Minor illusion: Fog!

[Doomwhispo]

Can minor illusion create a fog? If so would a melee or ranged attack cancel te effect?

[odigity]

Can minor illusion create a fog? If so would a melee or ranged attack cancel te effect?

I see no reason why it couldn't be used to create the equivalent of fog in a 5' square, creating at least light obscurement.

There's nothing in the spell or general rules about an attack or illusion disrupting the spell effect. In the case of fog, even if you realize it's an illusion, that still doesn't help you see through it better.

[Ninja_Prawn]

even if you realize it's an illusion, that still doesn't help you see through it better.

"If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the illusion becomes faint to that creature."

But yeah, you can create a tiny fog cloud (if your DM lets you; I would). Shooting an arrow through it probably wouldn't give away the fact that it's an illusion, unlike an illusory wall.

[malachi]

According to July's Sage Advice (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-july-2016), it cannot be fog.


Could minor illusion create a fog cloud? If so, would shooting an arrow through it cancel the illusion?
An illusory object made by minor illusion is meant to be like a stool or a rock, not an atmospheric effect.

[ClintACK]

Minor Illusion creates the image of an "object."

Silent Image creates the image of an "object, creature, or some other visible phenomenon."

A puff of fog isn't really an object -- it's a visible phenomenon.

[smcmike]

As written, no. Fog is not an object.

Of course, "muddy footprints" are listed as an example of an object, which raises questions of both number and type.

I think the best answer is to work out how illusions work at each table. I don't blame the rules for being unclear, but they are.

[Doomwhispo]

Same would go for smoke or something like that? I have a trickster rogue who has been using the fog for cover

[smcmike]

Yes. Same would go for smoke. If your DM allows it, you don't have a problem. If not, there are objects that could create cover.

Personally, I find the idea of constantly using it during battle for cover a bit cheesy.

[Doomwhispo]

Yes. Same would go for smoke. If your DM allows it, you don't have a problem. If not, there are objects that could create cover.

Personally, I find the idea of constantly using it during battle for cover a bit cheesy.

Yup. I like it at first because it seemed creative use of the cantrip. But now it's a regular thing ...

[BiPolar]

Yes. Same would go for smoke. If your DM allows it, you don't have a problem. If not, there are objects that could create cover.

Personally, I find the idea of constantly using it during battle for cover a bit cheesy.

Also, is the ranged fog user going prone? Otherwise, his head is above the fog :)

[Ninja_Prawn]

Also, is the ranged fog user going prone? Otherwise, his head is above the fog :)

Unless he's a halfling, gnome, dwarf or drow... :smalltongue:

[Doomwhispo]

Also, is the ranged fog user going prone? Otherwise, his head is above the fog :)

He's a halfling. I'm also giving him half cover for it not full cover.

[odigity]

"If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the illusion becomes faint to that creature."

Damn.


According to July's Sage Advice (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-july-2016), it cannot be fog.

Damn.

[BiPolar]

He's a halfling. I'm also giving him half cover for it not full cover.

ah, that'll work then :)

But yeah, I'd rule any interaction with the fog makes it visible. Remember, it's minor illusion so it's not changing when things pass through it. So any interaction, even with fog, will give an indication it's not real. Also, a single 5' square of fog is pretty suspicious :P.

[tieren]

As written, no. Fog is not an object.

Of course, "muddy footprints" are listed as an example of an object, which raises questions of both number and type.

I think the best answer is to work out how illusions work at each table. I don't blame the rules for being unclear, but they are.

minor illusion's cant move, I would argue you could create an illusion of a marble statue of a small puff of fog that would be virtually indistinguishable from completely motionless puff of real fog. caster can't hide "in" it anyway as any physical interaction reveals it as false.

[smcmike]

minor illusion's cant move, I would argue you could create an illusion of a marble statue of a small puff of fog that would be virtually indistinguishable from completely motionless puff of real fog. caster can't hide "in" it anyway as any physical interaction reveals it as false.

If that works for you, ok.

Personally, I cannot imagine having any difficulty in visually distinguishing between rock and airborne water vapor.

[DivisibleByZero]

He's a halfling. I'm also giving him half cover for it not full cover.

That's awfully nice of you to grant him cover. Even half cover.
Light obscurement so he can hide, sure (even though it would be next to useless, because he couldn't move and the enemy still knows where he is, and if it was to set up an ambush then why is there a tiny little patch of fog right there and nowhere else?). But cover? Not at my table. Cover is provided by a physical obstruction. Fog is not a physical obstruction.

[Doomwhispo]

That's awfully nice of you to grant him cover. Even half cover.
Light obscurement so he can hide, sure (even though it would be next to useless, because he couldn't move and the enemy still knows where he is, and if it was to set up an ambush then why is there a tiny little patch of fog right there and nowhere else?). But cover? Not at my table. Cover is provided by a physical obstruction. Fog is not a physical obstruction.

Making pc.unable to attack him because he is hidden seems like even better than half cover.
He usually opens doors and hides behind the fog. Your way he would get a surprise attack in I guess? I'm still figuring out what to do that's why I'm asking you guys :)

[DivisibleByZero]

Making pc.unable to attack him because he is hidden seems like even better than half cover.
He usually opens doors and hides behind the fog. Your way he would get a surprise attack in I guess? I'm still figuring out what to do that's why I'm asking you guys :)

But they know where he is, so they can still attack him. They just can't see him if he successfully hides, so they'd have disadvantage on the attack.
But in this case, I'd rule that since it's only light obscurement, and since he can't move, and since they know where he is, they'd get advantage on their perception roll, so he'll have a hard time hiding there to begin with.

Think about your example, and think about the enemies' reaction to it.
A door seemingly opens itself and there's a tiny bit of fog behind it (indoors....?) , but nowhere else.
They are going to be on extra high alert.
Advantage on perception checks related to that fog.
That's how I'd do it.

[Coffee_Dragon]

He's a halfling. I'm also giving him half cover for it not full cover.

Fog doesn't work this way. If less than 5 feet of it obscures someone, it's not fog but some kind of smoke.

[tieren]

If that works for you, ok.

Personally, I cannot imagine having any difficulty in visually distinguishing between rock and airborne water vapor.

I guess it depends how you are picturing it, if its dense enough to not see through 5 feet of it it is practically opaque, and if it is not moving can be replicated by a solid object. If you don't like stone, it could be a poof ball of pulled cotton or something.

Airborne water vapor looks like airborne water vapor because it floats and swirls and moves which the illusion can't anyway. Mechanically I don't see a difference anyway, what can a 5 foot cube of opaque white fog provide that a 5 foot cube of white marble can't?

[Segev]

Wouldn't be AS convincing, but you could make a fogged glass block. The "fog" would be stationary, but might fool somebody in the right circumstances.

[smcmike]

I guess it depends how you are picturing it, if its dense enough to not see through 5 feet of it it is practically opaque, and if it is not moving can be replicated by a solid object. If you don't like stone, it could be a poof ball of pulled cotton or something.

Airborne water vapor looks like airborne water vapor because it floats and swirls and moves which the illusion can't anyway. Mechanically I don't see a difference anyway, what can a 5 foot cube of opaque white fog provide that a 5 foot cube of white marble can't?

I'm not saying there is a mechanical difference, only that I've seen marble, and never thought it looked like it might be anything other than a solid.

Puffed cotton would, similarly, look like a big puff of cotton.


Wouldn't be AS convincing, but you could make a fogged glass block. The "fog" would be stationary, but might fool somebody in the right circumstances.

Yeah, or, heck, a giant aquarium filled with opaque gas. That's one object.

[SharkForce]

Yes. Same would go for smoke. If your DM allows it, you don't have a problem. If not, there are objects that could create cover.

Personally, I find the idea of constantly using it during battle for cover a bit cheesy.


Yup. I like it at first because it seemed creative use of the cantrip. But now it's a regular thing ...

takes an action to cast, meaning you don't get to do something else that would be much more useful. it isn't cheesy. it just lets you spend your action to get concealment... something you could frequently pull off regardless in any place where the illusion won't stand out like a sore thumb. and it only takes one attack to get rid of the illusion. if they're close enough, probably an object interaction would even do it (not so much a problem if it blends in, but if it blends in then you probably didn't need to create cover, you could just move).

also, if using something frequently is cheesy, then the attack action must be the stinkiest cheese to ever exist in D&D. i mean, at least someone had to come up with the idea of using an illusion to create concealment the first time. nobody had to ever think up anything special to use the attack action to attack things.

[tieren]

Wouldn't be AS convincing, but you could make a fogged glass block. The "fog" would be stationary, but might fool somebody in the right circumstances.

I'd go with something even more bizarre that would clearly be magical, but might not be an illusion. Maybe an illusion of a Bigby's interposing hand holding a tower shield or something in front of you.

Everybody would know you cast a spell and are hiding behind it, but their first instinct might not be to "disbelieve" it.

[ad_hoc]

Minor Illusion is best used out of combat.

It just isn't worth the action. Any physical interaction with it reveals it to be an illusion. This includes projectiles and simply walking through it.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I have an idea, let's start a discussion on whether shooting an arrow into illusory fog counts as interacting with it.

[Tanarii]

Don't forget that things physically interacting with many illusions make them go faint. So real creatures can't stand in an illusion of a fog area without it going faint for everyone.

Obviously this isn't relevant to Minor Illusion, since it can't make an illusion of fog. But it applies equally to illusions of objects. If you make an illusion of an object and it interacts with anything physically, it becomes faint. You can put illusions around something, but can't put it so they intersect something, because that's interaction.


I'd go with something even more bizarre that would clearly be magical, but might not be an illusion. Maybe an illusion of a Bigby's interposing hand holding a tower shield or something in front of you.

Everybody would know you cast a spell and are hiding behind it, but their first instinct might not be to "disbelieve" it.
Even if they did strongly suspect it was an illusion, they still need to spend an action (each) to "disbelieve" it, if you mean make it go faint. Or anyone could physically interact with it, making it go faint for everyone.

[tieren]

Even if they did strongly suspect it was an illusion, they still need to spend an action (each) to "disbelieve" it, if you mean make it go faint. Or anyone could physically interact with it, making it go faint for everyone.

Yes of course, and that would be the point, making them use an action to do it instead of just an object interaction or just moving through the space (interaction) to attack the caster behind. Something to give pause to either of those courses of action.

[Segev]

Sadly, I think the RAW do indicate that if Bob pokes his hand into an illusion of a 5x5x5 box, Jim sees the box "go faint" even if he couldn't see Bob or Bob's hand because he was on the far side of the box and Bob didn't poke it all the way through.

I strongly recommend house-ruling that, though, as it makes no sense. The intent of the "physical interaction" rule, given context, is that "somebody just interacted impossibly with that "solid" object, so it's clearly an illusion."

I think they could have done a better job wording that function of it.

And, of course, as with all RAI, it's subjective. I'm sure some will disagree with me and assert that the intent was clearly that illusions can't withstand contact with physical things and are just plain disrupted by them.

[BiPolar]

I have an idea, let's start a discussion on whether shooting an arrow into illusory fog counts as interacting with it.

Damn you, Coffee_Dragon. Damn you to hell!

[Segev]

Damn you, Coffee_Dragon. Damn you to hell!

So that's one argument in favor of shooting an arrow into an illusion of fog damning you to hell. Could use some clarification as to who "you" is, though: the caster of the illusion? The shooter of the arrow? The observer? Coffee_Dragon seems the most logical antecedent, but I'm not sure "Shooting an arrow into illusory fog damns Coffee_Dragon to hell" is likely intent of the rule.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Damn you, Coffee_Dragon. Damn you to hell!

Well what about whether a hole in the ground counts as an object, what about that.

[SharkForce]

Well what about whether a hole in the ground counts as an object, what about that.

only if it's shaped like a footprint, obviously :D

[Tanarii]

Sadly, I think the RAW do indicate that if Bob pokes his hand into an illusion of a 5x5x5 box, Jim sees the box "go faint" even if he couldn't see Bob or Bob's hand because he was on the far side of the box and Bob didn't poke it all the way through.

I strongly recommend house-ruling that, though, as it makes no sense. The intent of the "physical interaction" rule, given context, is that "somebody just interacted impossibly with that "solid" object, so it's clearly an illusion."

I think they could have done a better job wording that function of it.

And, of course, as with all RAI, it's subjective. I'm sure some will disagree with me and assert that the intent was clearly that illusions can't withstand contact with physical things and are just plain disrupted by them.I still rule it (house-rule it, if you will) as observable physical interaction. If it occurs on the far side of a box, it wouldn't go faint to anyone that couldn't observe that happen, from where they stand.

But regardless, I still rule it happens for everyone at once who can observe it. Not just the person actually causing the physical interaction. When I said "everyone" that's what I was really referring to.

[ad_hoc]

And, of course, as with all RAI, it's subjective. I'm sure some will disagree with me and assert that the intent was clearly that illusions can't withstand contact with physical things and are just plain disrupted by them.

It is clearly the rule.

"Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion..."

We have actual examples of illusions to work with too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIRSZVIuPzU

In the above example once the illusion is broken we see it for what it really is even when our perspective is turned back to what fooled us in the first place. Also, even though we know the video is an illusion and we don't believe it is really a box, we still see the box until the illusion has been broken.

[Ruslan]

Create fog with Minor Illusion? Sure, why not. You're spending your action to create concealment in a single 5'x5' square. That does not seem overpowered.

[ivxxef]

Why not a bush instead of a fog, It should obscure you, arrows could enter without much evidence is an illusion, and it the worst scenario someone say is a living thing, just make an artificial one.

[Chronos]

Note that even a human can be under 5', even a taller human can crouch a bit, and there's nothing that says that the bottom of the illusion has to touch the floor: A 1' gap at the bottom isn't going to make you very much more noticeable.

All that said, I tend to prefer to use objects that would fit in in their environment. If you see a little patch of fog in one corner of a room, you know that something is up. Not so if you see one more crate or barrel in a storeroom, or an extra garbage can on a city street, or a bush in a forest, or a boulder on a mountainside.

[Keravath]

That's awfully nice of you to grant him cover. Even half cover.
Light obscurement so he can hide, sure (even though it would be next to useless, because he couldn't move and the enemy still knows where he is, and if it was to set up an ambush then why is there a tiny little patch of fog right there and nowhere else?). But cover? Not at my table. Cover is provided by a physical obstruction. Fog is not a physical obstruction.

All the rogue needs for advantage on his next attack is for the target to lose track of his movements. It doesn't matter if the target knows where he is, if he can't see him then he has lost track of when he will attack and the attacker will have advantage and enable sneak attack.

Knowing where someone must be is not the same as seeing them.

If the hide check behind the minor illusion is successful (a box, rock, tree ... any sort of cover created by the illusion) then the rogue will have advantage and sneak attack on their next attack so it can be a worthwhile tactic if there is no other cover available.

[Aett_Thorn]

Thread necro, ahoy!

[Snowbluff]

Minor Illusion creates the image of an "object."

Silent Image creates the image of an "object, creature, or some other visible phenomenon."

A puff of fog isn't really an object -- it's a visible phenomenon.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b9/MagrittePipe.jpg/300px-MagrittePipe.jpg
I create a perfect diorama of fog!

[FabulousFizban]

yes, but any creature in the fog would be interacting with it and thus get a save to disbelieve