Search results

Yes, that's a reasonable concern too. It's just a question of how much is "too much" for any particular group.

Hmm, I'm not sure thinking of it that way changes very much for me. Using your examples, I, as someone who knows how to drive a car and make lunch, have a pretty decent chance of out-driving a professional race-car driver or out-cooking a professional chef. I find that hard to swallow. There...

That's a valid point, and I think it makes sense for a lot of proficiencies, like acrobatics or persuasion (or cart driving). My issue was specifically with tools, like lockpicks, metal-smithing tools, musical instruments, etc. You can't try those things without the tools (according to the...

Are we still debating the point that it only affects characters who have an 8 in the relevant stat? I thought you backed off that point, because it "clearly" isn't true. So we agree then. As I already said, I have no interest in trying to make people care about something they don't care...

I pulled that example straight from the PH. That example was to counter your earlier claim that it's only a problem when you have an 8. Clearly that's not the case. Now you're saying that a +1 bonus doesn't matter, which is an odd argument in a game built on small bonuses (that's half the...

Would you consider 13 "somewhat dexterous"? Bringing up stats of 8 is misleading; the point still holds even if the lockpicker has a 13 dex and the barbarian has 18. However, you can replace lock-picking with any other tool-based skill from the list if you prefer: "Yes, I know I'm a halfling...

That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that it allows people who are proficient with tools to actually feel like they have useful skills. "Yes, I know I've been picking locks since I was a kid, and you come from a tribe that doesn't even have doors, but you're really nimble so...

Well, good to know I didn't miss something in the rules. I think that's something I'd probably want to change...there's no way someone who hasn't spent time studying and practicing could just pick up a set of lockpicks and open a lock, or forge someone's handwriting, or build a nice wardrobe...

I'm a bit unclear on the use of tools in 5e. Does proficiency with tools just allow you to add your proficiency bonus, or do you need to be proficient to use the tools at all? The rules seem to suggest that anyone can use tools, but that seems odd to me. Proficiency bonuses aren't that...

We're talking about a cantrip here. Obviously a cantrip is going to have lots of limitations. I never said anything about reflecting light. I said I wouldn't let the spell reflect (or otherwise show) an image of something you can't see. Although you raise a good question...do illusions...

I would say no, you can't create illusions of things/places you can't see. A mirror wouldn't look like a mirror; it would either look like a painting behind glass (if you guess at what it would reflect) or just blank glass. Same thing with a window. As for fog, passing through it would...

Also good questions. I wondered about that myself. Seems like the cantrip could become very useful for hiding, allowing the player to create chests to hide in or curtains to hide behind. And for combat, is a gnome hiding behind an illusionary rock considered to have cover?

But the text doesn't actually say the illusion can't move, does it?

Hmm, some good points raised in this thread. I'm curious about the "not being able to move" bit though. I didn't realize that was the case. It would certainly rule out using it for coins, unless it was a chest sitting on the ground or something. Is that the generally accepted practice?

The description for Minor Illusion says that "physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it." What if the player wants to cast the illusion over top of another object? I have a gnome who wants to cast a minor illusion on copper coins to...

Yes, that's what I was thinking; excellent for spying, infiltration, assassinating, etc. Especially when you're dealing with low-Int creatures, like orcs...even if they had reason to try and see through the disguise, they're going to fail more than 2/3s of the time as long as they don't touch...

Really? I immediately thought of players using it to get into places they shouldn't be able to, by impersonating servants, or getting free stuff by impersonating some important merchant, or getting out of jail by disguising themselves as a dead body, or sneaking into enemy camps by disguising...

So you can mimic specific people, and no one can tell who or what you actually are even if they figure out the disguise? Isn't that pretty powerful for something that can be cast at will? How do DMs keep such characters from being overpowering in non-combat situations?

I'm just getting back into D&D5e after being away from RPing for years. I have a player creating a warlock who gets to cast Disguise Self at will, and I find myself a bit confused by the spell description. It says that the spell "fails to hold up to physical inspection", but it doesn't say...