Context
In our game my wizard frequently casts Minor Conjuration to create a beer (in a mug) for our dwarf barbarian, as a friendly gesture. Every six seconds I would do the same thing, and he would chug it, offering our bulky frontliner a cycle of countless beers.
The DM asked me, "is this an illusion?" I said, "No, the real deal but it's visibly magical." DM, laughing: *"Does the fluid disappear after consumption?" Me, quoting the feature:
The object disappears after 1 hour, when you use this feature again, or if it takes any damage.
"So do you count drinking it as damaging the object? And what does 'disappearing' mean to you?"
Interpretation
The DM ruled that the dwarf could drink countless conjured (though tasteless) beers but would never get drunk for it, since the toxins that create that mental state also leave his body whenever I conjure another one. The dwarf would fully believe it works though, due to the Placebo effect. I'm happy with this interpretation, and it led to some fun times.
I'm still curious though if someone can give me a clear answer on this question, on how it's written to work. Or will the interpretation of such wording always be at DM's discretion?
Question
In other words, could the dwarf get physically drunk on conjured beers? Placebo is sort of a way, but I'm mostly interested in whether the substance actually has enough time to influence a body. The same answer could be applied if I would conjure a poison for someone else instead, for example. Would that poison still work if I conjure something else, after injection of mentioned poison.
- How I see it:
The class feature does what it says it does, and nothing more. Meaning, drinking a conjured beer would look visibly magical but other than that, it would behave like a real beer. And drinking a substance would move it (not destroy it) and change the beer's chemical properties once the body takes them in, so the original object can't disappear anymore when I cast Minor Conjuration again after he drank the first one. However, I can't find anything to back up my interpretation (nor his).
If you can clarify, that would be very helpful.
Related: