D&D 5E Minor illusion for advantage to attack?

TheGogmagog

First Post
Cast minor illusion of a 5x5 box around yourself. You are now unseen, attackers now have disadvantage to hit you. They must spend an action and make an investigation check for the illusion to see through it (the illusion becomes faint. Physical interaction passes though the illusions but does not make it transparent.

One area of uncertainty is if the illusion is if the caster must save against his own spell to see through it. With a few rounds preparation though, a wizard or trickster rogue would have advantage for attacks since he is unseen until the target spends a round and makes the save.

Am I missing anything?

[Edit]: As pointed out below, I was missing that the illusion becomes transparent when it is interacted with OR with the investigation check, not both, so it would still grant the 'vantage for the first attack it affects. [/Edit]
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Cast minor illusion of a 5x5 box around yourself. You are now unseen, attackers now have disadvantage to hit you. They must spend an action and make an investigation check for the illusion to see through it (the illusion becomes faint. Physical interaction passes though the illusions but does not make it transparent.

One area of uncertainty is if the illusion is if the caster must save against his own spell to see through it. With a few rounds preparation though, a wizard or trickster rogue would have advantage for attacks since he is unseen until the target spends a round and makes the save.

Am I missing anything?

"Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion" "If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the illusion becomes faint to the creature." You get 1 attack of disadvantage against you, better make it count.
 

Tormyr

Adventurer
Cast minor illusion of a 5x5 box around yourself. You are now unseen, attackers now have disadvantage to hit you. They must spend an action and make an investigation check for the illusion to see through it (the illusion becomes faint. Physical interaction passes though the illusions but does not make it transparent.

One area of uncertainty is if the illusion is if the caster must save against his own spell to see through it. With a few rounds preparation though, a wizard or trickster rogue would have advantage for attacks since he is unseen until the target spends a round and makes the save.

Am I missing anything?

A couple things that might not change things too much. Physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion. If the enemy knows you are in the 5x5 space, especially if they see you put the spell up, I would probably give them advantage on the Investigation check. It also only lasts for a minute, so it isn't useful for a stakeout. It could buy you some time, though, if you are cornered.

What situation were you thinking of using it in?
 

TheGogmagog

First Post
As a stakeout, (stalagmite, cabinet, rock, pillar, wall feature) it can be recast without verbal components. I was thinking more of in combat, for ranged attackers. Even with disadvantage to one attack, it beats true strike with a 'shield' effect. If they can't close to interact because they are in melee with the fighter, even better.

I've never seen an illusory wall portrayed as becoming transparent once you put a hand through it, but that would be a reasonable ruling. The advantage to saves vs illusions is dubious, do you grant advantage to saves vs evocations if you see the caster, or do you just hate illusions? What is to say I didn't transmute a small box, or a shrink spell just ended. Obviously something magic happened, but that doesn't mean illusion. Now, the third time in a combat I do it...

Even with the advantage house rule, it's still a round they are using to avoid 'vantage rather than attacking someone.
 

keterys

First Post
As a general guideline, more effective than (another more specific cantrip) is probably your warning that you're doing it wrong :) That said, advantage for an action is a pretty tried and true metric. Ranged "Help" via a cantrip? Sure, whatever.

At a minimum, there's no reason why you'd get both advantage to attack(s) and give disadvantage to others' attack(s). Ie, it's a one use and now it's obvious it's an illusion and can be seen through.
 


rkwoodard

First Post
As a general guideline, more effective than (another more specific cantrip) is probably your warning that you're doing it wrong :) That said, advantage for an action is a pretty tried and true metric. Ranged "Help" via a cantrip? Sure, whatever.

At a minimum, there's no reason why you'd get both advantage to attack(s) and give disadvantage to others' attack(s). Ie, it's a one use and now it's obvious it's an illusion and can be seen through.

I am running a small party ( 2 players, 1 PC eash). I threw in a Wizard NPC as they are a Paladin and Cleric. The NPC is an Illusionist and to balance the being helpful but not taking the spotlight, I have him use Minor Illusion as an at range "Aid" Action. It gives either advantage to one attack or disadvantage to one attack.

So far it works great. Not overpowered but useful.
 

KarinsDad

Adventurer
I am running a small party ( 2 players, 1 PC eash). I threw in a Wizard NPC as they are a Paladin and Cleric. The NPC is an Illusionist and to balance the being helpful but not taking the spotlight, I have him use Minor Illusion as an at range "Aid" Action. It gives either advantage to one attack or disadvantage to one attack.

So far it works great. Not overpowered but useful.

How does this work?

I get the whole "distracting the enemy thing", but Help is not at range. It forces a PC (or NPC) to get in close. Giving Help with range with a cantrip seems a bit much. Maybe a +2 bonus, but Advantage? I can see a lot of abuse with that. Advantage is just that sweet.
 

rkwoodard

First Post
How does this work?

I get the whole "distracting the enemy thing", but Help is not at range. It forces a PC (or NPC) to get in close. Giving Help with range with a cantrip seems a bit much. Maybe a +2 bonus, but Advantage? I can see a lot of abuse with that. Advantage is just that sweet.

He uses a bunch of made up spells. He passes himself off as a Necromancer (the PCs know he is an Illusionist) and will cast a minor illusion of a flying black skull or a blurry image of the PC right beside the PC.

It may be too powerful, but I can't tell, as I am running 2 PCs through Lost Mines and this helps me from having to slash too many of the monsters in the fight. If I were a PC and a DM ruled against using it like that I would understand and make adjustments to what I did with it.
 

TheGogmagog

First Post
Fair enough, I was separating the two paragraphs in my mind as requiring both Interaction AND an Investigation check. As an either or, then it does simplify to the established trading an action for either disadvantage for one attack on you, OR if there are no attacks against you, advantage for your attack. This resolves the question if the caster has to investigate their own illusion though.

This places it back to less powerful than true strike, as an attack before your next turn would ruin your advantage, and less powerful from shield (which it was already as shield is a reaction) since it's dispelled after one attack.

There may still be exceptions, like an wall with arrow slit where an arrow coming out wouldn't necessarily break the illusion. Or if all of the opponents didn't see the attack that the illusion stands for some opponents and not others.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top