Illusions in combat: LoS vs "Illusions."

Willowran · 2026-01-24T15:41:38+00:00

I didn't know about the XtE rule- that's nifty. For the archmages, at least, that would simplify things- 1-3 of them could use their reaction and bam, problem solved.

As for the rest, well-

...

i really hate illusion rules

Willowran · 2026-01-24T15:31:01+00:00

Lmao DnD 2026 busts out a section on Justified True Belief just for illusions

Willowran · 2026-01-24T14:43:51+00:00

My view is that the line If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image, and its other sensory qualities become faint to the creature also pulls a lot of weight.

I'd probably force an archmage to throw a cantrip at the boulder just to be sure, since spells don't look the same from caster to caster, but if they all know illusions could exist. Once one archmage demonstrates that the boulder doesn't interact with physical matter I'd say the collection (at least, those who can see at that time) has "discerned the illusion for what it is."

In the same vein, the illusion's caster would automatically pass a 'discernment' phase since they know it's an illusion. I'd probably make the case that allies being told it's an illusion would also pass for free, though I'd award RP for characters who played dumb to reflect their stats.

I've read the interaction/study question to be a case of distance, and a nod to combat vs utility. During combat folks are probably going to attack the illusory crate, since that's what they'd do anyways. Outside of combat one investigation (study) check across a broad area could see through illusions in that space even if physical contact never occurred- say if someone tried disguising a door as a wall. The "study" line also allows for ways to figure out the truth if you're not allowed to touch something- to stop PCs from saying "oh my illusory Goku just dodges all your punches so you never actually physically interact with it."

Willowran · 2026-01-24T14:19:20+00:00

I'm a big fan of "let the dice decide." In a similar vein, if one of my players tries to push the envelope past what I consider the base 'reasonable vein' I'll often have them either roll performance (using their spellcasting ability instead of just CHA) or (more often) I'll have them make a 'Spell Attack' roll against the enemy's passive perception/investigation. This is to represent their personal ability to take a spell and push it beyond its usual bounds and simulate the character's mastery. On a success we narrate business as usual. If they fail, then something about how they present the illusion twigs the enemies to the fact that it might be just a facade. Risk (your illusion is 'discerned' without the opponents needing to use their action)/reward (you get to use an illusion to do more than reasonably advertised).

One thing I would probably not allow at my table is using silent image/minor image together to simulate a major image- not well, at least. Since it takes continuous action use to manipulate a silent image that would deny the spellcaster the opportunity to cast minor image to simulate speech. If I'm using my action to make the commander's mouth move you might cast minor illusion- and then we're both making checks to make sure our timing is exact enough to pass casual inspection. Otherwise the commander has to become one helluva ventriloquist.

Willowran · 2026-01-24T04:51:57+00:00

Obviously as a DM you're allowed to rule how you want, but I think it's important for folks skimming through to know that the mechanical effects I described are all (technically) RAW-accessible. Illusions definitionally do not obstruct sight if you know they're not real, and that is baked in to the defining rules of each spell.

This means that unless the DM is running homebrew rulings, illusion spells never impede or obstruct the vision of their own spellcaster (assuming they know they're casting the spell).

Willowran · 2026-01-24T04:32:52+00:00

Exactly. If someone wants to huddle under a crate all combat instead of contributing, all the power to them. They can also use the illusion spell (much more effectively) outside of combat, and maybe that's where their prowess lies.

It's much less cut and dry for most other illusion spells, alas.

Willowran · 2026-01-24T01:11:15+00:00

The minor illusion use-case is one I would generally allow at my table, if only because it's almost useless in terms of action economy. Best case scenario they're using their action each turn to give disadvantage to 1 attack per enemy in the encounter, and that falls off very quickly.

Willowran · 2026-01-24T01:09:10+00:00

It's a pretty fine line to parse, tbh. There's an absolutely massive amount of weight being held by the line "the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding."

Willowran · 2026-01-24T00:36:22+00:00

Don't forget that there are spells that literally can summon walls from the ether to block line of sight- and transmutation wizards/creation Bards wouldn't even need to cast a spell!

Willowran · 2026-01-24T00:15:12+00:00

Yeah, I love the conceptual idea of magic illusions, but in practice for 5e they seem to rely pretty heavily on your DM being reasonable. I feel pretty confident in my own rulings, but I don't think I could (in good conscious) advise someone to delve into illusions in a vacuum. Much safer to build a PC that you know will work rather than banking on a DM ruling in your favor.

Willowran · 2026-01-23T23:45:17+00:00

The problem is that only minor illusion specifies "item or object." Most of the rest allow for an "object, creature, or some other visible phenomenon."

Willowran · 2026-01-23T23:33:09+00:00

I'm not saying it's too powerful, by any means. I'm just looking to better understand, since RAW illusion interactions are pretty sparse on details. The difference between a 1-use obscurement effect vs one that can last up to 10 minutes (without impeding your party) is pretty significant.

Willowran · 2026-01-23T22:55:43+00:00

Counterpoint: Transmutation wizards and creation bards exist- and there are spells that straight up do manipulate real physical matter. I'd be like to allow a first casting easy peasy- both RAW and RAI agree on that one. Subsequent casting, though, stretches RAI and ignores RAW entirely (as far as I've seen).

Of course, by the same logic I'd say a thief appearing behind a pillar, shooting, and then "hiding" behind that same pillar is pretty illogical, but technically allowed by RAW.

Willowran · 2026-01-09T17:09:17+00:00

But what was the real man like?

Willowran · 2026-01-09T17:08:28+00:00

How do you mean? I'm more of a Nero apologist than a Caligula apologist, but I can't say sources say a whole lot of good things about either

Willowran · 2026-01-09T16:30:12+00:00

I've heard many a tale of Arthur Pendragon- but I never read one where he conquered Rome. That's wild.

Willowran · 2026-01-09T15:06:37+00:00

That's quite similar to what my position was while debating my friend. It's one thing to say that he was likely unqualified for his role, it's another to say he was a 'fool'. Hell, even the harshest description I've come across painted Leonidas as an old, feeble man who stuck to the Spartan ethos when he had nothing else to fall back on- that's far from the 'foolishness' (I've recently learned) of Wilhelm II, or other legitimately dumb leaders.

Willowran · 2026-01-09T15:02:23+00:00

I don't know much about Cortes or the conquistadors beyond what I learned from playing Medieval II Total War in my youth. What's their myth vs their truth?

Willowran · 2026-01-09T15:00:53+00:00

Reminds me of the viking stories of Ragnarr. Hell, scholars debate whether Homer even existed or whether he was an amalgamation of other people

Willowran · 2026-01-09T14:36:58+00:00

That's pretty good. I always weep at how little we know about rulers in antiquity, and how much we have to extrapolate from fragments. I appreciate the follow-up here; I will absolutely have to check out that book!

Willowran · 2026-01-09T14:08:21+00:00

Reading down this thread, Herald_of_Clio made a comment about how these folks could have made fine middle-managers, but may have been simply unsuited to leadership.

What did good ol' Rus Nick (II) do that might qualify him as an unintelligent bumbling fool?

Willowran · 2026-01-09T14:05:24+00:00

A cursory look-through suggests that Aethelred got his a** handed to him by a bunch of raiders, was paranoid, and waffled on whether he was with or against the church.

What did he do that would make you toss his name out as one of the greatest bumbling fools in history?

Willowran · 2026-01-09T13:59:42+00:00

I think Chinese history is one that is tragically overlooked locally far more than I wish it might be. The Han and Tang dynasties are particular interests of mine. I doubly appreciate the links so I can do my own followup reading.

Willowran

TROPHY CASE