Context
In our game my wizard frequently casts Minor Conjuration to create a beer (in a mug) for our dwarf barbarian, as a friendly gesture. Every six seconds I would do the same thing, and he would chug it, offering our bulky frontliner a cycle of countless beers.
The DM asked me, "is this an illusion?" I said, "No, the real deal but it's visibly magical." DM, laughing: *"Does the fluid disappear after consumption?" Me, quoting the feature:
The object disappears after 1 hour, when you use this feature again,
or if it takes any damage.
"So do you count drinking it as damaging the object? And what does 'disappearing' mean to you?"
Interpretation
The DM ruled that the dwarf could drink countless conjured (though tasteless) beers but would never get drunk for it, since the toxins that create that mental state also leave his body whenever I conjure another one. The dwarf would fully believe it works though, due to the Placebo effect. I'm happy with this interpretation, and it led to some fun times.
I'm still curious though if someone can give me a clear answer on this question, on how it's written to work. Or will the interpretation of such wording always be at DM's discretion?
Question
In other words, could the dwarf get physically drunk on conjured beers? Placebo is sort of a way, but I'm mostly interested in whether the substance actually has enough time to influence a body. The same answer could be applied if I would conjure a poison for someone else instead, for example. Would that poison still work if I conjure something else, after injection of mentioned poison.
- How I see it:
The class feature does what it says it does, and nothing more. Meaning, drinking a conjured beer would look visibly magical but other than that, it would behave like a real beer. And drinking a substance would move it (not destroy it) and change the beer's chemical properties once the body takes them in, so the original object can't disappear anymore when I cast Minor Conjuration again after he drank the first one. However, I can't find anything to back up my interpretation (nor his).
If you can clarify, that would be very helpful.
Related:
Best Answer
Fake brews: They won't get you drunk
Liquids generally aren't considered valid objects, so you can't even make beer
Minor conjuration works to create a small object. The argument could be made that you couldn't even create a beer in the first place since it doesn't really meet the definition of a single discreet object. See this question (among others) for examples of this argument more in depth.
Assuming your DM agrees, then you can't create beer in the first place.
But even if they do rule that beer can be created, it still wouldn't work to get you drunk.
The beer would disappear upon being drunk
The rest of this answer assumes that your DM allows you to create beer with Minor Conjuration for whatever reason.
Unfortunately, drinking the beer would likely count as damaging it, so the beer would instantly vanish upon the attempt. Not to dive too deeply, but digestion is a destructive process. As soon as the beer enters the body it starts getting broken down by various processes and chemicals in the body. In short, beer doesn't stay beer long once ingested.
Think of it this way, if you took that beer and dipped it into acid, would you count that as damage? I would say yes. Stomach acid does exactly that as part of digestion.
In summary: upon ingestion (or very shortly after) the beer (bottle and liquid) would disappear including the liquid inside the body.
Rules as Fun
I would be tempted to allow a summoned beer to be drunk and for someone to get drunk on summoned beers. However, there is a bit of a problem. If you can summon and drink beer, you can summon and eat food and be sated by it. However, allowing this steps on the toes of other spells and class features designed to do exactly that and at no cost.
This seems unfair, unbalanced, and unfun especially if any characters with those abilities are at the table.
If you don't have an issue with this then there aren't really any further problems with allowing it, but I wouldn't for the above reasons.