I've been looking at the limitations for Minor Conjuration and no where in its description or any Errata I know of does it limit the gold value of the conjured item you're basically duplicating.

If you've gone into a jeweller's and seen a super pricey diamond, what stops you conjuring a copy of it later to use as a spell component?

It'll be 10 lbs or less, it's 3 ft or less on a side, it's inanimate, it's a simple single object, you've seen it, and... That's it. There are no more restrictions for conjuring an item.

I have not seen any rule preventing conjured items from being usable as components - noting this is a "conjuration" effect: you create a physical thing, it is not an illusion.

Jeremy Crawford said it creates an object worth 0 gp, in this tweet back in 2016. However, that is not a rule anywhere in the Book and is not in any Errata.

So, what is there to stop a conjuration wizard using this for pricey spell components?

Please note, I am fully aware of DM's final say and stuff. I'm not looking for discussion on DM Fiat or whether you allow it in your games (that's what the DM's forum is for), - I want to know if there is some restriction or limitation I am not seeing based on the Rules As Written in an official source (PHB, Errata, DMG etc) - Sage Advice is not a rules source - it's advice on rule interpretation and not what I'm after, like JC seeminly inventing the 0 gp rule: I'm only wanting what can be quoted or directly taken from an actual source book.

Many thanks.

Nowhere in the description or any errata does it give the newly conjured object any value, gold or otherwise. Nowhere does it say that the new object will have the same value as the original object. It is clearly a different object as it is "visibly magical, radiating light out to 5 ft." This newly created object is a facsimile and not given a value anywhere, and Jeremy Crawford is simply stating that fact. So in spells that require a component with a specific value, this new object will not work.

That’s a DM ruling. I’d let it work for an Arcane focus or material components that don’t have a GP value, but not for components that have a GP value. But that’s me. Every DM will be different because it isn’t written in the rules. 

It is a tough argument for either side. The feature doesn't say the conjured object has any properties other than appearance, size, shape, and weight. So you could say by RAW, the object does not have a value.

Definitely a DM call, but I can't imagine a DM allowing this.

It does say "The object disappears after 1 hour, when you use this feature again, or if it takes or deals any damage." So you are limited to spells that have a casting time of less than an hour, and that specifically require only one object -- which might throw out any spells that require a component like diamond or ruby dust, and possibly spells that don't specify the breakdown of cost between items, like '10 gp worth of charcoal, incense, and herbs.'

Quote from pocketmouse >>

It does say "The object disappears after 1 hour, when you use this feature again, or if it takes or deals any damage." So you are limited to spells that have a casting time of less than an hour, and that specifically require only one object -- which might throw out any spells that require a component like diamond or ruby dust, and possibly spells that don't specify the breakdown of cost between items, like '10 gp worth of charcoal, incense, and herbs.'

 Also, I guess there is some consideration as to whether a spell that "consumes" an item therefore causes that item to "take damage" and if so whether that means the item disappears and if it does whether that is before or after the spell is cast. At issue there are two things that cause the item to wink out of existence, taking damage and being consumed by the casting. There aren't really rules on how those things might interact, I think because they're not really written with the intention that they might. Since it isn't clear, I'd be inclined to say that the spell fails. After all, if it were possible to make magic out of magical components already, then why would any spells require mundane components at all?

As an aside, this is what I'd imagine happening: the spell starts to consume the item, then its conjured nature causes it to wink out of existence, causing the spell to fail (and you to lose the slot anyway).

It doesn't give a specific value no, but it doesn't say that the item is worthless. The item exists for one hour, which means that have costly components for wizards have long casting times, meaning the item may disappear before the casting is complete.

Quote from Inferno523 >>

It doesn't give a specific value no, but it doesn't say that the item is worthless.

 In a game where items of worth all tell you their worth, then by definition a thing without a worth is worthless.

Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

Quote from Inferno523 >>

It doesn't give a specific value no, but it doesn't say that the item is worthless.

 True, but worth is defined in this game. Items of worth have their worth listed. If an item doesn't have a listed worth then as far as the game is concerned, it is worthless.

 
I'm not sure about that. 

The game doesn't list specifically what an owl would cost. Doesn't mean the owl is worthless or free, since there is a precedent for purchasing animals - just not owls specifically.

The tables are there to list examples for trade as a guideline but are not designed to be a restricted list. There will be many objects and animals of all sorts of make and origin and all may have value. The tables and lists in the books are there to give guidelines for DMs to make ad hoc judgements. So items not listed with a specific cost can still have cost and value - just it is left to DM to decide what it is. That's different from stating it is worthless. The concept of "if nothing defines an object's value it has none" is quite a broken one given the sheer volume of things that will be in games that don't have a defined value. 

Don't get me wrong, I would not allow the minor conjuration object to be used as a material component, regardless of what is conjured, but it would be nice to have a RAW reasoning but as of yet don't see one. I can see they're trying for the whole "the object is just magic made into the form of the object" but then the resulting object still has all aspects of the copied target - because familiars also are just fey spirits made into a animal, yet it still has all the aspects of that animal. Especially since pretty much everything in D&D is made of magic in some way, because they use magic not physics hence why creatures have physics-defying abilities. The source of all things in D&D is magic/divinity, not physics. This is how Druids work - by connecting to the "magic" in the natural world around them. There's also the problem that while there are tables that give some things a value there is nothing that states why it has that value or how the value was determined. Value is normally determined by those wishing to acquire it. Something is worth whatever one wants to pay for it. Yet we cannot have that system in D&D because the Material component costs would be a nightmare to track. Even in real world the trade value of gold changes literally every minute. Yet a fixed system fails because it requires a fixed list and no list can exist to cover everything and yet cannot reconcile things not on the list being worthless. 

This ability is so improperly defined. I understand it's tricky - the function of conjuring whatever object you need without the OP ability to just sell it off for infinite money or bypassing other balance mechanics (like the extremely flawed system of Material components). Yet, the answer is simple, they could just have a line reading "when used as a Material component for spells the conjured object is considered to not have a gold value" or simply "the conjured object cannot be used as a Material component for spells" and wham, done, all nifty. They didn't.  Multiple errata, still not added despite JC's tweet. Why?

I brought this up as a thought exercise to highlight issues with "value" and material components in D&D 5th Edition.

I agree that the various tables of items and values are by no means exhaustive. The intent of the feature is pretty clearly not to allow infinite money exploits, but the (very old) original question pertains to RAW. So, here’s how I read it:

Minor Conjuration doesn’t actually create copies of anything. Consider this line: “its form must be that of a nonmagical object that you have seen.” Nothing about the text suggests you can make a bar of gold, for example. Rather, you can make a vague magical object that looks like a bar of gold.

Whether or not what you create has a value is, I think, a moot point. Revivify needs 300gp worth of diamonds, and while you can make something that has the form of diamond, it simply is not a diamond, and I don’t think anything in the feature text suggests that it could be a diamond.

Quote from SagaTympana >>

I agree that the various tables of items and values are by no means exhaustive. The intent of the feature is pretty clearly not to allow infinite money exploits, but the (very old) original question pertains to RAW. So, here’s how I read it:

Minor Conjuration doesn’t actually create copies of anything. Consider this line: “its form must be that of a nonmagical object that you have seen.” Nothing about the text suggests you can make a bar of gold, for example. Rather, you can make a vague magical object that looks like a bar of gold.

Whether or not what you create has a value is, I think, a moot point. Revivify needs 300gp worth of diamonds, and while you can make something that has the form of diamond, it simply is not a diamond, and I don’t think anything in the feature text suggests that it could be a diamond.

 I second this.  If creation can't create an object that can be used as a spell component, then I see no reason why a 2nd level class ability can.  It's obvious that the properties don't match the actual properties of a component item (temporary, destroyed upon any damage, and magical/glowing).  It looks like a component item, and you could call it a component item, but thats like saying a lifelike paper mache model of a gold bar (or to be more relevant to modern discourse, a cake that looks exactly like a gold bar) is the same as a real gold bar...

Creation can't be used as a component, because it says it can't explicitly. "Using any material created by this spell as another spell's material component causes that spell to fail." No reason to impute the same restriction to other spells and abilities that don't have that limiting sentence, because clearly, 5E knows how to write that when they mean it. That would be like saying... "well, Polymorph can only turn you into beasts, and Alter Self is a lower level spell, so I see no reason why Alter Self should let you change your appearance to "appear as a creature" of any type other than Beast." No, that's not how that works, look to a spell or feature to tell you what it does, not by reading unwritten restrictions merely because another spell has explicit restrictions. 

Quote from SagaTympana >>

I agree that the various tables of items and values are by no means exhaustive. The intent of the feature is pretty clearly not to allow infinite money exploits, but the (very old) original question pertains to RAW. So, here’s how I read it:

Minor Conjuration doesn’t actually create copies of anything. Consider this line: “its form must be that of a nonmagical object that you have seen.” Nothing about the text suggests you can make a bar of gold, for example. Rather, you can make a vague magical object that looks like a bar of gold.

Whether or not what you create has a value is, I think, a moot point. Revivify needs 300gp worth of diamonds, and while you can make something that has the form of diamond, it simply is not a diamond, and I don’t think anything in the feature text suggests that it could be a diamond.

It's not vague.  The restrictions on the object are listed in the ability; no others exist.  You can absolutely use the ability for infinite money directly, for example, by conjuring platinum coins - it's on you convincing someone to take glowing currency, of course, and once the money starts disappearing, you may find yourself a wanted individual in short order if you've been doing this a lot.  But certainly in all respects that matter, if you conjure a platinum coin, you have a dimly glowing, visibly magical platinum coin. 

The limits are no bigger than 3x3x3 feet, no more than 10 pounds, nonmagical, and you've seen it at least once.  An example of how the conjured object isn't vague: you can conjure a key you've seen once.  The conjured key will work in any lock the original key worked in.  The rules on currency are 50 coins per pound, so you could e.g. conjure a 10 pound platinum bar, which merchants would accept as equivalent to 500 platinum (again, if you could convince them to overlook the obvious glow, and remember, literally all Conjurers can do this, so merchants in major cities pretty certainly already know how to spot obviously conjured platinum that will evaporate in an hour).  The conjurer would have needed to have seen such a bar at least once.

There's really no question you can use this trick to conjure spell components that don't cost anything - for example, the strip of white cloth used in Aid.  You can't use it to provide multiple objects at once (see e.g. Alarm), and it's a fine question how the word "object" is defined for matter in various exotic states: can you summon liquids, gasses, and plasmas?  I would argue yes.  What about powders? I would argue no, or at least not usefully; each individual particle of that counts as a distinct object, surely, meaning you can conjure a single iron filing or fleck of flour, for example, but not a heap of them.  So it can get involved, for sure, since the word object is not well-defined.  The easier solution here (for the conjurer) is that you can definitely conjure a focus, and very few casters have no rules at all for using a focus (Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights are the only two now, I think, now that Tasha's has let Rangers use foci).

The easiest way to solve the problem of expensive components is what I said above: rule that the world is full of level 2 conjurers, so everyone knows about conjured items, and they are considered worthless.  Hey presto, problem solved. 

Quote from Chicken_Champ >>

Creation can't be used as a component, because it says it can't explicitly. "Using any material created by this spell as another spell's material component causes that spell to fail." No reason to impute the same restriction to other spells and abilities that don't have that limiting sentence, because clearly, 5E knows how to write that when they mean it. That would be like saying... "well, Polymorph can only turn you into beasts, and Alter Self is a lower level spell, so I see no reason why Alter Self should let you change your appearance to "appear as a creature" of any type other than Beast." No, that's not how that works, look to a spell or feature to tell you what it does, not by reading unwritten restrictions merely because another spell has explicit restrictions. 

 

I've thought about this a little more:  I think the ability should be able to create non-valued components.  If you can use it to make an arcane focus, there is no reason you shouldn't be able to also create the components an arcane focus can sub for.  I do draw the line at components with a value.  I rule in my games that value is inherent with regards to spell casting, so the "market price" of an object doesn't matter.  If I make an object with the form of a diamond worth 500 gp, I can't use it to cast raise dead, because the actual inherent value of the object is not 500gp (you can argue it has no set value inherently), even if I can convince someone to pay me 500gp for it (probably unlikely, since there are highly identifiable traits of it, including the fact that it glows and is destroyed if it sustains any damage at all).

For the record, in the real world and in media, merchants bit or dented gold coinage to prove it was real and pure.  If merchants in D&D did any sort of similar test on precious metals, any gold/other metals made by this ability would instantly disappear as it has sustained superficial damage in the testing.  

Quote from iconarising >>

For the record, in the real world and in media, merchants bit or dented gold coinage to prove it was real and pure.  If merchants in D&D did any sort of similar test on precious metals, any gold/other metals made by this ability would instantly disappear as it has sustained superficial damage in the testing.  

 While I may disagree with you about the value rulings for conjured components, this is an excellent idea of how merchants should test weird glowing coins to make them vanish, I'll remember that! The primary risk that I see Minor Conjuration causing a DM is not that a wizard gets to cast a spell that they know, but rather that the party tries to abuse economies by tossing around solid diamond bars or whatever. This is a good fix for that, without telling players "you can't" outright. 

I am not able to find anything either in the DMG and PHB, so it seems a bit ambiguous. I think it is also worth noting that College of Creation Bards can also conjure objects and their Performance of Creation does not mention that the conjured object cannot be used as material components either, although their conjured objects do have a cost limit.

Due to the value placed on creativity and imagination, D&D seems to operate under "everything is allowed unless it is stated to be not allowed" rather than "nothing is allowed unless it is stated to be allowed". While I cannot say what RAW nor RAI wants, allowing Minor Conjuration to have value seems to fit RAF.

On the other hand, as SagaTympana says, that line in Minor Conjuration seems to imply that conjured object merely looks like the real object it is based off of, not that it is a real object. I personally lean towards this ruling since it seems closer to RAW, but I do not feel comfortable saying that this is actually RAW either since the wording is still pretty vague at the end of the day. If they wanted to disallow Minor Conjuration objects to be used as materials, I think they would have said so more explicitly à la Creation.

While Sage Advice is not RAW, Sage Advice Compendium is a collection of official rulings from WOTC though, so I think SAC counts as RAW while SA does not. I am not able to find anything in SAC either, and SAC only mentions Minor Conjuration once in regards to creating a copy of a book rather than about whether it has value.

It is hard to measure the value of something bound to dissapear in one hour, but anyone who recognizes this 'gem' as a trick of a conjurer, which most shops adventurers go to will, will most certainly not accept is as payment. There it would hava value of 0 gp. To a cabbage farmer on the streets where bright light is all around, it might not seem obvious to him. See it as Leprechaun Gold from Harry Potter. 

As a DM, I would probably rule that if the item is consumed, you can't use minor conjuration, but if it isn't, it can be used. Some expensive spell foci may not be easy to find without buying though, such as the material component for contingency, where you need a little statuette of yourself from ivory decorated with gems.

I feel alot of responses forget this is a conjured item not transmuted not evoked and not illusion either. It's come from somewhere conjuration doesn't create things like evocation nor does it change the air into something like if this was transmutation it's not a fake thing as an illusion either it's being pulled from somewhere in the multiverse.

Also of note for the biting remember objects often have a dmg threshold as biting doesn't actually do anything beyond superficial it may raw not count depending on if the dm applies a dmg threshold.

Personally I feel raw this very much does work for valued objects due to it being conjured from somewhere. As for x gp diamonds ECT in general if the player is willing to fork over 50k for the diamond that's pretty much all you need if you look at it as inherently worth 50k gp that implies mystra or Shar give a flying **** about gold or diamonds and went around the world specifically valuing every material component and enforce that value on merchants to this day.

Maybe I missed a reply up above, but the PHB specifically excludes Gems pg 119. It also mentions only wood, stone iron, copper and silver. If they wanted to include gold or other high value substances they would have included it. 

Quote from LordStormofMystra >>

Maybe I missed a reply up above, but the PHB specifically excludes Gems pg 119. It also mentions only wood, stone iron, copper and silver. If they wanted to include gold or other high value substances they would have included it. 

 
I think you are reading the wrong thing. We're talking about Minor Conjuration - a feature of the School of Conjuration Wizard subclass.