's made out of, it's a description of something people don't normally make. I mean, the very fact that you have to ask the question means you grok how the desired result does not flow linguistically or logically from the spell's (poorly written) parameters. Your desire is a substance that is defined almost entirely by not being an object (blood, coconut water, both parts of functional life processes, saline just a fancy word for salt and water), but somehow conjured as an object anyway because. . . you want to create it with a spell that only creates objects.

If you're on a plane that has no natural places above freezing- a whole plane of existence mind you, defined as being that temperature, then perhaps on that plane there is no such thing as water, but ice is a common material, and on that plane you could Minor Create ice objects- though as water is still not vegetable, it would probably fall under Major Creation.

The only determining factor here is how the DM reads it. I really don't think there's much question at all of the logical flow of "create an object made out of vegetable matter material." If you walked up to someone on the street, even if it was the street of Antartica, and tried to refer to water as an object, they would at best go "Ha, I see what you did there, you said water instead of ice!" but it would not match how the words are normally used.

If the DM wants to allow it because shenanigans, sure. Not by any normal reading of the spell, in my opinion. It's the kind of question I also really don't understand the fascination with sometimes: the discontinuity should be obvious, as should the reader's opinion of whether it should work in spite of that discontinuity.

Like, I've been making some builds and sitting there really annoyed that this character who I want to have two tentacles and a hammer is just flat out not allowed to take Multiattack. I know that unarmed strikes often count as natural weapons, but I also know damn well that that's not what they meant when they wrote "three natural weapons" on the feat. And I further know that this is a silly limitation, because the writer/DM already determines the feats, and forcing this character to get a third natural weapon just to take Multiattack would make them even more powerful, while there are essentially no monsters that are being "held back' by this restriction.

Thus, I quickly decide that the restriction is bogus, put the removal in my notes, and move on (and while I'm at it, remove the creature type requirement from Rapidstrike as you're paying for more attacks at higher penalties just like TWF). If I regret it later I can just change it again, but of what the printed version of Multiattack says and how many natural weapons you need, I see nothing to debate- that wasn't even a clarification, I made a change. And the number of zomg char-op! rulings which depend on deliberate obtuseness would be baffling if not for the obvious motive.

[Segev]

For the purposes of the words "object," "organic," and "matter," yes. For what I think is the (less clear than it should be but still clear enough) intent of the spell, no.

Even if you're in a sufficiently below freezing environment, such that the default existence of such a liquid outside of the body it's meant for is frozen solid, you still have to define it as "state change, original substance," clearly indicating that this is not a normal object. If I Minor Create a spoon, comma, wooden, that's a normal object. If I create "frozen cube of blood," comma, "[animal]," that's not an object and the material it's made out of, it's a description of something people don't normally make. I mean, the very fact that you have to ask the question means you grok how the desired result does not flow linguistically or logically from the spell's (poorly written) parameters. Your desire is a substance that is defined almost entirely by not being an object (blood, coconut water, both parts of functional life processes, saline just a fancy word for salt and water), but somehow conjured as an object anyway because. . . you want to create it with a spell that only creates objects.

Actually, I'm trying to avoid the discussiong of whether it qualifies as "object" or not because I'm trying to determine what the limits of "organic" are, rather than what the limits of "object" are. I attempted to avoid it by accepting your claim that liquids can't be objects and moving on to something that isn't liquid but still addressed the question I wanted to discuss. Now, you're forcing the discussion on "What is an object, according to the rules of 3.PF?" anyway, which...annoys me, since that isn't the question I want to address.

Since you want to have this discussion, though, I'll point out that everything in D&D and PF is either a creature, an object, a structure, or terrain/environment. While you can certainly argue that a river is terrain/environment, you cannot make the same claim for a glass of water. "But the glass is the object, not the water inside it!" you might say, but you cannot make a serious argument that the water IN the glass is a creature (unless it's an elemental of some sort, which most water is not), a structure, or terrain/environment. It clearly serves the purpose of being an "object" more than any of those others.

It honestly seems like an attempt to rules lawyer away the intended effect of creation-type powers to make "stuff" when the focus on the word "object" is used to eliminate the ability to make non-solids.

Is silly putty an object? What about a glob of mud? How thin can the mud be before it stops being "an object" and starts being...whatever water is when it's neither object nor terrain/environment nor structure?



I have a specific question, and appreciate the discussion of it in this thread for the most part. I do not appreciate trying to dodge the crux of the question by saying "it isn't an object."

If I were really looking for shenanigans and exploits, I'd be asking just how much of a chitinous or bone-like substance has to be calcium vs. carbon vs. adamantine before it stops counting as "organic." The Aurumvorax can have near-solid-gold fur for its pelt, so I'll ask my question about it: can minor creation or ectoplasmic creation create an aurumvorax-felt scarf?

It's likely that these powers cannot make "pure water," even in the relatively colloquial sense of water that isn't chemically pure but is quite drinkable and wouldn't be called "juice" or anything but "water." But just how close can you get, considering how much water is in various organic things?

Even if you claim "juice" isn't an "object," you can absolutely make "oranges," which are organic objects. Can you then crush them to squeeze out all their juice? Can you make low sugar-to-water-content-juice oragnes to squeeze? (A lot of modern fruits bred for size and durability are very watery and not nearly as flavorful as their ancestors; can you make those, even though it's barely flavored water that's squeezed out of them?)

[Fizban]

Actually, I'm trying to avoid the discussiong of whether it qualifies as "object" or not because I'm trying to determine what the limits of "organic" are, rather than what the limits of "object" are. I attempted to avoid it by accepting your claim that liquids can't be objects and moving on to something that isn't liquid but still addressed the question I wanted to discuss. Now, you're forcing the discussion on "What is an object, according to the rules of 3.PF?" anyway, which...annoys me, since that isn't the question I want to address.
My apologies- but the question of whether they're "nonliving vegetable matter" hinges pretty heavily on what "nonliving vegetable matter" means. As stated, what I think they actually meant by "matter" was "material," as the only thing it can really relate to is "object." The spell creates objects, possibly involving a skill check: thus when they say "nonliving vegetable matter," the phrase must actually mean "nonliving vegetable matter than can be formed into objects." The vegetable part of the definition is not the primary operator. You can't shape sap or coconut water into an object- you could freeze it, but that's not crafting. You could boil it down into solid sugar, but that's a sugar crystal. IIRC there are saps that are refined into rubber (chewing gum, latex, etc), so you could Minor Create those, but not the sap.

The question is not whether coconut water is nonliving vegetable matter in RL terms- matter means literally anything, vegetable means plant, and once removed from the seed the solution cannot even be said to be part of a life process. Indeed, it is such a non-question that only by having to explain it in detail can I fathom it being a question. If that is all, then you have your answer.

So you take that, add it to the rest of the spell, and what do you get? Well if you read the language naturally, it doesn't matter, because you can't create a liquid. If you ignore the meaning of object and decide that Minor Creation can create liquids (perfectly reasonable on its own), then there's nothing else stopping you from making coconut water, sure.

Of course, this also creates the Black Lotus Extract problem, which requires further rulings to eliminate- so you have to weigh whether changing the X Create spells to make liquids is worth having to add more restrictions to counteract those changes, but if one values the liquid creation then it might be worth it.


Since you want to have this discussion, though, I'll point out that everything in D&D and PF is either a creature, an object, a structure, or terrain/environment. While you can certainly argue that a river is terrain/environment, you cannot make the same claim for a glass of water. "But the glass is the object, not the water inside it!" you might say, but you cannot make a serious argument that the water IN the glass is a creature (unless it's an elemental of some sort, which most water is not), a structure, or terrain/environment. It clearly serves the purpose of being an "object" more than any of those others.

It honestly seems like an attempt to rules lawyer away the intended effect of creation-type powers to make "stuff" when the focus on the word "object" is used to eliminate the ability to make non-solids.
We'll have to disagree then. I read X Creation and its creation of objects, which must have a stable form (something I've never needed to look up or even question until I was making sure for this thread), to specifically preclude liquids on a fundamental linguistic and logical level, no rules lawyering required. Liquids are not objects. As for everything else in the game being an object or terrain- well you can't damage liquid water, it has no hit points or hardness or break DC, so I guess it must be terrain then. Even if its in a glass*, it's an object full of terrain- not that I agree with the sort of rules-lawyery demand that everything must be one of X game terms, but as you see my (both intuitive and dictionary) definition of object as lawyering I understand the response. Of course it sounds silly if you demand everything must be one of those game terms and find that all liquids are "terrain," because liquids have no special game term, but that's what happens when you make a silly demand. Though compared to an ant, even a drop of water is terrain.

(Again- the water being in the glass has no effect on the glass's break statistics, so I don't see how you're claiming the rules support the water as part of this "single" object. A flask of liquid weighs more than an empty flask, but nowhere does it say that the combination functions differently from an empty flask in anything but weight.)

Is silly putty an object? What about a glob of mud? How thin can the mud be before it stops being "an object" and starts being...whatever water is when it's neither object nor terrain/environment nor structure?
Depends on the quality of the silly putty or mud. If the mud holds form like dirt, but wet, then it's an object (wet dirt, so weaker stats than packed dirt). If it flows, then it's a liquid. Silly putty gets stiffer as it ages IIRC- if it's reached the stiffness of wax or wet dirt, then it's an object. A quick check of viscosity on Wikipedia shows nothing I'd call a solid- pich is the highest on the page, and it's still carried in buckets and spread on things, so not a solid. If something can flow between your fingers, it's not an object.

Maybe you could derive some sort of formula based on how well the object can support its own weight and then run a battery of different substances through it, but this is only a question that is "hard" in theoretical terms- anyone could handle a substance and make an immediate snap decision on whether it "flows" or not, which is the best test of "stable form" I can phrase (alternatively: if you cut it, does it cut, or glorp?). Almost anything you'd put on that list would be something made for the purposes of that list, not normal objects or substances, not the kind of thing that common words like "object" take their meaning from.



If I were really looking for shenanigans and exploits, I'd be asking just how much of a chitinous or bone-like substance has to be calcium vs. carbon vs. adamantine before it stops counting as "organic." The Aurumvorax can have near-solid-gold fur for its pelt, so I'll ask my question about it: can minor creation or ectoplasmic creation create an aurumvorax-felt scarf?
Don't see much of an exploit there, unless Aurumvorax Felt is supposed to have some sort of uber property. I have to infer that the idea is getting adamantine out of a spell that isn't supposed to create adamantine? Pretty simple, if it's non-adamantine enough to be Minor Created, it's not adamantine enough to confer any benefits.

It's likely that these powers cannot make "pure water," even in the relatively colloquial sense of water that isn't chemically pure but is quite drinkable and wouldn't be called "juice" or anything but "water." But just how close can you get, considering how much water is in various organic things?
I think most of your confusion here comes from the fact that you're looking at the PF psionic power, which changed the term from "nonliving vegetable" to "nonliving organic." Well that's PF's problem- most plants are actually pretty solid, making watery seed containers at best- and more importantly they're *thought* of as solid, and made into objects. But you bring in animals/humans and you get people thinking about "oh hey cells are mostly water and people are full of blood" and now you're asking if blood or squid ink counts. Well hey, for the PF power congrats, it could make blood- if blood was an object.

You also get what I guess is the aurumvorax (or dragonhide) problem, where a printed "organic" monster has body parts with special properties, and this effect which specifically precludes all the fantastic minerals suddenly allows them because of monster fluff- should have thought about that before they changed it eh?

Even if you claim "juice" isn't an "object," you can absolutely make "oranges," which are organic objects.
Can you? Most fruit is still alive for quite some time after picking, and contains seeds which are part of a lifecycle. Now that's an actual question. I suppose I'd allow that you could Minor Create low-water fruits which are fully ripe and about to begin spoiling, but mysteriously have no seeds, and of course provide no sustenance because they disappear (the temporarily created material must simply not bond with the appropriate cell processes). It's only getting in because being unable to create an unrefined log seems odd, so other unrefined material piggybacks in.