Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 9671381" data-attributes="member: 23484">You don't like the Study action. I get that. I'm not sure I do either, but they've foregrounded it in the spell descriptions repeatedly. It appears you believe that it is included to cover edge-cases and certain out-of-combat uses. That's not the way I see the rules written elsewhere, but that's beside the point. . Based on this, the only place we disagree is on the definition of physical interaction. And so here is the nub: You believe an illusory object that is smaller than a 5' cube (cast by Minor Illusion, taking a caster's action) necessarily overpowers things, and I don't. For any table, decisions will need to be made concerning illusions about two circumstances:1. what happens when you swing a weapon with the intent of doing damage: the weapon passes through, but does it make the illusion fade for the attacker?2. what happens when you see another person's weapon pass through an illusion (or, if you prefer, if you are told a barrel (say) is an illusion): does it become faint for you if you haven't interacted with it? If your answer to 2. is yes (= the way many play) then I don't think you are going to see illusions in your game, and that's a loss, and not, I suggest, what the rules intend.If your answer to 1. is yes (= what I see you saying you believe) then I don't think the Study action will ever come up in play. One also then needs to decide if the attqck functions with disadvantage, if it can do damage to someone inside the illusion, etc. This will be fine for some, but it points (in my view) to a failure of the rules if that is the expected way of playing. I don't see us agreeing, but I do appreciate your time and your passionate advocacy for something you feel is overpowering.</blockquote>

Verification