Source
r/AdventurersLeague•
Feldoth

Looking for clarifications on Minor Conjuration

Anyone know if there is any rulings on this on Facebook or elsewhere that is not the FAQ? Specifically I'm wondering about the following:

Spells or affects that create items can only create items that are otherwise available for purchase.

This is from the FAQ - what I'm trying to figure out is if this is intended to be more of a whitelist or a blacklist. For example, there are items defined in the DMG which are not available to purchase in AL - obviously those are not allowed by this rule. However, I'm curious if this further limits it to not being able to replicate objects which are not defined items (such as, for example, a wooden box). Various objects are not defined items in game terms (they have no stats), so I'm unsure if this rule affects their creation. As a practical example I'm wondering if (at DM discretion) a player who is able to observe a key in sufficient detail might be able to copy it, despite that "key" (let alone that specific key) is not a defined item in any source that I'm aware of.

As a side note, I'm concerned that this line might also render the Illusionist level 14 ability basically useless, including preventing the in-text example from working if the "whitelist" method is correct here (can't make an illusion of a bridge real if you can't buy a bridge). This makes me think the blacklist interpretation is correct, but it can be read both ways. It's also possible that the intended target of this rule is spells/effects that create permanent items but if so it's not written correctly.

u/stinkyettin - any input on any of this?

​

Edit (3/26/20) - I got this back from the admin, posting it for future reference:

​

Thank you for these questions and sparking a conversation about clarification.

You asked about the intent. It's meant to limit the creation of wealth, and the kinds of equipment and items taken outside of the adventure. It's not meant to limit the creative problem solving of those bridges or to limit the workings of an ability like Transmuter's Stone.

Admin are working on new verbiage but in the meantime DMs can decide what is and isn't appropriate.

I hope you stay safe and have fun!

Ma'at Crook

Adventurers League Community Manager

​

Also this is less AL related and more of a RAW interpretation question... I'm curious about this line as it applies to creating a ranged weapon:

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

If you conjure a crossbow and load it with a perfectly normal bolt, does the crossbow vanish when the bolt hits the target? Does the crossbow do the damage or does the bolt? The damage dice is on the weapon which I believe is the main argument for the weapon doing damage. Is that transferred to the bolt when it is fired - does it set the bolt's damage? This line from the DMG is what makes me wonder about this more than anything:

If a magic weapon has the ammunition property, ammunition fired from it is considered magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.

If the ammunition were not dealing the damage, why would it need to be considered magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance/immunity (and likewise why would +X ammo add to the damage)? There is also the practical answer of "of course the Ammo is what actually damages someone when you shoot them, the weapon simply propels it in the right direction," but in game terms this is less clear than I expected it to be.

Does anyone have anything conclusive on this, or is it just going to be DM discretion?

Posted Feb 28, 2020, 7:42 PM UTC · edited

619
Elder_Platypus•

Ask your DM (or poll the DMs you will likely game under).

Seriously. You will get table variation on these questions.

3
FeldothOP•

Obviously, but it doesn't hurt to get a community consensus. The first thing everybody is going to do when trying to figure this out is google similar questions to see what others think. Likewise the AL rules aren't supposed to be DM discretion (just D&D rules), which is why I'm hoping that line has been clarified somewhere.

1
Elder_Platypus•

AL Admins have repeatedly stated they will never give an AL Ruling on things that are clearly rules questions about the core rules.

As such, it will be up to each table DM to interpret.

Therefore, asking those who are likely to be your DM will probably be in your best interest, because even if you get 90% of reddit DMs to say one thing, it's pointless if every local DM in your area thinks differently.

My opinion is that the magic weapon disappearing after using it once is meant to be a limitation. It was added in errata. Trying to bypass that using the ammunition rules is not RAI in my opinion. RAW, could be read either way, but I'll rule it as one conjuration = one attack, since that seems to me the clearest interpretation of the RAI.

3
FeldothOP•

I think you may be confused as to what I'm asking for here. I'm aware that the admin's try not to rule on core rules, which is why I separated this into two parts. The first part is an AL rules question (the quoted text is from the AL FAQ) - that's the part I'd like admin clarification from (including anything they might have previously said on other platforms - I can't see facebook so I can't look myself).

The second part is a D&D rules question, which is why I didn't ask Travis to comment on it but I am curious what the community thinks and if anyone has any specific rules to point out that might clarify it.

I'm fairly split on this one myself, I think you are probably right that RAI the weapon should poof after shooting, but I can't figure out why they would have needed to add that line to the DMG if the weapon did damage rather than the ammo (it was also an errata, so apparently they felt that it was needed, and it wouldn't have been if the weapon was doing damage). I'm more-or-less hoping that someone can point to something specific one way or the other that clarifies the status of ammunition dealing damage. If nothing exists, oh well, but can't hurt to ask.

2
Elder_Platypus•

Spells or affects that create items can only create items that are otherwise available for purchase.

I'm fairly certain this ruling came about due to Fabricate, and abilities like the Forge Cleric channel divinity, things that last beyond the duration of the adventure.

I'm not sure the admins considered this with regards to Minor Conjuration or the 14th level illusionist ability. You'll need to ask the admins to get anything clearer, but right now, it does seem like a big restriction.

2
ArchonErikr•

Given RAW, I'm inclined to say that the bolts are what does the damage, and the weapon type is what determines the damage dice as the construction of the weapon affects its stopping power. As such, a bow, crossbow, or other ranged weapon that fires ammunition would not disappear when its projectile strikes the target for exactly the reason you stated: the weapon itself is not causing damage (granted, if you were to strike an opponent with the butt of the crossbow, it would vanish after dealing damage).

2
lutomes•

RAW it's the crossbow that does damage. The bolts are ammunition that modifies the damage done by the crossbow. All the properties of damage, range etc are listed on the crossbow not the consumable.

That's why a magical crossbow still does magical damage even when the bolt is not magical.

I'm reality we know it's the bolt that does the damage.

2
ArchonErikr•

I've always read it differently. The bolt provides the damage, which is why it has the ammunition property. The type of crossbow just determines the amount of damage it can do. A heavy crossbow is more reinforced and has stronger arms than a light or hand crossbow, which is why it does more damage. The reason why the damage is listed by the weapon and not by the ammunition type is for simplicity: players don't care that their crossbow bolts do different damage if used with other weapons nearly as much as they care about how much damage the crossbow bolt does from their weapon.

2
lutomes•

But if we're talking RAW the object you interact with or attack with is the crossbow. The bolts provide a modifier to the attack with the crossbow.

I understand why you're saying what you are. But as this is AL, a strict interpretation is required.

Fundamentally the spell is written so that the created object disappears if it causes damage. Circumventing it using logic and physics from the real world is not appropriate.

1
FeldothOP•

Here's a question then, what if you conjure a crossbow bolt and load it into a non-magical crossbow? The damage would be magical, but by your interpretation should the bolt not remain intact since it did no damage?

1
FeldothOP•

The reason a non-magical bolt does does magic damage is because of this line from the DMG:

If a magic weapon has the ammunition property, ammunition fired from it is considered magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.

This was actually added in as eratta after publication, which further implies that there was a problem to be fixed. If it works like you suggest, adding this line to the DMG would not have been required.

That's my take at least.

1
Shufflebuzz•

If you conjure a crossbow and load it with a perfectly normal bolt, does the crossbow vanish when the bolt hits the target?

Yes. That's how I'd handle it.

1
guyblade•

The real question is:

If you use minor conjuration to create a spellcasting focus, does the spellcasting focus disappear when you use it to fulfill the material component of a spell which does damage?

Also, if you use minor conjuration to create a shortsword and use the conjured shortsword to fulfill the material component of Steel Wind Strike does it vanish after the spell? During the spell? While implied by the spell text that the weapon is doing the damage, there is nothing in the RAW text that makes says so.

1
FeldothOP•

I think possibly the more apt question is if you reverse the situation and wield a non-magical crossbow and conjure a crossbow bolt, does the bolt vanish when you shoot someone with it? The damage would be magical due to the magical ammo, but the prevailing opinion is that the bolt is not what is doing damage, so shouldn't it stick around?

1
Shipposting_Duck•

A 9mm fired from a rifle has an entirely different damage potential from a 9mm fired from a handgun.

An arrow fired by a shortbow has an entirely different damage potential from an arrow fired by a longbow.

Projectiles deal damage based on both the projectile and the launcher. If you need enhanced stopping power, thinking of increasing ammunition calibre is as valid as thinking of getting a rifle with a higher muzzle velocity. In similar terms, a +X launcher and +X ammunition can both affect damage and accuracy in a stacking way.

Therefore if you shoot someone with conjured bolts, they disappear. If you shoot physical bolts with a conjured weapon, they don't disappear.

As for whitelist vs blacklist, it is phrased in a whitelist form, and so the default ruling I'd use is the whitelist form. In a home game I might allow key fabrication and wouldn't have any issue compensating for that, but in AL I'd not allow it unless the module makes an explicit exclusion.

1
FeldothOP•

Real world physics the projectile definitely does the damage. In game terms the only thing with damage dice is the weapon, and all references I can find mention the weapon doing damage (I haven't found any exception for ammo, though I was partially hoping someone would know of one when I posted this).

I am curious though, how do you handle the fact that read as a whitelist the transmutation wizard level 6 ability doesn't do anything, and shadow blade and goodberry are both uncastable? All of those are spells or effects that create an item which is not normally purchasable, and so cannot be used if that rule is read as a whitelist.

1
Shipposting_Duck•

The alternative for damage would be to list ranged weapons with only their range brackets and properties, and put "1d6 with hand crossbow, 1d8 with light crossbow, 1d10 with heavy crossbow" in the ammunition section. Strictly speaking that would be more accurate, but I don't know a single game designer who would publish tables that way.

As for the whitelist, it is created to prevent abuse of spells such as Fabricate to make otherwise impossible to attain items attainable. I don't think they were considering short-term use of minor conjuration or illusory reality when writing the rule, and it's pretty clear it is not intended to delete spells from the spellbook. The alternative of using a blacklist makes the rule essentially unenforceable unless the list is updated with every single module that introduces any MacGuffin.

1
FeldothOP•

I don't disagree, but as we can only go by RAW in AL there needs to be something specific saying otherwise for a DM to make that ruling. Logic tells us it should work one way, but what we know of the intent behind the rule says it should probably work the opposite way, and all the text I can find supports that. Unless you have something that specifically says that I don't think its reasonable to rule against what appears to be RAI on this - RAW doesn't seem to support it even if logic does.

I definitely agree on the intent of the rule probably being targeted at permanent arbitrary item creation - I don't think it would be too hard to go the blacklist method though, as each of those spells require the base items to be non-magical, which limits what can be done considerably. I'm actually unsure if they need to go further than that for the temporary creation effects, as I assume any MacGuffin's are going to be magical else you could just manually recreate them.

Alternatively they could better define what an item is, make it:

"Spells and effects which create items are limited to those otherwise available for purchase. Anything created by such an effect may either emulate the properties of a purchasable item or else be treated as a basic object. Basic objects have no properties other than that which the creating effect specifically gives it, and that of the material it is made of (if applicable)."

This would allow for arbitrary non-magical object creation, and if for example a forge cleric makes a sword out of silver it retains the properties of silver. It prevents things like creating a ballista however, as all you'd get is a ballista shaped object that can't actually be used as a weapon (except as a 1d4 improvised one). Things like Shadow Blade would work fine with this, as its properties are defined by the spell, and likewise for Goodberry and the Transmuter's Stone. Fabricate can still craft random things, but just like the forge cleric can't make weapons you can't normally buy.

1