Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Cyber-Dave Aug 13, 2015 16:21:14	There are no fixed rules on how to adjudicate this situation. There are a number of ways in which you could adjudicate this situation. How do you adjudicate this situation?   Things to take note of: physical interaction with an illusion reveals it for what it is. The illusion has no physical qualities. It looks, however, real.
#2 Dalamarth7 Aug 13, 2015 16:31:33	Sounds like the question between cover vs concealment in the real world.        If the illusion is large enough for the player to "hide" behind, I say it counts as full cover for only one attack, as the creature will be unable to directly LOS target the player.    But after a single attack, the illusion is revealed. Naturally you could make things more interesting and say there's a chance the attack passing through the illusion hits the player anyway (say, the creatures were targeting the illusion, and weren't even aware the player was hiding behind it. Collateral damage!)
(Reply to #2) Cyber-Dave	Dalamarth7 wrote:
#4 ankiyavon Aug 13, 2015 16:45:43	Are there concealment rules in 5E? (I'm away from books and don't remember offhand.  If there aren't dedicated rules for concealment, I'd just give them disadvantage on their attack.) If there are, I would offer the character behind the illusion automatic concealment for one attack, after which I would give the attacker a save.   If the attacker fails their save, the illusion stays in place, and the defender gets concealment again.  After each attack, I'd give the attacker a save.   They would be aware that it's an illusion after a single attack, but in my opinion, awareness that it's an illusion does not let you see through it.  (Literally, in this case.)
#5 Cyber-Dave Aug 13, 2015 17:06:05	ankiyavon wrote:
#6 Vulf Aug 13, 2015 17:20:53	To ignore the illusions requires the enemy to make an action, or to move through it.   The best illusion to make is a giant one-way mirror so your party can have advantage on every attack that passes through it.
#7 Dalamarth7 Aug 13, 2015 17:23:57	I would absolutely run with the concealment rules then. The difference in the real world between cover and concealment is that with concealment you can still be hit. So, I would rule concealment (blinded attacker) for one attack. If EITHER attack rolls (the lesser that you use because of disadvantage or the greater that you discard) would have scored a hit, then consider the illusion struck and revealed to be an illusion.   The real question is how do you do this when a player is the attacker? Would you have them roll two at disadvantage without necessarily telling them why? Or let them roll one while the DM secretly rolls one for them?
#8 ankiyavon Aug 13, 2015 17:39:30	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#9 MechaPilot Aug 13, 2015 17:50:06	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#10 Cyber-Dave Aug 13, 2015 17:58:02	Vulf wrote:
#11 MechaPilot Aug 13, 2015 18:27:32	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#12 Cyber-Dave Aug 13, 2015 18:40:00	MechaPilot wrote:
#13 MechaPilot Aug 13, 2015 19:06:21	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#14 Cyber-Dave Aug 13, 2015 19:43:05	And what about illusory 3/4 cover or the like? You can see a bit of a person to target him, but not all of him. Normally, that sort of cover grants a +5 AC bonus. What does it grant if the cover is not real?
#15 MechaPilot Aug 13, 2015 20:23:00	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#16 shintashi Aug 13, 2015 20:26:36	my ruling: you add the AC modifier for cover based on the size of the illusion to your Stealth checks and a "passive" stealth check for passive perception, especially if it has auditory components. Basically, if you are standing behind or inside a giant loud illusional waterfall, not only can't anyone see you, they can't hear you either. Perhaps the stealth bonus would be half if it only had visual components?   if the illusion spell has solid components, like shadow monsters, then if the attack on the shadow being or illusion fails to destroy the illusion, it counts as real cover. As a dodging component, trying to guess your location, I would treat it as +1 mirror image at medium illusion size, +2 at large, +3 at huge, and +4 at gargantuan. This is basically someone shooting into an illusion guessing where you are. This works for other large objects such as theater curtains, drapes, and bushes. You basically know they are 'in there somewhere" and if you get lucky on the mirror image d20 table, you score a normal hit.
#17 Cyber-Dave Aug 13, 2015 20:56:11	MechaPilot wrote:
#18 Cyber-Dave Aug 13, 2015 21:00:29	shintashi wrote:
#19 MechaPilot Aug 13, 2015 21:09:32	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#20 Cyber-Dave Aug 13, 2015 22:13:43	MechaPilot wrote:
#21 MechaPilot Aug 13, 2015 22:53:43	Cyber-Dave wrote:
#22 Cyber-Dave Aug 13, 2015 23:06:34	MechaPilot wrote:
(Reply to #7) Coolossus2123	Dalamarth7 wrote:
#24 FuelDrop Aug 14, 2015 3:57:21	So here's a question for you all: If you create an illusion of a cloud of fog or smoke, then would an attack passing through it automatically reveal that it's not real? After all, weapons pass through normal fog just fine.
#25 Sorsohka Aug 14, 2015 4:45:11	Cyber-Dave wrote:
(Reply to #24) Coolossus2123	FuelDrop wrote:
(Reply to #25) Coolossus2123	Sorsohka wrote:
#28 Danny_Montanny Aug 14, 2015 6:18:10	The DMG has rules on hitting cover on page 272. It says what Sorsohka details. If the attack roll would've been high enough to hit the target without cover, but not high enough to hit it with cover, it hits the cover. I'd rule exactly like Sorsohka says in their example. No actual AC bonus, but if the attack falls in the "illusory" cover AC bonus, the illusion is hit and revealed along with the attack hitting the target. It gives that 10% (1/2 cover) or 25% (3/4 cover) chance the attack "misses" in the right direction.   A target fully behind cover can't be directly targeted. If a creature believes it's total cover, it'll treat it as such.   The biggest thing I think most people are missing is that no intillegent creature witnessing the casting of the spell will think the wall you just conjured is anything other than an illusion. Most likely you're not gonna have the illusion set up and will be trying the tactic on the fly.   "Oy lads, tha finger wiggler just hid behind a wall that wasn't there a second ago, bet it ain't even real. Shoot it with yer bow, Gronthak!"
#29 LordTwig Aug 14, 2015 9:28:18	Well it could be a magically conjured wall, such as Wall of Stone. That said the opponent would have a good reason to believe that it is an illusion. They still wouldn't be able to see through it until they interacted with it though.
(Reply to #29) Danny_Montanny	LordTwig wrote:
#31 FrogReaver Aug 14, 2015 11:40:48	1.  A target with total cover can’t be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area o f effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.   2.  A target with three-quarters cover has a +5 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has threequarters cover if about three-quarters of it is covered by an obstacle. The obstacle might be a portcullis, an arrow slit, or a thick tree trunk.   3.  A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.       I believe a character that has total cover from being behind an illusuonary boulder really has total cover.   I beleive a character that has 3/4's cover for being behind an illusionary boulder really has 3/4's cover.   I believe a character that has 1/2 cover for being behind an illusionary bould really has 1/2 cover.       There is currently no rule that can determine what a ranged attack hits if it misses the target.  I would house rule one.   1.  A PC cannot be attacked behind illusionary total cover at all.  Though if the player that the cover might be illusionary he could use an attack to try to hit it and see if the arrow goes through it.  I would set the AC around 10.  Also, because it's more fun I would let that arrow hit the character behind the boulder if the attack roll would hit the monsters AC+5.   The drawback here is that if it's a non-illsuionary boulder then they wasted an attack.   2.  Illusionary 3/4's cover would function normally.  I would give a chance of hitting the cover on a miss.  I would allow the arrow to hit the cover if the attack would normally hit the target and the cover caused it not to.  If for some reason the PC attacks the boulder in this scenario I would allow it to function exactly like the total cover scenarin except AC+2.   3.  1/2 cover would work the same way as 3/4's cover does above.  Also if the PC attacks the boulder in this scenario then I would have it work the same except you just need to hit the monsters AC.
#32 McTurbo72 Aug 14, 2015 11:42:43	No it wouldnt give you cover as to have cover you will need to impose something physical between yourself and who ever is targeting you (windwall..rocks.. stlagtite.. body of a giant .. and so on). the difficulty isnt in seeing you.. its in hitting you because your body is partially protected by a barrier of some sort.. thats what cover provides.. you taking cover while in combat means you occasionally peak out to make sure i am not rushing you or moving around your possition. .   remember its 6 seconds of combat you are moving around and looking.. you are not frozen in time... the action is just an action that you can take at anypoint during that 6 seconds as the opportunity presents iself. the biggest mistake ive seen players make is that they think they do just the one thing they are allowed to do and thats all thier toon does...  you are moving, planting your feet dodging inconsequential blows or rummaging through your pack during those times your player isnt taking an ACTIVE action...you are not just frozen in time..   what it would do for you is provide a potential advantage on a hide action since you are concealing yourself from your opponent if they believe its real.
#33 bawylie Aug 14, 2015 12:39:36	Wow! Good discussion.    Im just going to use disadvantage and if it's 'close enough' I'll reveal it as illusion.    Good ol' disadvantage showing its strength here.
#34 abanathie Aug 15, 2015 12:02:02	Well, I didn't read everyone's rulings; however, this is my take on minor illusion used as cover.  If the object created by the illusion would grant 3/4 cover or better, I rule that it grants heavy concealment for the character.  Keep in mind that the rules equate a +/-5 bonus to advantage/disadvantage.  That imposes disadvantage if a creature decides to attack the character.  Once an attack passes through the illusion, it basically dispels the illusion.  I rule that any successful hit passes through and interacts with the illusion.  For misses, I apply the +/-5 effect of advantage/disadvantage on rolls.  The illusion starts with an AC: 10 which I apply the passive penalty due to granted disadvantage.  This gives the illusion an AC: 5.  If the attack roll was less than 5, the illusion remains intact; the attack didn't pass through it.  In addition, any natural one on an attack roll also completely misses the illusion.  If the attack roll was greater than 5, the attack may have missed the character, but it did pass through and interact with the illusion.  Any creature capable of observing this interaction would automatically know that the illusion is an illusion.