Say I see an object. I try to replicate it with Minor Conjuration. But I was unaware it was a magic object. What will happen?

The limitations define a non-magical object I have seen. Does this then serve as an extremely situational Detect Magic? Would I be able to detect a prestidigitation or an illusion of a mundane - yet magically created object in the same manner?

Or does it only apply to awareness of it being magical? (Which makes one's conjuration library of items subject to upheaval when an item's status is revealed.)



By a strict reading of RAW, you can't use the ability. This would be the same as casting Hold Person on a disguised Vampire.

The rules are not clear on what happens when you cast a spell using the "wrong" target. Typically this is ruled as the spell being cast, but failing to have an effect. Alternatively, the caster might simply be told that the spell cannot be cast on that target.

House Rulings

What should happen is a more interesting question.

We can rule out the caster's awareness as a factor. It sets a bad precedent to give characters an advantage for being willfully ignorant. In addition, as a non-illusion spell, it doesn't make a lot of sense for the caster's perception to be a part of its "physics."

The RAW version is functional, but there is another alternative: The caster creates the non-magical components of the object, but is unable to capture anything of a magical nature.

For example, if you copied a golden statuette of a bird with magically flapping wings, you'd end up with a mundane, unmoving statuette.


Illusions are an interesting side case in this scenario. An illusion can be an image of a legal object, and it makes some sense that you could use the ability to copy something simple (such as a chair) you had seen an illusion of.

On the other hand, illusions can just as easily include fantastic elements beyond the scope of this ability.

Therefore, it is probably safest to just rule out things that have been seen in illusory form. Either because they are not objects, or because they are magical.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Xanathar's p. 85-86 does have a section on "Invalid Spell Targets": "If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn’t attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target." \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Mar 13 '18 at 5:07
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ That said, I'm not sure whether the object your Minor Conjuration would emulate is considered a "target" of the spell. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Mar 13 '18 at 5:07

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.