D&D 5E Wizard strategies discussed

[KarinsDad]

I'm not sure it was necessary to start labelling me with insulting terms. I responded to your original post in a respectful way. (Though from your use of each term, I'm guessing you have different definitions of each, though you clearly understood they were derogatory)

First off, I apologize if I offended you. You seem to think your box example is perfectly reasonable. I think your box example is beyond absurd and this might be a difference between how we view illusions.

Although the game is often played with tiny miniatures on a table and possibly a grid, there are a whole lot of things going on behind the scenes. The Halfling is not just standing totally motionless while fighting, he is jumping to the side, ducking under swings, swinging low with his weapon some times, stabbing high with it other times, etc., etc. etc. in my imagination.

Now your example comes along and you put that Halfing in a box. Imagine this from the Halfling's POV and not the rules perspective. He has a hole he can see out of and the main light appears to be coming from that hole (because after all, an illusion of a box would look like a box on the inside as well). Most of his view of the foe is denied unless he moves right up next to that hole and peers out. The same applies to the hole the wizard created to have him attack out of. It restricts his attack. He cannot do an overhead attack through that hole, it will probably have to be a predictable thrusting motion.

From your POV (which appears to be rules based), the halfling gets advantage on his attacks.

From my POV (which is imagination based), the halfling gets disadvantage because he is fighting from a box with two holes it in to see and attack through. Minimally the foe has 3/4ths cover. The wizard practically tied the halfling up.

My intent was not to insult you, but to illustrate that not all DMs will view this cool tactic of yours as cool (and some DMs might view it as rule lawyer-like) . And the reason might be because how the imagination works with regard to illusions in the game. Illusions can be distracting, but they should often be similarly perceivable to every creature on the battleground.


So yes, I consider your box example to be very unreasonable as a way to both protect the Halfling and to give him the huge advantage bonus with a simple cantrip. But from what you yourself has said in your podcast and in many of your class optimization pages, you prefer wizard capabilities that are almost 100% guaranteed as opposed to ones where there is a fair chance of failure. And, I'm ok with that. I wouldn't recommend it like you do as a type of bread and butter for wizard players as per your dislike of Shocking Grasp, but to each their own.

Instead, an example of protecting the Halfling with Minor Illusion that I might give is to create a cylindrical wall (with a roof or lid) around the halfling that only goes around 75% of the way. From the foe's POV, there is now a closed cylinder around the Hafling. The foe cannot see through it to know that there is an exit out the back. The Halfling is protected. The foe will probably attack the Barbarian. Now the foe might be curious and walk around the Barbarian (without provoking in 5E) if terrain and situation permits and find out that the Hafling is not really protected at all, but that's a DM call on monster action based on what the monster knows. Alternatively, it could be a box with the back side missing instead of a partial cylinder.

With this type of solution, the Halfling is protected until the Halfing walks out the back of the illusory partial cylinder, comes around and re-attacks the foe. This type of solution doesn't try to backhandedly shoehorn the "opponent cannot see me" advantage rules into the situation and attempting to use a simple cantrip to partially cast the equivalent of Invisibility on the Halfling. It basically does what you stated was your goal, it attempts to protect the Halfling. It's not 100% like you prefer, but it doesn't hand out free advantage either. And this solution is initiative dependent. If the foe attacks before the Halfling, it does its job. If not, the player of the Halfling has to decide whether he wants to maintain the protection or not.

 

[Salamandyr]

If there is one thing I've gotten from this thread, it's that handing out advantage or disadvantage for clever uses of Minor Illusion is a great idea. The bard in our party just took it as her next cantrip, and I've been wondering how to handle it--I don't want it to become a insta-win button. If the players decide to, say, throw up an illusionary wall to hide behind in order to ambush a party of goblins, for instance, do I just say "well, that works?" or do I go through a whole scenario of whether the goblins interact with the wall enough to disbelieve it? No, now I think just granting advantage on the party's stealth checks (or disadvantage on the goblins perception if that's how you prefer to roll) is the most elegant solution.

Likewise, the same thing in combat. I think the "box" is kind of silly, but instead a sudden second opponent appearing out of nowhere would be enough to put the monster off and grant advantage to the attacking rogue.

Just have to make sure the same trick never works twice in the same combat. So if the caster wants to continue contributing via Minor Illusion she'll need to stretch her imaginative muscles to come up with different illusions that would grant momentary advantage or disadvantage.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

If there is one thing I've gotten from this thread, it's that handing out advantage or disadvantage for clever uses of Minor Illusion is a great idea. The bard in our party just took it as her next cantrip, and I've been wondering how to handle it--I don't want it to become a insta-win button. If the players decide to, say, throw up an illusionary wall to hide behind in order to ambush a party of goblins, for instance, do I just say "well, that works?" or do I go through a whole scenario of whether the goblins interact with the wall enough to disbelieve it? No, now I think just granting advantage on the party's stealth checks (or disadvantage on the goblins perception if that's how you prefer to roll) is the most elegant solution.

Likewise, the same thing in combat. I think the "box" is kind of silly, but instead a sudden second opponent appearing out of nowhere would be enough to put the monster off and grant advantage to the attacking rogue.

Just have to make sure the same trick never works twice in the same combat. So if the caster wants to continue contributing via Minor Illusion she'll need to stretch her imaginative muscles to come up with different illusions that would grant momentary advantage or disadvantage.

Wise words.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If there is one thing I've gotten from this thread, it's that handing out advantage or disadvantage for clever uses of Minor Illusion is a great idea. The bard in our party just took it as her next cantrip, and I've been wondering how to handle it--I don't want it to become a insta-win button. If the players decide to, say, throw up an illusionary wall to hide behind in order to ambush a party of goblins, for instance, do I just say "well, that works?" or do I go through a whole scenario of whether the goblins interact with the wall enough to disbelieve it? No, now I think just granting advantage on the party's stealth checks (or disadvantage on the goblins perception if that's how you prefer to roll) is the most elegant solution.

Likewise, the same thing in combat. I think the "box" is kind of silly, but instead a sudden second opponent appearing out of nowhere would be enough to put the monster off and grant advantage to the attacking rogue.

Just have to make sure the same trick never works twice in the same combat. So if the caster wants to continue contributing via Minor Illusion she'll need to stretch her imaginative muscles to come up with different illusions that would grant momentary advantage or disadvantage.

I would totally let it stop some things and not others... It reminds me of Owod type of character called a Ravnos who had a power of illusions, I played with a guy who would get mad when we all said "I don't belive it" to all his illusions... like when at midnight the sun came out, or when the enterprise flew in with phasers, or the time buffy jumped into a fight... knowing someone has illsuions and seeing rediculase things shouldn't work... on the other hand clever uses should be rewarded...

 

[Celtavian]

If there is one thing I've gotten from this thread, it's that handing out advantage or disadvantage for clever uses of Minor Illusion is a great idea. The bard in our party just took it as her next cantrip, and I've been wondering how to handle it--I don't want it to become a insta-win button. If the players decide to, say, throw up an illusionary wall to hide behind in order to ambush a party of goblins, for instance, do I just say "well, that works?" or do I go through a whole scenario of whether the goblins interact with the wall enough to disbelieve it? No, now I think just granting advantage on the party's stealth checks (or disadvantage on the goblins perception if that's how you prefer to roll) is the most elegant solution.

Likewise, the same thing in combat. I think the "box" is kind of silly, but instead a sudden second opponent appearing out of nowhere would be enough to put the monster off and grant advantage to the attacking rogue.

Just have to make sure the same trick never works twice in the same combat. So if the caster wants to continue contributing via Minor Illusion she'll need to stretch her imaginative muscles to come up with different illusions that would grant momentary advantage or disadvantage.

No one is arguing that minor illusion can be used to grant advantage in conjunction with hiding are they? They are arguing that it can be used to gain continuous advantage by attacking from the box. I do not believe minor illusion would provide the benefits of continuous advantage for the duration of the box illusion. Isn't that is what is being discussed? We're not talking about surprise or the like. We're talking about using an illusion to gain the same advantage as invisibility[/ for the duration.

 

[Salamandyr]

I don't know exactly what other people are advocating or not (at least one person is saying that advantage is too powerful to be granted from just a cantrip). I'm just saying that reading this thread has alerted me to how advantage and disadvantage are a great way to let clever play grant a bonus rather than worrying too hard about the exact effect an illusion might have.

As I recall, at one point in the playtests, the suggested rule was, anyone could use their action to either grant advantage to someone else, or get advantage on to use a skill to get advantage on their next action. I'm thinking I may have been overthinking all this and ought to go back to, "Oh, you thought of something clever? Advantage!"

The trick is not to let any trick work more than once in an encounter.

 

[Gadget]

If there is one thing I've gotten from this thread, it's that handing out advantage or disadvantage for clever uses of Minor Illusion is a great idea. The bard in our party just took it as her next cantrip, and I've been wondering how to handle it--I don't want it to become a insta-win button. If the players decide to, say, throw up an illusionary wall to hide behind in order to ambush a party of goblins, for instance, do I just say "well, that works?" or do I go through a whole scenario of whether the goblins interact with the wall enough to disbelieve it? No, now I think just granting advantage on the party's stealth checks (or disadvantage on the goblins perception if that's how you prefer to roll) is the most elegant solution.

Good points, but I'm not sure the cantrip can create an 'wall' big enough for the entire party to hide behind. There is a limit on the size of the illusion. Now, I personally would allow something of roughly the same square footage, i.e. a closed door in an opening that is taller than allowed, but narrower and thus about the same area.

I understand that the original example was designed to give the halfling continuous advantage, which I think is a bit beyond the pale. IMHO, this trick could work to give surprise in an ambush situation, and the eye holes would not be necessary as the halfling has already interacted with/investigated it and could see through it just fine. I might also allow, depending on the situation, one attack from the halfling at advantage (so I may be with you there), but after that the game is up and the enemy has 'seen' the halfling jump out of the box and can now perceive it as an illusion. Maybe, if the halfling was sniping at the enemy from a distance inside the illusory box, I might require an investigation/perception check on the part of the enemy to determine where the arrows/bolts are coming from; once they see arrows shooting out of a solid box, the game would be up. There is a reason why the invisibility spell makes you visible as soon as you attack or cast a spell, and I don't feel it is an 'in fiction' reason; the spell would just be too powerful otherwise. So I would be very careful about allowing a cantrip to be a poor man's invisibility

That being said, it is nice to see some imaginative use of spells, but what is imaginative and successful once, can become a tactic de jour that gets trotted out every. single. combat. I still remember the days of: "I cast 'Create Water', on his lungs" or "the spell's name is 'Grease', so it must burn like Greek Fire if we toss a torch in there right?" And the ever useful: "Throwing sand in his eyes worked well, lets just carry a pouch of sand around and use it all the time". So I would not allow Minor Illusion to create a glowing, pointing arrow over an opponent to give advantage on the parties' attacks, for a silly example, as that would really make Fairie Fire seem kind of pointless.

 

[Salamandyr]

I think one of the big sticking points would be "continuous" advantage. Definitely a cantrip granting advantage or disadvantage round after round while the magic-user goes and does other things is way too powerful. Essentially, something like minor illusion ought to be good for one round's worth of advantage, then the monster sees through the ruse, or he pops the illusion. If you want to use minor illusion to get advantage again, you need to cast it again, this time in another way. Maybe on round one, you cast an illusion to create an illusionary opponent in the monsters peripheral vision, next round you cast it to simulate an orc commander shouting contradictory orders.

That doesn't violate the action economy. The wizard is essentially is using his action to grant advantage one time. Of course, if the player comes up with something particularly clever, the DM can let occasionally let it count for more.

But the main thing about this is I was wondering how to adjudicate minor illusion without being arbitrary-ie. it works or it doesn't. Granting advantage or disadvantage on a check as appropriate is a good way to do that.

So if the Illusionist wants to put a box around the halfling? It works. Once. Then he's got to come up with something else.

 

[Grakarg]

I enjoyed the podcast, and will check it out in the future.

I, like others, have some minor quibbles with some of the examples, but I agree completely with the theme and point. Players should look for creative ways to use their spells, and not just try to look at their damage dice. They're playing a 'smart' character and should watch the whole flow of the battle and see how they can affect the entire thing.

Side Comment 1: In defense of Shocking Grasp, it is the only offensive cantrip that is a touch spell. While that seems like it is a negative, it can be a bonus. Its the only offensive cantrip you can deliver via your familiar! When the big bad starts ignoring the 'Help actions' from your owl familiar, have it deliver a shocking grasp to show the monster that it just can't forget about your helpful friend.
Also, because Shocking Grasp is the only MELEE spell attack cantrip, it is the only cantrip that will allow a Wizard to knock out an opponent instead of killing them (ref- Melee Attacks pg 195, Knocking a Creature Out pg 198). Of course, being a Wizard just casting sleep would be a better option but hey... those are a couple of uses for Shocking Grasp that I've never seen mentioned or pointed out before.

Side Comment 2: Disadvantage and Advantage don't necessarily affect battles as much as players fear (or hope) they might. Example from last weeks session- lvl 7 ranger wielding a bow, inside a fog cloud, is in melee range of 2 Ettins. He at first panics a little when I remind him he is at disadvantage when shooting his bow. But he does anyway, because he has a +11 total attack bonus. Relieved, he discovers that Ettins are AC 11. (Minor illusion might be able to cause disadvantage, but even so disadvantage might not have much effect). But its something to add to the bag of tricks in certain situations. And of course, players are always having fun when they get advantage or cause disadvantage. Fun = Good.

Side Comment 3: In defense of Sleep. It was mentioned on the podcast that Sleep is a great spell at low levels, but quickly loses effectiveness at higher levels. I'd like to point out that Sleep is still pretty useful at higher levels, you just can't use it as an opening salvo like you can at low levels. Instead of your opening shot, it is your finishing move. It has the most 'hp of damage' for all the 1st level spells, but its all or nothing. Since it compares the spell effect vs. the creatures current hit points, give your fighter and rogue friends a chance to lay a beat down first. Whittle down the big bad to below half, and THEN pop the sleep spell. As an added bonus, ignore anyone else in the area of effect that is already unconcious, so you can cast it more than once if you need too.

 

[Blackwarder]

Haven't read the entire wall of texts you guys are throwing all over the place but I got to say something about the minor illusion and the halfling in a box scenario.

In my games, if the Orog was fighting a halfling and suddenly a box appeared were the halfling stood the Orog would have just smashed the box! Minor illusion is a great cantrip but the halfling in a box is just a silly example.

Warder