D&D (2024) Illusion Magic in 2024

[Kobold Stew]

Yeah sometimes we can miss the forest for the trees. Definitely the situation here. There has to be a point where the rule ends and common sense takes over. Otherwise, core rulebooks would be 2-3 times bigger than they already are because the designers has to explain every use of words like "hidden" or "use". And in this (an many other) example, the designer's explanations are still being questioned

This is another reason why GM Fiat exists, otherwise rules debates would constantly destroy gaming sessions. We can go round & round about it here online, and while the discussion can be very useful, it can also get buried by pedantry.

Of course everything can be covered by DM fiat, and of course common sense should take a role.

At the same time, there has to be a shared understanding of what is expected, especially since the emphasis in the rules is not supported by most people's understanding of what they say. I have no objections to coming up with alternatives if that's what the table wants, but it's worth seeing what they are alternative to.

My experience as a DM and player is that illusions are under-used. I think the imbalance in how many play (based on anecdotal evidence, admittedly) is part of the reason why.

 

[Theory of Games]

Of course everything can be covered by DM fiat, and of course common sense should take a role.

At the same time, there has to be a shared understanding of what is expected, especially since the emphasis in the rules is not supported by most people's understanding of what they say. I have no objections to coming up with alternatives if that's what the table wants, but it's worth seeing what they are alternative to.

My experience as a DM and player is that illusions are under-used. I think the imbalance in how many play (based on anecdotal evidence, admittedly) is part of the reason why.

IME people don't go hard with illusions because once an opponent realizes your using them, the illusions' value diminishes greatly.

I'd add that the people most concerned with the rules are GMs and Rules-Lawyers, who represent a small minority within the greater ttrpg community.

Great thread

 

[kigmatzomat]

I'm a 3e type by nature who would love nothing more than a table of +2s & -3s but I will try to follow 5e design philosophy.

5e2024 mechanics are

• Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, for things can pass through it.
• a creature who takes a Study action to examine the illusion... can determine that it is an illusion with a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check against the spell save DC (8+pb+stat bonus)

We'll start with illusions of things where "pass through it" is an instant deal breaker.

• un-animated illusions of 'solid" things are recognized as illusions automatically if a hand, weapon, tool, etc is seen to pass through it. A passive perception test may be needed to notice it if the character is not engaging with the illusion
• animated illusions of "solid" things that are made to "dodge" must make attack rolls to exceed the spell save DC to "hit" them. This reflects the attacker outmaneuvering the caster.
• a creature who takes a Study action to examine the illusion can determine that it is an illusion with a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check against the spell save DC

Next, illusions of gaseous/incorporeal things

• un-animated illusions of gaseous/incorporeal things are NOT recognized as illusions automatically if a hand, weapon, tool, etc just passes through it because that's what happens.
• animated illusions of "incorporeal" things that are made to "dodge" must make attack rolls to exceed the spell save DC to "hit" them with disadvantage. This reflects the attacker outmaneuvering the caster and doing well enough to believe they should have got some reaction particular reaction
• a creature who takes a Study action to examine the illusion can determine that it is an illusion with a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check against the spell save DC

Modifiers

• illusions missing key elements (a Silent Image iron golem being utterly silent while walking around on a stone floor, a fire elemental without heat) give the attacker/investigator advantage.
• being told it is an illusion grants advantage

 

[FrogReaver]

Sorry -- you can't Attack the illusion (as a game term) -- there's nothing there; it has no AC, no HP. It's always a swing and a miss. The problem is, if that action alone causes the illusion to fade away, then all Study guidleines are lousy.

Sure you can. Illusions exist. If they didn't you wouldn't see them. But thanks for confirming there's not actually a rule in the books preventing the attacking of illusions - just some sophistry to bend the language to the results you want.

The ground doesn't have an AC or Hp either. You can attack it just as well.
Or better yet, since in your view the illusion doesn't exist, then there's nothing there to Study so you can't ever find out it's an illusion...

 

[Yaarel]

Sure you can. Illusions exist. If they didn't you wouldn't see them. But thanks for confirming there's not actually a rule in the books preventing the attacking of illusions - just some sophistry to bend the language to the results you want.

The ground doesn't have an AC or Hp either. You can attack it just as well.
Or better yet, since in your view the illusion doesn't exist, then there's nothing there to Study so you can't ever find out it's an illusion...

Yeah, D&D illusions objectively exist.

I think of them as 'force constructs' like a Star Trek holodeck. Some of the D&D illusions have enough force to distort light or sonic vibration, but things can pass thru them.

In any case, with only a few exceptions, they arent the 'phantasms' that only exist subjectively in the mind of a target. Probably, the phantasms should be the mind-altering Enchantment school, while the objectively existing illusions are the Illusion school.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Sure you can. Illusions exist. If they didn't you wouldn't see them. But thanks for confirming there's not actually a rule in the books preventing the attacking of illusions - just some sophistry to bend the language to the results you want.

The ground doesn't have an AC or Hp either. You can attack it just as well.
Or better yet, since in your view the illusion doesn't exist, then there's nothing there to Study so you can't ever find out it's an illusion...

No need to belittle him. You're just talking about "fluff" attacking, while he is talking about "crunch" attacking.

He means that there is no reason for a DM to ask a player to make an attack roll.

He is NOT saying that a player can't choose to declare their action as shooting/stabbing/hacking at it.

There's no need for your mocking tone.

 

[FrogReaver]

He means that there is no reason for a DM to ask a player to make an attack roll.

He is NOT saying that a player can't choose to declare their action as shooting/stabbing/hacking at it.

I think and still think he was saying precisely what you say he wasn’t.

 

[Theory of Games]

Using illusions in combat is always kinda tricky. If the GM is handling the illusionary threat, not running the combat encounter like a combat encounter can make the players suspicious. So I always present the illusion as real until the PCs figure out it isn't.