Oh hey this has come up again, I started a discussion on this exact thing a few months ago (clicky).
I've still seen nothing that actually, by RAW, prevents this use. If I've seen a 500 gp diamond and then use the feature to conjure one, what I conjure should be an exact duplicate of what I've seen. It should be a 500 gp, just of a magic source instead of natural but there isn't anything saying a spell component cannot be magical.
The diamond value issue discussed brings up another flaw of the material component system: "worth" is worthless. Normally, an item is worth what you pay for it. There is no universal system of determining worth by measurable definitions - there is no set system of monetary value. In fact, monetary worth is constantly changing - the value of a coin changes day to day (even hour to hour). Currency is not set by a universal standard it is set by trade worth and all values in the equation - "materials", "style", "parts", "labour", "brand" - the value so tagged to the item that contributes to a resulting price is all arbitrary and subjective to the one setting the price contrasted by the willingness of those wanting it to pay the given prices.
It's fine for a DMG to have a priceline guide - but this is for sake of simplicity to avoid currency, trade and economics becoming a tiresome affair to sort out everytime you make a campaign or the party travels to a new nation or something. Nah, it gives you a quick somewhat reasonable guide to base off. But while this is fine and dandy when the party are wanting to offload their loot for some shinies - this is insufficient for something like magic when you get to literally create valuable substances out of thin air.
Magic isn't a sentient creature, it shouldn't give a shit about how much you pay, the material just needs to be enough of the right material and quality and/or be appropriately symbolic - and the feature satisfies both. What you conjure may exist only temporarily but that doesn't stop it from 'being' the intended material and quality: conjured gold is still gold, conjured diamond is still diamond, etc.
Personally, the material component system as a whole is ill-thought out and inconsistent (100 gp to identify an item with Identify except this can be achieved to equal effect with a short rest and yet Wish which can rewrite reality is free... O.o). Most of the material components are expressions or jokes (penny for your thoughts for Detect Thoughts or pulling the wool over your eyes for Silent Image), and most with a cost are unimaginative (it's amazing how many are just diamond or gems, oh some are metal...).
So, if this feature truly can make spell components - is it gamebreaking? Really? If an enemy is intending to incapacitate a mage they would bind the hands and gag them, which prevents spellcasting for anyone except a Sorc using subtle spell - and let the Sorc have that boon, I say, they're frankly the weakest of all full-spellcasters with their ever-situational and limited use (and limited amount of) metamagic and very limited amount of spells known... The very rare, probably never happens in most campaigns, circumstance where this is advantage would be just interesting. And could backfire if they get caught again - if the enemy learns from it, then they'll just kill the sorc instead of capture which will work out worse. Even then, most of the spells you could use to free yourself with Subtle metamagic either can't be used (require line of sight) or don't have a material component anyway (like Misty Step or Dimension Door, both of which are a simple V component teleport spell and the latter doesn't even need line of sight!). It's intended as a balance mechanic but utterly fails in being one. It can be an interesting RP choice for those who like handling and finding components, but there's no real game balance problem if Minor Conjuration works as it seems to be written to.
This use of Minor Conjuration was clearly an oversight (hence JC's tweet) but there's no errata yet so by RAW I still don't see anything that prevents Minor Conjuration being used for spell components.
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.
The closest thing to RAW preventing use is the fact that the feature never assigns or copies value, so the conjured item should be worth 0 as far as spells are concerned.
But the RAW only not saying you can do this is all I've got. It should be enough (it is for me).
I do so wish the rules were clearer. I hate arguing, and it is worse when my evidence is poorly worded and weakly defined.
The closest thing to RAW preventing use is the fact that the feature never assigns or copies value, so the conjured item should be worth 0 as far as spells are concerned.
But the RAW only not saying you can do this is all I've got. It should be enough (it is for me).
I do so wish the rules were clearer. I hate arguing, and it is worse when my evidence is poorly worded and weakly defined.
Value is a subjective thing as is. Up to DM discretion, based on an int checks. (With exception of things with their clear value listed in the PhB.)
just because you have “loot” of “gems worth 50 gold” doesn’t mean they are actually worth 50. They are worth what you can sell them for. Which may be 30. May be 50. May be 75.
Magic isn't a sentient creature, it shouldn't give a shit about how much you pay, the material just needs to be enough of the right material and quality and/or be appropriately symbolic - and the feature satisfies both. What you conjure may exist only temporarily but that doesn't stop it from 'being' the intended material and quality: conjured gold is still gold, conjured diamond is still diamond, etc.
...
There isn't a goddess of magic? Gods are so petty that about the only thing that would make them upset at you is shortchanging them. Conjured gold isn't a sacrifice of weight. Making a resource sacrifice is the point of having a gold value to some components.
The closest thing to RAW preventing use is the fact that the feature never assigns or copies value, so the conjured item should be worth 0 as far as spells are concerned.
But the RAW only not saying you can do this is all I've got. It should be enough (it is for me).
I do so wish the rules were clearer. I hate arguing, and it is worse when my evidence is poorly worded and weakly defined.
Value is a subjective thing as is. Up to DM discretion, based on an int checks. (With exception of things with their clear value listed in the PhB.)
just because you have “loot” of “gems worth 50 gold” doesn’t mean they are actually worth 50. They are worth what you can sell them for. Which may be 30. May be 50. May be 75.
In that case a fake item that will inevitably disappear has the subjective value of 0 as well. And those prices in the PHB are exactly what determine if it meets the spellcasting material requirements. My whole point has been that the feature does not produce those PHB values, thus an objective value of 0.
I already went over how what an item sells for does not determine if it meets spellcasting material requirements. Just because the item is "worth" nothing, doesn't mean you can't seem it for money (or trade it for a real item).
Magic isn't a sentient creature, it shouldn't give a shit about how much you pay, the material just needs to be enough of the right material and quality and/or be appropriately symbolic - and the feature satisfies both. What you conjure may exist only temporarily but that doesn't stop it from 'being' the intended material and quality: conjured gold is still gold, conjured diamond is still diamond, etc.
...
There isn't a goddess of magic? Gods are so petty that about the only thing that would make them upset at you is shortchanging them. Conjured gold isn't a sacrifice of weight. Making a resource sacrifice is the point of having a gold value to some components.
It is also about preparation. In the lore, Mystra deliberately made spellcasting more difficult to do. Requiring, more study, more preparation, and more resources.
The closest thing to RAW preventing use is the fact that the feature never assigns or copies value, so the conjured item should be worth 0 as far as spells are concerned.
But the RAW only not saying you can do this is all I've got. It should be enough (it is for me).
I do so wish the rules were clearer. I hate arguing, and it is worse when my evidence is poorly worded and weakly defined.
The feature doesn't have this restriction as far as I can see, or at least rationalise. Value of an object is often based on the material it is made of, the quality of it, etc so if you create an object of that material quality it would have the same value, would it not? The world doesn't have a price tag - prices are based on what the item is (and what people are willing to pay for it). If I see a 3 ft cube of pure 24 karat Gold and then use my Minor Conjuration to create another 3 ft cube of pure 24 karat gold, would it not automatically have the same value given that is still gold of equal amount and quality?
There's not actually anything, to my memory, that says anywhere that the gold cost indicated for a material spell component is of some different value-determining system than the usual one of currency (something is worth what somebody will pay for it). There is no lore of "the gods gave this a price tag for spells" - so value of a spell component is no different than the value of any other item in terms of trade and currency. We must take values and the tables in the DMG and such as purely as guidelines not "the price list of the world" - otherwise it makes no sense at all - Chromatic Orb and Revivify and similar spells would be literally impossible to much, much later levels otherwise - since they require low-value diamond (50 gp for the Chromatic Orb) and yet according to the DMG the lowest priced diamond is 5,000 gp. So if we wanted to go specifically with "DMG has a price list to stick to" route, nobody can take Chromatic Orb at a low level, despite it being a 1st level spell, since they have to get 5,000 gp before they can cast the spell which will take a while. By which point the money is better suited elsewhere, really. Clearly the idea is that there are different types of diamond of different values, sizes, etc and the DMG is just a quick reference guide for faster treasure-generation.
I cannot rationalise that a conjured object of the same form, material, chemical, style, size, shape, etc as another will suddenly have less value. If anything, because value is subjective and there are no rules about a different system of value/cost being used, your conjured item might be worth more if you can convince the potential that the magical aura is an enchantment of benefit and they're too trusting/stupid to get it magically identified prior to purchase...
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.
Magic isn't a sentient creature, it shouldn't give a shit about how much you pay, the material just needs to be enough of the right material and quality and/or be appropriately symbolic - and the feature satisfies both. What you conjure may exist only temporarily but that doesn't stop it from 'being' the intended material and quality: conjured gold is still gold, conjured diamond is still diamond, etc.
...
There isn't a goddess of magic? Gods are so petty that about the only thing that would make them upset at you is shortchanging them. Conjured gold isn't a sacrifice of weight. Making a resource sacrifice is the point of having a gold value to some components.
Depends on the campaign. What gods are in the campaign and what function/purpose they serve is pure DM fiat and not actually "Rules".
It is also about preparation. In the lore, Mystra deliberately made spellcasting more difficult to do. Requiring, more study, more preparation, and more resources.
Lore =/= Rules. Just want to clarify that because this is the Rules forums not Story & Lore forum.
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.
You made an argument outside of the parameters of the rules -- painfully obviously so, there are GP costs are associated with some spells-- and then complain that the responses you got to it are outside of the rules? Your argument on whether or not magic gives a shit is exactly outside of the rules. lore =/= rules. If you want to make a lore argument, don't complain about lore argument responses.
Ok. So I just want to clarify: GP costs to components on some spells exist.
You made an argument outside of the parameters of the rules -- painfully obviously so, there are GP costs are associated with some spells-- and then complain that the responses you got to it are outside of the rules? Your argument on whether or not magic gives a shit is exactly outside of the rules. lore =/= rules. If you want to make a lore argument, don't complain about lore argument responses.
Ok. So I just want to clarify: GP costs to components on some spells exist.
It's actually in the rules that magic is just the weave of reality and casting spells is being able to pull on that weave to achieve your desired effect on reality. This is in the Basic Rules and PHB. A weave is a thread that is connected to other threads to form a pattern and is therefore not a sentient creature. Because it is not a sentient creature it doesn't give a shit about anything, because only sentient creatures can do such a thing.
So, no I wasn't going outside rules into lore. I was using the rules and definitions of the words used in those rules as detailed in the rulebook.
I'm unsure why you feel the need to clarify that some material components have a GP cost since not a single person here is denying that. But, um, thanks? **confuzzled**
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.
Have you read that sidebar recently or are you going off memory?
I am clarifying that the rules for spellcasting do not say that "symbolically and materially, the item must be close to an item with a particular value, but anything that is close enough will do." That seems to be the brunt of your argument.
Have you read that sidebar recently or are you going off memory?
I am clarifying that the rules for spellcasting do not say that "symbolically and materially, the item must be close to an item with a particular value, but anything that is close enough will do." That seems to be the brunt of your argument.
Memory mostly. I play spellcasters a lot.
And you seem to be grossly misinterpreting my point. My point, if I had to sum it up, is twofold: fold 1 is that the Minor Conjuration feature creates an object that can be used as a spellcasting Material component. Fold 2 is that there is nothing indicating what, precisely, grants one object a value and if we default to the real world system of gold-value, in lieu of a defined one in the books, for objects of trade then if Item A (conjured) is the exact same material of the exact same amount, design, form, weight, etc as Item B (not conjured) then Item A should be granted its value in currency the same as Item B got it's value. The two folds together: Minor Conjuration lets you, to some extent, bypass some costly material components.
I apologise if I have previously been unclear. I hope this is clearer now?
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.
First, on the subject of the sidebar: the Weave is given the name Mystra in that text, making it a sentient being in FR. Then it goes on to say that it goes by other names in other places, but a sentient being by any other name...
And again, any discussion about the wants, needs, and cares of anything (sentient or not) is beyond the rules, therefore lore, according to what you said earlier.
And finally, to your argument: we default to the rules when we have questions on rules: objective value described in the DMG and the only things that gives them value are the rules (beyond DM arbitration), and the objective value of the conjuration that the subclass feature gives it.
Since you are making a handwaving argument -- the rules call for items of GP value, and the subclass feature doesn't provide its conjurations with any -- then I have nothing more to add.
First, on the subject of the sidebar: the Weave is given the name Mystra in that text, making it a sentient being in FR. Then it goes on to say that it goes by other names in other places, but a sentient being by any other name...
And again, any discussion about the wants, needs, and cares of anything (sentient or not) is beyond the rules, therefore lore, according to what you said earlier.
And finally, to your argument: we default to the rules when we have questions on rules: objective value described in the DMG and the only things that gives them value are the rules (beyond DM arbitration), and the objective value of the conjuration that the subclass feature gives it.
Since you are making a handwaving argument -- the rules call for items of GP value, and the subclass feature doesn't provide its conjurations with any -- then I have nothing more to add.
Let's take a look at this sidebar to see if it is in the rules that we must consider Mystra to be the goddess of magic:(bold parts are added by me for emphasis)
"The worlds within the D&D multiverse are magical places. All existence is suffused with magical power, and potential energy lies untapped in every rock, stream, and living creature, and even in the air itself. Raw magic is the stuff of creation, the mute and mindless will of existence, permeating every bit of matter and present in every manifestation of energy throughout the multiverse.
Mortals can’t directly shape this raw magic. Instead, they make use of a fabric of magic, a kind of interface between the will of a spellcaster and the stuff of raw magic. The spellcasters of the Forgotten Realms call it the Weave and recognize its essence as the goddess Mystra, but casters have varied ways of naming and visualizing this interface. By any name, without the Weave, raw magic is locked away and inaccessible; the most powerful archmage can’t light a candle with magic in an area where the Weave has been torn. But surrounded by the Weave, a spellcaster can shape lightning to blast foes, transport hundreds of miles in the blink of an eye, or even reverse death itself."
This sidebar is just referencing some lore of Forgotten Realms where the spellcasters think of that fabric as the weave and say it is the essence of Mystra.
Taken from the Player's Handbook introduction:
"The worlds of the Dungeons & Dragons game exist within a vast cosmos called the multiverse, connected in strange and mysterious ways to one another and to other planes of existence, such as the Elemental Plane of Fire and the Infinite Depths of the Abyss. Within this multiverse are an endless variety of worlds. Many of them have been published as official settings for the D&D game. The legends of the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Mystara, and Eberron settings are woven together in the fabric of the multiverse. Alongside these worlds are hundreds of thousands more, created by generations of D&D players for their own games. And amid all the richness of the multiverse, you might create a world of your own.
All these worlds share characteristics, but each world is set apart by its own history and cultures, distinctive monsters and races, fantastic geography, ancient dungeons, and scheming villains. Some races have unusual traits in different worlds. The halflings of the Dark Sun setting, for example, are jungle-dwelling cannibals, and the elves are desert nomads. Some worlds feature races unknown in other settings, such as Eberron’s warforged, soldiers created and imbued with life to fight in the Last War. Some worlds are dominated by one great story, like the War of the Lance that plays a central role in the Dragonlance setting. But they’re all D&D worlds, and you can use the rules here to create a character and play in any one of them."
The bold is mine to highlight that people don't always use Forgotten Realms and the rules given in the corebooks are not there to be specific for Forgotten Realms. I've never played in a Forgotten Realm campaign, for example, despite playing 3.5, 4th and 5th editions.
Just going to throw in this little bit from the Gods of the Multiverse appendix specifically dealing with the placement, power and purpose of Forgotten Realm gods or goddesses in general rule D&D:
Your DM determines which gods, if any, are worshiped in his or her campaign.
Forgotten Realms is not the rules of all D&D. Mystra is not part of the rules of any non-Forgotten Realms campaign.
Raw magic as described is a rule of D&D. The fabric that lets spellcasters use magic is a rule of D&D. It being called the weave and the essence of Mystra is not a rule of D&D, it is lore for Forgotten Realms setting (maybe others, haven't read them all). Lore is not rules of D&D.
It is a rule that raw magic, what magic really is, is mindless.
It is not lore to say that magic doesn't give a shit about something. Giving a shit about something is a mental process. This is a fact. Not just in D&D, it a full fact. In order for anything to have a mental process it must have a mind. This is not lore either, this is also a fact and again not just in D&D: it is a fact. If me and you went to a park in the real world and I pointed to a an actual tree and said "this is a tree" - I would be stating a fact. If I said that there is a world where trees are actually ancient immortal people cursed into being trees that would be lore. I trust you see the difference. If you cannot then I know no means of conveying my thoughts to you - it's kind of hard to discuss something logically in the English language with somebody rejecting outright the very basics of logical understanding and reasoning and/or rejecting official English language definitions.
Outside of lore there is absolutely nothing detailing why some spells need components with a cost value. There is nothing detailing how those materials acquired their gold cost value. Value is an easily attributable term when used by the normal definitions as granted by the English language and the concept so invented by our real world civilisations. If I cut wood from a tree, and used that wood to make a doll and decided that for the time and effort I spent I will sell it for £5, and find somebody who agreed to pay that £5 to me and did so. By all the definitions of value we have and accept in our English language in terms of currency and commerce - that doll was valued at £5. How was this determined? What if other people did the same and start making dolls exactly like mine and realised, hey people like dolls, and upped the price to £10 and people kept buying it at that price. Are the dolls still actually valued at £5 despite paying £10 for them or are they now valued at £10? By the definitions of value, the dolls actually now have the value of £10. It is now their cost.
Now if somebody comes along and just states "these dolls have a value of £0 to everybody because I say so" - if people ignore this statement and continuing paying £10 a pop for them, does that person's statement become true or false? It's false. What if the dolls became mass produced by a machine resulting in much less time and effort to make, yet still charged £10 each and continued to be bought at £10 each - does the value change? No. Does the person's statement now become true? No. So even though the method of creation changed, the item still had the same value because it was still the same thing. Now let's say the method of creation was changed again, this time the doll had a faint glow and disappeared after an hour. If I could find customers and tell them, hey, this doll costs the same but it's magic and if you make a wish upon it then it will soon disappear from this world and take that wish to the Gods themselves! - if I get customers willing to pay that £10 for this magic doll, does the value of the doll become different? No. Because they're still buying it up. So, then, does that person's statement now change because it's magic? Again, no because it's still a doll and there are still people willing to buy it at that price. Because that's what value, in cost terms, is. You going "it's conjured so it has no value to anyone!" is just like that hypothetical person making that earlier statement: it's a falsehood that isn't factoring what cost value means.
The D&D rules do not grant us any reasoning for the value or purpose of the material components and does not provide any new or different systems of gold, costs or the concept of monetary value. So, we have two options to interpret the references of gold cost and the value of material components: our normal real English language definitions and systems of commerce OR we interpret it as non-English undefined gibberish and invent an entirely new aspect of language and value-cost systems of commerce specific for our D&D games. You seem to be favouring the latter, good for you, but personally I find that barmy and exhausting (I took basic commercial financing courses [nothing fancy, just some online things] and it bored me to tears, I don't want to have to worry about that crap in my D&D T_T) so I will be sticking with the former.
And when sticking to the former, the Minor Conjuration feature technically allows the conjuration of costly material components usable as material components in spellcasting. It's clearly not intended, but works RAW as far as I can see. My interest in these discussions was to see if there actually is a Rules as Written explanation for why it would not work. And so far not seen one definitive explanation beyond the conjured = no value argument, which doesn't work for reasons explained above. The closest is the consumed = damage bit, and while I don't agree with it as a surface reaction I haven't slept in over 30+ hours and I'm not yet ready to really think about that one yet so I'm gonna circle back round to that when my brain is hating me a little less.
*looks up* Sweet jeebus in a gravy boat this a long 'un. My apologies, seems I was getting a bit carried away. O.O
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.
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.
I think the easiest way to go about it is to do two things:
Look at spells that replicate the effect.
Determine an appropriate level equivalent for Minor Conjuration.
The first one is pretty easy. What spell effects allow you to create an arbitrary object? The list is actually remarkably short:
Wish
Creation
Creating an object is one of the specifically listed modes of the Wish spell. Create any non-magical object up to 25,000 gp in value of virtually any size with no restrictions on what you do with it. So a 9th level spell can clearly do it.
The Creation spell is a 5th level illusion that creates a temporary object of limited size for a limited duration that you have seen before. That sounds extraordinarily familiar. The name is also very similar (Creation vs Minor Conjuration). Honestly, this spell should probably have been conjuration instead of illusion, but I know this used to be one of the old shadow magic semi-real illusions so I assume it was grandfathered in. However, beyond that, this spell seems like a perfect match. However, this spell explicitly states: Using any material created by this spell as another spell's material component causes that spell to fail. Any object of any value created by this spell can't be used as a spell component. It doesn't even talk about the value of the object or the spell consuming the object. If you created a 100 gp pearl, casting Identify through it would cause Identify to fail even though Identify doesn't consume the pearl. So, a 5th level spell that does almost exactly the same thing as Minor Conjuration is wholly unable to create spell components of any kind.
Speculations about Limited Wish aside, then, there's not really any spell that can create an arbitrary object with a gp value that can then be used as a material component in a spell with the lone exception of Wish.
So, do we think that Minor Conjuration, an ability that Conjurers get at 3rd level when they learn 2nd level spells, takes a single action to use, and has no limitations on how often you can use it (i.e., like a cantrip), should be as powerful as at least a 6th level spell and possibly as powerful as Wish?
Sure, there are spells that create things which you could theoretically sell or use as spell components (Wall of Stone, Mighty Fortress, Temple of the Gods, Create or Destroy Water, Symbol) and even temporary items which you could theoretically sell (Create Food and Water, Goodberry, Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, Heroes' Feast). Some of those have expensive material components, some of which are consumed by the spell. And there is a spell that allows you to create things with significantly higher value (Fabricate) but those require high quality raw materials and proficiency in the tools needed to create that object. It won't actually save you any money in most cases, and its still has to be something you can construct. You can't Fabricate a 100 gp pearl, for example.
The gp cost doesn’t represent how the gods gave everything a price tag. It is how valuable and well made it is (at least for diamonds). A small diamond that isn’t well cut is not worth as much as a big diamond that is well cut right? The magic needs a diamond or another material that has enough quantity and quality not a diamond some random person thinks must be 5000 gp! The diamond needs to be valuable enough. So a perfect replica of a 5000 gp diamond would work as a spell component because it is well made and big enough! Also for the people who think it is way to OP. It is just a different way to be op in D&D. At the end though it’s all up to the real gods of the universe, the Dm.
From what I can see, this would be yet another RAI vs. RAW question where the RAI - spells requiring a component with a stated gold piece value - is based on an arbitrary simplification of reality for the sake of game balance, but which doesn't make much sense once you start asking questions about perceived vs. objective value. A conflict arises between different ways of interpreting rules because the devs either weren't paying enough attention when they wrote Minor Conjuration (did they leave out the "cannot be used for spell components" text that is found in the spell Minor Creation on purpose?) or wanted to leave it up to DM fiat and therefore left it intentionally vague.
To address the related question of whether a diamond worth 500 gp is actually worth 500 gp is beyond the scope of the game that isn't meant to mirror real world economics. Monetary of spell components has always been a gross simplification that exists for the sake of neatness and simplicity, nothing more. However, I do agree with Cyb3rM1nd's implication that this reflects a lack of consistency and thoughtfulness in world-building, which I would liken to a J.K. Rowling novel in its tendency to be functional for the sake of entertainment value but rather lacking in believability when held up for scrutiny by those of us who place a value on having a logical set of rules for how and why magic works the way the writer(s) say it does.
Similar conflicts between D&D rules for sake of simplicity and D&D rules as a representation of how magic works in the game world keep cropping up and will keep cropping up b/c D&D was never meant to make all that much sense in the first place. We have a similar issue with crafting rules, trade economics between areas, the existence of a plethora of humanoids with more powers than humans but somehow allow humans to dominate most terrestial environments, and the Warforged as magical-created, but not magical for purposes of Detect Magic-perpetual motion machine physics nonsense-ry.
Regarding assigning “value” to a conjured item, since it’s not specified in the rules, this is entirely up to the DM. That said, gp value items for spells is a tricky system when you dive in. If you buy diamond dust for 100gp, does a jeweler get to walk up to you and say “Hey that diamond dust is worth only 99gp!” as you’re getting ready to cast and then the spell can’t work? Does a component purchase in one location at one time set the value of that item for all locations at all times? Does government inflation affect value of consumable magic components? In my DM world, choosing School of Conjuration is a path that provides a benefit of making consumable components (that are clearly glowing, i.e. decision = most people don’t buy glowing gems). Conjuration school provides this benefit, while not providing the benefits that other schools would have if the Wizard had chosen one of them instead. Material conjuring is a value of this school. If as a DM I was worried about the component financial system in my world being broken by a Conjuring Wizard, I might give pause and consider if my world might not be focusing on the most interesting elements of the game.
It's fairly obvious that the designers feel that by assigning a value to components - that if a player spends that much then they have enough. Simple as that. Value is clearly an intrinsic thing that some objects have that is universal.
Yes it's overly simplistic and a bit stupid - because clearly financial systems are fluid. It's up to you to determine how that works in your game. RAW though - if you buy a diamond for 50g - its value is 50g.
Oh hey this has come up again, I started a discussion on this exact thing a few months ago (clicky).
I've still seen nothing that actually, by RAW, prevents this use. If I've seen a 500 gp diamond and then use the feature to conjure one, what I conjure should be an exact duplicate of what I've seen. It should be a 500 gp, just of a magic source instead of natural but there isn't anything saying a spell component cannot be magical.
The diamond value issue discussed brings up another flaw of the material component system: "worth" is worthless. Normally, an item is worth what you pay for it. There is no universal system of determining worth by measurable definitions - there is no set system of monetary value. In fact, monetary worth is constantly changing - the value of a coin changes day to day (even hour to hour). Currency is not set by a universal standard it is set by trade worth and all values in the equation - "materials", "style", "parts", "labour", "brand" - the value so tagged to the item that contributes to a resulting price is all arbitrary and subjective to the one setting the price contrasted by the willingness of those wanting it to pay the given prices.
It's fine for a DMG to have a priceline guide - but this is for sake of simplicity to avoid currency, trade and economics becoming a tiresome affair to sort out everytime you make a campaign or the party travels to a new nation or something. Nah, it gives you a quick somewhat reasonable guide to base off. But while this is fine and dandy when the party are wanting to offload their loot for some shinies - this is insufficient for something like magic when you get to literally create valuable substances out of thin air.
Magic isn't a sentient creature, it shouldn't give a shit about how much you pay, the material just needs to be enough of the right material and quality and/or be appropriately symbolic - and the feature satisfies both. What you conjure may exist only temporarily but that doesn't stop it from 'being' the intended material and quality: conjured gold is still gold, conjured diamond is still diamond, etc.
Personally, the material component system as a whole is ill-thought out and inconsistent (100 gp to identify an item with Identify except this can be achieved to equal effect with a short rest and yet Wish which can rewrite reality is free... O.o). Most of the material components are expressions or jokes (penny for your thoughts for Detect Thoughts or pulling the wool over your eyes for Silent Image), and most with a cost are unimaginative (it's amazing how many are just diamond or gems, oh some are metal...).
So, if this feature truly can make spell components - is it gamebreaking? Really? If an enemy is intending to incapacitate a mage they would bind the hands and gag them, which prevents spellcasting for anyone except a Sorc using subtle spell - and let the Sorc have that boon, I say, they're frankly the weakest of all full-spellcasters with their ever-situational and limited use (and limited amount of) metamagic and very limited amount of spells known... The very rare, probably never happens in most campaigns, circumstance where this is advantage would be just interesting. And could backfire if they get caught again - if the enemy learns from it, then they'll just kill the sorc instead of capture which will work out worse. Even then, most of the spells you could use to free yourself with Subtle metamagic either can't be used (require line of sight) or don't have a material component anyway (like Misty Step or Dimension Door, both of which are a simple V component teleport spell and the latter doesn't even need line of sight!). It's intended as a balance mechanic but utterly fails in being one. It can be an interesting RP choice for those who like handling and finding components, but there's no real game balance problem if Minor Conjuration works as it seems to be written to.
This use of Minor Conjuration was clearly an oversight (hence JC's tweet) but there's no errata yet so by RAW I still don't see anything that prevents Minor Conjuration being used for spell components.
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.
The closest thing to RAW preventing use is the fact that the feature never assigns or copies value, so the conjured item should be worth 0 as far as spells are concerned.
But the RAW only not saying you can do this is all I've got. It should be enough (it is for me).
I do so wish the rules were clearer. I hate arguing, and it is worse when my evidence is poorly worded and weakly defined.
Value is a subjective thing as is. Up to DM discretion, based on an int checks. (With exception of things with their clear value listed in the PhB.)
just because you have “loot” of “gems worth 50 gold” doesn’t mean they are actually worth 50. They are worth what you can sell them for. Which may be 30. May be 50. May be 75.
There isn't a goddess of magic? Gods are so petty that about the only thing that would make them upset at you is shortchanging them. Conjured gold isn't a sacrifice of weight. Making a resource sacrifice is the point of having a gold value to some components.
In that case a fake item that will inevitably disappear has the subjective value of 0 as well. And those prices in the PHB are exactly what determine if it meets the spellcasting material requirements. My whole point has been that the feature does not produce those PHB values, thus an objective value of 0.
I already went over how what an item sells for does not determine if it meets spellcasting material requirements. Just because the item is "worth" nothing, doesn't mean you can't seem it for money (or trade it for a real item).
It is also about preparation. In the lore, Mystra deliberately made spellcasting more difficult to do. Requiring, more study, more preparation, and more resources.
The feature doesn't have this restriction as far as I can see, or at least rationalise. Value of an object is often based on the material it is made of, the quality of it, etc so if you create an object of that material quality it would have the same value, would it not? The world doesn't have a price tag - prices are based on what the item is (and what people are willing to pay for it). If I see a 3 ft cube of pure 24 karat Gold and then use my Minor Conjuration to create another 3 ft cube of pure 24 karat gold, would it not automatically have the same value given that is still gold of equal amount and quality?
There's not actually anything, to my memory, that says anywhere that the gold cost indicated for a material spell component is of some different value-determining system than the usual one of currency (something is worth what somebody will pay for it). There is no lore of "the gods gave this a price tag for spells" - so value of a spell component is no different than the value of any other item in terms of trade and currency. We must take values and the tables in the DMG and such as purely as guidelines not "the price list of the world" - otherwise it makes no sense at all - Chromatic Orb and Revivify and similar spells would be literally impossible to much, much later levels otherwise - since they require low-value diamond (50 gp for the Chromatic Orb) and yet according to the DMG the lowest priced diamond is 5,000 gp. So if we wanted to go specifically with "DMG has a price list to stick to" route, nobody can take Chromatic Orb at a low level, despite it being a 1st level spell, since they have to get 5,000 gp before they can cast the spell which will take a while. By which point the money is better suited elsewhere, really. Clearly the idea is that there are different types of diamond of different values, sizes, etc and the DMG is just a quick reference guide for faster treasure-generation.
I cannot rationalise that a conjured object of the same form, material, chemical, style, size, shape, etc as another will suddenly have less value. If anything, because value is subjective and there are no rules about a different system of value/cost being used, your conjured item might be worth more if you can convince the potential that the magical aura is an enchantment of benefit and they're too trusting/stupid to get it magically identified prior to purchase...
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.
Depends on the campaign. What gods are in the campaign and what function/purpose they serve is pure DM fiat and not actually "Rules".
Lore =/= Rules. Just want to clarify that because this is the Rules forums not Story & Lore forum.
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.
You made an argument outside of the parameters of the rules -- painfully obviously so, there are GP costs are associated with some spells-- and then complain that the responses you got to it are outside of the rules? Your argument on whether or not magic gives a shit is exactly outside of the rules. lore =/= rules. If you want to make a lore argument, don't complain about lore argument responses.
Ok. So I just want to clarify: GP costs to components on some spells exist.
It's actually in the rules that magic is just the weave of reality and casting spells is being able to pull on that weave to achieve your desired effect on reality. This is in the Basic Rules and PHB. A weave is a thread that is connected to other threads to form a pattern and is therefore not a sentient creature. Because it is not a sentient creature it doesn't give a shit about anything, because only sentient creatures can do such a thing.
So, no I wasn't going outside rules into lore. I was using the rules and definitions of the words used in those rules as detailed in the rulebook.
I'm unsure why you feel the need to clarify that some material components have a GP cost since not a single person here is denying that. But, um, thanks? **confuzzled**
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.
Have you read that sidebar recently or are you going off memory?
I am clarifying that the rules for spellcasting do not say that "symbolically and materially, the item must be close to an item with a particular value, but anything that is close enough will do." That seems to be the brunt of your argument.
Memory mostly. I play spellcasters a lot.
And you seem to be grossly misinterpreting my point. My point, if I had to sum it up, is twofold: fold 1 is that the Minor Conjuration feature creates an object that can be used as a spellcasting Material component. Fold 2 is that there is nothing indicating what, precisely, grants one object a value and if we default to the real world system of gold-value, in lieu of a defined one in the books, for objects of trade then if Item A (conjured) is the exact same material of the exact same amount, design, form, weight, etc as Item B (not conjured) then Item A should be granted its value in currency the same as Item B got it's value. The two folds together: Minor Conjuration lets you, to some extent, bypass some costly material components.
I apologise if I have previously been unclear. I hope this is clearer now?
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.
First, on the subject of the sidebar: the Weave is given the name Mystra in that text, making it a sentient being in FR. Then it goes on to say that it goes by other names in other places, but a sentient being by any other name...
And again, any discussion about the wants, needs, and cares of anything (sentient or not) is beyond the rules, therefore lore, according to what you said earlier.
And finally, to your argument: we default to the rules when we have questions on rules: objective value described in the DMG and the only things that gives them value are the rules (beyond DM arbitration), and the objective value of the conjuration that the subclass feature gives it.
Since you are making a handwaving argument -- the rules call for items of GP value, and the subclass feature doesn't provide its conjurations with any -- then I have nothing more to add.
Let's take a look at this sidebar to see if it is in the rules that we must consider Mystra to be the goddess of magic:(bold parts are added by me for emphasis)
This sidebar is just referencing some lore of Forgotten Realms where the spellcasters think of that fabric as the weave and say it is the essence of Mystra.
Taken from the Player's Handbook introduction:
The bold is mine to highlight that people don't always use Forgotten Realms and the rules given in the corebooks are not there to be specific for Forgotten Realms. I've never played in a Forgotten Realm campaign, for example, despite playing 3.5, 4th and 5th editions.
Just going to throw in this little bit from the Gods of the Multiverse appendix specifically dealing with the placement, power and purpose of Forgotten Realm gods or goddesses in general rule D&D:
Your DM determines which gods, if any, are worshiped in his or her campaign.
Forgotten Realms is not the rules of all D&D. Mystra is not part of the rules of any non-Forgotten Realms campaign.
Raw magic as described is a rule of D&D. The fabric that lets spellcasters use magic is a rule of D&D. It being called the weave and the essence of Mystra is not a rule of D&D, it is lore for Forgotten Realms setting (maybe others, haven't read them all). Lore is not rules of D&D.
It is a rule that raw magic, what magic really is, is mindless.
It is not lore to say that magic doesn't give a shit about something. Giving a shit about something is a mental process. This is a fact. Not just in D&D, it a full fact. In order for anything to have a mental process it must have a mind. This is not lore either, this is also a fact and again not just in D&D: it is a fact. If me and you went to a park in the real world and I pointed to a an actual tree and said "this is a tree" - I would be stating a fact. If I said that there is a world where trees are actually ancient immortal people cursed into being trees that would be lore. I trust you see the difference. If you cannot then I know no means of conveying my thoughts to you - it's kind of hard to discuss something logically in the English language with somebody rejecting outright the very basics of logical understanding and reasoning and/or rejecting official English language definitions.
Outside of lore there is absolutely nothing detailing why some spells need components with a cost value. There is nothing detailing how those materials acquired their gold cost value. Value is an easily attributable term when used by the normal definitions as granted by the English language and the concept so invented by our real world civilisations. If I cut wood from a tree, and used that wood to make a doll and decided that for the time and effort I spent I will sell it for £5, and find somebody who agreed to pay that £5 to me and did so. By all the definitions of value we have and accept in our English language in terms of currency and commerce - that doll was valued at £5. How was this determined? What if other people did the same and start making dolls exactly like mine and realised, hey people like dolls, and upped the price to £10 and people kept buying it at that price. Are the dolls still actually valued at £5 despite paying £10 for them or are they now valued at £10? By the definitions of value, the dolls actually now have the value of £10. It is now their cost.
Now if somebody comes along and just states "these dolls have a value of £0 to everybody because I say so" - if people ignore this statement and continuing paying £10 a pop for them, does that person's statement become true or false? It's false. What if the dolls became mass produced by a machine resulting in much less time and effort to make, yet still charged £10 each and continued to be bought at £10 each - does the value change? No. Does the person's statement now become true? No. So even though the method of creation changed, the item still had the same value because it was still the same thing. Now let's say the method of creation was changed again, this time the doll had a faint glow and disappeared after an hour. If I could find customers and tell them, hey, this doll costs the same but it's magic and if you make a wish upon it then it will soon disappear from this world and take that wish to the Gods themselves! - if I get customers willing to pay that £10 for this magic doll, does the value of the doll become different? No. Because they're still buying it up. So, then, does that person's statement now change because it's magic? Again, no because it's still a doll and there are still people willing to buy it at that price. Because that's what value, in cost terms, is. You going "it's conjured so it has no value to anyone!" is just like that hypothetical person making that earlier statement: it's a falsehood that isn't factoring what cost value means.
The D&D rules do not grant us any reasoning for the value or purpose of the material components and does not provide any new or different systems of gold, costs or the concept of monetary value. So, we have two options to interpret the references of gold cost and the value of material components: our normal real English language definitions and systems of commerce OR we interpret it as non-English undefined gibberish and invent an entirely new aspect of language and value-cost systems of commerce specific for our D&D games. You seem to be favouring the latter, good for you, but personally I find that barmy and exhausting (I took basic commercial financing courses [nothing fancy, just some online things] and it bored me to tears, I don't want to have to worry about that crap in my D&D T_T) so I will be sticking with the former.
And when sticking to the former, the Minor Conjuration feature technically allows the conjuration of costly material components usable as material components in spellcasting. It's clearly not intended, but works RAW as far as I can see. My interest in these discussions was to see if there actually is a Rules as Written explanation for why it would not work. And so far not seen one definitive explanation beyond the conjured = no value argument, which doesn't work for reasons explained above. The closest is the consumed = damage bit, and while I don't agree with it as a surface reaction I haven't slept in over 30+ hours and I'm not yet ready to really think about that one yet so I'm gonna circle back round to that when my brain is hating me a little less.
*looks up* Sweet jeebus in a gravy boat this a long 'un. My apologies, seems I was getting a bit carried away. O.O
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.
I think the easiest way to go about it is to do two things:
The first one is pretty easy. What spell effects allow you to create an arbitrary object? The list is actually remarkably short:
Creating an object is one of the specifically listed modes of the Wish spell. Create any non-magical object up to 25,000 gp in value of virtually any size with no restrictions on what you do with it. So a 9th level spell can clearly do it.
The Creation spell is a 5th level illusion that creates a temporary object of limited size for a limited duration that you have seen before. That sounds extraordinarily familiar. The name is also very similar (Creation vs Minor Conjuration). Honestly, this spell should probably have been conjuration instead of illusion, but I know this used to be one of the old shadow magic semi-real illusions so I assume it was grandfathered in. However, beyond that, this spell seems like a perfect match. However, this spell explicitly states: Using any material created by this spell as another spell's material component causes that spell to fail. Any object of any value created by this spell can't be used as a spell component. It doesn't even talk about the value of the object or the spell consuming the object. If you created a 100 gp pearl, casting Identify through it would cause Identify to fail even though Identify doesn't consume the pearl. So, a 5th level spell that does almost exactly the same thing as Minor Conjuration is wholly unable to create spell components of any kind.
Speculations about Limited Wish aside, then, there's not really any spell that can create an arbitrary object with a gp value that can then be used as a material component in a spell with the lone exception of Wish.
So, do we think that Minor Conjuration, an ability that Conjurers get at 3rd level when they learn 2nd level spells, takes a single action to use, and has no limitations on how often you can use it (i.e., like a cantrip), should be as powerful as at least a 6th level spell and possibly as powerful as Wish?
Sure, there are spells that create things which you could theoretically sell or use as spell components (Wall of Stone, Mighty Fortress, Temple of the Gods, Create or Destroy Water, Symbol) and even temporary items which you could theoretically sell (Create Food and Water, Goodberry, Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, Heroes' Feast). Some of those have expensive material components, some of which are consumed by the spell. And there is a spell that allows you to create things with significantly higher value (Fabricate) but those require high quality raw materials and proficiency in the tools needed to create that object. It won't actually save you any money in most cases, and its still has to be something you can construct. You can't Fabricate a 100 gp pearl, for example.
*You get minor conjugation at level 2, not level 3.
The gp cost doesn’t represent how the gods gave everything a price tag. It is how valuable and well made it is (at least for diamonds). A small diamond that isn’t well cut is not worth as much as a big diamond that is well cut right? The magic needs a diamond or another material that has enough quantity and quality not a diamond some random person thinks must be 5000 gp! The diamond needs to be valuable enough. So a perfect replica of a 5000 gp diamond would work as a spell component because it is well made and big enough! Also for the people who think it is way to OP. It is just a different way to be op in D&D. At the end though it’s all up to the real gods of the universe, the Dm.
When players get creative.
From what I can see, this would be yet another RAI vs. RAW question where the RAI - spells requiring a component with a stated gold piece value - is based on an arbitrary simplification of reality for the sake of game balance, but which doesn't make much sense once you start asking questions about perceived vs. objective value. A conflict arises between different ways of interpreting rules because the devs either weren't paying enough attention when they wrote Minor Conjuration (did they leave out the "cannot be used for spell components" text that is found in the spell Minor Creation on purpose?) or wanted to leave it up to DM fiat and therefore left it intentionally vague.
To address the related question of whether a diamond worth 500 gp is actually worth 500 gp is beyond the scope of the game that isn't meant to mirror real world economics. Monetary of spell components has always been a gross simplification that exists for the sake of neatness and simplicity, nothing more. However, I do agree with Cyb3rM1nd's implication that this reflects a lack of consistency and thoughtfulness in world-building, which I would liken to a J.K. Rowling novel in its tendency to be functional for the sake of entertainment value but rather lacking in believability when held up for scrutiny by those of us who place a value on having a logical set of rules for how and why magic works the way the writer(s) say it does.
Similar conflicts between D&D rules for sake of simplicity and D&D rules as a representation of how magic works in the game world keep cropping up and will keep cropping up b/c D&D was never meant to make all that much sense in the first place. We have a similar issue with crafting rules, trade economics between areas, the existence of a plethora of humanoids with more powers than humans but somehow allow humans to dominate most terrestial environments, and the Warforged as magical-created, but not magical for purposes of Detect Magic-perpetual motion machine physics nonsense-ry.
Regarding assigning “value” to a conjured item, since it’s not specified in the rules, this is entirely up to the DM. That said, gp value items for spells is a tricky system when you dive in. If you buy diamond dust for 100gp, does a jeweler get to walk up to you and say “Hey that diamond dust is worth only 99gp!” as you’re getting ready to cast and then the spell can’t work? Does a component purchase in one location at one time set the value of that item for all locations at all times? Does government inflation affect value of consumable magic components? In my DM world, choosing School of Conjuration is a path that provides a benefit of making consumable components (that are clearly glowing, i.e. decision = most people don’t buy glowing gems). Conjuration school provides this benefit, while not providing the benefits that other schools would have if the Wizard had chosen one of them instead. Material conjuring is a value of this school. If as a DM I was worried about the component financial system in my world being broken by a Conjuring Wizard, I might give pause and consider if my world might not be focusing on the most interesting elements of the game.
It's fairly obvious that the designers feel that by assigning a value to components - that if a player spends that much then they have enough. Simple as that. Value is clearly an intrinsic thing that some objects have that is universal.
Yes it's overly simplistic and a bit stupid - because clearly financial systems are fluid. It's up to you to determine how that works in your game. RAW though - if you buy a diamond for 50g - its value is 50g.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).