Using Minor Illusion to blind a foe?

[samcifer]

So yesterday I was replaying an encounter in my head where the party encountered a pair of t-rexes and another player had me use Minor Illusion to make a bow appear on the head of the smaller rex. But what if I instead used MI to create a blindfold on the dino. Since it covers the eyes, would that count as the creature being blinded? Is such a move legal?

[nickl_2000]

My answer is no it wouldn't be allowed. There are already multiple other spells that cause blindness, use one of them.

Even if you were to allow it, Minor Illusion doesn't move. It's a static image that is created. So, you create a blindfold around the T-Rex's eyes. The creature in surprise jerks it's head back and is now no longer covered by the blindfold.

Also threads about Minor Illusion
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?368641-Best-Uses-for-Minor-Illusion

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?519949-Help-me-understand-this-Minor-Illusion-quot-Inviisibility-quot-trick!

[Lombra]

With minor illusion I think not, because the image you project has to be still, but you can do so with phantasmal force for sure.

[samcifer]

Interesting because the larger rex tried to claw off the bow and injured the eye of the smaller rex I put it on when I did so, which made me want to ask this question (the one above)

[nickl_2000]

Interesting because the larger rex tried to claw off the bow and injured the eye of the smaller rex I put it on when I did so, which made me want to ask this question (the one above)

Then your DM was very permissive with the use of minor illusion, it very possible that your trick will work at your table. At most others it won't.

[Willie the Duck]

Or that the minor illusion can move, so long as you don't abuse the privilege. :smallbiggrin:

We have always played that illusions can block line of sight (even if you disbelieve them), so creating a 5' square of wall might 'blind' an opponent to what is beyond it. But the opponent can just stick their head through or move around it or whatever.

[samcifer]

Or that the minor illusion can move, so long as you don't abuse the privilege. :smallbiggrin:

We have always played that illusions can block line of sight (even if you disbelieve them), so creating a 5' square of wall might 'blind' an opponent to what is beyond it. But the opponent can just stick their head through or move around it or whatever.

Well I created a boulder at first, but the t-rexes were navigating by scent, and as far as I know, there's no way to mask your scent with any cantrip or lv. 1 spell, and few of any other levels that could do so. Stinking Cloud is the only one that comes to mind that can affect scent and smelling.

[nickl_2000]

Well I created a boulder at first, but the t-rexes were navigating by scent, and as far as I know, there's no way to mask your scent with any cantrip or lv. 1 spell, and few of any other levels that could do so. Stinking Cloud is the only one that comes to mind that can affect scent and smelling.

It's not perfect, but Druidcraft can create a scent that fills a 5 foot cube.

[Pex]

Well I created a boulder at first, but the t-rexes were navigating by scent, and as far as I know, there's no way to mask your scent with any cantrip or lv. 1 spell, and few of any other levels that could do so. Stinking Cloud is the only one that comes to mind that can affect scent and smelling.

Prestidigitation can create an odor. It won't mask your party's scent, but you could create a competing scent the dinosaur might follow instead. A DM giving the dinosaur an Intelligence save vs your DC would be reasonable. If fail it follows your fake scent.

[samcifer]

Prestidigitation can create an odor. It won't mask your party's scent, but you could create a competing scent the dinosaur might follow instead. A DM giving the dinosaur an Intelligence save vs your DC would be reasonable. If fail it follows your fake scent.

Okay, I'll keep that one in mind...

[Dalebert]

If any creature touches the illusion, they immediately know it's an illusion and can see through it.

[Danielqueue1]

If any creature touches the illusion, they immediately know it's an illusion and can see through it.

can you quote the part of the books that state that in fifth edition? I know that was a thing in 3rd, but I have yet to see such a rule in 5th edition.

[Jerrykhor]

can you quote the part of the books that state that in fifth edition? I know that was a thing in 3rd, but I have yet to see such a rule in 5th edition.

The text for Minor Illusion itself says so, like most of the illusion spells.

[Laserlight]

So yesterday I was replaying an encounter in my head where the party encountered a pair of t-rexes and another player had me use Minor Illusion to make a bow appear on the head of the smaller rex. But what if I instead used MI to create a blindfold on the dino. Since it covers the eyes, would that count as the creature being blinded? Is such a move legal?

No. Physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion, whereupon the target can see through it.

Also, Blind as a cantrip would be stupidly overpowered.

If the target was restrained and Small, such as a gnome you've tied up, you could drop MI (of a box, for example) around it. If he can't move to touch it, he will be blinded until he figures out that it's an illusion.

[sir_argo]

Ok. This is close to something I was thinking about the other day. I hope it isn't totally off topic.

I was thinking that if an enemy engages one of my fellow party members in melee, and I have nothing better to do with my action, could I put up an illusion of a curtain between them allowing my friend to walk away without having to use the disengage action?

Orc's turn: engages my friend Joe the Mage
My turn: Minor Illusion of curtain between orc and Joe.
Joe's turn: walks away without using the Disengage action

There is limited ability to use this effectively. Turn order has to fall right. During the orc's turn, it would be of no hindrance for him to just walk around the illusion. And really, I'm giving up my action to save Joe's action. But the main thing is that it would block the orc's vision for just enough time to let Joe slip away. This would work, right?

[Beelzebubba]

Seriously, you are trying to use that one spell to be equivalent to other actual spells of higher level.

If the spell said it could allow people to disengage, it would say so. It doesn't.

Just stop it.

Players like you are the reason why 3E got so ridiculous with the rules bloat. Trying to BS your way into stretching things as far as you can, every time you possibly can.

[Warwick]

Seriously, you are trying to use that one spell to be equivalent to other actual spells of higher level.

If the spell said it could allow people to disengage, it would say so. It doesn't.

Welcome to the fundamental problem of illusion spells. Many of them don't explicitly do anything but create an image, and are incredibly good if your GM lets you get creative with them and hot garbage if they don't.

Also:


You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach.

If a minor illusion is actually fully obscuring you from your enemy (doubtful unless you/they aren't very tall), they don't get an opportunity attack.

[mer.c]

It's pretty easy for the DM to rationalize that an NPC seeing a curtain spring up out of nowhere would think "That's probably an illusion," immediately boop it with their finger/foot/elbow, and then see through it. Personally I'm flexible about not needing to wait for your turn for very simple (small-a) actions like shouting a word or two, and would put this in the same category.

But like all things illusion, again, it's going to vary DM to DM.

[Dalebert]

If the spell said it could allow people to disengage, it would say so. It doesn't.

Just stop it.

Players like you are the reason why 3E got so ridiculous with the rules bloat. Trying to BS your way into stretching things as far as you can, every time you possibly can.

Dude... chill. It's an illusion that would block vision. It doesn't _do_ anything really beyond creative ways you can come up with for it. It's also hardly broken for one character go give up their entire action to grant an extremely limited benefit to another character that would require their action. There are often ways that one spell might provide a benefit that another spell offers though in a limited context.

That said, the spell is limited to a 5 ft cube volume so you'd be making a five foot high curtain. Unless both creatures are small, I don't think that would work. My general rule as DM is to grant rule of cool one time when you do something clever, kind of a "you got lucky and got away with it this time" bonus. It's cool that one time. It's not cool anymore when you're just trying to get excessive mechanical benefit cheaply and repetitively.

Now a warlock with Silent Image at will can easily get away with that trick. That's a much bigger investment--an invocation opportunity cost plus your precious action. Silent Image easily has the area you need to pull it off. You could make a wall there, a fog or other heavy obscurement, etc. It definitely blocks vision at least until they can touch it or investigate.

[Waterdeep Merch]

If a minor illusion is actually fully obscuring you from your enemy (doubtful unless you/they aren't very tall), they don't get an opportunity attack.

Better to create the illusion of a brick box with an opening for the direction you want your friend to run towards. Unless discussed ahead of time, it would be metagaming for your friend to know it's an illusion, same as for any of your enemies. Unless they use a reaction to identify the spell cast, apparently.

I don't see anything broken with a caster using their action to effectively grant a disengage. It's not even a weird interpretation of the spell. I've used it similarly as a player to create the appearance of a stone wall with a crenel, giving my archer cover so long as nothing gets close enough to inspect it/dispel it.

[Tanarii]

Orc's turn: engages my friend Joe the Mage
My turn: Minor Illusion of curtain between orc and Joe.
Joe's turn: walks away without using the Disengage action

There is limited ability to use this effectively. Turn order has to fall right. During the orc's turn, it would be of no hindrance for him to just walk around the illusion. And really, I'm giving up my action to save Joe's action. But the main thing is that it would block the orc's vision for just enough time to let Joe slip away. This would work, right?
No, because Joe and the Orc aren't static miniatures standing perfectly still within their spaces, so that you can perfectly place an image between them without one or the other interacting with it immediately. Especially if one or both has been engaging in melee combat.

Edit: one of the best uses of the spell is definitely the 'summon wall in front of me and duck behind it' tricks. It doesn't provide any real cover, and any enemy can just pop off a ranged attack to interact with it and reveal it to everyone. But they're unlikely to unless they have special reason to, and the DM should have enemies act accordingly. IMO, formed after LONG debates in other threads, it's a reasonable use of an illusion. Exactly the kind of thing they're intended for really. It won't always work, but it should often work given reasonable leeway.

But trying to put it in between two characters in melee? No way that's going to work.

[Waterdeep Merch]

No, because Joe and the Orc aren't static miniatures standing perfectly still within their spaces, so that you can perfectly place an image between them without one or the other interacting with it immediately. Especially if one or both has been engaging in melee combat.

Edit: one of the best uses of the spell is definitely the 'summon wall in front of me and duck behind it' tricks. It doesn't provide any real cover, and any enemy can just pop off a ranged attack to interact with it and reveal it to everyone. But they're unlikely to unless they have special reason to, and the DM should have enemies act accordingly. IMO, formed after LONG debates in other threads, it's a reasonable use of an illusion. Exactly the kind of thing they're intended for really. It won't always work, but it should often work given reasonable leeway.

But trying to put it in between two characters in melee? No way that's going to work.
That's a fair assessment. I've never had anyone use it directly within melee like this, though I did have a wizard protect an injured rogue this way after they disengaged from a dragon into a small hole. They rightly feared that the dragon was about to use it's breath attack, which it did immediately afterwards. Thanks to the wizard's clever trick, the dragon focused it on the wizard- the dragon had no precise reason to believe the wizard had simply cast an illusion and not an actual wall spell. The dragon only figured out something was amiss after dropping the wizard didn't drop the wall.

That's the reason I prefer creating wall variants in combat- it could potentially be a tangible wall cast using one of the wall spells.

[Tanarii]

Of course, spending a reaction to try and identify it as its being cast makes illusions a bit less useful.

Otoh I know some players would consider a creature spending it's reaction to be worth more than the effect they were originally hoping to achieve, so maybe that's a wash. Especially given its by no means a sure thing the enemy will pass a DC 15+spell level Arcana check.

[mer.c]

I'm still having a hard time seeing everyone just assuming that the illusions are real if they see it materialize in front of them. There are some spells that could just materialize cover out of thin air, but they're much less commonplace than the illusion magics that image the same things. Of course this isn't an issue with unintelligent beings, and doesn't apply to casting ahead of combat. But it stretches credibility to me to think that someone watching mage Minor Illusion cover into existence wouldn't at least be suspicious enough to, say, try firing a shot at the archer behind the cover as if the cover weren't there, see the arrow fly through, and then see through the illusion from then on. Or if in melee range, move a limb a few inches to see if it's tangible.

Note that this isn't me trying to depower illusion magic (I've never DMed for anyone who uses those spells, and I'm using Minor Illusion myself). I'm just looking to play the NPCs/monsters in a way that makes sense.

[Eradis]

If used right, Minor Illusion can blind someone to an extend even with a ruthless GM. If the image you create does not touch the creature but block his line of sight, it is a way blind. Of course if you make a bed sheet appear before a dinosaur, it might run at it and get you after a small hesitation in the same round, could be freaked out by magic (which is always fun), it might go around it, or even pick a new target.

This cantrip is not that great about aware intelligent being, but honestly, against savage beast, I see no reason with you couldn't exploit some of its charm. I mean, even in real life, you see starved guard dogs waiting for you on the other side of the fence, even trying to get to you; you throw some meat, if you are really lucky, you can pass, if not it gives you at least a moment of diversion, but otherwise, keep throwing that occasional steak without crossing the fence and one day you will be able to walk right through. Sure it's no illusion and it takes time, but wild animals, depending on which species, can be easily manipulated. Again, think of a dog chasing the ball you never threw or the mice you let run in the labyrinth to reach the cheese.

[Tanarii]

I'm still having a hard time seeing everyone just assuming that the illusions are real if they see it materialize in front of them. There are some spells that could just materialize cover out of thin air, but they're much less commonplace than the illusion magics that image the same things. Of course this isn't an issue with unintelligent beings, and doesn't apply to casting ahead of combat. But it stretches credibility to me to think that someone watching mage Minor Illusion cover into existence wouldn't at least be suspicious enough to, say, try firing a shot at the archer behind the cover as if the cover weren't there, see the arrow fly through, and then see through the illusion from then on. Or if in melee range, move a limb a few inches to see if it's tangible.

Note that this isn't me trying to depower illusion magic (I've never DMed for anyone who uses those spells, and I'm using Minor Illusion myself). I'm just looking to play the NPCs/monsters in a way that makes sense.If all intelligent enemies in your world are so familiar with magic that they might guess that objects appearing out of nowhere are most likely to be a minor illusion spell, then sure, it's internally consistent in your world. If magic is something relatively rare (outside of PCs of course, where it's always common) then that's pretty unlikely.

I took your stance for a while, in fact I argued if low level adventuring wizards were using this trick constantly against low level goblins etc, then pretty rapidly all low level goblins would know about it.

I finally succumbed to one realization and one understanding knocked into my head by other posters:
- my campaigns never has magic so common that "intelligent enemies" (or "humanoids" vs generic adventuring parties) are knowledgable enough they will assume that objects, specifically, suddenly appearing on the battlefield are Minor Illusions.
- if enemies generally assume magic is illusions, they should behave that way with all magic. Given that all magic is not illusions, this will get them badly hurt or dead pretty quick.

The only way I can see it being commonly known is if it's a common battlefield technique for a large organization of war wizards or something. Than many people will have seen in use on the field of battle.

Other than that, it'll depend specifically on the enemy. Any arcane caster is probably a safe bet to be suspicious, for starters.

Edit: basically the most likely reason you're thinking like this is basically: you know there isn't a magic D&D spell that provides a 5x5ft wall or crate for cover. I've you have meta knowledge. What if it was a sudden berm of earth appearing to provide cover, as would be caused by the Move Earth Cantrip. Since you have meta knowledge that this Cantrip exists, would your credibility be less stretched? I'm guessing probably.

Now add in how likely the "intelligent enemy" is to have as much knowledge of D&D magic as you do. Most likely, it stretches credibility that they have anything resembling the knowledge you have IRL. At least, for any that aren't casters themselves, and even then you'd probably leave the vast majority of them in the dust.

[Willie the Duck]

This cantrip is not that great about aware intelligent being, but honestly, against savage beast, I see no reason with you couldn't exploit some of its charm.

I wouldn't write off the aware intelligent being, either. Think about how many times in a day you just take something at face value. Enemy comes to a barred door. Do they bother testing that the bar is real, or go off looking for another entrance? Hide in a alcove and cover the indenting with a false wall--would they bother checking for insubstantial walls. The trick with intelligent entities is to create an object that the viewer's behavior is changed without them ever then interacting with the thing.

[Temperjoke]

Minor Illusion can do sounds or images, and sometimes a sound might be more distracting than an image. For example, in the t-rex scenario, a challenging roar from the bushes might distract a hunting t-rex. An enemy hearing "look out!" or "duck!" might pause and look or react, giving your ally a chance to move away. Fighting on ice is terrifying if you start hearing cracks from around you, but can't see where it's breaking.

[Dalebert]

I took your stance for a while, in fact I argued if low level adventuring wizards were using this trick constantly against low level goblins etc, then pretty rapidly all low level goblins would know about it.

I remember arguments like this too. It always seemed like a stretch to me because I can't remember encountering goblins or similar monsters and leaving any alive to tell such a tale. When we did, it's because we literally recruited them as henchman.

[Tanarii]

I remember arguments like this too. It always seemed like a stretch to me because I can't remember encountering goblins or similar monsters and leaving any alive to tell such a tale. When we did, it's because we literally recruited them as henchman.
/shrug I've had plent of parties TPK or had to flee (usually leaving several dead party members behind) vs Goblins or other humanoids, across every edition of D&D, both as a player and a DM. And NPC adventuring parties aren't usually assumed to be better than PCs.

But the main assumption implicit was that there are many NPC adventuring parties doing what the PCs are doing. To the point of FR-like official adventuring companies. This is by no means necessarily a good assumption, although at least two major settings (FR & Mystara's Known World) include it.