FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
That makes no sense. Such an assumption isn't necessary simply because of quoting.Because you quoted it.
A. The proposal doesn't follow from the passages, at best it's an interpretation trying to be forced upon the text.I want rules that work at the table, yes. And, yes, I offered a proposal that cites the PHB. It's not a coincidence that the proposal follows from the passages cited.
B. If you want rules that work at the table then don't allow illusions to give advantage to allies + disadvantage to enemies for the whole combat unless every enemy gives up it's action to take the study action and succeeds. If you can find a simple way to do that without the study action then do that. Heck, share that and I probably will too. But it doesn't need to be forced into the existing rules. Houserules are okay.
Of course it does.Your interpretation, as you've explained it, does not explain the repeated emphasis in the spell descriptions.
1. You can take a Study action to examine an illusion, make a check that if successful shows it to be an illusion
2. Also, any physical interaction will show it to be an illusion.
3. In the event you discern it's an illusion (no matter which method) then the illusion because faint.
The repeated emphasis exists because 1 and 2 are different ways of discerning something to be an illusion.
Yes. And it's been explained by others why that is the case. It's mostly to do with out of combat uses. Though I suppose one could create an illusory segment of wall and a single 5ft wide 10ft deep door way to create a chokepoint that your fighter stands in while ranged allies freely shoot whatever enemy stands in front of him. People aren't likely to attack such an illusion.If this view is correct, then the spell descriptions state a way to counter illusions that has a substantial chance of failure, but there is an implicit way to counter illusions that will always succeed.
Essentially when a player decides to use illusions they need to find ones in combat that aren't going to typically be attacked.
Let's suppose that's an issue. So the PHB rules for something has issues. That's not surprising.Further, the experts in illusion magic (Wizards) never approach the ability to counter illusions that an Int 8 Champion Fighter of equal level possesses. And the DC associated with a given illusion is seldom if ever relevant. You may believe that is what is intended by the rules, but for me it points to an issue that warrants discussion.
Wizards get Scorching Ray and can make more attacks than fighters at things. They get true sight. Detect Magic. Etc. They have lots of ways to deal with illusions. So I'm not even sure we can say the champion is better at it than him. He also is much better at detecting any illusions without direct physical interaction than the Champion.
Maybe, I'd love to hear one that doesn't overpower them like everything I've heard suggested here so far.I can think of many ways that illusion rules might be fixed at the table (and others in this thread have suggested some), and I know that I have played with my own house rules (not those here) the few times illusions have come up in games I've run. But for the most part, they don't come up, because the spells aren't used, and I think part of the reason is precisely the problem I'm trying to think through.