What (potentially) can Minor Conjuration do?

[Chronos]

My next character is going to be a conjuration wizard, and while I know that they're not usually regarded as the most powerful, that 2nd level feature is the sort of thing that triggers my inner drive for shenanigans. There are some things it definitely can do, and some things it definitely can't, but there's a lot of grey area in there, and so I intend to ask my DM about a long list of them, to pin down just what is and isn't possible. For reference, here's the text of the ability:

Starting at 2nd level when you select this school, you can use your action to conjure up an inanimate object in your hand or on the ground in an unoccupied space that you can see within 10 feet of you. The object can be no larger than 3 feet on a side and weigh no more than 10 pounds, and its form must be that of a nonmagical object that you have seen. The object is visibly magical, radiating dim light out to 5 feet.

The object disappears after 1 hour, when you use this feature again, or if it takes any damage.

But there are a lot of ambiguities, here. What counts as "an object"? What counts as "3 feet on a side"? What counts as "a nonmagical object that you have seen"? What counts as "taking damage"? It's obviously magical, but is it obviously conjured? Are there any limits on what it can be used for?

I could come up with the rulings I'd make, but ultimately, the opinion that matters is that of my DM. So for now, my primary goal is to come up with a list of things to ask him about. Though I imagine that folks in this thread are going to debate rulings, too.

Here's what I've got so far:

Spoiler

Show

A 50' coil of rope
A 5' long stick
A chain composed of many links
A key the wizard has at hand
A key the wizard is closely familiar with
A key the wizard has handled once
A key the wizard has seen hanging on a guard's belt
A copy of a book the wizard has read
A copy of a book the wizard has seen, closed
A copy of a wizard's spellbook
A container of a nonmagical liquid
A container of a nonmagical powder or dust
A jar with a lid that can be opened but remains attached
A jar with a removable lid
A piece of ice, in an environment that's warmer than freezing
A hatchet or short sword, that could then be wielded as a magic weapon
An arrow
A shortbow
A living plant
A dead plant
A dead creature
A common spellcasting material component
A spellcasting focus
A valuable spellcasting component
A consumed spellcasting component
A valuable, consumed spellcasting component
A specific sign or painting that the wizard has seen before
A sign or painting bearing some message or image the wizard has never seen in sign or painting form
An object that the wizard has never actually seen, but has seen an illusion of
An object that the wizard has never seen directly, but has seen through scrying or the like

[Darth Credence]

How I would rule each is listed after them, for the record.

Here's what I've got so far:

Spoiler

Show

A 50' coil of rope - No, longer than 3'
A 5' long stick - No, longer than 3'
A chain composed of many links - Unclear, how long is the chain?
A key the wizard has at hand - Yes
A key the wizard is closely familiar with - Yes
A key the wizard has handled once -
A key the wizard has seen hanging on a guard's belt Could make a key, but if they cannot see the entire key, it won't work in the lock
A copy of a book the wizard has read - Yes
A copy of a book the wizard has seen, closed - Yes, but it wouldn't have any text inside
A copy of a wizard's spellbook - No, I would consider that magic
A container of a nonmagical liquid - Yes, but I'd rule removing anything from it is damage and it would disappear, because it would no longer be the same thing
A container of a nonmagical powder or dust - Yes, but see liquid
A jar with a lid that can be opened but remains attached - Yes
A jar with a removable lid - Yes but "damaged" if separated
A piece of ice, in an environment that's warmer than freezing - Yes but it would disappear quickly once it melts enough to be damaged
A hatchet or short sword, that could then be wielded as a magic weapon - Yes if less than 3' long (borderline on short sword, maybe, remember this is total length not blade length),but would disappear with every hit
An arrow - Yes if it's shorter than 3'
A shortbow - No, over 3'
A living plant - No
A dead plant - Yes if under 3' and 10 pounds
A dead creature - Yes if under 3' and 10 pounds
A common spellcasting material component - Yes if under 3' & 10 pounds
A spellcasting focus - Yes to a version that couldn't be used as a focus, as that would be magic in my world
A valuable spellcasting component - Yes if under 3' & 10 pounds
A consumed spellcasting component - Yes if under 3' & 10 pounds
A valuable, consumed spellcasting component - Yes if under 3' & 10 pounds
A specific sign or painting that the wizard has seen before - Yes if under 3' & 10 pounds
A sign or painting bearing some message or image the wizard has never seen in sign or painting form - No
An object that the wizard has never actually seen, but has seen an illusion of - No
An object that the wizard has never seen directly, but has seen through scrying or the like - Yes if under 3' & 10 pounds

I can't come up with anything to ask your DM about, because all of these seem like easy calls to me that the DM should make the same, except spell components (not saying that someone making a different call is wrong, just that they seem clear to me). The wording seems clear enough. Have you seen this exact object before? If yes, is it a single object? (A chain is a single object, IMO, until you break a link and it becomes more objects.) If yes, is it non-magical? If yes, do any of the XYZ dimensions exceed 3' (without bending it in some way to fit)? If no, does it weigh more than 10 pounds? If no, conjure away.

Then it becomes a question of what you can do with it, more than whether you can conjure. You can attack with it, but if you do any damage, it disappears. That's clear from the description. It is also clear that it is magical from the description, so attacking with it would be attacking with a magic weapon. There may be some argument around what fully counts as seen - I would rule that "seen" means you have to have seen everything you are recreating. Therefore the text of a book that the wizard hasn't read wouldn't have been seen, and couldn't be recreated.

Therefore, what I would clarify with the DM is not all of those individual questions, but the principles. So mine would be:

• Does an object composed of discrete smaller objects that are intrinsically linked count?
• If yes to the first question, what will happen if those parts are then separated?
• Can you define the requirements for "seen", in terms of how closely, how recently, how long, and how much of the object?
• Will you rule that no dimension of the object can be longer than 3', or that the object must be able to fit in a 3'x3'x3' box?
• Are there things other than "magic items" as described in the basic rules that would count as magic for this ability, like spell components?
• Can a conjured item be consumed or used up before disappearing?

First two questions would answer for the chains, jars, and the like. Question 3 is to cover all the things about keys, books, signs, and the like. Question 4 is to cover things like the rope length or anything else like a long chain or possibly a bow. Questions 5 and 6 are for using things in spells, with 6 and 2 combining to cover if you conjure up a bag of sand, can you throw the sand in someone's eyes.

[KorvinStarmast]

A small beer keg
A small barrel / tun of wine
A jug of whiskey
A large jar of pickles.
A pearl.

[Chronos]

Korvin, those first four would all fall under "a container of liquid". For the last, obviously you could make a pearl, but the relevant question there would be whether you can sell it.

Darth Credence, some of them seem easy to me (like, I definitely wouldn't allow someone to cast Raise Dead with a conjured diamond, even though the strict RAW would seem to allow it), but others I'm much less sure about. Like, the key that the wizard saw hanging on the guard's belt: There's an argument that the wizard can't remember it well enough, but there's also an argument that it must take the exact form of an object the wizard's seen, so they can't get it a little wrong even if they try.

Or take the illusion question: On the one hand, if you can make something you've only seen an illusion of, that allows you to make an object that never actually existed. But if you can't, then it turns the ability into an illusion-detector. Neither one of those seems entirely within the intent of the ability.

I think the primary reason for "that you have seen" is to prevent people from making smartphones or laser pistols or the like (because you know that someone would try that). But it also gets to a question of how the ability actually works: Are you conjuring the metaphysical essence of a specific existing object, or are you crafting it yourself out of magically-conjured material?

[KorvinStarmast]

Korvin, those first four would all fall under "a container of liquid". For the last, obviously you could make a pearl, but the relevant question there would be whether you can sell it.

Depends on the results of the deception roll, I suspect.

[Darth Credence]

Korvin, those first four would all fall under "a container of liquid". For the last, obviously you could make a pearl, but the relevant question there would be whether you can sell it.

Darth Credence, some of them seem easy to me (like, I definitely wouldn't allow someone to cast Raise Dead with a conjured diamond, even though the strict RAW would seem to allow it), but others I'm much less sure about. Like, the key that the wizard saw hanging on the guard's belt: There's an argument that the wizard can't remember it well enough, but there's also an argument that it must take the exact form of an object the wizard's seen, so they can't get it a little wrong even if they try.

Or take the illusion question: On the one hand, if you can make something you've only seen an illusion of, that allows you to make an object that never actually existed. But if you can't, then it turns the ability into an illusion-detector. Neither one of those seems entirely within the intent of the ability.

I think the primary reason for "that you have seen" is to prevent people from making smartphones or laser pistols or the like (because you know that someone would try that). But it also gets to a question of how the ability actually works: Are you conjuring the metaphysical essence of a specific existing object, or are you crafting it yourself out of magically-conjured material?

For the key that the wizard sees hanging from the guard's belt, I would say that the wizard did not actually see the entire key. There could be an argument about how the guard was moving and how long they looked, so I'll explain my reasoning slightly differently. Let's say that the wizard has been captured, had special mittens that prevent somatic components put on their hands, in a cell with several glyphs set up to cast silence in the area if anyone starts saying magic words, and a bag over their head. The door is shut behind them and the key is left hanging on a hook, such that one side is facing the cell and the other is facing the wall. The wizard gets the hood off, and looks out at the key. They can see half of it clearly, including all of the grooves that will be involved in unlocking the door. But what they cannot see are the grooves on the other side - it could be smooth, two grooves, whatever. So if they tried to conjure that key, they would not have the information to get all of it. Therefore, I would say that they cannot conjure it. Now, if they didn't have a hood, and could watch the door being locked, they could have seen everything about the key and duplicated it. That, to me, covers your possibilities - yes, they cannot make a key "wrong", but if they don't have all of the information about it, they don't fulfill the requirements to make it at all.

For the illusion part of it, is it an illusion detector? Maybe, but not better than a stick. If we say you cannot recreate an illusion, then yes, the ability would fail trying to recreate one. But for that to be an illusion detector, it would only work on illusions that appear to fit within the parameters of the ability (less than 3' and 10 pounds). That's pretty limiting on it's own, but not the most limiting. So you think the jeweled chalice on the table is an illusion. You look it over and try to create one. If it works, OK. If it doesn't, it was an illusion. Great - but wouldn't poking the chalice with a stick have told you the same thing quicker? And are we sure it would tell you it's an illusion, and not that it's magical? You can't recreate a magic item, either, so if that cup is enchanted to keep drinks cold, you can't duplicate it.

As to whether the call is easy, I did not make myself clear. I personally think the call is easy so I have a hard time coming up with appropriate questions. What is "easy" for me may be blind spots I have to what makes it difficult, long experience at making these kinds of calls, or sheer hubris about my abilities - who knows? I did not make that clear before, and I should have.

Depends on the results of the deception roll, I suspect.

I'd set that DC at 30, since it is visibly glowing enough to shed dim light for 5'.

[GeneralVryth]

Alchemist's fire, and other energetic materials (are such things magical?)

[Chronos]

I think that alchemist's fire would take damage as soon as it starts burning, and hence would disappear before it got the chance to damage anything else? That said, I do have some tricks in mind for combining this with real alchemist's fire.

Quoth Darth Credence:

I'd set that DC at 30, since it is visibly glowing enough to shed dim light for 5'.

OK, so duplicate a weapon, and tell the buyer that it's glowing because it's a magic weapon. Get an even better price for it! Unless there's something else that makes it obvious it's fake, which there might be.

[Theodoxus]

The one I always wanted to try was going to the best apothecary in the largest town and copy purple worm poison.

I don't know what other DMs would make for an ability check, but if you could find elemental sodium or phosphorus, that could be quite helpful. Likewise (and very much harder) finding radioactive elements; especially if there were text (ancient or contemporary) that talked about safe handling of 'glowing hot rocks' (or other descriptors).

Minor conjuration is really only hampered by your imagination and the DMs feelings about potential metagaming modern knowledge into a fantasy medieval game.

[Darth Credence]

The one I always wanted to try was going to the best apothecary in the largest town and copy purple worm poison.

I don't know what other DMs would make for an ability check, but if you could find elemental sodium or phosphorus, that could be quite helpful. Likewise (and very much harder) finding radioactive elements; especially if there were text (ancient or contemporary) that talked about safe handling of 'glowing hot rocks' (or other descriptors).

Minor conjuration is really only hampered by your imagination and the DMs feelings about potential metagaming modern knowledge into a fantasy medieval game.

I would rule a vial of purple worm poison could be created, but it couldn't be used because separating any of it from its original form would be damage and it would go away. It couldn't be sold, either, as it would be glowing and obviously magical, so the apothecary would not buy it.

For elemental sodium or phosphorous, I assume you are thinking of making it go boom. As soon as the first atom of it reacts, it has been damaged and it's gone.

These are what I would rule, and not intended to be a claim to what everyone should rule.

[Pex]

The object glows so that players can't make coins or gems to spend them in shops. To claim a conjured sword breaks when used to attack because it took damage is being grossly unfair. The fighter's sword isn't taking damage. The great weapon master barbarian's great sword isn't taken damage when he attacks. The conjured sword is being used as designed.

To deny the sword use is to say the enemy automatically knows a Silent Image of a wall of stone is an illusion or at least automatically gets an intelligence check where as if Wall of Stone was cast the enemy would accept it as real and behave accordingly. That's the DM metagaming an ability to uselessness for fear the players is trying to get away with something. The DM knows the source because he has to. That doesn't mean the NPC/monster knows.

That's not to say there should be no DM adjudication at all. As much as a DM shouldn't always assume players are trying to get away with something, neither should players actually do try to get away with something. Call it a house rule if you must, but to say a conjured thing can't be used as a spell component is reasonable. Particular spells use up an expensive component on purpose. Accepting the PC saw the real thing once, always having it available for the spell to be cast almost at will (spell slot limited) might lead to unforeseen consequences. Playability of the game matters.

The Conjurer otherwise creating an object to be used as the object is supposed to be used is the whole point of the ability. A conjured door stop doesn't stop being a door stop when it blocks the door from closing because oh noes it got scratched from the friction thus took damage so sorry so sad the door slams shut.

[Darth Credence]

The object glows so that players can't make coins or gems to spend them in shops. To claim a conjured sword breaks when used to attack because it took damage is being grossly unfair. The fighter's sword isn't taking damage. The great weapon master barbarian's great sword isn't taken damage when he attacks. The conjured sword is being used as designed.

To deny the sword use is to say the enemy automatically knows a Silent Image of a wall of stone is an illusion or at least automatically gets an intelligence check where as if Wall of Stone was cast the enemy would accept it as real and behave accordingly. That's the DM metagaming an ability to uselessness for fear the players is trying to get away with something. The DM knows the source because he has to. That doesn't mean the NPC/monster knows.

That's not to say there should be no DM adjudication at all. As much as a DM shouldn't always assume players are trying to get away with something, neither should players actually do try to get away with something. Call it a house rule if you must, but to say a conjured thing can't be used as a spell component is reasonable. Particular spells use up an expensive component on purpose. Accepting the PC saw the real thing once, always having it available for the spell to be cast almost at will (spell slot limited) might lead to unforeseen consequences. Playability of the game matters.

The Conjurer otherwise creating an object to be used as the object is supposed to be used is the whole point of the ability. A conjured door stop doesn't stop being a door stop when it blocks the door from closing because oh noes it got scratched from the friction thus took damage so sorry so sad the door slams shut.

The minor conjuration effect specifies:

The object disappears after 1 hour, when you use this feature again, or if it takes or deals any damage.

If you use a conjured sword to attack someone, you get one hit and poof, it's gone. Everything else you are talking about here is therefore pointless. It is nothing like your silent image/wall of stone comparison, because the rules state it is gone. It is nothing like your doorstop complaint.

Creating a vial of poison is probably not allowed, period, as the poison and the vial are two separate things. I'd rule that you can create a vial with a sloshing fluid in it that looks just like purple worm poison with the exception of it glowing. But when you separate that into different parts, by removing a lid or taking part of it out of the container, it is no longer a single object that has been conjured by the effect. And if you are thinking of the sodium, the sodium reacts with water, with the stuff that hits water reacting first. Throw a chunk in a pool and you'll see it isn't an immediate everything goes at once, it builds. If it builds, then the first part that starts is being damaged by the water, and the object is therefore gone before you get to a massive explosion that would happen if 10 pounds of sodium was exposed to water all at once.

Yes, creating an object to do what the object does is the point. But the point is not to create something that can do damage, since it explicitly says that it goes away if it does. If you only create objects that do damage, the ability is going to be disappointing.

[Chronos]

The "or deals damage" was an erratum, not in the original printing. Like any erratum, not everyone will even be aware of its existence, and so certainly not everyone will use that rule. Personally, I think it was a bad rule, because the wizard enabling the fighter to contribute vs. an enemy resistant to nonmagical damage is good team play, but if you accept the existence of the erratum, it's a clear rule.

Although, even with that rule, making and using weapons is still possible; it just disappears after one hit. If you're making an arrow, that probably doesn't even matter at all (though it'd take two players' actions just to get one attack per round that way, occasionally but not usually worth it). But what if you're using regular arrows with a conjured bow? Is it the bow that's dealing the damage, or the arrows?

[follacchioso]

Here's what I've got so far:

Spoiler

Show

A 50' coil of rope
A 5' long stick
A chain composed of many links
A key the wizard has at hand
A key the wizard is closely familiar with
A key the wizard has handled once
A key the wizard has seen hanging on a guard's belt
A copy of a book the wizard has read
A copy of a book the wizard has seen, closed
A copy of a wizard's spellbook
A container of a nonmagical liquid
A container of a nonmagical powder or dust
A jar with a lid that can be opened but remains attached
A jar with a removable lid
A piece of ice, in an environment that's warmer than freezing
A hatchet or short sword, that could then be wielded as a magic weapon
An arrow
A shortbow
A living plant
A dead plant
A dead creature
A common spellcasting material component
A spellcasting focus
A valuable spellcasting component
A consumed spellcasting component
A valuable, consumed spellcasting component
A specific sign or painting that the wizard has seen before
A sign or painting bearing some message or image the wizard has never seen in sign or painting form
An object that the wizard has never actually seen, but has seen an illusion of
An object that the wizard has never seen directly, but has seen through scrying or the like

Looking at this list, the only really interesting one is creating a valuable consumed spell casting component.
The description of the class feature does not mention any limits of cost. A diamond worth 25,000 gp for a True Resurrection spell? In principle it is smaller than 3' and within the weight limit, so why not? The same for glyph of warding, greater restoration, symbol, clone, and others. A corollary problem is that some of these spells have a casting time of one hour, so in principle you the component may disappear 6 seconds before the casting is finished, but I would not be so strict about that.

[Kurald Galain]

Given any door that a rogue could open with lockpicks, I'd allow the wizard a similar check to open it by conjuring keys until he has one that fits.