8
\$\begingroup\$

The spell Drawmij's instant summons states (emphasis mine):

[...]
Components: V, S, M (a sapphire worth 1,000 gp)
Duration: Until dispelled

You touch an object weighing 10 pounds or less whose longest dimension is 6 feet or less. The spell leaves an invisible mark on its surface and invisibly inscribes the name of the item on the sapphire you use as the material component. Each time you cast this spell, you must use a different sapphire.

At any time thereafter, you can use your action to speak the item’s name and crush the sapphire. [...]

The spell does not explicitly state the sapphire is consumed, which makes me wonder whether the sapphire can be mended with the mending spell1 and then sold. Rules designer Jeremy Crawford replied to a tweet asking whether the sapphire is consumed, stating:

Yep. You crush it: "Each time you cast this spell, you must use a different sapphire" (PH 235).

However, Jeremy Crawford's tweets are not official rulings, and the quote he refers to only indicates that mended sapphire cannot be used as a component to cast Drawmij's instant summons.

Would it be possible to mend the sapphire and sell it to a shopkeeper? If so, would the sapphire still be worth 1000 gp, or would the price be less because it lost the ability to be used as a component in Drawmij's instant summons?


1 I had missed that this would require a casting of the mending spell for every single broken link within the gem. Unfortunately this means mending the gem takes a little longer -- a sapphire broken into 1000 pieces will need to be mended 999 times, which will take about two 8-hour-work days. I'd say 500 gp per day remains worth the cost.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @schroeder Something being entirely up to the DM is an answer. See Does "Ask the DM / GM" equate to "Primarily opinion based?" \$\endgroup\$
    – Someone_Evil
    Jul 28 at 12:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ @RyanC.Thompson Isn't that approximately what I am asking? I am also adding the consideration that it is no longer useable for drawmij's instant summons butquestions "is it still worth 1000gp" and "has the value decreased" feel identical to me. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 28 at 12:27
24
\$\begingroup\$

The question seems to boil down to the ability to mend a crushed gem. The Instant Summons spell is not relevant to what you're ultimately asking.

Mending states:

"... repairs a single break or tear in an object ..."

The examples are equally clear and simple. Crushing is not a single break or tear in an object.

If you went with an interpretation that one could use Mending for each break endured by the gem; have you seen a crushed gem? Natural crystalline structures shatter. One would spend the next few weeks, 1 minute at a time, trying to put it all back together.

It would appear that a Mending spell would not work on a crushed gem, either by a strict reading of the Mending spell or for practical reasons, regardless of why it was crushed.

p.s. What a shopkeeper offers for "used" gems is entirely up to the DM.


The D&D game designers might not have had this in mind, but sapphires are nearly as durable as diamonds. They are highly resistant to scratching, chipping and cracking. So, the only way to "break" it is to apply a lot of force to shatter it.

So, "crush" is an appropriate term for sapphires. The result being quite a lot of dust.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Eh, I always assumed that the "crushing" was magical, so not exactly dependent on the caster's strength or tools \$\endgroup\$ Jul 29 at 6:08
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @JulianaKarasawaSouza yeah, that part is very hand-wavy. Giving the wording, I would not assume the crushing was magical or a byproduct of the spell, but rather a physical act; "speak and crush". Use a rock, step on it, use a hammer, etc. If it was real, it would require quite a lot of force. \$\endgroup\$
    – schroeder
    Jul 29 at 13:49
2
\$\begingroup\$

There are no mechanics for mending crushed gems, so it’s completely up to the DM.

There are just no mechanics for mending crushed gems. There is nothing to tell us if the damage is compatible with the mending spell either. Is it “crushed” into two pieces or a gazillion pieces? So the DM decides if it can be done, and if so, how it can be done, be it with mending or some other method.

What's it worth at market? Up to the DM.

Further, we aren't even sure of the value of the resulting pieces and dust of the crushed sapphire - this is explored in this Q&A: How can we determine the cost of ruby dust?. So even if you can put it back together, there is nothing to tell us what it is worth, or even what the pieces are worth. This whole thing is a pile of "ask the DM".

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ I'd argue that "two pieces" does not a "crush" make. \$\endgroup\$
    – schroeder
    Jul 28 at 11:51
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @schroeder I probably would to, but there’s still room for a DM to rule that it does. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 28 at 11:52
2
\$\begingroup\$

As other answerers have said in more detail, mending only repairs a single break/tear in the target object, making repairing the sapphire by that means questionable. That said, I wanted to comment on the following:

[...], or would the price be less because it lost the ability to be used as a component in Drawmij's Instant summons?

I actually don't think it has lost that ability. Drawmij's instant summons puts the restriction of re-using the sapphire on you:

Each time you cast this spell, you must use a different sapphire.

(Emphasis mine)

Someone else casting the same spell doesn't appear to have to worry about the fact that the sapphire has been used by a different spellcaster for Drawmij's instant summons- if, for example, a sapphire has had the spell dispelled off of it (or if you find a successful way to repair a crushed sapphire), another spellcaster seems like they would be free to re-use it themselves without violating that text. I don't think you being unable to reuse it would significantly impact the value of the sapphire.

\$\endgroup\$
7
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ That's an awfully specific interpretation of "you" as "the caster" and not the more general "one". "Each time one casts this spell, one must use a different sapphire." You might need more supporting evidence for your interpretation. \$\endgroup\$
    – schroeder
    Jul 28 at 16:34
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @schroeder I would say the claim that taking "you" as the more general "one" would be what needs more supporting evidence over simply taking it at face value. \$\endgroup\$
    – CTWind
    Jul 28 at 16:36
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @schroeder Even with the general interpretation, though, what is the sentence implying with respect to 'different' - different from what? "Each time one casts this spell, one must use a different sapphire than oneself has ever used before?" or "Each time one casts this spell, one must use a different sapphire than any caster has ever used before?" \$\endgroup\$
    – Kirt
    Jul 28 at 21:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ And this is why gems are so expensive - every gemner and jeweler has to keep detailed records of which ones have been used in spells and which not, along with registries of who used them. \$\endgroup\$
    – Kirt
    Jul 28 at 21:24
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @MJ713 "The spell already assumes that the sapphire is unusable at the end of the process (because it's been crushed)" - The spell also explicitly describes that it can be dispelled from the sapphire without destroying it, though; not all ways of the spell ending mean the sapphire's been destroyed. \$\endgroup\$
    – CTWind
    Jul 28 at 22:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.