Conjurer OCC seems worthless

[eliakon]

I don't know if a grenade is any less complex than a bullet really, but it is stated that a grenade can't be conjured. In any case the Molotov cocktail requires 1-3 conjurings depending on avialable resources:
1 or 2 for bottle and rag (if the rag counts as the cork/cap for the bottle than 1, otherwise 2)
Plus another to light the fuse if you don't have anything to light it with.

Perhaps the problem with a grenade is either in the timing mechanism, the large number of parts, or the 'energy density' of the explosive exceeds a certain threshold.

[Nightmask]

I don't know if a grenade is any less complex than a bullet really, but it is stated that a grenade can't be conjured. In any case the Molotov cocktail requires 1-3 conjurings depending on avialable resources:
1 or 2 for bottle and rag (if the rag counts as the cork/cap for the bottle than 1, otherwise 2)
Plus another to light the fuse if you don't have anything to light it with.

Perhaps the problem with a grenade is either in the timing mechanism, the large number of parts, or the 'energy density' of the explosive exceeds a certain threshold.

While I haven't looked in a while I don't remember the class making any mention that they can't conjure up things like C4 or Nitroglycerin due to 'energy density' or any other reason.

[ShadowLogan]

"Energy weapons, Vibro-Blades, most modern guns, grenades, rockets, computers, radios, E-Clips, batteries, generators, engines, and similar complex or energy dependent devices are all examples of objects that CAN NOT be conjured."-pg83 second column 2nd paragraph WB16 (unrevised).

"...provided the item or items don't require an active energy source as part of their construction, i.e. battery, E-clip, electricity, gasoline, etc."-pg83 first column 2nd paragraph (end) WB16 (unrevised).

"Energy weapons, E-clips, engines, and similar complex or energy dependent devices are all examples of objects that CAN NOT be conjured.'-pg84 first bullet point WB16 (unrevised).

If that gasoline is an example of a material that they can't produce, in addition to grenades I can see why they couldn't do C4 or nitro.

[Nightmask]

"Energy weapons, Vibro-Blades, most modern guns, grenades, rockets, computers, radios, E-Clips, batteries, generators, engines, and similar complex or energy dependent devices are all examples of objects that CAN NOT be conjured."-pg83 second column 2nd paragraph WB16 (unrevised).

"...provided the item or items don't require an active energy source as part of their construction, i.e. battery, E-clip, electricity, gasoline, etc."-pg83 first column 2nd paragraph (end) WB16 (unrevised).

"Energy weapons, E-clips, engines, and similar complex or energy dependent devices are all examples of objects that CAN NOT be conjured.'-pg84 first bullet point WB16 (unrevised).

If that gasoline is an example of a material that they can't produce, in addition to grenades I can see why they couldn't do C4 or nitro.

I'm not seeing where you get the idea anywhere in that that gasoline isn't something that can be produced (let alone C4 or Nitroglycerin). Gasoline is listed only in regards to items that can't be made because they run on gasoline, it doesn't say gasoline itself can't be made. So you can't make a car engine but it doesn't say you can't make gasoline to put into your car.

[Malleable]

"Energy weapons, Vibro-Blades, most modern guns, grenades, rockets, computers, radios, E-Clips, batteries, generators, engines, and similar complex or energy dependent devices are all examples of objects that CAN NOT be conjured."-pg83 second column 2nd paragraph WB16 (unrevised).

"...provided the item or items don't require an active energy source as part of their construction, i.e. battery, E-clip, electricity, gasoline, etc."-pg83 first column 2nd paragraph (end) WB16 (unrevised).

"Energy weapons, E-clips, engines, and similar complex or energy dependent devices are all examples of objects that CAN NOT be conjured.'-pg84 first bullet point WB16 (unrevised).

If that gasoline is an example of a material that they can't produce, in addition to grenades I can see why they couldn't do C4 or nitro.

I'm not seeing where you get the idea anywhere in that that gasoline isn't something that can be produced (let alone C4 or Nitroglycerin). Gasoline is listed only in regards to items that can't be made because they run on gasoline, it doesn't say gasoline itself can't be made. So you can't make a car engine but it doesn't say you can't make gasoline to put into your car.

/agree Nightmask

Yeah I think you are correct.

I think they mean "...provided the item or items don't require an active energy source as part of their USE"

It is impossible to have a constructed item without active energy use.

Mal

[Nightmask]

"Energy weapons, Vibro-Blades, most modern guns, grenades, rockets, computers, radios, E-Clips, batteries, generators, engines, and similar complex or energy dependent devices are all examples of objects that CAN NOT be conjured."-pg83 second column 2nd paragraph WB16 (unrevised).

"...provided the item or items don't require an active energy source as part of their construction, i.e. battery, E-clip, electricity, gasoline, etc."-pg83 first column 2nd paragraph (end) WB16 (unrevised).

"Energy weapons, E-clips, engines, and similar complex or energy dependent devices are all examples of objects that CAN NOT be conjured.'-pg84 first bullet point WB16 (unrevised).

If that gasoline is an example of a material that they can't produce, in addition to grenades I can see why they couldn't do C4 or nitro.

I'm not seeing where you get the idea anywhere in that that gasoline isn't something that can be produced (let alone C4 or Nitroglycerin). Gasoline is listed only in regards to items that can't be made because they run on gasoline, it doesn't say gasoline itself can't be made. So you can't make a car engine but it doesn't say you can't make gasoline to put into your car.

/agree Nightmask

Yeah I think you are correct.

I think they mean "...provided the item or items don't require an active energy source as part of their USE"

It is impossible to have a constructed item without active energy use.

Mal

Some uses of 'construction' do carry the correct meaning but given it does require carefully reading it and remembering the alternate uses of the word using 'use' might have been easier for those it might confuse.

[Tor]

"Energy weapons, Vibro-Blades, most modern guns, grenades, rockets, computers, radios, E-Clips, batteries, generators, engines, and similar complex or energy dependent devices are all examples of objects that CAN NOT be conjured."-pg83 second column 2nd paragraph WB16 (unrevised).

"...provided the item or items don't require an active energy source as part of their construction, i.e. battery, E-clip, electricity, gasoline, etc."-pg83 first column 2nd paragraph (end) WB16 (unrevised).

"Energy weapons, E-clips, engines, and similar complex or energy dependent devices are all examples of objects that CAN NOT be conjured.'-pg84 first bullet point WB16 (unrevised).

If that gasoline is an example of a material that they can't produce, in addition to grenades I can see why they couldn't do C4 or nitro.

This doesn't say they can't produce gasoline, rather it says they can't produce mechanisms that utilize it.

not seeing where you get the idea anywhere in that that gasoline isn't something that can be produced (let alone C4 or Nitroglycerin). Gasoline is listed only in regards to items that can't be made because they run on gasoline, it doesn't say gasoline itself can't be made. So you can't make a car engine but it doesn't say you can't make gasoline to put into your car.

Or how mask put it first, I concur.

[eliakon]

"Energy weapons, Vibro-Blades, most modern guns, grenades, rockets, computers, radios, E-Clips, batteries, generators, engines, and similar complex or energy dependent devices are all examples of objects that CAN NOT be conjured."-pg83 second column 2nd paragraph WB16 (unrevised).

"...provided the item or items don't require an active energy source as part of their construction, i.e. battery, E-clip, electricity, gasoline, etc."-pg83 first column 2nd paragraph (end) WB16 (unrevised).

"Energy weapons, E-clips, engines, and similar complex or energy dependent devices are all examples of objects that CAN NOT be conjured.'-pg84 first bullet point WB16 (unrevised).

If that gasoline is an example of a material that they can't produce, in addition to grenades I can see why they couldn't do C4 or nitro.

This doesn't say they can't produce gasoline, rather it says they can't produce mechanisms that utilize it.

not seeing where you get the idea anywhere in that that gasoline isn't something that can be produced (let alone C4 or Nitroglycerin). Gasoline is listed only in regards to items that can't be made because they run on gasoline, it doesn't say gasoline itself can't be made. So you can't make a car engine but it doesn't say you can't make gasoline to put into your car.

Or how mask put it first, I concur.

Which raises a question of 'I can make bullets but not grenades' So the question is why no grenades. Are they too complex, or is there a limit on production that limits high-explosives.....As with almost the entire class much of this is not addressed, and is left up to the individual GM to rule on.

[Nightmask]

"Energy weapons, Vibro-Blades, most modern guns, grenades, rockets, computers, radios, E-Clips, batteries, generators, engines, and similar complex or energy dependent devices are all examples of objects that CAN NOT be conjured."-pg83 second column 2nd paragraph WB16 (unrevised).

"...provided the item or items don't require an active energy source as part of their construction, i.e. battery, E-clip, electricity, gasoline, etc."-pg83 first column 2nd paragraph (end) WB16 (unrevised).

"Energy weapons, E-clips, engines, and similar complex or energy dependent devices are all examples of objects that CAN NOT be conjured.'-pg84 first bullet point WB16 (unrevised).

If that gasoline is an example of a material that they can't produce, in addition to grenades I can see why they couldn't do C4 or nitro.

This doesn't say they can't produce gasoline, rather it says they can't produce mechanisms that utilize it.

not seeing where you get the idea anywhere in that that gasoline isn't something that can be produced (let alone C4 or Nitroglycerin). Gasoline is listed only in regards to items that can't be made because they run on gasoline, it doesn't say gasoline itself can't be made. So you can't make a car engine but it doesn't say you can't make gasoline to put into your car.

Or how mask put it first, I concur.

Which raises a question of 'I can make bullets but not grenades' So the question is why no grenades. Are they too complex, or is there a limit on production that limits high-explosives.....As with almost the entire class much of this is not addressed, and is left up to the individual GM to rule on.

Complexity, bullets don't really have moving parts or other mechanisms like an engine does or a grenade.

[ShadowLogan]

I'm not seeing where you get the idea anywhere in that that gasoline isn't something that can be produced (let alone C4 or Nitroglycerin). Gasoline is listed only in regards to items that can't be made because they run on gasoline, it doesn't say gasoline itself can't be made. So you can't make a car engine but it doesn't say you can't make gasoline to put into your car.

The first list does not have gasoline listed, however you will note that two of the four specific items on the second list also appear on the first list so it stands to reason that one can not conjurer the remaining items on the second list.

Complexity, bullets don't really have moving parts or other mechanisms like an engine does or a grenade.

An engine IS a complex for one summoning, but I don't see it stopping a conjuerer from multiple summings of parts to assemble to a more complex item (aside from skill/knowledge). I don't think a grenade is mechanically complex enough (and some rockets are also pretty basic in terms of moving parts to the point they aren't disimilar to bullets), I mean what is to stop a conjurer from turning summoned bullets into an IED or grenade with other conjurer items or parts on hand?

Which raises a question of 'I can make bullets but not grenades' So the question is why no grenades. Are they too complex, or is there a limit on production that limits high-explosives.....As with almost the entire class much of this is not addressed, and is left up to the individual GM to rule on.

I don't think its a matter of complexity, but intent of the OCC creator for game balance.

[Nightmask]

I'm not seeing where you get the idea anywhere in that that gasoline isn't something that can be produced (let alone C4 or Nitroglycerin). Gasoline is listed only in regards to items that can't be made because they run on gasoline, it doesn't say gasoline itself can't be made. So you can't make a car engine but it doesn't say you can't make gasoline to put into your car.

The first list does not have gasoline listed, however you will note that two of the four specific items on the second list also appear on the first list so it stands to reason that one can not conjurer the remaining items on the second list.

Of which again gasoline isn't on any of those lists of things that can't be created, those lists only include things that can RUN on gasoline but gasoline itself is NOT actually anywhere in what you've quoted as actually being a banned item.

Complexity, bullets don't really have moving parts or other mechanisms like an engine does or a grenade.

An engine IS a complex for one summoning, but I don't see it stopping a conjuerer from multiple summings of parts to assemble to a more complex item (aside from skill/knowledge). I don't think a grenade is mechanically complex enough (and some rockets are also pretty basic in terms of moving parts to the point they aren't disimilar to bullets), I mean what is to stop a conjurer from turning summoned bullets into an IED or grenade with other conjurer items or parts on hand?

Grenades have mechanical (and more rarely) electrical timers to determine when they go off (and some have means of determining if they've hit something after they've been thrown), which more than fits the ban on creating mechanically complex devices. Meanwhile bullets have no mechanical or complex parts to qualify as a complex device.

Which raises a question of 'I can make bullets but not grenades' So the question is why no grenades. Are they too complex, or is there a limit on production that limits high-explosives.....As with almost the entire class much of this is not addressed, and is left up to the individual GM to rule on.

I don't think its a matter of complexity, but intent of the OCC creator for game balance.

Well that's really an answer to every question, but people do like to have a more in-game reason why something can't be done otherwise they tend to want to houserule away something that makes no sense from an in-game perspective.

[ShadowLogan]

Well that's really an answer to every question, but people do like to have a more in-game reason why something can't be done otherwise they tend to want to houserule away something that makes no sense from an in-game perspective.

3 basic ways come to mind:
#1. It's Fool's Gold matter, it looks like real matter, but doesn't necessarily have all the properties of real matter.
#2. (lack of a better term) an Elemental Intelligence (or should that be Conjurerational?) has Veto power if you can even conjurer the item in question, and for whatever reason doesn't understand certain concepts (energy using) or is some type of passive-aggressive attitude or some other reason.
#3. IT is a lost/new magic field, those complex aspects may require a different method to conjurer than the simple items/creatures that are known.

Grenades have mechanical (and more rarely) electrical timers to determine when they go off (and some have means of determining if they've hit something after they've been thrown), which more than fits the ban on creating mechanically complex devices. Meanwhile bullets have no mechanical or complex parts to qualify as a complex device.

That is more modern grenades though, grenades prior to the 20th century also used a wick fuse.

Of which again gasoline isn't on any of those lists of things that can't be created, those lists only include things that can RUN on gasoline but gasoline itself is NOT actually anywhere in what you've quoted as actually being a banned item.

Yes Gasoline is on one of those lists.

"...provided the item or items don't require an active energy source as part of their construction, i.e. battery, E-clip, electricity, gasoline, etc."-pg83 first column 2nd paragraph (end) WB16 (unrevised). This was the second list I posted.

"Energy weapons, Vibro-Blades, most modern guns, grenades, rockets, computers, radios, E-Clips, batteries, generators, engines, and similar complex or energy dependent devices are all examples of objects that CAN NOT be conjured."-pg83 second column 2nd paragraph WB16 (unrevised). This was the first list I posted.

You will note that both lists have overlaps (E-Clip, battery are in different numerical states, but they are still on the list). It stands to reason that if they can't produce a battery or e-clip based on BOTH lists, items on either list are outside of their ability to create.

[Nightmask]

Grenades have mechanical (and more rarely) electrical timers to determine when they go off (and some have means of determining if they've hit something after they've been thrown), which more than fits the ban on creating mechanically complex devices. Meanwhile bullets have no mechanical or complex parts to qualify as a complex device.

That is more modern grenades though, grenades prior to the 20th century also used a wick fuse.

Doubtful the author of the piece was referring to the old Molotov Cocktail form of grenade (which wouldn't be much different than tossing a lit stick of dynamite) but instead the modern version of such.

Of which again gasoline isn't on any of those lists of things that can't be created, those lists only include things that can RUN on gasoline but gasoline itself is NOT actually anywhere in what you've quoted as actually being a banned item.

Yes Gasoline is on one of those lists.

"...provided the item or items don't require an active energy source as part of their construction, i.e. battery, E-clip, electricity, gasoline, etc."-pg83 first column 2nd paragraph (end) WB16 (unrevised). This was the second list I posted.

"Energy weapons, Vibro-Blades, most modern guns, grenades, rockets, computers, radios, E-Clips, batteries, generators, engines, and similar complex or energy dependent devices are all examples of objects that CAN NOT be conjured."-pg83 second column 2nd paragraph WB16 (unrevised). This was the first list I posted.

You will note that both lists have overlaps (E-Clip, battery are in different numerical states, but they are still on the list). It stands to reason that if they can't produce a battery or e-clip based on BOTH lists, items on either list are outside of their ability to create.

Yes, and again neither of those lists preclude the production of gasoline or explosives like nitroglycerin or C4. The first list of proscribed items includes things that RUN on Gasoline but doesn't EXCLUDE gasoline as something one can produce. The second list again doesn't list gasoline as a proscribed item but actual manufactured energy sources like batteries as complex devices: gasoline isn't a complex device nor is it an energy dependent device gasoline is a chemical which is why it's not on the list like batteries are. So while you could create the chemicals IN the battery you couldn't create a complete, functional battery due to the complexity of the device (which is quite ridiculous when you can conjure living organisms which are FAR more complex than any existing mechanical device).

[Tor]

That is more modern grenades though, grenades prior to the 20th century also used a wick fuse.

I would argue a Conjurerer may possibly be able to create one of those grenades.

In page 83's right column restriction the term "most" appears before 'modern guns', but we might interpret that most as applying to not just that, but also the following items.

Of which again gasoline isn't on any of those lists of things that can't be created, those lists only include things that can RUN on gasoline but gasoline itself is NOT actually anywhere in what you've quoted as actually being a banned item.

Yes Gasoline is on one of those lists.

"...provided the item or items don't require an active energy source as part of their construction, i.e. battery, E-clip, electricity, gasoline, etc."-pg83 first column 2nd paragraph (end) WB16 (unrevised). This was the second list I posted.

I believe some of us read it that the list of things at the end are examples of an "active energy source". After all, the list includes "electricity" which is hardly an "item".

The restriction against creating something is applied to items that require one. Not the actual energy source.

"Energy weapons, Vibro-Blades, most modern guns, grenades, rockets, computers, radios, E-Clips, batteries, generators, engines, and similar complex or energy dependent devices are all examples of objects that CAN NOT be conjured."-pg83 second column 2nd paragraph WB16 (unrevised). This was the first list I posted.

Yes and gasoline is absent from this list.

You will note that both lists have overlaps (E-Clip, battery are in different numerical states, but they are still on the list). It stands to reason that if they can't produce a battery or e-clip based on BOTH lists, items on either list are outside of their ability to create.

Wrong. It simply means that some items full into both the category of "active energy source" (it stores energy) AND "items that require an active energy source to be constructed".

You need an active energy source to produce most complicated technology like E-clips. You do not necessarily need it to produce electricity or gasoline.

Also again the "most" next to modern guns can apply to stuff like batteries/computers/engines/generators. Although the 'moving parts' bit will probably limit most of these. Page 84's more explicit statement also would rule most of these out. It is possible to build such things without requiring an active energy source. Really the only things that would "require" an active energy source would be things that definitely require mechanized computer-factories to build, like the super-tech used to make energy weapons or vibro-blades (the only two things preceding the "most").

[ShadowLogan]

(which is quite ridiculous when you can conjure living organisms which are FAR more complex than any existing mechanical device)

It may be that living items (organisms) follow different rules than non-living items.

Doubtful the author of the piece was referring to the old Molotov Cocktail form of grenade (which wouldn't be much different than tossing a lit stick of dynamite) but instead the modern version of such.

True the author was likely directing it toward modern concepts of grenades, but given the vagueness one could could take it to mean any type of grenade.

Yes, and again neither of those lists preclude the production of gasoline or explosives like nitroglycerin or C4

Actually they do. Gasoline and explosives can be thought of as energy storage devices as they store chemical energy and release it (no different than a battery).

The main sticking point is that bullets can be interpreted to be energy storage devices. Which has me wondering on several fronts in this respect w/re to bullets:
-Do the summoned bullets also include the case/propellant stage (most modern examples) or are they just bullets (like muskets) w/o the gunpowder
-perhaps they can in fact create energy storage devices, but as the bullets show the quantity is gong to be very limited (any more and it sets it off?) and these other examples may be too impractical for use because of it and so they just don't attempt to create more. For 15PPE you get 6 bullets, but the Conjurer is limited to 40lbs +2 per level. 6 Bullets (even with casing and propellant) aren't going to add up to 40lbs unless we are talking cannon size "bullets"

The second list again doesn't list gasoline as a proscribed item but actual manufactured energy sources like batteries as complex devices

Gasoline though is refined, so in a manner of speaking it is manufactured just like batteries or Eclips.

gasoline is a chemical which is why it's not on the list like batteries are

Batteries are mechanically simple devices, two poles of different metals, a container, and a chemical solution (simpler than gasoline). That is actually much simpler than the mechanical wristwatch they are said to be able to produce (pg83, second column first line), and materially shouldn't be any more complex than armor and straps (different materials).

Wrong. It simply means that some items full into both the category of "active energy source" (it stores energy) AND "items that require an active energy source to be constructed".

And gasoline is an active energy source since it store energy just like an Eclip. We burn gasoline to release said energy, so it is an example of an active energy source.

[Nightmask]

(which is quite ridiculous when you can conjure living organisms which are FAR more complex than any existing mechanical device)

It may be that living items (organisms) follow different rules than non-living items.

More like the author simply didn't think it through, like the author of Ninjas and Superspies had it that you could make microchips at home but not a simple handgun when the gun is WAY less complex and makeable at home than a microchip.

Doubtful the author of the piece was referring to the old Molotov Cocktail form of grenade (which wouldn't be much different than tossing a lit stick of dynamite) but instead the modern version of such.

True the author was likely directing it toward modern concepts of grenades, but given the vagueness one could could take it to mean any type of grenade.

I'm sure he was quite sure that 'grenade' meant 'modern grenades' and had no idea that the word could apply to things like Molotov Cocktails.

Yes, and again neither of those lists preclude the production of gasoline or explosives like nitroglycerin or C4

Actually they do. Gasoline and explosives can be thought of as energy storage devices as they store chemical energy and release it (no different than a battery).

The main sticking point is that bullets can be interpreted to be energy storage devices. Which has me wondering on several fronts in this respect w/re to bullets:
-Do the summoned bullets also include the case/propellant stage (most modern examples) or are they just bullets (like muskets) w/o the gunpowder
-perhaps they can in fact create energy storage devices, but as the bullets show the quantity is gong to be very limited (any more and it sets it off?) and these other examples may be too impractical for use because of it and so they just don't attempt to create more. For 15PPE you get 6 bullets, but the Conjurer is limited to 40lbs +2 per level. 6 Bullets (even with casing and propellant) aren't going to add up to 40lbs unless we are talking cannon size "bullets"

Again no, once again neither of those lists include gasoline or other explosives, they are not energy storage devices and they aren't 'no different than a battery'.

The second list again doesn't list gasoline as a proscribed item but actual manufactured energy sources like batteries as complex devices

Gasoline though is refined, so in a manner of speaking it is manufactured just like batteries or Eclips.

Again no, no manner of speaking is going to make gasoline out to be the same as a battery or e-clip.

gasoline is a chemical which is why it's not on the list like batteries are

Batteries are mechanically simple devices, two poles of different metals, a container, and a chemical solution (simpler than gasoline). That is actually much simpler than the mechanical wristwatch they are said to be able to produce (pg83, second column first line), and materially shouldn't be any more complex than armor and straps (different materials).

You're reaching, trying to make gasoline and other chemicals like C4 and Nitroglycerin fit on the lists when they don't by trying to define them in terms that simply aren't applicable rather than accept that they aren't. If you don't want Conjurers making gasoline or other chemicals like C4 or nitroglycerin you're going to need to house rule that they can't.

Wrong. It simply means that some items full into both the category of "active energy source" (it stores energy) AND "items that require an active energy source to be constructed".

And gasoline is an active energy source since it store energy just like an Eclip. We burn gasoline to release said energy, so it is an example of an active energy source.

As noted earlier, you're reaching trying to include gasoline in that list.

[Library Ogre]

I think y'all're putting way more thought into this than they did.

[ShadowLogan]

I think y'all're putting way more thought into this than they did.

Probably, but the text could be clearer.

Again no, once again neither of those lists include gasoline or other explosives, they are not energy storage devices and they aren't 'no different than a battery'.

Gasoline and explosives are in a manner of speaking a type of energy storage device. Both explosives and gasoline release energy to do work when the chemical bonds are broken or altered, so from this POV they are just like a battery as they both convert chemical energy into another form(s) to do work.

C4, gasoline, and other high explosives may also count as a COMPLEX item for purposes of conjuration and the text makes it clear they are limited to SIMPLE items with only so much complexity.

[Nightmask]

I think y'all're putting way more thought into this than they did.

Probably, but the text could be clearer.

Again no, once again neither of those lists include gasoline or other explosives, they are not energy storage devices and they aren't 'no different than a battery'.

Gasoline and explosives are in a manner of speaking a type of energy storage device. Both explosives and gasoline release energy to do work when the chemical bonds are broken or altered, so from this POV they are just like a battery as they both convert chemical energy into another form(s) to do work.

C4, gasoline, and other high explosives may also count as a COMPLEX item for purposes of conjuration and the text makes it clear they are limited to SIMPLE items with only so much complexity.

Like I already said you're reaching and trying to define something as what it is not. Gasoline, C4, whathaveyou are not energy storage devices and no matter how you try you aren't going to make them fit the definition of a storage device because they don't.

Nor are you ever going to successfully argue that they're complex items as again they are not, they're a chemical with a single molecular structure since again they're chemicals not devices or complex items. It's that simple. Unless you've got some actual text that says chemicals like gasoline or C4 can't be produced they can be, because the text you've repeatedly held up as saying they can't doesn't say that at all.

[eliakon]

I think y'all're putting way more thought into this than they did.

Probably, but the text could be clearer.

Again no, once again neither of those lists include gasoline or other explosives, they are not energy storage devices and they aren't 'no different than a battery'.

Gasoline and explosives are in a manner of speaking a type of energy storage device. Both explosives and gasoline release energy to do work when the chemical bonds are broken or altered, so from this POV they are just like a battery as they both convert chemical energy into another form(s) to do work.

C4, gasoline, and other high explosives may also count as a COMPLEX item for purposes of conjuration and the text makes it clear they are limited to SIMPLE items with only so much complexity.

Like I already said you're reaching and trying to define something as what it is not. Gasoline, C4, whathaveyou are not energy storage devices and no matter how you try you aren't going to make them fit the definition of a storage device because they don't.

Nor are you ever going to successfully argue that they're complex items as again they are not, they're a chemical with a single molecular structure since again they're chemicals not devices or complex items. It's that simple. Unless you've got some actual text that says chemicals like gasoline or C4 can't be produced they can be, because the text you've repeatedly held up as saying they can't doesn't say that at all.

Actually, gasoline is questionable. How many parts is a liquid? and does sub dividing the liquid constituted 'destroying the item' (the thing created) at which point the whole thing will disappear? Explosives prove a similar problem, when they explode they disappear...which means all the gas ect that was part of the explosive disappears. *shrugs* Its a grey area that will need a GM to rule on a case by case basis due to the vagueness of the wording of the ability.

[Nightmask]

I think y'all're putting way more thought into this than they did.

Probably, but the text could be clearer.

Again no, once again neither of those lists include gasoline or other explosives, they are not energy storage devices and they aren't 'no different than a battery'.

Gasoline and explosives are in a manner of speaking a type of energy storage device. Both explosives and gasoline release energy to do work when the chemical bonds are broken or altered, so from this POV they are just like a battery as they both convert chemical energy into another form(s) to do work.

C4, gasoline, and other high explosives may also count as a COMPLEX item for purposes of conjuration and the text makes it clear they are limited to SIMPLE items with only so much complexity.

Like I already said you're reaching and trying to define something as what it is not. Gasoline, C4, whathaveyou are not energy storage devices and no matter how you try you aren't going to make them fit the definition of a storage device because they don't.

Nor are you ever going to successfully argue that they're complex items as again they are not, they're a chemical with a single molecular structure since again they're chemicals not devices or complex items. It's that simple. Unless you've got some actual text that says chemicals like gasoline or C4 can't be produced they can be, because the text you've repeatedly held up as saying they can't doesn't say that at all.

Actually, gasoline is questionable. How many parts is a liquid? and does sub dividing the liquid constituted 'destroying the item' (the thing created) at which point the whole thing will disappear? Explosives prove a similar problem, when they explode they disappear...which means all the gas ect that was part of the explosive disappears. *shrugs* Its a grey area that will need a GM to rule on a case by case basis due to the vagueness of the wording of the ability.

No, it's not questionable at all and I can't believe you're actually trying to make that argument, it's like trying to claim cutting up a block of cheese into two blocks somehow means you've 'destroyed' the cheese. Explosives don't disappear when they explode, only go from being one uniform collection of a macro-molecule into a collection of smaller molecules after the bonds break down in the energetic release of energy that creates the explosive expansion of the resulting constituent particles.

Really, you don't want people conjuring explosives or things like gasoline fine just admit that house rule upfront but in the existing rules there is no ambiguity or grayness to things where you can claim that 'well the rule are vague on that so I don't allow it'. They aren't vague and they do allow it.

I get it, some don't want the class being as effective as it could be and want it to be restricted to more 'comfortable' levels but they like to be able to say that by the book it actually is that restricted, but the Conjurer class isn't restricted in that fashion, if it were people wouldn't be trying word games to try and make it out that gasoline fits the definition of a device (which it doesn't) or qualifies as a complex item (which again it doesn't) so it will fall under the list of banned items when it doesn't actually do so.

[Tor]

gasoline is an active energy source since it store energy just like an Eclip. We burn gasoline to release said energy, so it is an example of an active energy source.

Conjurers can make wooden items (or fleshy animals) and burn those as fuel, so there clearly isn't a restriction against energy storage devices in THAT broad an interpretation.

Also I don't think it's just 'energy source' but rather things that definitely require such sources to produce.

If it is impossible to produce gasoline through manpower alone then that could be grounds to rule it out...

Gasoline and C4 are more "energy storage substances" than devices though. Devices are more intricate and parts-y.

[eliakon]

I think y'all're putting way more thought into this than they did.

Probably, but the text could be clearer.

Again no, once again neither of those lists include gasoline or other explosives, they are not energy storage devices and they aren't 'no different than a battery'.

Gasoline and explosives are in a manner of speaking a type of energy storage device. Both explosives and gasoline release energy to do work when the chemical bonds are broken or altered, so from this POV they are just like a battery as they both convert chemical energy into another form(s) to do work.

C4, gasoline, and other high explosives may also count as a COMPLEX item for purposes of conjuration and the text makes it clear they are limited to SIMPLE items with only so much complexity.

Like I already said you're reaching and trying to define something as what it is not. Gasoline, C4, whathaveyou are not energy storage devices and no matter how you try you aren't going to make them fit the definition of a storage device because they don't.

Nor are you ever going to successfully argue that they're complex items as again they are not, they're a chemical with a single molecular structure since again they're chemicals not devices or complex items. It's that simple. Unless you've got some actual text that says chemicals like gasoline or C4 can't be produced they can be, because the text you've repeatedly held up as saying they can't doesn't say that at all.

Actually, gasoline is questionable. How many parts is a liquid? and does sub dividing the liquid constituted 'destroying the item' (the thing created) at which point the whole thing will disappear? Explosives prove a similar problem, when they explode they disappear...which means all the gas ect that was part of the explosive disappears. *shrugs* Its a grey area that will need a GM to rule on a case by case basis due to the vagueness of the wording of the ability.

No, it's not questionable at all and I can't believe you're actually trying to make that argument, it's like trying to claim cutting up a block of cheese into two blocks somehow means you've 'destroyed' the cheese. Explosives don't disappear when they explode, only go from being one uniform collection of a macro-molecule into a collection of smaller molecules after the bonds break down in the energetic release of energy that creates the explosive expansion of the resulting constituent particles.

Really, you don't want people conjuring explosives or things like gasoline fine just admit that house rule upfront but in the existing rules there is no ambiguity or grayness to things where you can claim that 'well the rule are vague on that so I don't allow it'. They aren't vague and they do allow it.

I get it, some don't want the class being as effective as it could be and want it to be restricted to more 'comfortable' levels but they like to be able to say that by the book it actually is that restricted, but the Conjurer class isn't restricted in that fashion, if it were people wouldn't be trying word games to try and make it out that gasoline fits the definition of a device (which it doesn't) or qualifies as a complex item (which again it doesn't) so it will fall under the list of banned items when it doesn't actually do so.

Why not? It says that an item can be created, that an item can have a certain number of moving parts, and that if that item is destroyed it disappears.
Where does it say that you can cut the item up into smaller pieces with OUT destroying it? Where does it say that you CAN eat/burn/whatever an item? Again, just because your view is that it is so, does not mean it must be that way. Both interpretations are perfectly valid based on what little we know about the class and its abilities.

[ShadowLogan]

Like I already said you're reaching and trying to define something as what it is not. Gasoline, C4, whathaveyou are not energy storage devices and no matter how you try you aren't going to make them fit the definition of a storage device because they don't.

No I'm not reaching. They are all examples of energy being stored chemically and able to release that energy as is. We are discussing magic afterall, so there could be illogic in how it works that works for some cases, but not others.

Nor are you ever going to successfully argue that they're complex items as again they are not, they're a chemical with a single molecular structure since again they're chemicals not devices or complex items. It's that simple. Unless you've got some actual text that says chemicals like gasoline or C4 can't be produced they can be, because the text you've repeatedly held up as saying they can't doesn't say that at all.

Technically doesn't say you can produce chemicals like gasoline or C4 either. Specificly cited examples in the text are solids, not fluids like gasoline is for the conjurer's class (via spell invocation is another matter).

Conjurers can make wooden items (or fleshy animals) and burn those as fuel, so there clearly isn't a restriction against energy storage devices in THAT broad an interpretation.

The thing is that the temporary (level) artificats/creatures the Conjurer creates may not be "real" beyond surface impressions.

Gasoline and C4 are more "energy storage substances" than devices though. Devices are more intricate and parts-y.

Devices need not be intricate and parts-ie-warts-ie. A stick can be considered a device or tool.

Gasoline and C4 may also qualify as complex items to create (creature conjuring may follow a different set of rules that item) due to their chemical formula. Gasoline is also not a single chemical compound, nor is C4, turning it from a simple item into a complex item.

[Nightmask]

Actually, gasoline is questionable. How many parts is a liquid? and does sub dividing the liquid constituted 'destroying the item' (the thing created) at which point the whole thing will disappear? Explosives prove a similar problem, when they explode they disappear...which means all the gas ect that was part of the explosive disappears. *shrugs* Its a grey area that will need a GM to rule on a case by case basis due to the vagueness of the wording of the ability.

No, it's not questionable at all and I can't believe you're actually trying to make that argument, it's like trying to claim cutting up a block of cheese into two blocks somehow means you've 'destroyed' the cheese. Explosives don't disappear when they explode, only go from being one uniform collection of a macro-molecule into a collection of smaller molecules after the bonds break down in the energetic release of energy that creates the explosive expansion of the resulting constituent particles.

Really, you don't want people conjuring explosives or things like gasoline fine just admit that house rule upfront but in the existing rules there is no ambiguity or grayness to things where you can claim that 'well the rule are vague on that so I don't allow it'. They aren't vague and they do allow it.

I get it, some don't want the class being as effective as it could be and want it to be restricted to more 'comfortable' levels but they like to be able to say that by the book it actually is that restricted, but the Conjurer class isn't restricted in that fashion, if it were people wouldn't be trying word games to try and make it out that gasoline fits the definition of a device (which it doesn't) or qualifies as a complex item (which again it doesn't) so it will fall under the list of banned items when it doesn't actually do so.

Why not? It says that an item can be created, that an item can have a certain number of moving parts, and that if that item is destroyed it disappears.
Where does it say that you can cut the item up into smaller pieces with OUT destroying it? Where does it say that you CAN eat/burn/whatever an item? Again, just because your view is that it is so, does not mean it must be that way. Both interpretations are perfectly valid based on what little we know about the class and its abilities.

No, they really aren't. You can't class something like gasoline as an item with moving parts because it isn't, nor is it a device. Seriously, use the actual definitions of the words rather than trying to make up definitions so you can try and twist things so that you can go 'no really it's a valid interpretation of the rules!' when it isn't.

[Nightmask]

Like I already said you're reaching and trying to define something as what it is not. Gasoline, C4, whathaveyou are not energy storage devices and no matter how you try you aren't going to make them fit the definition of a storage device because they don't.

No I'm not reaching. They are all examples of energy being stored chemically and able to release that energy as is. We are discussing magic afterall, so there could be illogic in how it works that works for some cases, but not others.

Yes, you're reaching nor are we discussing magic we're discussing the rules as given for what can and cannot be created by a Conjurer. The definitions of things like 'device' or 'complex item' have nothing to do with the fact that you're talking a magical class nor are they going to change because it's a magical class to some special definition, and none of those definitions can one honestly or successfully argue something like gasoline meets them.

Nor are you ever going to successfully argue that they're complex items as again they are not, they're a chemical with a single molecular structure since again they're chemicals not devices or complex items. It's that simple. Unless you've got some actual text that says chemicals like gasoline or C4 can't be produced they can be, because the text you've repeatedly held up as saying they can't doesn't say that at all.

Technically doesn't say you can produce chemicals like gasoline or C4 either. Specificly cited examples in the text are solids, not fluids like gasoline is for the conjurer's class (via spell invocation is another matter).

Which again is reaching, trying to argue limitations that aren't given. While the examples may be solids doesn't mean one can argue that you can only create solids (and C4 would qualify as a solid anyway).

Conjurers can make wooden items (or fleshy animals) and burn those as fuel, so there clearly isn't a restriction against energy storage devices in THAT broad an interpretation.

The thing is that the temporary (level) artificats/creatures the Conjurer creates may not be "real" beyond surface impressions.

Given it doesn't say that we must accept that they appear to all tests as normal specimens of whatever happens to have been conjured.

Gasoline and C4 are more "energy storage substances" than devices though. Devices are more intricate and parts-y.

Devices need not be intricate and parts-ie-warts-ie. A stick can be considered a device or tool.

Gasoline and C4 may also qualify as complex items to create (creature conjuring may follow a different set of rules that item) due to their chemical formula. Gasoline is also not a single chemical compound, nor is C4, turning it from a simple item into a complex item.

They aren't, they're simple things and nothing in the text would lead anyone to reasonably think anything else. You again reach trying to argue that a stick might be considered a device or tool to try and claim that gasoline can be considered a device or tool as well when you know it isn't. Even if you considered it a tool it still doesn't meet the exclusionary requirements for the Conjurer class because it certainly isn't a complex item.

[flatline]

Gasoline and C4 are more "energy storage substances" than devices though. Devices are more intricate and parts-y.

Gasoline and C4 are materials that have high internal energy. High internal energy materials by themselves are simply fuels.

If you want to prevent the Conjurer from being able to create materials that can be used as fuel, then you've basically prevented them from creating just about anything. Wood, unoxidized metals, anything even mildly radioactive, etc can all be used as fuels.

--flatline

[eliakon]

Actually, gasoline is questionable. How many parts is a liquid? and does sub dividing the liquid constituted 'destroying the item' (the thing created) at which point the whole thing will disappear? Explosives prove a similar problem, when they explode they disappear...which means all the gas ect that was part of the explosive disappears. *shrugs* Its a grey area that will need a GM to rule on a case by case basis due to the vagueness of the wording of the ability.

No, it's not questionable at all and I can't believe you're actually trying to make that argument, it's like trying to claim cutting up a block of cheese into two blocks somehow means you've 'destroyed' the cheese. Explosives don't disappear when they explode, only go from being one uniform collection of a macro-molecule into a collection of smaller molecules after the bonds break down in the energetic release of energy that creates the explosive expansion of the resulting constituent particles.

Really, you don't want people conjuring explosives or things like gasoline fine just admit that house rule upfront but in the existing rules there is no ambiguity or grayness to things where you can claim that 'well the rule are vague on that so I don't allow it'. They aren't vague and they do allow it.

I get it, some don't want the class being as effective as it could be and want it to be restricted to more 'comfortable' levels but they like to be able to say that by the book it actually is that restricted, but the Conjurer class isn't restricted in that fashion, if it were people wouldn't be trying word games to try and make it out that gasoline fits the definition of a device (which it doesn't) or qualifies as a complex item (which again it doesn't) so it will fall under the list of banned items when it doesn't actually do so.

Why not? It says that an item can be created, that an item can have a certain number of moving parts, and that if that item is destroyed it disappears.
Where does it say that you can cut the item up into smaller pieces with OUT destroying it? Where does it say that you CAN eat/burn/whatever an item? Again, just because your view is that it is so, does not mean it must be that way. Both interpretations are perfectly valid based on what little we know about the class and its abilities.

No, they really aren't. You can't class something like gasoline as an item with moving parts because it isn't, nor is it a device. Seriously, use the actual definitions of the words rather than trying to make up definitions so you can try and twist things so that you can go 'no really it's a valid interpretation of the rules!' when it isn't.

I am not calling gasoline a 'device' I am saying that liquids are not one of the canon examples of what you CAN make, nor is burning for fuel one of the canon examples of what you can do with your created object.
If I make a Gallon of gas, that's one item right? I when I pour it into 4 jars, is that still one item, or 4? Does the conjurer get to 'get around' the 'number of items created' limit by using liquids? The answer is...we don't know.
If I make another gallon of gas and light it, does it work as fuel? Maybe. We know that when it is destroyed it will vanish, but not what will happen AS it is being destroyed. Heck we do not know for sure if it IS gas or just 'close enough' gas. The descriptions are really, really vague.

[Tor]

Where does it say that you can cut the item up into smaller pieces with OUT destroying it? Where does it say that you CAN eat/burn/whatever an item?

Could Good questions, what qualifies as 'destruction' does tend to be a vague concept.

If one takes the interpretation that the original conjuration separating into parts 'destroys' it, this brings about certain ramifications for some items we know can be conjured:

*bag with marbles, if you remove a marble from the bag, the whole thing vanishes, since you separated them
*fishing pole and string: if your line gets snagged and in trying to tug it free some of the string breaks, the entire pole vanishes
*ballpoint pen: the minute you begin writing with it, the entire pen vanishes because the ink has separated from the pen and gone onto the paper
*a pair of socks or shoes are summoned touching one another and if in the course of wearing them they break contact (like through walking) they vanish
*rope vanishes if cut into smaller pieces of rope
*a plank or sheet of wood vanishes if sawed in half

Technically doesn't say you can produce chemicals like gasoline or C4 either. Specificly cited examples in the text are solids, not fluids like gasoline is for the conjurer's class (via spell invocation is another matter).

This is not really the 'chemical' nature so much as the temperature nature. Whether or not a gas liquid "qualifies" as an object (having no discrete form) is definitely a good question, but bypassable if summoned in solid form (such as summoning an ice cube).

Considering that ball-point pens are twice-mentioned as being objects conjurers can make, this presumably means they can create ink, which is a liquid, or else the pens would not work, something you'd think would be mentioned were it the case.

Since they can also summon working bullets, this presumably also means you can summon powders (which lack a discrete form, functioning like liquid in many ways) inside containers, much as they can summon liquids in them.

This should mean that a conjurer can make a watering can full of water much as they might make a pen full of ink or a bullet full of gunpowder. Or perhaps, a bottle full of wine, or a gas can full of diesel.

If anyone is worrying about competition with the 'create water' spell they don't start with, if this can be trusted, a gallon of raw water at 20 deg c weighs 8.33lbs per gallon. If we round that down to 8, the spell can make 4 pounds of water per level per 15, so one can attempt an approach that still encourages Conjurers to select the spell as they gain levels.

non-animal conjuring is limited to 60lbs max and if one takes the approach that such a summon is 'large', you start with a base cost of 50. Since water could be argued as having an endless amount of 'moving parts' you could theoretically boost the cost as high as you like. I say add 10 more (for a mere 3-4 moving parts) just to make it a multiple of 15.

With quadruple the cost of create water, this means 4 casting of CW would give 16lbs of water at level 1, 32lbs of it at level 2 (when conjurers can first select it) and 64lbs at level 4, when it finally surpasses the 60lb limit in efficiency.

The 'moving parts' limit is of course bypassable if a conjurer opts to summon a container full of a block of ice... but then, that's not immediately usable for drinking or hurting vampires, so it's a different niche. Keep in mind that if you wanted a tray full of ice cubes, each cube could arguably qualify as a 'moving part', although one might opt to give it an interpretation similar to marbles and let you summon them for a similar cost, so long as the cubes are marble-like in size (and marbles tend to be smaller than ice cubes so I'd probably say 6 cubes per casting, not 12)

The thing is that the temporary (level) artificats/creatures the Conjurer creates may not be "real" beyond surface impressions.

Gotta disagree here, we are explicitly told that conjured animals are "living" creatures with "lives" good Conjurers would avoid putting on the line, in spite of their temporariness. Surely if they can create real lives then the non-living things they create (which should be simpler) would also be real.

What is meant by surface impressions? It's clearly more than illusions since items all function. The only differences we know of are vanish-upon-vague-destruction, time limit for existence, and the ability to enhance into MDC.

A stick can be considered a device or tool.

Good point, guess the restriction is solely moving-parts-based and fuel-needed-to-construct based.

Gasoline and C4 may also qualify as complex items to create (creature conjuring may follow a different set of rules that item) due to their chemical formula. Gasoline is also not a single chemical compound, nor is C4, turning it from a simple item into a complex item.

Gasoline is probably not as complex as a housefly or rhinoceros.

liquids are not one of the canon examples of what you CAN make

Cept for ink in pens... and of course living Earth animals, which are composed of liquids.

If I make a Gallon of gas, that's one item right? I when I pour it into 4 jars, is that still one item, or 4?

If I conjure a ball-point pen and open it and empty half of the ink into a non-conjured ball-point pen to refill it, does it count as 1 item or 2?

Actually this has got me thinking... if you CAN conjure ink... surely anything you wrote using the ink would vanish from the paper in a matter of hours...

Which is actually a pretty decent feature. A lot safer than the 'this message will self destruct' approaches, or requiring people to eat/burn/shred messages to hide their contents. You could include a permanent message from a real pen+ink as a distraction, and then add on a temporary message from a conjured pen+ink on the borders which the person can read within a required time limit and then easily deny once it goes away... now wondering if this could be combined with magic pigeon.

Unless of course you conjured empty pens and filled them using real ink...

if I conjured an octopus or squid... and made it permanent... would the ink it made be permanent too? Or any other kind of animal and using their blood to write with...

if a conjured animal is injured but not destroyed, does it bleed? does the blood vanish upon separating from the animal, or only at the end of the animal's duration?

[FuduVudu]

Just another question I would liked some opinions on about conjurers. Can a conjurer summon armor or equipment made out of specific materials that are not blocked off from their creation. Like Instead of making an armor out of steel can I make it out of glitter boy plating which is lighter and stronger then steel.

Also lets put it into todays terms if there was a conjurer dealing with the current level of tech we had in the real world and he wanted to make full graphene armor could he make a full suit of it even though the process of making graphene right now only makes flakes and mass producing flawless graphene plates is way out of reach?

Also could he conjurer things that are completely empty like a mega damage structure with absolutely nothing in it making a vacuum balloon.

[eliakon]

Where does it say that you can cut the item up into smaller pieces with OUT destroying it? Where does it say that you CAN eat/burn/whatever an item?

Could Good questions, what qualifies as 'destruction' does tend to be a vague concept.

If one takes the interpretation that the original conjuration separating into parts 'destroys' it, this brings about certain ramifications for some items we know can be conjured:

*bag with marbles, if you remove a marble from the bag, the whole thing vanishes, since you separated them

Bag is 1 item, the dozen marbles are a second item (small items come in groups)

*fishing pole and string: if your line gets snagged and in trying to tug it free some of the string breaks, the entire pole vanishes

Yes if you conjure it as one item.

*ballpoint pen: the minute you begin writing with it, the entire pen vanishes because the ink has separated from the pen and gone onto the paper

This of course presumes that the ink comes with the pen.

*a pair of socks or shoes are summoned touching one another and if in the course of wearing them they break contact (like through walking) they vanish

Paired objects come in two' s so only if one sock is destroyed.

*rope vanishes if cut into smaller pieces of rope

correct

*a plank or sheet of wood vanishes if sawed in half

again logically correct

Considering that ball-point pens are twice-mentioned as being objects conjurers can make, this presumably means they can create ink, which is a liquid, or else the pens would not work, something you'd think would be mentioned were it the case.

The ability to make a device does not mean it comes filled. Guns do not come with bullets for instance.

Since they can also summon working bullets, this presumably also means you can summon powders (which lack a discrete form, functioning like liquid in many ways) inside containers, much as they can summon liquids in them.

But this does not mean that the container can be opened and the powder removed.

This should mean that a conjurer can make a watering can full of water much as they might make a pen full of ink or a bullet full of gunpowder. Or perhaps, a bottle full of wine, or a gas can full of diesel.

Unwarranted conclusion. As shown above there is no definitive proof that liquids or powders can be conjured, nor that objects can be conjured separated from the container they are created in, with out being specifically a different object.

[Nightmask]

No, it's not questionable at all and I can't believe you're actually trying to make that argument, it's like trying to claim cutting up a block of cheese into two blocks somehow means you've 'destroyed' the cheese. Explosives don't disappear when they explode, only go from being one uniform collection of a macro-molecule into a collection of smaller molecules after the bonds break down in the energetic release of energy that creates the explosive expansion of the resulting constituent particles.

Really, you don't want people conjuring explosives or things like gasoline fine just admit that house rule upfront but in the existing rules there is no ambiguity or grayness to things where you can claim that 'well the rule are vague on that so I don't allow it'. They aren't vague and they do allow it.

I get it, some don't want the class being as effective as it could be and want it to be restricted to more 'comfortable' levels but they like to be able to say that by the book it actually is that restricted, but the Conjurer class isn't restricted in that fashion, if it were people wouldn't be trying word games to try and make it out that gasoline fits the definition of a device (which it doesn't) or qualifies as a complex item (which again it doesn't) so it will fall under the list of banned items when it doesn't actually do so.

Why not? It says that an item can be created, that an item can have a certain number of moving parts, and that if that item is destroyed it disappears.
Where does it say that you can cut the item up into smaller pieces with OUT destroying it? Where does it say that you CAN eat/burn/whatever an item? Again, just because your view is that it is so, does not mean it must be that way. Both interpretations are perfectly valid based on what little we know about the class and its abilities.

No, they really aren't. You can't class something like gasoline as an item with moving parts because it isn't, nor is it a device. Seriously, use the actual definitions of the words rather than trying to make up definitions so you can try and twist things so that you can go 'no really it's a valid interpretation of the rules!' when it isn't.

I am not calling gasoline a 'device' I am saying that liquids are not one of the canon examples of what you CAN make, nor is burning for fuel one of the canon examples of what you can do with your created object.
If I make a Gallon of gas, that's one item right? I when I pour it into 4 jars, is that still one item, or 4? Does the conjurer get to 'get around' the 'number of items created' limit by using liquids? The answer is...we don't know.
If I make another gallon of gas and light it, does it work as fuel? Maybe. We know that when it is destroyed it will vanish, but not what will happen AS it is being destroyed. Heck we do not know for sure if it IS gas or just 'close enough' gas. The descriptions are really, really vague.

Certainly looks like you've tried to classify gasoline as a device (and a complex one at that) in order to shoehorn it under the list of banned items. It's also ridiculous to try and argue 'well it doesn't say you can burn something conjured up as fuel', going by that kind of 'reasoning' you can't conjure a screwdriver to use to unscrew a screw because 'well it didn't list conjuring screwdrivers to use to unscrew screws as an example so screwdrivers can't be used to unscrew screws'.

You're also trying to use word games and fallacies to try and create ambiguity where it doesn't exist. It even reminds me of that little word game about if you try to go from point A to point B you have to cover half the distance there but then half that distance and so on so then you can't ever get their right? Wrong of course because things don't work that way. So yes nothing says you can't divide a liquid into other containers once conjured nor does anything say the conjured materials behave in any fashion as anything BUT what is conjured therefor gasoline is actually gasoline not kinda maybe something that's gasoline but not really and it will burn when a lit match is held nearby and if you conjure C4 it will explode if set off.

[eliakon]

No, it's not questionable at all and I can't believe you're actually trying to make that argument, it's like trying to claim cutting up a block of cheese into two blocks somehow means you've 'destroyed' the cheese. Explosives don't disappear when they explode, only go from being one uniform collection of a macro-molecule into a collection of smaller molecules after the bonds break down in the energetic release of energy that creates the explosive expansion of the resulting constituent particles.

Really, you don't want people conjuring explosives or things like gasoline fine just admit that house rule upfront but in the existing rules there is no ambiguity or grayness to things where you can claim that 'well the rule are vague on that so I don't allow it'. They aren't vague and they do allow it.

I get it, some don't want the class being as effective as it could be and want it to be restricted to more 'comfortable' levels but they like to be able to say that by the book it actually is that restricted, but the Conjurer class isn't restricted in that fashion, if it were people wouldn't be trying word games to try and make it out that gasoline fits the definition of a device (which it doesn't) or qualifies as a complex item (which again it doesn't) so it will fall under the list of banned items when it doesn't actually do so.

Why not? It says that an item can be created, that an item can have a certain number of moving parts, and that if that item is destroyed it disappears.
Where does it say that you can cut the item up into smaller pieces with OUT destroying it? Where does it say that you CAN eat/burn/whatever an item? Again, just because your view is that it is so, does not mean it must be that way. Both interpretations are perfectly valid based on what little we know about the class and its abilities.

No, they really aren't. You can't class something like gasoline as an item with moving parts because it isn't, nor is it a device. Seriously, use the actual definitions of the words rather than trying to make up definitions so you can try and twist things so that you can go 'no really it's a valid interpretation of the rules!' when it isn't.

I am not calling gasoline a 'device' I am saying that liquids are not one of the canon examples of what you CAN make, nor is burning for fuel one of the canon examples of what you can do with your created object.
If I make a Gallon of gas, that's one item right? I when I pour it into 4 jars, is that still one item, or 4? Does the conjurer get to 'get around' the 'number of items created' limit by using liquids? The answer is...we don't know.
If I make another gallon of gas and light it, does it work as fuel? Maybe. We know that when it is destroyed it will vanish, but not what will happen AS it is being destroyed. Heck we do not know for sure if it IS gas or just 'close enough' gas. The descriptions are really, really vague.

Certainly looks like you've tried to classify gasoline as a device (and a complex one at that) in order to shoehorn it under the list of banned items. It's also ridiculous to try and argue 'well it doesn't say you can burn something conjured up as fuel', going by that kind of 'reasoning' you can't conjure a screwdriver to use to unscrew a screw because 'well it didn't list conjuring screwdrivers to use to unscrew screws as an example so screwdrivers can't be used to unscrew screws'.

A nice logical failure there. A screwdriver can be used, since that use does not require that you neither alter, nor partially destroy the summoned object. The fallacy there is presuming that the summoned object can be used as a fuel, and then predicating the argument off of that basis. I am calling in to doubt if things can be used as fuel, not if they can exist.

You're also trying to use word games and fallacies to try and create ambiguity where it doesn't exist. It even reminds me of that little word game about if you try to go from point A to point B you have to cover half the distance there but then half that distance and so on so then you can't ever get their right? Wrong of course because things don't work that way. So yes nothing says you can't divide a liquid into other containers once conjured nor does anything say the conjured materials behave in any fashion as anything BUT what is conjured therefor gasoline is actually gasoline not kinda maybe something that's gasoline but not really and it will burn when a lit match is held nearby and if you conjure C4 it will explode if set off.

Questioning 'what is the properties of a summoned object' is not a fallacy, unless you can offer me a specific example of one?
My question is 'why should you be allowed to get around the 'number of objects' limit by using a liquid? The gallon of liquid is one object, why should it be allowed to be broken down into multiple smaller objects when, for instance, a large rock can not be broken up into smaller rocks with out 'destroying' it. Both objects mass still exists, so logically then conjured objects will exist as long as the pieces do? Or are liquids special?

[FuduVudu]

So candles can not be burned, chalk can't be drawn with, twine can't be cut into pieces, Armor and weapons can not be damage without the entirety of the object disappearing?

Can I summon magnets?

[ShadowLogan]

Yes, you're reaching nor are we discussing magic we're discussing the rules as given for what can and cannot be created by a Conjurer. The definitions of things like 'device' or 'complex item' have nothing to do with the fact that you're talking a magical class nor are they going to change because it's a magical class to some special definition, and none of those definitions can one honestly or successfully argue something like gasoline meets them.

Yes actually the meaning of "device" or "complex item" can change based on one's point of view (which in this case is from the POV of the Conjurer class).

Which again is reaching, trying to argue limitations that aren't given. While the examples may be solids doesn't mean one can argue that you can only create solids (and C4 would qualify as a solid anyway).

The same could be said on your end. You are trying to expand the limitations beyond the examples used. If they can create anything, then why do they have the option of taking and utilizing "Create" Spell invocations for fuel (Create Wood, Water to Wine for the burning of alcohol) and liquids (Create Water, x2 as effective for 1/2 the PPE cost) when the Conjuring ability would seem to cover it, the fact that they have to take specific Invocations for those substances suggests they can't produce them via normal conjuring method.

Given it doesn't say that we must accept that they appear to all tests as normal specimens of whatever happens to have been conjured.

Which is the problem, there is no real indication in the text on how "real" the (temp.) item actually is, leaving it to the individual GMs to decide on how it works.

They aren't, they're simple things and nothing in the text would lead anyone to reasonably think anything else. You again reach trying to argue that a stick might be considered a device or tool to try and claim that gasoline can be considered a device or tool as well when you know it isn't. Even if you considered it a tool it still doesn't meet the exclusionary requirements for the Conjurer class because it certainly isn't a complex item.

C4 and gasoline are not simple things chemically as compared to say Water as both are made up of multiple different substances at the molecular level. And the text does rule out C4 as it is an explosive agent as grenades can not be created (which include explosives or other chemicals).

Gotta disagree here, we are explicitly told that conjured animals are "living" creatures with "lives" good Conjurers would avoid putting on the line, in spite of their temporariness. Surely if they can create real lives then the non-living things they create (which should be simpler) would also be real.

What is meant by surface impressions? It's clearly more than illusions since items all function. The only differences we know of are vanish-upon-vague-destruction, time limit for existence, and the ability to enhance into MDC.

Surface impressions is what your five senses can tell you w/o assistance. We know from the Apparition spell and Fool's Gold Spell that such a thing is possible with magic.

If they can create living creatures then they should have no trouble with the items on the Can Not Conjure list Examples, but they do. That points to the two classifications of conjurer output (item and creature) to follow different rules and/or operate on different principles.

Cept for ink in pens... and of course living Earth animals, which are composed of liquids.

Ink might be the exception, just like bullets are to energy using devices (in either case we are talking minuscule amounts to be practical and effective as compared to gasoline or other explosives). Living animals, again they may follow different rules than non-living Item creation as they break the energy using device requirement and are certainly more complex.

This is not really the 'chemical' nature so much as the temperature nature

If you want to get technical everything is chemical in nature. But I was looking at properties (not all chemicals have the same property) and the state (fluid/solid) they are in.

If anyone is worrying about competition with the 'create water' spell they don't start with, if this can be trusted, a gallon of raw water at 20 deg c weighs 8.33lbs per gallon. If we round that down to 8, the spell can make 4 pounds of water per level per 15, so one can attempt an approach that still encourages Conjurers to select the spell as they gain levels.

Conjurer's (and Water Warlocks) can cast "Create Water" at 1/2 the PPE cost for x2 the result. So at level 1 that is 8lbs for 8 PPE (rounding up), at Level 15 that would mean 120lbs (or 15 gallons). Though one does have to ask why the Conquerer would need access to this spell if they can simply conjurer it up via class ability.

Given Palladium metric conversions of 1gallon = 4liters, and I know 1liter of water equals 1kg, 1kg = 2.2lbs. They would say 8.8lbs per gallon. However, 3.785liters to the gallon yields 8.525lbs.

Can I summon magnets?

I would have to say no to this. Magnets can be used to induce electricity to flow. The fact that the Conjurer can not create a generator or motor (electrical), even though a basic version should be easily doable based on the number of moving parts suggest that magnets can not be conjured.

[flatline]

Can I summon magnets?

Good question. Given the restrictions, I'd say probably not. Magnets are arguably 'charged with energy', specifically EM energy.

That's not how magnets work.

If you deny Conjurers the ability to make permanent magnets, then you'll have to deny them the ability to make iron for exactly the same reasons.

--flatline

[eliakon]

So candles can not be burned, chalk can't be drawn with, twine can't be cut into pieces, Armor and weapons can not be damage without the entirety of the object disappearing?

Armor and Weapons will disappear when 'destroyed'. The twine issue becomes one of 'is cutting the string doing sufficient damage to 'destroy' the larger piece of twine? As for writing with chalk....again unclear, but there is no reason to assume that it should work, any more than there is to assume it won't. quite possibly all that would happen is that you would try to draw and leave a trail of vanishing dust behind you.

Can I summon magnets?

I would say yes (presupposing of course the conjurer knows what a magnet is, remember you can only summon that with which you are familiar) with one, odd, caveat. Just like one can summon guns, even though they have lots of parts, you can't summon generators or motors, even though they can have very few parts. Weird I know, but hey, that's the logic of magic for you sometimes. But you could probably summon the parts to BUILD a generator/motor.

[Tor]

Just another question I would liked some opinions on about conjurers. Can a conjurer summon armor or equipment made out of specific materials that are not blocked off from their creation. Like Instead of making an armor out of steel can I make it out of glitter boy plating which is lighter and stronger then steel.

They don't appear to be able to make MDC tech. Rather, they can make SDC armor and then spend extra PPE to give it half as much MDC as it has SDC.

When done to a suit of platemail it's still pretty decent and superior to a lot of EBA in protection though. Not very marketable if it vanishes, unless the Conjurer vanishes before the armor does

Bag is 1 item, the dozen marbles are a second item (small items come in groups)

Correction to my example: book says you can conjure bag + 11 marbles in 1 go.

Paired objects come in two' s so only if one sock is destroyed.

We're trying to define destruction though. I'm using the example of using 'separation'

does not mean that the container can be opened and the powder removed.

Ah... but if it's a normal bullet, why would it be unopenable? Is opening a bullet destroying it?

no definitive proof that liquids or powders can be conjured

True... but if bullets and pens were unfunctioning duds, there's some basis behind thinking the book would have pointed out them being useless summons.

nor that objects can be conjured separated from the container they are created in, with out being specifically a different object.

In which case... I remove the marbles from the bag, they disappear? So summoning a bag of 11 marbles is only good for hitting someone with or letting people look at but not actually play marbles?

A screwdriver can be used, since that use does not require that you neither alter, nor partially destroy the summoned object.

You've clearly never seen ME use a screwdriver.

Magnets are arguably 'charged with energy', specifically EM energy.

Isn't everything charged with some kind of energy? If I conjure a baloon and rub it on my hair, does it not give me a mohawk? What if I wear conjured socks and scrape them across my conjured carpet?

You are trying to expand the limitations beyond the examples used.

Which is fine because they are merely examples, not the end-all of what can be done with the power.

why do they have the option of taking and utilizing "Create" Spell invocations for fuel (Create Wood, Water to Wine for the burning of alcohol) and liquids (Create Water, x2 as effective for 1/2 the PPE cost) when the Conjuring ability would seem to cover it

PPE efficiency, these spells could possibly create greater quantities of the material for less cost.

It's also something they could help a TW build into a device or perhaps teach to others (not very clear on whether these guys are Mysticy or Walkery) which they could not do with an OCC ability.

the fact that they have to take specific Invocations for those substances suggests they can't produce them via normal conjuring method.

Where does it say they HAVE to take those invocations to make those substances? We already know they can create wooden options without casting create wood, and create metal objects without casting create metal.

there is no real indication in the text on how "real" the (temp.) item actually is, leaving it to the individual GMs to decide on how it works.

We know they can create real life, which is more complex than anything else they can make. If it says they make the thing, they make the thing. If it had other properties, those would be mentioned.

C4 and gasoline are not simple things chemically as compared to say Water as both are made up of multiple different substances at the molecular level.

I think Nightmask meant simple to things besides water they can make (like life, or marbles, or platemail)

the text does rule out C4 as it is an explosive agent as grenades can not be created (which include explosives or other chemicals).

The text at minimum says "most modern guns, grenades". Meaning that like guns, it may only mean modern grenades. Even if ALL grenades were restricted, that is not the same as restricting all explosives.

Surface impressions is what your five senses can tell you w/o assistance. We know from the Apparition spell and Fool's Gold Spell that such a thing is possible with magic.

Those are illusion spells, the Conjurer abilities do not create illusions, even if they do start out knowing a single illusion spell.

Conjurer's (and Water Warlocks) can cast "Create Water" at 1/2 the PPE cost for x2 the result. So at level 1 that is 8lbs for 8 PPE (rounding up), at Level 15 that would mean 120lbs (or 15 gallons).

I utterly forgot this, it further enhances my argument.

Though one does have to ask why the Conquerer would need access to this spell if they can simply conjurer it up via class ability.

Efficiency, spend less PPE.

Armor and Weapons will disappear when 'destroyed'.

What qualifies as destruction is certainly an interesting bit though...

Depleting something's SDC... does it necessarily destroy something utterly, or simply damage it to the point that it no longer performs its intended purpose?

MDC armor for example, doesn't it still provide sort of an AR against SDC attacks even when reduced to 0 per RUE? Unless I remember wrong... really enhanced it as a vamp protection in my eyes.

[flatline]

Can I summon magnets?

Good question. Given the restrictions, I'd say probably not. Magnets are arguably 'charged with energy', specifically EM energy.

That's not how magnets work.

Just a couple of verses please; not the whole Bible.

If you deny Conjurers the ability to make permanent magnets, then you'll have to deny them the ability to make iron for exactly the same reasons.

I disagree. Iron is energetically-inert; magnets are not.

And iron bar and a magnetized iron bar both have the same magnetic domains inside them. The difference is that all the domains in the magnetized iron bar agree on their orientation. You can think of the iron bar as being made up of many tiny magnets that are all pointed in random directions so their fields cancel each other out. In the magnetized iron bar, all the tiny magnets are pointed the same way, so their fields add together.

--flatline

[ShadowLogan]

Which is fine because they are merely examples, not the end-all of what can be done with the power.

I disagree, the examples should be taken as setting up what is and is not possible as far as their practical limits.

PPE efficiency, these spells could possibly create greater quantities of the material for less cost.

It's also something they could help a TW build into a device or perhaps teach to others (not very clear on whether these guys are Mysticy or Walkery) which they could not do with an OCC ability.

I think they are Walker and not Mystic, Mystics in my experience mention needing to go off and meditate to learn their new spells, Conjurer just does (just like a Walker).

I don't think it has to do with PPE efficiency since the spells in question are still available to other magic users at increased cost, unlike the Conjurer's class ability. They could have simply said that creating items like this are done differently in the class description instead of giving them the spells.

Where does it say they HAVE to take those invocations to make those substances? We already know they can create wooden options without casting create wood, and create metal objects without casting create metal.

It doesn't, but there has to be a resason to take the spells. One of the reasons may be that the temporary aspect of the conjuration doesn't really create those substances for real, only the appearance.

We know they can create real life, which is more complex than anything else they can make. If it says they make the thing, they make the thing. If it had other properties, those would be mentioned.

And life conjuring may follow different rules than item conjuring. The fact they can conjurer something as complex as a life form, but have issues with some simplier items indicates the two follow different set of mutually exclusive conjuration rules or the Conjurer is really in contact with some other intelligence who has difficulty grasping complex items.

I think Nightmask meant simple to things besides water they can make (like life, or marbles, or platemail)

But C4 and gasoline are not simple things to make compared to marbles or platemail since they are composed of multiple sub-materials that can effect performance. If you get the chemical ratios wrong for a marble or platemail it likely is not going to be useless, but C4 or gasoline can be.

Life as I have said repeatedly follows different rules than item conjuration.

Those are illusion spells, the Conjurer abilities do not create illusions, even if they do start out knowing a single illusion spell.

How can we be sure the Conjurations aren't really some type of advanced illusion spells (for temporary conjuration)?

[eliakon]

Just another question I would liked some opinions on about conjurers. Can a conjurer summon armor or equipment made out of specific materials that are not blocked off from their creation. Like Instead of making an armor out of steel can I make it out of glitter boy plating which is lighter and stronger then steel.

They don't appear to be able to make MDC tech. Rather, they can make SDC armor and then spend extra PPE to give it half as much MDC as it has SDC.

When done to a suit of platemail it's still pretty decent and superior to a lot of EBA in protection though. Not very marketable if it vanishes, unless the Conjurer vanishes before the armor does

The limit on not being able to make things like GlitterSteel is an interesting thing to note. It shows at least one CLASS of physical substances that can not be made, which thus shows that there is a precedent for such a limitation vis-s-vis other classes.

Bag is 1 item, the dozen marbles are a second item (small items come in groups)

Correction to my example: book says you can conjure bag + 11 marbles in 1 go.

oops, my mistake on the numbers

Paired objects come in two' s so only if one sock is destroyed.

We're trying to define destruction though. I'm using the example of using 'separation'

Separation of separate items is not destruction. Its subdivision of items that's destruction. If you get two socks, then you can wear two socks. If you get two socks, you can NOT cut one sock up into hundreds of little cloth patches and expect those patches to stick around. The other sock may or may not stay though, things are not clear on that point.

does not mean that the container can be opened and the powder removed.

Ah... but if it's a normal bullet, why would it be unopenable? Is opening a bullet destroying it?

Because your subdividing in the object. You pay to get one item (the one bullet) when you pry the bullet off the base, now you have two items, three if you count the powder as one item, and thousands if you count each grain as one item. 1) That's not what you paid for. and 2) As a bullet the item is destroyed thus *poof*

no definitive proof that liquids or powders can be conjured

True... but if bullets and pens were unfunctioning duds, there's some basis behind thinking the book would have pointed out them being useless summons.

Bullets can be summoned yes, and I will warrant that they will need to work, as that is the point of them. But a pen does not have to work, since it is perfectly useful to have a pen that needs ink added.

nor that objects can be conjured separated from the container they are created in, with out being specifically a different object.

In which case... I remove the marbles from the bag, they disappear? So summoning a bag of 11 marbles is only good for hitting someone with or letting people look at but not actually play marbles?

Those are 12 different objects, not one object. The bullet though, was paid for as 1 object not a multitude, thus the powder is basically treated as a part of the bullet...though if you pay for a powder 12 grains at a time be my guest

A screwdriver can be used, since that use does not require that you neither alter, nor partially destroy the summoned object.

You've clearly never seen ME use a screwdriver.

Well if you deplete your screwdrivers SDC in the process of using it, it will vanish. But that's not my problem now is it.

You are trying to expand the limitations beyond the examples used.

Which is fine because they are merely examples, not the end-all of what can be done with the power.

A very important point to remember is that examples provide a place to work from. These do not provide all the abilities nor all the limits. SO extrapolation will need to occur, and it will need a GM to do it, since you will be making a rules statement that is not published.

Armor and Weapons will disappear when 'destroyed'.

What qualifies as destruction is certainly an interesting bit though...

Depleting something's SDC... does it necessarily destroy something utterly, or simply damage it to the point that it no longer performs its intended purpose?

MDC armor for example, doesn't it still provide sort of an AR against SDC attacks even when reduced to 0 per RUE? Unless I remember wrong... really enhanced it as a vamp protection in my eyes.

Again your going to have to work that out with your GM. For the animals though we are given to understand that it is depleting its SDC, so I do not see a reason not to use that precedent.

[Tor]

I think they are Walker and not Mystic, Mystics in my experience mention needing to go off and meditate to learn their new spells, Conjurer just does (just like a Walker).

It says 'cannot learn additional spells' for them so I got the impression of them being Mysticy and thus unable to teach their spells.

I don't think it has to do with PPE efficiency since the spells in question are still available to other magic users at increased cost, unlike the Conjurer's class ability.

How exactly does other magic users being able to cast these spells with more PPE and less return negate what I said about efficiency?

They could have simply said that creating items like this are done differently in the class description instead of giving them the spells.

Why waste the space when it's more efficient to use the existing spell text and modify it a bit?

there has to be a resason to take the spells.

There is: efficiency.

One of the reasons may be that the temporary aspect of the conjuration doesn't really create those substances for real, only the appearance.

One of the reasons might be that everything Conjurers make is pink, but since it doesn't say that...

How can we be sure the Conjurations aren't really some type of advanced illusion spells (for temporary conjuration)?

We would be told they were illusions were that the case. Instead we are told they are the things.

We might as well ask whether or not Call Lightning is an illusion.

oops, my mistake on the numbers

You were right to correct me on bag+12 marbles though So we were both slightly right and wrong.

Separation of separate items is not destruction. Its subdivision of items that's destruction. If you get two socks, then you can wear two socks. If you get two socks, you can NOT cut one sock up into hundreds of little cloth patches and expect those patches to stick around. The other sock may or may not stay though, things are not clear on that point.

I guess the question is... are water molecules socks or is a blob of water one big sock?

your subdividing in the object. You pay to get one item (the one bullet) when you pry the bullet off the base, now you have two items

What if I pry it open enough to see inside but not enough to separate the cap?

Kind of like if I summoned a wooden chest and then opened the chest, but the hinge still connects it.

if you deplete your screwdrivers SDC in the process of using it, it will vanish. But that's not my problem now is it.

Ah, but do I need to deplete the SDC to 0? Or does even slightly damaging the tip of it 'separate' the tiny bits of metal that grind off as I wreck it trying to over-screw something?

[Nightmask]

Yes, you're reaching nor are we discussing magic we're discussing the rules as given for what can and cannot be created by a Conjurer. The definitions of things like 'device' or 'complex item' have nothing to do with the fact that you're talking a magical class nor are they going to change because it's a magical class to some special definition, and none of those definitions can one honestly or successfully argue something like gasoline meets them.

Yes actually the meaning of "device" or "complex item" can change based on one's point of view (which in this case is from the POV of the Conjurer class).

No, that would be the POV you'd like to ascribe to the Conjurer class, there's a difference. One is your personal view and one is the actual view based on the actual definitions of the words involved.

Which again is reaching, trying to argue limitations that aren't given. While the examples may be solids doesn't mean one can argue that you can only create solids (and C4 would qualify as a solid anyway).

The same could be said on your end. You are trying to expand the limitations beyond the examples used. If they can create anything, then why do they have the option of taking and utilizing "Create" Spell invocations for fuel (Create Wood, Water to Wine for the burning of alcohol) and liquids (Create Water, x2 as effective for 1/2 the PPE cost) when the Conjuring ability would seem to cover it, the fact that they have to take specific Invocations for those substances suggests they can't produce them via normal conjuring method.

No, what it suggests is if you want to create permanent versions of those items you can without having to permanently expend PPE as there are spells that allow them to do it without having to give up part of their permanent PPE base. It doesn't mean you can't create temporary versions using the regular conjuring methods.

Given it doesn't say that we must accept that they appear to all tests as normal specimens of whatever happens to have been conjured.

Which is the problem, there is no real indication in the text on how "real" the (temp.) item actually is, leaving it to the individual GMs to decide on how it works.

When the text says you conjure something it doesn't say you get a construct that looks or appears like what you wanted to conjure it says you conjured it up but it's temporary and that you can make it permanent by giving up X amount of PPE. Given nothing suggests what's conjured isn't just like the real thing in all testable ways then it is, particularly when you add in how you can make it permanent and nothing says the permanent item isn't anything but the real thing.

They aren't, they're simple things and nothing in the text would lead anyone to reasonably think anything else. You again reach trying to argue that a stick might be considered a device or tool to try and claim that gasoline can be considered a device or tool as well when you know it isn't. Even if you considered it a tool it still doesn't meet the exclusionary requirements for the Conjurer class because it certainly isn't a complex item.

C4 and gasoline are not simple things chemically as compared to say Water as both are made up of multiple different substances at the molecular level. And the text does rule out C4 as it is an explosive agent as grenades can not be created (which include explosives or other chemicals).

No the text doesn't exclude C4, it excludes grenades which are complex devices. The text would have to explicitly state 'cannot make explosives or other chemicals' to make a valid claim that conjurers can't conjure them up.

[Nightmask]

Why not? It says that an item can be created, that an item can have a certain number of moving parts, and that if that item is destroyed it disappears.
Where does it say that you can cut the item up into smaller pieces with OUT destroying it? Where does it say that you CAN eat/burn/whatever an item? Again, just because your view is that it is so, does not mean it must be that way. Both interpretations are perfectly valid based on what little we know about the class and its abilities.

No, they really aren't. You can't class something like gasoline as an item with moving parts because it isn't, nor is it a device. Seriously, use the actual definitions of the words rather than trying to make up definitions so you can try and twist things so that you can go 'no really it's a valid interpretation of the rules!' when it isn't.

I am not calling gasoline a 'device' I am saying that liquids are not one of the canon examples of what you CAN make, nor is burning for fuel one of the canon examples of what you can do with your created object.
If I make a Gallon of gas, that's one item right? I when I pour it into 4 jars, is that still one item, or 4? Does the conjurer get to 'get around' the 'number of items created' limit by using liquids? The answer is...we don't know.
If I make another gallon of gas and light it, does it work as fuel? Maybe. We know that when it is destroyed it will vanish, but not what will happen AS it is being destroyed. Heck we do not know for sure if it IS gas or just 'close enough' gas. The descriptions are really, really vague.

Certainly looks like you've tried to classify gasoline as a device (and a complex one at that) in order to shoehorn it under the list of banned items. It's also ridiculous to try and argue 'well it doesn't say you can burn something conjured up as fuel', going by that kind of 'reasoning' you can't conjure a screwdriver to use to unscrew a screw because 'well it didn't list conjuring screwdrivers to use to unscrew screws as an example so screwdrivers can't be used to unscrew screws'.

A nice logical failure there. A screwdriver can be used, since that use does not require that you neither alter, nor partially destroy the summoned object. The fallacy there is presuming that the summoned object can be used as a fuel, and then predicating the argument off of that basis. I am calling in to doubt if things can be used as fuel, not if they can exist.

No logical failure there, you're trying to argue that something can't be used for a reasonable use one can put it to (burn gasoline or detonate C4) because 'well it didn't say summoned items can be used based on what they are so you can't use conjured gasoline like fuel because it doesn't say you can'. So you're arguing that some items can be used for what they are and others can't when nothing about the Conjurer class or its limitations say anything about conjured items not behaving like any other normal item of their type. Water is still wet and puts out a fire and kerosene still burns when lit on fire and so on.

You're also trying to use word games and fallacies to try and create ambiguity where it doesn't exist. It even reminds me of that little word game about if you try to go from point A to point B you have to cover half the distance there but then half that distance and so on so then you can't ever get their right? Wrong of course because things don't work that way. So yes nothing says you can't divide a liquid into other containers once conjured nor does anything say the conjured materials behave in any fashion as anything BUT what is conjured therefor gasoline is actually gasoline not kinda maybe something that's gasoline but not really and it will burn when a lit match is held nearby and if you conjure C4 it will explode if set off.

Questioning 'what is the properties of a summoned object' is not a fallacy, unless you can offer me a specific example of one?
My question is 'why should you be allowed to get around the 'number of objects' limit by using a liquid? The gallon of liquid is one object, why should it be allowed to be broken down into multiple smaller objects when, for instance, a large rock can not be broken up into smaller rocks with out 'destroying' it. Both objects mass still exists, so logically then conjured objects will exist as long as the pieces do? Or are liquids special?

You're just trying to expand the range of object to liquids to have justifications for banning creative players of the class using it to create things that would be highly beneficial to the group like fuel for a vehicle or explosives rather than having to go and purchase them from someone.

You can't break a liquid because there's nothing to break, you can't change anything essential about it by separating it into smaller containers unlike say a rock. You smash a rock with a hammer you've now altered essential properties of it, you can't just put the pieces back together and have a whole rock again but you CAN pour all that liquid back into a single container and have all the liquid back together again. Because liquids have different properties than solids (same deal with gases).

Which all comes back to the original complaint regarding the title of the thread, the perception that the Conjurer is worthless. It's only worthless if the GM spends his time nerfing all the things it can do to make it worthless with various house rules to prevent the creation of things like explosives. It's not as if there aren't plenty of spells and items around for other OCC of comparable or superior ability to deal damage that insisting Conjurers can't make C4 can possibly make sense. Particularly since such things require a lot more than 'I conjure C4 and blow stuff up' it requires skill to set it up and have it go off how and when you need it to, the things they can conjure require they or someone they know have skill enough to use it properly and time to make it happen.

[FuduVudu]

Lets say there is a engine that uses perfectly flawless carbon cubes as a fuel source for say an antimater drive. Can you make the perfectly pure carbon cube if you have seen and touched them before? Or can you not because that would be summoning fuel?

Can I summon a alien animal that is not supernatural like those blasters from phase world? How about Bio Power Armors from Splicers(of course I mean if I as a summoner have touched and the skills to understand them.)

Can I summon a lamb with a a huge amount of information encoded into its dna?

If I have a rare female animal can I summon a temporary male mate it with the female or are the not sterile?

If I have seen a gene-splicers 3 headed wolf can I summon them? What about MDC mutants animals from lone star?

[flatline]

And iron bar and a magnetized iron bar both have the same magnetic domains inside them. The difference is that all the domains in the magnetized iron bar agree on their orientation. You can think of the iron bar as being made up of many tiny magnets that are all pointed in random directions so their fields cancel each other out. In the magnetized iron bar, all the tiny magnets are pointed the same way, so their fields add together.

I believe you are going a little bit too far afield of the original concept. There must be some sort of restrictions on what can be conjured. If you're going to allow magnets based on real physics, then why not allow explosives? Are they not molecularly held together by the same atomic forces that hold together iron? -- I mean: there has to be a limit to this sort of thing.

I think they should be allowed to summon explosives if they understand the structure of the explosives. I also believe they should be able to summon any element that they are familiar with (say, plutonium or cesium).

The limit based on moving parts is also arbitrary and problematic. Fortunately, nobody has ever played a conjurer in any game I've been part of, so we never really had to establish the limits involved. But the limits given in canon are too restrictive.

--flatline

[ShadowLogan]

It says 'cannot learn additional spells' for them so I got the impression of them being Mysticy and thus unable to teach their spells.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

How exactly does other magic users being able to cast these spells with more PPE and less return negate what I said about efficiency?

On a Spell vs Spell basis it isn't. But that isn't what I was looking at. I was looking at the OCC ability vs spell. There is no real benifit to being a Conjurer (overall) in these areas if regular casters can do the same job and due to their more commonness can out produce them due to greater numbers, even if it is a bit more expensive for them.

Why waste the space when it's more efficient to use the existing spell text and modify it a bit?

Because the Conjurer information necessary to play the class would all be centralized in the description, and not off in another part of the book in a near footnote like manner. And you wouldn't have to give the Conjurer a normal spell invocation description, so you really aren't losing space as you might actually gain it.

We would be told they were illusions were that the case. Instead we are told they are the things.

We might as well ask whether or not Call Lightning is an illusion.

Not necessarily. Part of magic is belif, so if the mage conjurers up an item/animal (temp.) their belief could give the illusion added potency (Apperition Spell shows that belief can alter one's perception of the illusion) if they belive it is real. And by advanced illusion, it may work in concert with some type of force field giving the illusion a solid nature that one can interact with, but not dispell (ex. Multiple Image IIRC).

No, that would be the POV you'd like to ascribe to the Conjurer class, there's a difference. One is your personal view and one is the actual view based on the actual definitions of the words involved.

And the POV of the Conjurer class is that they do have limits in what they can conjur as far as "device" and "complex". Some items that are simple devices really still can't be conjurered because they are viewed by the class as to complex.

No, what it suggests is if you want to create permanent versions of those items you can without having to permanently expend PPE as there are spells that allow them to do it without having to give up part of their permanent PPE base. It doesn't mean you can't create temporary versions using the regular conjuring methods.

It also suggests that those temporary versions MAY lack the full range of properties the real/permanent stuff has. They can't make radios afterall (even a basic crystal radio).

When the text says you conjure something it doesn't say you get a construct that looks or appears like what you wanted to conjure it says you conjured it up but it's temporary and that you can make it permanent by giving up X amount of PPE. Given nothing suggests what's conjured isn't just like the real thing in all testable ways then it is, particularly when you add in how you can make it permanent and nothing says the permanent item isn't anything but the real thing.

I disagree. The fact the item is temporary, and there are known limits on what can be conjured point to the (temp.) material as only having limited properties as compared to the real thing.

No the text doesn't exclude C4, it excludes grenades which are complex devices. The text would have to explicitly state 'cannot make explosives or other chemicals' to make a valid claim that conjurers can't conjure them up.

Text doesn't mention C4, but the text does imply C4 would be excluded from the list of materials that can be conjurerd. C4 (and other explosives) needs an energy source to be activated that comes from a detonator, so C4 can't be produced as it would be an example of energy using device.

The text really doesn't address creating raw chemicals, only tools (and weapons and armor are tools) or animals as part of their class ability.

[eliakon]

It also suggests that those temporary versions MAY lack the full range of properties the real/permanent stuff has. They can't make radios afterall (even a basic crystal radio).

Very interesting note. A crystal radio has no moving parts, no power source, but it would still be 'electronics'....
Which suggests that either some things are hard to make, even if they LOOK simple or that their are restrictions we are un aware of.

[Tor]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't agree to that!

I was looking at the OCC ability vs spell. There is no real benifit to being a Conjurer (overall) in these areas if regular casters can do the same job and due to their more commonness can out produce them due to greater numbers, even if it is a bit more expensive for them.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I am proposing that Conjurers can do something like summon a bucket of water using their OCC ability.

How exactly would this remove a benefit from Conjurer?

If anything saying "no, you need the spell" would be limiting the Conjurer OCC.

Regular casters CAN do the same job... if you mean creating water, that is, or wood, or steel. In fact, they can create it permanently, which regardless of the higher PPE cost or amount, is going to be better deal than making something that lasts hours.

the Conjurer information necessary to play the class would all be centralized in the description, and not off in another part of the book in a near footnote like manner.

Why's that necessary? Most magical classes don't do that.

And you wouldn't have to give the Conjurer a normal spell invocation description, so you really aren't losing space as you might actually gain it.

Conjurers knowing normal spells don't mean they HAVE to know those spells to do certain things. They have the option of learning those spells, and those spells would provide advantages (creating permanent water or wood or steel at a lower PPE cost at greater quantity) compared to their OCC ability.

Part of magic is belif, so if the mage conjurers up an item/animal (temp.) their belief could give the illusion added potency (Apperition Spell shows that belief can alter one's perception of the illusion) if they belive it is real. And by advanced illusion, it may work in concert with some type of force field giving the illusion a solid nature that one can interact with, but not dispell (ex. Multiple Image IIRC).

Mkay but the general approach to gaming is we never assume things to be illusions unless told they are. Otherwise I don't really know if Glitter Boys are real.

It also suggests that those temporary versions MAY lack the full range of properties the real/permanent stuff has. They can't make radios afterall (even a basic crystal radio).

That suggests they can't make a full range of things, not that what they can make lacks real properties.

[ShadowLogan]

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I am proposing that Conjurers can do something like summon a bucket of water using their OCC ability.

How exactly would this remove a benefit from Conjurer?

If anything saying "no, you need the spell" would be limiting the Conjurer OCC.

Regular casters CAN do the same job... if you mean creating water, that is, or wood, or steel. In fact, they can create it permanently, which regardless of the higher PPE cost or amount, is going to be better deal than making something that lasts hours.

The fact that a Conjurer has access to Invocation Magic to create water (ex, still need a container) points to their OCC ability being unable to effectively produce the material in question (that it can do something other than taking up space, or be a "toy" version) and that is why they have access to the spell. We already know the Conjurer has limits in complexity for inanimate objects (number of moving parts, an energy using device, etc), so this really isn't any more limiting than those aspects.

Why's that necessary? Most magical classes don't do that.

Given the highly specialized nature of the Conjurer it would be helpful. While some other classes can do that easily enough since they share invocation lists with other types, there are still some that it makes more sense if the ability/spell list can't be shared to centralize the information.

Conjurers knowing normal spells don't mean they HAVE to know those spells to do certain things. They have the option of learning those spells, and those spells would provide advantages (creating permanent water or wood or steel at a lower PPE cost at greater quantity) compared to their OCC ability.

Yes it does, it shows that their conjuration ability is materially limited. If it wasn't there would be no need to give them the option of learning regular spells. They could have put it that a Conjurer can create raw material (Water, Rock, Metal, etc) as permanent without the permanenet PPE cost. A text block like that would be much shorter than the section devoted to invocation spell selection.

Mkay but the general approach to gaming is we never assume things to be illusions unless told they are. Otherwise I don't really know if Glitter Boys are real.

In practice most things aren't going to be illusions in gaming, but when dealing with magic one can not be to sure what is real and what is an illusion.

That suggests they can't make a full range of things, not that what they can make lacks real properties.

Actually it does. A Conjurer can not create a working battery, even though in practice they should have no trouble with it. So they might in fact create a "toy" battery (ie it looks like one, but it won't work). In order for it to not work, the thing has to lack real properties necessary to make a battery work. If there are properties they can't conjurer for an item, then there can be other properties they can't duplicate.