Breaking the Creation Bard...with OIL SPILLS and Acid Blobs

[Citadel97501]

Hello all, I was just thinking about some basic stuff after reading a thread on flasks of oil, and I got to thinking about one of my characters a Metallic Dragonborn Creation Bard. This led me to a grease fire horror that might me worse than the old buy a flock of sheep trick. It should be my DM noted an instant rule just when we were talking to limit this IE Animating Performance means it won't spread out, however you could use one of the options on the bottom to deal with that problem.

Grease Fire Trick
This goes about using two primary mechanics from the College of Creation Bard, and a little bit of fire.
-Performance of Creation
-Animating Performance
-Any source of fire...

Step 1: Use Performance of Creation to make as much oil as one object as you can.
At level 3: This is 37 gallons (this spreads out to 296 x 5' squares)
At level 6: This would be 150 gallons of oil so roughly 4 x 5' cubes, (According to the EPA this would take about 5 minutes)
At Level 10: 2000 pints or just a bit smaller than large at roughly 6 x 5' cubes, (a large cube would be 8 total...due to 4 x 2) (This takes less than 10 minutes)

Step 2: Use Animating Performance on the oil
Depending on your DM, this would allow it to control its spread as you direct. Many DM's are just going to say no after the realization...
-Even if they don't let you do this part it will spread at a decent pace according to the EPA.

Step 3: A tiny bit of fire...
According to RAW...
-The entire dungeon area then takes 5 points of fire damage twice...so once for free and then repeatable for a 2nd level spell slot, and a 3rd level spell slot...That could be in the hundreds or thousands of damage depending...

Notes:
1) Easy Clean Up as this all vanishes after your proficiency in hours, or if you summon more stuff...
2) Oil could be spread just as efficiently with the spell Tiny Servants, as they could spread the oil or control its flow pretty easily.
3) Flying blob that does 2d6 acid damage + 1d10 + proficiency...so 12.5

Acid Blob
If you summon an acid blob instead of oil, you can animate it which gives it a flying speed and it does a nice and respectable 15.5 whenever you use a bonus action. That is considerably better than Spiritual Weapon by duration but takes an extra turn to activate.

[Damon_Tor]

Liquids are not an object.

[ftafp]

Liquids are not an object.

that's the funny thing about creation bard. unlike every other similar ability, creation bard's abilities don't create/target objects they target items which includes just about anything you can buy or put in your inventory, including liquids. Technically, you can summon mounts with it

[Zhorn]

that's the funny thing about creation bard. unlike every other similar ability, creation bard's abilities don't create/target objects they target items which includes just about anything you can buy or put in your inventory, including liquids.
Yes, the feature's word choice of item and not object is a very useful distinction for the freedom it gives the feature


Technically, you can summon mounts with it
... but this part I think I'd need some examples of how mounts as creatures would fall under the classification of items.

[JNAProductions]

Either you can create objects (which wouldn’t include liquids) or you can create items from the tables in the PHB, in which case you get a flask of oil.

Pick your poison.

[Citadel97501]

Either you can create objects (which wouldn’t include liquids) or you can create items from the tables in the PHB, in which case you get a flask of oil.

Pick your poison.

As someone who teaches for a living, why would you be under the impression that liquids aren't an object? I freely admit you would not be able to summon anything contained inside a vessel, unless you already had the vessel ready. This is because it says one object, IE technically a lake is a single object formed of a large amount of water.

I would disagree entirely on the summon a mount thing, as I personally would not allow someone to summon a horse but if you wanted to summon a hobby horse and then animate it, that would probably be legit.

[Zhorn]

As someone who teaches for a living, why would you be under the impression that liquids aren't an object? I freely admit you would not be able to summon anything contained inside a vessel, unless you already had the vessel ready. This is because it says one object, IE technically a lake is a single object formed of a large amount of water.

I would disagree entirely on the summon a mount thing, as I personally would not allow someone to summon a horse but if you wanted to summon a hobby horse and then animate it, that would probably be legit.
By real world definitions, it is arguable that liquids can be object, but for in-game we adhere to the definitions as given by the written rules.

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.
...
Liquids, gasses and powders are not discrete. They are continuous.
“Discrete” means that the measured quantity can only take on particular, unique, step changes in value (countable only in integers).
“Continuous” means that the measured quantity can take of any value within a particular range. So, any liquid can be put into a bottle at any amount until the bottle is full. The value (amount) of liquid in the bottle can change continuously.

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.

[Damon_Tor]

that's the funny thing about creation bard. unlike every other similar ability, creation bard's abilities don't create/target objects they target items which includes just about anything you can buy or put in your inventory, including liquids. Technically, you can summon mounts with it

Reading the Creation Bard entry, that's perhaps even more restrictive: "For examples of items you can create, see the equipment chapter of the Player's Handbook." There it is, that's your menu. There's quite a bit in there, but lo and behold 5/5 cubes of oil and acid are not listed.

[BerzerkerUnit]

By real world definitions, it is arguable that liquids can be object, but for in-game we adhere to the definitions as given by the written rules.

Liquids, gasses and powders are not discrete. They are continuous.
“Discrete” means that the measured quantity can only take on particular, unique, step changes in value (countable only in integers).
“Continuous” means that the measured quantity can take of any value within a particular range. So, any liquid can be put into a bottle at any amount until the bottle is full. The value (amount) of liquid in the bottle can change continuously.

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.

This reasoning is good, but not satisfactory and, to me, feels like the kind of jig a player dances to get what they want as a player, but then uses to say no as a dm.

Let’s use that barrel test. I don’t think a reasonable person would say a block of ice wouldn’t be discrete given your definition and it passes that barrel test for some duration depending on relative temperatures. So using that as our baseline: any volume of liquid can be summoned as an object, provided its basic density or viscosity is rendered sufficiently distinct from an arbitrary volume of that material at temperatures above freezing.

That’s a lot of word salad that we could ignore in favor of what I think is more fun.

Using that standard I’d just have to take the extra step to summon what? A suspension of oil and water and wait for it to separate? Cast Destroy Water to leave the oil or Purify food and drink to have potable water? Summon it cold and cast Prestidigitation to immediately warm every 1 ft cube? That’s not fun to me. More fun would be ramifications of yes.

Bards are typically thought of as entertainers and pranksters, they usually use misdirection and guile. This one commits a war crime. They don’t need skilled allies, just time and intel. As they gain levels and notoriety, how will the College of Creation be seen? Will nations send their would-be military leaders to seek out mentors or a college itself to gain access to this form of warfare? A form of warfare previously reserved for high level wizards?

That’s more the cat I fancy, and I remember competing interpretations like the one you describe which eventually became a spelljammer/modern/pathfinder game in which a 10th level psionic pc Solo’d the country of Thay with nuclear weapons that left no radioactive elements.

Fortunately, in this case, it’s all irrelevant because it says items, not objects, for which I submit the barrel test you describe has some holes.

And items would include the trade goods items listed later in the equipment chapter as well as any other thing the player can imagine because it’s clearly intended to be a whimsical ability that can summon a bed to seduce someone on. I’ll also note oil is sold “by the pint” and while I’m sure the description might include a flask, I’m sure a shopkeeper would be willing to save the cost and just dump it in your hands, so that’s probably fine too (as long as you summon it cold enough).

[Melphizard]

Reading the Creation Bard entry, that's perhaps even more restrictive: "For examples of items you can create, see the equipment chapter of the Player's Handbook." There it is, that's your menu. There's quite a bit in there, but lo and behold 5/5 cubes of oil and acid are not listed.

I believe that's more of a reference than a strict rule on what you can actually make, especially because it says "For example" at the start. Some DMs may restrict you to that, but that limits the creativity of a Bard focused on creative creations and using them as such.

As for the floating blob of death, personally I'd be a bit hesitant about that myself; but, if this game is at higher levels (+9) than I'd be fine with allowing it considering the damage is low enough to warrant leeway and could be themed as an advancement in your magics over time. Considering that Conjuration Wizards can conjure buckets of purple worm poison, this is cool.

[Damon_Tor]

Considering that Conjuration Wizards can conjure buckets of purple worm poison, this is cool.

They can't though. Again, objects are not liquid. The creation bard is restricted differently, because an "item" is different from an "object". A creation bard can make a flask of acid while a conjuration wizard cannot, for example.

[Battlebooze]

A barrel of oil should be an easily created object by means of the Creation Bard's ability, past second level.

A barrel costs 2 gold, weights 70 pounds empty and can contain 40 gallons of liquid or 4 cubic feet of solid material. All per the Players Handbook.

An Oil flask costs 1 silver and weighs 1 pound. This is one pint of oil.

A barrel of oil would contain 320 pints of oil and it would cost roughly 34 gold, though we are ignoring the cost of the flask for simplicity. The weight of the barrel would be (kerosene weighs 6.8 pounds per gallon x40) 272 pounds + 70 for the barrel, so 342 pounds.

So a barrel of oil, just derived from the Players Handbook, costs 34 gold and weighs 342 pounds. It contains enough oil to fill 320 oil flasks, if you had the flasks.

There you go, this should be perfectly fine.

[Phhase]

I think the fact that the list of items offered by the PHB (by way of example, not rule) explicitly includes containers containing specific liquids, means that contained liquids at the very least are valid item summons. The free-flowing item is another matter, but I feel it's pretty firmly in the "possible, just don't abuse it TOO much" camp. Personally, I'd rule that summoning liquids requires one to research their creation with alchemist's tools, so that they understand what goes into them. For poisons coming from creatures, one would need to dissect the creature and analyze a sample. That way, there's a fun collect-a-thon minigame with some buy-in that has a cool payoff.

Also, the fact that the conjured object is magical and disappears at the end of its duration says to me that it's a valid target for Dispel Magic, and since it's still a single effect, even a hugely spread oil spill would vanish in entirety. Also, such items could not enter an anti-magic field.

Important note: Mind the GP limit when creating Acid, and remember that since acid reacts in order to do damage, a single vial's worth of acid is still only good for 1 attack.

[Damon_Tor]

As far as I can tell the word "item" is not explicitly defined in the game (unlike "object", which is.) Ambiguity in the rules favors the party that isn't trying to break the game. Ergo, you get what's on the list in that chapter.

"The object I conjure is a block of uranium 235 which is large enough to immediately go critical and explode devastating everything within 100 miles"

Yeah, no.

[Jervis]

As far as I can tell the word "item" is not explicitly defined in the game (unlike "object", which is.) Ambiguity in the rules favors the party that isn't trying to break the game. Ergo, you get what's on the list in that chapter.

"The object I conjure is a block of uranium 235 which is large enough to immediately go critical and explode devastating everything within 100 miles"

Yeah, no.

Balance is not an argument for Raw. The logic that it’s only items from a table was neither stated nor implied anywhere on the class description of the feature and goes well beyond the realm of interpretation. Yes you are within your bounds as a Dm to prevent a given interaction, you are also within your bounds as a DM to remove the extra attack feature and lock casters to cantrips only. That however is not how the rules state the game is played and thus houserules are not factored into optimization. Just because something is incredibly stupid doesn’t mean it doesn’t work under the rules. I now glare at 3.5 where travel exceeding the speed of light is possible with a high enough slight of hand check. The closest we get are examples, which implies that there isn’t a restriction to the examples given.

With that out of the way. I’m not a nuclear scientist, and even if I was its sage to say no dnd character would understand what uranium is under the existing skill system so it would fall under meta knowledge to do that, but i’m fairly certain you need more than a block of uranium to cause a explosion. My personal favorite is to use a 5x5 paper cube filled with magma, spills out dealing most likely 2d10 damage and creates a no go zone for enemies.

[Razade]

Reading the Creation Bard entry, that's perhaps even more restrictive: "For examples of items you can create, see the equipment chapter of the Player's Handbook." There it is, that's your menu. There's quite a bit in there, but lo and behold 5/5 cubes of oil and acid are not listed.

That's your example menu. It literally says "For examples of items you can create". It doesn't say "You can create any item found in the Equipment Chapter of the Player's Handbook".

[Battlebooze]

If you have a problem with someone creating a utterly mundane item like a barrel of oil, then I'd suggest that you just ban Creation Bards from your game. You will be doing your players a big favor.

[Damon_Tor]

Balance is not an argument for Raw. The logic that it’s only items from a table was neither stated nor implied anywhere on the class description of the feature and goes well beyond the realm of interpretation.

The word "item" is not a defined term in-game as far as I can tell. That was a poor choice on the part of the publishers IMO, but let's look up the word, shall we?



Item
1 : a distinct part in an enumeration, account, or series

That's the first definition on Mirriam Webseter. And then the very same ability says "For examples of items you can create, see the equipment chapter of the Player's Handbook." In other words, the word "item" by its very definition implies you're picking something from a set list, and the ability refers you to that chapter to create the set in question. The ability is not carte-blanche to create whatever you want. You cannot create atomic bombs with this ability.

[Jervis]

The word "item" is not a defined term in-game as far as I can tell. That was a poor choice on the part of the publishers IMO, but let's look up the word, shall we?



That's the first definition on Mirriam Webseter. And then the very same ability says "For examples of items you can create, see the equipment chapter of the Player's Handbook." In other words, the word "item" by its very definition implies you're picking something from a set list, and the ability refers you to that chapter to create the set in question. The ability is not carte-blanche to create whatever you want. You cannot create atomic bombs with this ability.

Dictionary lawyering is the worst kind of rules lawyer because they apply a singular definition that does not apply to every usage in the system to try and make a raw argument, they don’t even bother sticking to the rules presented and have to go to outside sources. Yes that is A definition of item but it is not THE usage of item. Certainly not the common only usage. Besides that the feature uses the word example. Which means, as defined by Cambridge, “ something that is typical of the group of things that it is a member of”. That’s just it, these items are typical, which is to say that everything from that list is a item and has traits typical of items. As suck a vial of acid is a item, and so is a barrel of the stuff. Now if you want to keep using information from outside of the system to argue I can do that all day, but this is a raw issue and pulling dictionary definitions from books unaffiliated with WotC is certainly not RAW in any universe so we should stick to sanity instead of reaching for something to justify a untenable position.

As for defined terms. The system uses item and object interchangeable in some parts. Example using an item such as poison is the Use and Object action. By your logic that would not be an object so it would be impossible and the thief rogue would be nonfunctional. Likewise anything that isn’t on that list of items you keep referencing, the ones that are only examples and not a closed list, wouldn’t be usable with that feature. It’s very obvious the system does not hold to definitions as strict as the dictionary does, same for common vocabulary.

If the feature was meant to lock you to just items in the PHB it would have said so instead of relying on a uncommon usage of a word the system does not use consistently to make sense of it. Ergo you can make a nuclear bomb with the feature assuming your character even knows what that is and your level is sufficient to meet the price, both of which are highly unlikely.

[JNAProductions]

If you want to be strict RAW, you gotta be strict RAW the whole way.

If you want to use reasonable interpretations when favorable, you need to use them when it’s not favorable too.

[Jervis]

If you want to be strict RAW, you gotta be strict RAW the whole way.

If you want to use reasonable interpretations when favorable, you need to use them when it’s not favorable too.

That’s the thing the idea that it can create very useful things not on the typical item list isn’t even a hard raw interpretation, it’s RAI too.



The Performance of Creation feature in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything can create objects that are usable as the material components of D&D spells, as long as you abide by the limitations of the feature.

That response was made regarding a question about spell components not on the list of items Tor is referring too. At no point does he mention that it’s restricted to a closed list. Most costly components aren’t on that list. I know sage advice isn’t RAW but I think it has more weight than a dictionary

[Damon_Tor]

Look, there are two possible interpretations of the ability.

One:

Breaks the game
Ignores the literal meaning of a word in favor of an ambiguous meaning
Assumes text in the actual ability is effectively meaningless
Requires ambiguous rulings (ie, "how much damage does 500 gallons of acid do?")


The other:

Doesn't break the game
Is literally correct
Assumes all text in the ability is meaningful
Requires no unusual rulings


I think it's clear which one is most correct.

[Damon_Tor]

Ergo you can make a nuclear bomb with the feature assuming your character even knows what that is and your level is sufficient to meet the price, both of which are highly unlikely.

You've added your own restriction here: that the character "even knows what that is". But that's not a requirement. The bard could wish for "the most powerful bomb which can fit in a 10/10 square" and there's no reason why that wouldn't count, right? Unlike the "fabricate" spell there's no requirement the bard be able understand how to make something or how it works.

"My simulacrum summons a 30-foot cube of solid anti-osmium, thus ending the world"

Nice, yes, good ability. Let's all go with your definition. Very reasonable.

[Jervis]

Look, there are two possible interpretations of the ability.

One:

Breaks the game
Ignores the literal meaning of a word in favor of an ambiguous meaning
Assumes text in the actual ability is effectively meaningless
Requires ambiguous rulings (ie, "how much damage does 500 gallons of acid do?")


The other:

Doesn't break the game
Is literally correct
Assumes all text in the ability is meaningful
Requires no unusual rulings


I think it's clear which one is most correct.

Yeah, the interpretation that everyone that isn’t you uses. You need to pull definitions from books with no connection to the source material and manufacture a restriction that isn’t there to justify this. Besides that the damage isn’t subjective, the DMG gives rules for improvised damage that hold well too it. You’re making this mistake of using balance to argue RAW again. This is the same book that punished Peace and Twilight domain, it’s safe to assume balance isn’t a factor.


You've added your own restriction here: that the character "even knows what that is". But that's not a requirement. The bard could wish for "the most powerful bomb which can fit in a 10/10 square" and there's no reason why that wouldn't count, right? Unlike the "fabricate" spell there's no requirement the bard be able understand how to make something or how it works.

"My simulacrum summons a 30-foot cube of solid anti-osmium, thus ending the world"

Nice, yes, good ability. Let's all go with your definition. Very reasonable.

You’ve ignored my point about a nuke not fitting into the cost restriction. Granted at high level you can ignore cost but why would you have that ability if everything you can create already falls in line with your cost minimum before gaining the ability. And yes while the feature doesn’t say you need to know what a thing is to make it, how would your character know to use the feature? It’s not a genie you’re wishing too, you can’t use a vague wording and hope to get a better effect. By that logic a nuke is the least of your worries. And this all ignores that we have developers debunking your interpretation. You’re reaching harder than a bugbear with a whip if you think a dictionary is a better tool to interpret raw than the guy who wrote the book.

[JNAProductions]

I wouldn't call "Using the definition of a word" to be reaching.

And again-if you want to stick to pure RAW, you have to do it the whole way. You can't use RAW when it's convenient and then use what makes sense despite the RAW somewhere else.

[Jervis]

I wouldn't call "Using the definition of a word" to be reaching.

And again-if you want to stick to pure RAW, you have to do it the whole way. You can't use RAW when it's convenient and then use what makes sense despite the RAW somewhere else.

It’s reaching because it’s using a uncommon usage of a word that’s inconsistent with the rest of the system for reasons I explained. And regardless that interpretation ignores the developer answer that is can create costly spell components, it also ignores the word example entirely and constructs a universe where a book unrelated to the rules has more bearing than the developer.

And you have yet to relate why this is a inconsistent usage of RAW vs RAI. I’m just saying the feature does what it says it does instead of pulling a unintuitive restriction out of nowhere based on a definition contrary to the common usage of the word.

Edit: Oh and that’s not even the only definition.


an individual thing : a separate part or thing

[Damon_Tor]

It’s reaching because it’s using a uncommon usage of a word

It's literally the most common usage of the word. Mirriam Webster, Cambridge, and Oxford all use the "part of a list" definition as their first definition. The fact that you had to go to Brittanica to find a definition that doesn't include that verbage is telling.

[Jervis]

It's literally the most common usage of the word.

I feel like you missed my point above. That’s a dictionary referencing a item as a thing, which I’d say is a more common usage for the layperson. That’s why dictionary lawyering is bad, the definition varies depending on the dictionary you use and those definitions often vary from how the word is used in the system. As a example I’ve seen many many examples of people saying that creatures are objects citing the dictionary as an example, and in many cases abusing definitions of things that include the word object using the in system use of object instead of the real world one those definitions weee based on. It’s a bad argument and when you can’t make a case without using a definition that’s contradicted by the system then that argument falls apart.

As a stated first your definition is inconsistent with its usage in the system. Example the Use an Object action covers using objects, which is defined as a discrete inanimate object, and by the strict dictionary lawyers definition cannot include liquids because of a overly specific reading of discrete. By this logic nothing that is a liquid can ever be used. You can’t use a use an object action to apply poison. So what’s more reasonable, a large portion of the items in the PHB become nonfunctional without improvising actions and can’t be used as a BA by a thief rogue as intended, or a feature has a intuitive function? This is why dictionary lawyering is bad, it applies definitions obviously not intended to words in the rules and pulls rulings from outer space.

And all of that ignores the fact that the developers said that you can use it to make costly spell components.

[Damon_Tor]

I feel like you missed my point above. That’s a dictionary referencing a item as a thing, which I’d say is a more common usage for the layperson.

That sounds like your opinion. The actual authorities on the English language disagree.

[Jervis]

That sounds like your opinion. The actual authorities on the English language disagree.

Hyper fixation on a single point of contention and appeals to authority don’t look well for a argument my friend. So far you’ve ignored every other point I’ve made in favor of appealing to a authority that’s is contradicted by the person that wrote the rules. That definition is contradictory to its use in the rest of the book and you’ve ignored my point that this sort of strict definition lawyering makes several things in the system dysfunctional. You’ve ignored every argument that doesn’t involve this hyper specific nitpick on the definition of item, which again I’ve found dictionaries that disagree, and pointed out that in actual usage people rarely use item only referring to things from a group or list. Even the Cambridge dictionary uses different meanings of item when giving examples of how it’s used. You know, example, that word you’ve completely ignored from the feature description in favor of fixating on the strictest possible definition of another word. Why would example be included over just saying pick an item from the list? Which you can’t answer outside of balance which I’ve already addressed isnt a valid argument by RAW or RAI given how Tasha’s is presented. By your own logic I could just quote back example to you over and over again and your argument is entirely invalid.

It’s pretty obvious you don’t plan on engaging with the argument at all so i’m wasting my time here. You won’t address any argument that doesn’t involve a appeal to authority, which I’ve already addressed is flawed since the actual authority sides against you on this, and other authorities disagree with your hyper strict definition.

[Damon_Tor]

Hyper fixation on a single point of contention and appeals to authority don’t look well for a argument my friend.

Because that's the point where you are wrong.

Crawford did not say you could make ambiguously large diamonds using the feature. He answered the question like he always does, as broadly as possible. "The words say what they say they mean". He said nothing that contradicts me. You can use items created by this feature as material components for spells: I never said otherwise and that has no bearing on the discussion we are having now.

[Jervis]

Take whatever small/medium animal you like and then give it warrior ranks until it hits ~50 HP.

I don’t see what that has to do with anything


Because that's the point where you are wrong.

Crawford did not say you could make ambiguously large diamonds using the feature. He answered the question like he always does, as broadly as possible. "The words say what they say they mean". He said nothing that contradicts me. You can use items created by this feature as material components for spells: I never said otherwise and that has no bearing on the discussion we are having now.

Granted this does lead to an issue with 5e where the developers refuse to disambiguate things. That being said you’re ignoring every other point I have. You hyperfixate on one word and completely ignore the word example because it makes your argument da op apart at the seams. It doesn’t even need to be part of that list, just part of a list. And that’s if you want to lean on the hyper strict definition you seem intent on using, which is the same kind of thing I already mentioned that makes potions and vials of poison aren’t objects, which breaks a lot of things. It’s pretty useless to argue with a person who insists that a thing is not a thing and that a feature doesn’t do what it says it does. I only respond to point out the weird warrior animal thing and to leave you with another completely valid bit of text that makes your insistence on dictionary definitions broken and dysfunctional.



Item
1 : a distinct part in an enumeration, account, or series
2 : an object of attention, concern, or interest
3 : a separate piece of news or information
4 : a couple in a romantic relationship


So by your logic it can also apply to a pair of creatures in a romantic relationship, anything interesting, or a copy of the Washington post. Granted that actually makes it better. A atomic bomb is certainly an object of concern, as is a breeding pair of hyenas both useful and very romantic. So you get anything from the list or anything concerning or worthy of attention so long as it adheres to gold and size value restrictions. I think I might actually rule it this way. That’s pretty funny now that I think of it.

And since i’m leaving because I made my point enough that I feel comfortable resting my case. Just know mechanic debates are all in good fun, or at least that’s how I take them. It’s been fun, hope you have a good day mate and no hard feelings.

[Damon_Tor]

I don’t see what that has to do with anything

Absolutely nothing, because that was a post meant for another thread.