How do *you* use illusions in combat?

[Man_Over_Game]

Emphasis on *you*. I want to know how you guys allow illusions to be used in combat. Since there isn't really much in the books that cover this, I want to preemptively ask that we keep an open mind on things and try not to shut each other down.

Personally, I make Illusions function as real things as long as the enemy doesn't have a reason to suspect otherwise. I also believe that the checks needed to see through an illusion should not be determined until the enemy has decided to scrutinize the situation. For that reason, Minor Illusion would work exceptionally well for when you're fleeing a crime scene, since folks wouldn't have the time to actually make the check. Someone walking down a hallway that they're familiar with might accidentally make a passing check at the changed wall in the corner, with the roll determining whether or not it caught their attention.

Anyway, how do you guys do it?

[Waterdeep Merch]

I actively use them a lot in combat as cover, where I don't actually care if the enemy knows it's an illusion or not. Suddenly throw up a wall to hide behind or a crenel to snipe from, that sort of thing. It's a fairly effective deterrent against ranged opponents.

EDIT: Portcullis is absolutely not the right word, crenel is. Sorry for any confusion!

[Willie the Duck]

A lot is going to be circumstantial (awareness/familiarity of/with existing environment being a big one; heat of battle vs. otherwise another). As DM, one has to make some pretty quick judgement calls on with what a given individual is familiar, but in general:

With regards to new walls, features, or covering over a passageway with the illusion of a wall:
No one is going to not notice if their house suddenly has a patio it didn't previous have, or that a doorway in their place of work has been replaced by a featureless wall (however, in the heat of battle in the middle of a series of corridors, someone who has to patrol miles of corridor might not be thinking about where along the corridors they actually are, so the absence of a given fork in the passages might be overlooked until they have a chance to collect themselves). If they aren't in home turf (and as a DM I try to remember that the orcs in corridor A won't consider corridor B home turf if it was previously manned by bullywugs with which they were not allied), they should not assume a dungeon feature is false unless they interact with it or deduce it through outside means.

With regards to a illusionary foe showing up:
Assuming summoning magic is a real possibility, or there is a corridor/door/ridge/etc. from which this new opponent could come, people in the heat of battle should assume that the illusionary opponent showing up is real until an arrow goes through them (and thus reasonably played opponents should waste time trying to dispatch said enemy instead of ignoring it). If the spell is silent image, however, this will work less well if they are not mid-battle. Some good RP (or secondary magic) might be needed to explain why this person/creature shows up, and then doesn't make any noise (the stranger in black shows up and just looms ominously might work in some contexts, but not all).

[Chad.e.clark]

My Bard made an auditory minor illusion to pull at least one shark away from the row boats we were currently in. Illusion was the sound of something small-ish flopping around in the water like 30 feet away from us.

[Telok]

Emphasis on *you*.

Never.

As a player every single attempt at using illusions in 4e and 5e has failed. It's been everything from undetectable antimagic fields, grass sticking up through it, npcs making mass spell identification reactions, to having to roll stealth during a thunderstorm when invisible.

As a DM, still never had to do anything. The players (yes all, for more than a decade) have been trained not to use illusions by others who look at the spells and say "it doesn't say it can do that" or just don't want their story/plot disrupted.

I've used them as DM, nobody complains because I try to be fair and throw in some hint it's an illusion (those always get ignored anyway). Illusionary walls, floors, and skeletal guards have been particularly effective. Had an npc walk behind cover then throw an illusion of themselves walking out of cover and casting teleport, just sat down and didn't move or talk after that until the pcs ran off.

[Man_Over_Game]

Never.

As a player every single attempt at using illusions in 4e and 5e has failed. It's been everything from undetectable antimagic fields, grass sticking up through it, npcs making mass spell identification reactions, to having to roll stealth during a thunderstorm when invisible.

As a DM, still never had to do anything. The players (yes all, for more than a decade) have been trained not to use illusions by others who look at the spells and say "it doesn't say it can do that" or just don't want their story/plot disrupted.

I've used them as DM, nobody complains because I try to be fair and throw in some hint it's an illusion (those always get ignored anyway). Illusionary walls, floors, and skeletal guards have been particularly effective. Had an npc walk behind cover then throw an illusion of themselves walking out of cover and casting teleport, just sat down and didn't move or talk after that until the pcs ran off.

Damn, that sucks, and that's stupid. I do feel that there is this weird problem with ambiguous stuff like this where players don't dare to be interesting, in the fear that they'll be denied, so they plan around being more boring since that gets them to their goals easier. It's a shame, really.

I get that they (the devs) wanted to keep things open-ended, so that DMs can decide for themselves, but setting expectations for the most ambiguous stuff in the game would have gone a long way.

[Aimeryan]

One thing that tends to be forgotten when it comes to ruling on illusions cast in combat (or other observer-present situations); making things appear is not a sole function of illusionary magic (or even just magic), hence, something appearing cannot be presumed to be an illusion - although, some enemies will certainly jump to that conclusion (a d10 roll to determine this if probably fair, along with other magic schools and just plain confusion).

I have read of situations on forums where a DM will treat any illusion in combat as almost certainly an illusion, which highly curtails their effectiveness. If a wall pops up in combat, sure sometimes an enemy might believe straight of the bat that it is an illusion and charge right at it or potentially waste actions shooting at an enemy hiding behind it, but the vast majority of the time they would act as if a wall is indeed there until given reason to believe it specifically is an illusion.

[Sparky McDibben]

Step 1: Player declares they want to use an illusion spell

Step 2: I ask what the intended goal of the illusion is: Cover? Framing an NPC? Momentary diversion? Convincing a whole town to work for you? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSTL_OYYAgg)

Step 3: Talk through any character-obvious issues with the player's plan ("Well remember, those orcs work for the dragon, so seeing it show up will probably not scare them.")

Step 4: Adjudicate.

I tend toward the permissive side when using illusions, specifically because they don't really affect anything permanently. They might trick people, but tricking people has a cost. And I write it down if they've "gotten" the same people or group multiple times, because that's definitely going to come back and bite them.

[sithlordnergal]

A lot is going to be circumstantial (awareness/familiarity of/with existing environment being a big one; heat of battle vs. otherwise another). As DM, one has to make some pretty quick judgement calls on with what a given individual is familiar, but in general:

With regards to new walls, features, or covering over a passageway with the illusion of a wall:
No one is going to not notice if their house suddenly has a patio it didn't previous have, or that a doorway in their place of work has been replaced by a featureless wall (however, in the heat of battle in the middle of a series of corridors, someone who has to patrol miles of corridor might not be thinking about where along the corridors they actually are, so the absence of a given fork in the passages might be overlooked until they have a chance to collect themselves). If they aren't in home turf (and as a DM I try to remember that the orcs in corridor A won't consider corridor B home turf if it was previously manned by bullywugs with which they were not allied), they should not assume a dungeon feature is false unless they interact with it or deduce it through outside means.


Lol, you overestimate how much people pay attention to. Hell, I've worked in the same place as a tutor for nearly 3 years now, so you'd think I'd know which room was which, right? Wrong, I get a tutoring request in room J and I still have to quickly figure out where room J is based on the room letter arrangements. And its not like they've changed anything either, room J has not changed since I got there, its still the same room. So if some random doorway turned into a wall, I can bet good money I'd pass by it without blinking an eye. Hell, even if I was looking for that doorway in particular I'm more likely to shrug an assume I went the wrong way then realize something was off.

[Osuniev]

On Tuesday, the bard major illusion convinced the evil druids to turn against the vampire they used to worship. 3rd time in the campaign that spell prevents a TPK.

[Tanarii]

I read/run the way illusions work as the following, for the illusions with the appropriate rules:
1) anyone that sees a physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion.
2) anyone that makes an Intelligence (Investigation) check has it go faint and see through.

Since physical interaction doesn't make them go faint, only reveals it to be an illusion, that cuts down on a lot of player shenanigans and worrying about DM creature double-think about if they make a check. Usually only need to if they see a physical interaction and want to spend an action to be able to see through it. Meanwhile, it makes them useful, e.g. even if an enemy shoots an arrow through an illusionary wall it still provides concealment.

[Mercurias]

My Arcane Trickster frequently used illusions to help grant him advantage in combat by doing things like hiding in corners behind a silent image showing said corners. He also would use Disguise Self while Hidden to make himself look like one of the enemies, pop out of Hide, ka-stab the enemy he was doppleganging (is that a word?), and bluff that the guy he was disguised as was the REAL imposter (this would confuse the enemy enough to keep him from attacking for a round, allowing the AT to use his Familiar on the next round to force advantage for a second sneak attack before disengaging and using the round after THAT to bonus action hide and snipe sneak attack with a longbow).

He would also use Phantasmal Force in order to take powerful physical enemies (e.g., trolls and heavily armored enemies with low wis/int saves) temporarily out of the fight for a while (a favorite was a crying little girl holding her bleeding shoulder, because good-aligned types would try to help her and bad-aligned types would try to shut her up because she was calling for help).

A bard I played with used Mirror Image to get advantage on his performance by becoming his own tiny group of Rockettes.

The DM once played along and let me give the party fighter advantage on their attacks by using an illusion to make the fighter's longsword look like a dagger. The DM said it wouldn't have worked if the enemy had been using a shield, but since he wasn't, he wasn't able to judge the length of the fighter's weapon and couldn't time his parries and blocks effectively.

Disguise Self was a fantastic assassination tool in general. You could look like nobody, or anybody, and your weapons and gear could be concealed in order to keep enemies guessing until they realized the illusion.

[elyktsorb]

I can remember using an illusion was to make it so that a pathway we were about to take, looked exactly the same, so in essence I put an illusion that looked exactly like the spot currently did so that I could walk into it and the enemies who were looking down at that spot would still see it as empty.

This didn't work and honestly I've never used them much ever. Though I think that has to do with me playing Druid and Rogue a lot, because, as a Druid, all my hiding needs are reduced to 'alright I'm now a tiny spider with pass without trace up so no one is going to look at me anyway' or as a Rogue my sneak score is so high that's all I need and I don't usually play Arcane Tricksters.

Another time was I used Phantasmal Force on a spellcaster to make them think they were stuck in a bubble of water. Which did connect, but the DM basically didn't care about anything I wanted to happen with that and just treated it like the effect dealt damage but the enemy in question didn't really react to the spell, which is probably the other reason I don't look to use illusions that often.

[Glorthindel]

I treat Illusions as convincing mirages, that opponents will treat as real unless they have a reason to do so.

I absolutely do not allow them to do anything that isn't in the spell description, or anything that would invalidate another spell (so no applying Conditions - illusionary chains do not immobilise, illusionary monsters do not cause fear).

I don't have monsters test to disbelieve unless they have an obvious reason to do so, and I have success be automatic if something causes a 'break' in the veracity of the illusion (for example, if the party put up an illusionary wall, and a enemy tries to climb it, they will stagger through the illusion and see it for what it is). In a situation of an 'unexpected break' (like the aforementioned enemy falling through a wall they are trying to climb), I will usually end the monsters round there, as they spend the rest of the round figuring out what just happened.

The problem with illusions is they are very DM adjudication, which is fine is you trust your DM's judgement, but less so if you have a more combatative relationship. My players and me trust each other to be reasonable and sensible, so i have never had pushback on my treatment of illusions, but at the same time, I am aware of why that might make players nervous of wasting limited resources if I adjudicate something differently than they imagined.

[Cicciograna]

A use from last session.

There was this big baddie who was in melee against three of my party members, the Fighter, the Rogue and the Bard. He was very strong, and we needed to disengage: it's important to know that he had two attacks per round, and every time he attacked he would grapple the target, and he was currently grappling the Fighter and the Bard. The monster had limited visibility, as he was in a cramped space, and pretty low Intelligence.

I coordinated with the Rogue, delaying my inititative count to his action. My ally attacked, dealt a lot of damage, and disengaged, and left the field of vision of the monster. As soon as this happened, I cast my Silent Image assuming the form of the Rogue coming back and waving and dodging, as if he was still in melee. The DM adjudicated that the situation made of (Rogue that had just dealt a lot of damage + Rogue had just left and returned in melee range + monster with low Int) was sufficiently distracting to the monster, so the it dropped the grapple on the Bard to attack the "Rogue", and clearly missed. What's important is that this freed the Bard from the grapple and allowed her to disengage.

I don't know if rulewise it would work, it was cool so it was good.

[Morty]

During my first 5E game, our wizard distracted an entire group of orcs by creating an illusion of a spider. I can't remember which spell he used for that, but it can't have been higher than level 2, since we were level 3 at most at the time. It kept them occupied for a couple of rounds. In the unlikely event that I GM-ed 5E, I'd be extremely careful with illusions and try not to let it happen. I feel like RPG designers have grievously underestimated illusions for years.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Personally, I make Illusions function as real things as long as the enemy doesn't have a reason to suspect otherwise. I also believe that the checks needed to see through an illusion should not be determined until the enemy has decided to scrutinize the situation. For that reason, Minor Illusion would work exceptionally well for when you're fleeing a crime scene, since folks wouldn't have the time to actually make the check. Someone walking down a hallway that they're familiar with might accidentally make a passing check at the changed wall in the corner, with the roll determining whether or not it caught their attention. Anyway, how do you guys do it?

Pretty much as you described it, MOG. As a DM, I consider the spell level. Casting a cantrip never is more powerful than casting a 3rd or even 2nd level spell. I like to talk ahead of time with my players who will be using illusion to deceive and let them know I am biased towards allowing them to work as they wish. But I also let them know it will slow the game way down and irritate me if I have to do a close reading of the spell to determine if they are pulling my leg or pushing the boundaries of rules lawyering.

[Willie the Duck]

During my first 5E game, our wizard distracted an entire group of orcs by creating an illusion of a spider. I can't remember which spell he used for that, but it can't have been higher than level 2, since we were level 3 at most at the time. It kept them occupied for a couple of rounds. In the unlikely event that I GM-ed 5E, I'd be extremely careful with illusions and try not to let it happen. I feel like RPG designers have grievously underestimated illusions for years.

I'm not clear where the problem lies. That sounds like someone being a little ingenious with their resources. A character used a level 0-2 spell to distract and redirect (rather than kill or incapacitate, which level 0-2 spells can also do) a group of opponents.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm not clear where the problem lies. That sounds like someone being a little ingenious with their resources. A character used a level 0-2 spell to distract and redirect (rather than kill or incapacitate, which level 0-2 spells can also do) a group of opponents.

Agreed. It basically sounds like a circumstantial Hypnotic Pattern that only works while you aren't nearby at a slightly reduced cost.

[Danielqueue1]

Illusions are highly situation and opponent dependent. Skeletons given orders to "attack anyone other than me who comes through here." Will be distracted or have their attention split for the full duration of a moving illusion. But the captain of the guard isn't going to forget where the hallway to the treasury should be no matter how good your illusion. A silent image of a dragon showing up in the middle of a fight is going to be unconvincing to all but the lowest intelligence enemies. But a silent image of a ghost moving through the night is going to be taken as real by all but the most inquisitive. An illusion of a known spell like wall of stone can be effective in combat, and I will play enemies treating it as such. But "they've cut off the captain, break it down!" Is a perfectly valid response and at least one soldier is going to waste an action trying if given the order.

That said, I think a lot of DMs who obstruct illusion use have had bad experiences with players taking advantage of the DM's inexperience to get away with things they shouldn't. In a game that I was a player in that had a lot of turnover, we had a lot of players that tried insist that they could use minor illusion to do things that should really have been major image. Or use phantasmal force to "encase someone in lead" so now they are restrained, incapacitated, blind, deaf, and suffocating! See because they believe it is real he will stop breathing and suffocate to death!

Illusion spells can be very potent, when DMing I insist that if you want an illusion to do something, you have to cast the illusion spell that does that thing. How enemies respond to illusions will be dependant on the character.

Characters will generally assume illusions are real unless they have good reason not to. But that doesn't always mean they will react to believing it real the way the caster wants. If you create an illusion of a monster, someone who is familiar with magic may order their fellows to "kill the summoner!" While other characters may see the monster, decide they are outmatched, and leg it ending the encounter without having to kill them. (Full XP though)

And if you are in my current campaign, all military trained battlemages have a specialty if their specialty is illusions, the battlegroup they are assigned to will be on alert for illusions. (Most of them are abjuration or evocation)

[Segev]

A silent image of a dragon showing up in the middle of a fight is going to be unconvincing to all but the lowest intelligence enemies.

Does this mean you could cast a spell actually summoning a dragon, order it to make a Stealth check to seem silents and fool enemies into ignoring it as "an obvious illusion?"

[Man_Over_Game]

Does this mean you could cast a spell actually summoning a dragon, order it to make a Stealth check to seem silents and fool enemies into ignoring it as "an obvious illusion?"

There is also the Xanathar's spell, Illusory Dragon, which...well, summons an illusory dragon that becomes easier to ignore when you know it's an illusion.

[Danielqueue1]

There is also the Xanathar's spell, Illusory Dragon, which...well, summons an illusory dragon that becomes easier to ignore when you know it's an illusion.

Yeah that's why I specified silent image.

I do like the idea of a spellcasting dragon subtle casting silence to mess with people though.

[sayaijin]

I'll tell you an example of a time I did not like my DM's ruling on an illusion:

We went to the dungeon we were supposed to enter, and he had an unguarded back entrance. Turns out it wasn't guarded by the orcs because there was a black pudding in there. We killed it and sneaked into the main area with all the orcs where they weren't expecting enemies, so I use silent image to conjure a black pudding. I figure they know what it is, and any arrows that go into it would logically look like they were just absorbed. On their first turn, one orc shot an arrow and used a free action to tell "FALSE!!!" ...and then none of them paid any attention to it for the rest of combat.

By RAW, illusions require an action to determine if it's false, but I don't know if that's an action for each creature.

[Morty]

I'm not clear where the problem lies. That sounds like someone being a little ingenious with their resources. A character used a level 0-2 spell to distract and redirect (rather than kill or incapacitate, which level 0-2 spells can also do) a group of opponents.

The problem is that illusions can do far too much with just a little ingenuity for my liking. Later on the same character did the same thing to a group of frost giants, who fell for it easily because their investigation checks are terrible.

[Man_Over_Game]

The problem is that illusions can do far too much with just a little ingenuity for my liking. Later on the same character did the same thing to a group of frost giants, who fell for it easily because their investigation checks are terrible.

I've always been of the opinion that anything that asks for an exception needs either circumstance or a cost. Keeps creativity from being a means of getting impact for cheap. Creativity shouldn't be a game mechanic, it should be used to improve the game, not straight up win it.

That being said, I don't see a problem with someone distracting an enemy for a round with Silent Image. It's a leveled spell that relies on circumstance and is unreliable in the best-case scenario, both seem like good reasons to make it powerful.

[DwarfFighter]

I've always been of the opinion that anything that asks for an exception needs either circumstance or a cost. Keeps creativity from being a means of getting impact for cheap. Creativity shouldn't be a game mechanic, it should be used to improve the game, not straight up win it.


GM (The King): "Adventurers! Long have my citizens been terrorized by the evil dragon Bellex! I will reward you greatly if you can slay this monster and bring me it's head. This will no doubt be an arduous-"

Illusionist (casts): "Actually, we've already taken care of the problem!" (Pulls illusion of dragon head from sack)

-DF

[Corran]

GM (The King): "Adventurers! Long have my citizens been terrorized by the evil dragon Bellex! I will reward you greatly if you can slay this monster and bring me it's head. This will no doubt be an arduous-"

Illusionist (casts): "Actually, we've already taken care of the problem!" (Pulls illusion of dragon head from sack)

-DF
There are many ways in which this scene can play out, and there are many directions things can go from there. The problem is the same you've got as when you are using illusions during combat. The DM needs to think how the various npc's are supposed to respond to them (and more generally what's the place of illusions within the game world/ various parts f the game world), and that takes some work ahead of time or most likely some decision makiing on the spot. And many DM's dont want to do this, or are not good at/accustomed to doing it, or they dont want to do it because they are not good at/ accustomed to doing it.

In your example, the illsuion might be a (consequece or consequence-free) ''I win button'' or it might not. Neither is wrong, but the hard part is having a resolution which will be based on the characters involved and in a way that makes sense within the realilty of the game world.

[GloatingSwine]

I'll tell you an example of a time I did not like my DM's ruling on an illusion:

We went to the dungeon we were supposed to enter, and he had an unguarded back entrance. Turns out it wasn't guarded by the orcs because there was a black pudding in there. We killed it and sneaked into the main area with all the orcs where they weren't expecting enemies, so I use silent image to conjure a black pudding. I figure they know what it is, and any arrows that go into it would logically look like they were just absorbed. On their first turn, one orc shot an arrow and used a free action to tell "FALSE!!!" ...and then none of them paid any attention to it for the rest of combat.

By RAW, illusions require an action to determine if it's false, but I don't know if that's an action for each creature.

If a group of creatures is capable of communicating that they've encountered an illusion, then one determination should be good for all.

[Man_Over_Game]

There are many ways in which this scene can play out, and there are many directions things can go from there. The problem is the same you've got as when you are using illusions during combat. The DM needs to think how the various npc's are supposed to respond to them (and more generally what's the place of illusions within the game world/ various parts f the game world), and that takes some work ahead of time or most likely some decision makiing on the spot. And many DM's dont want to do this, or are not good at/accustomed to doing it, or they dont want to do it because they are not good at/ accustomed to doing it.

In your example, the illsuion might be a (consequece or consequence-free) ''I win button'' or it might not. Neither is wrong, but the hard part is having a resolution which will be based on the characters involved and in a way that makes sense within the realilty of the game world.

Yeah, didn't have a problem with the proposed resolution, either. Very circumstantial and risky, which means that it should probably work.

Just watched an episode of Critical Role where the druid used Tidal Wave on an incoming pirate ship and the DM said that it had like a 33% chance of flipping the ship over. Player got the roll, ship flipped over, and the combat ended in one action. Good creativity, I say.

I have problems with things like "I'm going to use my invisible, flying familiar to map the dungeon without any issues for the 40th time.". Sure, it's supported by the rules, doesn't mean it makes the game any better.

[Corran]

Yeah, didn't have a problem with the proposed resolution, either. Very circumstantial and risky, which means that it should probably work.
It could certainly work, and I'd say that a DM is by no means in the wrong if they make this decision based only on what they think it will be more fun for the players. Short term fun is easy to grant, but long term fun may require reshaping the world retroactively based on things the player characters do which you had not anticipated when creating the game world.

To put it in context. Say the players pull off the trick with the illusory dragon head. They collect whatever reward or favor they were aiming for and they leave satisfied. Now you have to consider the aftermath, even if the players are not there to witness it. I'll explain why I think this is important in a bit, but first let's think of some hypothetical scenarios. In due time the king realizes that the dragon is still alive, perhaps because the dragon continued its attacks as it would be expected (since the pcs did actually to stop this). Let's say that after lots of wrong hypothesis (failed witch hunt for the non existing necromancer that brought back the dragon, the belief that the dragon is the avater of a diety which even led briefly to a worshiping cult, etc), the king and his stuff reach the correct one. That the pc's fooled them. How do they try to make sure this does not happen again in the future? Do they have the local mage on the payroll see through illusions from now on? Do they have the local priest on the payroll cast zone of truth to returning quest takers? Do the have adveturers sign geass-impossing contracts or something like that? There are lots of countermeasures inthe book already, and the DM is not limited to what's in the books anyway (nor does the DM have to read every book from front to finish just to find the right feature or the right combination of features when you can just make up something, which is far less time consuming). The reason why this is important, is because what you come up with could already be protocol in other mre sophisticated places of your game world that the players have yet to visit. Of course, the simplest solution is to say that your game world is low magic enough and that some pc's are so extraordinarily rare in what they can do, that they will take anyone by surprise when pulling tricks like this (which is fine, as long as you are doing it purposefully and intentionaly, and not because you were caught by surprise by something a pc can do for which you dont have an easy way to adjust your world to; because if that's the case, better ban the power). This can work but it wont work for every player or DM, and it can get repetitive and boring for some (though everyone has their own limits).

In short, such edge case scenarios often have game-world changing implications that a DM might want to take some time to adjust the game world to those.

[Segev]

The problem is that illusions can do far too much with just a little ingenuity for my liking. Later on the same character did the same thing to a group of frost giants, who fell for it easily because their investigation checks are terrible.

In my experience, illusions never get to do anything useful, because DMs seem to think like this. "The player is trying to get away with something, so I can't let the illusion work." I'm glad you let the frost giants be fooled; generally, even really good DMs seem to tend to have illusions be 100% ignored because the DM knows they're not real, and thus (possibly subconsciously) justify that the creatures meant to be fooled would of course focus on these other things going on.


I have problems with things like "I'm going to use my invisible, flying familiar to map the dungeon without any issues for the 40th time.". Sure, it's supported by the rules, doesn't mean it makes the game any better.

Familiars are fragile, and invisibility doesn't obviate the need for stealth nor let them open doors undetected nor make them expert trap-finders or trap-avoiders.

[Tanarii]

Illusionist (casts):
This highlights one of the biggest hurdles for non-subtle-sorcerer Illusion casters. They just cast a spell before the illusion happens. That's something you can actually use in your favor if you play it right. But it can make some effects close to useless.

One reason I consider Prestidigitation and it's illusionary trinket fairly useless for it's sleight of hand purposes.

[Segev]

This highlights one of the biggest hurdles for non-subtle-sorcerer Illusion casters. They just cast a spell before the illusion happens. That's so,etching you can actually use in your favor if you play it right. But it can make some effects close to useless.

One reason I consider Prestidigitation and it's illusionary trinket fairly useless for it's sleight of hand purposes.

I am not sure why this is the give-away that DMs treat it as. Okay, the magic-user just did a magic thing and, magically, something appeared. If you wave your hands and utter some magic words and a wall of stone appears, do monsters just charge straight through it because it's obviously an illusion? If you summon a giant owl, do monsters just ignore it until it actually does something because they assume it's an illusion? If you send your familiar in to scout, do monsters ignore it because "it's just an illusion" or do they chase it down?

[Tanarii]

I am not sure why this is the give-away that DMs treat it as. Okay, the magic-user just did a magic thing and, magically, something appeared. If you wave your hands and utter some magic words and a wall of stone appears, do monsters just charge straight through it because it's obviously an illusion? If you summon a giant owl, do monsters just ignore it until it actually does something because they assume it's an illusion? If you send your familiar in to scout, do monsters ignore it because "it's just an illusion" or do they chase it down?
That'd be a case of trying to use it in your favor.

Casting a spell right before pulling a dragon head out, in the presence of a king? Fraught with multiple layers of problems. Possibly starting with getting riddled with crossbow bolts from the gallery.

[Segev]

That'd be a case of trying to use it in your favor.

Casting a spell right before pulling a dragon head out, in the presence of a king? Fraught with multiple layers of problems. Possibly starting with getting riddled with crossbow bolts from the gallery.

My point is more that too many DMs tend to treat it as if seeing the spell is cast means that they know it is an illusion, but will also have the monsters react to non-illusions as the real effects they are. If you really run away fro the foggy cover, monsters will chase you. If an illusion of you runs away, monsters will let it go and focus on "the rest of the party."

[da newt]

I've had illusions nerfed to useless far more often than allowed to function as written, therefore I mostly use minor illusion to make obvious illusions like a great big neon sign floating over the BBEG's head that says he's a eunuch or a floating wall that limits line of sight until a foe burns actions to interact with it or make a check to verify it's a fake...

90% of the time I've attempted to be creative or interesting, it's been shut down.

The only illusion I've ever been able to count on is disguise self.

[Tanarii]

My point is more that too many DMs tend to treat it as if seeing the spell is cast means that they know it is an illusion, but will also have the monsters react to non-illusions as the real effects they are. If you really run away fro the foggy cover, monsters will chase you. If an illusion of you runs away, monsters will let it go and focus on "the rest of the party."
I agree but wasn't my point at all.

So in that case, how aboutI give you 10/10 for a good rant? :smallsmile:

[sayaijin]

If a group of creatures is capable of communicating that they've encountered an illusion, then one determination should be good for all.

So let's look at the RAW:

Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it. A creature that uses its action to examine the image 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 creature can see through the image.

From how I read it, at the very least the illusion is a visual obstruction until they investigate it (as an action) or physically interact with it either as part of its movement or attacking. It is not clear from RAW if the "physical interaction" must be at touch range or if it can be done from a distance. I believe the intention is that the investigation can be done at range. Regardless, if the NPCs or PCs want to stop seeing the image, they have to use either move (physical interaction) or an action.

Technically, by RAW, I think even if one creature tells another that it's an illusion, it's going to still be fully visible until they interact with it, and depending on how brave/trusting each one is, they might still treat it as real. Therefore, you might give advantage or auto-succeed on their investigation check, or you might have them run through the illusion first.

Some considerations that the DM should use to determine how the NPCs act:

Are the creatures intelligent enough to assume that it's an illusion?
Is the illusion of something the creatures are familiar with/afraid of?
Are the creatures wise enough to know it's an illusion (rely on smell/hearing more than sight)?

[Sparky McDibben]

It seems like there are some DMs who see illusions as a cheat code instead of just an ability the players use to bypass an encounter or reduce its difficulty. I've found this tendency in myself, and I sort of had to train myself out of it. I broke the "the guards immediately investigate!" habit by just randomizing the guards' reactions. I roll 1d6 for the guards (guards here is a generalized term for "opposition force"); a 1 - 2 means they're suspicious and might cautiously approach the illusion (fanning out and treating it like a potential threat). A 3 - 4 means the guards are extremely confused and are either paralyzed with indecision (a 3) or send a runner for help (a 4). A 5 - 6 means they fully believe the illusion and react accordingly.

Obviously I genericize this according to context - the opposition will react very differently if there are illusions being used in a social encounter, for example.

I'm curious - do you allow illusions to create illusory sensations? There's a great scene in Time of Contempt (the Witcher novels) where a sorceress super-casually mentions she can create illusory ... uh ... fun-times, let's say.

But if you could do that, would you allow a player to give someone an illusory heart attack? Believe their pants are on backwards (necessitating someone run off and change)? Deepfake dialogue to make a bunch of people think they were insulted by someone?

[Danielqueue1]

Okay after reading this thread for a bit, I now have a plan when my players are higher level. When one of them casts a higher level spell, and enemy will assume it to be an illusion and treat it as such until proven otherwise. Ignore the summoned elemental, attempt to charge through the "illusory" wall of stone etc.