Does a fluid substance (a beer), created with Minor Conjuration, disappear from one's body after drinking it when this class feature is used again?









up vote
14
down vote

favorite












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:



  • Limitations on the Conjurer's Minor Conjuration ability


  • Can "Minor Conjuration" be used as often as a wizard wants?










share|improve this question



















  • 3




    Heavily related on conjuring food with the same feature
    – David Coffron
    Nov 10 at 13:39














up vote
14
down vote

favorite












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:



  • Limitations on the Conjurer's Minor Conjuration ability


  • Can "Minor Conjuration" be used as often as a wizard wants?










share|improve this question



















  • 3




    Heavily related on conjuring food with the same feature
    – David Coffron
    Nov 10 at 13:39












up vote
14
down vote

favorite









up vote
14
down vote

favorite











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:



  • Limitations on the Conjurer's Minor Conjuration ability


  • Can "Minor Conjuration" be used as often as a wizard wants?










share|improve this question















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:



  • Limitations on the Conjurer's Minor Conjuration ability


  • Can "Minor Conjuration" be used as often as a wizard wants?







dnd-5e class-feature wizard






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 10 at 17:11









V2Blast

18.1k248114




18.1k248114










asked Nov 10 at 11:33









Vadruk

1,95611047




1,95611047







  • 3




    Heavily related on conjuring food with the same feature
    – David Coffron
    Nov 10 at 13:39












  • 3




    Heavily related on conjuring food with the same feature
    – David Coffron
    Nov 10 at 13:39







3




3




Heavily related on conjuring food with the same feature
– David Coffron
Nov 10 at 13:39




Heavily related on conjuring food with the same feature
– David Coffron
Nov 10 at 13:39










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
22
down vote



accepted










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.






share|improve this answer






















  • Thanks for the clear response, that makes a lot of sense. Still plenty of space for fun ;)
    – Vadruk
    Nov 10 at 15:11






  • 3




    Might be wise to include links to answers about liquids not being considered as objects. As an example.
    – Slagmoth
    Nov 10 at 16:54






  • 1




    @Slagmoth good point. I had considered adding that before but decided against it. I've added in some discussion because I think it is important.
    – Rubiksmoose
    Nov 10 at 18:42






  • 2




    This sage advice Tweet can help the conversation around damage. It calls out that "damage" means rolling damage dice, and I think fits in with the dropping-beer-into-acid example.
    – Mattamue
    Nov 10 at 21:09







  • 1




    I could envision this being useful. The party could easily get somebody drunk (say, an important NPC), while pretending to get drunk themselves, but since it's fake it doesn't actually get them drunk.
    – Riker
    Nov 11 at 5:48










Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135275%2fdoes-a-fluid-substance-a-beer-created-with-minor-conjuration-disappear-from%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
22
down vote



accepted










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.






share|improve this answer






















  • Thanks for the clear response, that makes a lot of sense. Still plenty of space for fun ;)
    – Vadruk
    Nov 10 at 15:11






  • 3




    Might be wise to include links to answers about liquids not being considered as objects. As an example.
    – Slagmoth
    Nov 10 at 16:54






  • 1




    @Slagmoth good point. I had considered adding that before but decided against it. I've added in some discussion because I think it is important.
    – Rubiksmoose
    Nov 10 at 18:42






  • 2




    This sage advice Tweet can help the conversation around damage. It calls out that "damage" means rolling damage dice, and I think fits in with the dropping-beer-into-acid example.
    – Mattamue
    Nov 10 at 21:09







  • 1




    I could envision this being useful. The party could easily get somebody drunk (say, an important NPC), while pretending to get drunk themselves, but since it's fake it doesn't actually get them drunk.
    – Riker
    Nov 11 at 5:48














up vote
22
down vote



accepted










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.






share|improve this answer






















  • Thanks for the clear response, that makes a lot of sense. Still plenty of space for fun ;)
    – Vadruk
    Nov 10 at 15:11






  • 3




    Might be wise to include links to answers about liquids not being considered as objects. As an example.
    – Slagmoth
    Nov 10 at 16:54






  • 1




    @Slagmoth good point. I had considered adding that before but decided against it. I've added in some discussion because I think it is important.
    – Rubiksmoose
    Nov 10 at 18:42






  • 2




    This sage advice Tweet can help the conversation around damage. It calls out that "damage" means rolling damage dice, and I think fits in with the dropping-beer-into-acid example.
    – Mattamue
    Nov 10 at 21:09







  • 1




    I could envision this being useful. The party could easily get somebody drunk (say, an important NPC), while pretending to get drunk themselves, but since it's fake it doesn't actually get them drunk.
    – Riker
    Nov 11 at 5:48












up vote
22
down vote



accepted







up vote
22
down vote



accepted






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.






share|improve this 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.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 11 at 4:08

























answered Nov 10 at 14:35









Rubiksmoose

44.1k6220337




44.1k6220337











  • Thanks for the clear response, that makes a lot of sense. Still plenty of space for fun ;)
    – Vadruk
    Nov 10 at 15:11






  • 3




    Might be wise to include links to answers about liquids not being considered as objects. As an example.
    – Slagmoth
    Nov 10 at 16:54






  • 1




    @Slagmoth good point. I had considered adding that before but decided against it. I've added in some discussion because I think it is important.
    – Rubiksmoose
    Nov 10 at 18:42






  • 2




    This sage advice Tweet can help the conversation around damage. It calls out that "damage" means rolling damage dice, and I think fits in with the dropping-beer-into-acid example.
    – Mattamue
    Nov 10 at 21:09







  • 1




    I could envision this being useful. The party could easily get somebody drunk (say, an important NPC), while pretending to get drunk themselves, but since it's fake it doesn't actually get them drunk.
    – Riker
    Nov 11 at 5:48
















  • Thanks for the clear response, that makes a lot of sense. Still plenty of space for fun ;)
    – Vadruk
    Nov 10 at 15:11






  • 3




    Might be wise to include links to answers about liquids not being considered as objects. As an example.
    – Slagmoth
    Nov 10 at 16:54






  • 1




    @Slagmoth good point. I had considered adding that before but decided against it. I've added in some discussion because I think it is important.
    – Rubiksmoose
    Nov 10 at 18:42






  • 2




    This sage advice Tweet can help the conversation around damage. It calls out that "damage" means rolling damage dice, and I think fits in with the dropping-beer-into-acid example.
    – Mattamue
    Nov 10 at 21:09







  • 1




    I could envision this being useful. The party could easily get somebody drunk (say, an important NPC), while pretending to get drunk themselves, but since it's fake it doesn't actually get them drunk.
    – Riker
    Nov 11 at 5:48















Thanks for the clear response, that makes a lot of sense. Still plenty of space for fun ;)
– Vadruk
Nov 10 at 15:11




Thanks for the clear response, that makes a lot of sense. Still plenty of space for fun ;)
– Vadruk
Nov 10 at 15:11




3




3




Might be wise to include links to answers about liquids not being considered as objects. As an example.
– Slagmoth
Nov 10 at 16:54




Might be wise to include links to answers about liquids not being considered as objects. As an example.
– Slagmoth
Nov 10 at 16:54




1




1




@Slagmoth good point. I had considered adding that before but decided against it. I've added in some discussion because I think it is important.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 10 at 18:42




@Slagmoth good point. I had considered adding that before but decided against it. I've added in some discussion because I think it is important.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 10 at 18:42




2




2




This sage advice Tweet can help the conversation around damage. It calls out that "damage" means rolling damage dice, and I think fits in with the dropping-beer-into-acid example.
– Mattamue
Nov 10 at 21:09





This sage advice Tweet can help the conversation around damage. It calls out that "damage" means rolling damage dice, and I think fits in with the dropping-beer-into-acid example.
– Mattamue
Nov 10 at 21:09





1




1




I could envision this being useful. The party could easily get somebody drunk (say, an important NPC), while pretending to get drunk themselves, but since it's fake it doesn't actually get them drunk.
– Riker
Nov 11 at 5:48




I could envision this being useful. The party could easily get somebody drunk (say, an important NPC), while pretending to get drunk themselves, but since it's fake it doesn't actually get them drunk.
– Riker
Nov 11 at 5:48

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135275%2fdoes-a-fluid-substance-a-beer-created-with-minor-conjuration-disappear-from%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







這個網誌中的熱門文章

How to read a connectionString WITH PROVIDER in .NET Core?

In R, how to develop a multiplot heatmap.2 figure showing key labels successfully

Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art of Trento and Rovereto