11

I have always been under the impression that fabricate was only ever able to make one item, out of one or more different materials.

Although the spell says:

You convert raw materials into products of the same material.

I read this as a general description of how the spell works, so you know you could make multiple different products from different castings.

Further, all the examples given are single items, even when clothes, which I assumed would only count as plurale tantum, as they come in a set, and not multiple sets?

The rest of the spell description implies (to me at least) only a single object is created:

You can fabricate a Large or smaller object.

How many objects can you create out of this spell?

Inspired by this question, which suggests it would be possible to make multiple burgers and/or sausages from a single horse, and not just a 5ft³ block of mince meat.

AncientSwordRage
  • 13,455
  • 8
  • 110
  • 291

1 Answers1

10

You can probably make more than one object with a single casting.

You've identified one phrase in the spell description that seems to indicate the possibility of creating many objects, but there is another:

For example, you can fabricate a wooden bridge from a clump of trees, a rope from a patch of hemp, and clothes from flax or wool.

The bridge example is important, as it likely does not qualify as a single object according to the rules for objects:

For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects.

It seems reasonable to rule that a bridge is a type of building, a composition of many other objects, rather than a single discrete object, so creating a bridge requires the creation of many objects.

Additionally, "clothes" is offered as an example, and it seems quite natural to interpret this to potentially refer to a multi-garment outfit rather than only to a singular one piece jump suit.

So what of the phrase "You can fabricate a Large or smaller object"? It is perfectly consistent to understand this phrase as an allowance, rather than a restriction. This statement is just explaining that you may create an object if you have enough of the requisite material to create it, not declaring that you may only create one object per casting.

Thomas Markov
  • 148,772
  • 29
  • 842
  • 1,137
  • 1
    Your point about the bridge is a good one, I had visualised it as being of an unnaturally singular construction, because it didn't need to be made of multiple pieces. But I have no basis for that assumption. – AncientSwordRage Sep 20 '21 at 14:26
  • 1
    @AncientSwordRage Yeah, I don't see a reason that the objects produced would be particularly peculiar, and a one piece bridge would be exceedingly so. – Thomas Markov Sep 20 '21 at 14:27
  • Oh, I don't know about that. It's entirely possible that there are aspects of fabricated objects that make them recognizable as fabbed -- I'm thinking of Fullmetal Alchemist, how created objects often have a little rectangular pattern to them, and it requires extra time, focus, and skill to make them not look like that. And fabrication means you can skip certain parts of construction, like temporary supports and carpentry joins. I would think it's entirely valid to use a skill check to recognize that a particular object was created magically rather than constructed. – Darth Pseudonym Sep 20 '21 at 15:07
  • Just a note about the Object rules: The Hitpoints table contradicts your quoted sentence with the Cart listing. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/running-the-game#HitPoints – Journer Sep 20 '21 at 17:41
  • @Journer You mean the rules contradict themselves? – Thomas Markov Sep 20 '21 at 17:41
  • @ThomasMarkov Basically. They state that vehicles aren't objects, then list that they are. Just like the spell in question (as quoted in question). In this case, the issue likely involves contact, whether the items created are pressed together and to what degree. Regardless, I support your answer. – Journer Sep 20 '21 at 17:55
  • There would be no reason to create 2 bridges -- 1 large one is better. Likewise one very long rope is better than several ropes. So those aren't negative examples (as in "see, they didn't say 'ropes'!") The plural clothes example seems to be saying "after those 2 examples where 1 item is clearly what you want, of course you can make several items, clothes for example". – Owen Reynolds Sep 20 '21 at 23:32
  • @OwenReynolds you might have 2 lots of 15ft gaps to cross, separated by 5 foot of solid ground, and only enough material to make 30ft of bridge. There you are better off with two bridges. – AncientSwordRage Sep 24 '21 at 10:13
  • @AncientSwordRage 5 feet? The ends take up space. They'd meet and it would be 1 bridge. Even a rope bridge needs room at the end to brace the ropes. Plus, is this a bunch of construction engineers playing, who know the cubic usable wood in a standard oak tree and so on? – Owen Reynolds Sep 24 '21 at 13:50