D&D 5E The Limits of Minor Conjuration

[5ekyu]

My point is that nothing in the text of the ability implies that the value of the created items is 0 gp, and I don't think that fact can be deduced in a reasonable way from what the rules say. I (acting as a DM) think the ability works better if you don't assume that, and I want anyone interested to be aware that it is a perfectly legit ruling.

Regarding Sage Advice, I was aware of the twitter responses that you quoted, but has it actually made it into the official SA document? Crawford has reversed his twitter answers in the past

Ok so, while i get there is no restriction on the value as defined in MC and that you wont take sage for this and so on... But am confused as to the point now.

You are drawing lines that you will accept that do not currently exist. The PHB text did not change in the last two posts to be more definitive.

Currebtly it boils down to this...

MC does not state there is a limit in GP value for its glowy obviously magical objects.

MC does not state that its glowy obviously magical objects have a gp value.

Certain situations require items of abc type worth xyz gold.

So one can take the "obviously right" path that since MC items do not have a value prescribed in their rules there is nothing allowing them to make an abc worth xyz so they cannot be used.

Or

One can take the "obviously right" path that says you can create an abc worth xyz because no limit was given and so it can be used.

Doubt five more posts will change that.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[jaelis]

You're arguing Airbud rules "show me where a dog CAN'T play basketball". Instead, show me where they specifically have any inherent GP value.

My claim is that the rules are silent on the gp value, so the DM needs to make a ruling.

 

[jaelis]

So one can take the "obviously right" path that since MC items do not have a value prescribed in their rules there is nothing allowing them to make an abc worth xyz so they cannot be used.

Or

One can take the "obviously right" path that says you can create an abc worth xyz because no limit was given and so it can be used.

Well that pretty much reflects what I'm trying to say, so if that is what you're getting, then you are not confused.

My only refinement would be that I don't think either option is "obviously right", they are just both valid interpretations.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Well that pretty much reflects what I'm trying to say, so if that is what you're getting, then you are not confused.

My only refinement would be that I don't think either option is "obviously right", they are just both valid interpretations.

What if a rogue offers to pay 1000gp for an illusionary diamond. Would that work? I mean, the rules don't SAY it can't be illusionary! That's the issue I think people are taking with the "Airbud" approach.

 

[jaelis]

An illusion of a diamond is not a diamond, so its value is irrelevant. MC on the other hand does actually create what it says it creates.

Also, I wouldn’t play that the value of an item is set by its market price. In the game, a 1000 gp diamond is a specific thing, regardless of what you actually pay for it. To me it follows that a created diamond still has value, even if no one would buy it.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

An illusion of a diamond is not a diamond, so its value is irrelevant. MC on the other hand does actually create what it says it creates.

Also, I wouldn’t play that the value of an item is set by its market price. In the game, a 1000 gp diamond is a specific thing, regardless of what you actually pay for it. To me it follows that a created diamond still has value, even if no one would buy it.

I have a questions, then? If the in-game market doesn't set the price of a diamond, what, in the context of the game world, does set the price?

 

[5ekyu]

I have a questions, then? If the in-game market doesn't set the price of a diamond, what, in the context of the game world, does set the price?

Why, The Golden Ballad Collections of Pragmatus of the White Room - Edition 8.15.17 Verses 12 through 78 of course. That standard has been in place since the Great Wars of the Utilitus some 3.1415 Cycles ago. Some heretics still use earlier editions such as 3.4.5 and 5.12.13 but most of those have been hunted to insignificance..

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

An illusion of a diamond is not a diamond, so its value is irrelevant. MC on the other hand does actually create what it says it creates.

A minor conjuration of a diamond isn't a diamond either. Unless I missed that diamonds vanish per the MC rules...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

An illusion of a diamond is not a diamond, so its value is irrelevant. MC on the other hand does actually create what it says it creates.

It creates an object which is very similar to the object in question, give or take a few parameters: It will always be glowing, even if the original item did not glow; and it is doomed to nonexistence within one hour, even if the original was not.

Whether that very-similar item is sufficient to function as a spell component is a matter for the DM to decide, in much the same way that the DM may decide a Created cloak is sufficiently different from the original that it cannot be used as a disguise.

 

[Kobold Boots]

@Jaelis is obviously posting to extend an argument where the combination of rules as written and Sage Advice fully answer the question (and in my opinion, irrevocably answer it insofar as this edition of the rules is concerned)

I'd recommend letting the thread die, unless we really need another thread with 20 pages of nonsense. At this point he's ignoring common sense and simply creating a thread based on opinion and personal table decisions. All fair, but is it really needed?

Be well
KB