Rules/tactics you're surprised more people don't exploit.

[Deathtongue]

Going prone behind breastworks as a ranged attacker/hider - I've seen PCs take cover before plenty of times between ranged attacks/stealth attempts. I've almost never seen PCs, until I prompt them, deliberately go prone behind half or 3/4ths cover to give themselves total cover/heavy concealment. Even Ranged Rogues.
Fog Cloud / Darkness bubble on the BBEG Spellcaster - Strangely doesn't apply to Silence. Yes, they're not perfect defenses -- it won't do anything for Fear unless you shuffle out of the way between turns (which is still good!). But the list of spells a BBEG can't use if it and/or its targets can't see is surprisingly large: Hypnotic Pattern, Heat Metal, Hold Person, Suggestion, Command, Conjure/Summon Whatever, soforth.
Upcast Continual Flame trinkets - A lot of monsters can cast and even see through the Darkness spell. A 3rd-level Continual Flame spell will settle their hash.
Climb speeds - Especially, but not only if you're attacking at range. Even if you're a melee character, going all Spider-Man as your normal way of walking puts you at less of a risk. The PHB and DMG hilariously doesn't require you to dedicate hands (or even feet) for climbing, though I know few DMs who would let you get away with that. It's still something to think about if you're playing a race that has a way to plausibly climb without using both of their hands, like a Tiefling or a Centaur.
Earplugs - Yes, there aren't any rules for Earplugs, but if they're good enough for Odysseus they're good enough for you. There are a lot of effects (like the Suggestion spell) that only work if the target can hear the user.

[KorvinStarmast]

[LIST]
Going prone behind breastworks as a ranged attacker/hider -
Our DM in our first 5e adventure did that with the goblins sniping at us. And then I cast fog cloud. :smallbiggrin:


Fog Cloud / Darkness bubble on the BBEG Spellcaster
heheh, it's one of my favorite spells in the game; fog cloud.

Earplugs - Yes, there aren't any rules for Earplugs, but if they're good enough for Odysseus they're good enough for you. There are a lot of effects (like the Suggestion spell) that only work if the target can hear the user. There are a number of beginning equipment kits that include candles. Balls of wax versus harpies still works, if you think to melt down enough wax for ears ...

[Doug Lampert]

Going prone behind breastworks as a ranged attacker/hider - I've seen PCs take cover before plenty of times between ranged attacks/stealth attempts. I've almost never seen PCs, until I prompt them, deliberately go prone behind half or 3/4ths cover to give themselves total cover/heavy concealment. Even Ranged Rogues.
Fog Cloud / Darkness bubble on the BBEG Spellcaster - Strangely doesn't apply to Silence. Yes, they're not perfect defenses -- it won't do anything for Fear unless you shuffle out of the way between turns (which is still good!). But the list of spells a BBEG can't use if it and/or its targets can't see is surprisingly large: Hypnotic Pattern, Heat Metal, Hold Person, Suggestion, Command, Conjure/Summon Whatever, soforth.
Upcast Continual Flame trinkets - A lot of monsters can cast and even see through the Darkness spell. A 3rd-level Continual Flame spell will settle their hash.
Climb speeds - Especially, but not only if you're attacking at range. Even if you're a melee character, going all Spider-Man as your normal way of walking puts you at less of a risk. The PHB and DMG hilariously doesn't require you to dedicate hands (or even feet) for climbing, though I know few DMs who would let you get away with that. It's still something to think about if you're playing a race that has a way to plausibly climb without using both of their hands, like a Tiefling or a Centaur.
Earplugs - Yes, there aren't any rules for Earplugs, but if they're good enough for Odysseus they're good enough for you. There are a lot of effects (like the Suggestion spell) that only work if the target can hear the user.


The earplugs are a disastrously bad idea if the GM takes them at all seriously.

You CAN make earplugs that will effectively deafen you, doing so with D&D level tech will mean you will have a heck of a time reversing it (pouring wax into your ear to where it stops the eardrum from being able to vibrate will likely work, you'll still be able to hear really loud sounds via bone conduction, but it will probably stop you from understanding speech.

Now, given D&D tech, how are you removing that without permanent hearing damage? I'll wait while you come up with a solution.

And, that gives you (a) disadvantage on all perception checks (and probably on initiative), and (b) you are no longer allowed to talk to other players during the game or offer to advice or accept advice. In face, if I think you are taking advice or paying attention to the other player's words, then I'll declare that your plugs are obviously defective and sound based attacks still work, but you also still have disadvantage on perception.

[Deathtongue]

Our DM in our first 5e adventure did that with the goblins sniping at us. And then I cast fog cloud. :smallbiggrin:Mine was for bandits. I wasn't quite sure of the tactical/min-maxing prowess of a group I was running a pickup game for, so I designed the first couple of encounters to have a bunch of easily killable monsters that I could tune with in-combat tactics if the party was or wasn't optimized. They creamed the first set of bandits, so the second encounter I had them shooting from behind cover in their stronghold, popping in and out of halls, closing doors, soforth. This party caught on pretty quickly, though, and for the rest of this adventure they ended up using those tactics a lot more than other optimized parties who weren't introduced to that kind of Rainbow Six cheese. I ended up switching to fewer bruiser monsters with an option for ranged combat because that style of play does admittedly slow things down if done by both DMs and PCs.

[PhantomSoul]

Now, given D&D tech, how are you removing that without permanent hearing damage? I'll wait while you come up with a solution.

Enlarge/Reduce doesn't work on Objects that are Worn or Carried even if the Creature who Wears/Carries them is Unwilling... oof!

[Deathtongue]

The earplugs are a disastrously bad idea if the GM takes them at all seriously.

You CAN make earplugs that will effectively deafen you, doing so with D&D level tech will mean you will have a heck of a time reversing it (pouring wax into your ear to where it stops the eardrum from being able to vibrate will likely work, you'll still be able to hear really loud sounds via bone conduction, but it will probably stop you from understanding speech.

Now, given D&D tech, how are you removing that without permanent hearing damage? I'll wait while you come up with a solution.

And, that gives you (a) disadvantage on all perception checks (and probably on initiative), and (b) you are no longer allowed to talk to other players during the game or offer to advice or accept advice. In face, if I think you are taking advice or paying attention to the other player's words, then I'll declare that your plugs are obviously defective and sound based attacks still work, but you also still have disadvantage on perception.

Or you could just plug up one ear as a matter of course and use your Interact With An Object action to plug/unplug your other ear with something softer than candlewax. Like beeswax. Still leaves you vulnerable to Harpy ambushes, but allows you to quickly and easily patch a hole in your defenses when it applies. And yeah, round-to-round communication is a downside. I'd still rather deal with that than eat a Howling Babble from an Allip or a Wail from a Banshee or a Howling Shriek from a Vargouille.

[DarknessEternal]

Use Minor Illusion to make a box around a ranged attacker, now they have advantage basically for the combat.

[MaxWilson]

Going prone behind breastworks as a ranged attacker/hider - I've seen PCs take cover before plenty of times between ranged attacks/stealth attempts. I've almost never seen PCs, until I prompt them, deliberately go prone behind half or 3/4ths cover to give themselves total cover/heavy concealment. Even Ranged Rogues.
Fog Cloud / Darkness bubble on the BBEG Spellcaster - Strangely doesn't apply to Silence. Yes, they're not perfect defenses -- it won't do anything for Fear unless you shuffle out of the way between turns (which is still good!). But the list of spells a BBEG can't use if it and/or its targets can't see is surprisingly large: Hypnotic Pattern, Heat Metal, Hold Person, Suggestion, Command, Conjure/Summon Whatever, soforth.
Upcast Continual Flame trinkets - A lot of monsters can cast and even see through the Darkness spell. A 3rd-level Continual Flame spell will settle their hash.
Climb speeds - Especially, but not only if you're attacking at range. Even if you're a melee character, going all Spider-Man as your normal way of walking puts you at less of a risk. The PHB and DMG hilariously doesn't require you to dedicate hands (or even feet) for climbing, though I know few DMs who would let you get away with that. It's still something to think about if you're playing a race that has a way to plausibly climb without using both of their hands, like a Tiefling or a Centaur.
Earplugs - Yes, there aren't any rules for Earplugs, but if they're good enough for Odysseus they're good enough for you. There are a lot of effects (like the Suggestion spell) that only work if the target can hear the user.


Taking an opportunity attack to avoid a Multiattack. (For most monsters, may require shoving the enemy prone for advantage, or pre-casting Longstrider.)

Going prone to impose disadvantage on ranged attacks, when no melee attackers are within attack range.

Readying Concentration spells for later in the round when conditions change advantageously (e.g. a fellow PC moves out of the AoE).

Risking friendly fire with Concentration spells because you can always just turn them off (e.g. casting Hypnotic Pattern even if an ally is inside the AoE, because if all the enemies pass their saves and your ally doesn't, you can just drop the spell).

DMG Disarm + object interaction to deprive enemies of weapons. (Extremely powerful against dangerous tool-using enemies like Shadar Kai, Githyanki, and giants.)

Having minions such as Tiny Servants or Skeletons throw nets to restrain enemies, Helping each other if necessary.

Using weak minions to block enemy movement (since enemies "can't" stop in an occupied space even if they are large enough to move over).

Going prone to impose disadvantage on melee reach attacks while an ally (including a weak minion) occupies a space that prevents the enemy from closing to 5' distance.

Grappling enemies to drag them away from temporarily-vulnerable allies (e.g. paralyzed).

Climbing aboard large enemies (DMG Climb Aboard) to gain advantage and hamper enemy attacks.

Stacking multiple restrictions such as having multiple minions grapple the same enemy inside a Sickening Radiance, in order to make escaping infeasible (too expensive in action economy).

Cheese warning [I don't allow this but it technically is implied by RAW]: Quickened AoE (e.g. Sickening Radiance) + immediate Agonizing Repelling Blast to force an immediate save and therefore double the first-round impact of the spell against that target (i.e. bad guy has to make TWO saving throws against Sickening Radiance before it even gets an action, technically by RAW, unless the DM rules that's that's stupid).

When enemies are under spells or effects which break on damage--such as Tasha's Hideous Laughter or Hypnotic Pattern or an Enchanter's Hypnotic Gaze--stacking up advantages before making an enemy. Restrain the enemy in a net, possibly knock them prone, have three different zombies grapple them, slap on some PHB manacles, bury them up to their neck in dirt via Mold Earth, have everybody ready attack actions, and THEN have somebody GWM them for 2d6+15 damage. I exaggerate for effect (that's overkill) but the principle makes "disabled until damaged" effects much stronger than they appear at first.

When using a ranged weapon against a monster with a reach attack that has gotten within 5' of you, retreat to 10' before shooting them. Technically you won't suffer an opportunity attack because you haven't left their reach, and now you don't have disadvantage because there's no hostile non-incapacitated creature that can see you within 5'.

Arcane Lock on a door to create a mini-Wall of Force during combat which you can enter/exit normally but the enemies cannot. (E.g. one PC opens the door with his object interaction and fires a crossbow at the monster; the next PC casts Eldritch Blast at the monster and then closes the door; the monster on its turn has to sit there and do nothing, or at best ready some attacks. Speaking of which...)

Using illusions to spoof monsters into attacking uselessly. E.g. in the above Arcane Lock scenario, what if the monster is under a Phantasmal Force spell which persuades it that there is a fire elemental in the room with it, attacking? Or what if the PCs show up for a fight with an evil wizard, and find that his whole stronghold is filled with Programmed Illusions of the evil wizard, such that whenever he shows up to Fireball them, there are six different wizards to attack before he casts the spell (and only one of them actually produces a Fireball), and then he takes ten steps away from them in six separate directions at the same time so that they're back to not knowing which of the six wizards are fake. (Well, eleven wizards now, but at least they "know" that five of them are definitely fake because their spells didn't do anything... or did they?) And then each wizard image goes through a separate door, each one secured with Arcane Lock...

[quindraco]

Going prone behind breastworks as a ranged attacker/hider - I've seen PCs take cover before plenty of times between ranged attacks/stealth attempts. I've almost never seen PCs, until I prompt them, deliberately go prone behind half or 3/4ths cover to give themselves total cover/heavy concealment. Even Ranged Rogues.
Fog Cloud / Darkness bubble on the BBEG Spellcaster - Strangely doesn't apply to Silence. Yes, they're not perfect defenses -- it won't do anything for Fear unless you shuffle out of the way between turns (which is still good!). But the list of spells a BBEG can't use if it and/or its targets can't see is surprisingly large: Hypnotic Pattern, Heat Metal, Hold Person, Suggestion, Command, Conjure/Summon Whatever, soforth.
Upcast Continual Flame trinkets - A lot of monsters can cast and even see through the Darkness spell. A 3rd-level Continual Flame spell will settle their hash.
Climb speeds - Especially, but not only if you're attacking at range. Even if you're a melee character, going all Spider-Man as your normal way of walking puts you at less of a risk. The PHB and DMG hilariously doesn't require you to dedicate hands (or even feet) for climbing, though I know few DMs who would let you get away with that. It's still something to think about if you're playing a race that has a way to plausibly climb without using both of their hands, like a Tiefling or a Centaur.
Earplugs - Yes, there aren't any rules for Earplugs, but if they're good enough for Odysseus they're good enough for you. There are a lot of effects (like the Suggestion spell) that only work if the target can hear the user.


Nets, lots of nets. All the nets.

[meandean]

Climb speeds - Especially, but not only if you're attacking at range. Even if you're a melee character, going all Spider-Man as your normal way of walking puts you at less of a risk. The PHB and DMG hilariously doesn't require you to dedicate hands (or even feet) for climbing, though I know few DMs who would let you get away with that. It's still something to think about if you're playing a race that has a way to plausibly climb without using both of their hands, like a Tiefling or a Centaur.

I think a big part of this is that it can be literally difficult to keep track of where characters are once they start moving vertically at all, much less climb existing surfaces, which is still harder to depict. This is especially true on a virtual tabletop... and even in person, it's not much easier, unless your DM has prepared for the possibility.

There are probably similar concerns about anything involving lighting or line of sight. It's just not easy to get the relevant information onto a game board, and players may not necessarily want to spend large amounts of time hashing out what others might perceive to be picky points.


Now, given D&D tech, how are you removing that without permanent hearing damage?As mentioned, how did Odysseus do it? :smallsmile:


Use Minor Illusion to make a box around a ranged attacker, now they have advantage basically for the combat.The funny thing is that anything you read or watch about using Minor Illusion, or even about being a character with illusion spells just in general, will mention this. If people don't do it, I wonder how many don't because they never thought of it, and how many don't because it proclaims "I'm a powergamer." (And/or, how many know their DM will say "great, the opponents were looking right at you casting a spell that made a box appear around you, so they know it's an illusion." [Yes, I know that's not how it should work.])

[da newt]

Mine are very simple.

Use cover. Create cover (real or illusion).

Dodge.

Hide even if you aren't a rogue.

Move to an advantageous position.

Gang up on foes rather than 'I've got this one, you get that one.'

Come up with a plan before starting combat.

Retreat rather than fight to victory or TPK.

Decide to circumvent combat.

Know what the objective is before you just start trying to kill things.

[da newt]

I enjoy positioning especially when you can add in spider climb or flight, but I have quickly learned that many folks cannot function in 3D never mind figure out how an area of effect works in more than one plane, so it can create more stress/animosity than fun at some tables.

I find illusions and lighting are similar - can be very interesting to mess with or just cause issues.

[Deathtongue]

Use Minor Illusion to make a box around a ranged attacker, now they have advantage basically for the combat.High-school physics shenanigans like, in your case, an actual light source plus a half-reflective surface (i.e. how a one-way mirror works) could be its own thread. ;)


Grappling enemies to drag them away from temporarily-vulnerable allies (e.g. paralyzed).

Grappling in general is an underutilized mechanic. Which is kind of baffling, because 5E D&D probably has the easiest, sensible, and most generically useful grappling rules of any edition. Even if you're not specialized for it, a lot of monsters, even bruiser monsters, just straight-up can't do much about a Twin Spell: Enlarge Person Barbarian and Fighter team prone-grappling them and wailing on them.


Cheese warning [I don't allow this but it technically is implied by RAW]: Quickened AoE (e.g. Sickening Radiance) + immediate Agonizing Repelling Blast to force an immediate save and therefore double the first-round impact of the spell against that target (i.e. bad guy has to make TWO saving throws against Sickening Radiance before it even gets an action, technically by RAW, unless the DM rules that's that's stupid).

When enemies are under spells or effects which break on damage--such as Tasha's Hideous Laughter or Hypnotic Pattern or an Enchanter's Hypnotic Gaze--stacking up advantages before making an enemy. Restrain the enemy in a net, possibly knock them prone, have three different zombies grapple them, slap on some PHB manacles, bury them up to their neck in dirt via Mold Earth, have everybody ready attack actions, and THEN have somebody GWM them for 2d6+15 damage. I exaggerate for effect (that's overkill) but the principle makes "disabled until damaged" effects much stronger than they appear at first.Funny enough I dedicated entire sections in my Bladesinger/DPR-Wizard guides to such tactics.


When using a ranged weapon against a monster with a reach attack that has gotten within 5' of you, retreat to 10' before shooting them. Technically you won't suffer an opportunity attack because you haven't left their reach, and now you don't have disadvantage because there's no hostile non-incapacitated creature that can see you within 5'.I can't believe how crappy 5E D&D reach is with the changes to OA and movement split rules. Having 10' of reach used to be the foundation for a 3E/4E melee character staying relevant in levels 5-9 of play, and now it's NBD or even a disadvantage.


Arcane Lock on a door to create a mini-Wall of Force during combat which you can enter/exit normally but the enemies cannot. (E.g. one PC opens the door with his object interaction and fires a crossbow at the monster; the next PC casts Eldritch Blast at the monster and then closes the door; the monster on its turn has to sit there and do nothing, or at best ready some attacks. Speaking of which...)Don't even have to use Arcane Lock, though that is a use for the spell I haven't thought of until now. My very first Sorceradin stunted on some knights just by closing the door before they all got through and blocking it. TVTropes even has a name for this kind of thing: Tactical Door Use.


Using illusions to spoof monsters into attacking uselessly. E.g. in the above Arcane Lock scenario, what if the monster is under a Phantasmal Force spell which persuades it that there is a fire elemental in the room with it, attacking?Unlike a lot of tactics, I totally understand why this one is underutilized. I have a love-hate relationship with illusions. When the DM plays along, they're hilarious. One of my favorite memories as an illusionist came when a necromancer thug sprang his ambush of having his thugs open up on command a cage with two minotaur skeletons in it. I then created a Silent Image of another set of bars where the old one used to be. Or when we were fighting a losing battle against a hag's coven and I created a Major Image of a hag from a rival coven fleeing the hut with their cauldron and spellbooks. But A lot of DMs, even ones who otherwise play fair, introduce tons of stealth nerfs and I get tired of playing Rules Lawyer The Evil Genie to make even simple illusions like lavapits or fake archery lines work.

[Doug Lampert]

As mentioned, how did Odysseus do it? :smallsmile:

The power of PLOT, removing the wax is no problem for him because the method of doing so is never mentioned.

You could scrape out the outer ear, and then use repeated immersion in olive oil to dissolve the wax in contact with the eardrum (probably taking days). Without that, you're not getting even soft wax back out without eardrum damage if it is snug enough to block sound.

[Segev]

I always just assumed that earplugs distorted or muffled the sound enough that it wasn't magically alluring.

[stoutstien]

Going prone before moving away from a creature with a Melee attack range greater than 5 ft. Unless you need the move distance it's a good way to sap AO effectiveness.

[Gignere]

Move cast move, so many casters just stand and cast and don’t move until an enemy is in their face.

[Dark.Revenant]

Who cares about eardrum damage? Just Lesser Restoration the plugged ears and you're good to go.

[Elbeyon]

The power of PLOT, removing the wax is no problem for him because the method of doing so is never mentioned.

You could scrape out the outer ear, and then use repeated immersion in olive oil to dissolve the wax in contact with the eardrum (probably taking days). Without that, you're not getting even soft wax back out without eardrum damage if it is snug enough to block sound.I don't care. I see no issue with wax being able to easily be removed. Using wax is cool.

[Zuras]

3-D maneuvering basically never comes up until PCs get a gadget or run into an enemy that prompts them to start taking it seriously.

In Tomb of Annihilation my players started climbing trees tactically after a couple of Grung encounters. I also had one dungeon crawl campaign where the fighter got slippers of spider climbing and abused the rare but effective Polearm Master on the ceiling technique.

[Deathtongue]

The power of PLOT, removing the wax is no problem for him because the method of doing so is never mentioned.When I said earlier that I don't bother to use illusions at most tables because DMs will stealth-nerf you with nitpicks, you're the kind of DM I had in mind.

[Rafaelfras]

Most of everything described on these forums from the past years since 5th release
I lurk on Giant in the playground forums for over 15 years, so I am here since the beginning, so many heated discussions of things that break the game, from cantrips do too much damage so martials are useless to wish + simulacrum will make you invencible. (Justice be done, we got to level 13 just last year so no wish but we can cast simulacrum) my group stick to single classes and standard tactics.
Our warlock got 1 sorcerer level just now, so we have at last a sorlock, but I don't think he will try to pull a coffee lock.
I play an Evo wiz, but no hexblade for my magic missile, just the standard empowered Evo, and seems good enough.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Just running down the list.

A Combat Round is 6 seconds. You going down to keep hidden behind the wall or what-not IS the 3/4 cover. You don't have cover because the wall literally covers that much of you, you have it because you are ducking behind and poking out. In a 6 second round, their ability to still potentially hit you is being fired at right as you pop out to fire.

Fog Cloud or Darkness is a common trick with Warlocks who can see in magical darkness, otherwise it's as hindering to you as it is to them. If you're outside the area, they can see you RAW. :)

I assume you mean having light so they can't take advantage of the darkness while you're blind? I see that frequently.

The Climbing thing is workable in certain circumstances. I'd encourage it with the Dhampir.

If there's no rules then there's no guarantee they work. But I have allowed it in the past. But it silences your ability to communicate with each other too unless there's telepathy or such involved.

[stoutstien]

3-D maneuvering basically never comes up until PCs get a gadget or run into an enemy that prompts them to start taking it seriously.

In Tomb of Annihilation my players started climbing trees tactically after a couple of Grung encounters. I also had one dungeon crawl campaign where the fighter got slippers of spider climbing and abused the rare but effective Polearm Master on the ceiling technique.

Part of the issue is the silent Gentlemen's/Lady's agreement that you don't start going 3D before the the DM does. I try to basically put big "climb on me" stickers on stuff early on and go as far as tell them flat out to view the world in ways beyond my Horrid drawing skills.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Going prone behind breastworks as a ranged attacker/hider - I've seen PCs take cover before plenty of times between ranged attacks/stealth attempts. I've almost never seen PCs, until I prompt them, deliberately go prone behind half or 3/4ths cover to give themselves total cover/heavy concealment. Even Ranged Rogues.
Good point.



Fog Cloud / Darkness bubble on the BBEG Spellcaster - Strangely doesn't apply to Silence. Yes, they're not perfect defenses -- it won't do anything for Fear unless you shuffle out of the way between turns (which is still good!). But the list of spells a BBEG can't use if it and/or its targets can't see is surprisingly large: Hypnotic Pattern, Heat Metal, Hold Person, Suggestion, Command, Conjure/Summon Whatever, soforth.
Lots of problems with that tactic which mainly have to do with how the vision rules work. Go there (
) if you want to join the debate. But the core of it is, you are only blind to seeing creatures inside. If you put the BBEG in darkness by the rules you can't see him but he can see you. Don't argue about the messed up rules here go there ([QUOTE=Deathtongue;25133800][LIST])

[QUOTE=Deathtongue;25133800][LIST]
Upcast Continual Flame trinkets - A lot of monsters can cast and even see through the Darkness spell. A 3rd-level Continual Flame spell will settle their hash.
I did this all the time in 3.5 and Pathfinder. In one PF game after the party had a couple hundred gold each. I make a specific point that I'm paying extra to have a cleric cast it. DM asks why I answer because its a higher level. Next session darkness trap followed by monsters that can see in magical darkness.


Climb speeds - Especially, but not only if you're attacking at range. Even if you're a melee character, going all Spider-Man as your normal way of walking puts you at less of a risk. The PHB and DMG hilariously doesn't require you to dedicate hands (or even feet) for climbing, though I know few DMs who would let you get away with that. It's still something to think about if you're playing a race that has a way to plausibly climb without using both of their hands, like a Tiefling or a Centaur.

My Swashbuckler uses slippers of spider climbing to avoid difficult terrain and other obstacles to stay in position.


The power of PLOT, removing the wax is no problem for him because the method of doing so is never mentioned.

You could scrape out the outer ear, and then use repeated immersion in olive oil to dissolve the wax in contact with the eardrum (probably taking days). Without that, you're not getting even soft wax back out without eardrum damage if it is snug enough to block sound.
Its quite simple you roll the wax into a ball then carefully mold it to cover the outer-ear. You don't shove it deep inside like an idiot. And it shouldn't need to completely deafen you either. If someones voice is muffled enough you can't understand them suggestion won't work. Likewise similar enchanting music shouldn't work in the same situation. And etching tool using for pottery would also work fairly well for scraping out the outer-ear area.

They don't explain in Odyssius story how they removed the earplugs because earplugs were not an alien concept to them.

[greenstone]

Summons + Forced Movement

Surround a foe with 8 summond creatures or animated objects. Force them to move (for example, dissonant whispers). Laugh as they take 8 attacks of opportunity.

Illusionary Concealement

Cast an illusion of a wall or door between you and your attacker. Now move away, safe from any attack of opportunity.

Enlarge + Grapple

As posted earlier in this thread.

Bless

+1d4 to every single attack roll and saving throw, for half the party, for an entire combat. Why wouldn't every divine caster have this up all the time? I know at higher levels there are lots of concentration things to choose between, but if you have one or more warriors with extra attack, the bless bonuses really add up.

Guidance

Really need to impress the town guard? Get some quiet guidance before walking up and introducing yourself. Want a good price on an item? Guidance. Facing a tough lock or trap? Guidance. Scribing a scroll into your spellbook? Guidance. About to spring an ambush, want good initiative? Guidance. About to counterspell or dispel some nasy magic? Guidance.

Synergy

More generally, it annoys me no end that I very seldom see synergy in parties (or maybe its just my group?). No-one ever checks with other players about what their characters can do to see if there are synergistic attacks. No-one ever wonders "what can the fighter do to set up the rogue?" or "what can the druid do to force-multiply the monk?" or "Does the mage have some crowd control to take advantage of the polearm master's reach weapon?"

Sheesh, they don't even care about staying within the paladin's aura.

Magic weapon and shillellelelleiehoweveritspselt

I ran an entire adventure in a forest haunted by shadows. Neither the player with shillelagh nor the player with magic weapon ever cast them, and the monk with a magic sword kept using martial arts instead.

Every, single, hit, ...half damage.

Hirelings

Want to be a dual-wielding hand crossbow ninja, but worried about the action economy? Hire a couple of people to load the weapons for you.

Hire someone to be a spear carrier, holding out multiple spears or javelins, so that you can take advantage of Extra Attack while throwing things.

Hire someone to set and strike your camp and cook your food. Now you can spend most of the evening doing useful stuff (scribing spells, for example).

Hire someone to guard your camp (and your pack animals) while you are in the dungeon.

Rumours

Hire a minstrel to perform heroic stories and songs about you.

Now, when you are negotiating with the town elders, you can up your price (after all, you are the famous adventuring party everyone is talking about :-).

Pack Animals

Hey, you! Yes, you, the player complaing about the "stupid encumbrance rules." Ever thought about buying a donkey?

What? You are worried it will get killed when you bring it into the dungeon? See above, under "hirelings."

[BerzerkerUnit]

The earplugs are a disastrously bad idea if the GM takes them at all seriously.

You CAN make earplugs that will effectively deafen you, doing so with D&D level tech will mean you will have a heck of a time reversing it (pouring wax into your ear to where it stops the eardrum from being able to vibrate will likely work, you'll still be able to hear really loud sounds via bone conduction, but it will probably stop you from understanding speech.

Now, given D&D tech, how are you removing that without permanent hearing damage? I'll wait while you come up with a solution.

And, that gives you (a) disadvantage on all perception checks (and probably on initiative), and (b) you are no longer allowed to talk to other players during the game or offer to advice or accept advice. In face, if I think you are taking advice or paying attention to the other player's words, then I'll declare that your plugs are obviously defective and sound based attacks still work, but you also still have disadvantage on perception.

Use some manner of thin film to line ear (we have magic and monsters, so chimera wing membrane etc can do the trick). poor wax or pack with clay. Pull lining out when done.

Even easier, use mud/clay to pack ears, use Shape Earth cantrip to remove or temporarily perforate and reseal.

[LudicSavant]

Going prone behind breastworks as a ranged attacker/hider - I've seen PCs take cover before plenty of times between ranged attacks/stealth attempts. I've almost never seen PCs, until I prompt them, deliberately go prone behind half or 3/4ths cover to give themselves total cover/heavy concealment. Even Ranged Rogues.
Fog Cloud / Darkness bubble on the BBEG Spellcaster - Strangely doesn't apply to Silence. Yes, they're not perfect defenses -- it won't do anything for Fear unless you shuffle out of the way between turns (which is still good!). But the list of spells a BBEG can't use if it and/or its targets can't see is surprisingly large: Hypnotic Pattern, Heat Metal, Hold Person, Suggestion, Command, Conjure/Summon Whatever, soforth.
Upcast Continual Flame trinkets - A lot of monsters can cast and even see through the Darkness spell. A 3rd-level Continual Flame spell will settle their hash.
Climb speeds - Especially, but not only if you're attacking at range. Even if you're a melee character, going all Spider-Man as your normal way of walking puts you at less of a risk. The PHB and DMG hilariously doesn't require you to dedicate hands (or even feet) for climbing, though I know few DMs who would let you get away with that. It's still something to think about if you're playing a race that has a way to plausibly climb without using both of their hands, like a Tiefling or a Centaur.
Earplugs - Yes, there aren't any rules for Earplugs, but if they're good enough for Odysseus they're good enough for you. There are a lot of effects (like the Suggestion spell) that only work if the target can hear the user.


Personal experience:

Upcast Continual Flame trinket I see in the majority of our parties. Climb speed I just saw put to good use last session. Earplugs I've seen used in two recent incidences... once in an adventure with sirens (where they improvised the earplugs from wax... and then the enemy used their deafness to their advantage to set up a fun surprise!), and another time using Warding Wind to deafen everyone against a Lore Bard. Vision blockers are put to good use on a regular basis (though spellcasters usually are prepared for them, things like beholders are in trouble). Though it's usually not putting Darkness on the enemy, but on an object the PCs can control.

[Ogun]

I carry my source of light in my mage hand.
This allows me to maneuver it to cast the light ahead of me, keeping me and the party in relative darkness, while illuminating clearly who or whatever lies ahead.
It is also handy for setting fires.

I will always try to down a foe with a weapon rather than a spell.
Weapon attacks allow me to spare their lives, however temporarily.
The interrogation allows the DM to feed us hooks.
Deciding what to do with them encourages RP.
There is always someone eager to end them, I feed them and ply them with booze.

I'm old school enough that hammering doors shut with spikes is a go to tactic, but a wedge under the door works too and it can be done quietly.

I pick up almost every enemy weapon I can.
Crossbows, scimitar and raipers a have good weight to cash value ratio.
Most players seem to ignore salvage while wrangling over their share of copper pieces.

Costume is one possible choice of clothing.
My current characters costume is a Ghillie Suit.

A crafted scroll of healing word is competitive with a purchased potion of healing.

Chipping in for other peoples heavy armor can be considered part of the proper care and feeding of a meat shield.

Riding a mount, flying or climbing reduce some of the downsides of being prone.

[da newt]

Every small should ride a donkey/mule as a controlled mount - movement speed 40, every round free dash/disengage/dodge, ADV on st/dex saves vs prone, size med, all for the cost of 8 gp and tack. So cheap it's a consumable item.

[Sigreid]

I'm surprised the druid casting spiked growth and the warlock using repelling/attracting blast to drag opponents back and forth through the spikes isn't more popular.

[ff7hero]

I will always try to down a foe with a weapon rather than a spell.
Weapon attacks allow me to spare their lives, however temporarily.


Technically it's any melee attack that can leave a target stable at 0 HP. Makes sense (IMHO) for Shocking Grasp, although not so much Inflict Wounds. I will say I find that more reasonable than knocking someone unconscious with a bolt from a crossbow.

Still a good tactic though.

[MaxWilson]

Oh, forgot to mention Disguise Self pre-combat.

Make yourself look like something they don't want to look at (a Medusa) or won't feel like they need to kill yet (heavily armored guy with a greatsword, or an accountant with a pencil, or someone of the enemy's species wearing one of the enemy's own uniforms). Or if you're very tanky, try to look like a squishy wizard.

Seeming lets you apply this to the whole party including making zombies look like PCs and PCs look like prisoners. Let the enemy spend his first round nova on the wrong targets!

[Oramac]

Synergy

More generally, it annoys me no end that I very seldom see synergy in parties (or maybe its just my group?). No-one ever checks with other players about what their characters can do to see if there are synergistic attacks. No-one ever wonders "what can the fighter do to set up the rogue?" or "what can the druid do to force-multiply the monk?" or "Does the mage have some crowd control to take advantage of the polearm master's reach weapon?"

Sheesh, they don't even care about staying within the paladin's aura.

This. Effing this. Seriously. This irks me to no end. To the point that I've flat out told my players exactly what to do, mid game, and they STILL DON'T DO IT! At that point, ain't my fault if you idiots die. Because bet your ass the monsters are working synergistically.


Cheese warning [I don't allow this but it technically is implied by RAW]: Quickened AoE (e.g. Sickening Radiance) + immediate Agonizing Repelling Blast to force an immediate save and therefore double the first-round impact of the spell against that target (i.e. bad guy has to make TWO saving throws against Sickening Radiance before it even gets an action, technically by RAW, unless the DM rules that's that's stupid).

Honestly, I wouldn't call that cheese. That's just clever use of game mechanics. Hell, if my players did that I'd congratulate them (see above about synergy).

[Zuras]

Part of the issue is the silent Gentlemen's/Lady's agreement that you don't start going 3D before the the DM does. I try to basically put big "climb on me" stickers on stuff early on and go as far as tell them flat out to view the world in ways beyond my Horrid drawing skills.

Is it a tacit agreement to avoid going 3D, or is there just a general tacit understanding from experienced players to avoid complex environmental interactions if they seem unnecessary, or picking up on cues from the DM?

My players are pretty eager to interact with battlefield features if they fit standard tropes (cliffs, lava lakes, fighting on a boat, etc). Beyond that, what I’ve seen is that players with specific abilities look for ways to use them, like someone with a hammer looking for nails.

The most inventive party I ever had was one with an immovable rod and a swashbuckler with expertise in athletics. They were constantly looking for ways to pull off shenanigans. Next campaign, same players, but different abilities and a completely different approach to combat (more combined arms, very few attempts at shenanigans).

[Person_Man]

If an intelligent creature or NPC that isn’t overtly friendly has something they want and they’re not in a city/town, players typically just murder them and take their stuff, rather than just talking to them to try and negotiate for it. Same issue with almost all quests involving intelligent enemies. If the local ranchers hire you to stop an intelligent monster from eating their cows, the players’ solution is almost always to kill the monster, rather than negotiate a solution.

In a situation like this I once gave a Neutral dragon a baby dragon, and made sure that the players saw them talking and playing together, describing the baby as basically a helpless newborn. The players immediately started arguing over who would get to keep and raise the baby dragon after they murdered its mother. While standing within sight of the mother dragon, in the dragon’s lair.

I normally avoid TPK at all costs, but this time I feel like everyone learned an important lesson.

[MaxWilson]

Honestly, I wouldn't call that cheese. That's just clever use of game mechanics. - - - , if my players did that I'd congratulate them (see above about synergy).

Maybe I'm just annoyed with the underlying game mechanics then. It irks me that a creature standing in the Sickening Radiance all along would take only half as much damage as one that was shoved in a fraction of a second later. It impedes my willful suspension of disbelief.

(To be fair, I've also changed the rules so this issue cannot occur in the form that irks me, when I DM. But it's still there in the RAW to irk me in theoretical sense or at other people's tables.)

To me, "cheese" isn't about power levels, it's about violating the apparent reality of the gameworld. A cheesy tactic can be weak and a legimate tactic can be strong, but the cheesy one is somehow logically wrong or unreasonable, something that works only because the rulebook says it should.

[SharkForce]

Maybe I'm just annoyed with the underlying game mechanics then. It irks me that a creature standing in the Sickening Radiance all along would take only half as much damage as one that was shoved in a fraction of a second later. It impedes my willful suspension of disbelief.

(To be fair, I've also changed the rules so this issue cannot occur in the form that irks me, when I DM. But it's still there in the RAW to irk me in theoretical sense or at other people's tables.)

To me, "cheese" isn't about power levels, it's about violating the apparent reality of the gameworld. A cheesy tactic can be weak and a legimate tactic can be strong, but the cheesy one is somehow logically wrong or unreasonable, something that works only because the rulebook says it should.

it's an artifact of turn-based play. if you think of it as using the agonizing blast to keep the creature in the light for a little bit longer, it makes more sense (yes, the creature hasn't moved yet... but again, artifact of turn-based play).

for me, control flames. use it on a bullseye lantern. 120 foot cone of bright light in front of you, with another 120 feet of dim light beyond that... and no light behind. yes, it lets enemies know where you are, but it also gives the entire party excellent awareness. you can also have up to 3 of them *per person who knows the cantrip*

(the cantrip is otherwise also useful for spreading or extinguishing flames... a single torch can light a bonfire instantly, and a blazing cottage can be extinguished in under a minute).

also, I don't see a lot of using create bonfire to push/pull enemies through, or even just making a chokepoint that enemies will probably take damage from as they pass through it.

[stoutstien]

Is it a tacit agreement to avoid going 3D, or is there just a general tacit understanding from experienced players to avoid complex environmental interactions if they seem unnecessary, or picking up on cues from the DM?

My players are pretty eager to interact with battlefield features if they fit standard tropes (cliffs, lava lakes, fighting on a boat, etc). Beyond that, what I’ve seen is that players with specific abilities look for ways to use them, like someone with a hammer looking for nails.

The most inventive party I ever had was one with an immovable rod and a swashbuckler with expertise in athletics. They were constantly looking for ways to pull off shenanigans. Next campaign, same players, but different abilities and a completely different approach to combat (more combined arms, very few attempts at shenanigans).

Just a pattern that I've noticed over the years. If a DM for pick up groups I've noticed players tend to fairly reserved with interacting with the environment in 3D space until the NPC start doing so themselves. This holds true even if their tactics would differ if they were with a DM they have rapport with.
Just one of those odd social phenomenons.

[MaxWilson]

also, I don't see a lot of using create bonfire to push/pull enemies through, or even just making a chokepoint that enemies will probably take damage from as they pass through it.

That doesn't surprise me a ton, since it's a concentration cantrip, and cantrips are often used when your concentration is already busy on something more important.

I agree that it's a good use of a cantrip though, when feasible.

[Dalinar]

I'm surprised the druid casting spiked growth and the warlock using repelling/attracting blast to drag opponents back and forth through the spikes isn't more popular.

So Daolock in particular is good at this because it's the only warlock variant that gets Spike Growth and it can take the Crusher feat. Lots of people have noticed the synergy there, but I don't think people play it much. Swarmkeeper Ranger can do a similar tactic at 5, using their swarm instead of Crusher, and possibly Thorn Whip if they're really doubling down (probably not worth it over just attacking twice though).

Some downsides to it:

1. If enemies are spread out, you'd need to really go the extra mile to avoid having to recast Spike Growth.

2. Flying enemies disregard you. So does anyone immune to magical piercing.

3. Your melee buddies might have wanted to attack those targets and now can't get in.

4. Ranged attackers, while still in danger of taking big damage, are nearly unimpeded in terms of shooting at people. Compare to something like Web.

[Sigreid]

So Daolock in particular is good at this because it's the only warlock variant that gets Spike Growth and it can take the Crusher feat. Lots of people have noticed the synergy there, but I don't think people play it much. Swarmkeeper Ranger can do a similar tactic at 5, using their swarm instead of Crusher, and possibly Thorn Whip if they're really doubling down (probably not worth it over just attacking twice though).

Some downsides to it:

1. If enemies are spread out, you'd need to really go the extra mile to avoid having to recast Spike Growth.

2. Flying enemies disregard you. So does anyone immune to magical piercing.

3. Your melee buddies might have wanted to attack those targets and now can't get in.

4. Ranged attackers, while still in danger of taking big damage, are nearly unimpeded in terms of shooting at people. Compare to something like Web.

Every tactic has to be used in the right circumstances. For another one if you're malicious enough, shape earth can let you set up punji traps very quickly if you just have a little time to prepare the ground on which you choose to fight.

[SharkForce]

That doesn't surprise me a ton, since it's a concentration cantrip, and cantrips are often used when your concentration is already busy on something more important.

I agree that it's a good use of a cantrip though, when feasible.

sure, I wouldn't use it against the BBEG. I would want concentration for something better than that in a major fight.

but for example, compare create bonfire to hex for a warlock, a class which conveniently has tools to move people around with relative ease, and it saves your spell slot for later use at a cost of a little less damage in round 1. or, for that matter, you can just use it any time you're in a group that even *includes* a warlock.

for fights that are not worth the big guns, it gives a lot more opportunities to deal extra damage than most other cantrips.

[MaxWilson]

sure, I wouldn't use it against the BBEG. I would want concentration for something better than that in a major fight.

but for example, compare create bonfire to hex for a warlock, a class which conveniently has tools to move people around with relative ease, and it saves your spell slot for later use at a cost of a little less damage in round 1. or, for that matter, you can just use it any time you're in a group that even *includes* a warlock.

for fights that are not worth the big guns, it gives a lot more opportunities to deal extra damage than most other cantrips.

I agree, especially if your other cantrip options are poor (as opposed to e.g. Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Blast).

For warlocks, well, it would depend on the fight whether Create Bonfire was worth the action economy. (Side note: Hex is good mostly for non-pure warlocks, and primarily only if you're using it for more than just pure damage. E.g. for a Cha 20 Str 16 padlock, a round spent on Hex (Str) + grapple + prone can be more effective and cheaper than a round of attack/attack/Divine Smite, and more effective than Create Bonfire.)

[nathanv]

Stealth. Surprise gives everybody initiative and maybe action surge+. PWT turns your plate pallie into a rogue. Scouting lets you precast buffs. Does everybody teleport in the moment you lift the artifact from the pedestal, like it's a game of Quake? Be hidden anyways, they won't be able to target. And a surprising number of class features won't unhide you if you need to prebuff.

Blind fighting fighting style. Dueling this, GWF that, when fog clouds are cheap. You get greater invis for everyone that buys in, starting at 1.

Silence and knock are both 2nd level spells. Silence + sledgehammer > knock.

Knowledge. "Hey DM, can I use Religion or something to find out what these things are? Maybe what they're vulnerable to?" You want to hire somebody? Hire a researcher and stick them in a library, and use whatever long-distance communication you have available. Consider Contact Other Plane for crazy stuff; it's a ritual. *Somebody* knows what you want to know.

Spend your gold. Buy warhorses-- they can block movement at least-- or hire hirelings. Buy healing potions. Hire spellcasting: Magic Aura, Continual Light. Pre-hire a res in case everything goes wrong but your body becomes accessible. Buy or make scrolls so that you don't have to prep emergency spells. Set up glyphs. Buy a couple nets with your starting gold.

Make more friends and fewer enemies. It never hurts, and it can help a lot.

Target multiple saves/AC.

Use out-of-combat buffs (like Fiend's Luck for social, or Lucky.) Social and combat don't usually happen the same day. Use skill buffs on initiative (again, like Lucky, it's one of the strongest places you can use it.)

Nitpick:

Minor illusion isn't advantage-for-combat on an archer; it's advantage-for-next-attack. The instant the arrow goes through the crate, it's clear that it's an illusion, and the crate goes transparent. But Minor Illusion *is* a different way to disengage, that you might as well use since it might matter later on. Minor illusion is great for free, non-conc versatility though, I've got nothing against it.

[DarknessEternal]

Minor illusion isn't advantage-for-combat on an archer; it's advantage-for-next-attack. The instant the arrow goes through the crate, it's clear that it's an illusion, and the crate goes transparent. But Minor Illusion *is* a different way to disengage, that you might as well use since it might matter later on. Minor illusion is great for free, non-conc versatility though, I've got nothing against it.

You are incorrect. Minor Illusion gives the rules for how people can discover it's an illusion and then see through it. Someone has to physically interact with as an action and pass an Investigation check.

Even if you're adamant that you are correct, my illusory box can just as easily have a tiny opening for arrows to fly from.

[Lord Vukodlak]

You are incorrect. Minor Illusion gives the rules for how people can discover it's an illusion and then see through it.Yes it does.



Someone has to physically interact with as an action and pass an Investigation check.
No it they don't
"Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an Illusion, because things can pass through it." That's automatic 100% success no check required. So an arrow passing through a 'solid' object would reveal it to be an illusion.

"f 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."
If your minor illusion is of something hazardous the target might refrain from touching it. Or if the illusion isn't physical in nature.

[meandean]

Minor illusion isn't advantage-for-combat on an archer; it's advantage-for-next-attack. The instant the arrow goes through the crate, it's clear that it's an illusion, and the crate goes transparent.I agree with this interpretation, but the question would be: Why is an archer wasting his time trying to shoot at someone who (he thinks) has total cover, and thus he could never hit?

Now, perhaps someone will approach you and try to smash your "crate". Or if you're prone behind the "crate", maybe they'll come around your flank. But it doesn't make sense for them to try to shoot an arrow through a crate. (Or to try to target you with a non-AOE spell, which they also very often literally can't do if they can't see you.)

The fact that it's entirely plausible that many DMs would nonetheless have the archer shoot at you anyway, illustrates what Deathtongue was saying, that there's a good chance this ain't gonna work in your game. And, I mean, even though it clearly is RAW and I really do think the DM shouldn't run opponents like that at all, I still at least would understand where they're coming from. i.e., it's all rather cheesetacular.

Underutilization of minor illusion is part of what I think is a larger principle, that players are reluctant to do things that both are designed to set up subsequent turns, and require full actions. You quickly figure out that (in most games, anyway) combats don't last for many rounds. The logical (and correct!) conclusion from that is that each of your actions is precious. That in turn makes it feel like every action should either be doing damage, or at least directly imposing effects. This misconception applies to in-combat Hiding (for non-Rogues), grappling (does at least have an effect after the first action, but it's not necessarily something you care much about), nets (similar to grappling, plus have a whole bunch of annoying issues), line-of-sight blocking more complex than "I cast darkness at myself/that opponent", etc.

[Chronos]

The minor illusion you're hiding in doesn't necessarily need to be a crate. Outside, for instance, I usually used a bush. That won't reveal that it's an illusion when arrows pass through it, because arrows can, in fact, pass through a real bush. And a bush in the middle of the forest is a lot less conspicuous than a box in the middle of the forest.

[Segev]

I agree with this interpretation, but the question would be: Why is an archer wasting his time trying to shoot at someone who (he thinks) has total cover, and thus he could never hit?

Now, perhaps someone will approach you and try to smash your "crate". Or if you're prone behind the "crate", maybe they'll come around your flank. But it doesn't make sense for them to try to shoot an arrow through a crate. (Or to try to target you with a non-AOE spell, which they also very often literally can't do if they can't see you.)

The fact that it's entirely plausible that many DMs would nonetheless have the archer shoot at you anyway, illustrates what Deathtongue was saying, that there's a good chance this ain't gonna work in your game. And, I mean, even though it clearly is RAW and I really do think the DM shouldn't run opponents like that at all, I still at least would understand where they're coming from. i.e., it's all rather cheesetacular.

Underutilization of minor illusion is part of what I think is a larger principle, that players are reluctant to do things that both are designed to set up subsequent turns, and require full actions. You quickly figure out that (in most games, anyway) combats don't last for many rounds. The logical (and correct!) conclusion from that is that each of your actions is precious. That in turn makes it feel like every action should either be doing damage, or at least directly imposing effects. This misconception applies to in-combat Hiding (for non-Rogues), grappling (does at least have an effect after the first action, but it's not necessarily something you care much about), nets (similar to grappling, plus have a whole bunch of annoying issues), line-of-sight blocking more complex than "I cast darkness at myself/that opponent", etc.

The idea here is that the archer is the one hiding inside the illusory crate.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I agree with this interpretation, but the question would be: Why is an archer wasting his time trying to shoot at someone who (he thinks) has total cover, and thus he could never hit?.
The archer utilizing the minor illusion shoots through the crate. If he's popping up to avoid shooting through the minor illusion the archer readies an attack to shoot you and possibly misses hitting the create. Or would have missed if the illusion actually provided cover and instead reveals the illusion and stabs you.

[DarknessEternal]

The minor illusion you're hiding in doesn't necessarily need to be a crate. Outside, for instance, I usually used a bush. That won't reveal that it's an illusion when arrows pass through it, because arrows can, in fact, pass through a real bush. And a bush in the middle of the forest is a lot less conspicuous than a box in the middle of the forest.
Or just a cloud of smoke. Physically interact with that.

[Hairfish]

Or just a cloud of smoke. Physically interact with that.

Literally just walk into it.

[Ogun]

I do think the set up time on minor illusion is what holds back in combat use.
An illusion of a wall with arrow slits lets me shoot through the slits with advantage.
Anyone shooting me through the wall would get disadvantage.
This is nice but it shouldn't last.
Any intelligent combatant has a decent chance of suspecting an illusion and knowing that shooting through the box will end the illusion.
Unintelligent combatants won't know or care what is real.
If they can detect where the attack is coming from, they will counter attack.
From what I can tell, any attack will reveal your location.
Things like chill touch shouldn't give me away your position, but they certainly seem to.
Combat wise you take a turn doing no damage to gain a turn of heavy obscurement.
To use this thing that cost a turn to create you have to end your turn in the same place it is.
It's not better than attacking twice, unless you really need them to have disadvantage against you.
It can be a cheap protection against spellcasters that need to see you to target you.
I use it to communicate by making 3D maps,emojis and posters.

Lately I've been thinking that sound is a decent use for minor illusion.
This can be a distraction, possibly a counter to audible effects, or cover for stealth vs. hearing.

[RSP]

Or just a cloud of smoke. Physically interact with that.

RAW, physical interaction with the cloud would show it an illusion the same way.

Also, this falls under “ask your DM if a cloud of smoke is an imagine of an object” as that’s what MI can create.

[Chronos]

I've always read "physical interaction with an illusion" to mean "physical interaction of a sort that wouldn't be possible with the real thing". Someone walks through a wall? Yeah, that's a pretty clear sign that something is up (though still not actually definitive; maybe the walker is an illusion or incorporeal). Someone shoots an arrow through a fog cloud? Perfectly ordinary fog cloud, nothing to see here, move along.

[diplomancer]

I've always read "physical interaction with an illusion" to mean "physical interaction of a sort that wouldn't be possible with the real thing". Someone walks through a wall? Yeah, that's a pretty clear sign that something is up (though still not actually definitive; maybe the walker is an illusion or incorporeal). Someone shoots an arrow through a fog cloud? Perfectly ordinary fog cloud, nothing to see here, move along.

I've always read it as "those who physically interact with the object know it's an illusion". Observing a physical interaction is NOT a physical interaction.

[RSP]

I've always read "physical interaction with an illusion" to mean "physical interaction of a sort that wouldn't be possible with the real thing". Someone walks through a wall? Yeah, that's a pretty clear sign that something is up (though still not actually definitive; maybe the walker is an illusion or incorporeal). Someone shoots an arrow through a fog cloud? Perfectly ordinary fog cloud, nothing to see here, move along.

Keep in mind Minor Illusion doesn’t create an “active” illusion, like Major Illusion can. So, if your DM decides a 5’ cloud of smoke is an object, that 5’ cloud of smoke doesn’t billow in the wind like a normal cloud would; arrows coming in or out would still create enough of a disturbance to disrupt (in its small area) the “smoke.”


I've always read it as "those who physically interact with the object know it's an illusion". Observing a physical interaction is NOT a physical interaction.

Interesting. So in your reading, creating anything at range gives permanent Advantage to the caster than? That is, if you did the “archer in the crate” trick, and everyone is at range, said archer gets Adv on every and all attacks (as, I’m assuming, “observing an arrow you fired, is not the individual making a physical interaction).

That’s a very powerful cantrip.

[Gignere]

Keep in mind Minor Illusion doesn’t create an “active” illusion, like Major Illusion can. So, if your DM decides a 5’ cloud of smoke is an object, that 5’ cloud of smoke doesn’t billow in the wind like a normal cloud would; arrows coming in or out would still create enough of a disturbance to disrupt (in its small area) the “smoke.”



Interesting. So in your reading, creating anything at range gives permanent Advantage to the caster than? That is, if you did the “archer in the crate” trick, and everyone is at range, said archer gets Adv on every and all attacks (as, I’m assuming, “observing an arrow you fired, is not the individual making a physical interaction).

That’s a very powerful cantrip.

I allow one attack with advantage with the minor illusion crate, for smoke/fog/mists I only allow it for silent image or higher illusions, since I rule them as not an object, so minor illusions can’t create them.

What I do allow is use minor illusion to create concealment so if you move out attack and move back in you can get concealment as long as you don’t attack through the illusion.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I've always ruled that minor illusion basically creates a photograph of the desired illusion and slaps it down in the real world.

So that chest is a perfect looking chest. But if the area gets covered in flour, the chest does not. If you create a cloud of fog and an arrow shoots into it, it simply disappears into it; there's no displacement or whirling patterns from the air pressure of the arrow.

Shooting an arrow into the illusion and observing it counts enough to disbelieve it. The Investigation check is for if you don't interact with it in any way.

It's not nearly as powerful as some other people run it, but my groups haven't really complained. It's a free resource. As you scale up in levels, the spells become more and more "fool-proof".

It's also part of why I dislike phantasmal force, which is a degree of Real that is very much out of line with the progression of the main illusion line of spells, but that's an entirely different story.

[Cheesegear]

'Grapple/Shove doesn't even do damage. Why would I do it?' - A player at one of my tables. Made me *headdesk*.

[diplomancer]

Keep in mind Minor Illusion doesn’t create an “active” illusion, like Major Illusion can. So, if your DM decides a 5’ cloud of smoke is an object, that 5’ cloud of smoke doesn’t billow in the wind like a normal cloud would; arrows coming in or out would still create enough of a disturbance to disrupt (in its small area) the “smoke.”



Interesting. So in your reading, creating anything at range gives permanent Advantage to the caster than? That is, if you did the “archer in the crate” trick, and everyone is at range, said archer gets Adv on every and all attacks (as, I’m assuming, “observing an arrow you fired, is not the individual making a physical interaction).

That’s a very powerful cantrip.

Well, first, it costs an action. Not a trivial cost, many times.
2, people can still try and run around the box, or try to overturn it with a free object interaction if the caster is inside the box.
3- arrows flying out of the box would be a good reason to make the Int check to figure out what's going on. Really, if the DM says "well, they've seen arrows flying out of the box, so they know now it's an illusion", this will work the 1st time; all the other times it will be "I make an illusion of a box with arrow slits".
4- and I know this is not RAW, but on the advantage issue. As a DM, I probably would not give advantage after the first attack to someone inside a real 5' box with arrow slits. Once people know that there's someone there shooting arrows, even though they can't see the attacker, they can perfectly well prepare for it. Main advantage of the cantrip would be defensive, not offensive.

[Asisreo1]

Attacking worn and carried equipment while its on the person.

Its not as cheap as it sounds, often its an unattractive solution since most creatures will lose their entire turn attempting to destroy the stuff and all the enemies need to do is have extra gear.

Still, its a decent option if a particular item/equipment is being a thorn in your side.

[DarknessEternal]

Thanks for proving why player don't use illusions. DMs are bad.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Thanks for proving why player don't use illusions. DMs are bad.

Your treating a cantrip like a high level illusion spell giving it abilities it simply doesn't have. Your like a player who wants to blind a target by casting light on there eyes.

[MrStabby]

If an intelligent creature or NPC that isn’t overtly friendly has something they want and they’re not in a city/town, players typically just murder them and take their stuff, rather than just talking to them to try and negotiate for it. Same issue with almost all quests involving intelligent enemies. If the local ranchers hire you to stop an intelligent monster from eating their cows, the players’ solution is almost always to kill the monster, rather than negotiate a solution.

In a situation like this I once gave a Neutral dragon a baby dragon, and made sure that the players saw them talking and playing together, describing the baby as basically a helpless newborn. The players immediately started arguing over who would get to keep and raise the baby dragon after they murdered its mother. While standing within sight of the mother dragon, in the dragon’s lair.

I normally avoid TPK at all costs, but this time I feel like everyone learned an important lesson.

I think this is probably the best point in the thread. The absolutely underexploited tactic is the peaceful one.






You are incorrect. Minor Illusion gives the rules for how people can discover it's an illusion and then see through it. Someone has to physically interact with as an action and pass an Investigation check.

Even if you're adamant that you are correct, my illusory box can just as easily have a tiny opening for arrows to fly from.

I think this gets a bit wierd when to take it to extremes. Like, why have a box? Wouldn't plate mail with a visor be even more stylish - you are just as non visible inside and it is just as clear where you are. But then why don't you also get disadvantage normally for shooting at someone in plate mail where you cant see any part of them? They are also non-visable to you.

If you accept that plate mail doesnt impose disadvantage in addition to its AC benefit then it seems you have to accept that there is a cuttof somewhere; some size of enclosure is sufficiently small as to count as "seeing you". This isn't to say that you can't rule that the cuttoff is less than 5ft, but I think you need some reason to have strong feelings about people who put the cuttoff on a somewhat broader region.

[Chronos]

If there's someone in a box shooting at me, and I've got a big nasty sword, I'm going to go over to the box and try to smash through it with my sword. Which might turn out to be easier than I expected.

Of course, this can be mitigated with illusions that fit in with the scene. If I figure out that someone's shooting at me from inside a bush, I'll also try to smash through the bush. Um, OK, which bush?

[Zuras]

If an intelligent creature or NPC that isn’t overtly friendly has something they want and they’re not in a city/town, players typically just murder them and take their stuff, rather than just talking to them to try and negotiate for it. Same issue with almost all quests involving intelligent enemies. If the local ranchers hire you to stop an intelligent monster from eating their cows, the players’ solution is almost always to kill the monster, rather than negotiate a solution.

In a situation like this I once gave a Neutral dragon a baby dragon, and made sure that the players saw them talking and playing together, describing the baby as basically a helpless newborn. The players immediately started arguing over who would get to keep and raise the baby dragon after they murdered its mother. While standing within sight of the mother dragon, in the dragon’s lair.

I normally avoid TPK at all costs, but this time I feel like everyone learned an important lesson.

Isn’t the biggest hurdle to this ensuring that less than half of the NPCs the party encounters are interested in betraying them? That was probably the first thing I had to work on as a DM.

[Mastikator]

Well, first, it costs an action. Not a trivial cost, many times.
2, people can still try and run around the box, or try to overturn it with a free object interaction if the caster is inside the box.
3- arrows flying out of the box would be a good reason to make the Int check to figure out what's going on. Really, if the DM says "well, they've seen arrows flying out of the box, so they know now it's an illusion", this will work the 1st time; all the other times it will be "I make an illusion of a box with arrow slits".
4- and I know this is not RAW, but on the advantage issue. As a DM, I probably would not give advantage after the first attack to someone inside a real 5' box with arrow slits. Once people know that there's someone there shooting arrows, even though they can't see the attacker, they can perfectly well prepare for it. Main advantage of the cantrip would be defensive, not offensive.

Once someone knows it's an illusion it becomes faint, so you would see through it. IMO if an NPC tries to touch the illusion or sees someone or something else move through it then the gig is up.

HOWEVER I still think Minor Illusion is one of the most exploitable cantrip in the game. In a game I was able to perfectly stealth into a tower in the city of Sharn by using Minor Illusion, I made various boxes, crates ect and hid inside them, NPCs didn't bother to check them because they were busy so I could just go wherever I wanted. This was near the strength of invisibility but at level 1 and I didn't use any spell slots.

[Segev]

At the very least, if the illusion is not revealed, a Hide check should be permitted, just as it would be for any other obscure went, to reacquire advantage.

Also, I recommend a thick bush or other "soft cover" rather than a box as your archer redoubt. An arrow flying out of foliage is not so impossible. If you're an Illusionist, it can even make appropriate rustling noises.

[Quietus]

Something I Just thought about last night; the rules for casting two leveled spells in a turn. We focus so much on the first part of this, that we overlook a loophole :


A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

This limits, say, a Cleric from casting Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians in the same turn. However, you know what isn't the Cast a Spell action? The Ready action. It does cost your concentration and reaction, but you could cast Spiritual Weapon, then ready an action to cast Spirit Guardians "immediately after my turn is over", or find some less metagame-y way to phrase that. If the spell you're wanting to cast is itself concentration, then the fact that you have to spend your concentration to Ready is kind of irrelevant.

[PhantomSoul]

Something I Just thought about last night; the rules for casting two leveled spells in a turn. We focus so much on the first part of this, that we overlook a loophole :



This limits, say, a Cleric from casting Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians in the same turn. However, you know what isn't the Cast a Spell action? The Ready action. It does cost your concentration and reaction, but you could cast Spiritual Weapon, then ready an action to cast Spirit Guardians "immediately after my turn is over", or find some less metagame-y way to phrase that. If the spell you're wanting to cast is itself concentration, then the fact that you have to spend your concentration to Ready is kind of irrelevant.

There is the buggering of Readying Casting the Spell: "When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs." (PHB 193)

[Gignere]

Something I Just thought about last night; the rules for casting two leveled spells in a turn. We focus so much on the first part of this, that we overlook a loophole :



This limits, say, a Cleric from casting Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians in the same turn. However, you know what isn't the Cast a Spell action? The Ready action. It does cost your concentration and reaction, but you could cast Spiritual Weapon, then ready an action to cast Spirit Guardians "immediately after my turn is over", or find some less metagame-y way to phrase that. If the spell you're wanting to cast is itself concentration, then the fact that you have to spend your concentration to Ready is kind of irrelevant.

Typically it’s drop SG first and move into position. 2nd round you cast SW and dodge/cantrip/or attack.

[Reach Weapon]

Also, I recommend a thick bush or other "soft cover" rather than a box as your archer redoubt. An arrow flying out of foliage is not so impossible. If you're an Illusionist, it can even make appropriate rustling noises.

It's a little more DM and luck dependent, but it can also help to bolster your set up with something tangible. Suppose you're using a chair or something just inside the illusion for partial cover. Return fire might hit it and give an insufficiently observant foe the impression the box has physicality, when an arrow or hand axe is sticking out of the side of the box.

[RSP]

Well, first, it costs an action. Not a trivial cost, many times…
3- arrows flying out of the box would be a good reason to make the Int check to figure out what's going on. Really, if the DM says "well, they've seen arrows flying out of the box, so they know now it's an illusion", this will work the 1st time; all the other times it will be "I make an illusion of a box with arrow slits".

This still equals 1 PC Action to all enemies having to take the Int check Action to discover the illusion, no?

Again, that seems very powerful for a cantrip.

[Ogun]

If a 5 cubic foot illusion of a crate doesn't force or grant disadvantage, would the real version?
Sure you would have cover but you would also have heavy obscurement, and some things bypass cover.
If not a box, what about 5 cubic feet of smoke, dust, darkness or any other heavy obscurement?
Remember, you are unseen, but not hidden.
They know you are there but your actions are masked.
Your opponents can prepare themselves for a shot but there will be no telegraphing of any kind, just as if you were invisible but not hidden, so advantage to hit.them should apply.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Well, first, it costs an action. Not a trivial cost, many times.
2, people can still try and run around the box, or try to overturn it with a free object interaction if the caster is inside the box.
3- arrows flying out of the box would be a good reason to make the Int check to figure out what's going on. Really, if the DM says "well, they've seen arrows flying out of the box, so they know now it's an illusion", this will work the 1st time; all the other times it will be "I make an illusion of a box with arrow slits".
4- and I know this is not RAW, but on the advantage issue. As a DM, I probably would not give advantage after the first attack to someone inside a real 5' box with arrow slits. Once people know that there's someone there shooting arrows, even though they can't see the attacker, they can perfectly well prepare for it. Main advantage of the cantrip would be defensive, not offensive.

This leads to the dangerous arena of the nuclear (illusory) arms race. While I'll certainly reward players for clever spell use, if it becomes a go-to option for the PCs to use, their enemies are going to start using it as well. And they've got a lot more actions/spell slots than the PCs do. It's not really a fight that they can win.

Keep it sane, guys. Don't abuse the mechanics, and they won't be abused against you.

[MaxWilson]

And that, people, is why I don't grant advantage to unseen ranged attackers, only unseen melee attackers. Doing so immediately leads to ridiculous situations illustrating why being unseen shouldn't make you more accurate with a longbow.

[Reach Weapon]

And that, people, is why I don't grant advantage to unseen ranged attackers, only unseen melee attackers. Doing so immediately leads to ridiculous situations illustrating why being unseen shouldn't make you more accurate with a longbow.

I was under the impression that the explanation in both cases was that being unseen removed many visual cues about the attack and therefore decreased your opponent's odds against it. Proficient heroes are inherently ridiculously accurate against stationary targets.

[MaxWilson]

I was under the impression that the explanation in both cases was that being unseen removed many visual cues about the attack and therefore decreased your opponent's odds against it. Proficient heroes are inherently ridiculously accurate against stationary targets.

"Ridiculous" is a key word here. They're already ridiculously accurate, so I don't feel the least bit bad about saying, "No, you don't have advantage just for being outside his darkvision range." Enough is enough.

[Ogun]

That is an interesting take.
I would maybe go the other way and always grant advantage to ranged weapons, or at least bolts and arrows, seeing as its mostly ridiculous to think your dexterity bonus should be able to protect you from a projectile going 225 feet per second.
Could a human parry an arrow?
Maybe, if they were prepared for it and concentrating on doing that to the exclusion of all else.
Sounds like imposing disadvantage to one attacker but granting advantage to any other attacker.
A special kind of Dodge or Taking Cover?
Hmm, getting pretty granular, pretty quickly, for not much gain in verisimilitude.
Hey, while we are at it, does it really make sense to do more damage because your of your dexterity score?
I mean you don't cut beef bones with a filet knife.
Does every sneak attack with a dagger go though a juncture in the plate mail?
What about thrown daggers, could they really find a weak spot, spinning end over instead of being thrust?
.

I dont think advantage on an attack that takes a turn to set up and can be negated by a single counter attack(successful or not)needs any nerfing.
We have already shown why people avoid it anyway.

[PhantomSoul]

"Ridiculous" is a key word here. They're already ridiculously accurate, so I don't feel the least bit bad about saying, "No, you don't have advantage just for being outside his darkvision range." Enough is enough.

Not ridiculous -- and they can still Hide for Advantage (presumably)!

[quindraco]

Way too many people going too far away from the RAW when it comes to nerfing Minor Illusion. I'm no stranger to DMs nerfing illusions on the fly, just like they do stealth, but this thread is way off the rails. Providing a portable thing to hide behind is one of the primary use-cases of Minor Illusion! Bear in mind here's how Minor Illusion actually works, RAW. You can nerf from here, like how one poster already ruled unseen snipers inexplicably don't get advantage to hit (because Rogues need to suck more than they already do, apparently?):

1) Your illusion is an object and it's as opaque as you want it to be.
2) Assuming it's opaque, you can hide behind it, like you can hide behind anything that's opaque.
3) You can shoot from behind it, like you can from behind any opaque object.
4) It provides as much cover as you want it to, within its size limits. As your DM should already be aware - including you, if you're the DM - cover doesn't need to offer "real" protection. A 5x5 stone, wood, silk, canvas, or paper wall provides the same cover.
5) If you're using the variant rules for cover, and you should, if someone misses their target due to the cover, they hit the cover. Hitting the illusion reveals it to be an illusion, rendering it translucent. At this point it will cease to provide cover. Since the illusion doesn't stop the projectile, this should mean the projectile immediately hits you, just as it would if you were hiding behind a 1mm thick paper wall.
6) Any attacker can Investigate the illusion as an action, at will, to try and beat the DC to discover it's an illusion, but this is sus behaviour, especially if they're shooting back - if they suspect the illusion is illusory for some reason, the clever move is shooting it intentionally, which is going to be a lot easier than Investigating it, for most. Shooting it is an automatic success, since object AC is based on material - you can't miss an illusion any more than you can miss air. There's a reason you don't even roll to throw an oil flask into a target square.

[DarknessEternal]

2) Assuming it's opaque, you can hide behind it, like you can hide behind anything that's opaque.

It's always see-through to the caster and, if you're not using it for yourself, the guy you put it around who knows to put a hand through it immediately.

[MaxWilson]

Not ridiculous -- and they can still Hide for Advantage (presumably)!

I don't see why Hiding would help either, especially if your enemy knows the direction the attack will come from. An attack from 200 yards away should still have disadvantage even if the target can't see you, unless you're a Sharpshooter or something. Being hidden isn't going to suddenly make your hand steadier or help you judge arrow trajectories more precisely.

YMMV though. I do allow sneak attack damage at range if you're hidden though, even though you don't have advantage or an ally adjacent to the target.


4) It provides as much cover as you want it to, within its size limits. As your DM should already be aware - including you, if you're the DM - cover doesn't need to offer "real" protection. A 5x5 stone, wood, silk, canvas, or paper wall provides the same cover.

Or a 5' diameter sphere of inky black material hanging in midair, which coincidentally that looks identical to some people's version of a Darkness spell, only smaller. If they try to touch it and don't feel stone/cloth/wood/etc., they'll have to assume it's darkness, and not an illusion of a black marble sphere, right? They look the same.

Also as a DM I would very much say "concealment is not cover" and not allow paper walls to provide cover. For cloth or thin wood I'd use the DMG rules on blow-through. Thick wood you'd probably be safe enough that I wouldn't bother with the blow-through rules, but in principle blow-through applies to anything.

[Reach Weapon]

4) It provides as much cover as you want it to, within its size limits. As your DM should already be aware - including you, if you're the DM - cover doesn't need to offer "real" protection. A 5x5 stone, wood, silk, canvas, or paper wall provides the same cover.
5) If you're using the variant rules for cover, and you should, if someone misses their target due to the cover, they hit the cover. Hitting the illusion reveals it to be an illusion, rendering it translucent. At this point it will cease to provide cover. Since the illusion doesn't stop the projectile, this should mean the projectile immediately hits you, just as it would if you were hiding behind a 1mm thick paper wall.

I think you're conflating cover (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#Cover) and concealment. I think the most clarifying line might be "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle."

[Telok]

Hitting the illusion reveals it to be an illusion, rendering it translucent. At this point it will cease to provide cover. Since the illusion doesn't stop the projectile, this should mean the projectile immediately hits you,

And these are the sorts of things that teach people not to use illusions. Even the most common use cases, something to hide behind, something to distract enemies, make something look like something else, rely on the DM's unwritten rules that are subject to change as soon as the DM thinks the PC isn't taking enough damage or needs more "excitement". Like how half way through a dungeon all the enemies start wearing leather and "giant crab shell" armor because Heat Metal is actually a decent spell, or the DM discovers some ruling online that means the rogue can't hide as well.

[PhantomSoul]

I think you're conflating cover (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#Cover) and concealment. I think the most clarifying line might be "A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle."

Yeah -- and it's intuitive in practice: if it's just fully concealed (heavily obscured from vision), you should be able to hit it (even if it's harder to do), while if it's behind full cover (completely blocked by an obstacle) you shouldn't be able to hit it. The illusion would block visibility but not the possibility of hitting because it isn't physically obstructing, so it's concealment without cover (meaning disadvantage to hit and not impossible to hit).

[MaxWilson]

And these are the sorts of things that teach people not to use illusions. Even the most common use cases, something to hide behind, something to distract enemies, make something look like something else, rely on the DM's unwritten rules that are subject to change as soon as the DM thinks the PC isn't taking enough damage or needs more "excitement". Like how half way through a dungeon all the enemies start wearing leather and "giant crab shell" armor because Heat Metal is actually a decent spell, or the DM discovers some ruling online that means the rogue can't hide as well.

Side note: Heat Metal is overrated, even against creatures that wear metal armor. It's not bad but it's not a spell that should cause DMs any more anxiety than Web or Wrathful Smite, let alone Spike Growth or Pass Without Trace or Conjure Animals. Ultimately it's just (situational) minor damage and disadvantage on attacks to one creature in an encounter. It's a moderately-good spell that you should just allow to work when it should work.

[Deathtongue]

Side note: Heat Metal is overrated, even against creatures that wear metal armor. It's not bad but it's not a spell that should cause DMs any more anxiety than Web or Wrathful Smite, let alone Spike Growth or Pass Without Trace or Conjure Animals. Ultimately it's just (situational) minor damage and disadvantage on attacks to one creature in an encounter. It's a moderately-good spell that you should just allow to work when it should work.Heat Metal's weird because it can completely wreck certain encounters that are a staple of fantasy genre fiction for a low cost. While fighting the Black Knight or Lord of Blades one-on-one with a party is honestly only a minority of possible and expected setups, they do stick in our imagination more than a pack of bandits or some flying griffons or a necromancer and his mummy bodyguards or even just half of the Round Table. Heat Metal's not all that great in those situations, so overall it's pretty balanced. Nonetheless, I can understand the angst on an aesthetic level.

[Telok]

Side note: Heat Metal is overrated, even against creatures that wear metal armor. It's not bad but it's not a spell that should cause DMs any more anxiety than Web or Wrathful Smite, let alone Spike Growth or Pass Without Trace or Conjure Animals. Ultimately it's just (situational) minor damage and disadvantage on attacks to one creature in an encounter. It's a moderately-good spell that you should just allow to work when it should work.

That particular DM went in for one big bruiser and some henchmen as his usual fights. I mean, it was a major change-up for that guy to use a caster, archer, or a buiser on a mount. Must have been 4/5 or more of the fights were one threat wearing armor and some mooks. Spike growth and a sorlock twinning repelling blast were "super high op must be banned" stuff for that one.

[diplomancer]

This still equals 1 PC Action to all enemies having to take the Int check Action to discover the illusion, no?

Again, that seems very powerful for a cantrip.

They can also just move closer; or, if everyone is at great ranges, so that's not practical (a very rare occasion, in my experience, so it would make it a situationally powerful cantrip) just go behind cover themselves.


If a 5 cubic foot illusion of a crate doesn't force or grant disadvantage, would the real version?
Sure you would have cover but you would also have heavy obscurement, and some things bypass cover.
If not a box, what about 5 cubic feet of smoke, dust, darkness or any other heavy obscurement?
Remember, you are unseen, but not hidden.
They know you are there but your actions are masked.
Your opponents can prepare themselves for a shot but there will be no telegraphing of any kind, just as if you were invisible but not hidden, so advantage to hit.them should apply.

Combat is messy; people just expect you to fire as fast as possible, they are not observing you to see when you're going to fire; so if they know exactly where you are, i.e, inside a 5' box¹, you don't get advantage, since they know where the shot is coming from. The timing of the shot is irrelevant.


Way too many people going too far away from the RAW when it comes to nerfing Minor Illusion. I'm no stranger to DMs nerfing illusions on the fly, just like they do stealth, but this thread is way off the rails. Providing a portable thing to hide behind is one of the primary use-cases of Minor Illusion! Bear in mind here's how Minor Illusion actually works, RAW. You can nerf from here, like how one poster already ruled unseen snipers inexplicably don't get advantage to hit (because Rogues need to suck more than they already do, apparently?):

I'm not sure if you're referring to me or to Max Wilson; if me, I just want to clarify; no advantage if you're unseen but people know exactly where you are (I also don't -unlike what I understand to be RAW- give everyone echolocatio; your precise position is NOT always known if you're unseen and don't take the hide action).

¹ obligatory Monty Python "How not to be seen" reference here

[MaxWilson]

I'm not sure if you're referring to me or to Max Wilson; if me, I just want to clarify; no advantage if you're unseen but people know exactly where you are (I also don't -unlike what I understand to be RAW- give everyone echolocatio; your precise position is NOT always known if you're unseen and don't take the hide action).

Can't be me, since I nerf unseen attackers in ranged combat, not Minor Illusion specifically. Darkvision games, mundane bushes/boxes to hide inside, Silent Image, Darkness spells, torches as NARC beacons... none of it grants advantage.

[Sorinth]

You are incorrect. Minor Illusion gives the rules for how people can discover it's an illusion and then see through it. Someone has to physically interact with as an action and pass an Investigation check.

Even if you're adamant that you are correct, my illusory box can just as easily have a tiny opening for arrows to fly from.

Physical interactions reveal it to be an illusion no action or investigation check required. It's only if you examine the illusion without physically interacting with it that you spend the action and make the Investigation check.

Creating a box with arrow slits and you fire your arrows through the illusionary arrow slits wouldn't reveal the illusion, however pretty much any arrow heading at you would since it would pass through the box, perhaps very low attack rolls would have the person miss the box entirely though.

Also worth noting normally arrow slits don't make you unseen they grant 3/4 cover, so unless you hide you don't attack with advantage from being inside the box with arrow slits, and enemies don't attack you at disadvantage.

[Segev]

This leads to the dangerous arena of the nuclear (illusory) arms race. While I'll certainly reward players for clever spell use, if it becomes a go-to option for the PCs to use, their enemies are going to start using it as well. And they've got a lot more actions/spell slots than the PCs do. It's not really a fight that they can win.

Keep it sane, guys. Don't abuse the mechanics, and they won't be abused against you.

In my experience, DMs typically already abuse their advantage when it comes to using illusions against players vs. players using them against DM-controlled things. This isn't necessarily intentional. I just have found that DMs - even really good ones - seem to have a hard time having their creatures react to things the DM knows are illusions as if they were real. They wind up ignoring them as "lesser threats," or taking actions that happen to reveal their unreality, etc., when real versions of the illusory thing would be reacted to rather differently (as evidenced by other instances where the DM knew the thing was real and had the creatures react in ways that avoided the problems the real thing would cause. Ways that would've been advantageous to the illusionist if creatures reacted that way to the illusions).

When a DM uses illusions, he doesn't have to tell the players that it's illusory. So the players, who get all their information about the world as their characters perceive it from the DM, get something described to them, they have no clues the DM doesn't give them that it's not real. So they treat it as real automatically unless actively suspicious of illusions, which usually takes a bit of setup or cluing in to figure out.

So the "illusion arms race" is already in place, unless the DM never uses illusions at all.

[Kuulvheysoon]

In my experience, DMs typically already abuse their advantage when it comes to using illusions against players vs. players using them against DM-controlled things. This isn't necessarily intentional. I just have found that DMs - even really good ones - seem to have a hard time having their creatures react to things the DM knows are illusions as if they were real. They wind up ignoring them as "lesser threats," or taking actions that happen to reveal their unreality, etc., when real versions of the illusory thing would be reacted to rather differently (as evidenced by other instances where the DM knew the thing was real and had the creatures react in ways that avoided the problems the real thing would cause. Ways that would've been advantageous to the illusionist if creatures reacted that way to the illusions).

When a DM uses illusions, he doesn't have to tell the players that it's illusory. So the players, who get all their information about the world as their characters perceive it from the DM, get something described to them, they have no clues the DM doesn't give them that it's not real. So they treat it as real automatically unless actively suspicious of illusions, which usually takes a bit of setup or cluing in to figure out.

So the "illusion arms race" is already in place, unless the DM never uses illusions at all.

I'll freely admit that I purposefully avoid using illusions (for the most part) for precisely this reason, and almost never in combat. Illusory puzzles or traps? Sure. Secret passage covered by an illusion? Absolutely. Disguises or the non-reality bending illusions spells? That's just fun, but that's because those have pretty narrowly defined roles, like hypnotic pattern.

But I'll never touch stuff like major image or phantasmal image and the like in combat unless the PCs have a track record of doing so themselves. Does that make me an outlier? Probably. but it's the only perspective that I can really speak from, doomed as I am to the life of a forever DM. Am I perfect? Goodness no, but I do trust my players to call me out if I'm falling into the pitfalls that you bring up, and I try and change if I do.

[quindraco]

I'm not sure if you're referring to me or to Max Wilson; if me, I just want to clarify; no advantage if you're unseen but people know exactly where you are (I also don't -unlike what I understand to be RAW- give everyone echolocatio; your precise position is NOT always known if you're unseen and don't take the hide action).

¹ obligatory Monty Python "How not to be seen" reference here

Echolocation isn't the RAW, it's a common misunderstanding of the RAW. The actual RAW on detecting unseen targets who haven't taken the hide action has huge gaps in it where rules should be, and in other places it contradicts itself, giving you a genuine mess. I thank my lucky stars that so far, I've never had to deal with a DM who interprets the rules to grant echolocation, because it's completely contrary to both immersion and RAF - the game has (incomplete) rules for determining if you can hear a creature. Autosucceeding on the Perception check to hear creatures is incredibly bad for the game.

I originally meant Max Wilson, as I missed your post. Unless I misunderstood, Max lets their creatures dodge arrows they couldn't have seen coming. Your ruling is more nuanced, since you only remove advantage in circumstances where the creature being attacked has a valid excuse for being aware of the incoming projectile. It's still a nerf to the RAW, but a significantly less severe one, and one I could easily abide as a Rogue in your campaign - you're basically forcing me to constantly change position, which is far more reasonable than just never letting me Sneak Attack.

[Segev]

Echolocation isn't the RAW, it's a common misunderstanding of the RAW. The actual RAW on detecting unseen targets who haven't taken the hide action has huge gaps in it where rules should be, and in other places it contradicts itself, giving you a genuine mess. I thank my lucky stars that so far, I've never had to deal with a DM who interprets the rules to grant echolocation, because it's completely contrary to both immersion and RAF - the game has (incomplete) rules for determining if you can hear a creature. Autosucceeding on the Perception check to hear creatures is incredibly bad for the game.

I originally meant Max Wilson, as I missed your post. Unless I misunderstood, Max lets their creatures dodge arrows they couldn't have seen coming. Your ruling is more nuanced, since you only remove advantage in circumstances where the creature being attacked has a valid excuse for being aware of the incoming projectile. It's still a nerf to the RAW, but a significantly less severe one, and one I could easily abide as a Rogue in your campaign - you're basically forcing me to constantly change position, which is far more reasonable than just never letting me Sneak Attack.

It's not "echolocation," but the RAW do - by saying that you're not hidden by merely being invisible - outright spell out that you can be targeted even if invisible. The inability to see them does mean disadvantage to hit them, and does mean you automatically fail any sight-based tests (e.g. "what do they look like?" or "can you see them to cast a spell?"). It does not mean inability to target them with attacks. That requires them to be hidden.

[diplomancer]

Echolocation isn't the RAW, it's a common misunderstanding of the RAW. The actual RAW on detecting unseen targets who haven't taken the hide action has huge gaps in it where rules should be, and in other places it contradicts itself, giving you a genuine mess. I thank my lucky stars that so far, I've never had to deal with a DM who interprets the rules to grant echolocation, because it's completely contrary to both immersion and RAF - the game has (incomplete) rules for determining if you can hear a creature. Autosucceeding on the Perception check to hear creatures is incredibly bad for the game.

I originally meant Max Wilson, as I missed your post. Unless I misunderstood, Max lets their creatures dodge arrows they couldn't have seen coming. Your ruling is more nuanced, since you only remove advantage in circumstances where the creature being attacked has a valid excuse for being aware of the incoming projectile. It's still a nerf to the RAW, but a significantly less severe one, and one I could easily abide as a Rogue in your campaign - you're basically forcing me to constantly change position, which is far more reasonable than just never letting me Sneak Attack.

By "echolocation" I mean "knowing, through sound, the location of something"; as Segev pointed out, this is the RAW. I still think it's wrong, you should know something like "he's on your left, and not too far"

I would say you don't even have to change position, just for it to be possible for you to do so; so a Rogue in the shadows where he can move to other shadowed spots, yes, advantage, though I wouldn't recommend staying in place anyway; the gnome-in-a-box trick, advantage only on the first attack.

[Segev]

By "echolocation" I mean "knowing, through sound, the location of something"; as Segev pointed out, this is the RAW. I still think it's wrong, you should know something like "he's on your left, and not too far"

I would say you don't even have to change position, just for it to be possible for you to do so; so a Rogue in the shadows where he can move to other shadowed spots, yes, advantage, though I wouldn't recommend staying in place anyway; the gnome-in-a-box trick, advantage only on the first attack.

This is, in part, a nod to simplicity, and in part a balance thing. The game is designed with the notion that disadvantage is the consequence for not seeing your target. Increasing the benefits of merely being unseen nerfs Stealth by making it less important, and actually does a lot to make magic more powerful while weakening martial characters, since means of creating "you can't see me" are a lot easier with magic, while the mundane means generally involve a skill check (often Stealth).

Magic-as-enabler of skill checks is far superior in terms of game design where you want the skilled non-mages to be useful.

"He's somewhere to your left" is good enough to make an attack at the person. The Disadvantage covers any misjudgment of precisely where "on your left" he is. Edit to add: And not knowing whether he's in reach or not is abstracted away as something you can test before committing your action to an attack. A vague poke that way that isn't a full-on Attack action, for example, can probe to see if there's something in reach, since there are more than just "hitting only air" reasons for not "hitting" with an attack. Armor, parrying, etc., and even dodging will make additional noise. So the notion that you know he's not within reach of your melee weapon without having to spend an action on it is fine with me, too.

[MaxWilson]

EcholocationI originally meant Max Wilson, as I missed your post. Unless I misunderstood, Max lets their creatures dodge arrows they couldn't have seen coming.

You do misunderstand. The Dodge action works against creatures you can see, so being invisible does prevent enemies from imposing disadvantage on your attacks through Dodging.

But I don't let you dodge without the Dodge action. (Aside from e.g. whatever implicit dodging a Dex AC bonus represents.) Do you?

P. S. Realism-wise, I also don't think visible arrows coming from an man hiding in an illusory bush in a known location sound more likely to hit you than if they were fired by a visible man with a visible bow not hiding in a bush. It's the same visible arrows coming from a known direction either way.

[Hairfish]

You do misunderstand. The Dodge action works against creatures you can see, so being invisible does prevent enemies from imposing disadvantage on your attacks through Dodging.

But I don't let you dodge without the Dodge action. (Aside from e.g. whatever implicit dodging a Dex AC bonus represents.) Do you?

{Scrubbed} I thought it was perfectly clear they weren't referring to the actual Dodge action.

[MaxWilson]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} I thought it was perfectly clear they weren't referring to the actual Dodge action.

{Scrubbed}

If dodging is represented by Dodging, then why should invisible people have advantage on ranged attacks at all? In melee, being invisible can help you evade parries, justifying advantage, but if arrows aren't being parried in the first place, and aren't being dodged, what would advantage represent.

[Dark.Revenant]

On this whole "unseen ranged attackers" track, I think I'm going to implement a rule in my next campaign where you need to be within 30 ft. to have advantage for being unseen. There's no range limit if you're actually unnoticed. This is a simple and sensible enough house rule that I think it could actually work in practice.

I considered including a clause about being able to see the attacker in order to gain advantage, but honestly I don't want to nerf martials too much. Casters can just start throwing Fireballs if they'd have disadvantage to hit, but martials aren't so lucky.

[MaxWilson]

On this whole "unseen ranged attackers" track, I think I'm going to implement a rule in my next campaign where you need to be within 30 ft. to have advantage for being unseen. There's no range limit if you're actually unnoticed. This is a simple and sensible enough house rule that I think it could actually work in practice.

I considered including a clause about being able to see the attacker in order to gain advantage, but honestly I don't want to nerf martials too much. Casters can just start throwing Fireballs if they'd have disadvantage to hit, but martials aren't so lucky.

IMO melee warriors struggle more than ranged warriors to find a reason to exist. (There's relatively little a melee warrior can do that isn't done better by a Shepherd Druids summons, for example, but ranged warriors are harder to replace.)

Ergo I'm always happy to add another shtick for melee warriors relative to ranged casters and warriors, such as "can fight effectively in heavy fog." It's not a lot but it's another extra something.

[Segev]

I have always attributed advantage to hit (with a bow or crossbow or the like) somebody who can't see you to inability to see where you're pointing the weapon. You're not dodging or parrying the arrow-in-flight; you're already moving when you see him start to release it (unless you're a monk, or someone with a similar class feature). So if you can't see where they're pointing it, they have advantage to hit you.

[MaxWilson]

I have always attributed advantage to hit (with a bow or crossbow or the like) somebody who can't see you to inability to see where you're pointing the weapon. You're not dodging or parrying the arrow-in-flight; you're already moving when you see him start to release it (unless you're a monk, or someone with a similar class feature). So if you can't see where they're pointing it, they have advantage to hit you.

I don't find it plausible that merely being able to see an archer before he releases his arrow is enough to remove the advantage he apparently implicitly has. Remember that arrows arc, so it's not even like he's pointing the arrow directly at you (more up above your head), even if you could judge exact arrow angles from up to 200 yards away in the first place.

Being paralyzed? Sure, I can see how that would grant advantage to the archer.

Merely being unable to see him drawing the bow and aiming? I don't buy it.

[Segev]

I don't find it plausible that merely being able to see an archer before he releases his arrow is enough to remove the advantage he apparently implicitly has. Remember that arrows arc, so it's not even like he's pointing the arrow directly at you (more up above your head), even if you could judge exact arrow angles from up to 200 yards away in the first place.

Being paralyzed? Sure, I can see how that would grant advantage to the archer.

Merely being unable to see him drawing the bow and aiming? I don't buy it.

If he's arcing it and can use that to aim, why can't you use where he's (on the top-down view) aiming it to judge? Knowing he's about to release tells you when to start moving to dodge. That's operating on human-reaction scales. Once it's in the air, especially if you didn't see where it was going to start until it was already coming, you have far less time to react. If you can see where he's attempting to lead your motion, you can zig or zag as he tenses to release or whatever. If you can't, then you have to re-think your motion without having known how he was aiming for you.

I don't know how truly realistic it is, but it's enough for my verisimilitude, and certainly enough that it represents a complication for defense. It removes a significant amount of information the defender has for counterplay.

[MaxWilson]

If he's arcing it and can use that to aim, why can't you use where he's (on the top-down view) aiming it to judge? Knowing he's about to release tells you when to start moving to dodge. That's operating on human-reaction scales. Once it's in the air, especially if you didn't see where it was going to start until it was already coming, you have far less time to react.

IME there's no appreciable delay between an archer drawing the arrow and releasing it. It's not like a rifle where you pause for 2 seconds to exhale before squeezing the trigger. For a muscle-powered weapon like an arrow, that doesn't help.

So even if you COULD judge arrow angles perfectly from up to 200 yards away, it still wouldn't help. And granting advantage leads to all of these ridiculous questions about why people in boxes get advantage but people in plate armor don't, and games with darkvision and darkness and Silent Image and so forth. It just makes the game worse, as well as less realistic and more heavily attacked stacked against melee warrior archetypes.

[Segev]

IME there's no appreciable delay between an archer drawing the arrow and releasing it. It's not like a rifle where you pause for 2 seconds to exhale before squeezing the trigger. For an powered weapon like an arrow, that doesn't help.

So even if you COULD judge arrow angles perfectly from up to 200 yards away, it still wouldn't help. And granting advantage leads to all of these ridiculous questions about why people in boxes get advantage but people in plate armor don't, and games with darkvision and darkness and Silent Image and so forth. It just makes the game worse, as well as less realistic and more heavily attacked stacked against melee warrior archetypes.

Not really. People in plate armor, you can see what they're doing. People in boxes, you can't.

Also, not nerfing something compared to something else isn't "stacking it against" the something else when the default was not having the nerf. You can argue that you're trying to make melee more relevant that way, but loaded language saying that NOT doing it your way is "stacking it against melee" types is unfair and inaccurate rhetoric.

If you really want to get into the level of realism you're going for, you should also have Advantage as an archer if other archers fire at the same time, making it harder for the targets to tell which arrow to dodge.

It's a simplification. It makes sense well enough. Heck, by the reasoning you're using, firing at long range should give ADVANTAGE, because it's firing such a small projectile that you won't even see it coming until it's too late to dodge effectively.

[MaxWilson]

Not really. People in plate armor, you can see what they're doing. People in boxes, you can't.

Also, not nerfing something compared to something else isn't "stacking it against" the something else when the default was not having the nerf. You can argue that you're trying to make melee more relevant that way, but loaded language saying that NOT doing it your way is "stacking it against melee" types is unfair and inaccurate rhetoric.

Huh. I don't see the difference, but I didn't intend to use loaded rhetoric. Feel free to rephrase it however you like.


If you really want to get into the level of realism you're going for, you should also have Advantage as an archer if other archers fire at the same time, making it harder for the targets to tell which arrow to dodge.

That hardly seems necessary, since I'm already, realistically, assuming dodging is a non-factor against archery unless you're actually Dodging.


It's a simplification. It makes sense well enough. Heck, by the reasoning you're using, firing at long range should give ADVANTAGE, because it's firing such a small projectile that you won't even see it coming until it's too late to dodge effectively.

Don't you mean "by the reasoning other people besides you are using"? I'm not the one assuming that dodging arrows is routinely being done. I just assume that arrows are well-aimed and hit, or poorly-aimed and miss, regardless of whether the archer is seen or not.

Seems like you are aiming your suggested improvements at the wrong target audience. Npi.

[Person_Man]

Isn’t the biggest hurdle to this ensuring that less than half of the NPCs the party encounters are interested in betraying them? That was probably the first thing I had to work on as a DM.

Completely agree. When I was 14, I DM'd an 2nd Ed AD&D game where my players rescued some prisoners. I made one of the prisoners a succubus, thinking I was clever. (Later learning that this was apparently a D&D cliche, and that I am an idiot). It later ended up killing one of of the PCs (played by another 14 year boy) who thought it was great that an attractive prisoner was "interested" in him. Fast forward 30ish years and three editions, and the player still does not trust any NPC in any roleplaying or video game.

Taught me a valuable lesson about being a DM though. If you want players to be anything other than murder hobos, games need to be structured like Farr Play Whodunnit (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FairPlayWhodunnit) mysteries. Its fine for there to be plot twists and betrayal, but all of the clues about what might happen need to be given to the players throughout the story in non-subtle ways, so that they feel clever when they reveal the mystery, and not duped when the DM inflicts a betrayals/lies upon them. (And hiding important information behind Skill checks or a certain sequence of actions that the players might fail or overlook does not count as fair play).

[MaxWilson]

Heat Metal's weird because it can completely wreck certain encounters that are a staple of fantasy genre fiction for a low cost. While fighting the Black Knight or Lord of Blades one-on-one with a party is honestly only a minority of possible and expected setups, they do stick in our imagination more than a pack of bandits or some flying griffons or a necromancer and his mummy bodyguards or even just half of the Round Table. Heat Metal's not all that great in those situations, so overall it's pretty balanced. Nonetheless, I can understand the angst on an aesthetic level.

My philosophy on that if that if you want a 1v1 between the Black Knight and the PCs, give the Black Knight a big ego/thirst for combat and a platoon of mercenaries with crossbows, so that he will offer single combat between champions. If the PCs cheat and start a general melee with Heat Metal, Fireball, etc., then you have a massive battle. If they'd rather have a 1:1 fight between the party Fighter or Rogue and the Black Knight, they can do that iconic scene instead while everyone else applauds from the sidelines.

(You can also just have the Black Knight/Lord of Blades break the caster's concentration with a big attack or series of attacks. Lord of Blades is perfectly capable of this.)

[MrStabby]

I have always attributed advantage to hit (with a bow or crossbow or the like) somebody who can't see you to inability to see where you're pointing the weapon. You're not dodging or parrying the arrow-in-flight; you're already moving when you see him start to release it (unless you're a monk, or someone with a similar class feature). So if you can't see where they're pointing it, they have advantage to hit you.

So would you grant advantage to a sorcerer's subtle spell scorching ray?

[Reach Weapon]

So would you grant advantage to a sorcerer's subtle spell scorching ray?

Subtle Spell, unlike being unseen, does not say it grants advantage; perhaps that means that the extra effort to not give off clues, absent additional factors, complicates casting to the point one is unable to actually gain advantage that way.

[DarknessEternal]

IME there's no appreciable delay between an archer drawing the arrow and releasing it. It's not like a rifle where you pause for 2 seconds to exhale before squeezing the trigger. For a muscle-powered weapon like an arrow, that doesn't help.

So even if you COULD judge arrow angles perfectly from up to 200 yards away, it still wouldn't help. And granting advantage leads to all of these ridiculous questions about why people in boxes get advantage but people in plate armor don't, and games with darkvision and darkness and Silent Image and so forth. It just makes the game worse, as well as less realistic and more heavily attacked stacked against melee warrior archetypes.

If you want to to change the RAW, that's your business. {Scrubbed}

[Zalabim]

Can't be me, since I nerf unseen attackers in ranged combat, not Minor Illusion specifically. Darkvision games, mundane bushes/boxes to hide inside, Silent Image, Darkness spells, torches as NARC beacons... none of it grants advantage.

Tactics I don't see people exploit? Darkvision, small/light cover, combat images/concealment, darkness/light manipulation, bullseye lanterns, hiding, etc.

In the past I have explained that the close/long distance on ranged weapons is about how fast the projectile travels. At close ranges, the shot hits or misses faster than the average human can react to it. At long range, there is enough time to react after the shot is in flight. Either way, the defender is responding to the attacker. Responding to the projectile in flight alone is relying on detecting a smaller object which displays less of its intention and with less time to respond to it. The RAW are just abiding by the common advice that the only way to dodge a bullet is to dodge the shooter's aim. There's no time to move after the shot's fired. So if the defender can't see the attacker, their defense is impaired.

Writers who want a Badass Normal to dodge bullets will maintain a modicum of realism by saying the character is simply predicting where the gunman is going to fire and making sure they're not there when the trigger is pulled.

About Subtle Spell: It makes it so you aren't visibly casting a spell. It doesn't make it so you aren't visibly making an attack.

[quindraco]

By "echolocation" I mean "knowing, through sound, the location of something"; as Segev pointed out, this is the RAW. I still think it's wrong, you should know something like "he's on your left, and not too far"

I would say you don't even have to change position, just for it to be possible for you to do so; so a Rogue in the shadows where he can move to other shadowed spots, yes, advantage, though I wouldn't recommend staying in place anyway; the gnome-in-a-box trick, advantage only on the first attack.

I know what you meant. It's not the RAW. If you mean the post by Segev I think you mean, Segev didn't even claim you could automatically know where an invisible creature is - only that you could legally attack them, which is true. You can guess where an invisible creature is and make an attack at disadvantage, and hey, maybe you'll get lucky.

I keep this link around for this exact circumstance, because it comes up a lot: someone thinks the RAW on detecting an invisible creature's location is, you know, complete, consistent, and functional, when it's none of those three. Here you go (post is not mine): https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/102520-if-at-disadvantage-always-fight-blind#c13

The tl;dr is that the RAW at absolutely no point provides any clarity on the process by which you determine where an invisible creature is. When a DM says you automatically know where they are, that's homebrew. When a DM has you roll Perception vs Stealth to hear them, that's also homebrew. When a DM says you automatically don't know where they are, that's also homebrew. Because the RAW here does not cover what people want it to cover.

[Zalabim]

I know what you meant. It's not the RAW. If you mean the post by Segev I think you mean, Segev didn't even claim you could automatically know where an invisible creature is - only that you could legally attack them, which is true. You can guess where an invisible creature is and make an attack at disadvantage, and hey, maybe you'll get lucky.

I keep this link around for this exact circumstance, because it comes up a lot: someone thinks the RAW on detecting an invisible creature's location is, you know, complete, consistent, and functional, when it's none of those three. Here you go (post is not mine): https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/102520-if-at-disadvantage-always-fight-blind#c13

The tl;dr is that the RAW at absolutely no point provides any clarity on the process by which you determine where an invisible creature is. When a DM says you automatically know where they are, that's homebrew. When a DM has you roll Perception vs Stealth to hear them, that's also homebrew. When a DM says you automatically don't know where they are, that's also homebrew. Because the RAW here does not cover what people want it to cover.

People make it more complicated than it really needs to be by conflating different situations that are not at all similar. There's a broad range of detection ranging from
I think there is nothing
I think there is something, but I don't know where
I think there is something there
I see something there."

Hiding prevents moving from state 1 to state 2. Hiding can actively move from state 3 (and in some circumstances 4) to state 2. It's usually the thinker's choice when to move from state 2 back down to state 1, though often the DM will provide a clear signal.

Things get messed up when one person is talking about an enemy turning invisible in the middle of combat and the other person is talking about an enemy being invisible while traveling. The undefined variables are when an encounter starts from hearing-not-seeing and when an encounter ends from not hearing-or-seeing, and in both cases can be summed up as "hearing range is undefined."

This leads to two ends on a spectrum of how to handle persistently unseeable participants. On one end, the unseen character's position, once known, becomes unknown only when the character performs a Dexterity (stealth) check. The character's position when unknown can be revealed: after making attack; by making noise, as in shouting or breaking a vase; when a searcher succeeds on their check to detect the hidden character. On the other end, the character's "known" position becomes uncertain once they can move. The character's position-at-the-time is still revealed in all the same ways, but the character's position is essentially always unknown. Range of hearing generally defines the ruling between these two poles. The automatically unknown position is more generous to invisibility, but can still be battled with readied actions and coordinated searches. The Hide to become unknown position explains the existence of the Hide action/Stealth proficiency and makes invisibility less overwhelming.

To attempt a comparison, on one hand you have a motion detector, a persistent sense of the activity of something in the environment. On the other hand you have sonar pings, a one-time alert of some activity in the environment.

[MaxWilson]

If you want to to change the RAW, that's your business. But you need to admit your changing the RAW instead of just talking..., or no one will take you seriously.

When have I ever been shy about saying the RAW are stupid and I've changed them?

Yes, I've changed the RAW on unseen attackers. I only grant advantage to unseen melee attackers, not ranged.

{Scrubbed}

[Zuras]

When have I ever been shy about saying the RAW are stupid and I've changed them?

Yes, I've changed the RAW on unseen attackers. I only grant advantage to unseen melee attackers, not ranged.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Is that an accurate description of your position, though? Do hidden assassins never get advantage on ranged attacks, or are you saying that merely the “unseen” property of an attack is insufficient to grant advantage in the absence of other factors? And how much of this is a reaction to the RAW interpretation for firing arrows into a Fog Cloud with the cancelling advantage/disadvantage?

[Segev]

Huh. I don't see the difference, but I didn't intend to use loaded rhetoric. Feel free to rephrase it however you like.



That hardly seems necessary, since I'm already, realistically, assuming dodging is a non-factor against archery unless you're actually Dodging.



Don't you mean "by the reasoning other people besides you are using"? I'm not the one assuming that dodging arrows is routinely being done. I just assume that arrows are well-aimed and hit, or poorly-aimed and miss, regardless of whether the archer is seen or not.

Seems like you are aiming your suggested improvements at the wrong target audience. Npi.

If dodging isn't a factor, do you also house-rule away Dexterity adding to AC? Or monks getting to add Wisdom to it? Or is Dexterity and Wisdom (for monks) somehow toughening their skin? :smalltongue:

I am being a little sarcastic with that last question, but I mean it in a light tone, not a mean one. I say this because I know tone translates poorly in text.

[Ogun]

That hardly seems necessary, since I'm already, realistically, assuming dodging is a non-factor against archery unless you're actually Dodging.

Don't you mean "by the reasoning other people besides you are using"? I'm not the one assuming that dodging arrows is routinely being done. I just assume that arrows are well-aimed and hit, or poorly-aimed and miss, regardless of whether the archer is seen or not.

Seems like you are aiming your suggested improvements at the wrong target audience. Npi.

Do you allow Dex bonuses to AC count against arrows?
If so, what does that represent other than dodging or parrying the arrow?
If arrows that are well aimed hit, and dodging or parrying is not a factor then shooting a character should be like shooting an armored dummy, but that isn't what you adjudicated, unless it is?
I'm gonna presume that isn't how you rule ranged attacks.

5e depicts a characters Dexterity or even skill protecting them from arrows because they can dodge or parry them.
This is not realistic, but it is the given.

5e depicts these defenses as hampered when the source of the attacks is hidden

5e has done away with numerical penalties to AC and replaced them with granting Advantage to the attacker.

Granting advantage to unseen attackers isn't simulating the attacks being more accurate, its simulating the defenses being impaired.

Your ruling effectively lets characters apply Dexterity modifiers to their AC against hidden ranged attackers, but not against hidden melee attackers.

Unless Dex modifiers to AC represent something other than dodging and parrying to you,a defender at your table can dodge and parry Arrows shot by unseen attackers better than they can dodge and block Blows from unseen attackers.

[MaxWilson]

Is that an accurate description of your position, though? Do hidden assassins never get advantage on ranged attacks, or are you saying that merely the “unseen” property of an attack is insufficient to grant advantage in the absence of other factors? And how much of this is a reaction to the RAW interpretation for firing arrows into a Fog Cloud with the cancelling advantage/disadvantage?

Hidden assassins in my game can get sneak attack damage with ranged weapons, but not advantage, unless they have advantage for other reasons such as class features or a restrained target.

Eliminating the irritation of Fog Cloud/etc. canceling out disadvantage from long range/poisoned/etc. is a factor. If you're asking "how much," well, I'd guess that it's maybe about 25% to 35% of my motivation? Making the game more realistic, eliminating exploits, making melee slightly more relevant, probably some other factors too but those are the factors I remember off the top of my head. 5E really does make it incredibly easy for ranged combatants to become unseen attackers, and the defensive advantages are big enough. They don't need offensive advantages too despite what is written in RAW.


If dodging isn't a factor, do you also house-rule away Dexterity adding to AC? Or monks getting to add Wisdom to it? Or is Dexterity and Wisdom (for monks) somehow toughening their skin? :smalltongue:

I am being a little sarcastic with that last question, but I mean it in a light tone, not a mean one. I say this because I know tone translates poorly in text.

I still don't understand why you're asking me instead of the RAW camp. When you say "by your logic" you apparently mean "by RAW" logic, so why you are challenging me to go even further with house rules than I've gone?

The short answer to your question is "No, I try to minimize the number of house rules for parsimony's sake so I still allow Dex bonuses against unseen attackers." But at least I don't allow them when paralyzed! Unlike RAW.

Methinks you should be poking fun at the RAW here, not the guy who's actually fixing the absurdities in RAW. Glass houses...


Unless Dex modifiers to AC represent something other than dodging and parrying to you,a defender at your table can dodge and parry Arrows shot by unseen attackers better than they can dodge and block Blows from unseen attackers.

Let's rephrase that:

Against a blind or paralyzed target (i.e. where parries don't apply), melee attackers hit more often than ranged attackers.

That seems fine to me. Actually ranged attackers are still absurdly accurate, but it's good and realistic that melee attackers are even more accurate, because y'know it's actually quite hard to miss an unresisting target with a sword when they're five feet away from you...

Since RAW grants Dex bonuses even to paralyzed characters, it's really, really unclear what Dex bonuses represent, and as for me I just say "while paralyzed your Dex is effectively zero." YMMV...

[Zalabim]

Prone has been mentioned in the advantageous situations, but I also don't see people take advantage of going prone for the opposite situations. Restrained? Blind? Stunned? Paralyzed? Anything that gives advantage to anyone attacking you? Drop prone so only those within 5' get advantage. The only cost is having to stand up again.

[RSP]

Prone has been mentioned in the advantageous situations, but I also don't see people take advantage of going prone for the opposite situations. Restrained? Blind? Stunned? Paralyzed? Anything that gives advantage to anyone attacking you? Drop prone so only those within 5' get advantage. The only cost is having to stand up again.

It’s tough to go Prone when Stunned, Paralyzed or Restrained.

[MaxWilson]

It’s tough to go Prone when Stunned, Paralyzed or Restrained.

No, it's possible. I had a Stunned NPC do that last week. You can't move, so you can't stand up again, but you can willingly fall over. (Otherwise, the Unconscious condition would be contradicting itself by saying both that you can't move and that you fall prone.)

For Paralyzed/Petrified I agree that even though RAW rules don't require it, you should keep your current posture. For the same reason I wouldn't allow object interactions to paralyzed or petrified creatures.

[RSP]

No, it's possible. I had a Stunned NPC do that last week. You can't move, so you can't stand up again, but you can willingly fall over. (Otherwise, the Unconscious condition would be contradicting itself by saying both that you can't move and that you fall prone.)

A PC choosing to go Prone while Paralyzed, Stunned or Restrained are not things I’d allow, as that seems to go against logic (and RAI, though I think the RAW it might be allowed).

Restrained would be the least restricting of those three, I’d imagine, and the idea behind it, at least as I understand it, is that something else is holding you in place and controlling your positioning. If you aren’t controlling your positioning, I don’t know how you choose to change your position.

But that may just be me.

[PhantomSoul]

A PC choosing to go Prone while Paralyzed, Stunned or Restrained are not things I’d allow, as that seems to go against logic (and RAI, though I think the RAW it might be allowed).

Restrained would be the least restricting of those three, I’d imagine, and the idea behind it, at least as I understand it, is that something else is holding you in place and controlling your positioning. If you aren’t controlling your positioning, I don’t know how you choose to change your position.

But that may just be me.

Restrained could work depending on how they're Restrained, but if it's (full) Paralysis or Petrification, definitely nope.

[MaxWilson]

A PC choosing to go Prone while Paralyzed, Stunned or Restrained are not things I’d allow, as that seems to go against logic (and RAI, though I think the RAW it might be allowed).

Restrained would be the least restricting of those three, I’d imagine, and the idea behind it, at least as I understand it, is that something else is holding you in place and controlling your positioning. If you aren’t controlling your positioning, I don’t know how you choose to change your position.

But that may just be me.

YMMV, but if you can explicitly "speak... falteringly" while Stunned, deliberately falling down doesn't strike me as unreasonable.

For Restrained, I'd say it depends on what's restraining you and how. If it's a net, sure, fall over. Giant kraken tentacles? Maybe not so much.

[RSP]

YMMV, but if you can explicitly "speak... falteringly" while Stunned, deliberately falling down doesn't strike me as unreasonable.

For Restrained, I'd say it depends on what's restraining you and how. If it's a net, sure, fall over. Giant kraken tentacles? Maybe not so much.

For me, it’s more the idea of “if you can’t use movement, you can’t choose to move.” But, again, that’s just me.

[Zalabim]

Speaking of prone, I just remembered something I do but no one else typically tries: Jumping over/into difficult terrain.

One fight we found ourselves pinched in a winding hallway, and the wizard tried to slow enemies with Grease. We did well, so the enemies started running away. I was playing a dwarf hitty-type, so I went after them while the rest of the party was around the other bend. There's still a grease in the way, so I jump in, fall over, and slide [crawl] the rest of the way to get across. No one saw anything, but there was a hint of the sound of a dwarf having fun. Must have been the wind.

[MaxWilson]

For me, it’s more the idea of “if you can’t use movement, you can’t choose to move.” But, again, that’s just me.

If I were playing with a DM who ruled your way, I'd shrug and accept it. Not a big deal either way. But as DM I think it makes more sense to let stunned people fall over if they want to, since, y'know, that can happen in real life too when someone gets the wind knocked out of them. And since they can still talk.

YMMV and either way is fine.


Speaking of prone, I just remembered something I do but no one else typically tries: Jumping over/into difficult terrain.

One fight we found ourselves pinched in a winding hallway, and the wizard tried to slow enemies with Grease. We did well, so the enemies started running away. I was playing a dwarf hitty-type, so I went after them while the rest of the party was around the other bend. There's still a grease in the way, so I jump in, fall over, and slide [crawl] the rest of the way to get across. No one saw anything, but there was a hint of the sound of a dwarf having fun. Must have been the wind.

I don't usually allow jumping over difficult terrain to avoid penalties (although I'm not sure if you mean that or if I'm going off on a tangent). Technically by RAW it doesn't work, since difficult terrain is an area, not a volume you can jump over; rules-wise it's just an annoyance.

I do allow it if you can plausibly jump over all the difficult terrain in one leap (a 5' patch of sand = sure, go ahead) but if you try to ignore Spike Growth just because you have a 5' standing longjump and can jump 6 times for 5' each, nope, sorry, you still take damage and are slowed per normal, every time you land. That difficulty when your foot touches down is what the slowdown is.

[Segev]

I still don't understand why you're asking me instead of the RAW camp. When you say "by your logic" you apparently mean "by RAW" logic, so why you are challenging me to go even further with house rules than I've gone?

The short answer to your question is "No, I try to minimize the number of house rules for parsimony's sake so I still allow Dex bonuses against unseen attackers." But at least I don't allow them when paralyzed! Unlike RAW.

Methinks you should be poking fun at the RAW here, not the guy who's actually fixing the absurdities in RAW. Glass houses...

If I am going to poke fun at the RAW with any plans to fix it, I will fix every instance of a flaw in it. I will not leave it partially there when my reasoning for changing it elsewhere is "but that's not realistic."

I am willing to put up with a lot of abstraction for simplicity of play. I am not willing to complicate that simplicity by having seemingly-arbitrary exceptions based on verisimilitude, but only sometimes (hence "seemingly-abitrary").

If your logic for house ruling something would point to house ruling something else, I will call this inconsistency out when you house rule one but not the other. I find the inconsistency on the part of the house ruling more frustrating than the consistent simplicity of the RAW, because it's something I have to remember as an exception that I can't use any underlying rules to keep straight, since "you don't get advantage to attack at range when you are unseen by your target because they're not using dex to dodge despite dex being in their AC" is entirely arbitrary as to when the house rule decides to change whether dodging is part of what makes somebody hard to hit or not.

The rule that "AC is AC, even if the underlying components don't seem like they should apply" is easy enough to remember, verisimilitude problems aside. It's at least not fraught with exceptions, so I don't have to stop and consider a list of house rules that are "just so" rather than traceable to underlying logic that is consistently applied.

[Zalabim]

I don't usually allow jumping over difficult terrain to avoid penalties (although I'm not sure if you mean that or if I'm going off on a tangent). Technically by RAW it doesn't work, since difficult terrain is an area, not a volume you can jump over; rules-wise it's just an annoyance.

I do allow it if you can plausibly jump over all the difficult terrain in one leap (a 5' patch of sand = sure, go ahead) but if you try to ignore Spike Growth just because you have a 5' standing longjump and can jump 6 times for 5' each, nope, sorry, you still take damage and are slowed per normal, every time you land. That difficulty when your foot touches down is what the slowdown is.
Rules-wise, it works best when the difficult terrain is an area (representing a surface), not a volume, though if your jump distance is good enough, you could try to clear some volumes as well. Grease and Sleet Storm and Entangle create difficult terrain on the ground. Web creates difficult terrain through a whole 20' cube, but it's only 5' high if it has no anchoring points. You still suffer the spell's effect on entering the area, but don't have to spend extra movement for traveling through difficult terrain while you aren't. There's even a penalty if you can't clear the whole area in one jump: you risk falling prone.

[MaxWilson]

Rules-wise, it works best when the difficult terrain is an area (representing a surface), not a volume, though if your jump distance is good enough, you could try to clear some volumes as well. Grease and Sleet Storm and Entangle create difficult terrain on the ground. Web creates difficult terrain through a whole 20' cube, but it's only 5' high if it has no anchoring points. You still suffer the spell's effect on entering the area, [b]but don't have to spend extra movement for traveling through difficult terrain while you aren't[b]. There's even a penalty if you can't clear the whole area in one jump: you risk falling prone.

There's nothing in RAW that exempts you from difficult terrain penalties while jumping, but as I said, in limited circumstances I'll allow it anyway. But by RAW, the penalty applies to the whole area. (Possibly even flying creatures, but if so that's a clear flaw in RAW.)

[Lord Vukodlak]

There's nothing in RAW that exempts you from difficult terrain penalties while jumping, but as I said, in limited circumstances I'll allow it anyway. But by RAW, the penalty applies to the whole area. (Possibly even flying creatures, but if so that's a clear flaw in RAW.)

5e assumes the DM doesn't need every single thing spelled out. If the ground is covered in razor sharp spikes and you can move over the area without touching the ground. You shouldn't need a rule for the DM to act on common sense.
Web, Spiked Growth, icey floors, a few feet of water etc, there are countless ways for terrain to be considered 'difficult' its up to the DM to determine what can circumvent it.

It is ridiculous to say jumping over a a pit 10 feet wide and a hundred feet deep is fine. But a 10ft pool of quicksand is suddenly harder.

[MaxWilson]

5e assumes the DM doesn't need every single thing spelled out. If the ground is covered in razor sharp spikes and you can move over the area without touching the ground. You shouldn't need a rule for the DM to act on common sense.
Web, Spiked Growth, icey floors, a few feet of water etc, there are countless ways for terrain to be considered 'difficult' its up to the DM to determine what can circumvent it.

It is ridiculous to say jumping over a a pit 10 feet wide and a hundred feet deep is fine. But a 10ft pool of quicksand is suddenly harder.

Yes, I agree.

[Bardon]

About Subtle Spell: It makes it so you aren't visibly casting a spell. It doesn't make it so you aren't visibly making an attack.

How does that work? Unless the spell has a material component you're casting it while making no sounds nor making any gestures.

A subtle Fire Storm just appears somewhere within 150 feet of the caster with no indication that it's come from the sorcerer given that they're saying nothing nor making any gestures nor using any materials (as it only has V & S components). How would you rule that someone is visibly making an attack when they can literally just stand still unless there's an obvious effect - a ray coming from the sorcerer is fairly obvious of course but an area effect or non-visible one like Psychic Scream? Otherwise you're massively nerfing Subtle Spell.

[Lord Vukodlak]

How does that work? Unless the spell has a material component you're casting it while making no sounds nor making any gestures.

A subtle Fire Storm just appears somewhere within 150 feet of the caster with no indication that it's come from the sorcerer given that they're saying nothing nor making any gestures nor using any materials (as it only has V & S components). How would you rule that someone is visibly making an attack when they can literally just stand still unless there's an obvious effect - a ray coming from the sorcerer is fairly obvious of course but an area effect or non-visible one like Psychic Scream? Otherwise you're massively nerfing Subtle Spell.
Because he's talking about stuff that requires an attack roll, and thus you'd have advantage if you were hidden. But not standing in the open using subtle spell.

[Kvess]

If you are a spellcaster and you are casting shield every round, you have made a mistake. It is a panic button. Shield is there to save your life when you find yourself in the unfortunate circumstance when you end your turn in view of enemies that can hit you. You don’t want to be in that situation often.

Smart spellcasters understand how line-of-sight works, and will find ways to prevent enemies from targeting them between their turns. The simplest method involves a somatic component called walking. You can walk behind doorways, or around walls, or statues, and down hallways — I hear these terrain features are common in dungeons.

The first time I closed a door during combat, my DM was shocked because the evil clerics and acolytes couldn’t target me with their spells. Now his spellcasters are sneaky with terrain and the game is more interesting for it.

[Witty Username]

The power of PLOT, removing the wax is no problem for him because the method of doing so is never mentioned.

You could scrape out the outer ear, and then use repeated immersion in olive oil to dissolve the wax in contact with the eardrum (probably taking days). Without that, you're not getting even soft wax back out without eardrum damage if it is snug enough to block sound.

I would also add Odysseus crushed the wax into shape with his bare hands, so eardrum contact probably wasn't a concern.

[Reach Weapon]

I would also add Odysseus crushed the wax into shape with his bare hands, so eardrum contact probably wasn't a concern.
Call me Charles Moulton, but I believe Ulysses only waxed up his men, electing instead to be tied to the mast.

[Witty Username]

Call me Charles Moulton, but I believe Ulysses only waxed up his men, electing instead to be tied to the mast.

Yes, but he crushed the wax for them to use. I remember it from high school because it was a goofy bit of text.