D&D 5E Minor Illusion question

[Chocolategravy]

Pretty sure this is raw theorycraft at work - like the infinite skeleton army, I'm not convinced that it'll ever be an issue in actual play.

It isn't theorycraft, it's just that most people won't figure something like that out or the massive abuses Warlocks can put Silent Image to. Illusions are turning out to be 5E's polymorph.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It isn't theorycraft, it's just that most people won't figure something like that out or the massive abuses Warlocks can put Silent Image to. Illusions are turning out to be 5E's polymorph.

Well, since theorycraft is pretty much defined as "it is bad in theory, but no one ever actually does it," that'd still be theorycraft.

It's also that most rooms don't depend on a single source of illumination and usually more enemies have darkvision than PC's and it's not like the illusionist couldn't create a bush that obscured vision for some but not others and all sorts of variables that make the supposed risk posed by this ruling simply evaporate.

 

[Chocolategravy]

Well, since theorycraft is pretty much defined as "it is bad in theory, but no one ever actually does it," that'd still be theorycraft.

Theorycraft isn't about no one doing it, but it being too hard to do or too infrequently useful. Lack of rules expertise or cleverness among players doesn't turn a highly abuseable little rules packet into theorycraft.

While I agree that the "I can put a box around a light" isn't nearly as strong as people are making it out to be and might be considered theorycraft because of how infrequently it will actually come up in play, that is nowhere near the best use of the spell.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Theorycraft isn't about no one doing it, but it being too hard to do or too infrequently useful. Lack of rules expertise or cleverness among players doesn't turn a highly abuseable little rules packet into theorycraft.

I think your definition may be overly precise.

If it's too hard to do or too infrequently useful, what's the result? No on does it.

If it relies on rules arcana too obtuse to be useful, what's the result? No one does it.

Either way, no one actually does it, which means it's only useful in theory, hence my use of the term.

While I agree that the "I can put a box around a light" isn't nearly as strong as people are making it out to be and might be considered theorycraft because of how infrequently it will actually come up in play, that is nowhere near the best use of the spell.

Sure, but with the barometer of "only worry about actual problems, not theoretical problems," it seems to be working fine IMXP.

 

[Mistwell]

Can an object created by minor illusion, which can't product sensory effects, block light?

Example: A room is lit by a torch in a wall sconce. Minor Illusion is cast to create an iron box bolted to the wall around the torch. Does this plunge the room into darkness?

Yes. Otherwise all illusions would be immediately recognizable from a distance as fake. If they can't block light, then they are either see-through or glow, and either way that blows all illusions. So, they must block light.

 

[Mistwell]

On the other hand, once an illusion is disbelieved, that character can see through it. In the case of an illusion designed to block light (or to hide anything really), that character can now see the light (or see through the illusion). However, light is light. Either the illusion blocks it (or alters it), or it does not. If one disbelieving character can suddenly make the light shine through, it would be strange indeed that the light was not blocked until one character made the Investigation check (or alternatively, one character interacted with the object).

It's a mind-effecting spell. You THINK you cannot see while you believe the illusion. Only once you disbelieve can you see. It's like a psychosomatic injury.

 

[Chocolategravy]

It's a mind-effecting spell. You THINK you cannot see while you believe the illusion. Only once you disbelieve can you see. It's like a psychosomatic injury.

The description for the illusion school is that many are images and only the most insidious are in the mind. Things like Phantasmal Force/Killer and Fear, spells which usually have targets and saves, are mind effects. Things described as creating images aren't. If you create an image of a catapult, the enemy army half a mile away could see it, it isn't affecting their minds, just their retinas with whatever light is bouncing off it.

 

[Mistwell]

The description for the illusion school is that many are images and only the most insidious are in the mind. Things like Phantasmal Force/Killer and Fear, spells which usually have targets and saves, are mind effects. Things described as creating images aren't. If you create an image of a catapult, the enemy army half a mile away could see it, it isn't affecting their minds, just their retinas with whatever light is bouncing off it.

So you agree light bounces off it, therefore it works.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's a mind-effecting spell. You THINK you cannot see while you believe the illusion. Only once you disbelieve can you see. It's like a psychosomatic injury.

So this mind affecting cantrip affects foes up to significant distances away like a mile, it affects foes with mental spell defenses or resistances, etc.?

 

[Mistwell]

So this mind affecting cantrip affects foes up to significant distances away like a mile, it affects foes with mental spell defenses or resistances, etc.?

If it were not mind affecting, would it still be visible to foes a significant distance away? If yes, then yes if it is mind affecting as well. Not sure why it would matter.