Hiding Behind a Minor Illusion

[Thrasher92]

Hey, I KNOW that we have discussed this topic before here in the forum. But, I can't seem to be able to find it.

Could anyone tell me what the ruling is on using Minor Illusion to make an illusion of say... a box or a big rock, and then using it to hide behind? Or putting the illusion on top of yourself?

Or, if anyone could link the thread where it was previously discussed, that would be a big help to me.

[Chugger]

There is no good ruling on it. It's your bargaining power vs your DM's attitude on illusions.

DMs usually hate illusions because players try to use them to break the game.

So, if you use a minor illusion to get a laugh out of combat, it will probably work - you're not breaking the game.

But lets say you use one to cause a crate to appear on the floor of a warehouse you're fighting in just as kobolds enter from the other side. A typical DM will, without rolling perception checks, have the kobolds meta-know it's an illusion and you will get no benefit hiding behind it. You will be humiliated by the DM if you argue and be stiff-armed into dropping your argument, as you're being unreasonable and slowing down the game, all over your stupid fluff box.

Which is totally wrong.

The only way to win this is to smile and say, "Look, it's not like I'm breaking the game here. I burned an action casting the illusion as they were busy entering. This is a warehouse - you expect to see crates in it - we were fanning out so there's lots of motion - it's not like all of them are going to notice the box appearing. And if I burn an action to make an illusion, why can't they burn an action determining it's one? Why do they get to meta know what it is - when you know that's not right. I get that some illusion use threatens the game, but come on - I just want to hide behind this box and get off one sneak attack - how is that breaking your game? They'll shoot back at me next round, see their sling stones go right through the box, and then they'll have interacted with it - and that is basically how it's supposed to work.

Expect the above to fail with some DMs. I've noticed extreme hatred of illusions in this game. They will almost never work. If you have a cool DM then maybe, maybe they will sometimes gain minor benefits. I have never once yet been able to have a voice appear to the side "hey they're going this way" and have it work, for example.

[mer.c]

Hey, I KNOW that we have discussed this topic before here in the forum. But, I can't seem to be able to find it.

Could anyone tell me what the ruling is on using Minor Illusion to make an illusion of say... a box or a big rock, and then using it to hide behind? Or putting the illusion on top of yourself?

Or, if anyone could link the thread where it was previously discussed, that would be a big help to me.

IMO as a DM, this is totally fine and not really even in the realm of DM fiat. If they investigate, sure, but excepting a good reason to check it out (i.e. you create the image while they're looking at that spot), you're good.

If your DM is an ass about it, and that can happen, then it might be time to find a new DM. But despite horror stories a few people have, I don't think this exact thing is a big issue.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I basically DM it as being able to perform basically any effect another cantrip would be able to. Once players start to try and push the boundaries, they're getting a flat no. Your example of boxes in a warehouse? I'd totally allow it - move earth can create cover, so I'd be totally down. Balanced around the fact that people are going to realize that it's an illusion, but you'd definitely get at least some use out of it.

[krugaan]

I'll just drop this conundrum:

"Can you make a minor illusion of a 5'x5'x5' hole"

..and see myself out.

/flees

[DarkKnightJin]

I basically DM it as being able to perform basically any effect another cantrip would be able to. Once players start to try and push the boundaries, they're getting a flat no. Your example of boxes in a warehouse? I'd totally allow it - move earth can create cover, so I'd be totally down. Balanced around the fact that people are going to realize that it's an illusion, but you'd definitely get at least some use out of it.

I feel this is the way to handle it.
Extra box in a warehouse full of the things? Yeah, they are gonna have some trouble quickly figuring out if one is an illusion.
Sudden barrel in an alley where none are supposed to be? They're gonna be suspicious and check it out.

It should make sense. Not sure on the AC bonus cover would give, since it's not a physical item blocking their attacks. I might rule a +1 to AC because they're likely to aim where the cover isn't.
You get a minor benefit for a bit, but if they miss by 1, I'm also ruling that they saw their attack go through the 'cover', and that bonus is now void against that enemy.

[sithlordnergal]

It really does depend on the DM. While the above posters have the right idea, and I would rule it in a similar manner, I have had DMs that ignore illusions. Although I tend to use Phantasmal Force on such DMs, because the spell itself states the target fully believes in the illusion and will rationalize the illusion.

That said, I have also had great success with Minor Illusion. From making distracting sounds, to hiding, and changing a thing's appearence. So yes, you can hide in an illusion made by minor illusion. Just make sure you know your dm.

[Dalebert]

It should make sense. Not sure on the AC bonus cover would give, since it's not a physical item blocking their attacks.

If you can't see someone, you have disadvantage on attacks, even if you know where they are. If they also can't see you, that grants you advantage and cancels out to a normal attack. The way to do this would be to make a 5x5 wall and touch your side of it. As long as the wall is thick enough that they don't see your finger stick out the other side (witness physical interaction), then now you can see through it but they can't, imposing disadvantage on just one attack. It's not at all broken to burn an action to impose disadvantage on one attack considering you could've just dodged and imposed disadvantage on all attacks.

[Tanarii]

Works fine as long as there is no physical interaction with it, which will make it faint to all creatures. So you can't put it on top of you. But if you put it between you and an enemy, and they can't see you (no line of sight), at the bare minimum they'll have disadvantage on the first attack. Effectively a no-save Vicious Mockery against ranged attacks when they can't get line of sight.

Of course, it's not necessarily reasonable for a DM to have a creature attack you. And if the creature didn't know you were there to begin with, an appropriate object to the terrain would certainly make for a great hiding spot.


I'll just drop this conundrum:

"Can you make a minor illusion of a 5'x5'x5' hole"

..and see myself out.

/fleesOh, that's just evil. :smallamused:

[Laserlight]

I'll just drop this conundrum:

"Can you make a minor illusion of a 5'x5'x5' hole"

..and see myself out.

/flees

No. You can make a Minor Illusion of an object, but a hole isn't an object.

If you start with a whole hole, you might MI a half hole. :-)

[krugaan]

No. You can make a Minor Illusion of an object, but a hole isn't an object.

If you start with a whole hole, you might MI a half hole. :-)

Oooooh. A mirror then. A mirror is an object, right?

[Tanarii]

Oooooh. A mirror then. A mirror is an object, right?
hahahaha stop being evil.

[Demonslayer666]

As a DM I would allow you to create an illusion of an object that you can hide behind or in, but it would depend on the situation. If you were observed doing it, or it was out of place, they would likely try to discern if it was an illusion. A wizard would know you cast an illusion. A goblin would likely be fooled, and may even think you turned into a box. Etc, etc.

If you had time to prepare and were not observed doing it, they would not likely even get to roll as long as the illusion fit the surroundings.

Like others have already mentioned, this is highly dependent on the DM.

[Mjolnirbear]

I feel this is the way to handle it.
Extra box in a warehouse full of the things? Yeah, they are gonna have some trouble quickly figuring out if one is an illusion.
Sudden barrel in an alley where none are supposed to be? They're gonna be suspicious and check it out.

It should make sense. Not sure on the AC bonus cover would give, since it's not a physical item blocking their attacks. I might rule a +1 to AC because they're likely to aim where the cover isn't.
You get a minor benefit for a bit, but if they miss by 1, I'm also ruling that they saw their attack go through the 'cover', and that bonus is now void against that enemy.

Cover is a physical thing. I'd rule no AC bonus. They just can't see you. So if they don't know you're there and don't interact with the crate, you're fine. No one runs around attacking innocent crates when there are armed ruffians about.

[krugaan]

hahahaha stop being evil.

I'll stop at mirror and not bring up "curtain in a castle window" then.

Edit: that was seriously, like, the longest thread ever.

Edit 2: nevermind, only 23 pages

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?482838-Minor-Illusion

[Zippee]

Hey, I KNOW that we have discussed this topic before here in the forum. But, I can't seem to be able to find it.

Could anyone tell me what the ruling is on using Minor Illusion to make an illusion of say... a box or a big rock, and then using it to hide behind? Or putting the illusion on top of yourself?

Or, if anyone could link the thread where it was previously discussed, that would be a big help to me.

I've had almost that exact experience with one of my players.

An illusory crate in a warehouse to hide behind - no problem

Similarly a rock on a hillside as a thing to hide behind and thus generate stealth - no problem.

The issue began when he tried to advance up the hillside by casting another rock ahead of him and running from one rock to another . . . err no that's going to look very, very obvious as rocks just appear from nowhere.

Mostly it comes down to line of sight: if the object is created out of sight then fine but creating it in LOS not so much - also remember that when they use it as cover to shoot from, it doesn't actually act as physical cover. And arrows passing through the rock/crate are going to give the game away quite quickly.

[Dalebert]

Works fine as long as there is no physical interaction with it, which will make it faint to all creatures.

The spell says physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion. So if you don't witness the physical interaction, nothing was revealed to you. It's not like the illusion is a soap bubble that's very fragile and pops if anyone touches it. That's why I suggest you could touch one side of it out of view of others and it would be transparent to you and others on your side of the wall but not people on the other side who didn't see your finger pass through the wall.


Cover is a physical thing. I'd rule no AC bonus. They just can't see you.

There's a mechanic for not being able to see something you're attacking--disadvantage. If you can't see the attacker--advantage. If both are true, they cancel out to a normal attack.


The issue began when he tried to advance up the hillside by casting another rock ahead of him and running from one rock to another . . . err no that's going to look very, very obvious as rocks just appear from nowhere.

There's a more obvious reason that won't work. Minor Illusion states the illusion ends if you cast the spell again. So you only have one rock at a time.


Mostly it comes down to line of sight: if the object is created out of sight then fine but creating it in LOS not so much - also remember that when they use it as cover to shoot from, it doesn't actually act as physical cover. And arrows passing through the rock/crate are going to give the game away quite quickly.

That's why you always make a wall with a murder hole to shoot out of.

[Zippee]

There's a mechanic for not being able to see something you're attacking--disadvantage. If you can't see the attacker--advantage. If both are true, they cancel out to a normal attack.

If the enemy can't see you because you're entirely behind the illusion - hiding (my player was a gnome so no issue being fully concealed) then they can't target you. If they can see you because you use the illusion as cover then that's fine, you get half or 3/4 cover as usual. The next bit depends on whether you think that AC bonus is because you're harder to target because it's harder to see you or harder to hit because the wall physically blocks attacks. If the former then the target gets the AC bonus, if the latter they don't. And it's fair to argue that an attack that would hit without the AC bonus would still hit as it passed through the illusion so really it's moot.



There's a more obvious reason that won't work. Minor Illusion states the illusion ends if you cast the spell again. So you only have one rock at a time.

Yeah but the first rock stays in place until you complete casting MI again, at which point the next illusory rock is in place and in line with the last so you creep up behind the same LOS blockage. Only having rocks appear from nowhere is a bit of a giveaway.




That's why you always make a wall with a murder hole to shoot out of.

Yeah because a 5' wall appearing in the middle of a hillside would be even more believable! Even in a building/dungeon environment having a wall blink into existence is going to raise eyebrows - albeit there are a number of ways a wall can be generated. And besides that's just 3/4 cover - they can still target you and the wall doesn't help as it's a bogus AC bonus.

You can use the ploy as a method of giving you something to hide behind (and thus gain stealth) but generating a thing in full LOS is dodgy. In a confused or hectic warehouse environment with stacks of crates you might get away with it but on an otherwise bare hillside not so much.

[Tanarii]

The spell says physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion. So if you don't witness the physical interaction, nothing was revealed to you. It's not like the illusion is a soap bubble that's very fragile and pops if anyone touches it. That's why I suggest you could touch one side of it out of view of others and it would be transparent to you and others on your side of the wall but not people on the other side who didn't see your finger pass through the wall.The spell says physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion. It doesn't say the interaction needs to be observed, nor that it only applies to a sub-set of people.

5e Illusions that are revealed by physical interaction are exactly like soap bubbles that pop if anyone or anything touches them.

Edit: that said, this does depend on the DM determining that the physical interaction rule actually makes the illusion go faint. IIRC some folks claim that since the 'faint' clause is associated with the investigation clause, physical interaction doesn't actually make it go faint, it requires an actual investigation check. It just lets creatures know it's an illusion so they can act accordingly. I don't agree with that, but it certainly would make illusions less soap-bubble-like.

[krugaan]

The spell says physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion. It doesn't say the interaction needs to be observed, nor that it only applies to a sub-set of people.

5e Illusions that are revealed by physical interaction are exactly like soap bubbles that pop if anyone or anything touches them.

Don't they turn translucent and insubstantial when you successfully disbelieve them? So really, they turn INTO soap bubbles when physically interacted with.

Also ... are you sure that's right? It doesn't make sense that it's a one for all deal, particularly if you're inclined to allow minor illusion (or illusions in general) to cover up things.

[NecessaryWeevil]

The spell says physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion. It doesn't say the interaction needs to be observed, nor that it only applies to a sub-set of people.

5e Illusions that are revealed by physical interaction are exactly like soap bubbles that pop if anyone or anything touches them.


It doesn't say the interaction doesn't need to be observed, either, so we're left to decide which reading makes more sense. And I don't see why an interaction I didn't observe would tell me that it's an illusion.

Also, regarding Dalebert's suggestion about touching one side, if I'm the caster then I don't need to prove to myself that it's an illusion. I already know.

[Dalebert]

If the enemy can't see you because you're entirely behind the illusion - hiding (my player was a gnome so no issue being fully concealed) then they can't target you.

They can always guess where you are and, if they guess correctly, attack with disadvantage. If you were out in the open and a 5 ft wall just appeared in front of you, I have a pretty good guess where you are. I would attack with disadvantage. If you're talking about targeting you with spells, then you would be correct with regard to many spells, i.e. the ones that say you must be able to see the target. Not all have that reqt.


Yeah because a 5' wall appearing in the middle of a hillside would be even more believable!

It's not that much more unbelievable that they conjured an actual wall. Magic does stuff like that as well as illusions.


And besides that's just 3/4 cover - they can still target you and the wall doesn't help as it's a bogus AC bonus.

I think you're right with Minor Illusions. This is something I normally do with Silent Image where it's big enough to fire through the hole and then step to one side and get complete concealment.


The spell says physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion.

The most obvious intent here is that if you watch something solid pass through another object, that object must not be real. Thus it is "revealed" to be an illusion because you witnessed that impossibility. If the intent here was that the illusion becomes insubstantial to everyone for the rest of the duration if anything touches it, then it's useless anyway. Why not just say it ends if there's any physical interaction? That would remove any ambiguity of interpretation. Thus I interpret it in the most straight-forward and intuitive way, i.e. the former.


It doesn't say the interaction needs to be observed, nor that it only applies to a sub-set of people.

There's no need to make the cantrip description unduly elaborate when this is the natural and intuitive interpretation. Also Crawford agrees with me (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/11/26/silent-image-to-create-mist-or-light-rays-is-it-revealed-as-an-illusion-when-objects-pass-through/). The exact same verbiage is used for Silent Image--"physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion".

Crawford: "you notice it's illusory because it doesn't respond to your passage naturally."

A realization is taking place in your mind based on what you saw. The illusion itself is unaffected by the physical interaction.


Also, regarding Dalebert's suggestion about touching one side, if I'm the caster then I don't need to prove to myself that it's an illusion. I already know.

Yes, you know it's an illusion but it's still blocking your LoS. The spell requires you to either spend an action to successfully investigate it or to physically interact to see through it. The latter is faster--a free action.

It's like an optical illusion. Think of the girl spinning and that she represents a 3D girl spinning clockwise but also counter-clockwise depending on your point of view. You've seen her spin one way and someone convinced you she can spin either way. You finally manage to envision her going the other way and your mind is blown. Now you KNOW it's possible, but it still takes concentration and effort to SEE it and sometimes it takes longer than others for it to finally flip directions because it's a very convincing optical illusion.

[Tanarii]

The most obvious intent here is that if you watch something solid pass through another object, that object must not be real. Thus it is "revealed" to be an illusion because you witnessed that impossibility. If the intent here was that the illusion becomes insubstantial to everyone for the rest of the duration if anything touches it, then it's useless anyway. Why not just say it ends if there's any physical interaction? That would remove any ambiguity of interpretation. Thus I interpret it in the most straight-forward and intuitive way, i.e. the former.



There's no need to make the cantrip description unduly elaborate when this is the natural and intuitive interpretation. Also Crawford agrees with me (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/11/26/silent-image-to-create-mist-or-light-rays-is-it-revealed-as-an-illusion-when-objects-pass-through/). The exact same verbiage is used for Silent Image--"physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion".

Crawford: "you notice it's illusory because it doesn't respond to your passage naturally."

A realization is taking place in your mind based on what you saw. The illusion itself is unaffected by the physical interaction.
I don't agree it's obvious, natural or intuitive. But thank you for the Crawford link. Not that I think it means what you're trying to imply it means.

TBH if I was going to change my interpetation/ruling on Illusions so that it didn't apply to everyone on any physical interaction, I think I be most likely to go with the other interpretation that an Action & Investigation check is the only way to make it go faint, per it being a separate clause. Physical interaction would still reveal it to be an illusion, so creatures could act accordingly. They just wouldn't be able to see through it until they used an action though. It'd certainly buff up the power of illusions-as-concealment. Not sure if I'd want that though. But it would apply in either direction. Ie that would apply to the caster too.

[Zippee]

They can always guess where you are and, if they guess correctly, attack with disadvantage. If you were out in the open and a 5 ft wall just appeared in front of you, I have a pretty good guess where you are. I would attack with disadvantage. If you're talking about targeting you with spells, then you would be correct with regard to many spells, i.e. the ones that say you must be able to see the target. Not all have that reqt.I interpret it in the most straight-forward and intuitive way, i.e. the former.

I disagree with this, in order to guess I'm there you have to have reason to suspect I'm there. If you can't see me because of darkness or invisibility, then yes you can guess (although the RAW is vague on this mechanically IMO) if you beat my stealth. However if you can't see me because I'm [totally concealed] on the other side of a stone wall - say in the next room, you can't target me with disadvantage, you just plain can't target me. If I'm successfully hiding / stealthed, you can't target me (only if I'm unseen and you succeeded in perception v my stealth could you legitimately target me by guessing).

I think with the murder hole issue we're disagreeing on the nature of cover v hidden. If a character shoots from behind cover he must by definition be able to be targeted, you cannot claim total cover IMO and shoot. Total cover is complete concealment, if there is a murder hole and you're using it to shoot through, that's 3/4 cover and you can be targeted. Hiding and successful stealth after shooting may change that but then we're back to having disadvantage for being unseen and the wall is still a bogus AC bonus.

Feel free to rule as you see fit but I'd be a salty player if you targeted my unknown, unseen hiding character with AOE spells in such a situation - being caught in an AOE aimed at others is fine. I'd be very salty if you claimed you could target me directly whilst fully concealed behind an [illusory] solid wall/rock/crate - unless I was actively using it as cover to shoot from as above.

[Tanarii]

However if you can't see me because I'm [totally concealed] on the other side of a stone wall - say in the next room, you can't target me with disadvantage, you just plain can't target me. If I'm successfully hiding / stealthed, you can't target me (only if I'm unseen and you succeeded in perception v my stealth could you legitimately target me by guessing).
With an attack? Of course you can, to both of these.

In the case of total cover behind a wall, you'll just be shooting the wall, as well as guessing location, so it doesn't matter normally. Waste those arrows!

In the case of hiding / stealth behind concealment, you can always guess the targets location and attack it. Arguably, you may even need to do this some times when they are not hidden /stealthed at the DM's judgement you cannot pinpoint them due to noise ... like maybe in a large bank of Fog Cloud 150 ft away from you.

What you cannot do is use a spell or feature that requires you to see the target.

Edit: not saying DM should have creatures automatically or even commonly shoot someone hiding behind a Minor Illusion wall. Just that there is no rules impediment to doing so.

[mephnick]

The hole I see even good DMs fall into is allowing their NPCs checks to discover illusions in the first place, as if it's an automatic saving throw or something. A box in a warehouse? It's real to the NPCs unless some outside force gives them reason to think otherwise. They don't get a check, they just believe the box is real.

People who've been playing for decades are still somehow ignorant about how they work.

[Zippee]

With an attack? Of course you can, to both of these.

In the case of total cover behind a wall, you'll just be shooting the wall, as well as guessing location, so it doesn't matter normally. Waste those arrows!

You can't shoot at someone behind a solid wall, that's ridiculous - you can shoot the wall, but you'd be targeting the wall not the creature the other side of it.




In the case of hiding / stealth behind concealment, you can always guess the targets location and attack it. Arguably, you may even need to do this some times when they are not hidden /stealthed at the DM's judgement you cannot pinpoint them due to noise ... like maybe in a large bank of Fog Cloud 150 ft away from you.

IMO you have to have a reason [usually a successful perception - or an ally pointing it out] to suspect that the target is there and hidden/stealthed before you can legitimately target it - you cannot just walk up and meta-guess someone is in that fog cloud and blaze away with disadvantage. If I did that to a PC as DM there'd be howls of protest! Sure the sudden appearance of magical fogs in itself can be construed as suspicious but that would generate the perception check not auto-fire. And yes I realise you can make real world analogies to recce by fire and such like but I think having city guards just letting rip into woods and fogs every round 'just in case' is a bit OTT.




What you cannot do is use a spell or feature that requires you to see the target.

Edit: not saying DM should have creatures automatically or even commonly shoot someone hiding behind a Minor Illusion wall. Just that there is no rules impediment to doing so.

Yes there is
A target with total cover can’t be targeted directly by an attack or a spell,

You want to let creatures shoot at targets they don't know are there, can't see and have stone walls in front of them blocking any conceivable LOS then go right ahead - that ain't any form of game I'm going to be playing though.

[NecessaryWeevil]

From the SRD:
"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."

Knowing that it's an illusion is what makes the illusion faint.
Physical interaction merely provides this knowledge.
Unwitnessed interaction can't provide this knowledge.
The illuion's caster already possesses this knowledge.

[Dalebert]

Zippee, we might be arguing based on a misunderstanding. I thought this started with discussion of someone casting Minor Illusion to make something appear in front of them (and maybe I assumed this part) during an encounter, i.e. the enemy SEES the illusion appear. If you're in an open field and a wall or boulder appears in front of you, and assuming I have reason to suspect it might be an illusion, I can shoot at you with disadvantage. In that case there's only one place you can be. You get the benefit of being unseen due to concealment--disadvantage on my attacks, at least until my arrow passes through the rock and reveals it to be an illusion and thus it becomes transparent to me and any other witnesses.

If you hide in or behind an illusory crate before I even walk into the room, that's a different matter and requires some perception checks (taking an action) trying to hear you or something. Even then, they would not fire at crates but they might try an AoE in that direction.



Knowing that it's an illusion is what makes the illusion faint.


Okay, I hear you and you have a point. Here's where this bothers me. Where do you draw the line between suspecting an illusion and knowing it's an illusion? You've convinced me for the caster who actually created the illusion. He knows with 100% certainty. What about if he tells someone? They don't know. They have reason to believe it but he could be lying. What if someone makes an investigation and sees through it and then tells allies it's an illusion? I posit they would still need to spend an action investigating or else witness physical interaction. They have reason now to be suspicious but they don't know. You could whisper but intentionally be loud enough for enemies to hear "I'll make an illusory wall and we can make a run for it!" when you're actually casting Wall of Stone. Then enemies might run smack into the wall and hurt themselves because they are confident it's an illusion.

The reason I'm being such a stickler for the details is because these spells give specific criteria for being able to determine it's an illusion. I think illusion spells are already pretty weak but one person being able to just declare it an illusion and everyone sees through it just makes it very ambiguous. By that reasoning, I could just exhibit great confidence something is an illusion, essentially convince myself and believe it, maybe because that caster has already cast a couple of illusions that have been revealed, and then be able to see through it without meeting the criteria--a sort of auto-save without any of the action resource cost.

[Tanarii]

You can't shoot at someone behind a solid wall, that's ridiculous - you can shoot the wall, but you'd be targeting the wall not the creature the other side of it.That's a fair point, given the rules reference. Although it's a semantic difference in most cases. You can still shoot at the wall that you believe the creature to be behind. If you use a big enough weapon (firearm, ballista) and it's a flimsy enough wall, you might even do enough damage to punch right through it.

Regardless, an illusion doesn't provide cover. And you CAN directly target something that is behind or in concealment, even if you can't see it. You just attack with disadvantage, and possibly have to guess where it is first to avoid an automatic miss. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to shoot arrows at invisible creatures or ones hiding in darkness.


IMO you have to have a reason [usually a successful perception - or an ally pointing it out] to suspect that the target is there and hidden/stealthed before you can legitimately target it - you cannot just walk up and meta-guess someone is in that fog cloud and blaze away with disadvantage. If I did that to a PC as DM there'd be howls of protest! Sure the sudden appearance of magical fogs in itself can be construed as suspicious but that would generate the perception check not auto-fire. And yes I realise you can make real world analogies to recce by fire and such like but I think having city guards just letting rip into woods and fogs every round 'just in case' is a bit OTT.Hold up a sec, who said anything about "walk up and meta-guess"? You knew the creature was there before it cast an illusion or used existing concealment, and then hid. That means you know approximately where the creature is, at least roughly. Possibly precisely to not have to guess where to attack if it's using small enough concealment, like a Minor Illusion of a wall or crate.

(This is all still ignoring that a creature that believes a Minor Illusion of a wall or crate is real might well not bother to attack it in the first place.)


Edit:

Knowing that it's an illusion is what makes the illusion faint.
Physical interaction merely provides this knowledge.
Unwitnessed interaction can't provide this knowledge.
The illusion's caster already possesses this knowledge.Lots of assumptions there. But I'm becoming more and more convinced every time I look at someone's interpretation on that, that the best way to handle illusions is to only have them go faint if a creature spends an action on an Investigation check. That makes the question on if physical interaction has to be witnessed less important.

[NecessaryWeevil]

.What if someone makes an investigation and sees through it and then tells allies it's an illusion? I posit they would still need to spend an action investigating or else witness physical interaction. They have reason now to be suspicious but they don't know.

I'd say that's both reasonable, and consistent with RAW.

[NecessaryWeevil]

.
Lots of assumptions there. But I'm becoming more and more convinced every time I look at someone's interpretation on that, that the best way to handle illusions is to only have them go faint if a creature spends an action on an Investigation check. That makes the question on if physical interaction has to be witnessed less important.

I'd be happy playing in a game with those rules.

[Saeviomage]

The issue began when he tried to advance up the hillside by casting another rock ahead of him and running from one rock to another . . . err no that's going to look very, very obvious as rocks just appear from nowhere.

How often do you have monsters waste a turn trying to ignore something that a wizard conjures for real? How many times has a wizard cast wall of stone, and had all the monsters they're fighting say "it's just an illusion, charge through it!"?

You can't just say "it's obvious the conjured rocks are illusions". It's obvious that they're magic, and that they might be suspicious, but I've yet to see a DM have monsters assume that any other effect of a magic spell that's out of place is an illusion and can be safely ignored.

Now of course Xanathar's gives us a way that you might work out exactly what is going on, by identifying the spell being cast. Mind you, that's not going to work if the minor illusion was cast from behind a rock, since it doesn't have a V component.

[Tanarii]

I'd be happy playing in a game with those rules.
Yeah. I'm thinking it gives Illusions some solid oomph if they always stay solid looking without someone taking an action. Said someone might know they are an illusion and treat them accordingly, but they wouldn't be able to see through them until they spent an action and passed the investigation check.

It'd also make there be a reason to take the investigation check. As it stands now it's worth it only when you cannot physically interact with the illusion, be that by touching it directly or throwing/shooting something at it.

[Zippee]

Zippee, we might be arguing based on a misunderstanding. I thought this started with discussion of someone casting Minor Illusion to make something appear in front of them (and maybe I assumed this part) during an encounter, i.e. the enemy SEES the illusion appear. If you're in an open field and a wall or boulder appears in front of you, and assuming I have reason to suspect it might be an illusion, I can shoot at you with disadvantage. In that case there's only one place you can be. You get the benefit of being unseen due to concealment--disadvantage on my attacks, at least until my arrow passes through the rock and reveals it to be an illusion and thus it becomes transparent to me and any other witnesses.

If you hide in or behind an illusory crate before I even walk into the room, that's a different matter and requires some perception checks (taking an action) trying to hear you or something. Even then, they would not fire at crates but they might try an AoE in that direction.

As is usual in forum discussion we veered wildly and erratically from the starting premise :)

The initial premise was rocks on a hillside and crates in a warehouse - the one obvious the other not.

Following discussions have been pretty random as to whether they assume knowledge of an illusion or not.




Okay, I hear you and you have a point. Here's where this bothers me. Where do you draw the line between suspecting an illusion and knowing it's an illusion? You've convinced me for the caster who actually created the illusion. He knows with 100% certainty. What about if he tells someone? They don't know. They have reason to believe it but he could be lying. What if someone makes an investigation and sees through it and then tells allies it's an illusion? I posit they would still need to spend an action investigating or else witness physical interaction. They have reason now to be suspicious but they don't know. You could whisper but intentionally be loud enough for enemies to hear "I'll make an illusory wall and we can make a run for it!" when you're actually casting Wall of Stone. Then enemies might run smack into the wall and hurt themselves because they are confident it's an illusion.

The reason I'm being such a stickler for the details is because these spells give specific criteria for being able to determine it's an illusion. I think illusion spells are already pretty weak but one person being able to just declare it an illusion and everyone sees through it just makes it very ambiguous. By that reasoning, I could just exhibit great confidence something is an illusion, essentially convince myself and believe it, maybe because that caster has already cast a couple of illusions that have been revealed, and then be able to see through it without meeting the criteria--a sort of auto-save without any of the action resource cost.

Being told gives you a reason to make the INT check - being shown (wave hand through) is empirical evidence, you see it's an illusion.

[Zippee]

That's a fair point, given the rules reference. Although it's a semantic difference in most cases. You can still shoot at the wall that you believe the creature to be behind. If you use a big enough weapon (firearm, ballista) and it's a flimsy enough wall, you might even do enough damage to punch right through it.

But you need a good reason to believe there is a creature behind the wall, that's why it is not semantic.



Regardless, an illusion doesn't provide cover. And you CAN directly target something that is behind or in concealment, even if you can't see it. You just attack with disadvantage, and possibly have to guess where it is first to avoid an automatic miss. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to shoot arrows at invisible creatures or ones hiding in darkness.

Yes it does provide cover - it provides a bogus AC bonus but it is cover. You can't just shoot at disadvantage [wrong mechanic - see unseen]. First you need a reason to believe the creature is there and if you have that you shoot as if the creature had cover. And if that's total cover then why would you shoot at an impervious wall [excepting situations where you can shoot with something that obliterates wall and anything behind it], you'd move to gain LOS. Shooting at unseen is different as has been said previously, that's where you guess location and shoot blindly - you don't shoot blindly at someone hiding behind a wall (illusory or not), you use the cover rules.



Hold up a sec, who said anything about "walk up and meta-guess"? You knew the creature was there before it cast an illusion or used existing concealment, and then hid. That means you know approximately where the creature is, at least roughly. Possibly precisely to not have to guess where to attack if it's using small enough concealment, like a Minor Illusion of a wall or crate.

No, you are assuming that, it's not hardwired into the premise. Much of the discussion has been based on the premise that the illusion is used to provide the cover to approach undetected. The rock on a hillside just appearing is obviously odd as would a wall be but no reason to believe it's an illusion per se. The crate in a warehouse is likely not to be noticed. There was no assumption that the caster was already known or being watched, so no you do not know the caster creature is there, so yes choosing to target it is meta-guessing. You're making big assumptions about the starting premise, knowledge and locations. And knowing there is activity and casting occurring, does change things but I still believe you are incorrectly applying the unseen blind shooting mechanism in these examples.



(This is all still ignoring that a creature that believes a Minor Illusion of a wall or crate is real might well not bother to attack it in the first place.)

Which is precisely the point I've been making - the starting premise is that you don't see it being cast and have no reason to believe the illusion is an illusion. Circumstance may do that - as in casting the chain of rocks ahead of you up the hill. Or casting an illusory wall out on the open - although there other means to generate such a wall. These things are eminently suspicious, assuming someone is watching - and certainly subject to passive perception in any case, likely active perception. But if you don't know a crate is illusory, then to all intents and purposes it provides the same cover and concealment that a real crate does - the difference only matters when someone uses it as 1/2 or 3/4 cover, as it's bogus AC protection and missiles go straight through which will reveal the illusion pretty quickly. If used as total cover then it's just as effective as real total cover until revealed otherwise by circumstance or observation.

[Zippee]

You can't just say "it's obvious the conjured rocks are illusions". It's obvious that they're magic, and that they might be suspicious, but I've yet to see a DM have monsters assume that any other effect of a magic spell that's out of place is an illusion and can be safely ignored..

I didn't say it was obviously an illusion - I said the appearance [of subsequent rocks] was obvious. It attracted attention and rather than assisting the PC's attempt to approach stealthy actually drew the [up until then] not particularly attentive orcs' attention and made it harder for him to approach. The orcs may not have known what was going on exactly but they now knew something was up and they then investigated the mysterious rocks.

[JackPhoenix]

Yes it does provide cover - it provides a bogus AC bonus but it is cover. You can't just shoot at disadvantage [wrong mechanic - see unseen]. First you need a reason to believe the creature is there and if you have that you shoot as if the creature had cover. And if that's total cover then why would you shoot at an impervious wall [excepting situations where you can shoot with something that obliterates wall and anything behind it], you'd move to gain LOS. Shooting at unseen is different as has been said previously, that's where you guess location and shoot blindly - you don't shoot blindly at someone hiding behind a wall (illusory or not), you use the cover rules.

Nope. It may provide disadvantage on attacks through granting heavy obscurement, but it can't ever provide cover unless there's something solid to actually stop the attack... that's what cover means in 5e.

Poking your head from beyond the corner doesn't grant you 3/4 cover because your head is smaller target, but because 3/4 of your body is behind solid wall that stops attack. Poking your head from beyond illusory corner won't grant you any cover, because if the enemy "misses" and hits the "wall" by accident, the attack goes straight through and hit you as if nothing was there (because that's exactly what happened)

[Dalebert]

This doesn't have to get that complicated. Usually you'd be poking your head out to fire or cast and getting behind the "wall" again between your turns. In that case you impose disadvantage on attacks for unseen assuming they suspect and illusion and try to shoot through it. (Please don't angrily argue that they have no reason to disbelieve. I already understand that possibility.) Illusion is automatically revealed if you get hit. If someone readies an attack for when you poke out, then no cover benefit and on a hit I'd prolly just apply a 50% chance of going through the wall and revealing it.

[Zippee]

Nope. It may provide disadvantage on attacks through granting heavy obscurement, but it can't ever provide cover unless there's something solid to actually stop the attack... that's what cover means in 5e.

No, a wall is a wall - it's cover (an illusory wall is bogus AC bonus but it is cover) - total cover prevents you from being targeted. You are not just concealed / unseen you are behind a wall. Heavy obscurement is darkness not hiding behind a wall.



Poking your head from beyond the corner doesn't grant you 3/4 cover because your head is smaller target, but because 3/4 of your body is behind solid wall that stops attack. Poking your head from beyond illusory corner won't grant you any cover, because if the enemy "misses" and hits the "wall" by accident, the attack goes straight through and hit you as if nothing was there (because that's exactly what happened)

Correct in application - that is why 3/4 cover from an illusory wall grants a bogus AC bonus. Total cover however means you can't be targeted. But neither are obscurement - the disadvantage shoot in the vague direction of where I think the creature is, is a different situation.

But feel free to play how you want

[Dalebert]

No, a wall is a wall - it's cover (an illusory wall is bogus AC bonus but it is cover) - total cover prevents you from being targeted.

Can I just get you to state, one time for the record and to avoid further miscommunication, the wall is not preventing you from being targeted (except by spells and effects that require LoS). It's preventing the attacker from believing he can target you because he believes you are behind total cover. You aren't. You are wide open to attacks. If he suspects an illusion, it's completely reasonable to fire directly at you through the wall with disadvantage.

[Tanarii]

Apparently the in-universe application of the rule means you're physically incapable of targeting something you can't see when it's behind a physical barrier, but physically capable of doing it when they're merely unseen. It reaches out and stops the muscles or something.

He did say "you target the wall instead" up thread. But the problem here is for that to be consistent with targeting an unseen creature you have to "target the darkness" or "target the air" or "target the foliage" or whatever.

In any case, this shows it's a red herring. It being a physical object or not is all that matters. You can always choose to shoot at it. If it's physical, it'll bounce*. If it isn't, ie it's an illusion, it'll go right through and a creature behind it (if location is guessed correctly) will be attacked at disadvantage. That's both consistent within the rules, and within any in-game universe.


*provided it's not a heavy enough weapon to blow through, in which case it's effectively concealment instead.

[Zippee]

Can I just get you to state, one time for the record and to avoid further miscommunication, the wall is not preventing you from being targeted (except by spells and effects that require LoS). It's preventing the attacker from believing he can target you because he believes you are behind total cover. You aren't. You are wide open to attacks. If he suspects an illusion, it's completely reasonable to fire directly at you through the wall with disadvantage.

A real wall, that you hide behind [total cover] stops you from being targeted.
A real wall, that you snipe from behind 3/4 or 1/2 cover as you see fit doesn't stop you being targeted but you gain a cover bonus to AC.

All agreed?

An illusionary wall is, until known not to be, effectively a real wall for LOS purposes. You cannot target someone behind it anymore than you can someone behind a real wall. This is not a case of being unseen, it is a case of being behind an impenetrable to LOS barrier = total cover.

An illusory wall you snipe from behind (dumb idea BTW) gives you bogus AC bonus, the enemy can target you and will hit you regardless of the bogus AC bonus, and doing so will demonstrate the wall is dodgy as arrows/bolts go through it.

You seem to be assuming that the enemy know the caster is present, know it is an illusory wall, have seen it be cast or whatnot. That isn't necessarily the case and isn't the case in the origin story.

If the enemy believes the wall is an illusion that's a matter of belief - he needs to physically interact with it or make an investigation check. Shooting an arrow at it would constitute physically interacting with it in my book. If the arrow goes through then the illusion turns faint and he can target the sneak.

I don't believe the unseen disadvantage rule applies in this situation - the illusory wall looks real or it looks faint (which to me means you can see through it), it's not the case of hiding in the dark with someone knowing your out there because of a coughing fit or what have you.

[Tanarii]

An illusionary wall is, until known not to be, effectively a real wall for LOS purposes. You cannot target someone behind it anymore than you can someone behind a real wall.Your argument falls apart right here.

Because it is not a real wall, for "LOS purposes" it is concealment. Therefore it is resolved using the concealment rules, not the cover rules.

BTW there are no specific "LOS" rules in 5e. Something either has cover or concealment. Once you understand that you'll get why you're making a mistake in your attempted logical analysis of the rules.

But overall it'd be better if you stop trying to read the rules as a logic problem to be resolved, and understated what they're trying to abstract from the in-game universe. You can always shoot at something behind something or that you cannot see. If there's a solid barrier, it's cover and you use those rules. If not, it's concealment, and you use those rules.

[Zippee]

Apparently the in-universe application of the rule means you're physically incapable of targeting something you can't see when it's behind a physical barrier, but physically capable of doing it when they're merely unseen. It reaches out and stops the muscles or something.

Huh?? You cannot target something in total cover because you cannot trace a LOS to it - the same way you cannot target someone 4 rooms away. Being unseen merely means you can't see them, not that there isn't a LOS - a LOS can exist in a dark room but the target is unseen until you turn the lights on. You can't trace a LOS through a solid barrier.



[
He did say "you target the wall instead" up thread. But the problem here is for that to be consistent with targeting an unseen creature you have to "target the darkness" or "target the air" or "target the foliage" or whatever.

You don't need to be consistent with targeting unseen, it's not the same situation. You aren't targeting an unseen you're dealing with someone you cannot target.

Unseen is not synonymous with LOS (or lack thereof)

[Tanarii]

Huh?? You cannot target something in total cover because you cannot trace a LOS to it - the same way you cannot target someone 4 rooms away. Being unseen merely means you can't see them, not that there isn't a LOS - a LOS can exist in a dark room but the target is unseen until you turn the lights on. You can't trace a LOS through a solid barrier.

You don't need to be consistent with targeting unseen, it's not the same situation. You aren't targeting an unseen you're dealing with someone you cannot target.

Unseen is not synonymous with LOS (or lack thereof)
5e doesn't have specific "LOs" rules to my knowledge, it has cover (behind something solid) and concealment (cannot be seen).

But look, if you want to rule that PC literally cannot target illusionary walls/objects, and that's why it can't go right through the illusion to attack something behind it at disadvantage, more power to you. You're going to get a lot of odd looks from your players though.

[mer.c]

TL;DR Illusory cover shouldn't be treated as superior to tangible cover (you're untargetable) or with a different set of rules (attacks have disadvantage). IMO, just make 3/4 illusory cover equal to 1/2 tangible cover with a chance the attack passes through the cover and alerts others it's an illusion. For illusory 1/2 cover, maybe say it's a -1 hit penalty instead of -2.

Let's keep in mind the difference between hunkering down behind cover and popping out from it to fire. If a creature decides to spend its turn hunkering down behind a sufficiently-sized cover, it would be untargetable. Being behind that same cover to draw your ammunition and ready the weapon, but popping out to shoot from behind it, amounts to 3/4 cover. (I don't know if this is explicitly laid out anywhere, but it is a very sensible interpretation of the rules, and the official adventures implicitly corroborate it.) I'd rule it as the creature popping out to fire enables it to be targetted, with the -5 hit. If you were supposed to treat that as disadvantage due to not knowing where the target is for part of the turn, or make them untargetable for the same reason, the rules would tell you to do that, rather than telling you to take a -5 hit penalty.*

Applying those same rules to illusory cover, this is where I come to:

Hiding behind the illusory cover, then popping out to shoot and ducking behind it again isn't better cover than doing the same thing with tangible cover. If you illusion up 3/4 cover and pop out to fire from behind it, you're targetable just as if you were doing the same thing behind tangible cover. The differences being: 1) if you see something pass through the cover, you know it's an illusion, and 2) there's a chance that the attack accidentally passes through the cover, both alerting others that the cover is an illusion and possibly hitting the target through the illusion.

Here's how I'd simulate that. If someone is behind illusory cover amounting to 3/4 cover, I'd 1) count it as 1/2 cover, and 2) make a roll to see if the attack passes through the illusion on its way, hit or miss. Reasons being: 1) some of those shots that would have missed them will hit through the illusion, but the target is also harder to hit because you're adjusting your aim to hit a smaller target. 2) Either a hit or a miss has a chance of passing through the illusion on the way to its target. I think this is a reasonable way to interpret the situation, and that these rules do a good job of simulating it.

(This is all assuming the creature in question is treating the illusion as if it's tangible. If it suspects an illusion, it may just fire at a part of its target that is behind the illusion. In that case, I'd give the attacker no penalty if the target is doing the "pop up and fire" routine, and disadvantage if the target is hunkering down since they're guessing as to the target's location. Either way, the attack would almost certainly pass through the illusion. Now, if they do that and the cover is tangible, then I'd probably say -5 AND disadvantage if the target is popping up. They're intentionally aiming for the tangible cover, so the odds of them hitting their target are extremely low. Of course, the attack would guaranteed miss if the target is hunkering down.)


*I think that this interpretation causes other rules to break down. There's nothing AFAIK that says if you step out of darkness, fire a shot, and then step back into darkness, you can be targeted/attacked without disadvantage that round. Similarly, if you start on one end of a room and spend your turn dashing behind some crates, I believe you're untargetable by RAW as soon as you're behind the crates. However, I think this interpretation of cover does a good job of simulating the situation without also breaking down the game by making cover ludicrously powerful. ("The bugbear is behind cover most of the turn, so you can't target it at all," seems like a really bad ruling, and also directly conflicts with the printed cover rules.) If the inconsistency becomes an issue, I'd recommend just taking it in stride as part of "Rulings, not Rules" and coming up with a reasonable interpretation or tweak to the system. For my part, if it came up in one of my campaigns, I'd say that you become untargetable for a round after spending an entire turn in an untargetable state. The round immediately following your dash to the crates, you can be attacked with a penalty (since you can be shot at during your run, but for part of that turn you're behind the crates, so the window to hit you is smaller). This lines up with the idea that the characters aren't politely taking actions one after the other; rather the turns are happening all at once with some people making their moves slightly ahead of the others. If you wanted to get really granular with it, you could even let those higher in the initiative order (or with higher initiative bonuses) have lower penalties, since they'd be the ones able to act more quickly when the opportunity arises.

[Zippee]

5e doesn't have specific "LOs" rules to my knowledge, it has cover (behind something solid) and concealment (cannot be seen).

But look, if you want to rule that PC literally cannot target illusionary walls/objects, and that's why it can't go right through the illusion to attack something behind it at disadvantage, more power to you. You're going to get a lot of odd looks from your players though.

I never said you cannot target illusionary walls - I actually specifically said you could and that would be one way of 'physically interacting' with the illusion. And once the illusion is faint then go ahead and shoot the thing you can now see. No need for disadvantage even, you can see through the faint illusion to reality.

You seem to be allowing someone to shoot someone behind an apparently solid wall with disadvantage because you know it's an illusion - the shooter doesn't but that doesn't matter. That just sounds like meta BS to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Personally I wouldn't allow the shot at the wall to hit the creature behind it on the same basis that shooting into combat doesn't hit random other combatants. It's sufficient that it will identify the illusion as an illusion (or not). As DM I'd also be careful about routinely shooting at apparently solid objects to test their illusionary status because: insider knowledge.

Consider the following abstract and artificial situation (no Darkvision assumed) - a guard at the doorway to a large (say 60' square) empty room, an intruder crossing that room, no obstacles in the room. The room is dark (because: example]. If the intruder makes their stealth, guard does nothing, that's pretty straight forward, we'll just eliminate the option.

Case A - intruder fails stealth (sneezes)
1) guard shoots into darkness, disadvantage applies because: unseen (dark)
2) guard turns light on, shoots normally because: light (no cover)

Case B - intruder fails stealth but there is a real 5' wall in the room the guard doesn't know about and the intruder is directly behind it
1) guard shoots into darkness, disadvantage applies because: unseen (dark) however it's irrelevant because the wall provides total cover - plink.
2) guard turns light on, sees a wall. Probably moves to a position to see around the wall, may decide the wall is an illusion and shoots it to see - plink. In any case the guard can't target the intruder because: total cover.

Case C - as B but an illusionary wall
1) guard shoots into darkness, disadvantage applies because: unseen (dark), if successful intruder is hit - an illusion offers no physical protection
2) guard turns on light, sees a wall. Probably moves to a position to see around the wall, may decide the wall is an illusion and shoots it to see - arrows goes through illusion revealing it as such. The guard couldn't target the intruder with the shot because: total cover.

You're saying that in case C2, the guard turns the light on sees a wall but because it's an illusion he gets to shoot at the intruder he can't see with disadvantage because: unseen. Which is crazy talk in my book, and would get you very odd looks at any of my tables.

[Tanarii]

You seem to be allowing someone to shoot someone behind an apparently solid wall with disadvantage because you know it's an illusion - the shooter doesn't but that doesn't matter. That just sounds like meta BS to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.I'm not. I consider that a different issue. PCs and NPCs should act accordingly on what they know or think they know.

I'm saying if a creature has reason to think it's an illusion, and they target the illusion (successfully guessing where the creature is behind it, if it's big enough to make that uncertain), mechanically they get an attack with disadvantage on the creature.

There are ways that might happen. For example, if the creature used its reaction using the new XtgE rules to identify the spell being cast, it might decide to attack through thing it knows is an illusion.

[mer.c]

I never said you cannot target illusionary walls - I actually specifically said you could and that would be one way of 'physically interacting' with the illusion. And once the illusion is faint then go ahead and shoot the thing you can now see. No need for disadvantage even, you can see through the faint illusion to reality.

You seem to be allowing someone to shoot someone behind an apparently solid wall with disadvantage because you know it's an illusion - the shooter doesn't but that doesn't matter. That just sounds like meta BS to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Tanarii already covered the "They suspect an illusion" part, so let's look at the "They don't suspect an illusion" side. That, to me, depends on what the target is doing behind the wall.

Scenario 1
The target is staying behind cover, never revealing themselves or doing anything that exposes themselves. Then it's unreasonable IMO to have anyone try to hit them. The target could do things like cast buffs or other spells that wouldn't pass through and thereby reveal the illusion.

Scenario 2
The target is popping out to cast spells, shoot back, etc. Then absolutely it makes sense for others to target them, just as if they were popping out from behind tangible cover. Except the illusory cover isn't going to block a shot, so it will be less effective (although possibly still somewhat effective since it's making the attacker adjust their aim).

Scenario 3
The target is making attacks through the illusory cover. Then we have to refer to the spell itself. Looking at Minor Illusion and Silent Image, "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it." and, "If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the illusion becomes faint to the creature" means that they can see through it. Therefore, doing that is probably the worst option, since it nullifies the effects for any observers.

[Zippee]

I'm not. I consider that a different issue. PCs and NPCs should act accordingly on what they know or think they know.

I'm saying if a creature has reason to think it's an illusion, and they target the illusion (successfully guessing where the creature is behind it, if it's big enough to make that uncertain), mechanically they get an attack with disadvantage on the creature.

There are ways that might happen. For example, if the creature used its reaction using the new XtgE rules to identify the spell being cast, it might decide to attack through thing it knows is an illusion.

I have consistently been talking about situations where it is not know someone has cast an illusion, and have clarified that to you previously:


Mostly it comes down to line of sight: if the object is created out of sight then fine but creating it in LOS not so much - also remember that when they use it as cover to shoot from, it doesn't actually act as physical cover. And arrows passing through the rock/crate are going to give the game away quite quickly.[


You can use the ploy as a method of giving you something to hide behind (and thus gain stealth) but generating a thing in full LOS is dodgy. In a confused or hectic warehouse environment with stacks of crates you might get away with it but on an otherwise bare hillside not so much.


Much of the discussion has been based on the premise that the illusion is used to provide the cover to approach undetected. The rock on a hillside just appearing is obviously odd as would a wall be but no reason to believe it's an illusion per se. The crate in a warehouse is likely not to be noticed. There was no assumption that the caster was already known or being watched, so no you do not know the caster creature is there


You seem to be assuming that the enemy know the caster is present, know it is an illusory wall, have seen it be cast or whatnot. That isn't necessarily the case and isn't the case in the origin story.



You want to allow a shot at the 'intruder' to hit with disadvantage, that's your call. personally as I said in my last post:


Personally I wouldn't allow the shot at the wall to hit the creature behind it on the same basis that shooting into combat doesn't hit random other combatants. It's sufficient that it will identify the illusion as an illusion (or not). As DM I'd also be careful about routinely shooting at apparently solid objects to test their illusionary status because: insider knowledge.

[Zippee]

Tanarii already covered the "They suspect an illusion" part, so let's look at the "They don't suspect an illusion" side. That, to me, depends on what the target is doing behind the wall.

Scenario 1
The target is staying behind cover, never revealing themselves or doing anything that exposes themselves. Then it's unreasonable IMO to have anyone try to hit them. The target could do things like cast buffs or other spells that wouldn't pass through and thereby reveal the illusion.

That was the premise in the examples - the 'intruder' had total cover, wasn't revealing itself.




Scenario 2
The target is popping out to cast spells, shoot back, etc. Then absolutely it makes sense for others to target them, just as if they were popping out from behind tangible cover. Except the illusory cover isn't going to block a shot, so it will be less effective (although possibly still somewhat effective since it's making the attacker adjust their aim).

As I've said previously this is a bad idea when hiding behind an illusion because the illusion offers you no actual protection and the act of shooting at you will reveal the illusion for what it is. Some would call this a straight disadvantage shot but I'm inclined to just compare the shot to AC but either works.




Scenario 3
The target is making attacks through the illusory cover. Then we have to refer to the spell itself. Looking at Minor Illusion and Silent Image, "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it." and, "If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the illusion becomes faint to the creature" means that they can see through it. Therefore, doing that is probably the worst option, since it nullifies the effects for any observers.

Agreed that would be especially dumb - unless you managed to create an illusion of a wall with a crossbow trap or something but that's getting real quirky and probably beyond the means of Minor Illusion. But this is just going to reveal the illusion as an illusion immediately in just about any situation.

Illusions are there to hide behind not offer physical protection, the opening examples we discussed included the [less good] advancing up a hillside behind illusionary rocks and the much better flitting round a warehouse using illusionary crates to block LOS. Those were the examples from my games, which the OP reminded me of. In the first the encroaching illusory rocks actually attracted the orcs' attention, so it rather backfired. In the second the party successfully blocked the guards' LOS to the trapdoor exit as they made a daring escape, because a random additional crate here and there was hard to spot.

That said, my position remains that if they do block LOS then to all intents they act as total cover and that somoene hiding behind the illusion cannot be independently targeted until the illusion is skirted or identified for what it is.

[Thrasher92]

Does the sound part of Minor Illusion seem rather powerful for a cantrip?

I can make a continuous sound that is as loud as a lion's roar for 1 minute.

Now, in real life, a lion can roar as loud as 114 decibels, about 25 times louder than most gas-powered lawn mowers (or at least, this is what google tells me).

This is certainly extremely loud and should make the DM consider giving a nearby enemy the "deafened" condition. I know that the caster is making this only 30 feet away from himself or his allies so they may be affected as well but, they know its coming and can prepare for the loud noise.

Now, we may have different ideas of how powerful a cantrip should be but, that certainly seems powerful.

[mer.c]

Does the sound part of Minor Illusion seem rather powerful for a cantrip?

I can make a continuous sound that is as loud as a lion's roar for 1 minute.

Now, in real life, a lion can roar as loud as 114 decibels, about 25 times louder than most gas-powered lawn mowers (or at least, this is what google tells me).

Not really on topic, but here’s a decibel chart for reference:

http://www.noisehelp.com/noise-level-chart.html

[Thrasher92]

Not really on topic, but here’s a decibel chart for reference:

http://www.noisehelp.com/noise-level-chart.html

I was just going with what Google told me when I searched for "How loud is a lion's roar".

[JackPhoenix]

I never said you cannot target illusionary walls - I actually specifically said you could and that would be one way of 'physically interacting' with the illusion. And once the illusion is faint then go ahead and shoot the thing you can now see. No need for disadvantage even, you can see through the faint illusion to reality.

You seem to be allowing someone to shoot someone behind an apparently solid wall with disadvantage because you know it's an illusion - the shooter doesn't but that doesn't matter. That just sounds like meta BS to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Personally I wouldn't allow the shot at the wall to hit the creature behind it on the same basis that shooting into combat doesn't hit random other combatants. It's sufficient that it will identify the illusion as an illusion (or not). As DM I'd also be careful about routinely shooting at apparently solid objects to test their illusionary status because: insider knowledge.

Consider the following abstract and artificial situation (no Darkvision assumed) - a guard at the doorway to a large (say 60' square) empty room, an intruder crossing that room, no obstacles in the room. The room is dark (because: example]. If the intruder makes their stealth, guard does nothing, that's pretty straight forward, we'll just eliminate the option.

Case A - intruder fails stealth (sneezes)
1) guard shoots into darkness, disadvantage applies because: unseen (dark)
2) guard turns light on, shoots normally because: light (no cover)

Case B - intruder fails stealth but there is a real 5' wall in the room the guard doesn't know about and the intruder is directly behind it
1) guard shoots into darkness, disadvantage applies because: unseen (dark) however it's irrelevant because the wall provides total cover - plink.
2) guard turns light on, sees a wall. Probably moves to a position to see around the wall, may decide the wall is an illusion and shoots it to see - plink. In any case the guard can't target the intruder because: total cover.

Case C - as B but an illusionary wall
1) guard shoots into darkness, disadvantage applies because: unseen (dark), if successful intruder is hit - an illusion offers no physical protection
2) guard turns on light, sees a wall. Probably moves to a position to see around the wall, may decide the wall is an illusion and shoots it to see - arrows goes through illusion revealing it as such. The guard couldn't target the intruder with the shot because: total cover.

You're saying that in case C2, the guard turns the light on sees a wall but because it's an illusion he gets to shoot at the intruder he can't see with disadvantage because: unseen. Which is crazy talk in my book, and would get you very odd looks at any of my tables.

It may sound crazy to you, but it's how it work. In real life, too... just watch random action flick when someone tries to shoot the enemy through, say, door. Bang, bang, bang, the door is full of holes, and whoever was standing there may be too, unless he was lucky and the attack missed him (because the attacker weren't sure where exactly the target is= disadvantage to attack). Just like with the illusion, no cover applies, because the door wasn't an obstacle sufficient to stop the attack. The attacker wasn't shooting at the door for git and shiggles... he was trying to shoot whoever was standing (or may have been standing) behind them. If the door was armored, it would provide solid obstacle to the bullets= total cover, and the attack automatically fails to hit whoever was hiding behind it. Again, the target wasn't the door, but the space beyond the door, where the would-be victim was... or where the attacker expected him to be.

[Tanarii]

I have consistently been talking about situations where it is not know someone has cast an illusion, and have clarified that to you previously:
In that case, why are we discussing the cover rules at all? What matters in that case is the DM or PC acting as if their target was behind a solid object. There's no need to search the rules for a mechanical rationale saying they cannot target the creature because they think it's behind a solid object. That's a creature decision, not a mechanical rule.

[Dalebert]

That's a creature decision, not a mechanical rule.

THIS. As I said, they don't believe they can target you and thus they don't try.