D&D 5E The Limits of Minor Conjuration

[Rossbert]

So now that there is a ruling I will offer my justification on two levels. For mundane spells the component is mostly a crutch so the mortal mind can grasp the energies around them, a deep-seated symbolic gesture or "magic feather." But some of the more powerful magics actually need the resonance of a real item as a power source or an anchor or lens. These items if they are magical in nature interfere with the delicate and powerful magic involved, simply not working is the best outcome, catastrophic failure could occur (in lore, not gameplay).

As for what makes it a certain value has nothing to do with fair market value or what someone would pay. In reality you need a diamond of a specific siZe, clarity, cut etc. and an easy shorthand is that a gem of this quality is worth $XXX for ease of tracking and conveying the quality.

 

[FrogReaver]

Does minor conjugation say the conjur diamond isn't a diamond? It seems to me it's a diamond while it's within this realm. That it glows and that it eventually disappears has everything to do with the magic that brought it to this realm and not the object itself.

 

[CapnZapp]

Has the obvious question been asked yet: what does Minor Conjugation do?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Sword of Spirit]

If we really want to have a good way to evaluate individual questions that come up about Minor Conjuration, we need a better understanding of how/what it does in the world. There is no official answer. I'll suggest a few possibilities, with benefits and issues. I'd welcome more pros and cons to add to the list:

Option 1: Formcraft
In this version you shape magical force of some sort into the form of the object based on your own knowledge. It maintains no inherent properties of the object itself.
Benefits:
-You know that it doesn't work for anything that requires the actual material. For example, it's not silver, it's not a spell component, etc.
Issues:
-It is unclear how to determine the object's weight if it doesn't possess the inherent properties of the form. Since the spell specifically gives it a weight limit, it must be intended to have a weight. Do you set the weight arbitrarily when you cast it?
-In like manner, without any particular properties included, how do you know when it takes damage (making it vanish)?
-It specifies that it must be an "object which you have seen", but that doesn't make sense if you are just forming it from magical force. Shouldn't I be able to work with the sorts of shapes I'm familiar with to mold anything reasonable out of clay? The spell doesn't seem to allow that for some odd reason.

Option 2: Smart Conjuration
In this version, the magic itself knows what to do. You have seen a silver dagger, it makes a silver dagger*, which has the properties of a silver dagger.
-Benefits:
-You only have to worry about whether the usage of the object would damage it* in order to adjudicate issues. For instance, you might rule that consumed spell components don't work because the consumption destroys them (or you might rule that the magic gets its power before the destruction so it still works), but non-consumed components work perfectly fine, just like spellcasting foci.
-Issues:
-This might allow you to conjure a complex object even if you haven't seen a sufficient amount of it to get the info (such as a book with all of it's pages intact, or a letter that you've only glimpsed the corner of.) This could be seen as more powerful than intended/desired, but there isn't a simple way of disallowing it (it requires creating a more detailed set of rules). Essentially, you are copying information as well as form. I think it would require more complexity than saying, "it can't copy information" to really address this.
-In addition, you could conjure something that has been destroyed--such a burned letter or a unique key--as long as you saw it at some point. This might be considered an issue in your campaign. (Could be a feature too, but it's pretty powerful.)

Sub-Option 2a: Object Projection
This is identical to option 2, except that the spell actually conjures a magical projection (think 3e summoning spells) of the copied object.
Benefits:
-The potential issue with conjuring a destroyed might go away, since it can be easily ruled that it no longer exists and cannot therefore project, unless you rule that time is not a constraint.
Issues:
-The DM might have to make judgments about whether a particular object still exists.

It's a real pain trying to figure out the best way to handle it. I favor the second option, but I'm not sure how I would handle all the details. For example, I'd rule that a single page of a book is an object (the book being a collection of objects, like a keyring), so if you've seen a page you can conjure that page, but you can't conjure a whole book. But I don't have a really satisfying solution to the issue of conjuring a destroyed object.

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?

I recommend assuming a metaphysical constant value for the sorts of things (gems, precious metals, etc) used in magical procedures. The rules refer to this value. It doesn't matter what the local market values them at. A certain mass of diamonds (they don't weigh much, so its unlikely you'll need to actually determine ounces or grams for this) is worth 100 gp worth of magical ju-ju. It doesn't matter if you buy it for that price, get it on sale for 50 gp, get ripped off and pay 200 gp, or steal it for 0 gp. That mass of diamonds is metaphysically worth 100 gp. For simplicity's sake, we say that usually equates to the default market value of an item.

* I recognize that the errata specifies that the object can't deal damage. I reject that errata, as it unnecessarily nerfs an ability that is in no way too powerful. Feel free to substitute another object with inherent properties into the statement.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

You are attributing "glowing and disappearing" as properties of the item itself. Why? Can't the object in question just be an object and the "glowing and disappearing" be properties of the spell that placed it in your possession?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You are attributing "glowing and disappearing" as properties of the item itself. Why? Can't the object in question just be an object and the "glowing and disappearing" be properties of the spell that placed it in your possession?

The object is never witnessed to not have those properties, so that would imply they are intrinsic.

If it was summoning an object to you, rather than creating it from nothing, you would be able to disarm an enemy by conjuring their weapon into your hand. That doesn't seem to be the case, and they never really go into the concept that the object had an independent existence before you conjured it, so assuming such a thing would seem presumptuous. Creation is every bit as much of the Conjuring school as Summoning is.

Mostly, though, it's because the obvious interpretation to me is that this is Green Lantern power. Other interpretations could also exist, hence why it's up to DM discretion.