I think when you let damage in its not necessarily people getting creative. Dropping a 3 foot cube of lava on someone isn't that creative, reading the DMG for the best poison isn't creative. Now, ball bearings causing someone to slip and fall off a cliff, grease on a ladder, a cover for a pit trap that works as its not the conjuration doing damage its falling or whatever. .
I agree that simply exploiting an ambiguous game mechanic isn't particularly creative. I also completely support using a Spellcaster, Arcana, or General Intelligence check to enable creative options.
For example, if someone wants to use Ray of Frost to freeze their opponent to a wall for a round, then go ahead and roll d20+Charisma against DC 15+Implausibility check. If they succeed, then more power to them. If they fail, then they wasted an action. If they roll a Nat 1, then there is a mishap.
The important thing is to know what level appropriate damage/effects are, and have a plan for bumping that up or down in line with Advantage and Disadvantage.
Or ya know, let their entire mechanic be based on it, effectively creating a new class style. ex a wiz 2 +X and thief rogue 3 who uses his whole set up for bombs and acids. Have fun with it, aaaannnnd then surprise your players with a creature doing the same thing back to them. XD
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.
I don't know which side of the coin I fall on it when it comes to this class ability interaction and RAW. It seems weird to me that a "non-combat" ability as you put it has specific wording about using an action, a specifically combat-oriented resource. If it was meant to be non-combat then why wouldn't they just say "while not in combat you can do X". Also, there is no wording against an object from minor conjuration dealing damage. The "specific wording against damage" in no way prevents the item from doing damage, instead that damage wording only pertains to how long the object persists - causing it to disappear early if it deals damage. My conjured sword is no less effective than a regular sword, it's just single use.
If you take a look at the level 2 conjuration spell Wristpocket, it also references the term object: "You flick your wrist, causing one object in your hand to vanish. The object, which only you can be holding and can weigh no more than 5 pounds, is transported to an extradimensional space, where it remains for the duration." Given your previous definition of 'object', would you say that this spell cannot affect a vial of acid or poison (or really any type of filled container), because it would only be able to transport the vial and not the liquid it contains since you say those are two distinct things?
Counterpoint: What I do find interesting is the design decision to use different language on the Bard subclass for College of Creation. Their ability states it allows them "to create one nonmagical item" and also has a GP limit on what it can create. This makes me wonder if there is a functional difference between a non-magical item and a non-magical object?
I struggle with the decision in the DMs guide to list a sword as a discrete object, as a sword is typically made of multiple parts - blade, cross guard, hilt, wrap, and pommel. Mechanically, once assembled, they act as a single part which I think is the designer's intention behind that paragraph on objects. Functionally, that doesn't feel too different to me than a vial, stopper, and contents; as once assembled they too operate mechanically as a single object.
I don't feel like there is a solid answer either way as written and that the various sage advice tweets over the years just serve to make this scenario even muddier (i.e. - tweets that state a corpse is an object). I feel like talking with the DM prior to attempting this interaction is really the only way forward.
Could you take the Healer feat and just Conjure a healing kit? whenever you need more badages the old ones will have disappeared, no trash or anything.
Sort of a GM call on whether the kit is one object or a collection of objects. With like a sword at least the parts are stuck together, a healers kit likely is a bunch of loose items in a box. I'd allow it, but I'd try to talk with the player before hand letting them know I may allow things as a rule of cool but try not to generate a ruling based on this to then stretch it to something over powered.
My Conjuration Wizard is now Level 16, and I am finding I am using Minor Conjuration for more fun than anything else now. Want a giant tie-died handkerchief to mop your brow after not getting hit by that bad guy? How about a cup of steaming hot tea while you are waiting for your next turn? Whoopie cushion? Yes, that BBG just sat on it.
Nothing in the feature description says I can’t conjure a Fragmentation Grenade if I have seen one.
I’m pretty sure that the text saying the item disappears if it deals damage gives you one damage roll with the item, not one point of damage, as all of the damage is dealt at once.
What causes you to think that what you summon deals 1 damage and disappears? Weapons are described as dealing damage to anything you attack, but not to themselves. There are even rules for materials and things made of those materials having HP & AC. This applies to weapons, but this is not used when they are used to attack. Its the same thing with throwing a vial of acid, there are rules saying it deals damage, but none saying it takes damage.
I think when you let damage in its not necessarily people getting creative. Dropping a 3 foot cube of lava on someone isn't that creative, reading the DMG for the best poison isn't creative. Now, ball bearings causing someone to slip and fall off a cliff, grease on a ladder, a cover for a pit trap that works as its not the conjuration doing damage its falling or whatever. .
I agree that simply exploiting an ambiguous game mechanic isn't particularly creative. I also completely support using a Spellcaster, Arcana, or General Intelligence check to enable creative options.
For example, if someone wants to use Ray of Frost to freeze their opponent to a wall for a round, then go ahead and roll d20+Charisma against DC 15+Implausibility check. If they succeed, then more power to them. If they fail, then they wasted an action. If they roll a Nat 1, then there is a mishap.
The important thing is to know what level appropriate damage/effects are, and have a plan for bumping that up or down in line with Advantage and Disadvantage.
Or ya know, let their entire mechanic be based on it, effectively creating a new class style. ex a wiz 2 +X and thief rogue 3 who uses his whole set up for bombs and acids. Have fun with it, aaaannnnd then surprise your players with a creature doing the same thing back to them. XD
I don't know which side of the coin I fall on it when it comes to this class ability interaction and RAW. It seems weird to me that a "non-combat" ability as you put it has specific wording about using an action, a specifically combat-oriented resource. If it was meant to be non-combat then why wouldn't they just say "while not in combat you can do X". Also, there is no wording against an object from minor conjuration dealing damage. The "specific wording against damage" in no way prevents the item from doing damage, instead that damage wording only pertains to how long the object persists - causing it to disappear early if it deals damage. My conjured sword is no less effective than a regular sword, it's just single use.
If you take a look at the level 2 conjuration spell Wristpocket, it also references the term object: "You flick your wrist, causing one object in your hand to vanish. The object, which only you can be holding and can weigh no more than 5 pounds, is transported to an extradimensional space, where it remains for the duration." Given your previous definition of 'object', would you say that this spell cannot affect a vial of acid or poison (or really any type of filled container), because it would only be able to transport the vial and not the liquid it contains since you say those are two distinct things?
Counterpoint: What I do find interesting is the design decision to use different language on the Bard subclass for College of Creation. Their ability states it allows them "to create one nonmagical item" and also has a GP limit on what it can create. This makes me wonder if there is a functional difference between a non-magical item and a non-magical object?
I struggle with the decision in the DMs guide to list a sword as a discrete object, as a sword is typically made of multiple parts - blade, cross guard, hilt, wrap, and pommel. Mechanically, once assembled, they act as a single part which I think is the designer's intention behind that paragraph on objects. Functionally, that doesn't feel too different to me than a vial, stopper, and contents; as once assembled they too operate mechanically as a single object.
I don't feel like there is a solid answer either way as written and that the various sage advice tweets over the years just serve to make this scenario even muddier (i.e. - tweets that state a corpse is an object). I feel like talking with the DM prior to attempting this interaction is really the only way forward.
Could you take the Healer feat and just Conjure a healing kit? whenever you need more badages the old ones will have disappeared, no trash or anything.
Would this work?
Sort of a GM call on whether the kit is one object or a collection of objects. With like a sword at least the parts are stuck together, a healers kit likely is a bunch of loose items in a box. I'd allow it, but I'd try to talk with the player before hand letting them know I may allow things as a rule of cool but try not to generate a ruling based on this to then stretch it to something over powered.
My Conjuration Wizard is now Level 16, and I am finding I am using Minor Conjuration for more fun than anything else now. Want a giant tie-died handkerchief to mop your brow after not getting hit by that bad guy? How about a cup of steaming hot tea while you are waiting for your next turn? Whoopie cushion? Yes, that BBG just sat on it.
Nothing in the feature description says I can’t conjure a Fragmentation Grenade if I have seen one.
I’m pretty sure that the text saying the item disappears if it deals damage gives you one damage roll with the item, not one point of damage, as all of the damage is dealt at once.
What causes you to think that what you summon deals 1 damage and disappears? Weapons are described as dealing damage to anything you attack, but not to themselves. There are even rules for materials and things made of those materials having HP & AC. This applies to weapons, but this is not used when they are used to attack. Its the same thing with throwing a vial of acid, there are rules saying it deals damage, but none saying it takes damage.
Bag of caltrops/ball bearings is typically described as 1 item. Try summoning 1 first, then go for further shenanigans.