D&D 5E Minor Illusion question

[gator001]

Yeah: nonsense. Players-- or at least creative players-- are quite capable of making decisions when the world is not predictable, and part of that can be reflected in shifting rules. That's a basic conceit of certain settings, adventures, environs, in fact. Fey, demons, non-euclidean horrors....

A lack of predictability changes the calculus, it doesn't prevent it. If you can't deal with a DM changing things up and keeping you on your toes now and then, you could check out any number of fantastic computer games on the market.

I didn't say anything about the world or the DM. Stop replying to what you assume I'm talking about and actually read the posts.

 

[gator001]

Smart magic can still be consistent and more or less predictable. It just follows a different set of laws than real world physics. Spellcasting characters can be made aware of those laws and make meaningful decisions based on them.

You don't understand what is meant by consistent systems. Do some reading and don't come back to the thread for at least a month.

 

[J.Quondam]

I didn't say anything about the world or the DM. Stop replying to what you assume I'm talking about and actually read the posts.

Yes, I addressed your desperate appeal for coddling when I referred to "shifting rules." Unpredictability arises from rules inconsistency, rulings inconsistency, and intentionally baked-in inconsistency. It's all one big happy family

Are you equally terrified of enchantments? Random encounters? Wild magic tables? If a player cannot make a "meaningful decision" at some point in a game, do they attempt to discern some meaning, or just expect the DM to hand it over?
What even is a "meaningful decision," aside from a buzzword to protect PCs from scary things?

 

[Fenris-77]

Don't ever be a DM.

I've been DMing quite happily for 30 years. I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Morrus]

You don't understand what is meant by consistent systems. Do some reading and don't come back to the thread for at least a month.

Please leave the thread. This aggressive posturing is not acceptable.

 

[Lanefan]

It's not what the spell says, when someone passes the investigation check, it does not invalidate the illusion, it just becomes faint to that creature.

And that's the as-written rule that really gets in the way here.

If the illusion vanished completely in the eyes of someone who had successfully disbelieved it then it'd be easy to explain that the illusion was a mind-affecting spell rather than anything involving physics.

Because yes, I'm one of those who tries to explain magic as fitting in with real-world physics - it just doesn't happen to work on this world we live on due to [reasons, that have been given long thought over the years].

It actually does not even say that the creature can see through it.

I think "faint" covers that, or close enough for rock and roll.

 

[Lanefan]

this reminds me of an old school drow argument. I am in a huge room with a skylight, I cast darkness on the skylight blocking all the light...does that make my darkness now 'cover the whole room'?

No. The Darkness spell puts magical darkness on the area around the skylight meaning the room gets dark, but anyone with darkvision would be able to see and if someone lit a torch the light would work as normal until it hit the edge of your actual Darkness effect.

The messier ruling here involves Invisibility - can an invisible person carry a light source and have it be of any use at all? I long ago ruled "no" on this, given that as anything carried by an invisible person it itself invisible so too would be any light coming from it.

 

[Lyxen]

And that's the as-written rule that really gets in the way here.
If the illusion vanished completely in the eyes of someone who had successfully disbelieved it then it'd be easy to explain that the illusion was a mind-affecting spell rather than anything involving physics.

As for me, the as-written rule is fine because I choose to leave aside the real world physics (despite really loving the topic) in favour of a fantasy world where I have more possibilities than making my illusions only mind affecting.

Because yes, I'm one of those who tries to explain magic as fitting in with real-world physics - it just doesn't happen to work on this world we live on due to [reasons, that have been given long thought over the years].

I'm fine with this, tried to do it, realised it did not work at all (at least for me, but there are so many impossibilities that any serious discussion ends up with physics just being impossible).

I think "faint" covers that, or close enough for rock and roll.

If you take "faint" as "not looking real at all", it also allows you to say that it does not have to be translucent.. Alternatively, you can make it translucent but say that light and vision are not exactly the same thing, but that requires real world physics to go away...

 

[Lanefan]

I'm fine with this, tried to do it, realised it did not work at all (at least for me, but there are so many impossibilities that any serious discussion ends up with physics just being impossible).

Depends on what level of granularity you start at, I think. For my part, I started with an overarching "theory" of how magic might fit in to a universe that otherwise uses real-world physics and worked downward from there.

I won't bore everyone here with the details but if you're interested, shoot me a PM and I'd be glad to explain what I've got.

If you take "faint" as "not looking real at all", it also allows you to say that it does not have to be translucent.. Alternatively, you can make it translucent but say that light and vision are not exactly the same thing, but that requires real world physics to go away...

I read "faint" as meaning it becomes ghostly and that yes, you can see through it literally as well as figuratively.