Conjuration Wizards and Summoning Poisons?

[Citadel97501]

Hello all, I was just wondering if you as a DM would allow a Conjuration wizard to summon a poison he has seen before? This looks perfectly legal to me, but if your making something like Purple Wurm Poison it is incredibly dangerous?

[Corran]

I dont see how you can do that, but either way, no, I wouldn't allow it cause I dont think this ability is supposed to be that powerful.

Edit: Sorry, this is about rules, not about DM calls. It doesn't seem legal to me and I'll explain why. Minor conjuration allows you to conjure an object, and poison is not an object, it's a substance. The vial holding the poison would be an object.

Edit 2: Then again, if we are talking about a vial with poison inside it, I guess that if we had to classify that, we'd have to say it's an object. Right? So now I am thinking that RAW you are correct. This is a can of worms (wait, is that an object?!). Comparing to stuff like portent and sculpt spells makes me think that it's not unreasonable to allow it, though it needs some management from the DM's side (for example, I dont think it's a good idea for an infinite supply of purple worm poison to a low level party). Not sure if I like (I think I do) how it interacts with the exploration/survival aspect of the game if ruled this way (eg conjure a can of food, or a bottle of water, etc).

[Chronos]

Minor Conjuration has been errataed to say that the object vanishes if it ever receives or deals any damage. Then again, it still does the damage, and you only need to use the poison once...

[Segev]

Minor Conjuration has been errataed to say that the object vanishes if it ever receives or deals any damage. Then again, it still does the damage, and you only need to use the poison once...

There are also poisons that don’t deal damage.

[Reynaert]

I don't think that Minor Conjuration states that the object is even made of the same material.

Yes, this would mean that you can't even conjure a working spyglass.

[Elbeyon]

A bottle with liquid in it is possible. 5e considers an object a thing, not a solid massive of one material. Spyglass, a trail of footprints, beer in a glass, a wooden chair with a cushion, a doll with clothes, plus many many more are one object.

[Mellack]

It seems RAW legal, but note that they can only conjure things they have seen. I would doubt many low level characters have seen purple worm poison.

[sayaijin]

I'd stick a monetary limit on the kinds of objects it can create. Those poisons are pricey.

[ftafp]

It seems RAW legal, but note that they can only conjure things they have seen. I would doubt many low level characters have seen purple worm poison.

it depends on your background id think. if your conjuror was a toxicologist with poisoners kit proficiency, it might be more likely.

personally, if I was dming for a group of power gamers id allow for it as long as their backstory justified it. if the game was normal players on the other hand id veto high-level poisons but include stronger ones in the game later on as rewards

[Kane0]

it depends on your background id think. if your conjuror was a toxicologist with poisoners kit proficiency, it might be more likely.

personally, if I was dming for a group of power gamers id allow for it as long as their backstory justified it. if the game was normal players on the other hand id veto high-level poisons but include stronger ones in the game later on as rewards

Ditto. Without referencing anything if I was DMing i’d rule it possible if you have proficiency in alchemist/poisoners kit, with some sort of upper limit on which poisons you could conjure.

[Elbeyon]

Diamonds and rubies for spells is also helpful.

[Zhorn]

Poison being a liquid I don't think meets the RAW requirements of an object in 5e


Objects
...
For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects.
...

example, take a cup of water, and submerge it into a barrel of water, there is no defined point between where the water of the cup ends and the water of the barrel begins, because liquid is not discrete (individually separate and distinct).

A grain of sand is discrete, a handful of sand is not
An individual plasma ion or energy particle might be considered discrete, but fire and light would not be.

To meet the RAW requirements of objects in 5e, it would need to to be a singular solid and of defined form to qualify as discrete. It can be made of multiple materials, but they'd have to be connected in a way that defines then as singular (such as pages bound in a book, or a handle connected to a sword blade).

The barrel test I find is a simple way to determine if it meets the 'discrete' requirement. If you can put the thing in a barrel filled with others of the thing and still define where the bounds of it start and ends and can take just it back out again, then it's probably fine.

The bottle would pass such a test. The poison would not.

[ftafp]

Poison being a liquid I don't think meets the RAW requirements of an object in 5e



example, take a cup of water, and submerge it into a barrel of water, there is no defined point between where the water of the cup ends and the water of the barrel begins, because liquid is not discrete (individually separate and distinct).

A grain of sand is discrete, a handful of sand is not
An individual plasma ion or energy particle might be considered discrete, but fire and light would not be.

To meet the RAW requirements of objects in 5e, it would need to to be a singular solid and of defined form to qualify as discrete. It can be made of multiple materials, but they'd have to be connected in a way that defines then as singular (such as pages bound in a book, or a handle connected to a sword blade).

The barrel test I find is a simple way to determine if it meets the 'discrete' requirement. If you can put the thing in a barrel filled with others of the thing and still define where the bounds of it start and ends and can take just it back out again, then it's probably fine.

The bottle would pass such a test. The poison would not.

i think its very brave and sexy of everyone to keep assuming the average dnd players wants 8 oz of corrosive poison dripping from their cupped and unprotected hands

[Elbeyon]

Poison being a liquid I don't think meets the RAW requirements of an object in 5eYet, the spell minor illusions counts a trail of foot prints as a single object. I think you are reading too much into discrete. If it is easy to describe it is probably an item. A jar of marbles. One item. A handful of sand. One item.

[Zhorn]

Yet, the spell minor illusions counts a trail of foot prints as a single object. I think you are reading too much into discrete. If it is easy to describe it is probably an item. A jar of marbles. One item. A handful of sand. One item.
That's a very interesting wording, good catch.

Worth noting that
You are now talking about an illusion spell rather than a conjuration
the spell is making an image or sound of an object, not an actual object

[Segev]

Guys, this is 5e. When we start arguing fine semantics, we're firmly into "Ask the DM" territory. There is, by design, no hard-and-fast answer for such fiddly questions in 5e.

[Zhorn]

Guys, this is 5e. When we start arguing fine semantics, we're firmly into "Ask the DM" territory. There is, by design, no hard-and-fast answer for such fiddly questions in 5e.

I'd disagree on there being "no hard-and-fast answer for such fiddly questions" in this case having pointed to such a ruling, but I do agree that with argueing fine semantics it's best to take such questions dirrectly to the DM you'll be dealing with for your game.
Fiddly questions you need to be able to get your DM to see the point in the same way as you if you hope to get the particular ruling you want.
Case in point, both Elbeyon and I would rule pretty differently, both using wording as presenting in the books.

To that I'd say to the OP that I still maintain it isn't something clearly allowable within RAW, BUT I'd agree with Elbeyon that there would be some wriggle rooms to present an attractive case for allowing it.

[Segev]

I'd disagree on there being "no hard-and-fast answer for such fiddly questions" in this case having pointed to such a ruling, but I do agree that with argueing fine semantics it's best to take such questions dirrectly to the DM you'll be dealing with for your game.
Fiddly questions you need to be able to get your DM to see the point in the same way as you if you hope to get the particular ruling you want.
Case in point, both Elbeyon and I would rule pretty differently, both using wording as presenting in the books.

To that I'd say to the OP that I still maintain it isn't something clearly allowable within RAW, BUT I'd agree with Elbeyon that there would be some wriggle rooms to present an attractive case for allowing it.

I think we agree in general principle, at least. The reason I say this is "Fiddly" is because the distinction between whether "a handful of sand" is "an object" or not is the tricky one. You could certainly argue that the illusory handful of sand is actually an illusion of a really convincingly-granular sandstone that looks like sand, but in the end, the example is what it is. The big question is whether the DM is going to allow precedent for something as useful and often expensive as poison to be conjured in this fashion. Because if we're honest, 90% of DMs will be considering that in deciding what they would LIKE to rule, and will only be considering the letter of the rules if they really feel a need to justify their ruling by something other than "I'm the DM, and I do(n't) like the notion of conjuring poison that way."


As a side note, I both love your Skeletor avatar, and think I've never seen him look so chipper.

[Elbeyon]

I get people not wanting to allow powerful things. Most people always finds a way to say no to powerful things.

How many people would have issue if the mage wanted to summon a glass of water? I think the conjuration school is pretty weak and the first ability they get is the strongest one. It is front loaded, but I would not say conjuration is the most powerful school.

[FabulousFizban]

It seems RAW legal, but note that they can only conjure things they have seen. I would doubt many low level characters have seen purple worm poison.

I would like to visit the apothecary before we leave town.
why?
oh, no reason.

[Segev]

I get people not wanting to allow powerful things. Most people always finds a way to say no to powerful things.

How many people would have issue if the mage wanted to summon a glass of water? I think the conjuration school is pretty weak and the first ability they get is the strongest one. It is front loaded, but I would not say conjuration is the most powerful school.

This is where we get to fuzzy DM ruling territory due to DMs worrying about precedent. Does conjured food/drink "work" as food/drink? Or is it destroyed upon consumption without giving any benefit? Does a conjurer provide all the sustenance a party needs, albeit one food-item at a time?

I'm not saying "no," but I am saying it will definitely vary by DM. I, personally, would rule "no," just because I don't think a conjurer should obsolete the survival skill's foraging use.

[Reynaert]

Read the wording of Minor Conjuration again.

You conjure up an object. That object has the *form* of a nonmagical objact that you have seen.

So, by one perfectly valid reading, that makes it a blob of magical stuff that has the same form as, say, a bottle, or a spyglass, or a vial of poison, or a musical instrument. But nowhere does it say that your magic-stuff takes on the material properties of the object, like the opacity (let alone the refractive index) or the chemical composition (or even the melting point for that matter). So while you can conjure something that looks like a spyglass, but can't see through it.

Now, if you're used to conjuring spyglasses in your seagoing campaign, that sounds like quite a nerf, so don't take this as practical advice on how to run your game. I'm just pointing out it's perfectly valid to reason this way from the RAW.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Poison being a liquid I don't think meets the RAW requirements of an object in 5e



example, take a cup of water, and submerge it into a barrel of water, there is no defined point between where the water of the cup ends and the water of the barrel begins, because liquid is not discrete (individually separate and distinct).

A grain of sand is discrete, a handful of sand is not
An individual plasma ion or energy particle might be considered discrete, but fire and light would not be.

To meet the RAW requirements of objects in 5e, it would need to to be a singular solid and of defined form to qualify as discrete. It can be made of multiple materials, but they'd have to be connected in a way that defines then as singular (such as pages bound in a book, or a handle connected to a sword blade).

The barrel test I find is a simple way to determine if it meets the 'discrete' requirement. If you can put the thing in a barrel filled with others of the thing and still define where the bounds of it start and ends and can take just it back out again, then it's probably fine.

The bottle would pass such a test. The poison would not.

So a block of frozen poison is legal?

[Zhorn]

So a block of frozen poison is legal?
Honestly? I don't know.
How I understand it it wouldn't work for liquids in general, poison or not.
Ice (again, poison or not) might very well qualify under some loophole situation, but at the same time would melting classify as the object taking damage?

[Porcupinata]

Read the wording of Minor Conjuration again.

You conjure up an object. That object has the *form* of a nonmagical objact that you have seen.

So, by one perfectly valid reading, that makes it a blob of magical stuff that has the same form as, say, a bottle, or a spyglass, or a vial of poison, or a musical instrument. But nowhere does it say that your magic-stuff takes on the material properties of the object, like the opacity (let alone the refractive index) or the chemical composition (or even the melting point for that matter). So while you can conjure something that looks like a spyglass, but can't see through it.

Now, if you're used to conjuring spyglasses in your seagoing campaign, that sounds like quite a nerf, so don't take this as practical advice on how to run your game. I'm just pointing out it's perfectly valid to reason this way from the RAW.

That's the interpretation that my group use, although we do go a little further and assume that although most material properties aren't part of the form visual properties are. The conjured object does look like a normal version of the object (glowing aura aside) - and that would be enough for a spyglass or mirror to work.

In the case of the vial of poison, you'd get a glowing vial full of glowing liquid that looks like purple worm venom - including when you tip or shake the vial - but if you pour out the liquid you'll find that it's inert and not capable of damaging anything. Similarly if you tried for a vial of healing potion it would look like one and not heal; and if you tried for a glass of milk it would look like one but would neither quench your thirst (apart from a very short-term minor placebo effect from having just drunk something) or sustain you.

[Elbeyon]

True, the book does use the word form. Form also means a musical composition. When a conjurer tries to summon an item instead they could get a song about the item. Form could also mean a piece of paper. Maybe, when the wizard tries to summon an item they get a piece of paper with the item drawn on it.

[Segev]

True, the book does use the word form. Form also means a musical composition. When a conjurer tries to summon an item instead they could get a song about the item. Form could also mean a piece of paper. Maybe, when the wizard tries to summon an item they get a piece of paper with the item drawn on it.

No, no, a form of the object would be an itemized document detailing its statistics. And possibly with a blank for a signature and a number to be ordered.

[Elbeyon]

There are tons of options! Maybe, when the conjurer tries to summon a form of something the dm could get ideas from a forum.

[Kyutaru]

Why not summon an actual purple worm and harvest it for poison?

[Reynaert]

No, no, a form of the object would be an itemized document detailing its statistics. And possibly with a blank for a signature and a number to be ordered.

So it works if you conjure a Poison, purple worm, vial of, one. Seems legit. :P

[Stealthscout]

No, no, a form of the object would be an itemized document detailing its statistics. And possibly with a blank for a signature and a number to be ordered.

OMG, this has been raging for a long time and won't get answered in this thread. And please don't ruin your game by limiting it to too mundane items or you are just nerfing a subclass at your table.

This is a DM ruling thing. The real danger is that any ruling has logical problems later on. See my sig for a run down of the ability in far more detail than here.

The critical questions you will eventually need to ask are:

Is any particular summon going to negatively affect the game?
Can the player keep using the logic the DM rules with for the next conjuration using the same logic? (again, read that sig link)


If you answer 'No/No' or 'Yes/No', then you are making stuff up as you go along and the game stops mattering. You should only play games that can be programmed for you by someone else. Just don't.

If you answer 'No/Yes', you have your ruling and a workable system going forward.

If you have 'Yes/Yes', then you need to talk with the player to say they are creative (which is good!) but they found a spot that the game as written doesn't handle well. Honor rule to nix poison for game balance but they should be able to play with the ability with how you explain the details going forward.


Another thing to remember is that poisons have a very short shelf life. If you open the container, most of them only last a round. 'Finding' a vial of fresh purple worm venom that is still usable is a personal accomplishment and not something you can do at the store.

... But remember that 'any ruling will bite you somehow'? Arsenic is available at stores. Syrup of Ipicac is too as well bleach, crude oil, pure grain alcohol, red dragon toenail clippings... Watch your ruling and understand your game.