D&D (2024) D&D 2024 PHB errata thread +

[pukunui]

Currently the Most Evil Spell in D&D:

You convert raw materials into products of the same
material.

This spell needs an errata.

At first I was like, "Nah, those don't count as raw materials so it wouldn't work" ... but then I looked at the 2014 version of the spell, which specifies that creatures and magic items can't be created or transmuted by the spell. They've left that bit out of the new version, but otherwise it is more or less the same.

I'm going to assume that the designers thought it would be obvious that creatures and finished products like magic items (and buildings) don't count as raw materials. Barring that, then yes, at the very least, the spell needs to have the "or transmuted" bit added back into the sentence that talks about the spell not being able to create creatures or magic items.

If you kill the red dragon, I think it would be fine to count its body as raw materials for this spell. But not while it is still alive. Yes, trees are alive, and you can convert them into a bridge without having to chop them down first, but the game does not consider all living things to be creatures by default.

I would also argue that a construction like a castle wall doesn't count as "raw materials" either. In that case, you would need to break down the wall into its constituent parts before you can use them as raw materials for the spell.

 

[TexasToaster]

Maybe, but removing the words from 2014 was horrible.

A tree has 2 million genes and a human was 20,000 genes. If you think a tree can be transmuted, being 100 times more complicated than a human, then I am confused about why that would be allowed.... what happens if the humanoid was a tree-based lifeform like a treant?

My point being is that RaW does not specify what "raw" materials is. A cannibal would also differ as to the definition of someone being a material if it was 5 seconds before dying and 5 seconds after.

If a dwarf sees a stack of marble blocks 20 feet high, does he not see each of the blocks as a component instead of a wall? There is nothing in the wording to stop someone from arguing with the DM "RaW says I can!"

The removal of key words in locations makes me think some of the developers can't read or have never played the game.

 

[TexasToaster]

Another thing that is weird, there is an asterisk next to the quarterstaff listing in weapons.
(under Mastery) ---> *Topple [ Pg 215 PHB.24 ]. Why? Someone had a reason for putting it there but there is no listing as to why.

 

[SkidAce]

A cannibal wizard with Fabricate and Cook's Utensils can
now kill anything in the game. As long as the wizard gets
within 120ft and chants for 10 minutes.

That ancient red dragon... poof... dragon heart rations
An annoying quickling..... poof... quickling quiche

That ancient red dragon isnt "raw materials" until after you kill it.

 

[TexasToaster]

I am not saying it wouldn't be ruled that way. However, to the cannibal, you are just a really fresh food source. Do you agree that a tree is just as alive and impossible to transmute as the non-dead humanoid?

How complex does something have to be to not be a component? A stack of blocks making a wall is just a stack of raw components to a dwarf. How complex is too complex for a component? We need a definition or rule.

Secondly, a cow to my fire-challenged friends is just a steak that is still moving. When you cook a live lobster which is a component, it is still alive. Living or Dead isn't a clear-cut way of defining a component.

 

[pukunui]

Maybe, but removing the words from 2014 was horrible.

A tree has 2 million genes and a human was 20,000 genes. If you think a tree can be transmuted, being 100 times more complicated than a human, then I am confused about why that would be allowed.... what happens if the humanoid was a tree-based lifeform like a treant?

My point being is that RaW does not specify what "raw" materials is. A cannibal would also differ as to the definition of someone being a material if it was 5 seconds before dying and 5 seconds after.

If a dwarf sees a stack of marble blocks 20 feet high, does he not see each of the blocks as a component instead of a wall? There is nothing in the wording to stop someone from arguing with the DM "RaW says I can!"

The removal of key words in locations makes me think some of the developers can't read or have never played the game.

I would suggest you are overthinking it. I'll agree that the spell could do with some improvements to the wording; however, I don't think it as bad as you are suggesting.

I would also quibble with some of your examples. For instance, I don't agree that a typical dwarf would look at a castle wall and just see the raw materials that went into making it. I think a typical dwarf would look at the wall and examine the quality of its construction (admiring it if it was fine dwarven craftsmanship on display or pooh-poohing it if it didn't meet with their standards). I think a typical dwarf would be able to tell the difference between a stack of stone blocks as raw materials and a stack of stone blocks as a finished product.

I also don't think a cannibal who eats a living creature would be thinking about whether or not that creature is "raw materials". Besides, what is the cannibal creating by eating the other creature? The whole idea of the fabricate spell is that you're using it to save yourself time and money by magically converting "unconstructed" materials into "constructed" products. It's possible the spell should only work on a stack of timber rather than a copse of trees, but unfortunately that's one of the examples provided.

I'll agree that at the very least, they should add back in "or transmuted" to that one sentence.

Another thing that is weird, there is an asterisk next to the quarterstaff listing in weapons.
(under Mastery) ---> *Topple [ Pg 215 PHB.24 ]. Why? Someone had a reason for putting it there but there is no listing as to why.

I can't see an asterisk there at my end.

DDB:


Print:

 

[TexasToaster]

Thanks Puk,
My copy has an asterisk so it must be an ink drop. Was driving me crazy.

As for quibbling with my examples, it won't hurt my feelings. However, these are the things my friends and I are going to argue about when we try to play together, and I am just making conversation.

What issues are a problem Puk?

 

[pukunui]

Thanks Puk,
My copy has an asterisk so it must be an ink drop. Was driving me crazy.

Whew!

As for quibbling with my examples, it won't hurt my feelings. However, these are the things my friends and I are going to argue about when we try to play together, and I am just making conversation.

What issues are a problem Puk?

Good to know. I edited my post above to include my quibbling.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I am not saying it wouldn't be ruled that way. However, to the cannibal, you are just a really fresh food source. Do you agree that a tree is just as alive and impossible to transmute as the non-dead humanoid?

How complex does something have to be to not be a component? A stack of blocks making a wall is just a stack of raw components to a dwarf. How complex is too complex for a component? We need a definition or rule.

Secondly, a cow to my fire-challenged friends is just a steak that is still moving. When you cook a live lobster which is a component, it is still alive. Living or Dead isn't a clear-cut way of defining a component.

Honestly, if it isn't going to be ruled to allow someone to instant kill anything they feel like... then why raise it as an issue at all? I've never even seen the fabricate spell used [I'm the only person in any of my groups who I know took it... and I was only able to use it during a 5 year timeskip write before the final session. Off-screen]

I mean, this sort of has "that guy's open mouth is a point I can see, therefore..." energy to it. No one taking the game seriously would attempt it. The only reason trees are allowed is because it is trivial to chop them down and it just makes for a dramatic example.

 

[TexasToaster]

Fabricate was never used in the way I have stated, because they changed the wording in PHB.24 as Puk agreed, earlier.

It is a clearly written spell in PHB.14 as far as I can see.
As a counter example, in PHB.14 you could make a polearm strike and get a bonus attack, drop the weapon, and attack with a second weapon..... How do you take a bonus attack strike with a polearm you dropped?
PHB.24 clearly changed the wording that the Bonus Attack must come "immediately after" the attack that gets it.
This means they saw weapon swapping to not be possible before the bonus attack is taken.

There are two places in PHB.24 where the Bonus Attack is required to happen immediately after. This is another clarification that needs to be stated in my opinion.