Minor Conjuration: Use and Abuse.

[Eslin]

Which was done very well in the strip this site's about, I loved Redcloak's use of titanium elementals.

[JoeJ]

But what then is an object? There is no single object on a base level, particles themselves are just a name for clouds of amplitude in a configuration space, an object is just a large factor in the wave function. There is no such thing as a single or partial object because on a fundamental level there is no such thing as an object - so if you can summon anything at all, you should be able to summon parts of things since a part of a thing is a thing.

What are these "particles" you speak of? The only waves I see are the ones in the ocean, and the only clouds are in the sky. Neither of them has anything to do with what it means to conjure an "object."

A part of the sun wouldn't be an "object", it would be a bunch of fire. Objects and elements are not the same in magic, and the PHB doesn't say you can conjure an element. Personally, though, I'd probably allow it. I don't think it breaks anything if you conjure a 3' cube of fire, since you can't have it appear in another character's space.

[Eslin]

What are these "particles" you speak of? The only waves I see are the ones in the ocean, and the only clouds are in the sky. Neither of them has anything to do with what it means to conjure an "object."

A part of the sun wouldn't be an "object", it would be a bunch of fire. Objects and elements are not the same in magic, and the PHB doesn't say you can conjure an element. Personally, though, I'd probably allow it. I don't think it breaks anything if you conjure a 3' cube of fire, since you can't have it appear in another character's space.

The sun's core 15,700,000 degrees and is incredibly dense - 10 pounds of material would be about 30 cubic centimetres, which would be a ball maybe a little less than 4cm across.

That hydrogen would then expand or disperse, which is a term better probably described in this instance as an explosion. One that would level the surrounding countryside.

[Fra Antonio]

The sun's core 15,700,000 degrees and is incredibly dense - 10 pounds of material would be about 30 cubic centimetres, which would be a ball maybe a little less than 4cm across.

That hydrogen would then expand or disperse, which is a term better probably described in this instance as an explosion. One that would level the surrounding countryside.

For all I know, the sun in my fantasy world may be a cycling illusory disc created by gods to provide light. Illusions can't emit real light and heat, you say? Well, you know, shadow magic (I like the irony), and they are gods.

[Eslin]

Then where's the energy coming from? Where is it in relation to the planet? For that matter what's the planet orbiting, and how do seasons work?

[Fra Antonio]

Then where's the energy coming from? Where is it in relation to the planet? For that matter what's the planet orbiting, and how do seasons work?

Gods? A Positive Energy Plane portal? Maybe it's a finite universe there, and the energy mostly circulates within its borders, so the sun is an energy condenser that collects it and then sends back to the planet? Is there even a planet? Maybe it's a giant pizza on a sleeping space hamster's back? Possibilities are endless.

I mean, must we automatically assume that fantasy worlds work in the same way our world does? Because it definitely doesn't in many, many ways.

[Eslin]

Gods? A Positive Energy Plane portal? Maybe it's a finite universe there, and the energy mostly circulates within its borders, so the sun is an energy condenser that collects it and then sends back to the planet? Is there even a planet? Maybe it's a giant pizza on a sleeping space hamster's back? Possibilities are endless.

I mean, must we automatically assume that fantasy worlds work in the same way our world does? Because it definitely doesn't in many, many ways.

Actually, it doesn't in only a few ways. The laws of physics clearly still apply to the rest of the game, so it's reasonable to assume that you're on a planet with a regular orbit in the Goldilocks zone of a medium sized sun in the same way that's it's reasonable to assume the planet's core is hot and the same way that it's reasonable to assume things fall down when you drop them.

[Easy_Lee]

The laws of physics clearly still apply to the rest of the game

You sure about that?

[JoeJ]

The sun's core 15,700,000 degrees and is incredibly dense - 10 pounds of material would be about 30 cubic centimetres, which would be a ball maybe a little less than 4cm across.

That hydrogen would then expand or disperse, which is a term better probably described in this instance as an explosion. One that would level the surrounding countryside.

It is hot, but unless you have a source I'm unaware of, nothing has ever been stated about the density of the FR sun. Most fire worlds have almost no density; they're like air, and if you were immune to the heat you could easily fly right through the center.

[Spriteless]

I like the key, I would rule in favor of it especially if the Wizard mentioned studying the key. While I wouldn't allow spell books or scrolls or anything that takes magic and days to copy normally, I could see making a magic copy of another document, that could be copied by a skilled forger. After all, someone practiced in visualizing things in enough detail to recreate them has practiced everything except the eye-hand coordination to forge things themselves.

Are plants animate? What about psychic plants from Mars?

Also lots of shiny jewelry.

[JoeJ]

I like the key, I would rule in favor of it especially if the Wizard mentioned studying the key. While I wouldn't allow spell books or scrolls or anything that takes magic and days to copy normally, I could see making a magic copy of another document, that could be copied by a skilled forger. After all, someone practiced in visualizing things in enough detail to recreate them has practiced everything except the eye-hand coordination to forge things themselves.

Are plants animate? What about psychic plants from Mars?

Also lots of shiny jewelry.

I would allow books, but the writing in them is only as complete as the wizard can remember, so they would have to have read it many times, or have read it very recently and have the Keen Mind feat. Spellbooks are a creative idea, but I wouldn't call something nonmagical if you can use it to prepare spells.

Poison, acid, ammunition (not very efficient because it requires an action for each shot, but if that's all you have it could be a lifesaver), artisan's tools are a set of many objects, but you'd usually only need them one at a time, so that should work, a gnomish gadget that the wizard has been able to closely examine.

The description of the ability doesn't sound to me like the wizard is teleporting an actual object to their hand. More like creating a temporary duplicate that glows - like a Green Lantern's creations, as was mentioned upthread.

[silveralen]

Actually, it doesn't in only a few ways. The laws of physics clearly still apply to the rest of the game, so it's reasonable to assume that you're on a planet with a regular orbit in the Goldilocks zone of a medium sized sun in the same way that's it's reasonable to assume the planet's core is hot and the same way that it's reasonable to assume things fall down when you drop them.

Conservation of mass and energy are both clearly violated by magic on a routine basis (indeed, minor creation itself violates at least one) and those are some of the more fundemental laws.

Not to mention that in at least some campaigns some of these assumptions are wrong. Constellations in dragonlance will disappear when the god comes to earth, making their similarity to our stars unlikely at best.

So yeah, these are all awful assumptions that should never be made in a fantasy setting, and if you try to break the game using them any halfway decent DM will laugh in your face.

[Eslin]

Conservation of mass and energy are both clearly violated by magic on a routine basis (indeed, minor creation itself violates at least one) and those are some of the more fundemental laws.

Not to mention that in at least some campaigns some of these assumptions are wrong. Constellations in dragonlance will disappear when the god comes to earth, making their similarity to our stars unlikely at best.

So yeah, these are all awful assumptions that should never be made in a fantasy setting, and if you try to break the game using them any halfway decent DM will laugh in your face.

Not necessarily. The energy could be coming from somewhere else, and assuming things work in the most logical manner is not an awful assumption. Everything does work like it does in real life, with the exceptions being what defines the setting. Plants photosynthesise, people break down carbohydrates for energy, objects attract other objects based on mass, light travels very fast - and unless it's a defining part of the setting that things are different, you can expect to be on a big ball of rock orbiting a massive ball of hydrogen.

This is why I liked Eragon - the storytelling may have been crap, but everything clearly made sense.

[JoeJ]

Not necessarily. The energy could be coming from somewhere else, and assuming things work in the most logical manner is not an awful assumption. Everything does work like it does in real life, with the exceptions being what defines the setting. Plants photosynthesise, people break down carbohydrates for energy, objects attract other objects based on mass, light travels very fast - and unless it's a defining part of the setting that things are different, you can expect to be on a big ball of rock orbiting a massive ball of hydrogen.

One of those is definitely false: objects do not attract other objects based on mass. An object's gravity is completely unrelated to its mass or size. A small ship or even an individual creature has the same gravity as a large planet, although it may take a different shape: in most ships, for example, the force of gravity is directed toward a plane rather than toward a point. That's the reason why objects leaving a planet's atmosphere take an air envelope with them; it's held there by the object's gravity. If it were not for this, space travel would be largely impossible for anybody who needs to breathe.

Although every object has gravity, you won't typically notice this on a planet's surface because when two gravity fields intersect, the field of the smaller object realigns to match that of the larger - a phenomenon that is sometimes useful in space combat. There are also some objects, including the very largest objects known to exist, which have no gravity at all. Sages have not yet discovered why this is the case.

If you're trying to apply the physics of our world to D&D, I'm afraid that ship sailed back in 1989.

[silveralen]

Not necessarily. The energy could be coming from somewhere else, and assuming things work in the most logical manner is not an awful assumption. Everything does work like it does in real life, with the exceptions being what defines the setting. Plants photosynthesise, people break down carbohydrates for energy, objects attract other objects based on mass, light travels very fast - and unless it's a defining part of the setting that things are different, you can expect to be on a big ball of rock orbiting a massive ball of hydrogen.

This is why I liked Eragon - the storytelling may have been crap, but everything clearly made sense.

The thing is, energy doesn't just come from "somewhere" in the real world. That's not how it works. Just like how the sun in a setting may be a literal god, or just a bright shiny light in the sky which orbits a disk that sits on the back or a turtle. Maybe the light doesn't move as fast as our light either, maybe it takes it's time, and the seasons are caused by the whim of the gods.

That's the point. The worlds we are talking about clearly aren't the same as ours, assuming they are bound by the same laws or function in the same manner is laughable. There is absolutely no reason to think that, nor is it reasonable to assume that the worlds orbit the sun, or the sun is made of hydrogen, or anything else. Those are all baseless assumptions in settings where so many other things true in our world don't hold up.

[MaxWilson]

One of those is definitely false: objects do not attract other objects based on mass. An object's gravity is completely unrelated to its mass or size... If you're trying to apply the physics of our world to D&D, I'm afraid that ship sailed back in 1989.

Much as I love Spelljammer, 2nd edition rules aren't canonical in 5th edition. It would be more correct to say "an object's gravity might be unrelated to its mass". In 5E, we just don't know.

[Eslin]

The thing is, energy doesn't just come from "somewhere" in the real world. That's not how it works. Just like how the sun in a setting may be a literal god, or just a bright shiny light in the sky which orbits a disk that sits on the back or a turtle. Maybe the light doesn't move as fast as our light either, maybe it takes it's time, and the seasons are caused by the whim of the gods.

That's the point. The worlds we are talking about clearly aren't the same as ours, assuming they are bound by the same laws or function in the same manner is laughable. There is absolutely no reason to think that, nor is it reasonable to assume that the worlds orbit the sun, or the sun is made of hydrogen, or anything else. Those are all baseless assumptions in settings where so many other things true in our world don't hold up.

They're not baseless assumptions. The worlds aren't completely different - they're all describable with 'it's like our world, but'. Pretty much every setting functions identically to real life except for specific aspects.

[silveralen]

They're not baseless assumptions. The worlds aren't completely different - they're all describable with 'it's like our world, but'. Pretty much every setting functions identically to real life except for specific aspects.

Except we don't know that. Never once has gravity or the sun canonically been established to function as it does on earth, we merely know that the end results are the same (light/heat from the sun, people grounded to the earth). The why and how have never been explored in most settings, and the few exceptions typically show how these things occur for a different reason than they would on our world. You say spelljammer isn't canon in 5e, but neither is normal real world gravity. In fact, spelljammer has a better claim since it at one time worked across multiple settings and has never been directly refuted. All that is canon is that something like gravity exists, the specifics are unknown.

[Easy_Lee]

Two things I'd like to add to this thread to hopefully get us back on topic:

1. If it's not in the book, it doesn't matter. Just because you don't think it works doesn't mean it won't. That's up to the DM, and the only person who can say something doesn't work because "X reason that is not in the book" is the DM
2. This thread does not have a DM

So, for anyone who says this or that doesn't work, please adhere to the following suggested rules:

1. Reasons why a tactic does not work must come from the PHB or a similar source
2. Provide the source and page-number of the relevant passage when explaining why a tactic does not work

Everyone here is wise enough to know that we'll have to clear our legitimate strategies delicious cheese tactics with the DM. Arguing about it here does no good and derails the thread.

[JoeJ]

Much as I love Spelljammer, 2nd edition rules aren't canonical in 5th edition. It would be more correct to say "an object's gravity might be unrelated to its mass". In 5E, we just don't know.

Alternatively, Spelljammer physics continues to be canon until something contradicting it is published.

[Slipperychicken]

Everyone here is wise enough to know that we'll have to clear our legitimate strategies delicious cheese tactics with the DM. Arguing about it here does no good and derails the thread.

Agreed. I really don't understand why people feel the need to bring it up in 5e threads and drag them out for 2d4 pages longer than they needed to be.

In the 3.5/PF board, we would usually respond to these issues with "ask to your DM about it", and that would be the end of it*. This subforum is going to need to learn how to do that, or else go up in flames every time a rules ambiguity comes up.


*Unless it was an alignment thread. I hated alignment threads.

[silveralen]

Two things I'd like to add to this thread to hopefully get us back on topic:

1. If it's not in the book, it doesn't matter. Just because you don't think it works doesn't mean it won't. That's up to the DM, and the only person who can say something doesn't work because "X reason that is not in the book" is the DM
2. This thread does not have a DM

So, for anyone who says this or that doesn't work, please adhere to the following suggested rules:

1. Reasons why a tactic does not work must come from the PHB or a similar source
2. Provide the source and page-number of the relevant passage when explaining why a tactic does not work

Everyone here is wise enough to know that we'll have to clear our legitimate strategies delicious cheese tactics with the DM. Arguing about it here does no good and derails the thread.

Everything in 5e is basically up to DM fiat. The system practically runs on it. There is barely any topic to get back onto. If we go by your rules threads like this should be auto locked and then deleted, as the entire premise is pointless.

[Edgerunner]

Resurrecting this thread to see if anything New can be added.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: Closed for Thread Necromancy.