Yes but the definition of one object is not set in the rules. I'd call a bike one object. But its a frame, wheels, a chain, pedals etc. So someone else might say its 10- items. I'm fine seeing a flask filed with acid as 1 object, a quiver of arrows 1 object.
According to chapter 8 of the DMG (emphasis mine):
When characters need to saw through ropes, shatter a window, or smash a vampire’s coffin, the only hard and fast rule is this: given enough time and the right tools, characters can destroy any destructible object. Use common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object. Can a fighter cut through a section of a stone wall with a sword? No, the sword is likely to break before the wall does.
For the purpose of these rules, an object is adiscrete, 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.
But a door, sword, book, table and chair are all made up of many other objects.
Edit to add and I'm not taking about atomic structures or molecules or something. a sword has discrete parts the blade and handle are two separate parts that are welded together, a door has hinges, wood, screws etc, a book is a cover, and hundreds of pieces of paper, a chair is multiple separate pieces of wood, nails etc. .
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.
Also, that definition is limited to those particular rules about breaking them. Applying them to conjuration wizard's power is taking them out of context, when they specifically say they apply only in a given context.
Edit to add and I'm not taking about atomic structures or molecules or something. a sword has discrete parts the blade and handle are two separate parts that are welded together, a door has hinges, wood, screws etc, a book is a cover, and hundreds of pieces of paper, a chair is multiple separate pieces of wood, nails etc. .
A magically-conjured sword, door, book, or chair could conceivably be made of a single contiguous material. Hm. There's not enough detail to say, but what with the "visibly magical, radiating dim light out to 5 feet" descriptor it wouldn't be too strange to consider it like conjured weapons in Elder Scrolls?
Sure, I'm of the opinion don't word game things to much. If its something you'd buy as a single item in the PH and fits the other restrictions have at it and let them summon it. This isn't wish don't word game it with your players.
I think a worthwhile way of looking at whether an object qualifies or not is to ask "Is this item designed to be modified?"
A quiver with 20 arrows is 21 different discrete objects that is designed to be used in discrete quantities.
A bicycle is designed to have the chain, wheels, seat, etc... removed and replaced regularly.
Most swords are assembled from smaller component pieces, but once constructed often can't be disassembled again. If a well made knife is broken, it can only be salvaged as raw material, not as swappable parts.
A properly bound book can be disassembled by dissolving the adhesive and removing the stitching, but doing so is specialist work. A very small minority of books are "restored".
Whether or not Minor Conjuration can create liquids is interesting because if the object takes any damage, it immediately vanishes. Generally speaking, splitting something in half would constitute damaging it, so dissolving, consuming, or otherwise using a liquid should cause it to vanish before any benefit can be gained.
what do you y'all consider to be an object? can a fluid be considered an object? what about something that is normally a fluid but that has been temporarily frozen? can an single object comprised of multiple parts be a single object? what about a bag of ball bearings or a pile of powder? what about a chain?
Great question. This forum seems to have devolved into a debate about what people believe words mean. Which isn’t fun nor the intent of this guide as I wrote it.
Object (noun) according to the Oxford English dictionary
A material thing that can be seen and touched.
This is the definition I used when I wrote this guide. People don’t have to agree with Oxfords but it is their job to determine what words actually mean. If people don’t agree then don’t use the guide or they can modify it to suit their own needs.
So from the perspective of this guide: is a vial of water or bag of ball bearings an object you can see and touch? Of course they are, so it’s fine. So is a quiver of arrows, so is an hourglass, so is a chain, etc. Your reflection that You can see isn’t an object but the mirror casting it is. Get the idea. These things won’t harm your game if the Wizard conjures them so it’s fine. Ultimately - Use your own judgement and some common sense. And remember it’s intended to be fun. Ask yourself why you want to conjure a specific object. Is it for fun, or character flavour, or to creatively contribute to your party; or are you trying to manipulate the ability to try to gain something beyond what the ability was intended to do(which usually means some combat application)?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
People don’t have to agree with Oxfords but it is their job to determine what words actually mean. If people don’t agree then don’t use the guide or they can modify it to suit their own needs.
it is not the job of some official entity to define what words mean, what words mean is entirely up to how people use those words and meanings will change over time. What oxford do is observe the meanings of words in the sense of how they are commonly used and then writing that shit down
i agree with the rest of your response tho
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
What oxford do is observe the meanings of words in the sense of how they are commonly used
So you are saying they determine what words mean.
Determine (verb)
ascertain or establish exactly, typically as a result of research or calculation.
or Define (the verb you used)
state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.
Both of these are exactly what Oxford does. They research to ascertain the meanings of words and then state them exactly in their dictionaries. I think what you meant to say was "It is not the job of some official entity to create what words mean." And I agree with you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
As an aside to this, does a bow do damage or is it the arrows. If you have a quiver of arrows and summon a bow and shoot people with it, does the bow disappear.
As an aside to this, does a bow do damage or is it the arrows. If you have a quiver of arrows and summon a bow and shoot people with it, does the bow disappear.
From the perspective of this guide (and my opinion) the arrows do the damage. Arrows are the actual things that pierce your body. And Im fine with a wizard conjuring a bow or a sling or crossbow and having it not disappear if they use it as intended, but not conjured ammunition. For example: if an arrow from a conjured quiver of arrows does any damage then everything disappears. In this respect, conjuring a whole quiver full of arrows or a single arrow basically amounts to the same thing. Check with your DM though. Some may say it is the bow or both bow and arrow in conjunction that do damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
Personally, I don't consider the discussion on what constitutes a single object, and what doesn't, particularly pragmatic. The minor conjuration is already plenty limited by the requirements that whatever is created has to be 3x3 feet, has to be non-magical, is obviously and visibly a facsimile, is glowing, is something the wizard has seen before and will vanish if it deals or takes damage.
That already rules out pieces of black holes and pieces of the sun. Pieces of something aren't objects.
But I really don't see the harm in letting a wizard conjure as many of whatever mundane item as will fit within a 3x3 feet cube. Create a box of caltrops that all poof out of existence as soon as someone steps on one of them, or a quiver of arrows that vanishes as soon as one arrow is used.
It's like, yeah, maybe it doesn't pedantically fit the criterion of 'object,' but the limitations of the ability aren't there for the sake of pedantry, they're there for the sake of not breaking the game's balance.
For all intents and purposes the rule might as well be "create whatever you feel like that fits within a 3x3 feet area as long as it doesn't break the game's balance. If you're in doubt as to whether something breaks the game's balance, the answer is probably yes. Maybe just don't do it if you know you're trying to get away with something you shouldn't, you munchkin, but if you really have to push it, ask your dm. For god's sakes accept their answer, though, whatever it is. If you really, really don't like their answer, for instance because your dm for some reason has told you something unreasonable like you can't create a chair, then and only then is your dm the problem. Talk to them about it or find a different dm."
Personally, I don't consider the discussion on what constitutes a single object, and what doesn't, particularly pragmatic. The minor conjuration is already plenty limited by the requirements that whatever is created has to be 3x3 feet, has to be non-magical, is obviously and visibly a facsimile, is glowing, is something the wizard has seen before and will vanish if it deals or takes damage.
That already rules out pieces of black holes and pieces of the sun. Pieces of something aren't objects.
But I really don't see the harm in letting a wizard conjure as many of whatever mundane item as will fit within a 3x3 feet cube. Create a box of caltrops that all poof out of existence as soon as someone steps on one of them, or a quiver of arrows that vanishes as soon as one arrow is used.
It's like, yeah, maybe it doesn't pedantically fit the criterion of 'object,' but the limitations of the ability aren't there for the sake of pedantry, they're there for the sake of not breaking the game's balance.
For all intents and purposes the rule might as well be "create whatever you feel like that fits within a 3x3 feet area as long as it doesn't break the game's balance. If you're in doubt as to whether something breaks the game's balance, the answer is probably yes. Maybe just don't do it if you know you're trying to get away with something you shouldn't, you munchkin, but if you really have to push it, ask your dm. For god's sakes accept their answer, though, whatever it is. If you really, really don't like their answer, for instance because your dm for some reason has told you something unreasonable like you can't create a chair, then and only then is your dm the problem. Talk to them about it or find a different dm."
well if it worked that way you could summon a whole lot of inhaled poison and just throw infinite quantities at your foes to incapacitate them, that would make you a lot more powerful
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Personally, I don't consider the discussion on what constitutes a single object, and what doesn't, particularly pragmatic. The minor conjuration is already plenty limited by the requirements that whatever is created has to be 3x3 feet, has to be non-magical, is obviously and visibly a facsimile, is glowing, is something the wizard has seen before and will vanish if it deals or takes damage.
That already rules out pieces of black holes and pieces of the sun. Pieces of something aren't objects.
But I really don't see the harm in letting a wizard conjure as many of whatever mundane item as will fit within a 3x3 feet cube. Create a box of caltrops that all poof out of existence as soon as someone steps on one of them, or a quiver of arrows that vanishes as soon as one arrow is used.
It's like, yeah, maybe it doesn't pedantically fit the criterion of 'object,' but the limitations of the ability aren't there for the sake of pedantry, they're there for the sake of not breaking the game's balance.
For all intents and purposes the rule might as well be "create whatever you feel like that fits within a 3x3 feet area as long as it doesn't break the game's balance. If you're in doubt as to whether something breaks the game's balance, the answer is probably yes. Maybe just don't do it if you know you're trying to get away with something you shouldn't, you munchkin, but if you really have to push it, ask your dm. For god's sakes accept their answer, though, whatever it is. If you really, really don't like their answer, for instance because your dm for some reason has told you something unreasonable like you can't create a chair, then and only then is your dm the problem. Talk to them about it or find a different dm."
well if it worked that way you could summon a whole lot of inhaled poison and just throw infinite quantities at your foes to incapacitate them, that would make you a lot more powerful
By the RAW I'm not sure you can't, as long as the poison isn't the type to do damage it wouldn't even have to disappear. I don't think that was the intent of the ability but even if gas clouds aren't objects, I would be hard pressed to say liquids aren't. Liquid knock out poisons would seem legit.
If we treat a liquid or gas as a single entity, rather than as a collection of entities, then as soon as it is poured, rubbed, inhaled, or applied, it would break into multiple parts, be definitively "damaged", and discorporate, before it could apply any of its harmful or beneficial traits. A "vial of poison" would remain viable for as long as it is stoppered, but the act using a liquid substantially changes it.
That isnt true an object can be alot of thing you cut out the part from the DMG that says "For the purpose of these rules,..." which means not every object in D&D needs to fit the
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.
For the purposes of what OP was actually asking about, these are the items I could see being used: Vial of Acid, Shatterstick, Tangler Grenade, Antitoxin, Bomb, Fragmentation Grenade, Ball Bearings, Ryath Root, Purple Worm Poison, Blood of Lycanthrope (may not be feasible but still possibly doable), Essence of Ether (sp?), and Malice.
These all seem like very fun (technically mundane) items to conjure up, and it makes the conjure wizard much more feasible to play. Also another fun combo is multiclass this with thief rogue and use action to conjure then fast hands to chuck/ do what is needed with the items.
Even if you use the original ruling for alchemist's fire etc, the description says you need to shatter the glass, which I think is damaging the item so it doesn't do any damage.
The only part I disagree with here is that your conjured arrow or your conjured poison deals 1 damage. When that arrow or dagger hits, I would argue it deals all the damage it would do in that attack or one trigger of an ability at once and then vanishes. For Acid and alchemists fire, it says the object shatters before dealing damage and likewise with oil taking damage as it is lit, so I would say that these items wouldn't deal any at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
According to chapter 8 of the DMG (emphasis mine):
But a door, sword, book, table and chair are all made up of many other objects.
Edit to add and I'm not taking about atomic structures or molecules or something. a sword has discrete parts the blade and handle are two separate parts that are welded together, a door has hinges, wood, screws etc, a book is a cover, and hundreds of pieces of paper, a chair is multiple separate pieces of wood, nails etc. .
Also, that definition is limited to those particular rules about breaking them. Applying them to conjuration wizard's power is taking them out of context, when they specifically say they apply only in a given context.
A magically-conjured sword, door, book, or chair could conceivably be made of a single contiguous material. Hm. There's not enough detail to say, but what with the "visibly magical, radiating dim light out to 5 feet" descriptor it wouldn't be too strange to consider it like conjured weapons in Elder Scrolls?
Sure, I'm of the opinion don't word game things to much. If its something you'd buy as a single item in the PH and fits the other restrictions have at it and let them summon it. This isn't wish don't word game it with your players.
I think a worthwhile way of looking at whether an object qualifies or not is to ask "Is this item designed to be modified?"
A quiver with 20 arrows is 21 different discrete objects that is designed to be used in discrete quantities.
A bicycle is designed to have the chain, wheels, seat, etc... removed and replaced regularly.
Most swords are assembled from smaller component pieces, but once constructed often can't be disassembled again. If a well made knife is broken, it can only be salvaged as raw material, not as swappable parts.
A properly bound book can be disassembled by dissolving the adhesive and removing the stitching, but doing so is specialist work. A very small minority of books are "restored".
Whether or not Minor Conjuration can create liquids is interesting because if the object takes any damage, it immediately vanishes. Generally speaking, splitting something in half would constitute damaging it, so dissolving, consuming, or otherwise using a liquid should cause it to vanish before any benefit can be gained.
Great question. This forum seems to have devolved into a debate about what people believe words mean. Which isn’t fun nor the intent of this guide as I wrote it.
Object (noun) according to the Oxford English dictionary
A material thing that can be seen and touched.
This is the definition I used when I wrote this guide. People don’t have to agree with Oxfords but it is their job to determine what words actually mean. If people don’t agree then don’t use the guide or they can modify it to suit their own needs.
So from the perspective of this guide: is a vial of water or bag of ball bearings an object you can see and touch? Of course they are, so it’s fine. So is a quiver of arrows, so is an hourglass, so is a chain, etc. Your reflection that You can see isn’t an object but the mirror casting it is. Get the idea. These things won’t harm your game if the Wizard conjures them so it’s fine.
Ultimately - Use your own judgement and some common sense. And remember it’s intended to be fun. Ask yourself why you want to conjure a specific object. Is it for fun, or character flavour, or to creatively contribute to your party; or are you trying to manipulate the ability to try to gain something beyond what the ability was intended to do(which usually means some combat application)?
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPPmyTI0tZ6nM-bzY0IG3ww
it is not the job of some official entity to define what words mean, what words mean is entirely up to how people use those words and meanings will change over time. What oxford do is observe the meanings of words in the sense of how they are commonly used and then writing that shit down
i agree with the rest of your response tho
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
So you are saying they determine what words mean.
Determine (verb)
ascertain or establish exactly, typically as a result of research or calculation.
or Define (the verb you used)
state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.
Both of these are exactly what Oxford does. They research to ascertain the meanings of words and then state them exactly in their dictionaries. I think what you meant to say was "It is not the job of some official entity to create what words mean." And I agree with you.
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPPmyTI0tZ6nM-bzY0IG3ww
As an aside to this, does a bow do damage or is it the arrows. If you have a quiver of arrows and summon a bow and shoot people with it, does the bow disappear.
From the perspective of this guide (and my opinion) the arrows do the damage. Arrows are the actual things that pierce your body. And Im fine with a wizard conjuring a bow or a sling or crossbow and having it not disappear if they use it as intended, but not conjured ammunition. For example: if an arrow from a conjured quiver of arrows does any damage then everything disappears. In this respect, conjuring a whole quiver full of arrows or a single arrow basically amounts to the same thing. Check with your DM though. Some may say it is the bow or both bow and arrow in conjunction that do damage.
Check out my Disabled & Dragons Youtube Channel for 5e Monster and Player Tactics. Helping the Disabled Community and Players and DM’s (both new and experienced) get into D&D. Plus there is a talking Dragon named Quill.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPPmyTI0tZ6nM-bzY0IG3ww
Personally, I don't consider the discussion on what constitutes a single object, and what doesn't, particularly pragmatic. The minor conjuration is already plenty limited by the requirements that whatever is created has to be 3x3 feet, has to be non-magical, is obviously and visibly a facsimile, is glowing, is something the wizard has seen before and will vanish if it deals or takes damage.
That already rules out pieces of black holes and pieces of the sun. Pieces of something aren't objects.
But I really don't see the harm in letting a wizard conjure as many of whatever mundane item as will fit within a 3x3 feet cube. Create a box of caltrops that all poof out of existence as soon as someone steps on one of them, or a quiver of arrows that vanishes as soon as one arrow is used.
It's like, yeah, maybe it doesn't pedantically fit the criterion of 'object,' but the limitations of the ability aren't there for the sake of pedantry, they're there for the sake of not breaking the game's balance.
For all intents and purposes the rule might as well be "create whatever you feel like that fits within a 3x3 feet area as long as it doesn't break the game's balance. If you're in doubt as to whether something breaks the game's balance, the answer is probably yes. Maybe just don't do it if you know you're trying to get away with something you shouldn't, you munchkin, but if you really have to push it, ask your dm. For god's sakes accept their answer, though, whatever it is. If you really, really don't like their answer, for instance because your dm for some reason has told you something unreasonable like you can't create a chair, then and only then is your dm the problem. Talk to them about it or find a different dm."
well if it worked that way you could summon a whole lot of inhaled poison and just throw infinite quantities at your foes to incapacitate them, that would make you a lot more powerful
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
By the RAW I'm not sure you can't, as long as the poison isn't the type to do damage it wouldn't even have to disappear. I don't think that was the intent of the ability but even if gas clouds aren't objects, I would be hard pressed to say liquids aren't. Liquid knock out poisons would seem legit.
"An" Object.
If we treat a liquid or gas as a single entity, rather than as a collection of entities, then as soon as it is poured, rubbed, inhaled, or applied, it would break into multiple parts, be definitively "damaged", and discorporate, before it could apply any of its harmful or beneficial traits. A "vial of poison" would remain viable for as long as it is stoppered, but the act using a liquid substantially changes it.
healing potions even the basic ones are literally in the magic item group of things. they are a magic item.
That isnt true an object can be alot of thing you cut out the part from the DMG that says "For the purpose of these rules,..." which means not every object in D&D needs to fit the
For the purposes of what OP was actually asking about, these are the items I could see being used: Vial of Acid, Shatterstick, Tangler Grenade, Antitoxin, Bomb, Fragmentation Grenade, Ball Bearings, Ryath Root, Purple Worm Poison, Blood of Lycanthrope (may not be feasible but still possibly doable), Essence of Ether (sp?), and Malice.
These all seem like very fun (technically mundane) items to conjure up, and it makes the conjure wizard much more feasible to play. Also another fun combo is multiclass this with thief rogue and use action to conjure then fast hands to chuck/ do what is needed with the items.
Even if you use the original ruling for alchemist's fire etc, the description says you need to shatter the glass, which I think is damaging the item so it doesn't do any damage.
The only part I disagree with here is that your conjured arrow or your conjured poison deals 1 damage. When that arrow or dagger hits, I would argue it deals all the damage it would do in that attack or one trigger of an ability at once and then vanishes.
For Acid and alchemists fire, it says the object shatters before dealing damage and likewise with oil taking damage as it is lit, so I would say that these items wouldn't deal any at all.