Hi. As in the title, can this be done? My friend wants to use the ability Minor Conjuration to create spell components, for Identify to be exact. I think it would be too powerful to allow that. It would be a slippery slope. If he can make a 100gp pearl, whats to stop him from creating enough diamonds to bring back the dead? According to the spell it doesn't mention that it can't be used to create valuable items or spell components or that it can only be handled by the Conjurer. Any help would be great. Ty
Sorry, I mean "According to the ABILITY it doesn't mention that it can't be used to create valuable items or spell components or that it can only be handled by the conjurer." not spell
The object you conjure copies the form of the object you have seen, not its [edit]function other properties[/edit] or value. The copy's value is 0. JC confirms this.
JC is free to editorialize all he wants, but the ability provides that "its form [is] that of a nonmagical object that you have seen". It makes no mention of the object being nonfunctional, and JC didn't say that either in his tweet (I think he's saying something about it being up to the DM whether you've replicated soemthing with the same visible exterior versus complex internal composition that you can't see?). His statement about it being worth 0 gp is his own opinion, the ability doesn't mention that at all. Even if a DM were to decide that a shopkeeper wouldn't give you full price for a suspiciously magical diamond, it's still probably up to them whether there really is an inherent "worth" to an object outside of its form and structure that is required for a spell component, because that conjured diamond you hold in your hand is 100% identical to the 100 gp diamond you copied, other than (1) it emanates a magical aura and 5 feet of dim light, and (2) it will disappear in 1 hour.
I think there's some room here for a creative and somewhat self-governing explanation as to why this would not work for spells that consume their material components while maintaining balance in the game. As a DM I would personally play it something like this.
NOTE: This is only for spells that consume material components as they are cast. There's a spreadsheet here that does a good job of breaking down material components.
Character: I invoke my "Minor Conjuration" ability to create the diamond dust needed to cast Stoneskin on our Ranger.
DM: Very well. You successfully conjure 100GP worth of diamond dust. You are now prepared to cast your Stoneskin spell.
Character: I use my action to cast Stoneskin and touch our willing Ranger.
DM: As you cast the spell you sense something strange as the diamond dust is consumed. You soon discover that your spell did not have the intended effect.
Character: Why?
DM: As stated in "School of Conjuration" section of the PHB. "The object disappearsafter 1 hour, when you use this feature again, or if it takes or deals any damage." The Stoneskin spell consumes its material components and would therefore deal "damage" to the conjured diamond dust. Since this happens at the same moment you begin to cast the spell it fails.
Its not perfect, but I think it at least provides a plausible reason to the character why this cannot be used for spells that consume their components. I'll leave it up to the creative community to address other spells that do not consume their components.
JC is free to editorialize all he wants, but the ability provides that "its form [is] that of a nonmagical object that you have seen". It makes no mention of the object being nonfunctional, and JC didn't say that either in his tweet (I think he's saying something about it being up to the DM whether you've replicated soemthing with the same visible exterior versus complex internal composition that you can't see?). His statement about it being worth 0 gp is his own opinion, the ability doesn't mention that at all. Even if a DM were to decide that a shopkeeper wouldn't give you full price for a suspiciously magical diamond, it's still probably up to them whether there really is an inherent "worth" to an object outside of its form and structure that is required for a spell component, because that conjured diamond you hold in your hand is 100% identical to the 100 gp diamond you copied, other than (1) it emanates a magical aura and 5 feet of dim light, and (2) it will disappear in 1 hour.
Sorry, function was a poor word choice. I meant other properties besides form.
We've been over this before that the rules do what they say and don't do what they don't say. In this case the feature creates an object in any form you've seen before (form being physical properties like shape, weight, appearance). The rules do not say the object has any inherent value or properties other than form. The feature also never mentions copy at all, so it is not a copy just a look alike.
Being able to make spell components for free at level 2 breaks the game balance of spells. Obviously, the devs never considered that players would try to use a level 2 ability that makes temporary, fake items with no special properties (other than glows and is obviously magic) to make expensive, high level spell components for no cost when they wrote that feature. But even if the rules don't specifically forbid it, no DM should let their players bypass a game mechanic this way.
What does it break, to reward a specific subclass in some specific limited circumstances? If the ability were intended to be unable to provide spell components, it would say so. Instead, it reproduces the form of a mundane object; is the significance of a component it’s form, it’s value (according to who?) or some other mystical quality? That’s DM territory, the rules provide no guidance in this scenario, and JC has no RAW basis to expand them.
Hi. As in the title, can this be done? My friend wants to use the ability Minor Conjuration to create spell components, for Identify to be exact. I think it would be too powerful to allow that. It would be a slippery slope. If he can make a 100gp pearl, whats to stop him from creating enough diamonds to bring back the dead? According to the spell it doesn't mention that it can't be used to create valuable items or spell components or that it can only be handled by the Conjurer. Any help would be great. Ty
As a DM I would simply rule that you aren't actually creating a pearl worth 100gp, you're creating a magical object with the form of a 100gp pearl, and that the Laws Of Magic say you need the real thing. Which is DM-speak for "that's cheese and I won't allow it at my table" :)
My biggest issue is the potential slippery slope. If no value is specified, then the player I let conjure up a 100gp pearl for Identify is inevitably going to want to conjure up 1500gp worth of ruby dust to cast Forcecage, or a 5000gp diamond to cast Gate. So I'm drawing the line at locally sourced, organic, non-GMO spell components required.
If you pay 500gp for a diamond that is worth 5 gp, would it work to cast Mighty Fortress? If you sell a minor conjuration and an hour after you leave the shop, the item disappears, do you think the shopkeeper will say, "Darn, I guess it was fun while it lasted," or will she send town guard after you? Does a cubic zirconium the size of a 500gp diamond work to cast mighty fortress? Costly spell components are odd to me, because they imply that in the game world, objects have objective worth -- if that is true, then a magical facsimile created by minor conjuration has the worth that the subclass feature assigns to it.
The subclass feature does not discuss worth either way. The DM is free to rule that either way, but physically, it is the same object. Allowing a wizard to cast one spell per day without a spell component cost is not a bad thing, it is a very cool thing, which puts certain under used spells back in the table for certain cheap ass players.
If you pay 500gp for a diamond that is worth 5 gp, would it work to cast Mighty Fortress? If you sell a minor conjuration and an hour after you leave the shop, the item disappears, do you think the shopkeeper will say, "Darn, I guess it was fun while it lasted," or will she send town guard after you? Does a cubic zirconium the size of a 500gp diamond work to cast mighty fortress? Costly spell components are odd to me, because they imply that in the game world, objects have objective worth -- if that is true, then a magical facsimile created by minor conjuration has the worth that the subclass feature assigns to it.
How much are “paintings” worth?
you see them as trash loot to sell sometimes. But giving an objective value to artwork is impossible. Someone might value it 50gold. Someone 2copper. Someone 1000platinum. There’s no rhyme or reason to it, and it would depend on intelligence rolls and their artistic taste.
i use this as an example to agree with you about the “subjectivity” of value of items, and the arbitrary worth system that is in place in 5e that has had faults at times. (This OP instance being a good example)
The subclass feature does not discuss worth either way. The DM is free to rule that either way, but physically, it is the same object. Allowing a wizard to cast one spell per day without a spell component cost is not a bad thing, it is a very cool thing, which puts certain under used spells back in the table for certain cheap ass players.
The feature also doesn't tell you either way whether it gives you 3 wishes a day. The DM is free to rule that it does.
I think it says that the item glows, so I am not really concerned about selling the items, just the fact that it would make costly spell components obsolete & in some cases make normal spell components obsolete as well. But I got some great advise, thanks y'all.
If you pay 500gp for a diamond that is worth 5 gp, would it work to cast Mighty Fortress? ... Costly spell components are odd to me, because they imply that in the game world, objects have objective worth -- if that is true, then a magical facsimile created by minor conjuration has the worth that the subclass feature assigns to it.
As an aside, this possibility does excite me: Player A carries one or more very small diamonds. Player B wants to cast Revivify to save his dear friend, but doesn't have any diamonds, but does have 300 gp. Player A's diamonds are the only ones within reach, the spell has a very short window where it can be cast, demand is very high... so Player B agrees to pay Player A 300 gp for the diamonds they have.
Material component satisfied? Would it be any different if Player A was NPC A? If so, why? Is the essential fuel for the spell that the player lose resources, that the party lose resources, some intrinsic worth of the object separate from external market factors and demand, or the physical size/characteristics of the object which the value is just a shorthand reference for?
I'm more interested in the "why does/doesn't it work" than trying to achieve a specific result. Some DMs may hand out "a 300 gp diamond" mid-dungeon as loot, but other more immersive DMs might just describe that the party found "a diamond" (or even just "a clear gemstone"!). The DM may already know that when the party gets back to town several sessions later there will be a shopkeeper willing to buy that diamond for 300 gp (or... 200-400 gp, depending on the group's haggling efforts?), but from the players' perspective, all they know is that they found "a diamond." Maybe they try to assess it in the field... but is the act of assessing it what empowers it as a material component? Maybe they try to use it while knowing absolutely nothing about its value... is its magical worth based on the spellcaster's belief about its worth, or the DM's, or the shop keeper's back in town?
The simplest answer is "all objects have an objective value provided by the rulebooks, or the published adventure, or whatever the DM writes down when the object spawns." But that isn't a rule that's provided RAW in any rule book, and it may or may not be how a DM wants to run their table. It's just interesting food for thought.
If you pay 500gp for a diamond that is worth 5 gp, would it work to cast Mighty Fortress?
No. Items in D&D have an assigned value that is not dependant on how much you spent on it. Value is an item property like weight is.
If you sell a minor conjuration and an hour after you leave the shop, the item disappears, do you think the shopkeeper will say, "Darn, I guess it was fun while it lasted," or will she send town guard after you?
The exact reaction might depend on DM, but I would have the guards alerted after some time.
Does a cubic zirconium the size of a 500gp diamond work to cast mighty fortress?
No. Not diamond, not the required component.
Costly spell components are odd to me, because they imply that in the game world, objects have objective worth -- if that is true, then a magical facsimile created by minor conjuration has the worth that the subclass feature assigns to it.
Objects in D&D (5e) do have an objective worth (which you can find in their item details), and anytime the rules reference worth or value this is the number to which it is referring. Minor conjuration does not assign a value to its facsimiles so they are worth 0 as far as Rules are concerned. That doesn't mean you can't trick people into thinking they are worth something.
Art objects are a lot more subjective than gemstones, precious metals, and other items (and aren't used as spellcasting components to my knowledge), but there are tables for random art objects in the DMG.
you see them as trash loot to sell sometimes. But giving an objective value to artwork is impossible. Someone might value it 50gold. Someone 2copper. Someone 1000platinum. There’s no rhyme or reason to it, and it would depend on intelligence rolls and their artistic taste.
The DM determines an item's worth (if it is not defined), not the NPC, but the NPC may pay more or less than that value depending on their own interpretation of its worth.
i use this as an example to agree with you about the “subjectivity” of value of items, and the arbitrary worth system that is in place in 5e that has had faults at times. (This OP instance being a good example)
The defined value of objects serves 2 purposes: 1) to serve as a reference price for DMs when assigning buy and sell costs. 2) To serve as a set objective value when other rules (such as spell components) refer to worth.
Hi. As in the title, can this be done? My friend wants to use the ability Minor Conjuration to create spell components, for Identify to be exact. I think it would be too powerful to allow that. It would be a slippery slope. If he can make a 100gp pearl, whats to stop him from creating enough diamonds to bring back the dead? According to the spell it doesn't mention that it can't be used to create valuable items or spell components or that it can only be handled by the Conjurer. Any help would be great. Ty
In general, I would probably allow Minor Conjuration to create material components that don't have a listed gp value. After all, the character could use Minor Conjuration to create a spell focus and then use that and not have to bother with those components. However, I wouldn't allow the feature to create anything that has a gp value. A sledgehammer created by the feature could be used to smash down a wall, but you couldn't sell it (or, rather, selling it would be fraud). A 10 lb block of platinum (5,000 gp) would be obviously magical and, again, fraud or counterfeit if you traded it. That's why the created objects emit light. It's to make them obviously magical constructs. And they're worse than that. They're temporary obviously magical constructs.
Similarly, you can't weasel your way out of paying for spell components. Some magic has a cost, and you can't just not pay for it. You can't get out of it. The game says you have to actually pay something, and the DM should enforce that. You have to have the item that's consumed and it must be real. Now, the PCs could steal the component. The game doesn't expect you to work for everything honestly. The game just expects you to really pay the cost. That's part of the balance of the spell.
That said, stoneskin is a pretty terrible spell and it probably isn't worth it's material component cost. Concentration and the limitation that creates makes the spell significantly more limited than in previous editions, IMX. Additionally, the mechanics of resistance in 5e, and the limitation of the spell to mundane weapon attacks means it's effects are... occasionally very underwhelming. Finally, the fact that it lasts an hour is often not necessary since few combats last longer than a minute. Changing the spell to last 1 minute and eliminating the expensive material component would probably be a welcome change.
da_chicken (good name! :D ), if push came to shove I think that yours is a very reasonable middle path to take at the table. Materials that are provided without a gold cost, hard to imagine what's important if not their form (do you have "a twig" or not?). The Minor Conjuration ability without a doubt can replicate form. For materials with a gold cost, we've got this whole slippery slope of trying to figure out how to define that value, and what's important appears to be both their form and their value (is your gem a diamond or a topaz, and is it worth 300 gp or 500 gp?). It is undefined (and reasonable minds differ) on whether Minor Conjuration can replicate value or not.
The only problem with that compromise is that non-cost material components are already essentially ignored by just holding a spell focus, so I doubt a player will really ever get the chance to use their special ability for that purpose. It's a very specialized solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist. Which doesn't mean it isn't a good way to resolve the rule problem, but it does underwhelm me as a RAF table solution, if that's what someone is after.
Hi. As in the title, can this be done? My friend wants to use the ability Minor Conjuration to create spell components, for Identify to be exact. I think it would be too powerful to allow that. It would be a slippery slope. If he can make a 100gp pearl, whats to stop him from creating enough diamonds to bring back the dead? According to the spell it doesn't mention that it can't be used to create valuable items or spell components or that it can only be handled by the Conjurer. Any help would be great. Ty
Sorry, I mean "According to the ABILITY it doesn't mention that it can't be used to create valuable items or spell components or that it can only be handled by the conjurer." not spell
The object you conjure copies the form of the object you have seen, not its [edit]
functionother properties[/edit] or value. The copy's value is 0. JC confirms this.JC is free to editorialize all he wants, but the ability provides that "its form [is] that of a nonmagical object that you have seen". It makes no mention of the object being nonfunctional, and JC didn't say that either in his tweet (I think he's saying something about it being up to the DM whether you've replicated soemthing with the same visible exterior versus complex internal composition that you can't see?). His statement about it being worth 0 gp is his own opinion, the ability doesn't mention that at all. Even if a DM were to decide that a shopkeeper wouldn't give you full price for a suspiciously magical diamond, it's still probably up to them whether there really is an inherent "worth" to an object outside of its form and structure that is required for a spell component, because that conjured diamond you hold in your hand is 100% identical to the 100 gp diamond you copied, other than (1) it emanates a magical aura and 5 feet of dim light, and (2) it will disappear in 1 hour.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think there's some room here for a creative and somewhat self-governing explanation as to why this would not work for spells that consume their material components while maintaining balance in the game. As a DM I would personally play it something like this.
NOTE: This is only for spells that consume material components as they are cast. There's a spreadsheet here that does a good job of breaking down material components.
Character: I invoke my "Minor Conjuration" ability to create the diamond dust needed to cast Stoneskin on our Ranger.
DM: Very well. You successfully conjure 100GP worth of diamond dust. You are now prepared to cast your Stoneskin spell.
Character: I use my action to cast Stoneskin and touch our willing Ranger.
DM: As you cast the spell you sense something strange as the diamond dust is consumed. You soon discover that your spell did not have the intended effect.
Character: Why?
DM: As stated in "School of Conjuration" section of the PHB. "The object disappears after 1 hour, when you use this feature again, or if it takes or deals any damage." The Stoneskin spell consumes its material components and would therefore deal "damage" to the conjured diamond dust. Since this happens at the same moment you begin to cast the spell it fails.
Its not perfect, but I think it at least provides a plausible reason to the character why this cannot be used for spells that consume their components. I'll leave it up to the creative community to address other spells that do not consume their components.
Sorry, function was a poor word choice. I meant other properties besides form.
We've been over this before that the rules do what they say and don't do what they don't say. In this case the feature creates an object in any form you've seen before (form being physical properties like shape, weight, appearance). The rules do not say the object has any inherent value or properties other than form. The feature also never mentions copy at all, so it is not a copy just a look alike.
Being able to make spell components for free at level 2 breaks the game balance of spells. Obviously, the devs never considered that players would try to use a level 2 ability that makes temporary, fake items with no special properties (other than glows and is obviously magic) to make expensive, high level spell components for no cost when they wrote that feature. But even if the rules don't specifically forbid it, no DM should let their players bypass a game mechanic this way.
What does it break, to reward a specific subclass in some specific limited circumstances? If the ability were intended to be unable to provide spell components, it would say so. Instead, it reproduces the form of a mundane object; is the significance of a component it’s form, it’s value (according to who?) or some other mystical quality? That’s DM territory, the rules provide no guidance in this scenario, and JC has no RAW basis to expand them.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
As a DM I would simply rule that you aren't actually creating a pearl worth 100gp, you're creating a magical object with the form of a 100gp pearl, and that the Laws Of Magic say you need the real thing. Which is DM-speak for "that's cheese and I won't allow it at my table" :)
My biggest issue is the potential slippery slope. If no value is specified, then the player I let conjure up a 100gp pearl for Identify is inevitably going to want to conjure up 1500gp worth of ruby dust to cast Forcecage, or a 5000gp diamond to cast Gate. So I'm drawing the line at locally sourced, organic, non-GMO spell components required.
If you pay 500gp for a diamond that is worth 5 gp, would it work to cast Mighty Fortress? If you sell a minor conjuration and an hour after you leave the shop, the item disappears, do you think the shopkeeper will say, "Darn, I guess it was fun while it lasted," or will she send town guard after you? Does a cubic zirconium the size of a 500gp diamond work to cast mighty fortress? Costly spell components are odd to me, because they imply that in the game world, objects have objective worth -- if that is true, then a magical facsimile created by minor conjuration has the worth that the subclass feature assigns to it.
The subclass feature does not discuss worth either way. The DM is free to rule that either way, but physically, it is the same object. Allowing a wizard to cast one spell per day without a spell component cost is not a bad thing, it is a very cool thing, which puts certain under used spells back in the table for certain cheap ass players.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
How much are “paintings” worth?
you see them as trash loot to sell sometimes. But giving an objective value to artwork is impossible. Someone might value it 50gold. Someone 2copper. Someone 1000platinum. There’s no rhyme or reason to it, and it would depend on intelligence rolls and their artistic taste.
i use this as an example to agree with you about the “subjectivity” of value of items, and the arbitrary worth system that is in place in 5e that has had faults at times. (This OP instance being a good example)
The feature also doesn't tell you either way whether it gives you 3 wishes a day. The DM is free to rule that it does.
I think it says that the item glows, so I am not really concerned about selling the items, just the fact that it would make costly spell components obsolete & in some cases make normal spell components obsolete as well. But I got some great advise, thanks y'all.
As an aside, this possibility does excite me: Player A carries one or more very small diamonds. Player B wants to cast Revivify to save his dear friend, but doesn't have any diamonds, but does have 300 gp. Player A's diamonds are the only ones within reach, the spell has a very short window where it can be cast, demand is very high... so Player B agrees to pay Player A 300 gp for the diamonds they have.
Material component satisfied? Would it be any different if Player A was NPC A? If so, why? Is the essential fuel for the spell that the player lose resources, that the party lose resources, some intrinsic worth of the object separate from external market factors and demand, or the physical size/characteristics of the object which the value is just a shorthand reference for?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
All of this is just asking for your DM to remove costly material components. If that is the houserule that you want to use, go ahead.
I'm more interested in the "why does/doesn't it work" than trying to achieve a specific result. Some DMs may hand out "a 300 gp diamond" mid-dungeon as loot, but other more immersive DMs might just describe that the party found "a diamond" (or even just "a clear gemstone"!). The DM may already know that when the party gets back to town several sessions later there will be a shopkeeper willing to buy that diamond for 300 gp (or... 200-400 gp, depending on the group's haggling efforts?), but from the players' perspective, all they know is that they found "a diamond." Maybe they try to assess it in the field... but is the act of assessing it what empowers it as a material component? Maybe they try to use it while knowing absolutely nothing about its value... is its magical worth based on the spellcaster's belief about its worth, or the DM's, or the shop keeper's back in town?
The simplest answer is "all objects have an objective value provided by the rulebooks, or the published adventure, or whatever the DM writes down when the object spawns." But that isn't a rule that's provided RAW in any rule book, and it may or may not be how a DM wants to run their table. It's just interesting food for thought.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No. Items in D&D have an assigned value that is not dependant on how much you spent on it. Value is an item property like weight is.
The exact reaction might depend on DM, but I would have the guards alerted after some time.
No. Not diamond, not the required component.
Objects in D&D (5e) do have an objective worth (which you can find in their item details), and anytime the rules reference worth or value this is the number to which it is referring. Minor conjuration does not assign a value to its facsimiles so they are worth 0 as far as Rules are concerned. That doesn't mean you can't trick people into thinking they are worth something.
Art objects are a lot more subjective than gemstones, precious metals, and other items (and aren't used as spellcasting components to my knowledge), but there are tables for random art objects in the DMG.
The DM determines an item's worth (if it is not defined), not the NPC, but the NPC may pay more or less than that value depending on their own interpretation of its worth.
The defined value of objects serves 2 purposes: 1) to serve as a reference price for DMs when assigning buy and sell costs. 2) To serve as a set objective value when other rules (such as spell components) refer to worth.
DxJxC, I think you and I are on the same page, those questions were to point out the idea of objective worth that the game uses.
In general, I would probably allow Minor Conjuration to create material components that don't have a listed gp value. After all, the character could use Minor Conjuration to create a spell focus and then use that and not have to bother with those components. However, I wouldn't allow the feature to create anything that has a gp value. A sledgehammer created by the feature could be used to smash down a wall, but you couldn't sell it (or, rather, selling it would be fraud). A 10 lb block of platinum (5,000 gp) would be obviously magical and, again, fraud or counterfeit if you traded it. That's why the created objects emit light. It's to make them obviously magical constructs. And they're worse than that. They're temporary obviously magical constructs.
Similarly, you can't weasel your way out of paying for spell components. Some magic has a cost, and you can't just not pay for it. You can't get out of it. The game says you have to actually pay something, and the DM should enforce that. You have to have the item that's consumed and it must be real. Now, the PCs could steal the component. The game doesn't expect you to work for everything honestly. The game just expects you to really pay the cost. That's part of the balance of the spell.
That said, stoneskin is a pretty terrible spell and it probably isn't worth it's material component cost. Concentration and the limitation that creates makes the spell significantly more limited than in previous editions, IMX. Additionally, the mechanics of resistance in 5e, and the limitation of the spell to mundane weapon attacks means it's effects are... occasionally very underwhelming. Finally, the fact that it lasts an hour is often not necessary since few combats last longer than a minute. Changing the spell to last 1 minute and eliminating the expensive material component would probably be a welcome change.
da_chicken (good name! :D ), if push came to shove I think that yours is a very reasonable middle path to take at the table. Materials that are provided without a gold cost, hard to imagine what's important if not their form (do you have "a twig" or not?). The Minor Conjuration ability without a doubt can replicate form. For materials with a gold cost, we've got this whole slippery slope of trying to figure out how to define that value, and what's important appears to be both their form and their value (is your gem a diamond or a topaz, and is it worth 300 gp or 500 gp?). It is undefined (and reasonable minds differ) on whether Minor Conjuration can replicate value or not.
The only problem with that compromise is that non-cost material components are already essentially ignored by just holding a spell focus, so I doubt a player will really ever get the chance to use their special ability for that purpose. It's a very specialized solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist. Which doesn't mean it isn't a good way to resolve the rule problem, but it does underwhelm me as a RAF table solution, if that's what someone is after.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.