help making my best case w/ dms for minor illusion, silent image, pf and so on

[Chugger]

I was saying in another thread (arcane trickster) how I'd be tempted to take minor illusion and/or Silent Image, but my experience w/ DMs and illusions so far has not been good. At AL - which I like but have a few quibbles with - you never know who is going to DM. Our local DMs so far have been very good, creative, balanced - mostly making really good choices. And I get that DMing is hard and that it falls to the DM to orchestrate a great experience, to make sure challenge levels are "just right" - not too hard not too soft and all that. So no disrespect is meant toward DMs here.

But I've noticed a problem.

Going all the way back to AD&D (and the pamphlets), DMs have in general _hated_ illusions because players abuse them and because it really disrupts game balance (can make encounters too easy). So DMs have to be very careful about what illusions can and can't do. If you cast an illusion in between fights as a joke - or you're incredibly creative with one where it doesn't threaten game balance, you get a much more tolerant and friendly ruling. But if there's combat, we often find our illusions accomplish absolutely nothing. And I think it's because DM's tend to vastly overreact and clamp down on illusions that can affect a combat way too much (or how do players squeeze any good effect at all out of a minor illusion if the DM is being hardcore - that's what I want to discuss here please).

Okay, my first problem stems off of this sort of ruling. I'm hiding in an empty store but evil guards are coming. I want to go to a side window and use M.I. to have a voice shout from a window in the building next door (which is about 30' away - i.e. in range) "He just ran out the back! Hurry and you'll catch him!" But I'm told the spell doesn't have the range. HUH? The DM rules that MI plants an illusionary sound in the minds of targets w/in 30' of me and doesn't create a magic invisible "speaker", so to speak, that broadcasts sounds that can be heard outside of the range.

So this is a ruling that comes from a phantasmal forces type interpretation. What I should have done was wait til the guards were in range of me and, peeking through shutters or a peep hole in the door done a MI of a voice shouting at them "he went out the back..." so that the voice seems to come from far away in this direction. Or they hear an old lady's voice from inside the store shouting at them "he's gone out the back..." but I didn't think of that in time.

Okay why was I not allowed to distract the guards? Because this was an AL module and you have to deal with the guards - you can't illusion them away. Please understand this is the real reason the DM ruled hard against the illusion. I would have been in a jam, too, if I were DMing that module. Modules aren't flexible and don't allow this big-power use of an illusion in many cases, period. Home games, sure, the DM will just throw a different kind of curve ball at you - a home game is flexible. Modules aren't.

But clearly we have a problem. Can minor illusions not be heard or seen farther than 30' from the caster?

I see little in the phb speaking to this except p203 "Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, to miss things that are there, to hear phantom noises, or to remember things that never happened. Some illusions create phantom images that any creature can see, but the most insidious illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature."

Except in the PHB Minor Illusion says "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things pass through it." But this doesn't say if a person outside the spell range can see the illusion or not. A person could see their hand going through the illusion because it only exists in their mind, or they could see their hand going through the illusion because it's a phantasm that reflects light only (and therefore could be seen out of range of the spell). It simply doesn't say which it is. It's somewhat implicit in the p203 part that an illusion anyone can see is different from one planted in someone's mind - but it is only implicit (i.e. still highly subjective and still open to interpretation).

I assume Hallucinatory Terrain can be seen from miles away. This spell, if so, can reach out up to 20 miles and cause people to see all that terrain in their minds? Really? I would assume it makes more sense (appeal to Occam's Razor?) to keep the power of some illusions in the area but have them create a "fake" thing that only reflects light (and could make sounds as if invisible "speakers" were there) but can be seen or heard as far as the light/sound will travel. Clearly the rules differentiate between at least two types of illusions (but the rules don't really go into detail, at least from what I can find).

Okay, that's one issue - can minor illusion and so on be seen/heard outside the spell range? Some DMs rule yes, some no - and I only have a limited window of appeal. We have an AL module to get through and only about 4 hours to do it. If I burn 10 minutes being a "lawyer" w/ the DM the rest of the table will rightly hate me. My appeals have to be short sweet and highly persuasive. And ... some illusions as I said simply won't be allowed to work - if they're so creative they render a module's critical point useless as written ... we just can't have that. An AL module to some extent is a breadcrumb trail and you just can't mess w/ it that much. I get that. But then we have the next DM problem.

This one I've seen fail (by my attempts and other players' attempts) every single time. I cast minor illusion to "extend" the stone wall out about 5' here and I hide in it. Or I cast MI to make a crate and I hide in it.

You can't see out. You're essentially blind. You attack with disadvantage if you can find something to target at all and other creatures attack you with advantage - you can't see the arrows coming at you to try to dodge. HUH? No wait Mr. DM it's the other way around - I can see out (I made peep holes / it's my illusion it's necessarily faint to me / i interacted with it to get inside it I know it's not real and therefore I can see out it's faint to me as per phb MI rules.

Nope, Mr. DM says. You have to make a saving throw to disbelieve it.

Or, I actually was told this by a DM - "when you touch it it goes poof and is gone" - HUH? That's not in the rules. It says it becomes faint to the person who touches it.

Or if a DM is ruling 30' range on MI then an orc 31 feet away doesn't see the illusion but sees me and can shoot an arrow.

Or if you remember to put peep holes you're hidden til you shoot out a spell or arrow and then the orc shoots you with an arrow. But Mr. DM you didn't have the orc roll at disadvantage - I could be anywhere inside that box. "Oh it can see you." Then DM turns his head and begins advancing some other part of the fight, cutting off the player whose char is in an MI box that doesn't work right. But but but...but Mr. DM doesn't want to talk to you about it he's using yedi mind tricks to shut you down, can't you see? I actually witnessed this (it's common at almost all tables - sometimes nec. to keep game moving - sometimes it's just a DM being chickenshirt). In this case the DM a few minutes later realized he'd been husky with the player in the box and said that the orc made his wisdom role he could see you. But the DM had not touched his dice - I was watching - the roll was made in his mind - AND the orc had not lost a turn disbelieving.

If I burn a turn casting a MI of a crate or bush to hide in, and I shoot out of it - yes, the target saw something come out - but no it still can't see where I am inside that box or bush. It has to according to the rules as I read them spend a turn disbelieving - and if successful - the box or bush becomes "faint" to it - and then it can shoot back normally. Or it must charge the box/bush and perhaps discover it's not real - perhaps on a free action - and go through and now see the person inside and melee attack normally.

So what the rules seem to say and how DMs deal with illusions...is it a losing battle, especially at AL? I get that a big creative illusion that breaks the module won't work. But a lousy box to hide in. He burned a turn to make it, why can't the orc burn a turn to deal with it?

Okay, am I seeing the rules correctly here or missing something?

If the rules aren't clear what can we do, especially at an AL situation where who knows who your DM will be and how hardcore they're going to rule? What is a player's best appeal? Is it "Look, I get that players abuse illusion - but I burned a whole turn to cast it - and the book says to see through the illusion a creature must interact or burn a turn disbelieving - the orc rolled one dice to hit me - and sure this is a fast and furious fight with a lot going on (I'm not blaming you) - but the orc really should roll another dice because it had disadvantage to see if it actually missed me." Is that my best appeal?

I don't know what to do if images and sounds are ruled at a table to only exist w/in the range of the spell.

What do you do? Am I missing rulings on this in the phb please? Or official rulings by mearl or crawford or someone please?

Should I mostly give up on illusions or just use them for role play color? And not expect them to do much?

What do you do if you choose to fight for the effectiveness of an illusion please?

I'll wait to get into phan force - this part is already too long (sorry).

[Pex]

DMs metagame. They know it's an illusion so they can't help themselves to treat it like an illusion for the NPCs. They refuse to let players trick them. Fortunately, it's not that hard to test if the DM metagames if you're a Sorcerer or Wizard in 5E. Have the Silent Image spell. Use it in combat in an appropriate situation for an illusion of a stone wall. See how the DM has the NPCs/monsters react. If they automatically use caution to test the wall and then ignore it because their hand goes through it and continue moving without having to use up any action or roll an investigation check, then you have a DM who has effectively banned all illusion spells. Never prepare it again as a Wizard and switch it out next level as a Sorcerer. If the NPCs/monster uses its action to roll investigate at its very next turn, be suspect but keep the spell.

Next test is to use it out of combat. When paying for a drink at a tavern, use Silent Image of coins on the table/bar. If the bartender/waitress immediately suspects something without first trying to grab the coins, especially as a Sorcerer using Subtle Spell if you cast it then instead of before you even ordered your drink, then you have a DM who has effectively banned all illusion spells. Never prepare it again as a Wizard and switch it out next level as a Sorcerer.

Warlocks have a harder time with it because dedicating an invocation for it is a higher cost. Sorcerers can afford to be temporarily one spell down for a level. Being down one invocation is harsh. If you're willing to risk the cantrip slot try the coin test with Minor Illusion. Minor Illusion will still be useful as a means of describing something you saw. Be wary. Such a DM would usually force you to make an Intelligence check to remember accurately unless you took the Keen Mind feat. They hate players trying to get away with anything.

[Foxhound438]

Or, I actually was told this by a DM - "when you touch it it goes poof and is gone" - HUH? That's not in the rules. It says it becomes faint to the person who touches it.


it actually doesn't say that though. All it says is physical interaction with the image makes it feint, it doesn't say who sees it based on what interacts with it. It is a cantrip, meaning it's a very weak power, and thus it's reasonable to assume that it could be thwarted easily.

Why I wouldn't ever allow MI to be used as a way to conceal yourself mid-combat is because it's not supposed to provide those functions. You're basically asking for the effects of Greater Invisibility for a cantrip trick that's not even creative. Allowing that kind of shinannigans makes everyone else feel like the game has suddenly become a cheese fest, and that's not a kind of game I would return to.

BUT for what it's worth, I don't agree with the sentiment that whatever you make can only be percieved by creatures 30' from you...

[Chugger]

DMs metagame. They know it's an illusion so they can't help themselves to treat it like an illusion for the NPCs. They refuse to let players trick them. Fortunately, it's not that hard to test if the DM metagames if you're a Sorcerer or Wizard in 5E. Have the Silent Image spell. Use it in combat in an appropriate situation for an illusion of a stone wall. See how the DM has the NPCs/monsters react. If they automatically use caution to test the wall and then ignore it because their hand goes through it and continue moving without having to use up any action or roll an investigation check, then you have a DM who has effectively banned all illusion spells. Never prepare it again as a Wizard and switch it out next level as a Sorcerer. If the NPCs/monster uses its action to roll investigate at its very next turn, be suspect but keep the spell.

Next test is to use it out of combat. When paying for a drink at a tavern, use Silent Image of coins on the table/bar. If the bartender/waitress immediately suspects something without first trying to grab the coins, especially as a Sorcerer using Subtle Spell if you cast it then instead of before you even ordered your drink, then you have a DM who has effectively banned all illusion spells. Never prepare it again as a Wizard and switch it out next level as a Sorcerer.

Warlocks have a harder time with it because dedicating an invocation for it is a higher cost. Sorcerers can afford to be temporarily one spell down for a level. Being down one invocation is harsh. If you're willing to risk the cantrip slot try the coin test with Minor Illusion. Minor Illusion will still be useful as a means of describing something you saw. Be wary. Such a DM would usually force you to make an Intelligence check to remember accurately unless you took the Keen Mind feat. They hate players trying to get away with anything.

This is a very good (and smart - and experience based) response. Thanks! This is a great test method when working with say a private table/friends game.

For AL I get one of a large pool of DMs. So if - if - I bother to use the spot for MI or SI - and if I bother to burn a turn casting it - I have to have a strong argument that's diplomatic (doesn't make the DM hate me - allows him/her to save face) and extremely persuasive.

But I'm so glad that I'm not the only one who has noticed this phenom (it was evident decades ago during AD&D - it's nothing new). I like your take on it, thanks.

[Chugger]

it actually doesn't say that though. All it says is physical interaction with the image makes it feint, it doesn't say who sees it based on what interacts with it. It is a cantrip, meaning it's a very weak power, and thus it's reasonable to assume that it could be thwarted easily.

Why I wouldn't ever allow MI to be used as a way to conceal yourself mid-combat is because it's not supposed to provide those functions. You're basically asking for the effects of Greater Invisibility for a cantrip trick that's not even creative. Allowing that kind of shinannigans makes everyone else feel like the game has suddenly become a cheese fest, and that's not a kind of game I would return to.

BUT for what it's worth, I don't agree with the sentiment that whatever you make can only be percieved by creatures 30' from you...

Correct, it doesn't say that. The DM was definitely wrong, and I was using shorthand. It says that if you disbelieve it - if a creature makes a successful investigation check (which I think eats an action, right?) and disbelieve the illusion (determines it's an illusion is how the phb says it) - the illusion becomes "faint to that creature." Right in the phb. I'm extrapolating that to a touch - if a touch = auto disbelief as per the DM's thought you'd have to rule it only becomes faint for the toucher. Not for everyone. See what I mean?

If I were at your table and you told me as a DM "because it's not supposed to provide those functions. You're basically asking for the effects of Greater Invisibility for a cantrip trick that's not even creative", you'd be in for an argument. First though I want to thank you for your response and acknowledge you're trying to help me - I'm not angry or head-butting here - if we were face to face you'd see the smile on my face and the lilt in my voice - this is just a game and it is very hard to keep it balanced (but I'd still give my argument a try!). Look, greater invis lets you move and be invis with certain benefits the whole time. A little minor illusion box to hide in is not anywhere near as good as Greater Invis. All you have to rule is "the orc has seen arrows or firebolt come out of the box - the orc is highly suspicious and will check perception with advantage - and it probably makes its roll." The character burned a turn to make the box. The orc can burn a turn to see through the box. Where is the abuse? It's quid pro to me.

Furthermore, why are you assuming in the example I gave that the player cast that minor illusion of a box mid-fight? He didn't. We knew an attack was coming and he prepped it. And he was denied. I can see that a box appearing mid-fight would be a problem for me if I cast it - but - do monsters immediately disbelieve it automatically and have it be faint to them - or do they roll at an advantage? I burned a turn to produce the box, so where is the abuse or how is it out-of-balance if they have to burn a turn to disbelieve it - or instead of shooting an arrow run over and gank me with a sword?

I'm also aware you could accuse me of bordering on being abusive, but I'm aware that it's a give and take thing - it has been for decades - and I've heard almost every lame DM excuse for "keeping control" there is - and while they keep control, sure, they are lame - and over time they drive out the players you want to keep - and you're stuck with a table of sheeples. :D. Not accusing you of anything. Just trying to politely point out the delicate nature of the thing we're discussing and how it can quickly backfire (either way). Players have to try for advantage - if we don't we're lame - and DMs have to find a way to keep a balanced challenge alive and well (and too heavy-handed in this effort = game death).

Yes, the box is not creative. Neither is taking cover behind a crenelated wall. Neither is swinging an ax. Creativity is not what's on trial here. The phb doesn't say only creative illusions work, for one thing - and even if I were creative the effort would be wasted on current local-AL-dm attitudes - so why not just make a box? In other words, if you shut down all illusions, if you get any it's going to be a dumb box. Because you shut it down. But again, in all seriousness, thanks for the response and yes I disagree with you on the can only be seen w/in 30' from me - we need an official ruling on that - the clear implication of what I quoted from the phb is that illusions can be both - and hallu. terrain doesn't work if it can't be seen from miles away (it has a 300 feet range) - so if you're wrong w/ HT you must be wrong with MI - but find something in the phb to prove me wrong if you've got it - if I'm wrong I need to know so I can adjust my place - thanks (See the other poster above you - he's brilliant!)

[Chugger]

Here's another way to look at the "can illusions be seen or heard past their range" problem.

Hallucinatory Terrain is clearly intended to "work", to fool approaching creatures that the ground is different than it really is. You can make a pond look like a grassy field, for example. You can make a sharp drop-off look gentle - clearly by adding a phantasmal ramp up to it - because you can't make any parts of the terrain invisible it seems (or certainly not much). And it has a 300 foot range.

So if a group of creatures is 400 feet away and they see a large pond, but at 300' they suddenly see a grassy meadow ... how could that even remotely be considered "the spell working as intended?" It can't.

As I quoted above illusions aren't one thing.

You can arbitrarily make MI a thing the spell puts into the mind of all creatures in 30 foot radius, but think of the overwhelming energy and power you're giving that spell - just to get 60 people crammed into a 30' rad to see a stupid box. Occam's Razor (to the extent it applies here ;) ) says a quaisi real 3d hologram is far more sensible. One that's not a part of physics (dnd is not a reality simulator - which you can use against my Occam's argument, by the way) - you can "disbelieve" it and make it go faint.

Now give Pex's post another serious read - let it sink in.

Even if we go short range on illusions, silent image is 60' iirc. A DM like you or the ones I get at AL still won't let me make a box to hide in - whether I can prepare it in advance of an attack or attempt it on the fly.

If a monster cast an illusion and hid in it, what? The players auto get to see right through it and have it go faint?! Of course not!

You're only real response is but game balance but challenge but you are being abusive. Again, I burned the turn to make it - they can burn a turn or two to see through it - or charge and melee - where is the abuse?

I mean sure, there is a point where illusions "break" the whole game and at some point you have to stop them. Limit them. But what Pex and I are saying is that DMs like you and the AL guys can't see how very _heavy handed_ you're being in your attempt (I assume) to retain control and balance. Are you sure this is the path you want to take to do that?

And for those who get what I'm saying - any ideas on how to fight back - or is it a lost cause. Pex seems to think it's a lost cause, and hell he may be dead on right. Each fight you have with a DM burns up your "argument currency" - you can only get away w/ so much before your arguments make you a pariah. So this is not easy (and for you DMs it's not easy - stop thinking there are easy solutions! Can't we come up with an interpretation that respects that the spell is in the phb and that the player burned a turn to cast it? These heavy-handed reactions (and they are - they really are) give the player _nothing_ for his effort - nothing. Come on - open your eyes and see that something better is required here - and I'm saying that "with a smile in my voice" - not like a complete and total jerk picking a fight. I am so sorry if I sound like a jerk - but don't mean to - I just keep pushing til I'm satisfied with an answer, that's really all this is. And maybe I'm being the idiot here - if I am show me.

[Marvnmartian]

Personally I find illusions will work with a dm much more if you are verbose about it. If you really sell it as a spell that summons a defensive barrier instead of an illusion. Consider Johnathan strange & Mr Norrell and how much strain it causes to make walls and just talk about how your character drops his hands to the ground and pulls and wraps the mud/dirt/sand whatever ground you are standing on around your person or as a 5 foot wall ripping up through the ground. basically making it seem like a wall of stone that you pull from the ground.

thus making it harder for a dm to just outright dismiss your minor illusion. Especially if you are fighting against anything with an intelligence under 10 I could make the argument if the character has an intelligence over 15 it will get advantage on knowing its an illusion instead of a wall of stone spell.

Also the Box is more effective yes but I find most dm's will accept a Wall that you create instead of a 5 foot box with eye holes which is the most effective choice. But yeah as a DM anything that gets players to roll play a bit more with how they are using their spells and attacks will always make me more lenient, because 'I hit it with my sword' is less impressive then 'Since he just missed me I parry his sword away and aim for his elbow on his sword arm' or 'I make a box' to 'I Make simple hand signs and dramatically crouch onto the ground and rip up a hand full of dirt and grass and pull a wall into existence inbetween me and the orcs'

[Chugger]

Personally I find illusions will work with a dm much more if you are verbose about it. If you really sell it as a spell that summons a defensive barrier instead of an illusion. Consider Johnathan strange & Mr Norrell and how much strain it causes to make walls and just talk about how your character drops his hands to the ground and pulls and wraps the mud/dirt/sand whatever ground you are standing on around your person or as a 5 foot wall ripping up through the ground. basically making it seem like a wall of stone that you pull from the ground.

thus making it harder for a dm to just outright dismiss your minor illusion. Especially if you are fighting against anything with an intelligence under 10 I could make the argument if the character has an intelligence over 15 it will get advantage on knowing its an illusion instead of a wall of stone spell.

Also the Box is more effective yes but I find most dm's will accept a Wall that you create instead of a 5 foot box with eye holes which is the most effective choice. But yeah as a DM anything that gets players to roll play a bit more with how they are using their spells and attacks will always make me more lenient, because 'I hit it with my sword' is less impressive then 'Since he just missed me I parry his sword away and aim for his elbow on his sword arm' or 'I make a box' to 'I Make simple hand signs and dramatically crouch onto the ground and rip up a hand full of dirt and grass and pull a wall into existence inbetween me and the orcs'

Interesting. Might help sell it, except the hardcore anti-illusion DMs will rule that the "wall" will just appear. (edit, and be cheesy looking and have no effect on monsters because DM is hardcore anti-illusion, threatened by what he perceives as player abuse, or w/e)

Most module fights have the players invading a space to fight, though I've been in two where "armies" come after you. So you can prep something.

I bet selling it would help a wall of thorns spell fake too.

Here's the thing. It's even minor illusion that gets zero respect from the DMs. You are punished for burning a turn to cast it for anything except fluff. It gives zero tactical advantage which is not coming from a clearly worded phb rule (unless I'm missing it) and which is coming from a DM meta-effort to "control" - to say "no I'm not letting this cheesy little trinket-level cantrip do anything for you". But the rules at least to me pretty clearly say that it's not that cheesy. And the DMs are definitely overreacting. Or being too heavy-handed.

Silent image moves, so yes - selling it would help if you cast it mid-fight. Trouble is I can usually do more good causing actual damage. I usually prep an illusion or don't cast it. Or use it for RP/color/fluff/jokes. Good idea though. I will keep it in mind and see if it will help me sell an illusion - thanks!

[Twizzly513]

As a DM for my own games, I've always been a fan of illusion, (second character ever was actually an illusion wizard) so I always love a good creative use of it. As the DM it's my job to encourage creative solutions anyways, right? But it also really depends on who the illusion is meant to deceive, and how it is presented. For example, if the party is running away from a group of orcs in a city, and as they turn a corner, they slip into a nearby alley. Spellcaster makes illusion of wall over the alley entrance. Orcs turn the corner, see no adventurers. Orcs aren't smart, and don't have a clue what happened. They might go send out search parties, but no one's checking walls. One of my self-governing rules of DMing: People generally don't find what they're not looking for. Passive perception never comes into play at my table. Why should you get a decent roll on something you didn't even try to do?
Some people are harder to trick with illusions, though. Experienced shopkeepers in high magic cities, for instance, might check coin before taking it as payment. Another spellcaster might have the presence of mind to cast a spell to see past a possible illusion (even if it isn't the first thing they try, also not many spellcasters prepare a spell like Truesight before a battle, depending on the area they might have to get creative). Also, if you think you could pull off something like that against a dragon in their lair or a similar situation, that illusion won't work very well.

Conclusion: The effectiveness of an illusion is 60% presentation and 40% audience. A good description always helps

[Unoriginal]

I'm not sure I've seen anyone use a lot of illusions, but I've never seen a DM have a problem with the illusions that were used.


EDIT:

That being said, I don't think illusions can really "break" a scenario or a module. Sure they can be used smartly, and can defeat some encounters, but I don't see how they could do that in a "breaking" way.

[Chugger]

As a DM for my own games, I've always been a fan of illusion, (second character ever was actually an illusion wizard) so I always love a good creative use of it. As the DM it's my job to encourage creative solutions anyways, right? But it also really depends on who the illusion is meant to deceive, and how it is presented. For example, if the party is running away from a group of orcs in a city, and as they turn a corner, they slip into a nearby alley. Spellcaster makes illusion of wall over the alley entrance. Orcs turn the corner, see no adventurers. Orcs aren't smart, and don't have a clue what happened. They might go send out search parties, but no one's checking walls. One of my self-governing rules of DMing: People generally don't find what they're not looking for. Passive perception never comes into play at my table. Why should you get a decent roll on something you didn't even try to do?
Some people are harder to trick with illusions, though. Experienced shopkeepers in high magic cities, for instance, might check coin before taking it as payment. Another spellcaster might have the presence of mind to cast a spell to see past a possible illusion (even if it isn't the first thing they try, also not many spellcasters prepare a spell like Truesight before a battle, depending on the area they might have to get creative). Also, if you think you could pull off something like that against a dragon in their lair or a similar situation, that illusion won't work very well.

Conclusion: The effectiveness of an illusion is 60% presentation and 40% audience. A good description always helps

All good stuff to consider.

But the real problem I'm facing, I'm pretty sure, is that this is module gaming - not home gaming. Home gaming is more relaxed and very flexible. A DM running a module is under way more pressure - time pressure - he may not know the module all that well, he may have had a tough day at work - that's why I'm not that upset over this (even if it sounds like I am I'm not) - the DM wants to present a challenge but has a great deal of his mind occupied trying to grasp the conditions set forth by developers - in a dungeon he didn't make up. So if a player tries to pull off an illusion, the DM just doesn't have the mental battery-power, so to speak, to deal with it right. Illusions are rightly or wrongly often seen as a threat to order and balance and challenge (and they can break a critical point in a module dungeon - and actually hurt the players, which is the irony of this whole thing, if you think about it - I'm being silly here). But I do want to have a good persuasive pitch for illusions at least doing _something_ lined up and ready to go and likely to work. That's what I think I'm asking for here ... and yeah, it's kind of weird, especially if you don't do module dnding.

[Chugger]

I'm not sure I've seen anyone use a lot of illusions, but I've never seen a DM have a problem with the illusions that were used.


EDIT:

That being said, I don't think illusions can really "break" a scenario or a module. Sure they can be used smartly, and can defeat some encounters, but I don't see how they could do that in a "breaking" way.

Well my local DMs _do_ have a problem with illusions - so far each one has. I love the group - they're great people - but ... they all curb stomp illusion-use. Big time.

As to you don't see how an illusion could "break" a critical point in a module...really? Well, you might be thinking I mean "break" in a somewhat literal way. But what if I mean it in more of a figurative way? Like an illusion, if it works, could cause an entire group of monsters to be fooled and cancel out a fight? That "breaks" the critical point and harms the experience actually - actually what I'm fighting for here isn't necessarily good for module gaming - because the DM has little flexibility - some but not much - and the entire group of players technically loses the exp and possible loot from that fight if a creative illusion tricks the monsters in a way the module designers didn't realize could happen.

[StoicLeaf]

My take as a DM:

There's multiple components to this debate, the first is usually "can minor illusions animate?" and it just gets worse as you go along.

My advice:

1) talk to your DM about it. Particularly newer DMs don't like being put on the spot and that's exactly what an illusion does. A DM can't pre-plan for whatever you're going to pull out of your head. Convince your DM that, ultimately, you're burning your entire turn to "distract" or move the enemy into a more favourable position. That's all it does on a meta level, that's something he can "plan" around, and you get to feel useful again.

2) RP the spell a bit. Seen players that just "plop" down an illusion and expect it to do .. whatever. The DM isn't there to favourably fill in all the blanks for you. e.g. your box illusion, if you describe that as perfectly matching the other boxes in the room, perhaps a thin layer of dust on the top, etc. etc. you're framing the issue in the DMs mind. It'll be harder for him to earnestly narrate the proceedings in an incredulous way.

3) I don't think this applies to you, however: Don't think you're the best thing since sliced bread because you cast an illusion. Seen a lot of players expecting illusions to drastically alter the proceedings or expect enemies to be fooled by the same trick twice. i.e. wizard hides behind a chest high wall, they notice it isn't real, wizard is seen casting a spell, a wall appears out of thin air, wizard dives behind it, "but why are they shooting at me, surely they must think I'm harder to hit due to cover!".

4) Regarding seeing through your own illusions: I can swing either way on this one. I'd put it up for vote. Keep in mind, though, players are selfish jerks most of the time, my only warning/rule would be: "whatever you decide on, an enemy illusionist will have the same benefits."

[Pex]

4) Regarding seeing through your own illusions: I can swing either way on this one. I'd put it up for vote. Keep in mind, though, players are selfish jerks most of the time, my only warning/rule would be: "whatever you decide on, an enemy illusionist will have the same benefits."

They already do by default. When the bad guy uses an illusion the DM never prompts the players to make a saving throw or roll Investigate. Everything is presented as is and players waste time or resources to deal with it until they figure it out it's an illusion but then they still have to roll. Some DMs even get upset when just after the DM describes the scene a player immediately asks to roll to disbelieve with the DM in an accusing voice demanding to know why his character would do such a thing. There doesn't even have to be an illusion. It could all be real, but the DM gets upset the player's first action is wanting to disbelieve.

But just let a player try to do the same thing against an NPC . . .

[Unoriginal]

Well my local DMs _do_ have a problem with illusions - so far each one has. I love the group - they're great people - but ... they all curb stomp illusion-use. Big time.

Well, that's pretty bad. Have you tried talking to them outside of the sessions as to why they think that way on the issue?

Sometime they genuinely don't get the spells as they're intended to be, other time it's just petty "I don't want your toy to win against my toy" mentality, and there are plenty of other reasons, but identifying the root of the problem is often worthwhile.



Like an illusion, if it works, could cause an entire group of monsters to be fooled and cancel out a fight? That "breaks" the critical point and harms the experience actually

I don't see how it breaks the critical point. It solves the problem, and do so in a pretty awesome way. I don't see how it harms the experience either.

If the player manages to take out an entire group of monsters with one illusion, which is no little feat even with powerful illusions, then that player deserves praise.

Look at this like that: if the adventurers are about to fight monsters on a frozen lake, and then one of players think of breaking the ice under the monsters' feet and manages to do that, did the player break the encounter or harm the experience?


and the entire group of players technically loses the exp and possible loot from that fight if a creative illusion tricks the monsters in a way the module designers didn't realize could happen.

The group get the XP for overcoming the challenge, not for beating up people.

[Chugger]

They already do by default. When the bad guy uses an illusion the DM never prompts the players to make a saving throw or roll Investigate. Everything is presented as is and players waste time or resources to deal with it until they figure it out it's an illusion but then they still have to roll. Some DMs even get upset when just after the DM describes the scene a player immediately asks to roll to disbelieve with the DM in an accusing voice demanding to know why his character would do such a thing. There doesn't even have to be an illusion. It could all be real, but the DM gets upset the player's first action is wanting to disbelieve.

But just let a player try to do the same thing against an NPC . . .

AMEN! Say it, Brutha Pex!

[Chugger]

Well, that's pretty bad. Have you tried talking to them outside of the sessions as to why they think that way on the issue?

Sometime they genuinely don't get the spells as they're intended to be, other time it's just petty "I don't want your toy to win against my toy" mentality, and there are plenty of other reasons, but identifying the root of the problem is often worthwhile.



I don't see how it breaks the critical point. It solves the problem, and do so in a pretty awesome way. I don't see how it harms the experience either.

If the player manages to take out an entire group of monsters with one illusion, which is no little feat even with powerful illusions, then that player deserves praise.

Look at this like that: if the adventurers are about to fight monsters on a frozen lake, and then one of players think of breaking the ice under the monsters' feet and manages to do that, did the player break the encounter or harm the experience?



The group get the XP for overcoming the challenge, not for beating up people.

Yes, it's tricky - there's not a lot of time to talk to them. And you get new DMs all the time. It gets exhausting (trying to get a thorough rule interpretation each time - makes me feel like I'm the lawyer I'm not). And yes some of them don't know all the rules. I don't know all the rules.

I don't think you really get what I'm saying about "module gaming" and how an illusion really can "break" a critical point. You really shouldn't get ___ exp and ____ gold for not fighting the fight the way it was intended. And what I didn't point out earlier (my bad) was that in modules, if certain CPs don't go as scripted, the rest of the module makes no sense at all.

So if a gang of monsters comes by and you're really supposed to fight them - and kill them - and have their blood on your weapons to advance the script - but a clever jerk player figures out how to evade them with an illusion in a manner in which the designers didn't think (the player makes a "thing" that everyone hides in - the three monsters roll a 4, 6, and 8 on their investigation checks and don't suspect an illusion - and a player hiding inside the thing casts minor illusion to make the sound of distant footsteps fading to the east - and the monsters go east - the script is possibly quite _ruined_. Now do you see?

And you don't get full experience. Maybe a bit of it for evading - but yes we do get exp for fighting - and getting treasure - and ... you really can't see how this could break a scripted module? Am I still failing to explain what a scripted module is? Maybe it's my fault.

The answer is not to be heavy-handed and p00p on the players for trying something (though some players may deserve that - players can be abusive, yes) - but maybe for it to "almost work" - a clever DM would show respect that an effort was made but somehow save the scripted module and let it happen - maybe one of the monsters goes off east while the other two finally "discover" the party - maybe by "smelling" them - and then the lost monster enters the fight late, having missed 2 to 4 rounds being far away. Or let the party get away from this group - but have an identical second group of monsters appear in a made-up encounter so the script can go on. See, what I'm fighting for is kind of silly, really - I see this (yet I still fight, why? Please tell me! :D ). In DnD if we fight to get a ruling on a tactic that lets us put out a lot more damage than before, then we necessarily have to fight tougher and/or more monsters. In a scripted module certain things have to happen, so as a player I have to be very careful what I ask for - I just might get it! I know this is weird. Am I arguing against myself? Maybe, maybe not. It is more exciting and satisfying to be able to take down tougher things at a lower level - but we're threatening to get seriously existential here. Before someone starts quoting Nietzsche or Camus, perhaps I should come back down to earth!

[90sMusic]

DMs cheat. Always have, always will. 99% of them play the game to win instead of facilitating a good experience for the players.

I've played in many, many games and the best uses of illusions and most appropriate responses to them are when players use them against other players. Usually just joking around or having fun with it. Player A will whisper to the DM what they're going to do and what illusions they want to happen, then the DM narrates whats going on.

You suddenly hear a dragon roaring off in the distance? Oh crap, panic mode.
You see a beholder come around that corner and start looking at you, the ranger starts shooting at it and the barbarian goes into a rage immediately on seeing it.

The players don't know it's an illusion, their characters don't know it's an illusion, they all react appropriately. When you use illusions against a DM though... They already know it is one and they will cheat because that is just how most people that DM operate. They either make their characters immediately believe it is an illusion and ignore it, or they (as a free action of course) make an investigation roll to see if they can tell if it's real or not, etc.

Again, real people don't work this way. They never have. Just try it in any game you play in, whisper the DM some illusion you're going to use on another player and everyone in the party will think whatever they're seeing is actually happening. Every. Single. Time.

I played with a DM who pulled that same stuff but in our group of friends, we each hosted our own games as DM and played in each other's game, so basically different days of the week we were all DMs for different games with the same people. When one of the DMs was making illusions worthless in our game, we started using illusions against him as a player in another game. After he was fooled a number of times and could really witness firsthand just how wrong he'd been to treat illusions the way he had been and that "oh well, he would just know its fake" attitude, he actually started responding to them properly. Sometimes they just don't realize how bad they are cheating and fudging the system. Other times they do it deliberately because they're jerkoffs.