Illusory Cover

[Notafish]

If I were to use Minor Illusion to create an illusion of a 5x5 brick wall and crouched behind it, would that give me total cover until an enemy used an action to Investigate and determine it's an illusion rather than a conjuration? Essentially, does magic that blocks line of sight grant cover (can't be targeted) or heavy obscurement (can be targeted, but disadvantage on the attack as if blinded)?

[ThirdProgenitor]

If I were to use Minor Illusion to create an illusion of a 5x5 brick wall and crouched behind it, would that give me total cover until an enemy used an action to Investigate and determine it's an illusion rather than a conjuration? Essentially, does magic that blocks line of sight grant cover (can't be targeted) or heavy obscurement (can be targeted, but disadvantage on the attack as if blinded)?

It would cause heavy obscurement.
Cover implies that there is something solid blocking the projectiles path. As it says in minor illusions description that it is not solid, and solid objects will pass through it, it does not stop any missiles. Therefore: heavy obscurement

[Tanarii]

Any intelligent enemy would just assume a sudden 5ft wall or box appearing out of nowhere is a Minor Illusion, given that they'll all know Minor Illusion exists in their world. It is a cantrip that all Arcane casters can get, and almost all certainly will, given how awesome it is.

What you would gain is forcing them to spend an attack to pop an arrow (or whatever) at it to trigger physical interaction. They know where you are, but not precisely, so that's disadvantage against a single attack. So there's some benefit to it in an emergency. (So far I've universally seen it ruled this way in AL.)

[manny2510]

Still better than Bladeward, am I right?

[Tanarii]

Minor illusion is definitely a better cantrip than blade Ward. I can't imagine anyone other than a EK or Valor Bard ever actually choosing Blade Ward. (Ditto True Strike.)

But if you do have Blade Ward for some weird reason, it'll be better to use if you're going to be hammered with a bunch of attacks.

[SharkForce]

Any intelligent enemy would just assume a sudden 5ft wall or box appearing out of nowhere is a Minor Illusion, given that they'll all know Minor Illusion exists in their world. It is a cantrip that all Arcane casters can get, and almost all certainly will, given how awesome it is.

What you would gain is forcing them to spend an attack to pop an arrow (or whatever) at it to trigger physical interaction. They know where you are, but not precisely, so that's disadvantage against a single attack. So there's some benefit to it in an emergency. (So far I've universally seen it ruled this way in AL.)

except how do you know it isn't a different spell that creates a wall?

it might be an illusion. it might not be an illusion. since NPCs are not psychic, they don't have any way of automatically knowing whether something is an illusion or not.

a level 2 conjurer can, using only at-will resources, conjure an object up to 3x3x3. could they not potentially do something similar but stronger with a spell?

a level 2 spell can create a giant spherical wall of water. a mold earth spell can rapidly create a barrier of equivalent size out of earth or loose stone.

there is no particular reason to assume that this particular magic effect is an illusion when there are a variety of other ways to generate similar effects. particularly when the typical individual has absolutely no training whatsoever in magic. no arcana proficiency, no spell knowledge, no abilities related to the identification of magical effects. typically not above-average intelligence either, to help with either the investigation check or the arcana check. particularly if we presume that the actual game world features a bunch of additional spells that simply aren't mentioned in the PHB because albis's conjure 5 foot wall is not common enough or useful enough to warrant mentioning generally.

[Kane0]

You could also use Mold Earth to move a 5' space of dirt at your feet into a mound just in front of you, then step into your little hole to use as a makeshift trench. That's also a cantrip.

[Tanarii]

except how do you know it isn't a different spell that creates a wall?because it's a tiny miniature wall that's exactly the area of effect of a common cantrip? :)

Still might be worth it for an enemy to pop an arrow at it just to see. But yeah, they might not bother. The tactic can be a good 'choose a better target' function.

[SharkForce]

because it's a tiny miniature wall that's exactly the area of effect of a common cantrip? :)

Still might be worth it for an enemy to pop an arrow at it just to see. But yeah, they might not bother. The tactic can be a good 'choose a better target' function.

that's nice. except that there is no rule that spells can't have similar functions. and unless magic is unusually common in your world, there is most likely no such thing as a common cantrip.

[Tanarii]

Fair enough, I am thinking mostly of FR & Mystara, where magic is endemic enough I'd expect every lowly goblin to know about Minor Illusion. But in Dragonlance or Dark Sun, probably not so much.

It's more the way it's being used that I'd expect to trigger a sentient being, especially in a magic rich world, to suspect something was up and pop an arrow at it anyway. It's not subtle. I can see it instead redirecting a creatures target, or causing it to move to get a shot around the wall.

[SharkForce]

don't know that much about mystara, but in FR wizards aren't *that* common. it feels like it as a player sometimes because you're facing tough enemies and in FR that includes a number of powerful wizards, but while an average person may have seen a wizard, that doesn't mean they have seen a wizard in action. it definitely does not remotely imply that they know there are no spells in the PHB that create a small brick wall for cover.

[Tanarii]

Not knowing that there aren't other spells isn't necessary when it's commonly known that almost all magic users can create small illusions of objects. And a guy slinging magic suddenly has a small wall conviniently pop up in front of him. There's a good chance they'll question it. If all it costs is a arrow, and he's the best target, why not?

And yes, in FR that kind of thing is common knowledge. Peasants and commoners are familiar with basic magic and aren't shocked or surprised by it at all.

[Madeiner]

It would cause heavy obscurement.
Cover implies that there is something solid blocking the projectiles path. As it says in minor illusions description that it is not solid, and solid objects will pass through it, it does not stop any missiles. Therefore: heavy obscurement

I don't agree with this, RAW.
It's not cover, but acts like it (at least in part) until you realize it's an illusion.
You cannot see the square behind that wall. You cannot target the PC behind it because you currently cannot see him. You might guess it's an illusion and target the square behind the illusory wall. You would roll with disadvantage (heavy obscurement) and you also can now disbelieve the wall since you interacted with it. If you disbelieve, based on interpretation, you can now see behind the wall and target the creature directly.

You still cannot target a magic missile at a creature behind the non-disbelieved wall, because you cannot see it (magic missile specifically refers to seeing the creature; you cannot target it anything that's not a creature, unlike say, scorching ray)



It's more the way it's being used that I'd expect to trigger a sentient being, especially in a magic rich world, to suspect something was up and pop an arrow at it anyway. It's not subtle. I can see it instead redirecting a creatures target, or causing it to move to get a shot around the wall.

It also depends on how you envision magic to work.
I rules that every spell has associated themed visual effects, like in a videogame.
Cast minor illusion, i'm going to describe sparkling fog and pink stars, and then suddenly a solid wall appears out of the fog, which disperses immediately.

[SharkForce]

bull. wizards have been able to do all manner of things in every setting for a long time. knowing what one spell can do does not mean you can automatically assume a given spell is exactly the one that happened.

you may know that wizards can make illusions. do you know that they can't make the real thing?

if you don't, there's no reason to inherently assume that something you see magically appear is an illusion. there is less reason to assume that the average person knows every detail of how the minor illusion spell works.

[Malifice]

Any intelligent enemy would just assume a sudden 5ft wall or box appearing out of nowhere is a Minor Illusion, given that they'll all know Minor Illusion exists in their world.

I would promptly walk out of a game where a DM made this kind of meta-justification, and all monsters simply assumed every illusion was an illusion.

Alternatively, I would retire my illusionist and create a conjurer, and use minor conjuration ability and laugh as all monsters I encoutner spend countless rounds 'disbeleiving' the perfectly real cover I just magicked up seeing as 'Any intelligent enemy would just assume a sudden 5ft wall or box appearing out of nowhere is a Minor Illusion'.

[Tanarii]

You'd walk away from a game in which a DM refused to allow a cantrip used in a non-intended fashion to be more powerful than a first level spell? Sanctuary requires a saving throw to prevent the target from being attacked.

Players love to try and make illusion spells far more mechanically powerful than they are ever intended to be by using gimmicks such as this, and then insisting its "meta-justification" or some such when creatures that live in a magical world, will know how common magical effects work, and see an blindingly obvious example of it in use react accordingly. It's like saying a creature shouldn't know to slap an ally that's been put to sleep, and it's meta abuse to allow it.

Yes, intelligent use of flexible and complex illusion spells which are subtly applied, or more importantly ones that are specifically designed for some combat use, is bad form to punish. But cantrip abuse isn't. Granting disadvantage to a single attack is nice and balanced, and fits in many world settings appropriately. Asking for a automatic no save sanctuary isn't justified for balance reasons, and in many cases won't be justifiable under any 'meta' argument either.

Also yes, it would be totally realistic for creatures to pop a shot off against a 'real' thing that could easily be a magic illusion. Alternately they might choose a better target. Or they might just flank until they can see around the wall and shoot unimpeded. I'd expect it to depend on the situation, creature type and intelligence, etc.

[JackPhoenix]

I would promptly walk out of a game where a DM made this kind of meta-justification, and all monsters simply assumed every illusion was an illusion.

Alternatively, I would retire my illusionist and create a conjurer, and use minor conjuration ability and laugh as all monsters I encoutner spend countless rounds 'disbeleiving' the perfectly real cover I just magicked up seeing as 'Any intelligent enemy would just assume a sudden 5ft wall or box appearing out of nowhere is a Minor Illusion'.

It's not "every illusion" or staring at it trying to disbelieve it: it's one specific application with a simple way to test it: You shoot it/throw a rock at it/bash it. At worst, you've wasted an action (and one arrow) to discover that yes, this time it's real, solid piece of cover. Now if it was a field of caltrops, I would be more cautious: even if I suspect it's propably an illusion, if I'm wrong, I'll be hurt, so I'll try to avoit it just in case. And if it was an illusion of a bunch of undead or some demon appearing, I would propably decide it's not a good idea to stick around just to check if they are real. Low int opponents (or ones unfamiliar with magic) may react differently.

It's very much context dependant, if I see one more crate in a warehouse, I will ignore it (especially if the character inside uses Stealth to stay quiet before I see it for the first time), but if I see him to create it in the first place, no way I would automatically consider it's real.

[Malifice]

You'd walk away from a game in which a DM refused to allow a cantrip used in a non-intended fashion to be more powerful than a first level spell?

No, I'd walk out of a game where a DM imparted his own meta-knowledge of an illusions existence to his monsters.

If it's the kind of game world where kobolds, goblins, ogres, skeletons, orcs etc etc 'know that illusions are illusions because 'everyone knows that wizards can cast illusions and there is no reason not to know' then that simply isnt a game that I want to play in. It breaks my immersion, and is a ridiculous justification.

It sure wouldnt be consistent either. If my illusory demon, illusiory walls of stone, illusiory pits etc are assumed to be an illusion by all an sundry, then I expect the real ones I summon or conjure to also be treated as illusions too.


Players love to try and make illusion spells far more mechanically powerful than they are ever intended to be by using gimmicks such as this, and then insisting its "meta-justification" or some such when creatures that live in a magical world, will know how common magical effects work, and see an blindingly obvious example of it in use react accordingly. It's like saying a creature shouldn't know to slap an ally that's been put to sleep, and it's meta abuse to allow it.

Players using inherent class abilities in an intelligent and meaningful way is what the game is about. We should be encouraging it, not punishing them with hordes of savant like monsters with deity level knowledge of the workings of magic and the ability to make consistently amazing guesses about the reality of objects conjured in front of them.


Yes, intelligent use of flexible high level illusions, or more importantly ones that are specifically designed for some combat use, is bad form to punish. But cantrip abuse isn't. Granting disadvantage to a single attack is nice and balanced, and fits in many world settings appropriately. Asking for a automatic no save sanctuary isn't justified for balance reasons, and in many cases won't be justifiable under any 'meta' argument either.

Or just have the goblins shoot at the PC using the rules for cover as written. The goblins are treating the wall as any other cover I assume (trying to shoot the person on the other side of it)?

If the Goblins miss because of the cover penalty, they don't actually miss (the arrows hit the illusiory wall and nails the PC standing behind it in the belly) and they then figure out that the wall isnt actually real (and can suddenly see through it).

So an illusiory wall does nothing to protect you from incoming arrows. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

You could hide behind it before anyone enters the room though. Or take total cover behind it (that would also work, assuming the goblins havent cottoned on that it's an illusion yet).

I get the gamist arguments you raise about the potency of illusions (particularly cantrips). I just reject the premise you put forwards to adress that percieved imbalance (all monsters just pretty much expect and know an illusion for what it is when they see it). It infers a meta-knowledge on behalf of monsters that would make me want to leave such a game.

If monsters expect anything conjured out of thin air to be an illusion, I would immediately retire my Illusionist and create a Conjurer and wreak havok [seeing as all your monsters will assume my summoned monsters, walls of fire, conjured elementals, etc are all 'illusions' - and just ignore them].

[Tanarii]

Or just have the goblins shoot at the PC using the rules for cover as written. The goblins are treating the wall as any other cover I assume (trying to shoot the person on the other side of it)?

If the Goblins miss because of the cover penalty, they don't actually miss (the arrows hit the illusiory wall and nails the PC standing behind it in the belly) and they then figure out that the wall isnt actually real (and can suddenly see through it).

So an illusiory wall does nothing to protect you from incoming arrows.Hey I really like that. It's great, and goes along with the creature moving to a place where he can kinda see the target first if they can't actually see the target. Next time an AL DM goes for a disadvantage ruling, I'll suggest it.


I get the gamist arguments you raise about the potency of illusions (particularly cantrips). I just reject the premise you put forwards to adress that percieved imbalance (all monsters just pretty much expect and know an illusion for what it is when they see it). It infers a meta-knowledge on behalf of monsters that would make me want to leave such a game.Sentient monsters, in particular intelligent ones. And the reason I went to it right away is it's been the default assumption, not just for illusions but for *all* class capabilities they'd be likely to face that'd be common knowledge, of pretty much every game I've ever played in. Just as DMs usually assume players know what Skeletons, Zombies, Orcs, and Goblins, and even Drow are, and their basic capabilities. Intelligent creatures tend to know what kind of things they'll be up against, especially if it's fairly common knowledge. Don't use piercing against skeletons. Drow uses sleep poison. Don't look at a medusa. Wizards etc almost always know Minor Illusion.

[Addaran]

It also depends on how you envision magic to work.
I rules that every spell has associated themed visual effects, like in a videogame.
Cast minor illusion, i'm going to describe sparkling fog and pink stars, and then suddenly a solid wall appears out of the fog, which disperses immediately.

In the games i've been, it's the contrary. Every players get to decide what their spells look like or the fluff behind it (while staying reasonnable). So firebolt could be fire spitting for the dragonic sorcerer, a mini fireball for the wizard and superman-ish laser eyes for the GOO Warlock.
So the themed visual more have to do with the origin of the spell and the character concept.

[SharkForce]

Hey I really like that. It's great, and goes along with the creature moving to a place where he can kinda see the target first if they can't actually see the target. Next time an AL DM goes for a disadvantage ruling, I'll suggest it.

Sentient monsters, in particular intelligent ones. And the reason I went to it right away is it's been the default assumption, not just for illusions but for *all* class capabilities they'd be likely to face that'd be common knowledge, of pretty much every game I've ever played in. Just as DMs usually assume players know what Skeletons, Zombies, Orcs, and Goblins, and even Drow are, and their basic capabilities. Intelligent creatures tend to know what kind of things they'll be up against, especially if it's fairly common knowledge. Don't use piercing against skeletons. Drow uses sleep poison. Don't look at a medusa. Wizards etc almost always know Minor Illusion.

so how often do your monsters spend actions checking the reality of real things?

because if it is any number other than the exact same frequency with which they will check if real things are real, then it is a load of crap for them to instantly check the second you cast an illusion. wizards can create illusions. they can also create 100% real things. in fact, they have a LOT more ways to create 100% real things than they have ways to create things that are not real, and considering the typical NPC has precisely zero methods of reliably determining whether you just used a cantrip or a wall spell, they should by default assume that things are real, even when they're facing wizards, because most of the time the wizard is going to be casting spell that have real effects.

[Malifice]

Sentient monsters, in particular intelligent ones.

Again mate, If your intellegent monsters assume that when a wizard clicks his fingers and a walls, pit, monster, etc omes into existence that it's an illusion (as the default) then you better also have them assume that the real monsters, pits, walls etc that get conjured are also illusions.


Intelligent creatures tend to know what kind of things they'll be up against, especially if it's fairly common knowledge. Don't use piercing against skeletons. Drow uses sleep poison. Don't look at a medusa. Wizards etc almost always know Minor Illusion.

Not in my games. Thats why I'd walk away from yours. No offence.

When I DM, I dont have my Goblins think to themselves 'Hey - that guy in the pointy hat is probably a wizard.. therefore that wall that just popped up is probably an illusion, because minor illusion is everywhere these days'.

My goblins instead look confused and yell out 'bre-ark' while shooting at the tall ugly bearded fellow wearing funny hat and dress behind magic wall... while one goblin at the very back takes the opportunity to stab one of the other goblins in the back (for something that happened the night before over dinner that he still hasnt forgotten about).

[Tanarii]

so how often do your monsters spend actions checking the reality of real things?Ones that could be a Minor Illusion, immobile objects that can fit in a 5ft cube, that appear in combat for the caster to hide behind? In other words, the result of a spell every single arcane 5e PC I've ever seen took as their first utility cantrip, and commonly try to use as a combat tactic?

Or other real things?

[Tanarii]

Again mate, If your intellegent monsters assume that when a wizard clicks his fingers and a walls, pit, monster, etc omes into existence that it's an illusion (as the default) then you better also have them assume that the real monsters, pits, walls etc that get conjured are also illusions.Minor Illusion can only create objects, so no pits or creatures. And it's a wall that's no more than 5ftx5ft. Theres not that many things that will qualify, real or illusionary. And it's a spell all Arcane PCs I've ever seen at a table had, unless they only had attack cantrips, and they often try to use it for cover. So IMO that qualifies under 'common knowledge' that wizards use minor illusion to try and hide behind, just as skeletons resist piercing and Drow use sleep poison.

[Malifice]

Ones that could be a Minor Illusion, immobile objects that can fit in a 5ft cube, that appear in combat for the caster to hide behind? In other words, the result of a spell every single arcane 5e PC I've ever seen took as their first utility cantrip, and commonly try to use as a combat tactic?

Or other real things?

Your goblins possess precise knowledge of the parameters of the minor illusion spell (5' cube, immobile object etc).

Wow.

[Tanarii]

Your goblins possess precise knowledge of the parameters of the minor illusion spell (5' cube, immobile object etc).

Wow.Its possible they might think that using iron arrows will kill a wizard instead, or putting a horseshoe up on the outside of the cave entrance will keep them at bay. :)

Common knowledge isn't always *right* ;)

[Malifice]

Its possible they might think that using iron arrows will kill a wizard instead, or putting a horseshoe up on the outside of the cave entrance will keep them at bay. :)

Common knowledge isn't always *right* ;)

How many wizards have they encountered before anyway? I mean.. whats your average goblins knowledge (or intrest) in such things?

If a wall suddenly appears in front of them, they probably know it's a 'magic' wall. Thats about it. They might get spooked and run away, or maybe one will summon the courage to go up and investigate it (while his companions cover him with bows... by pointing the bows at him!)

I would have no problems with a high Int experienced wizard correctly deducing that the magic wall that just popped up in front of him is possibly or even probably an illusion. I would expect smart PC's to possibly take advanatage of that fact.

By the way thanks; youve actually given me an idea for the first level of my megadungeon im working on - an exiled wizard has seized control of the first level of a dungeon, and has cowed some local goblins into working for him as minions. Out of boredom, he has set up a... Goblin school of magic in one of the rooms.

I'm going to add in a random goblin magic chart (1/ short rest can cast a spell, roll 1d6 on a chart to determine the effect, with a hillarious effect on a roll of 1).

[Madeiner]

In the games i've been, it's the contrary. Every players get to decide what their spells look like or the fluff behind it (while staying reasonnable). So firebolt could be fire spitting for the dragonic sorcerer, a mini fireball for the wizard and superman-ish laser eyes for the GOO Warlock.
So the themed visual more have to do with the origin of the spell and the character concept.

I've tried that, but it didn't work that well.
What if the spitting sorcerer (who conveniently uses metamagic to remove vocal component) has his mouth covered?
Does the firebolt still works?
What if the cleric decides he's a shaman, and his healing spells are water-based? Do they still work in the plane of fire?

I allow light refluffing, but the mechanics have to be the same. One mechanics for my game is "spell schools are easily recognizable"

[foobar1969]

Even if trained magic-wielders are rare, anyone who lives near a forest gnome (or several high elves) is likely to know at least a little bit about the capabilities of minor illusion (and other cantrips).

Oral tradition is an excellent idea for adding depth to a world. If the DM wants it to be the default, they should document many of the things that "everyone knows" (possibly subdivided by race and/or geography), a lot of which will be true, some false, and others exaggerated or backwards.

[Tanarii]

How many wizards have they encountered before anyway? I mean.. whats your average goblins knowledge (or intrest) in such things?

If a wall suddenly appears in front of them, they probably know it's a 'magic' wall. Thats about it. They might get spooked and run away, or maybe one will summon the courage to go up and investigate it (while his companions cover him with bows... by pointing the bows at him!)this isn't some new and innovative use of an illusion. Every apprentice arcane caster in the history of any 5e world has tried it at some point. "Hey look guys, I can hide behind this illusionary wall/box and I'm safe, no one can see me!" It's like teenagers thinking they invented sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Then they run around laughing maniacally thinking they're invincible. Meanwhile the rest of the world snickers under their breath, then they get an arrow stuck in their ass.

But, uh, never mind about my teenage years ...

Seriously though, I've seen this tried by low level casters well over a dozen times in AL. It's like a caster throwing a firebolt/ray of frost/eldritch blast. It's what PC casters *do*. If the Pcs can know the basics of goblins, kobolds, hobgoblins, orcs, then they sure can know what the hell the basics of the murderhobos that regularly try invading their lairs can do. Unless your Pcs are the first murderhobos on your world, ever?

Remember, I was originally thinking of FR (ie AL) & Mystara. In the former, formal (in some cases registered) adventuring companies of murderhobos are a regular thing that humanoid hordes, the zhentarim, and other intelligent 'evil' creatures have to deal with regularly.


the way thanks;haha hopefully we get something out of these kinda silly debates. ;) I learned a better way to handle Minor Illusion walls from you: have the creature move until it can see a piece of the caster, then shoot the damn arrow. Just like it would if the cover was real. Although some players may prefer disadvantage to the attack roll to forcing a creature to move.

[Addaran]

I've tried that, but it didn't work that well.
What if the spitting sorcerer (who conveniently uses metamagic to remove vocal component) has his mouth covered?
Does the firebolt still works?
What if the cleric decides he's a shaman, and his healing spells are water-based? Do they still work in the plane of fire?

I allow light refluffing, but the mechanics have to be the same. One mechanics for my game is "spell schools are easily recognizable"

Same question could be said about a sorcerer who got his hands covered (put in a sack after he got bound) even if he use metamagic to remove the somatic, the bolt would just damage the sack (wich catch on fire and burn the sorcerer? =P)

The mechanics stay the same though. Just changing the fluff shouldn't give advantages.


If spell schools are easily recognizable, doesn't it make illusions bad in your games? The enemy will automatically know it's an illusion and illusions are all about misdirections and pretending they are real.

[Vogonjeltz]

this isn't some new and innovative use of an illusion. Every apprentice arcane caster in the history of any 5e world has tried it at some point. "Hey look guys, I can hide behind this illusionary wall/box and I'm safe, no one can see me!" It's like teenagers thinking they invented sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Then they run around laughing maniacally thinking they're invincible. Meanwhile the rest of the world snickers under their breath, then they get an arrow stuck in their ass.

All probably true in a magic rich environment.

However, let us pose a thought conundrum. Say you are a monster. You are fighting against some pesky adventurers and the following happens:

The one in robes mutters some mystic incantation, gestures with their wand, and a stonewall springs into view in front of them, blocking your sight.

Questions:
1) What spell was cast? How do you know?
2) Is the wall real or not? How do you know?
3) What do you do? Why?

My answers:
1) You don't know, there are at least 3 spells in the PHB that would have this effect, so even if you were a Wizard who was well-versed in the spells, there's no tangible difference.
2) Again, you have no way of knowing until you interact with it and/or spend an action to examine it (and surpass the DC to determine that it's just an illusion, if you don't you'd still be unable to detect the difference).
3) Probably choose another target if one is in view, or if not, move around the object to get a shot. I would never shoot at a stone wall on the off chance it's fake unless I had seen that wizard actually employ illusions. And even then, it would be wiser to simply move and try and get a visual again.

What do you think?

[Tanarii]

Assume its a minor illusion. Since every PC knows it, and many PCs try to use that as cover.

Unless Pcs aren't murderhobos in the campaign world (Birthright maybe?), they are the first murderhobos ever or vanishingly unique (Dragonlance), or arcane caster murderhobos are rare (Dragonlance & Dark Sun), that's a perfectly reasonable assumption for many creatures. Any groups intelligent creatures regularly encountering the sword end of murderhobos throughout the history of the world will probably have seen it many times. And there are other ways to create a 5ftx5ft real wall/box, but they aren't anywhere near as common,

How they'd react, I think both you and Malafice are right: if it can, probably move and shoot. Net effect is the creature moves until it has line of sight, no bonus to AC, since it's not really cover. How hard that is will depend on the terrain.

If it wasn't possible, as a DM, then I'd have to decide between: 1) how likely it was this particular creature would think it was an illusion *and* decide it was worth popping off a shot at a target it can't see; 2) choose a different creature; 3) flip a coin to see if it thinks it's an illusion, then tell the player to stop being a munchkin.

That last one is something I've actually seen a DM do. :)

[Malifice]

Assume its a minor illusion. Since every PC knows it, and many PCs try to use that as cover.

Unless Pcs aren't murderhobos in the campaign world (Birthright maybe?), they are the first murderhobos ever or vanishingly unique (Dragonlance), or arcane caster murderhobos are rare (Dragonlance & Dark Sun), that's a perfectly reasonable assumption for many creatures. Any groups intelligent creatures regularly encountering the sword end of murderhobos throughout the history of the world will probably have seen it many times. And there are other ways to create a 5ftx5ft real wall/box, but they aren't anywhere near as common,

How they'd react, I think both you and Malafice are right: if it can, probably move and shoot. Net effect is the creature moves until it has line of sight, no bonus to AC, since it's not really cover. How hard that is will depend on the terrain.

If it wasn't possible, as a DM, then I'd have to decide between: 1) how likely it was this particular creature would think it was an illusion *and* decide it was worth popping off a shot at a target it can't see; 2) choose a different creature; 3) flip a coin to see if it thinks it's an illusion, then tell the player to stop being a munchkin.

That last one is something I've actually seen a DM do. :)

We've had this discussion before, but I would walk out of any campaign where monsters frequently correctly guessed that the 'thing' I just conjured out of thin air is an illusion.

Its just bad metagaming and I want no part of it.

You could bet your bottom dollar when the real conjured monsters, walls of fire, imps appearing from invisibility and so forth happened, the monsters would suddenly 'stop' assuming they're illusions and treat them as real.

Using a spell or other class feature creatively isnt munchkining. You dont need to go to absurd lengths [all monsters have an innate illusion sense] to combat it either.

Name me a scenario where a minor illusion is gamebreaking or OP?

[Tanarii]

We've had this discussion before, but I would walk out of any campaign where monsters frequently correctly guessed that the 'thing' I just conjured out of thin air is an illusion.

Its just bad metagaming and I want no part of it.without it, I assume your campaign world is inconsistent and has no reasonable explanation for the existence of adventurers, nor creatures in it that learn from generations of experience.


And yes, it's munchkin to try to use a cantrip to gain a better benefit than a first level spell. Sanctuary does the same thing (forces the target to choose a different target or not make the attack), and it requires a save. Command requires a save to cause the creature to lose its action, which is what would happen if it tries to disbelieve. So aiming for either of those effects is being a munchkin.

That's why I like either solution: creature takes the shot anyway at disadvantage (basically vicious mockery); force the creature to move but not under your control, but attacks without penalty (worse than command). Both are cantrip level effects.

[Malifice]

without it, I assume your campaign world is inconsistent and has no reasonable explanation for the existence of adventurers, nor creatures in it that learn from generations of experience.

Nice attempt to explain metagaming.

Spellcasters can do all sorts of things. Summon flames, walls of force, monsters, jets of acid, clouds of deadly gas, and even clones of themselves.

How on earth do your monsters know which is the illision and which is not? And why on earth would they assume one thing is an illusion and one thing is real? How magically savvy is your average goblin anyways?

If you do this in your games, be consistent. Of course you cant, because then any smart player would just take advantage of it in other ways.

For example I would play a conjurer and make extensive use of minor conjuration, conjure spells, and invisibility (making things invisible and then 'snapping my fingers' to create something out of nothing), 'illusiory' walls of fire (that are perfectly real) etc.

Your monsters are now bound by your logic to (50 percent of the time) treat those perfectly real walls of fire, conjured things, summoned critters and other actual stuff as illusions.


And yes, it's munchkin to try to use a cantrip to gain a better benefit than a first level spell.

No, its not. It called being creative, and its something to be encouraged.


Sanctuary does the same thing (forces the target to choose a different target or not make the attack), and it requires a save.

Command requires a save to cause the creature to lose its action, which is what would happen if it tries to disbelieve. So aiming for either of those effects is being a munchkin.

Youre trying to apply an absurd reasoning to your in game monsters (we all just assume all things that pop into existence are illusions) to remedy what you as the DM percieve as an unbalanced spell. Stop before it gets you into more trouble and PC's react to the fact that your monsters seem to assume eveything is an illusion all the time, and youre forced (by your own logic) to have your monstres blythely ignore illusiory (real) conjured monsters, stupidly run straight into illusiory (real) walls of fire and so forth.

Give me an example where a minor illusion forces an effect beyond that expected of a cantrip in a reliable manner.

[Trickshaw]

I would promptly walk out of a game where a DM made this kind of meta-justification,

That's a pretty... strong... reaction to something so inane. It's a cantrip. An at will spell. I'd also have issues with allowing an infinitely reusable resource that provided benefits ranging from full cover to heavy obscurement at will.

At my local shop we have 3 DMs handling 25 players. That's not including the 5 players who I have over at my house every other weekend. Players are a dime a dozen so any player willing to storm off over that nonsense is a player I have no problem closing the door behind on their way out.

That player will be replaced by the dozens of others clamoring for his/her spot before said player even gets to the door.

[tieren]

I think the rules work pretty well for the case being discussed.

If you create illusory cover, the target gets a chance to investigate to determine if its an illusion, low int enemies would be more likely to fail that check and not see through it.

If they weren't smart enough to figure out its an illusion with the check they are then presented with what to do: 1. attack anyway with disadvantage (representing not seeing the target); 2. Move to obtain line of sight; 3. Attack somebody else.

I think how often they attack despite the illusion will be very fact specific, if they saw the illusion spring up from nothing I would expect them to be suspicious and use their turn making the check, not shooting a wall. But again they could be so stupid they think the caster actually turned themselves into a wall and decide the wall is the enemy, and then a physical interaction will reveal the truth.

If they went to attack somebody else and then saw the caster (or someone else) shooting through the wall from the other side I would count that as a physical interaction and reveal the illusion.

[Malifice]

That's a pretty... strong... reaction to something so inane. It's a cantrip. An at will spell. I'd also have issues with allowing an infinitely reusable resource that provided benefits ranging from full cover to heavy obscurement at will.

At my local shop we have 3 DMs handling 25 players. That's not including the 5 players who I have over at my house every other weekend. Players are a dime a dozen so any player willing to storm off over that nonsense is a player I have no problem closing the door behind on their way out.

That player will be replaced by the dozens of others clamoring for his/her spot before said player even gets to the door.

Thats fine mate. I personally would grate at such a ruling because it:

a) Wouldnt be constant. The monsters would only ever treat illusions as illusions and real stuff as real stuff
b) It provides a ridiculous and impossible to sustain in game logic to what is a metagame problem (the balance of the spells percieved power in contrast to other spells of the same level).
c) Flys in the face of my expectation of DnD. My Int 8 Fighters stare medusas in the face because they dont know what a medusa is. Theyre genuinely shocked to find out Drow use sleep poison and wouldnt know the difference between an illusiory wall of flames or a real one being conjured into existence.

Its a clumsy fix to a non existent problem at best. At worst, its a DM using metagame knowledge to thwart and even punish creative playing in a non consistent manner.

Your wizard wastes a turn to summon an illusiory wall and then ducks down behind it? The monsters swarm his position and he finds himself surrounded. They pepper his position with arrows and he imposes disadvantage to the attack rolls (its no different to if he dodged). Etc.

A ar more elegant way to deal with the problem without inventing some kind of immersion breaking metaknowledge possessed by even the lowliest of monsters about the reality or non reality of things magicked into existence in front of them.

[Tanarii]

Nice attempt to explain metagaming.Which is exactly how I feel about a caster trying to use a cantrip to gain a bigger advantage than a first level spell, then getting upset when it doesn't work the way they wanted due to 'creatures wouldn't act that way'. They're metagaming NPCs expected reaction *and* the campaign world to try and gain a mechanical advantage.


How on earth do your monsters know which is the illision and which is not? And why on earth would they assume one thing is an illusion and one thing is real? How magically savvy is your average goblin anyways?Experience, potentially handed down. The same way PCs theoretically know that skeletons resist bludgeoning damage and drow use sleep poison, even when the character has never personally encountered it, but the player has. It's a common trait of the enemy, and that gets shared around. Skeletons resist piercing, drow use sleep poison, arcane murderhobos try to hide behind an illusion of a wall/box. It's what they *do*. No other illusionary constructs are affected by this logic, just Minor Illusion being used like it is always used by PCs. Not knowing it is like not knowing that Clerics can turn undead, or not knowing that Druids can change into animals. It's crazy to think it wouldn't be common knowledge among their enemies.


If you do this in your games, be consistent. Of course you cant, because then any smart player would just take advantage of it in other ways.

For example I would play a conjurer and make extensive use of minor conjuration, conjure spells, and invisibility (making things invisible and then 'snapping my fingers' to create something out of nothing), 'illusiory' walls of fire (that are perfectly real) etc.Absolutely. The best way a smart player can do is take advantage of common knowledge. Conjure a real miniature wall or box to hide behind/in. Because that's *not* something PCs commonly do.


No, its not. It called being creative, and its something to be encouraged.It comes up repeatedly in forums discussions, and plenty of in-game use. It's a common, not particularly creative, basic combat use of the spell.


Youre trying to apply an absurd reasoning to your in game monsters (we all just assume all things that pop into existence are illusions) to remedy what you as the DM percieve as an unbalanced spell. Stop before it gets you into more trouble and PC's react to the fact that your monsters seem to assume eveything is an illusion all the time, and youre forced (by your own logic) to have your monstres blythely ignore illusiory (real) conjured monsters, stupidly run straight into illusiory (real) walls of fire and so forth.

Give me an example where a minor illusion forces an effect beyond that expected of a cantrip in a reliable manner.As far as I'm concerned, the players are trying to use your absurd metagame reasoning for how much common knowledge the enemy somehow wouldn't have, to gain a benefit from a cantrip that is beyond the power of a cantrip.

Edit: BTW, I'm still enjoying this discussion/argument. I *do* think enemies should have relatively common knowledge of their enemies basic tactics and capabilities. But it's interesting to see what another player thinks shouldn't be common knowledge or is metagaming. And despite my arguments, it's certainly helpful and gives me a better understanding of other points of view.

[JumboWheat01]

Does the monster manual explicitly say that these monsters have the inner workings of a wizard's mind figured out and know that they will always use a minor illusion to create something out of thin air to act as a wall of some sort?

Does it explicitly say that they know Minor Illusion exists, and should always be treated as a fake?

Do the monsters in question even have any magical training? Do they even have the intelligence score to recall this information that it is a Minor Illusion, or should they instead waste their turn trying to smash it. Were they even paying enough attention to the mage in question enough to realize that they were summoning a wall of some sort? Should they not be distracted by the big fighter guy or barbarian trying to smash their face in? Maybe that wall was always there, and they never noticed. You be amazed how often in the real world you don't notice certain details because you see them far too often.

[Tanarii]

None of that is necessary. All that's necessary is enough encounters by the enemies over all of history with arcane murderhobos regularly conjuring 5x5ft walls/boxes that turned out to be illusions. Common knowledge comes from experience being passed around. Of course, sometimes it gets telephoned in the process. :)

"Glurk, son, when 'adventurers' invade, like they always do, you should know this: bone arrows go right through any small walls or boxes they magic into place."

Edit: Your point on being in melee with the tanky fighter is a totally different, and certainly relevant to enemy tactics chosen, topic. There's a thread on it on the top page somewhere.

[JumboWheat01]

Unfortunately, by that argument, I could make a very low INT character, but because of common knowledge (that I can some how retain despite my pathetic brain,) I know that if an enemy would make a wall out of thin air, it's definitely minor illusion, and should be ignore so I can go smash puny wizard skull in. That I know exactly how to fight skeletons, because my puny brain has the ability to retain the common knowledge that you break bones with hammer, not stab with sword. That the big bad evil guy making all the things pop out of thin air should be attacked and not the things attacking me, because if I kill wizard, how things stay in this world?

I have nothing against an Intelligent monster ignoring minor illusions because of what they have learned, but the common grunt monster? The dumb brutes? No, they should be fooled, as their low intelligence says.

[tieren]

None of that is necessary. All that's necessary is enough encounters by the enemies over all of history with arcane murderhobos regularly conjuring 5x5ft walls/boxes that turned out to be illusions. Common knowledge comes from experience being passed around. Of course, sometimes it gets telephoned in the process. :)

"Glurk, son, when 'adventurers' invade, like they always do, you should know this: bone arrows go right through any small walls or boxes they magic into place."



Actually if you have a chance to prep the battlefield before a fight a creative illusion might be to make cover for the enemy to hide behind (a low wall or a crate or boulder). Then when they show up and try to fire from behind it you can blow them away with impunity.

[Tanarii]

I have nothing against an Intelligent monster ignoring minor illusions because of what they have learned, but the common grunt monster? The dumb brutes? No, they should be fooled, as their low intelligence says.Just as low Int players shouldn't be tactical geniuses, or know the capabilities of low-level monsters that their players have picked up over the years? If you're talking about an Int 6 or lower creature, or one that's not social, yeah, I'll buy it. But any social and approximately human intelligence sentient creature is going to have heard fireside stories. Int 8 characters/enemies aren't stupid, they don't know nothing about the world around them, especially common knowledge. Or else they wouldn't be able to function at all.


Actually if you have a chance to prep the battlefield before a fight a creative illusion might be to make cover for the enemy to hide behind (a low wall or a crate or boulder). Then when they show up and try to fire from behind it you can blow them away with impunity.Now THAT is creative! Love it.

[Fwiffo86]

going to have heard fireside stories.


But that is the point. Fireside stories. Exaggerations. Embellishments. And in some cases, complete falsehoods.

"The weezar, be wigglin 'is 'ands and speakin' da words. Suddenly, outta da very earth ya see 'ight 'ere, a solid wall made a rock app'rd in 'tween 'im and Gorak. Now Gorak, 'es a special breed. I swear onna my den mudder's grave, e is onena de smartest gobbos we 'ave in da tribe. Gorak, he 'ooks confused, ye see, da wall ain't so big. He figurs da he jes go 'round da ting and get ta da weezar. So Gorak jes runs 'round da ting and stabs the weezar 'ight in the hinny!"

[CoggieRagabash]

I keep hearing people say that the illusory wall / barrel trick is creative, but is it really? It's a frequently mentioned 'tip' that's in guides and spell lists all over. It might come across as creative if used sparingly, and the scenario Tieren suggested is a fair bit more (especially since it requires more effort and adaptation - no enemy would trust something obviously conjured by an enemy spellcaster so it has to look like something that would plausibly be there and be an attractive form of cover they would want to take), but just plain "I have obviously conjured a magical wall and thus consistently get some measure of cover out of a cantrip regardless of the situation" doesn't really feel creative to me.

[smcmike]

Yeah, both sides of this argument sound like they are either reaching for a hard rule that doesn't exist or arguing against a similarly illusory rule.

Sometimes enemies will have reason to suspect an illusion is an illusion. Some of those enemies will know they can reveal this by physically interacting with it. Depends on the enemy and the situation and the setting, right?

As a player, I would expect to be able to use this trick sometimes. I would be annoyed if, in every situation, the DM had a goblin immediately throw a rock at the illusion. As a DM, I would let the player use this to some advantage when it made sense, but I can imagine it would get old with too much repetition, particularly if the player starts whining about how the enemies SHOULD react. I'd also try to find fun ways to respond. I like the idea of an enemy attempting to leap on top of the wall to whack the PC, only to fall through it and land in a tangle (not an optimum outcome for the spellcaster!)

[Tanarii]

Sometimes enemies will have reason to suspect an illusion is an illusion. Some of those enemies will know they can reveal this by physically interacting with it. Depends on the enemy and the situation and the setting, right? blasphemy! you know that Internet forums are no place for reasonable moderation?

That's why I like Malifice's point that a reasonable creature would treat it as cover. Which would require the enemy moving to a position where it's not total cover, but otherwise provide no benefit. But also just moving around and stabbing would be appropriate too. If that's not possible, then the DM can assess. In that case, the cantrip effect is balanced, and it sounds like something a creature would do regardless, since it probably doesn't cost it much to try and have a decent chance of doing damage even if the wall is real.

I'm just objecting to the idea that intelligent creatures that regularly have to deal with invading murderhobos wouldn't know their most common tactics and abilities.

[Kane0]

For the record you can also make cover with move earth to form a trench, and use shape water to encase yourself in a 5' space of ice. Or alternatively just take the dodge action for much the same effect.
So using a cantrip to get cover or concealment is totally doable with at least 3 cantrips, and using the illusion method sometimes will only work for one attack like Vicious Mockery would since those that use an attack to interact could then see through it.

Certainly not OP.

[JumboWheat01]

I'm just objecting to the idea that intelligent creatures that regularly have to deal with invading murderhobos wouldn't know their most common tactics and abilities.

Would we really be true murderhobos if we actually left survivors?

[L Space]

For me it would depend on the monster involved. Goblins, Orcs etc. would most likely be fooled by the illusion, as they've never been shown as being particularly bright or magically inclined. Foes that are shown as fairly intelligent or magically inclined would get checks to see if it they realize it's just an illusion.

While, I can see some information being "common knowledge" I don't see goblins as being the type to pass down such words of wisdom. They're too busy with in fighting and trying to survive other monsters killing/enslaving them to be teaching their young about magical spells.

In all honesty Tanarii, your thought that FR is inhabited by numerous murderhobos and that all magic-users take the same cantrip because the rules make it so useful is a bit too meta for me and I find it a bit jarring. Even if it's an idea that's been brought up on the forums a lot, all of those player's aren't all in the same actual world, they're just using the same Campaign Setting.

[Tanarii]

In all honesty Tanarii, your thought that FR is inhabited by numerous murderhobos and that all magic-users take the same cantrip because the rules make it so useful is a bit too meta for me and I find it a bit jarring. Even if it's an idea that's been brought up on the forums a lot, all of those player's aren't all in the same actual world, they're just using the same Campaign Setting.The first part isn't meta. It's cannon that FR is inhabited by numerous murderhobos. Adventuring companies are common. The SCAG mentions various ones several times. They're required by law to register in Cormyr.

And I'm basing 'all magic-users take the same cantrip' on the fact that they all do. If players always do, there's absolutely no reason to expect that NPCs wouldn't either. It's clearly superior magic, or at least superior weak magic. But yes, I'll grant that's a bit meta.


Would we really be true murderhobos if we actually left survivors?hahahahaha killing me. That's a hard point to argue against. :)

[Vogonjeltz]

If it wasn't possible, as a DM, then I'd have to decide between: 1) how likely it was this particular creature would think it was an illusion *and* decide it was worth popping off a shot at a target it can't see; 2) choose a different creature; 3) flip a coin to see if it thinks it's an illusion, then tell the player to stop being a munchkin.

That last one is something I've actually seen a DM do. :)

I mean, the problem is meta-gaming when the monsters act using DM knowledge. There's a discrepency between how the DM has the monsters act when the DM knows that the spell has created a real effect vs when the DM knows that the spell has created an illusion.

That's what the excercise in the previous post was meant to illustrate, as far as the monsters are concerned (unless they have truesight or something similar like the Warlock Witch Sight invocation) there is now a rock wall in between them.

If you the DM weren't just told if the wall is real or not...what would you have the monster do? Do that even when it's an illusion (unless, again, the monster actually has a good reason to suspect it's an illusion in this specific instance).


And yes, it's munchkin to try to use a cantrip to gain a better benefit than a first level spell. Sanctuary does the same thing (forces the target to choose a different target or not make the attack), and it requires a save. Command requires a save to cause the creature to lose its action, which is what would happen if it tries to disbelieve. So aiming for either of those effects is being a munchkin.

I respectfully disagree. Sanctuary compels the attacker not to attack, Command compels the creature, Minor Illusion would only be an attempt to trick the creature. How effective that trick is dependent on what the player creates with it (the limitations of which are well delineated) and the ability of the DM to effectively respond as a creature would when presented with a seemingly true fact.

Munchkin would be trying to twist the wording of a spell to provide a concrete value, not cleverly deploying a spell. i.e. Munchkining is attempting to misread Simulacrum to create a chain or to True Polymorph something into a magic item.


It's what they *do*. No other illusionary constructs are affected by this logic, just Minor Illusion being used like it is always used by PCs.

Yes, except (as I pointed out above) there is no way the NPC can know it's not the real deal.


As far as I'm concerned, the players are trying to use your absurd metagame reasoning for how much common knowledge the enemy somehow wouldn't have, to gain a benefit from a cantrip that is beyond the power of a cantrip.

Edit: BTW, I'm still enjoying this discussion/argument. I *do* think enemies should have relatively common knowledge of their enemies basic tactics and capabilities. But it's interesting to see what another player thinks shouldn't be common knowledge or is metagaming. And despite my arguments, it's certainly helpful and gives me a better understanding of other points of view.

Ok, I think we're not using a shared definition here on what metagaming is. Here's what I mean: When the person controlling a character uses knowledge that the character themselves does not have.

I'm fully on board with the idea that characters should have at least some awareness of the world they exist in, but that should also be bounded by the actual lived experience of those characters. It should also take into account the actual possibilities of what has occurred, especially where it is equally possible that the magic involved is real or illusory.

i.e. If the thing we're seeing is possible via real magic (which in these situations...it is!).

[L Space]

The first part isn't meta. It's cannon that FR is inhabited by numerous murderhobos. Adventuring companies are common. The SCAG mentions various ones several times. They're required by law to register in Cormyr.

I guess that depends on whether or not you consider all adventurers to be murderhobos. Either way, just because there are companies of Adventurers in FR doesn't mean that every goblin, orc, etc. are familiar with the Minor Illusion cantrip and can spot it as soon as it's cast.

[Malifice]

Which is exactly how I feel about a caster trying to use a cantrip to gain a bigger advantage than a first level spell, then getting upset when it doesn't work the way they wanted due to 'creatures wouldn't act that way'. They're metagaming NPCs expected reaction *and* the campaign world to try and gain a mechanical advantage.

It's far from metagame thinking to be shocked that Goblins seem suddenly incredibly astute to the innner workings of illusion magic.

I would assume that these are special Goblins (perhaps led by an illusionist BBEG) and react accordingly.

Of course, when I found out the DM was just being a tool, I'd walk away.


It comes up repeatedly in forums discussions, and plenty of in-game use. It's a common, not particularly creative, basic combat use of the spell.

For the third time: Please give me an example of an OP use for the minor illusion spell.

I want to see what the fuss is about.

[Tanarii]

For the third time: Please give me an example of an OP use for the minor illusion spell.

I want to see what the fuss is about.
I've already given you two. Stopping the enemy from attacking the PC without a save. And robbing the creature of an action in combat without a save. Both are OP for a cantrip. We know this because level one spells that do those give a save.

[Malifice]

I've already given you two. Stopping the enemy from attacking the PC without a save.

How? Explain to me how this works with minor illusion. What is the illusion of exactly?

Lets say you have 3 goblins 20' away shooting your Wizard with bows, and its his turn. Use Minor illusion to stop the Goblins from attacking you.


And robbing the creature of an action in combat without a save.

Again, how? Explain to me how this reliably works with minor illusion. What is the illusion of exactly?

Here is the spells parameters:

You create a sound or an image of an object within range that lasts for the duration. The illusion also ends if you dismiss it as an action or cast this spell again.

If you create a sound, its volume can range from a whisper to a scream. It can be your voice, someone else’s voice, a lion’s roar, a beating of drums, or any other sound you choose. The sound continues unabated throughout the duration, or you can make discrete sounds at different times before the spell ends.

If you create an image of an object—such as a chair, muddy footprints, or a small chest—it must be no larger than a 5-foot cube. The image can’t create sound, light, smell, or any other sensory effect. Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it.

If a creature uses its action to examine the sound or image, the creature can determine that it is an illusion with a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC. If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the illusion becomes faint to the creature

Im struggling to see how it can do much more than impose disadvantage on an attack roll (a scream in your targets ear from behind, or illusiory cover to hide behind) which the Wizard could have obtained simply by taking the Dodge action.

[JackPhoenix]

Minor Illusion is much more common then the ability to create real walls/summon real monsters. And again, for the "victim", it's simple risk/reward assesment: the mage created a (small) wall out of thin air? If I can get safely around, I'll do that, no problem...if I can't, I may as well shoot at the wall. Best case, it's an illusion and I've hit the mage hiding behind it, worst case, I've wasted an arrow and spent some time shooting at real wall. No risk for me

Now, if it was a wall of fire I had to get through...would I risk it? Best case, it's an illusion and I can easily get through at the mage. Worst case, it's real and I'll be severely burned by a real fire. Risk for me? Substantial, best not to do that. Same with a field of caltrops/spikes/whatever.

It's not as simple as "every NPC knows it's illusion/real". Raging orc berserker may not care if he gets burned by a fire wall, if he can get to his target, and just run through, regardless of its reality. The same berserker wouldn't try to run through an (illusionary) stone wall, because he thinks it's a solid object and he can't get through, so he'll run around. Or he may try to break it, whatever works best for him.

Different creatures may react in a different way. If I summon a bunch of demons (illusionary or not), goblins may run away screaming in fear, orcs may attack the demons, because they are toughest looking targets that brings them most glory from it's kill, kobolds may bow to me because they respect powerful magic, and drow may shoot me, because they have lots of experiences with magic and knows the demons will most likely disappear if they manage to kill the summoner or break his concentration, minotaurs (or whatever) may ignore the demons, because they can't smell them, etc..

Anyway, illusions wouldn't grant cover, because they are not solid and can't stop the arrow, but a heavy obscurement (concealment in the 3.5e terms), because you can't see your target.

[Tanarii]

How? Explain to me how this works with minor illusion. What is the illusion of exactly?

Lets say you have 3 goblins 20' away shooting your Wizard with bows, and its his turn. Use Minor illusion to stop the Goblins from attacking you.



Again, how? Explain to me how this reliably works with minor illusion. What is the illusion of exactly?A creature not attacking you or choosing another target, that's more powerful than sanctuary. A creature spend its action disbelieving, that's more powerful than Command. That's how.

And the illusion is the 5x5 ft wall still isn't it? Or are you changing topics on us?


It's far from metagame thinking to be shocked that Goblins seem suddenly incredibly astute to the innner workings of illusion magic.That's because you're jumping to the false conclusion that 'the inner workings of illusion magic' are the only way to know when something is an illusion. Maybe the problem here isn't so much metagaming on your part, but jumping to conclusions about how things need to work in a campaign world. I've already given you an in-game reason that is consistent with the official campaign world. I'm sure there are others. But you're stuck on your way, or else cry metagaming.

[Malifice]

A creature not attacking you or choosing another target, that's more powerful than sanctuary. A creature spend its action disbelieving, that's more powerful than Command. That's how.

And the illusion is the 5x5 ft wall still isn't it? Or are you changing topics on us?

An illusion of a 5' wall. The monsters either walk around it and stab the wizard, just fire at the wizard behind it (who doesn't get cover because it's not cover - disadvantage at best) from where they are, or ready actions to do so if the wizard is spotted again forcing the wizard out of action. Alternatively, they just shoot someone else.

They're not 'wasting' actions at all. They're reacting to their environment.

How is this 'OP'. It's used the Wizards action for a negligible benefit.

He could almost as easily carry around a wall shield and hide behind that.

[Tanarii]

Are we talking about the players crying foul when he doesn't gets the effect he wants, or the DM ignoring the players intended effect and making a ruling on the spot, or what constitutes realistic actions of the enemy?

I was answering the first, what OP if intended by the player. That's why I've said I like your 'walk around' solution ... it's a great DM ruling.

The whole 'metagaming' thing is really a side-show to that, because we just are making different assumptions about the in-game world. From your perspective, I'm having the enemies behave unrealistically. From my perspective, you're making the classic mistake of getting inside your monsters heads. You're from a non-magical world. They're from one in which adventurers commonly raid dungeons or creature lairs, including with arcane casters who all know Minor Illusion and regularly use it to try and create walls and boxes to hide behind in combat.

Instead of getting in your monsters heads, try letting them get inside your head.

[smcmike]

Yeah, I gotta say, the argument that it is overpowered is not particularly convincing. Is stepping behind an actual wall overpowered?

And is there some rule that cantrips are not allowed to be more useful than higher level spells under the right circumstances? I don't think you can demonstrate that there are any higher level spells that are always worse than minor illusion, right?

Most of this comes down to how the setting works, though. It's perfectly legitimate to play in a setting where the basic outlines of all of the class abilities and spells in the PHB are "common knowledge." Not my preference, as it makes the world too mechanistic for my taste, but fine. But that's something to talk about during player creation, if you can. If it's common knowledge among all enemies that illusions are very common, it's certainly common knowledge among apprentice wizards that illusions are well-known tricks that won't do you any good in a fight.

[Fwiffo86]

The whole 'metagaming' thing is really a side-show to that, because we just are making different assumptions about the in-game world. From your perspective, I'm having the enemies behave unrealistically. From my perspective, you're making the classic mistake of getting inside your monsters heads. You're from a non-magical world. They're from one in which adventurers commonly raid dungeons or creature lairs, including with arcane casters who all know Minor Illusion and regularly use it to try and create walls and boxes to hide behind in combat.

Instead of getting in your monsters heads, try letting them get inside your head.

I sort of disagree with your logic here. I understand your point certainly. But I think you are failing to take into account that as a whole... "adventurers" are not a large enough section of the population of a world to generate the sort of knowledge you are handing down as "truth". Yes, there are VERY powerful characters (especially in FR), and they generate stories and rumor. But hand me down knowledge to the demi-human races (orcs/goblins/kobolds) can't in any way be that accurate. Sort of like the game of telephone, the more its passed, the less likely it is to be correct (at least entirely).

I have no problem with "some" encounters dealing with common monsters occasionally discerning illusions from conjurations. I have no problem with orcs/goblins/etc knowing that illusions exist (because in a magic rich environment they would logically). I have a problem with the concept that "just because they know illusions exist" means they know "how and when" to tell the difference automatically.

Short of being actual studied spellcasters themselves, I can not find any reason (theoretical common "stories" or no) that any creature that does not have direct experience or training in illusionary magic can readily tell the difference.

We are talking about a "conjured" object that A - doesn't move, B - doesn't emit sound, and C - blocks vision. That is all it does. It does not force save throws (meaning it does not directly affect those that see it) unless its actually interacted with in one way or another.

You show concern that using a minor illusion to generate "cover" as being vastly more powerful than a cantrip should be, and I disagree. All of the attack cantrips eventually deal more damage that what a beefy 2 handed warrior is capable of throwing in a single attack (4 dice of whatever), which is significant damage to a goblin or orc (quite possibly dead on the first hit).

All we are talking about is spontaneously invoking the cover rules here. The illusion is "NOT" real. It does not actually prevent arrows from passing through it. At best, in this situation, either the goblin moves to attack from a different angle, or he shoots through it with disadvantage. This never changes no matter what level you are. That isn't invoking any more powerful effects than cover rules. Something available for free, to EVERYONE including enemies.

[Malifice]

Are we talking about the players crying foul when he doesn't gets the effect he wants, or the DM ignoring the players intended effect and making a ruling on the spot, or what constitutes realistic actions of the enemy?

I was answering the first, what OP if intended by the player. That's why I've said I like your 'walk around' solution ... it's a great DM ruling.

The whole 'metagaming' thing is really a side-show to that, because we just are making different assumptions about the in-game world. From your perspective, I'm having the enemies behave unrealistically. From my perspective, you're making the classic mistake of getting inside your monsters heads. You're from a non-magical world. They're from one in which adventurers commonly raid dungeons or creature lairs, including with arcane casters who all know Minor Illusion and regularly use it to try and create walls and boxes to hide behind in combat.

Instead of getting in your monsters heads, try letting them get inside your head.

Im just struggling to see how its an issue. In very narrow and specific circumstances it could buy you a round or two, or even save your bacon for an imaginative and creative player, but I consider that a feature and not a bug.

Arent we (as DMs) supposed to encourage creativity and imagination from the players? I get that this goes hand in hand with ensuring balance, but I have (still) yet to see an example of how this spell is unbalanced. A lot of unsubstantiated claims, but no clear examples.

[tieren]

How about while concentrating on a confusion spell the caster uses the cantrip on subsequent rounds to make illusions of ordinary things which appear to be 6-8 inches away from similar objects in the environment to really mess with the targets heads.(like if an enemy drops his sword you could make an illusion that the sword appears to be just to the left of where it happens to be so the enemy gets flustered trying to pick it up but if he fumbles around he finds it, adding to his confusion).

If you get creative and have a generous DM you might be able to give the targets disadvantage on their saves to break the confusion.

[Malifice]

How about while concentrating on a confusion spell the caster uses the cantrip on subsequent rounds to make illusions of ordinary things which appear to be 6-8 inches away from similar objects in the environment to really mess with the targets heads.(like if an enemy drops his sword you could make an illusion that the sword appears to be just to the left of where it happens to be so the enemy gets flustered trying to pick it up but if he fumbles around he finds it, adding to his confusion).

If you get creative and have a generous DM you might be able to give the targets disadvantage on their saves to break the confusion.

Love it. Creative and fun. I'd certainly award disadvantage on saves to end the confusion with that usage.

[Tanarii]

Im just struggling to see how its an issue. In very narrow and specific circumstances it could buy you a round or two, or even save your bacon for an imaginative and creative player, but I consider that a feature and not a bug.It's not a big deal. I started off answering based on how I've seen it ruled, based mostly on my AL experiences, and I was jumped all over for "metagaming", and in your case you even told me that you'd walk from my table if I ruled that way. So I explained why that rule made sense to me and wasn't metagaming but rather in-game consistency, as well as being balanced vs other spells. And you came back with an even better way to balance it with other spells.

I wasn't the one that made it a big deal, I just responded to hysterical overreaction to something I tossed out. Then I got interested in the side-debate about metagaming vs realistic creature reactions

[Malifice]

It's not a big deal. I started off answering based on how I've seen it ruled, based mostly on my AL experiences, and I was jumped all over for "metagaming", and in your case you even told me that you'd walk from my table if I ruled that way. So I explained why that rule made sense to me and wasn't metagaming but rather in-game consistency, as well as being balanced vs other spells. And you came back with an even better way to balance it with other spells.

I wasn't the one that made it a big deal, I just responded to hysterical overreaction to something I tossed out. Then I got interested in the side-debate about metagaming vs realistic creature reactions

I stick by my call that I would walk away from a table where the DM metagamed player creativity and imagination away for no good reason. Its not the game I want to be a part of.

I would much prefer that if a class feature is considered a problem, that it was discussed between he DM and the player why it was a problem (in this case due to a perception it was unbalanced compared to other options), reasons for and against were put forward, and a middle ground reached. Im nor suggesting you break a game with RAW; just that such absurd, inconsistent and heavy handed strategies are not the way to go about it. There is more than one way to go about it.

Coming up with some pretty ridiculous and inconstent metagame 'in game' reasoning that monsters can tell the difference between your illusions and when you conjure real things 'because grand daddy told them about illusionists' is not only a world I dont want to explore, but also indicative of what the campaign is gonna be like generally. If this kind of reasoning is being used to justify nerfing a cantrip, god help everyone once illusiory terrain, force cage, polymorph, etherealness, simulacrum or wish crops up later on. The writing is on the wall at that point. If the DM didnt want to talk about it in a reasonable manner, then Im walking to a different campaign world where magic is... well... magic.

[Vogonjeltz]

Minor Illusion is much more common then the ability to create real walls/summon real monsters. And again, for the "victim", it's simple risk/reward assesment: the mage created a (small) wall out of thin air? If I can get safely around, I'll do that, no problem...if I can't, I may as well shoot at the wall. Best case, it's an illusion and I've hit the mage hiding behind it, worst case, I've wasted an arrow and spent some time shooting at real wall. No risk for me

It can't create creatures, only objects, so a character who assumed it was an illusion of a bulette would pretty well have earned getting their face mowed off.

And shooting at the stone wall means wasting an arrow (quivers only hold 20) and their attack in a life or death situation. It means not being able to fire that shot off at someone else who is a threat.

That's why I find this type of argument untenable, until it's mentioned that the wall is the result of an illusion spell, and not a real effect, everyone is treating it as real and wouldn't dream of shooting it with arrows because that's ridiculous. But let someone know it's really an illusion and suddenly every Kobold, Goblin, and Orc is brazenly shooting right at it. Meta-gaming, it's a real blight.


A creature not attacking you or choosing another target, that's more powerful than sanctuary. A creature spend its action disbelieving, that's more powerful than Command. That's how.

And the illusion is the 5x5 ft wall still isn't it? Or are you changing topics on us?

It's no more powerful than if the Caster moved to a heavily obscured location and hid. Less so, since the creature could move to a clear line of sight and shoot the minor illusion caster, whereas if the character had instead hidden, they would remain so unless their stealth check was so awful it automatically gets beaten by the monsters' peception score.