D&D 5E The Limits of Minor Conjuration

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Well, I agree with your first statement, and the second would be, as you say, a DM ruling. So what's your reason for ruling that it is not suitable for magical purposes? Seems like a magical component would be just what you want for a magic spell

It's an ephermeral creation, and thus lacks realness. There's an archaic concept called "foison", which ties to power, strength and physicality. I've seen it introduced in games which have fae conjurations similar to this. Basically a copy of something isnt the real thing. It's why a brownie will make shoes for hours for a crust of stale bread. They might live in a fae palace and eat the finest of magical meals, but none of it is real.

It's why I'd rule vampires wouldnt be able to draw sustenance from synthetic blood (or blood created from minor conjuration). It might be blood on a molecular level, but it doesn't have the lifeforce aspect.

Alternately, the magic aura of the minor conjuration taints the process by which the component is consumed.

I mean, all of this is basically hand wavium for "DM says so", but at least it's an in-game reason to smack down abuse. I'd say the DM should inform any conjurer up front if a spell is about to fail as a result, as the character would be aware of its limitations.

 

[jaelis]

On spell foci and minor conjuration - there's actually an official answer for this.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/11/1...tion-to-get-usable-spell-components-and-foci/

Answer from Mearls - Any component that does not have a gp cost can be generated.

Noted that is the designers' answer. But I maintain it is not derived from the rules as written, because the rules don't say the created item has no value.

 

[jaelis]

2. Someone being silly enough to buy a fake item for 1000 gold does not make the item worth 1000 gold. This situation is not a "gap" in the rules but either wishful thinking or a lack of common sense at the table.

The flip side of that is that someone being sensible enough to not pay anything for a fake item doesn't make the item worth 0 gp. You can say that items have an intrinsic value, regardless of the market, or you can say they have a market value alone. It doesn't seem fair to me to argue it both ways depending on the result you want.

 

[jaelis]

I mean, all of this is basically hand wavium for "DM says so", but at least it's an in-game reason to smack down abuse. I'd say the DM should inform any conjurer up front if a spell is about to fail as a result, as the character would be aware of its limitations.

I get that, but is the in game reason you describe the actual reason, as a DM, that you would rule that way? Or is that an in-game justification for how you anyway think it ought to work?

 

[Kobold Boots]

Noted that is the designers' answer. But I maintain it is not derived from the rules as written, because the rules don't say the created item has no value.

The matter of spell components that I quoted is clearly posted in Sage Advice. The definition of Sage Advice on its site is " Sage Advice is a monthly column that gives official clarifications of D&D rules. Sometimes it also provides reference documents to help your D&D game run more smoothly."

Now you may come back to me with "Yes but "official" doesn't mean "official" because it's not on a formal errata sheet" or simply that "It's my game and I'll do what I will".. both entirely fair.

But don't come to me with I maintain it's not RAW, because that's only true in the printed book sense, not the rules as written and intended sense.

 

[Kobold Boots]

The flip side of that is that someone being sensible enough to not pay anything for a fake item doesn't make the item worth 0 gp. You can say that items have an intrinsic value, regardless of the market, or you can say they have a market value alone. It doesn't seem fair to me to argue it both ways depending on the result you want.

1. I'm selling you this object that has to be truly 1000 GP in order for your spell to work..
2. It's fake so I'm only paying you 10 GP.
3. The 10 GP component still isn't going to meet the requirement of the 1000 GP spell component.

So what's your point? I'm not arguing anything that isn't absolute. If you create a fake object as a spell component it's not got the value required to make the spell work. That's all I'm saying. Any elaboration on cost vs. value outside of that is simply because you want to argue it.

Be well
KB

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I get that, but is the in game reason you describe the actual reason, as a DM, that you would rule that way? Or is that an in-game justification for how you anyway think it ought to work?

That's largely a chicken/egg rhetorical question.

I think that the GP of components were placed there to make them rare, so cheesing it with minor conjuration is a violation of the intent of having components in the first place. I also think it's RAW, because the conjuration has no actual value, because it will simply dissipate. Art objects are incredibly subjective in value, yet D&D happily tosses out their GP equivalent as though it is objective. Probably because there are gods and magic which can make such determinations. A brown diamond chip has a different crystalline makeup, clarity, etc than a "1000 gp diamond", even if you offer to pay 1000 GP for it. Are you saying that inherent qualities of a gemstone shouldnt matter for magical purposes?

 

[jaelis]

So what's your point? I'm not arguing anything that isn't absolute.

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

 

[Kobold Boots]

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.

You're right that it can't be deduced from the printed rulebook.

As far as a legit ruling, only at your table and those who are willing to think similarly. Which as I've said is completely fair.

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

Reason I say that is this link. Taken from Sage Advice Search

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/11/1...tion-to-get-usable-spell-components-and-foci/

I believe my point has been made sufficiently. If there is some document that you need to come around to the correct point of view about what the intention of the rule is, then there's no hope for you. (in my opinion)

Be well.
KB

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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

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.