Is a Minor Conjuration item real?

[Schwann145]

And if so, why does it have no value (according to SA)?
If the idea of the ability is that it creates an object out of nothing, that would be evocation, wouldn't it? If it simply creates the magical interpretation of an object, wouldn't that be illusion? No, it's a conjuration ability, and conjuration is about bringing something that exists from one location to another (whether that involves teleportation, plane travel, re-creation of structure, or what have you), not creating from nothing.

Yet, SA has suggested that the item conjured cannot replace a spell component with a listed value, but it can replace a spell component with no listed value. (This implies that a spell cast doesn't care if it's material components are magical or mundane in nature, only that they are the correct components with the correct value.)
So how is the item's value determined within the narrative of the world? If you use Minor Conjuration to conjure a perfect replica of a 1000gp diamond, it *is* a diamond, yet it's worth 0gp? How does that follow?
If you conjure a gem and present it to a jeweler, will they simply intrinsically know it's worthless? How? It's clearly magical based on it's glow, but magical things tend to be worth significantly more, not less, than mundane versions.

[Mastikator]

Creating things out of nothing is normal for the conjuration school.
Taken from the wizard cantrip spell list there are a few cantrips that seem to create stuff out of nothing. Create Bonfire for example. You don't summon a bonfire, you create it. It didn't exist before you created it.
Other examples:

Fog Cloud "You create a 20-foot-radius sphere of fog...".
Stinking Cloud "You create a 20-foot-radius sphere of yellow..."
Cloudkill "You create a 20-foot-radius sphere of poisonous..."

[Schwann145]

Creating things out of nothing is normal for the conjuration school.
Taken from the wizard cantrip spell list there are a few cantrips that seem to create stuff out of nothing. Create Bonfire for example. You don't summon a bonfire, you create it. It didn't exist before you created it.
Other examples:

Fog Cloud "You create a 20-foot-radius sphere of fog...".
Stinking Cloud "You create a 20-foot-radius sphere of yellow..."
Cloudkill "You create a 20-foot-radius sphere of poisonous..."


I'd argue you can easily make such spells fit a more appropriate conjuration narrative for their creation:
You conjured all the working parts of a bonfire to "create" a bonfire, but they all came from somewhere.
You conjured the fog into existence by magically condensing the air into fog rather than having it simply appear from nothing.
Etc and so on.

However, D&D developers have been treating the spell schools with the kinda disrespect that lands Cause Fear in the Necro school instead of the Enchantment school for decades, so it's not a hill I'm willing to die on!

[Composer99]

Since Sage Advice is not actual rules text, if you are DMing and think the items conjured by Minor Conjuration should have a monetary value, then they have a monetary value. You can see, however, why Sage Advice would decide otherwise. An unlimited-use feature you get at 2nd level allowing you to freely bypass the expense and effort needed to secure material components for spells such as resurrection or forcecage isn't quite at the level of wish-simulacrum cheese, but it strikes me as plenty cheesy all the same.

Note, however, that the fact that a conjured object might have no value doesn't mean everyone who examines it recognises that it's worthless. Your hypothetical jeweler might well be taken in by your worthless hourlong diamond. Since the Sage Advice doesn't speak to that matter, ask your DM (or decide for yourself if you're DMing).

(Also, I wouldn't bother with too much peeking behind the curtain when it comes to magic that breaks conservation laws. Like trying to come up with "realistic" depictions of abstractions such as hit points, it's IMO a fruitless endeavour.)

[Mellack]

Realize "value" is an artificial construct. The created diamond has no value because people wouldn't pay much for a stone that only exists for an hour. If people will not pay for it, it has no value. A fun example is that the modern world has learned how to create various gemstones. They are mechanically and chemically the same thing as the natural ones, yet have a value of about half as much. There is nothing inherently different between them, it is all about what people are willing to pay for.

Short answer, it is a game mechanic. Created items have no value for game reasons.

[PhantomSoul]

(Also, I wouldn't bother with too much peeking behind the curtain when it comes to magic that breaks conservation laws. ...)

And if fluff is needed for verisimilitude, you just blame the spell slot or the spellcaster's focus, effort or concentration; the spell slot (or whatever) is (somehow) energy that is being used to fuel everything. Maybe energy isn't just a property of matter, but they are actually the same thing at a fundamental level in the world (or matter is energy, or you're actually performing advanced fusion/fission to explain changing materials and the lack of vacuums or pressure waves when things appear and disappear).

[Thunderous Mojo]

An unlimited-use feature you get at 2nd level allowing you to freely bypass the expense and effort needed to secure material components for spells such as resurrection or forcecage isn't quite at the level of wish-simulacrum cheese, but it strikes me as plenty cheesy all the same.
I don't find this "cheesy" at all. The Conjurer Wizard, arguably, has the weakest subclass powers of the Wizarding World.

The Conjurer also has to have seen the gem. Perhaps the only 1000 GP gem to be viewed happens to be the Duke's Formal Medal of Valor, that he only wears during Royal Court functions. Now let hilarity ensue as the players try to find it.

[Tanarii]

PHB p203:
Conjuration spells involve the transportation ofobjects and creatures from one location to another. Some spells summon creatures or objects to the caster's side, whereas others allow the caster to teleport to another location. Some conjurations create objects or effects out of nothing.

So they can create an object or effect out of nothing.

Of course, in 5e the line between conjuration and evocation is thoroughly blurred anyway, even without that.

[JoeJ]

If you use Minor Conjuration to conjure a perfect replica of a 1000gp diamond, it *is* a diamond, yet it's worth 0gp?

How do you make a perfect replica of a 1000 gp diamond that is also visibly magical and radiates dim light out to 5'?

[Composer99]

I don't find this "cheesy" at all. The Conjurer Wizard, arguably, has the weakest subclass powers of the Wizarding World.

The Conjurer also has to have seen the gem. Perhaps the only 1000 GP gem to be viewed happens to be the Duke's Formal Medal of Valor, that he only wears during Royal Court functions. Now let hilarity ensue as the players try to find it.

I'm struggling to see how the Conjurer could possibly be so weak a wizard subclass that the proper compensation is giving them what amounts to unlimited free material components, which they can even share with other spellcasters at need.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I'm struggling to see how the Conjurer could possibly be so weak a wizard subclass that the proper compensation is giving them what amounts to unlimited free material components, which they can even share with other spellcasters at need.
It isn't "unlimited free material components"...the power is limited to what the Wizard has seen.

The limiting factor is what time and energy had the player invested, to get the most out of a subclass power.

If your PC group has to run an Ocean's Eleven style break-into the Duke's Fortress so the Wizard can conjure a duplicate of the gem, at will, the payoff as a DM, seems worth it.

The players as a group, came up with a plan, and executed said plan, so that a benefit could be had. Coordinating one's group, honestly seems quite a bit more difficult, overall, than an a illusionist being able to create a sound and image with a single cast of Minor Illusion.

[JoeJ]

If your PC group has to run an Ocean's Eleven style break-into the Duke's Fortress so the Wizard can conjure a duplicate of the gem, at will, the payoff as a DM, seems worth it.

If the group has already broken into the Duke's Fortress and gotten to the gem, why do they need to duplicate it? Why not just take it?

[Composer99]

It isn't "unlimited free material components"...the power is limited to what the Wizard has seen.

The limiting factor is what time and energy had the player invested, to get the most out of a subclass power.

If your PC group has to run an Ocean's Eleven style break-into the Duke's Fortress so the Wizard can conjure a duplicate of the gem, at will, the payoff as a DM, seems worth it.

The players as a group, came up with a plan, and executed said plan, so that a benefit could be had. Coordinating one's group, honestly seems quite a bit more difficult, overall, than an a illusionist being able to create a sound and image with a single cast of Minor Illusion.

You're talking about a single scenario apparently contrived to make it difficult for a conjurer to use their unlimited-use class feature, available from 2nd level on, to replicate the kind of diamond needed for raise dead.

Meanwhile, well before then, there are all sorts of spells (https://fearandloathinginravenloft.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/5e-spells-with-costly-material-components/) with expensive material components that could be duplicated. Are you going to come up with Ocean's-Eleven-style scenarios for the conjurer to have to go through to make each one? You're talking free money for any consumed components, and the ability to sell off non-consumed components after seeing them, because you can just duplicate them at need.

Not to mention, if you're playing in any sort of open world, the players might just decide to find some other 1,000 gp diamond. It'd be all the easier to manage if they only have to let the wizard have a gander at it instead of having to buy it. I'd be cranky as a PC if the DM says "sorry, nope, this is the only 1K diamond in the world", outside of, say, a Dark Sun game.

And what about something like bottles of ink for transcribing spells? If conjuring a 1,000 gp gem (diamond or otherwise) is acceptable, surely that would be, too, no? Get a discount on spell transcription into your spellbook for every single spell, right from 2nd level on?

All in all, this really comes across as violating the spirit of the rules.


If the group has already broken into the Duke's Fortress and gotten to the gem, why do they need to duplicate it? Why not just take it?

If you cast a spell that consumes the gem, it's gone. But this is about using Minor Conjuration to freely make a duplicate, going forward, whenever you need or want to.

[JoeJ]

If you cast a spell that consumes the gem, it's gone. But this is about using Minor Conjuration to freely make a duplicate, going forward, whenever you need or want to.

So there's a spell that requires, not any gem of a particular species and cost but one specific unique gem? And you want to cast this spell more than once? That seems a little contrived.

[Greywander]

Minor Conjuration is actually a pretty neat feature, and I wish I could get it on non-Conjurers. I'm not as interested in playing a summoner wizard, though, so I rarely look at playing a full Conjurer.

As for using the conjured item as a spell component, one issue here is when the spell consumes the item: if you're merely summoning a real item from somewhere, then when that item is consumed by the spell, it's gone, and you can never summon it again, whereas if you're creating the item from nothing, then it might not have the right properties to be used as a spell component. It could be that the magic that summons the item must return the item when the effect expires, meaning you can't consume the item as a spell component. This does, however, carry further implications; for example, if you conjure ink, does the things you wrote with it disappear as the ink is teleported off the page and back into the ink bottle when the ink bottle is returned?

I do agree that creating the item from nothing sounds more like evocation than conjuration. If you're summoning a real item, though, I'd be worried that this would amount to theft (albeit temporary), and could carry consequences at some point (e.g. you conjure an item when someone else really needed it, and something bad happens to them as a result, or you get a bounty on your head for "stealing" the item since it disappeared and you were seen with it). I could see working this into the lore as the primary reason why items are sometimes misplaced (they're summoned by a conjurer) and then suddenly found in places you already thought you'd checked (the conjurer returned the item), in which case it would be restricted to summoning items that have already been misplaced or forgotten, i.e. not things not being used actively or regularly.

[MoiMagnus]

So how is the item's value determined within the narrative of the world? If you use Minor Conjuration to conjure a perfect replica of a 1000gp diamond, it *is* a diamond, yet it's worth 0gp? How does that follow?
If you conjure a gem and present it to a jeweler, will they simply intrinsically know it's worthless? How? It's clearly magical based on it's glow, but magical things tend to be worth significantly more, not less, than mundane versions.

The game rules describe you what happen, it's up to the DM to justify why does this happen.

The easiest solution IMO is to assume that objects have an absolute value (which is used by spells, and is the equivalent of souls for objects) and a trading value (which is ruled by the laws of the market).

The absolute value is absolute, and cannot be deceived by magic. In particular, when you create a replica with minor conjuration, you are able to copy all the physical properties, but not the "absolute value" which is not a physical property of the object.

Because of the existence of peoples able to transmute objects into another object of similar absolute value, trading value of objects tend to oscillate around their absolute value. This is particularly the case for spell components, as they have very few use outside of being consumed for their absolute value. However, for conjured objects, their absolute value is zero, but they still can have a non-zero trading value.

The only things you need to determine as a DM is how easy it is for PCs and NPCs to know the absolute value of an objects (skill check? identification spell? only way to try to cast a spell and hope that nobody scammed you?)

[Mastikator]

I'd argue you can easily make such spells fit a more appropriate conjuration narrative for their creation:
You conjured all the working parts of a bonfire to "create" a bonfire, but they all came from somewhere.
You conjured the fog into existence by magically condensing the air into fog rather than having it simply appear from nothing.
Etc and so on.

However, D&D developers have been treating the spell schools with the kinda disrespect that lands Cause Fear in the Necro school instead of the Enchantment school for decades, so it's not a hill I'm willing to die on!

By RAW it was created, not conjured the spells description. In other cases it will say conjured or summoned for conjuration spells. My only reading is that RAW and RAI are the same here, conjuration allows for creation of things out of nothing. (which is something the player handbook also says, as Tanarii pointed out)

To say that it was created from something is a houserule. Which you are allowed to have, but it's not RAW or RAI.

[Thunderous Mojo]

If the group has already broken into the Duke's Fortress and gotten to the gem, why do they need to duplicate it? Why not just take it?

To not steal from the Duke of course.😁. The Conjurer only needs to see the component to effectively duplicate it over and over again.


Not to mention, if you're playing in any sort of open world, the players might just decide to find some other 1,000 gp diamond. It'd be all the easier to manage if they only have to let the wizard have a gander at it instead of having to buy it. I'd be cranky as a PC if the DM says "sorry, nope, this is the only 1K diamond in the world", outside of, say, a Dark Sun game.

The Star of India, the Eagle Diamond, the Second Star of Africa, the Black Prince's Ruby these are names of real and specific gems on Earth.

Gems of high quality, were often named, (historically), and considered part of the Regalia for European and Asian Nobility. Acquiring a gem with an intrinsic value of 500gp, to use as a spell component, very well might mean the PC has to use a 'broker' to arrange the purchase of a "named gem" from an impoverished noble family, that is quietly trying to inject more liquid capital into their resources.

The notion that every town in the world has a "Gems R Us" that always has a plentiful stock of gems of all sorts, is a modern affect. If, indeed, any Tier 3 or Tier 4 Wizard can just teleport to Waterdeep and purchase expensive material components, the Minor Conjuration ability then only serves to save the Conjurer some cash.

Cash is useful, but this isn't game breaking wealth, we are talking about here. An Order of Scribes Wizard might save more money in aggregate from their 'magic quill' eliminating ink costs, than a Conjurer will save from duplicating previously seen materiel components.

All in all, this really comes across as violating the spirit of the rules.

I'm not sure where you are coming from at all with this?
Firstly, I just disagreed with you on a public message board...how is that violating any spirit of the rules? (Wether Board Conduct Rules or D&D Rules).

How is a game world that doesn't treat high value gems, (solely), as disposable bits of randomly generated treasure, but instead treats the objects like the masterpieces of artifice and natural beauty, breaking "the Spirit of the Rules"?

Admittedly, it might not be a prevalent play style for some, but the Ghost of Gygax won't haunt DMs that include backstory elements for 'common' treasures.👻

[Mellack]

To not steal from the Duke of course.😁. The Conjurer only needs to see the component to effectively duplicate it over and over again.


The Star of India, the Eagle Diamond, the Second Star of Africa, the Black Prince's Ruby these are names of real and specific gems on Earth.

Gems of high quality, were often named, (historically), and considered part of the Regalia for European and Asian Nobility. Acquiring a gem with an intrinsic value of 500gp, to use as a spell component, very well might mean the PC has to use a 'broker' to arrange the purchase of a "named gem" from an impoverished noble family, that is quietly trying to inject more liquid capital into their resources.

The notion that every town in the world has a "Gems R Us" that always has a plentiful stock of gems of all sorts, is a modern affect. If, indeed, any Tier 3 or Tier 4 Wizard can just teleport to Waterdeep and purchase expensive material components, the Minor Conjuration ability then only serves to save the Conjurer some cash.

Cash is useful, but this isn't game breaking wealth, we are talking about here. An Order of Scribes Wizard might save more money in aggregate from their 'magic quill' eliminating ink costs, than a Conjurer will save from duplicating previously seen materiel components.


I'm not sure where you are coming from at all with this?
Firstly, I just disagreed with you on a public message board...how is that violating any spirit of the rules? (Wether Board Conduct Rules or D&D Rules).

How is a game world that doesn't treat high value gems, (solely), as disposable bits of randomly generated treasure, but instead treats the objects like the masterpieces of artifice and natural beauty, breaking "the Spirit of the Rules"?

Admittedly, it might not be a prevalent play style for some, but the Ghost of Gygax won't haunt DMs that include backstory elements for 'common' treasures.👻


If your game world has gems of 500gp or more only be named and very rare, that would be a massive nerf to all spellcasters. Nobody would ever be getting raised, or scryed on, or several other spells. What plans would you have to replace this for casters? Or do you just say anyone who didn't take Conjurer subclass is SoL?

[Segev]

I'm pretty sure that if a wizard subclass was intended to obviate the need for material components - especially expensive ones - it would say so.

[Tanarii]

If your game world has gems of 500gp or more only be named and very rare, that would be a massive nerf to all spellcasters. Nobody would ever be getting raised, or scryed on, or several other spells. What plans would you have to replace this for casters? Or do you just say anyone who didn't take Conjurer subclass is SoL?
Not to mention that's only roughly the price of a warhorse or breastplate. Or less than a years comfortable living.

Or maybe I should say "only" :smallamused:

[Thunderous Mojo]

If your game world has gems of 500gp or more only be named and very rare, that would be a massive nerf to all spellcasters. Nobody would ever be getting raised, or scryed on, or several other spells. What plans would you have to replace this for casters? Or do you just say anyone who didn't take Conjurer subclass is SoL?
It places the Player Characters into a position similar to what is experienced by magic users in a Jack Vance novel. Sometimes, the character has knowledge of rites and rituals that they generally don't use due to the rarity of the spell requirements.

While any game that places a constant focuses on tracking resources differs from a game that largely hand waives away bookkeeping; I don't think spell casters are unduly harmed by a game that has a tight control over resources.

Players that particularly enjoy having to strive , quite mightily, in order to overcome obstacles, (in my experience), often enjoy this style of game, precisely because this game style highlights the consequences of player choice.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Not to mention that's only roughly the price of a warhorse or breastplate. Or less than a years comfortable living.

Or maybe I should say "only" :smallamused:
500GP is also worth close to the value of 7 years worth of Unskilled labor per the PHB.

Being able to sell one 500gp gem for full value, literally means one gets to "live like a king" for a year.

[Mellack]

Being able to sell one 500gp gem for full value, literally means one gets to "live like a king" for a year.

Not even close. At even the lowest, cheapest aristocratic lifestyle, you would have spent all that in under two months. Living like a king would probably last a week or two.

According to the wealth by level chart, a character should be getting over 2,000 gold between 5th and 6th level, and it goes up from there. 500 gp is expected to be a minor amount by mid-late tier 2 play.

[Tanarii]

Not even close. At even the lowest, cheapest aristocratic lifestyle, you would have spent all that in under two months. Living like a king would probably last a week or two.Right. It means getting to live la comfortable lifestyle for 250 days, or not even a year. Or earning 250 days of pay as a skilled laborer, e.g. blacksmith or craftsman.

It's money. It's not nothing. But it's roughly equal to a breastplate or warhorse. Not one of a kind gems. Plate is worth 3 of those 500gp diamonds.


According to the wealth by level chart, a character should be getting over 2,000 gold between 5th and 6th level, and it goes up from there. 500 gp is expected to be a minor amount by mid-late tier 2 play.Shhh, WBL doesn't exist in 5e. Clearly you mean the expected hoards per the DMG. :smallamused:

Or to put it another way, Plate is probably affordable around level 6-7, depending on if the DM spaces hoards out evenly across the Tier or not.

But honestly, that says more about the kind of power that Tier 2 adventurers are supposed to wield to me. They can live minor aristocrats for a month between each adventuring day (300 gp) at that point, and still be rolling in cash. Because they're "expected" to find 1.6 Tier 2 Hoards per adventuring day, or 3 per level gained.