So I might have missed some errata or sage advice etc. making this a moot point, and if so point it out, but Minor Conjuration might be one of the most busted second level features in the game, possibly exceeding moon druids (A weapon to surpass metal gear!). "How?" you might ask, "it can only conjure non magical items right?". This would be correct, but there is something that comes to mind that isn't magical, POISONS. Poisons from the DMG aren't magic, and can do some really sick damage. Purple Worm Poison is a DC 19 con save for 12d6 poison damage, more than a fireball! Now imagine combining that with three rogue levels for thief! Bonus action poison your weapon for an added 12d6! Now obviously this is relying on a few assumptions.
A. Minor Conjuration can make liquids that can be used.
B. Your DM would let you see Purple Worm Venom (You don't actually need to buy it, only look at it.)
C. Your dm will reward your creativity and desire to make thief a good archtype by allowing you to become the highest damage output over time in the party, since this stuff doesn't cost resources.
A. Yes Minor Conjuration can make liquids that can be used. The object created only lasts for an hour but that should be plenty of time to use it. It does take an action to make the object though, so a little planning might be needed (1st round make poison and apply it to weapon, 2nd round to attack...?).
B. If you can imagine a situation in which you can see Purple Worm Venom, and then realize it without anything harmful happening to you, good luck. The only 3 that jump to the forefront of my mind without giving it any thought are:
1. You fight a Purple Worm (or some such similar thing that allows you to see Purple Worm venom).
2. You deal with the black market that sells it (thieves' guilds, assassins etc.)
3. You find an alchemist or apothecary who has some.
I don't think the DM would make it easy if he is aware of what you're up to. Some may not allow access to a poison that does 12d6 until mid to late levels.
As a sidenote, Thief is a great Archetype.
Minor Conjuration can be just as broken as the Sage background (Researcher feature).
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
B I just realized something. You don't need to see something to create an illusion of it with minor illusion, so you can just create an illusion of purple worm poison, and then create it with minor conjuration.
So here's the thing, I would say that Minor Conjuration is busted, but not for that reason. You can make really useful stuff, but it disappears "if it takes or deals any damage."
Is there a specific ruling that says Minor Conjuration can make a fluid?
For the Purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects.
A fluid is technically non-discrete and can be continuously divided without functionally changing it. (Whereas a broken stone or sword would be obviously broken.)
B I just realized something. You don't need to see something to create an illusion of it with minor illusion, so you can just create an illusion of purple worm poison, and then create it with minor conjuration.
A minor illusion is an image, not the object itself, so looking at an illusion of an object is not equivalent to seeing the thing itself.
Were this not the case, many spells would suddenly break.
An item created with Minor Conjuration disappears if it takes or deals any damage. I would rule that pouring or spreading a poison on a blade effectively damages it, and it would immediately vanish before being able to apply any kind of effect. This would also apply to consuming food or water created this way.
no the damage happens from the dagger or sword or whatever and then it breaks the magic effect because it dealt damage, not dealing any poison damage. Order of events.
I'd say hell yah, you make the crazy worm poison....k..you apply it...you blade seeths....you crit your victim in the back...role dagger damage....poison disappears.
no the damage happens from the dagger or sword or whatever and then it breaks the magic effect because it dealt damage, not dealing any poison damage. Order of events.
I'd say hell yah, you make the crazy worm poison....k..you apply it...you blade seeths....you crit your victim in the back...role dagger damage....poison disappears.
You didn't conjure the sword you conjured the poison, the poison would do its damage than disappear. Your saying the sword hitting and doing a d8 damage would make the poison go away.. has the poison done damage? no? than it doesn't go away (if the DM has allowed this to work in the first place)
It would stop repeated uses of the same conjured poison though and require the wizard to conjuration it again and reapply it.
A conversation with the DM to determine some of it's limits should be in order before each campaign.
As worded, it should be able to create a liquid. Opinions differ on whether a coiled rope can be created, I personally think this is just a player's ingenuity.
Things like Thieves' Tools depend on a DM's ruling but if you can't create them as 1 item, remember that you can create them individually. (A lockpick when needed, and other items as desired.)
Coating a weapon with poison, or creating food or water... doesn't do any damage that I can see.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
So here's the thing, I would say that Minor Conjuration is busted, but not for that reason. You can make really useful stuff, but it disappears "if it takes or deals any damage."
I don't think that you can say the crossbow doesn't do the damage, so it won't disappear, and at the same time make the damage from the crossbow magical. The damage from the crossbow would be magical, if you would hit someone with it, not shoot it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Browser Extension: BeyondMarkdown, which seamlessly converts markdown in character and encounter notes into beautifully formatted HTML, making note-taking more efficient and readable. GitHub, Chrome/Edge, Firefox
Disagreed. The weapon does the damage. You could use it - and it would immediately disappear.
Also weird choice when a cantrip does more damage and is already magical and uses your primary stat (int) instead of a secondary (dex).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Strictly speaking in 5e ammunition doesn't do damage, weapons do; ammunition is just a weapon property that means you need ammunition (arrows, bolts etc.) and a free hand to reload with in order to attack with the weapon (or keep attacking with it).
While it's possible to get special ammunition that affects your attack when used, it's still the weapon that is setting the base damage so there is no circumstance in which you are not also using the weapon to deal damage if an attack is made using it.
Only exception I can think of is maybe something like conjure barrage which only uses the weapon to fire "a piece of ammunition" but then completely changes it's effect, so you're not really making a weapon attack at any point. But that's a pretty big stretch (and a non-Wizard spell).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
This sounds like the magic is imparted to the ammo which then does the damage... and the weapon is just used to fire the ammo, not deal the damage. If the magical enchantment is imparted onto the ammo and the ammo is striking the target while the ranged weapon remains in your hand and doesn't actually deal any damage itself doesn't that mean the hand crossbow created with minor conjuration would be ok?
If you're not dealing damage with the crossbow then where is your damage coming from?
Another way of looking at it is to consider the implications of this "ammo does the damage, not the weapon" line of thinking; if the ammunition is the only part dealing damage, then isn't this also true of a longsword wielded by a character, since the weapon is dealing the damage but the character isn't? That could set a very destructive precedent in the rules as you'd lose any ability to trigger features that occur when you deal damage (since only creatures performing unarmed strikes could ever truly be doing that). Consider a Fiend Warlock who gains temporary hit-points when they reduce an enemy to 0 hit-points; if it was in fact their ammunition that did the damage, then the Warlock could never reduce a target to 0 hp, since it's never them doing it.
If we instead assume that a creature wielding a melee weapon is said to have dealt damage when it uses the weapon, then so too must a creature that throws a weapon (such as a dagger) to make a ranged attack, and what is a bow and arrow if not another means of throwing/propelling a projectile? So following that line of reasoning, the ammo, bow/crossbow, and creature must all be dealing damage for rules purposes, especially since the bow/crossbow sets the damage dice, the creature sets the modifier (usually Dexterity for ranged) and the ammo makes it possible to use the weapon etc.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Prestidigitation can also be broken (depending on the DM). Using a similar example with purple worm poison, cast prestidigitation on the poison to make it appear (to the senses) as wine (garnet colored, smells and tastes like wine, etc). Send over a complimentary glass of purple worm poison wine to someone you want to off. Collect XP.
Prestidigitation can also be broken (depending on the DM). Using a similar example with purple worm poison, cast prestidigitation on the poison to make it appear (to the senses) as wine (garnet colored, smells and tastes like wine, etc). Send over a complimentary glass of purple worm poison wine to someone you want to off. Collect XP.
That would depend a lot on how much like wine your DM rules the poison to be; prestidigitation can only affect the flavour and smell, not the appearance or consistency. You could certainly use it to help you mask the poison, e.g- by mixing it into ordinary wine, but that feels like some kind of check is needed to see how well you mask the poison, in which case prestidigitation might only be giving you a bonus to the roll (e.g- advantage).
It also wouldn't affect detect poison and disease, which you have to assume high value targets might have some kind of access to through a bodyguard, magic item or such. Or they can just do it old-school and have someone test their food and drink, so it's not just about poisoning the drink, it's about doing so in a way that the tester isn't affected, or poisoning it after it's tested.
In short, there's plenty of ways for a DM to reasonably rein in any potential abuse of this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I might have missed some errata or sage advice etc. making this a moot point, and if so point it out, but Minor Conjuration might be one of the most busted second level features in the game, possibly exceeding moon druids (A weapon to surpass metal gear!). "How?" you might ask, "it can only conjure non magical items right?". This would be correct, but there is something that comes to mind that isn't magical, POISONS. Poisons from the DMG aren't magic, and can do some really sick damage. Purple Worm Poison is a DC 19 con save for 12d6 poison damage, more than a fireball! Now imagine combining that with three rogue levels for thief! Bonus action poison your weapon for an added 12d6! Now obviously this is relying on a few assumptions.
A. Minor Conjuration can make liquids that can be used.
B. Your DM would let you see Purple Worm Venom (You don't actually need to buy it, only look at it.)
C. Your dm will reward your creativity and desire to make thief a good archtype by allowing you to become the highest damage output over time in the party, since this stuff doesn't cost resources.
A. Yes Minor Conjuration can make liquids that can be used. The object created only lasts for an hour but that should be plenty of time to use it. It does take an action to make the object though, so a little planning might be needed (1st round make poison and apply it to weapon, 2nd round to attack...?).
B. If you can imagine a situation in which you can see Purple Worm Venom, and then realize it without anything harmful happening to you, good luck. The only 3 that jump to the forefront of my mind without giving it any thought are:
1. You fight a Purple Worm (or some such similar thing that allows you to see Purple Worm venom).
2. You deal with the black market that sells it (thieves' guilds, assassins etc.)
3. You find an alchemist or apothecary who has some.
I don't think the DM would make it easy if he is aware of what you're up to. Some may not allow access to a poison that does 12d6 until mid to late levels.
As a sidenote, Thief is a great Archetype.
Minor Conjuration can be just as broken as the Sage background (Researcher feature).
B I just realized something. You don't need to see something to create an illusion of it with minor illusion, so you can just create an illusion of purple worm poison, and then create it with minor conjuration.
So here's the thing, I would say that Minor Conjuration is busted, but not for that reason. You can make really useful stuff, but it disappears "if it takes or deals any damage."
Source: https://www.dndbeyond.com/classes/wizard#SchoolofConjuration
Now everything you know has disappeared
It's gonna get weird...
Is there a specific ruling that says Minor Conjuration can make a fluid?
A fluid is technically non-discrete and can be continuously divided without functionally changing it. (Whereas a broken stone or sword would be obviously broken.)
A minor illusion is an image, not the object itself, so looking at an illusion of an object is not equivalent to seeing the thing itself.
Were this not the case, many spells would suddenly break.
An item created with Minor Conjuration disappears if it takes or deals any damage. I would rule that pouring or spreading a poison on a blade effectively damages it, and it would immediately vanish before being able to apply any kind of effect. This would also apply to consuming food or water created this way.
no the damage happens from the dagger or sword or whatever and then it breaks the magic effect because it dealt damage, not dealing any poison damage. Order of events.
I'd say hell yah, you make the crazy worm poison....k..you apply it...you blade seeths....you crit your victim in the back...role dagger damage....poison disappears.
You didn't conjure the sword you conjured the poison, the poison would do its damage than disappear. Your saying the sword hitting and doing a d8 damage would make the poison go away.. has the poison done damage? no? than it doesn't go away (if the DM has allowed this to work in the first place)
It would stop repeated uses of the same conjured poison though and require the wizard to conjuration it again and reapply it.
Minor Conjuration is pretty busted.
A conversation with the DM to determine some of it's limits should be in order before each campaign.
As worded, it should be able to create a liquid. Opinions differ on whether a coiled rope can be created, I personally think this is just a player's ingenuity.
Things like Thieves' Tools depend on a DM's ruling but if you can't create them as 1 item, remember that you can create them individually. (A lockpick when needed, and other items as desired.)
Coating a weapon with poison, or creating food or water... doesn't do any damage that I can see.
How?
choosing to see something using the feature
so... it will still work the same.
step one: make poison
step two: attack enemy
step three: enemy takes damage
step four: poison vanishes
if you didnt see the object, u cant create it...
a fluid is not non-discrete.
Yes, but it still deals the damage before it poofs out of exsistance.
I don't think that you can say the crossbow doesn't do the damage, so it won't disappear, and at the same time make the damage from the crossbow magical. The damage from the crossbow would be magical, if you would hit someone with it, not shoot it.
Check out my Browser Extension: BeyondMarkdown, which seamlessly converts markdown in character and encounter notes into beautifully formatted HTML, making note-taking more efficient and readable. GitHub, Chrome/Edge, Firefox
Disagreed. The weapon does the damage. You could use it - and it would immediately disappear.
Also weird choice when a cantrip does more damage and is already magical and uses your primary stat (int) instead of a secondary (dex).
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Strictly speaking in 5e ammunition doesn't do damage, weapons do; ammunition is just a weapon property that means you need ammunition (arrows, bolts etc.) and a free hand to reload with in order to attack with the weapon (or keep attacking with it).
While it's possible to get special ammunition that affects your attack when used, it's still the weapon that is setting the base damage so there is no circumstance in which you are not also using the weapon to deal damage if an attack is made using it.
Only exception I can think of is maybe something like conjure barrage which only uses the weapon to fire "a piece of ammunition" but then completely changes it's effect, so you're not really making a weapon attack at any point. But that's a pretty big stretch (and a non-Wizard spell).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
If you're not dealing damage with the crossbow then where is your damage coming from?
Another way of looking at it is to consider the implications of this "ammo does the damage, not the weapon" line of thinking; if the ammunition is the only part dealing damage, then isn't this also true of a longsword wielded by a character, since the weapon is dealing the damage but the character isn't? That could set a very destructive precedent in the rules as you'd lose any ability to trigger features that occur when you deal damage (since only creatures performing unarmed strikes could ever truly be doing that). Consider a Fiend Warlock who gains temporary hit-points when they reduce an enemy to 0 hit-points; if it was in fact their ammunition that did the damage, then the Warlock could never reduce a target to 0 hp, since it's never them doing it.
If we instead assume that a creature wielding a melee weapon is said to have dealt damage when it uses the weapon, then so too must a creature that throws a weapon (such as a dagger) to make a ranged attack, and what is a bow and arrow if not another means of throwing/propelling a projectile? So following that line of reasoning, the ammo, bow/crossbow, and creature must all be dealing damage for rules purposes, especially since the bow/crossbow sets the damage dice, the creature sets the modifier (usually Dexterity for ranged) and the ammo makes it possible to use the weapon etc.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Prestidigitation can also be broken (depending on the DM). Using a similar example with purple worm poison, cast prestidigitation on the poison to make it appear (to the senses) as wine (garnet colored, smells and tastes like wine, etc). Send over a complimentary glass of purple worm poison wine to someone you want to off. Collect XP.
Started playing AD&D in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in 2023
That would depend a lot on how much like wine your DM rules the poison to be; prestidigitation can only affect the flavour and smell, not the appearance or consistency. You could certainly use it to help you mask the poison, e.g- by mixing it into ordinary wine, but that feels like some kind of check is needed to see how well you mask the poison, in which case prestidigitation might only be giving you a bonus to the roll (e.g- advantage).
It also wouldn't affect detect poison and disease, which you have to assume high value targets might have some kind of access to through a bodyguard, magic item or such. Or they can just do it old-school and have someone test their food and drink, so it's not just about poisoning the drink, it's about doing so in a way that the tester isn't affected, or poisoning it after it's tested.
In short, there's plenty of ways for a DM to reasonably rein in any potential abuse of this.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.