Ahdok @ ahdok @ttrpg.network Posts 123Comments 824Joined 2 yr. ago
Fun fact, the hammer also does heat metal. Konsi uses it to make pancakes.
StackExchange has an interesting observation here, with people discussing this issue. I thought it interesting, so I'm reposting it here for consideration.
The general definition of "an object" says that "a building" is not a single object, it's a structure composed of many other objects. But a "bridge" is essentially a building, commonly a structure composed of many objects - and a bridge is one of the specific examples given.
"Clothes" is also one of the examples, not "an outfit" or "a piece of clothing" just "clothes."
I think, the wording is unclear - it never specifies that you can "only" make one object, it just lists some objects you can make, and uses plurals in a bunch of places. I've always read this as "you can make as much stuff as you have raw materials for"
The other way I would think about this, is that a "feast" or a "banquet" is a conceptual "thing" composed of many parts - but I at least think of a suit of platemail the same way, being familiar with platemail. Indeed some of the objects contained within a suit of platemail are individual objects per the rules:
"A breastplate" is one object, and contained within a suit of armour "Halfplate" is a breastplate, greaves and vambraces, and that's "one object" "Full Plate" is a single object, but it contains within it as a subset, "halfplate" and halfplate contains within it "breastplate"
I don't think "a meal" is really different to this, it could be viewed as a single entry (full meals are costed as single items in the PHB) - or it could be viewed as the sum of its components.
Fundamentally, I think the spell wording is not clear. As a DM, I like to go with simplicity and clarity when making rulings. My main goal is "is this a ruling where all the players understand it with the same meaning" - will my ruling cause further arguments or let us get on with the game.
"You can use the materials to make products made from those materials" as the spell states, and just letting my players have fun with it seems very simple to rule on - do they have enough "stuff" to make the products? That determines whether or not they can do it, and it's a nice clear line that everyone can understand and agree on.
On the other hand, Once you start getting into the situation of "is this a single object or not" it gets very complicated very quickly, and players will start to argue and try to game the system in order to be able to make more stuff. Two swords? well that's two items right? What if the swords were built into a frame and attached by sprue, like model making kits? that one sheet of parts is a single item. How complex a weird single metal object can I forge to get as many different swords as possible out of it?
You allow a suit of armour but not a banquet? I shape my food into the shapes of all the pieces of a suit of armour, and make banquetmail. It's now one object... Edible clothes exist, so what if I just claim all my food objects are clothes now?
I think, the simplest answer is just to go with the simple easy ruling - but check with your DM, they might have their own ideas.
Does that mean you can't fabricate an ice sculpture out of ice or a snowman out of snow?
I think the "finished product" probably should be at whatever temperature we associate with that thing as a "finished product". "a pizza", for example, would be warm - assuming the caster had the skills to make a good pizza. Some objects have a temperature as part of their essence of being "that thing" and if you change them to be room temperature, then they're no longer that thing.
As for "the caster needs to be a proficient chef" we're covered. Konsi is a proficient chef. Personally, I wouldn't allow this for a caster without cook's utensils. (they could make sandwiches though)
As always, check with your DM. People are going to interpret this differently.
Well, again, the spell doesn't ever specify "one object". It does say "products of the same material".
DMs will rule differently, so always check what your DM thinks.
In this case, Aristocratic level meals for a day is a single line on a chart in the PHB, so we're good.
But then so is a level 20 wizard.
This is my solution to the problem :)
Oh no worries, I didn't take this as a demand, I'm just very aware of my limitations. :)
Outside of the ethical issues behind the core technology in imagenet and LAION in the first place, and the ethical issue of scraping all the training data, and the ethical issues of replacing skilled and talented artists with robots built from their work...
Actually the more you think about it... there's a lot of ethical issues with Gen-AI.
Let's pretend we don't care about ethics for the moment. A situation like this is one where many people were going to just steal the art anyway.
One of the other problems with AI art is, it's low quality. Do you care about the quality of the art in the purpose you're using it for? - often for ttrpg monster art, people don't care that much, so it's a purpose that AI art can fulfill.
We're at an interesting point for future Konsi comics now.
I originally scripted out the "date night" comics as a four comics short story arc, and 43 comics later, I think this story arc has reached its conclusion. We've gone from the date invite, through the date itself and to the end of the day. We've also done the denouement jokes now - and at this point we're transitioning out of that specific story arc.
While I've enjoyed this arc, being tied into "keeping the narrative throughline from one comic to the next" is very restrictive, and It'll be nice to be able to jump around in time and place and topic again :)
I wish I could draw faster, but this process takes a lot of steps, and I substitute my lack of raw talent with time spent.
This presents several problems.
- What is "one object"? A proper suit of platemail is like 30 objects, the helm is a different object to the breastplate, and that is a different object to the left sabaton. Such a ruling could cause a lot of table arguments.
- Why is "a banquet" different to "a suit of platemail" in this regard? They're both comprised of several smaller components that could individually be described as objects?
- The spell doesn't explicitly say "you can only make one object" it repeatedly, and irresponsibly careens wildly from using singular examples, and using plurals. The first line of the spell text is "You convert raw materials into products of the same material." (plural) It then gives examples of "a bridge, a rope, clothes" (singular, singular, plural).
I don't see a sage advice on this issue specifically but Crawford has answered "can you make a full set of artisans tools with a casting of fabricate" with yes - and most sets of tools aren't "one object" either...
Remember to check creative uses of your spells with your DM. Your DM is at risk and your DM can go down as well as up, and you may not get back all the DM that you put in.
It happens to all of us occasionally.
Don't need a spell for that...
Throughout all of DnD (although 4e is a bit of an exception to this) - the creators have very much relied on something termed the "Friendly Uncle" method of teaching the game.
That is, you don't really learn to play DnD by opening the rulebooks and reading them end-to-end, you join a campaign with someone experienced (the "friendly uncle"), and they teach you the game as you go. The books serve as a sort of "reference" for common rules and making ideas, but most of your roleplaying experience comes from others.
As such, most groups and players of DnD have lots of conventions and house rules that they may not even realize are house rules. They have explanations for things that aren't in the core books, and they have rules and explanations from older editions - which often defined things in more detail. So much of the game is received wisdom from other players, and derives from someone "making it up" a decade ago when they couldn't find or didn't know an answer.
In one regard this is pretty good, the game is a living entity, constantly evolving, and allowing players with vastly different preferences to enjoy what is (ostensibly) the "same" game.
In the other regard, it's really frustrating when it comes to actually pinning down the mechanics or understanding of anything.
I'm afraid this isn't really accurate either. Most of the saves to avoid "being NPCified" (e.g. Vampire charm, Aboleth mind control, dominate person) are wisdom saves.
In 5e, it's safe to assume the default mental save is Wisdom. 90% of mental save effects target Wisdom, and if you're wondering which mental stat to buy resilience for, Wisdom is a clear winner.
If it's a "figure something out" effect or a contest of intelligence, it'll often an INT test, but those are rare. Good examples are piercing illusions, or things like trying to mentally force someone out of your minds (the detect thoughts intelligence contest)
Charisma tends to also be rare, but which things are CHA saves are all over the place, almost arbitrary. Effects that require a mental save but would have a physically debilitating effect (such as divine word, or the jumpscare attack of ghosts) are sometimes Charisma, and those are the most common appearances of it. Feeblemind, which drains your intelligence, is a charisma save for some weird reason. Zone of Truth is a charisma save...
It's not really well defined metaphysically, and I'm not sure there's any directed intention in the design plan here (at least not that I can tell.) - Charisma saves do commonly mean the effect is going to be really bad though...
I think Toron was mostly basing his remarks off his own experiences with Razira. She's generally a bit boisterous and rough with other members of the party because they're "hardy adventurers" and... throwing a guy across the room to get him out of danger relies more on speed than gentleness.
Also, while he acts suave, he really has no idea what he's talking about. Every romantic entanglement he's had has turned out trying to kill him before it came to the bedroom... and that's happened a surprisingly large number of times.
Several of them are still chasing the party trying to assassinate us...
These characters are from a real 5e campaign, at this point of time in the comic, they're level 9, and everyone is monoclassed (as 5e is actually intended to be played)
- Konsi - Cleric (trickery) (this is my PC, which is why the comics mostly focus on her.)
- Toron - Rogue (swashbuckler)
- Mystery - Warlock (Fey patron (now), Tome)
- Sand - Monk (Open Hand, but he changed to Astral Self a bit later)
- Faelys - Staff of Power (also Wizard/Evoker)
Razira is an NPC sidekick built using the sidekick rules, with a little bit of paladin sprinkled in for flavour.
Hey! that resembles the description text! :D
But in all honestly, there's a lot of good picks :)