Is this question about true polymorph and consumable spell components a duplicate?

Question

The question: True Polymorph + True Seeing = True Death?

This question was originally closed as a duplicate of this question, asking if using true polymorph to create consumable spell components worked at all, but the question was later clarified to ask:

Tangentially mentioned in that thread, someone assumes that a "consumed" spell component is the same as "destroying" an item and reducing it to zero HP, but I can't find anything RAW that supports that sentiment- and WotC is known for their explicit and intentional differentiation of terms.

So for clarity, the question is what happens to a consumed spell component?

So I closed it as a duplicate of this question, What does it mean for a spell component to be consumed?, which asks:

When the body of spell's description explicitly says a component is 'consumed' or it is implied by the material components description, what exactly happens to that component?

These seem to be exactly the same question. But the question was reopened by another user, so I'm asking here on meta since we've been through two close-reopen cycles at this point.

Is this question a duplicate?

Answer 1

It is based on assumptions addressed by the duplicate questions, but asks something not covered by either

The question also asks:

Have I just wiped the BBEG from existence, and if so, did his soul get consumed with him?

Effectively, “if I can polymorph a creature into a spell component, and if that component is consumed in the casting of a spell, what does it mean for the original creature?” and/or “is this a surefire way to permanently destroy any creature, including their soul?” Neither of these seem answered by the duplicate question(s). And this does seem to be the relevant part, despite how the asker has framed a clarification at the end.

I think there’s scope for the question to remain open with some editing, as while what the asker wants to know does depend in part on the answer to the duplicate, that answer’s ramifications for the asker’s scenario are still unclear.

Answer 2

It is not a duplicate

D&D 5e is an exceptions based game. Just because a general statement about components exists, it does not mean that there isn't a specific interaction with the True Polymorph spell that may require a more nuanced view.

In particular, for a regular material component it doesn't really matter whether or not the material component is "de-magic-ed", set to 0 hp and destroyed that way, destroyed utterly or excised from the multiverse.

For a creature that is True Polymorphed into an object it very much matters which bit of them is "consumed". Both for the purposes of the fight in question, as well as if they could be resurrected later.

This means that Criterion 2 in ThomasMarkov's answer is not satisfied:

Question B has an obvious answer to Question A. Obvious here means I get a straightforward answer without hard searching — a couple of sentences buried in the middle of a post, or an answer which only sort of implies an answer to Question A, doesn't count as obvious.

In this case the answer for this combination is non-obvious from the answers for the first question.

Answer 3

It is a duplicate and it should be closed.

Question A: True Polymorph + True Seeing = True Death?

Question B: What does it mean for a spell component to be consumed?

We will examine these questions according to the three duplicate criteria

Criterion 1:

It's the same question, or Question A is already covered obviously as a subset of Question B. Obvious here means I can tell at a glance it's there.

These are asking the exact same question:

So for clarity, the question is what happens to a consumed spell component?

When the body of spell's description explicitly says a component is 'consumed' or it is implied by the material components description, what exactly happens to that component?

Same question - what exactly does it mean for a component to be consumed?

Criterion 2:

Question B has an obvious answer to Question A. Obvious here means I get a straightforward answer without hard searching — a couple of sentences buried in the middle of a post, or an answer which only sort of implies an answer to Question A, doesn't count as obvious.

All the answers on Question B answer Question A directly, since the two questions are the exact same question.

Criterion 3:

There is not some strong compelling reason to covering Question A alone, separately from Question B. (If the above bullet points are met this rarely happens.)

There is not. One might offer the idea that the entire question isn't covered by Question B, but it doesn't have to be. The question is assuming the answer to the original dupe closure, and asking a question further to it. Between the original dupe target, which Question A assumes the answer of, and Question B, the entire scenario of Question B is addressed.