Also just one more thing, sage advice does address that if (concerning a book and its writing for the detail, but still references the multipart)" In the case of a multipart object, the intent is that you must have seen all parts of the object to duplicate those parts."
Also in reference to the item being damaged for state of disappearance. (2nd info source)
Being able to conjure a multipart object easily (3rd info source)
Can Minor Conjuration create a copy of a book, complete with all its text, if the wizard hasn’t seen all the text?
No. In the case of a multipart object, the intent is that you must have seen all parts of the object to duplicate those parts. In the case of a book, if you have seen only the cover, then the duplicate created will be a copy of the cover, and the pages will be blank. (Minor Conjuration)
Then I create a loaf of bread on the sly and give it to my barbarian, ancient Chinese recipe- an hour later he is hungry again. I hate how this thread dissolved into grammar police and rules lawyers, it is all up to your DM anyway. I allow anything that is generally harmless and double allow if it is fun because that is the spirit of the game. My player made a saw, did not damage another creature and live acted the hasty sawing on the rope bridge, we laughed, he regularly uses it to conjure a pipe that is loaded with tobacco that is already lit, then prestidigitation to gandalf shapes with the smoke, allowed. If Tasha can put chicken legs on a magic missile why not encourage the player to have fun with it. The components that cost money are not allowed at my table, most folk don’t realize that those are really there to keep the players treasure hunting. Costly spells and training are meant to lighten their coffers so they will go back to work instead of settle down with their hoard at bag-end. There is a spell that creates an item that specifically says if used to make a spell component the spell fails. If you can’t do it with a leveled spell you should not get it for free. I think this is why pirates bury treasure because it is more about the journey than the destination.
I love the ability because it encourages creativity. It is valuable to role play and replaces itemizing all the gear you wish you could carry around but without the encumbrance. Final RAI, if it makes someone laugh it is permissable.
Then I create a loaf of bread on the sly and give it to my barbarian, ancient Chinese recipe- an hour later he is hungry again. I hate how this thread dissolved into grammar police and rules lawyers, it is all up to your DM anyway. I allow anything that is generally harmless and double allow if it is fun because that is the spirit of the game. My player made a saw, did not damage another creature and live acted the hasty sawing on the rope bridge, we laughed, he regularly uses it to conjure a pipe that is loaded with tobacco that is already lit, then prestidigitation to gandalf shapes with the smoke, allowed. If Tasha can put chicken legs on a magic missile why not encourage the player to have fun with it. The components that cost money are not allowed at my table, most folk don’t realize that those are really there to keep the players treasure hunting. Costly spells and training are meant to lighten their coffers so they will go back to work instead of settle down with their hoard at bag-end. There is a spell that creates an item that specifically says if used to make a spell component the spell fails. If you can’t do it with a leveled spell you should not get it for free. I think this is why pirates bury treasure because it is more about the journey than the destination.
I love the ability because it encourages creativity. It is valuable to role play and replaces itemizing all the gear you wish you could carry around but without the encumbrance. Final RAI, if it makes someone laugh it is permissable.
Tell that to creation bards. It very specifically lets them create components out of thin air.
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.
Then I create a loaf of bread on the sly and give it to my barbarian, ancient Chinese recipe- an hour later he is hungry again. I hate how this thread dissolved into grammar police and rules lawyers, it is all up to your DM anyway. I allow anything that is generally harmless and double allow if it is fun because that is the spirit of the game. My player made a saw, did not damage another creature and live acted the hasty sawing on the rope bridge, we laughed, he regularly uses it to conjure a pipe that is loaded with tobacco that is already lit, then prestidigitation to gandalf shapes with the smoke, allowed. If Tasha can put chicken legs on a magic missile why not encourage the player to have fun with it. The components that cost money are not allowed at my table, most folk don’t realize that those are really there to keep the players treasure hunting. Costly spells and training are meant to lighten their coffers so they will go back to work instead of settle down with their hoard at bag-end. There is a spell that creates an item that specifically says if used to make a spell component the spell fails. If you can’t do it with a leveled spell you should not get it for free. I think this is why pirates bury treasure because it is more about the journey than the destination.
I love the ability because it encourages creativity. It is valuable to role play and replaces itemizing all the gear you wish you could carry around but without the encumbrance. Final RAI, if it makes someone laugh it is permissable.
As a player I generally go by the idea: if it isn’t specifically forbidden it is allowed. As a DM I am often forced to use the idea: if it is not specifically allowed it is forbidden.
sad but rules layers aka 3.5 and elsewhere have led me to this by pushing concept 1 too far and breaking game balance for their own aggrandizement.
of course anything the players can do the NPCs can also do and I’ve had players ask to go back to my original ruling on their idea after I use it on them first or soon after they use it. ( if it is game breaking going from player to NPC then it’s really game breaking going from NPC to player in most cases - who is that party attacking you? It’s your anti selves 1 level higher! - have fun)
This topic interests me. Sorry for the necro, I am making a Conjurer/rogue character and I was looking for suggestions.
RAW The conjured object "can be no larger than 3 feet on a side and weigh no more than 10 pounds, and its form must be that of a nonmagical object you have seen. The object is visibly magical, radiating dim light out to 5 feet".
RAI: "no larger than 3 feet on a side" tells me that you can't summon a 10 foot pole, a standing chair, a bench (longer than 3 feet), a table, or a long rope, although arguably the rope in a coil fits that description, similar to a ball of yarn or a spool of thread. I feel like they needed to elaborate on what they meant by this, as filling a 3x3 cube with a stupid amount of silken rope (however much you can fit into that space) seems that it is also unintended. The weight limit of 10 pounds seems like another arbitrary restriction to prevent you from going too crazy (like making a 200 pound stone slab to drop off a cliff onto enemies or an even more effective adamantine sphere). The 'visibly magical, radiating dim light out to 5 feet' line tells me they don't want you to use it to create fake gold, silver, platinum, adamantium, or mithril to trade as a currency, or trick NPC's into trading their valuables for your conjured item.
Then there's the sage advice. I take into consideration that sage advice (while somewhat affirming) is really just one man's opinion, and that a good DM will make his own judgements based on RAI and rule of cool. Aside from the ones mentioned in this thread, here's Jeremy's response to conjuring a skateboard, "If a conjurer has seen a skateboard, Minor Conjuration can create one. Good luck catching a glimpse of one!" This confirms that objects that are made of many different objects are intended. This opens the door for you to create vials of poison, bags of sand, bags of caltrops, guns, small non-magical contraptions of any kind, ammunition, entire sets of thieves tools, bags of coins, an aquarium with a goldfish in it, and many other things. This also means that if the healing potion was considered non-magical (which in my opinion it is magical), that it would be included on this list. I believe that a healers kit does count as a non-magical item that could be conjured based on these criteria.
Another excerpt from sage advice: "Minor conjuration: object is 3 ft. on a side or less, period." This was in response to a picture asking about length of rope or chain that could be conjured. This tells me that you cannot have a rope or chain longer than 3 feet, a spool of yarn or string. I split this next part off that same sage advice, "Composition is DM's call. It's worth 0 gp; it's a magical facsimile." The value being 0 GP means you cannot use it as a substitution for valuable spell components, and that the actual composition of the item (what it's made of) is up to your DM.
So, after mulling this over, I'm left with even more questions. Is food an item? could I survive on conjuration alone assuming I conjure food to eat every hour? Are non-magical chemicals, acids, poisons, and contents considered part of the item they come in (flask or bottle)? If the DM decides the composition, can I make a 3 foot long bench made of cheese? What if I want to make something that would normally be heavy, but conjure it made of Mithril so it fits the weight requirement? I think there's a lot of options in the ability still, but with so many questions about what is actually allowed (due to all of the restrictions) I feel like it's just going to make using this ability kind of a pain in the butt.
If you make a flask of poison then it would have the damage values of whatever poison you made. There's nothing stating it would only do 1 damage. And if the intent is for the ability to be purely non combat then it would simply be unable to cause damage. Obviously the Dm can make changes, but that's not to say Dm's are incapable of making bad rulings.
Composition might well be “solidified magic” that would explain the glow. What ever you make looks like the object but in the case of something like the coil of rope it’s useless because it’s “solidified” into the shape and appearance of a coil of rope but it’s actually a single solid piece so you can’t uncoil/up loop it.
when you use minor conjuration are you just summoning the object you previously saw to where you are now or are you summoning an identical copy? if it's option one, that would mean that if I saw a goblin charge me with a knife that I could summon it 10 ft. behind me (away from the goblin).
when you use minor conjuration are you just summoning the object you previously saw to where you are now or are you summoning an identical copy? if it's option one, that would mean that if I saw a goblin charge me with a knife that I could summon it 10 ft. behind me (away from the goblin).
You aren't summoning anything, you are creating a object out of thin air, think of it more like a green lantern object, not a summon.
I've been trying find some official ruling on the Catapult spell and it's interaction with minor conjuration items specifically Acids and poisons.
Assuming the DM agrees an object can be composed of multiple substances (such as a skateboard):
RAW says the conjuration poofs away upon taking damage and Catapult deals 3d8 to the target and the object. However Crawford has said "using an item as intended doesn't deal damage to it" and the rules of an acid flask says you can "throw the vial up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact." Smashing the glass is it's intended use so I'd argue that the acid would not go poof and deal damage as normal. Same for oil, Alchemist's Fire, and Contact or inhaled poisons.
I don't think it's that broken as it takes 2 actions for like 3d8 plus 2d6and the having know what you want to summon keeps players from getting purple worm poison or something stupid like that early on.
I would totally allow it under rule of cool cause why not
I wouldn't allow it because the conjured item can certainly be conjured before combat and the spell is cast silently. 3d8+2d6 for a 1st level slot is broken. You have to also consider multiclassing as a few levels of sorc can let you pull off conjuring the acid and casting the spell in a single turn.
You can certainly conjure items for catapult - there just won't be any extra damage from it.
I would allow conjuring liquids but not any that can cause damage - so no acid or poison or scalding water. But you could conjure a nice warm cup of tea or something. I would allow you to conjure oil , however, so you could catapult that onto a target and then set it alight for 1d10 at start of the target's turns for 1 minute (until flames are doused using an action or sufficient water, etc).
Alternatively, I'd allow acids or whatever that would only add an extra 1d4 - the equivalent of a dagger, or dart, which is about the only weapons you could conjure.
The feature is clearly intended primarily for out of combat convenience and utility. It's not intended for you to up a 1st level spell into the equivalent of a 3rd level one.
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.
However Crawford has said "using an item as intended doesn't deal damage to it"
Even if he didn't say it explicitly, this is obviously in reference to persistent items, like an axe or a hammer. Smashing a hammer against a boulder won't count against the hammer's durability.
Consumable items are inherently "broken" upon use. "Smash" and "shatter" are synonymous with "break". The item ceases to be the item at the moment of activation, and instead becomes an effect.
The glass shatters sure, but the liquid isn't taking damage. Summoning it and throwing it wouldn't work based on your interpretation, but that has been confirmed by the devs.
A "vial of acid" is a singular item comprising both the vessel and the liquid. Any part of that breaking means the whole item has broken. The consequences of that are up to the DM.
Where have the Devs specifically confirmed that summoning and throwing a consumable is permitted?
Seems kinda meta to allow non damaging vials like water and oil but not acid or poison. If you think it's broken say they haven't seen acid or poison before and limit it's access. Fire, acid and poison are common resistances/immunities too.
Sure it's strong at early levels but damage isn't that great after you get level 3 spells. By 11th you can 3d12 with cantrips. It's also a save or suck spell so it can totally wiff and the spell is wasted, which is good considering the cheese you can do with it.
Also casting at 3rd level you can yeet a greatsword but the damage is still inline with a fireball (5d8 +2d6 vs 8d6 29 vs 28 averages)
As per my previous posts in this thread, I wouldn't allow vials of oil or water either.
I asked about the devs because unless they've made some new announcement, fluids shouldn't be a practical option. I'd be fine with someone creating a filled vial as perhaps part of scamming a merchant, but consuming it in any meaningful way permanently changes it, which is equivalent to breaking it.
I'm not concerned about it from a game balance perspective. From a purely mechanical and world consistency perspective, it shouldn't be an official use of the ability. Beyond that, I'm happy to let players attempt anything they want with an appropriate ability check.
Wow Im surprised this guide is still getting comments 3 years later. Maybe Conjuration wizards are getting a comeback.
I agree with Memnosyne and Cyb3rm1nd. This is intended as a non combat ability and has specific wording against it doing damage. If you are trying to find some backdoor way for it to deal damage then you missed the point of why I posted this in the first place.
A good test to ask yourself first is: "Is what Im trying to justify doing with minor conjuration intended to cause any damage?" If the answer is anything but "NO", then you probably aren't using it as intended.
If you want to let minor conjuration be able to do damage in your own game, thats fine & it probably wont break your game. But that is a house rule for you & be careful because it does set a precedent players can abuse and could cause headaches down the road. Also this isn't the post for you to be commenting on and I would suggest looking at "Creating Your Own Homebrew Subclass" instead.
Oh a minor thing also, the intended use of a vial is to safely contain whatever is inside it (like acid), not to be smashed. The game has rules for if you smash them, but that isn't why the vials are made.
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.
Assuming your DM was letting things do damage but had a issue with the breaking vial part, you could buy the vials and just conjure the acid. Personally I would not allow it as the clear intent is utility not damage.
The errata and sage advice on this ability combined with the obtuse wording makes it challenging (for me) to draw hard line on it. I don't want to take away a creative player's agency, but I also understand it works best as an all or nothing decision in regards to damaging effects. It's good to know the majority ruling leans towards "utility only."
I'm a bit of a masochist with allowing stupid combos like this if the players can justify it. I think I'll make it tied to an arcana roll for the ability to make the conjuration replicate the effect of a real item. After all the #1 rule of improv is "yes and..."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Also just one more thing, sage advice does address that if (concerning a book and its writing for the detail, but still references the multipart)" In the case of a multipart object, the intent is that you must have seen all parts of the object to duplicate those parts."
Also in reference to the item being damaged for state of disappearance. (2nd info source)
Being able to conjure a multipart object easily (3rd info source)
Can Minor Conjuration create a copy of a book, complete with all its text, if the wizard hasn’t seen all the text?
No. In the case of a multipart object, the intent is that you must have seen all parts of the object to duplicate those parts. In the case of a book, if you have seen only the cover, then the duplicate created will be a copy of the cover, and the pages will be blank. (Minor Conjuration)
https://www.sageadvice.eu/minor-conjuration-errata-means-that-you-can-no-longer-use-conjured-tools-that-damage-materials/
https://www.sageadvice.eu/skateboard-as-minor-conjuration-in-eberron/
Then I create a loaf of bread on the sly and give it to my barbarian, ancient Chinese recipe- an hour later he is hungry again.
I hate how this thread dissolved into grammar police and rules lawyers, it is all up to your DM anyway. I allow anything that is generally harmless and double allow if it is fun because that is the spirit of the game.
My player made a saw, did not damage another creature and live acted the hasty sawing on the rope bridge, we laughed, he regularly uses it to conjure a pipe that is loaded with tobacco that is already lit, then prestidigitation to gandalf shapes with the smoke, allowed. If Tasha can put chicken legs on a magic missile why not encourage the player to have fun with it.
The components that cost money are not allowed at my table, most folk don’t realize that those are really there to keep the players treasure hunting. Costly spells and training are meant to lighten their coffers so they will go back to work instead of settle down with their hoard at bag-end. There is a spell that creates an item that specifically says if used to make a spell component the spell fails. If you can’t do it with a leveled spell you should not get it for free. I think this is why pirates bury treasure because it is more about the journey than the destination.
I love the ability because it encourages creativity. It is valuable to role play and replaces itemizing all the gear you wish you could carry around but without the encumbrance.
Final RAI, if it makes someone laugh it is permissable.
Tell that to creation bards. It very specifically lets them create components out of thin air.
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.
This brought a smile to my face. Thank you
As a player I generally go by the idea: if it isn’t specifically forbidden it is allowed.
As a DM I am often forced to use the idea: if it is not specifically allowed it is forbidden.
sad but rules layers aka 3.5 and elsewhere have led me to this by pushing concept 1 too far and breaking game balance for their own aggrandizement.
of course anything the players can do the NPCs can also do and I’ve had players ask to go back to my original ruling on their idea after I use it on them first or soon after they use it.
( if it is game breaking going from player to NPC then it’s really game breaking going from NPC to player in most cases - who is that party attacking you? It’s your anti selves 1 level higher! - have fun)
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
This topic interests me. Sorry for the necro, I am making a Conjurer/rogue character and I was looking for suggestions.
RAW The conjured object "can be no larger than 3 feet on a side and weigh no more than 10 pounds, and its form must be that of a nonmagical object you have seen. The object is visibly magical, radiating dim light out to 5 feet".
RAI: "no larger than 3 feet on a side" tells me that you can't summon a 10 foot pole, a standing chair, a bench (longer than 3 feet), a table, or a long rope, although arguably the rope in a coil fits that description, similar to a ball of yarn or a spool of thread. I feel like they needed to elaborate on what they meant by this, as filling a 3x3 cube with a stupid amount of silken rope (however much you can fit into that space) seems that it is also unintended. The weight limit of 10 pounds seems like another arbitrary restriction to prevent you from going too crazy (like making a 200 pound stone slab to drop off a cliff onto enemies or an even more effective adamantine sphere). The 'visibly magical, radiating dim light out to 5 feet' line tells me they don't want you to use it to create fake gold, silver, platinum, adamantium, or mithril to trade as a currency, or trick NPC's into trading their valuables for your conjured item.
Then there's the sage advice. I take into consideration that sage advice (while somewhat affirming) is really just one man's opinion, and that a good DM will make his own judgements based on RAI and rule of cool. Aside from the ones mentioned in this thread, here's Jeremy's response to conjuring a skateboard, "If a conjurer has seen a skateboard, Minor Conjuration can create one. Good luck catching a glimpse of one!" This confirms that objects that are made of many different objects are intended. This opens the door for you to create vials of poison, bags of sand, bags of caltrops, guns, small non-magical contraptions of any kind, ammunition, entire sets of thieves tools, bags of coins, an aquarium with a goldfish in it, and many other things. This also means that if the healing potion was considered non-magical (which in my opinion it is magical), that it would be included on this list. I believe that a healers kit does count as a non-magical item that could be conjured based on these criteria.
Another excerpt from sage advice: "Minor conjuration: object is 3 ft. on a side or less, period." This was in response to a picture asking about length of rope or chain that could be conjured. This tells me that you cannot have a rope or chain longer than 3 feet, a spool of yarn or string. I split this next part off that same sage advice, "Composition is DM's call. It's worth 0 gp; it's a magical facsimile." The value being 0 GP means you cannot use it as a substitution for valuable spell components, and that the actual composition of the item (what it's made of) is up to your DM.
So, after mulling this over, I'm left with even more questions. Is food an item? could I survive on conjuration alone assuming I conjure food to eat every hour? Are non-magical chemicals, acids, poisons, and contents considered part of the item they come in (flask or bottle)? If the DM decides the composition, can I make a 3 foot long bench made of cheese? What if I want to make something that would normally be heavy, but conjure it made of Mithril so it fits the weight requirement? I think there's a lot of options in the ability still, but with so many questions about what is actually allowed (due to all of the restrictions) I feel like it's just going to make using this ability kind of a pain in the butt.
If you make a flask of poison then it would have the damage values of whatever poison you made. There's nothing stating it would only do 1 damage. And if the intent is for the ability to be purely non combat then it would simply be unable to cause damage. Obviously the Dm can make changes, but that's not to say Dm's are incapable of making bad rulings.
Composition might well be “solidified magic” that would explain the glow. What ever you make looks like the object but in the case of something like the coil of rope it’s useless because it’s “solidified” into the shape and appearance of a coil of rope but it’s actually a single solid piece so you can’t uncoil/up loop it.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
when you use minor conjuration are you just summoning the object you previously saw to where you are now or are you summoning an identical copy? if it's option one, that would mean that if I saw a goblin charge me with a knife that I could summon it 10 ft. behind me (away from the goblin).
You aren't summoning anything, you are creating a object out of thin air, think of it more like a green lantern object, not a summon.
I've been trying find some official ruling on the Catapult spell and it's interaction with minor conjuration items specifically Acids and poisons.
Assuming the DM agrees an object can be composed of multiple substances (such as a skateboard):
RAW says the conjuration poofs away upon taking damage and Catapult deals 3d8 to the target and the object. However Crawford has said "using an item as intended doesn't deal damage to it" and the rules of an acid flask says you can "throw the vial up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact." Smashing the glass is it's intended use so I'd argue that the acid would not go poof and deal damage as normal. Same for oil, Alchemist's Fire, and Contact or inhaled poisons.
I don't think it's that broken as it takes 2 actions for like 3d8 plus 2d6and the having know what you want to summon keeps players from getting purple worm poison or something stupid like that early on.
I would totally allow it under rule of cool cause why not
I wouldn't allow it because the conjured item can certainly be conjured before combat and the spell is cast silently. 3d8+2d6 for a 1st level slot is broken. You have to also consider multiclassing as a few levels of sorc can let you pull off conjuring the acid and casting the spell in a single turn.
You can certainly conjure items for catapult - there just won't be any extra damage from it.
I would allow conjuring liquids but not any that can cause damage - so no acid or poison or scalding water. But you could conjure a nice warm cup of tea or something. I would allow you to conjure oil , however, so you could catapult that onto a target and then set it alight for 1d10 at start of the target's turns for 1 minute (until flames are doused using an action or sufficient water, etc).
Alternatively, I'd allow acids or whatever that would only add an extra 1d4 - the equivalent of a dagger, or dart, which is about the only weapons you could conjure.
The feature is clearly intended primarily for out of combat convenience and utility. It's not intended for you to up a 1st level spell into the equivalent of a 3rd level one.
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.
Even if he didn't say it explicitly, this is obviously in reference to persistent items, like an axe or a hammer. Smashing a hammer against a boulder won't count against the hammer's durability.
Consumable items are inherently "broken" upon use. "Smash" and "shatter" are synonymous with "break". The item ceases to be the item at the moment of activation, and instead becomes an effect.
The glass shatters sure, but the liquid isn't taking damage. Summoning it and throwing it wouldn't work based on your interpretation, but that has been confirmed by the devs.
A "vial of acid" is a singular item comprising both the vessel and the liquid. Any part of that breaking means the whole item has broken. The consequences of that are up to the DM.
Where have the Devs specifically confirmed that summoning and throwing a consumable is permitted?
Seems kinda meta to allow non damaging vials like water and oil but not acid or poison. If you think it's broken say they haven't seen acid or poison before and limit it's access. Fire, acid and poison are common resistances/immunities too.
Sure it's strong at early levels but damage isn't that great after you get level 3 spells. By 11th you can 3d12 with cantrips. It's also a save or suck spell so it can totally wiff and the spell is wasted, which is good considering the cheese you can do with it.
Also casting at 3rd level you can yeet a greatsword but the damage is still inline with a fireball (5d8 +2d6 vs 8d6 29 vs 28 averages)
As per my previous posts in this thread, I wouldn't allow vials of oil or water either.
I asked about the devs because unless they've made some new announcement, fluids shouldn't be a practical option. I'd be fine with someone creating a filled vial as perhaps part of scamming a merchant, but consuming it in any meaningful way permanently changes it, which is equivalent to breaking it.
I'm not concerned about it from a game balance perspective. From a purely mechanical and world consistency perspective, it shouldn't be an official use of the ability. Beyond that, I'm happy to let players attempt anything they want with an appropriate ability check.
Wow Im surprised this guide is still getting comments 3 years later. Maybe Conjuration wizards are getting a comeback.
I agree with Memnosyne and Cyb3rm1nd. This is intended as a non combat ability and has specific wording against it doing damage. If you are trying to find some backdoor way for it to deal damage then you missed the point of why I posted this in the first place.
A good test to ask yourself first is: "Is what Im trying to justify doing with minor conjuration intended to cause any damage?"
If the answer is anything but "NO", then you probably aren't using it as intended.
If you want to let minor conjuration be able to do damage in your own game, thats fine & it probably wont break your game. But that is a house rule for you & be careful because it does set a precedent players can abuse and could cause headaches down the road. Also this isn't the post for you to be commenting on and I would suggest looking at "Creating Your Own Homebrew Subclass" instead.
Oh a minor thing also, the intended use of a vial is to safely contain whatever is inside it (like acid), not to be smashed. The game has rules for if you smash them, but that isn't why the vials are made.
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
Assuming your DM was letting things do damage but had a issue with the breaking vial part, you could buy the vials and just conjure the acid. Personally I would not allow it as the clear intent is utility not damage.
The errata and sage advice on this ability combined with the obtuse wording makes it challenging (for me) to draw hard line on it. I don't want to take away a creative player's agency, but I also understand it works best as an all or nothing decision in regards to damaging effects. It's good to know the majority ruling leans towards "utility only."
I'm a bit of a masochist with allowing stupid combos like this if the players can justify it. I think I'll make it tied to an arcana roll for the ability to make the conjuration replicate the effect of a real item. After all the #1 rule of improv is "yes and..."