D&D (2024) Illusion Magic in 2024

[FrogReaver]

Why would you assume that I wrote the tl/dr before the rest of the post? Perhaps there lies the confusion.

I didn’t. And besides, what difference does it make if you wrote it before or after? Also, why do you assume I assumed that?

In the post, I present the reasoning that brings me to the conclusion that I summarized . Not something that I "want", but what the PHB says.

Yea, so just pure coincidence that the thing you said you wanted out of the rules is how you ultimately end up reading them, despite the natural language reading being perfectly clear in this case and in conflict with how you read the rules?

There's a section in the OP called "Attacking an Illusion". Of course you can take your action to swing at an illusion if you choose to do so.

Thank you.

However, doing so is different from "interacting", which (it turns out) is a term with a definition, that normally takes an action. If we ignore that definition, and equate attacking with interacting, then the very prominent statement about rolling an Intelligence (Investigation) check is functionally meaningless, because it sets up a challenge that can be failed when tossing a copper piece or making a ranged attack would automatically succeed. That's not "evidence"; it is a conclusion, and one I am happy to discuss if you wish.

The issue with this interpretation is that the ‘physical interaction’ text gives us the reasoning for why physical interaction breaks illusions and that reasoning applies to shooting arrows as well as object interactions - meaning physical interaction here is being used in the natural language sense not some kind of game term sense.

 

[Theory of Games]

Wow. Only WotC could make something simple this hard.

Player: Okay so I want to see if this thing is an illusion. Am I rolling Investigation?

GM: Well you need to use a Study action.

Player: What's that?

GM: Well it allows you to make the check.

Player: Is that two actions?

GM: No it's just the Study action.

Player: So the Investigation skill is no longer an action?

GM: Right it's ... just roll please

 

[SkidAce]

Here's my take.

The Boulder Problem
There's no good solution outside the PHB rules to the illusory boulder on a PC's space problem and it's much too powerful an effect to allow at the spell levels of the ability that can produce it. If the whole party can move (no hiding actually required) in an illusory boulder and fire ranged attacked from it (granting advantage since they aren't seen, and disadvantage to hit them since they aren't seen and is available until every enemy uses and succeeds on their own non-attack action independently to 'Study', then you've not balanced illusions, you've made them the most powerful and versatile spells for most of the game. *Note many spells also require you to see the target.

This is why IMO the physical interaction clause exists and reasoning of 'you can see things pass through it' are both in the PHB. It's to prevent things like the boulder trick above.

I might just wonder why there are arrows coming from that boulder.

 

[FrogReaver]

I might just wonder why there are arrows coming from that boulder.

Sure and with the physical interaction rule that tells you it’s an illusion. Without you need to spend an action and succeed at a check to do the same thing.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Thanks for this. I think we both recognize the same issue.

Meaning "interaction" is a non-action that occurs as part of another action/move.

That's precisely not what the passage quoted says.

So back to the other RAW, the wording in Minor Illusion is "...Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, since things can pass through it."

Any physical weapon applied to an illusion would be "things pass(ing) through it." In melee, any stationary image larger than, say, a coin, should be an automatic task, not requiring an attack, even if the only things in your hands are weapons.

However, based on having seen people miss nails with hammers, making an attack roll and using the attack action seems reasonable for hitting very small objects.

Ranged interactions would require using an attack action as "throw things at another thing" is the definition of a ranged attack. It may not require a roll, as a stationary illusion of a goblin at 10ft is a gimme, but the same illusion 50ft away should require a roll, given that a lot of weapons are at long range/disadvantage.

If this is correct, then much more remains unclear for what happens with illusions in combat than the procedure I suggested. You've identified some of the issues here, but there are more. It's frustrating that 2-3 sentences could have removed the ambiguity.

That's not true. Physical interaction doesn't invalidate "study" as a use case, as there are times you don't want to walk up and poke something. "Are the Crown Jewels real? Guess I'll just go give'em a poke or throw stuff at them." Nope, doesn't sound good.

More common scenarios are hidden/invisible characters who don't want to risk being detected or where the suspected illusion is implausible to attack, perhaps behind a wall of force.

So rules on identifying illusions without any physical interaction are needed, even if other options exist

This is precisely the issue. Wall of Force is the edge-case I was thinking of (I didn't discuss it in the OP), in which case the Investigation roll sentence in the cantrip/first-level spell is to counter the specific case of a fifth-level spell. To me, this sounds improbable and does not reflect the way other spell descriptions are worded.

I appreciate your crown jewels example. That shows there are conceivable circumstances out of combat where one might want to Study an illusion; and we could invent others. This is not the way I see players using illusion magic, however. If this is what is being envisaged, then I think issues arise specifically for the situation of hidden/invisible characters which you mention. That is already a rat's nest, and it is in those cases where doing anything other than attacking the suspected illusion becomes sub-optimal.

The spells identify two ways explicitly of causing the illusion to fade, but a third implicit one is to be preferred. Thst would be a different kind of rule-writing failure than the hiding/illusion and weapon juggling situations.

But what the rules don't cover are animated illusions, like Major Image, where a caster can spend their action causing the illusion to act/react. How do you poke a suspected goblin illusion that jumps around wildly, staying at least 10ft away? Or it swings its axe wildly, but doesn't hit your shield or sword?

Or illusions of intangible things. You throw a coin at a Ghost and it passes through....how would that tell you it's an illusion? That would happen normally.

Those are gaps in the RAW

Yes they are!

Cheers.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I didn’t. And besides, what difference does it make if you wrote it before or after? Also, why do you assume I assumed that?

Because you quoted it.

Yea, so just pure coincidence that the thing you said you wanted out of the rules is how you ultimately end up reading them, despite the natural language reading being perfectly clear in this case and in conflict with how you read the rules?

This sounds to me like you are being sarcastic.

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.

Your interpretation, as you've explained it, does not explain the repeated emphasis in the spell descriptions. And that's fair, since you believe illusions are "mostly meant to be out of combat spells". My post specifically described only in-combat uses.

The issue with this interpretation is that the ‘physical interaction’ text gives us the reasoning for why physical interaction breaks illusions and that reasoning applies to shooting arrows as well as object interactions - meaning physical interaction here is being used in the natural language sense not some kind of game term sense.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Yaarel]

Uh. There's a Perception skill though and the difference is: for saves, the GM tells you when, but skills you can use whenever you want. Plus the second a GM says "Make a Perception save" every player will know something's screwy.

The math works better, and the organization of spells, monsters, and so on, when Perception is a clear save category.

When the DM wishes the save to be secret, then the DM does the same thing for Will save enchantments, that other players shouldnt know about.

The DM can roll the save, or keep a list of prerolls that get scratched off.

 

[Theory of Games]

The math works better, and the organization of spells, monsters, and so on, when Perception is a clear save category.

When the DM wishes the save to be secret, then the DM does the same thing for Will save enchantments, that other players shouldnt know about.

The DM can roll the save, or keep a list of prerolls that get scratched off.

OR, you let the player(s) roll and tell them "Okay - you know something 'aint right, but your PC doesn't. This, is where you ROLEPLAY"

 

[Yaarel]

OR, you let the player(s) roll and tell them "Okay - you know something 'aint right, but your PC doesn't. This, is where you ROLEPLAY"

Doing this kind of stuff, like a player controlling what a Charmed character does while other players dont know the character is Charmed, ...

A good time for the DM to award Heroic Inspiration and other perks. Plus it is fun. (And the player gets to decide how far is 'too far'.)

 

[Theory of Games]

Doing this kind of stuff, like a player controlling what a Charmed character does while other players dont know the character is Charmed, ...

A good time for the DM to award Heroic Inspiration and other perks. Plus it is fun. (And the player gets to decide how far is 'too far'.)

It's so much fun and I agree on rewarding them for the good RP.