How would something passing through an illusion of fog or mist reveal it to be illusory?
$begingroup$
Minor illusion says:
If you create an image of an object - such as a chair, muddy footprints, or a small chest - it must be no larger than a 5-foot cube. The image can't create sound, light, smell, or any other sensory effect. Physical interaction with the object reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it.
You could create an illusory fog cloud in a 5-foot cube. However, things pass through real fog clouds just as easily as through an illusion. So how exactly does "things passing through it" reveal an illusory fog cloud to be illusory?
dnd-5e spells magic illusion
edited Nov 15 '18 at 20:01
V2Blast
25.7k588158
asked Nov 15 '18 at 19:41
MarkTOMarkTO
4,4011242
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Minor illusion says:
If you create an image of an object - such as a chair, muddy footprints, or a small chest - it must be no larger than a 5-foot cube. The image can't create sound, light, smell, or any other sensory effect. Physical interaction with the object reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it.
You could create an illusory fog cloud in a 5-foot cube. However, things pass through real fog clouds just as easily as through an illusion. So how exactly does "things passing through it" reveal an illusory fog cloud to be illusory?
dnd-5e spells magic illusion
edited Nov 15 '18 at 20:01
V2Blast
25.7k588158
asked Nov 15 '18 at 19:41
MarkTOMarkTO
4,4011242
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
@PinkSweetener We do not require people to leave comments when they downvote. We actively discourage comments unless the voter sees a constructive change that they can suggest in a positive manner. Deciding this is entirely at voters' discretion. There is nothing special happening on this question that merits your comment in particular, which suggests you believe it is a general thing people should do. Let me state clearly: please do not leave such comments without exceptional reason. It is actively harmful to the site to leave such comments merely because you disagree with the voting.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 15 '18 at 21:50
2
$begingroup$
@Nacht The text is, emphasis mine: “Please consider adding a comment if you think this post can be improved.” Which is up to the voter. Now, everyone: comments here aren't for discussing policy, let alone arguing about it. If anything further needs saying, I do not discourage it, but I insist it be taken to the appropriate venue the site provides for it: opening a discussion on Role-playing Games Meta. I will delete further comments on the subject here.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 15 '18 at 21:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Minor illusion says:
If you create an image of an object - such as a chair, muddy footprints, or a small chest - it must be no larger than a 5-foot cube. The image can't create sound, light, smell, or any other sensory effect. Physical interaction with the object reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it.
You could create an illusory fog cloud in a 5-foot cube. However, things pass through real fog clouds just as easily as through an illusion. So how exactly does "things passing through it" reveal an illusory fog cloud to be illusory?
dnd-5e spells magic illusion
edited Nov 15 '18 at 20:01
V2Blast
25.7k588158
asked Nov 15 '18 at 19:41
MarkTOMarkTO
4,4011242
$endgroup$
Minor illusion says:
If you create an image of an object - such as a chair, muddy footprints, or a small chest - it must be no larger than a 5-foot cube. The image can't create sound, light, smell, or any other sensory effect. Physical interaction with the object reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it.
You could create an illusory fog cloud in a 5-foot cube. However, things pass through real fog clouds just as easily as through an illusion. So how exactly does "things passing through it" reveal an illusory fog cloud to be illusory?
dnd-5e spells magic illusion
dnd-5e spells magic illusion
edited Nov 15 '18 at 20:01
V2Blast
25.7k588158
asked Nov 15 '18 at 19:41
MarkTOMarkTO
4,4011242
edited Nov 15 '18 at 20:01
V2Blast
25.7k588158
asked Nov 15 '18 at 19:41
MarkTOMarkTO
4,4011242
edited Nov 15 '18 at 20:01
V2Blast
25.7k588158
edited Nov 15 '18 at 20:01
V2Blast
25.7k588158
edited Nov 15 '18 at 20:01
V2Blast
25.7k588158
25.7k588158
asked Nov 15 '18 at 19:41
MarkTOMarkTO
4,4011242
asked Nov 15 '18 at 19:41
MarkTOMarkTO
4,4011242
asked Nov 15 '18 at 19:41
MarkTOMarkTO
4,4011242
4,4011242
1
$begingroup$
@PinkSweetener We do not require people to leave comments when they downvote. We actively discourage comments unless the voter sees a constructive change that they can suggest in a positive manner. Deciding this is entirely at voters' discretion. There is nothing special happening on this question that merits your comment in particular, which suggests you believe it is a general thing people should do. Let me state clearly: please do not leave such comments without exceptional reason. It is actively harmful to the site to leave such comments merely because you disagree with the voting.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 15 '18 at 21:50
2
$begingroup$
@Nacht The text is, emphasis mine: “Please consider adding a comment if you think this post can be improved.” Which is up to the voter. Now, everyone: comments here aren't for discussing policy, let alone arguing about it. If anything further needs saying, I do not discourage it, but I insist it be taken to the appropriate venue the site provides for it: opening a discussion on Role-playing Games Meta. I will delete further comments on the subject here.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 15 '18 at 21:57
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
@PinkSweetener We do not require people to leave comments when they downvote. We actively discourage comments unless the voter sees a constructive change that they can suggest in a positive manner. Deciding this is entirely at voters' discretion. There is nothing special happening on this question that merits your comment in particular, which suggests you believe it is a general thing people should do. Let me state clearly: please do not leave such comments without exceptional reason. It is actively harmful to the site to leave such comments merely because you disagree with the voting.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 15 '18 at 21:50
2
$begingroup$
@Nacht The text is, emphasis mine: “Please consider adding a comment if you think this post can be improved.” Which is up to the voter. Now, everyone: comments here aren't for discussing policy, let alone arguing about it. If anything further needs saying, I do not discourage it, but I insist it be taken to the appropriate venue the site provides for it: opening a discussion on Role-playing Games Meta. I will delete further comments on the subject here.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 15 '18 at 21:57
1
1
$begingroup$
@PinkSweetener We do not require people to leave comments when they downvote. We actively discourage comments unless the voter sees a constructive change that they can suggest in a positive manner. Deciding this is entirely at voters' discretion. There is nothing special happening on this question that merits your comment in particular, which suggests you believe it is a general thing people should do. Let me state clearly: please do not leave such comments without exceptional reason. It is actively harmful to the site to leave such comments merely because you disagree with the voting.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 15 '18 at 21:50
$begingroup$
@PinkSweetener We do not require people to leave comments when they downvote. We actively discourage comments unless the voter sees a constructive change that they can suggest in a positive manner. Deciding this is entirely at voters' discretion. There is nothing special happening on this question that merits your comment in particular, which suggests you believe it is a general thing people should do. Let me state clearly: please do not leave such comments without exceptional reason. It is actively harmful to the site to leave such comments merely because you disagree with the voting.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 15 '18 at 21:50
2
2
$begingroup$
@Nacht The text is, emphasis mine: “Please consider adding a comment if you think this post can be improved.” Which is up to the voter. Now, everyone: comments here aren't for discussing policy, let alone arguing about it. If anything further needs saying, I do not discourage it, but I insist it be taken to the appropriate venue the site provides for it: opening a discussion on Role-playing Games Meta. I will delete further comments on the subject here.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 15 '18 at 21:57
$begingroup$
@Nacht The text is, emphasis mine: “Please consider adding a comment if you think this post can be improved.” Which is up to the voter. Now, everyone: comments here aren't for discussing policy, let alone arguing about it. If anything further needs saying, I do not discourage it, but I insist it be taken to the appropriate venue the site provides for it: opening a discussion on Role-playing Games Meta. I will delete further comments on the subject here.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 15 '18 at 21:57
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Real fog still interacts visibly with things passing through it
If you pass your hand through a real cloud of fog, the fog will visibly flow around your hand, and the air current produced by your hand will cause the fog to swirl around after your hand passes through it. An inanimate illusory cloud of fog will not exhibit any of these effects, revealing it as fake. In addition, depending on what the fog is made of, it may have other associated sensory effects, such as dampness or coolness, none of which can be replicated by minor illusion.
(Also, as another answer points out, minor illusion in particular cannot produce the image of a cloud of fog.)
answered Nov 15 '18 at 19:46
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
10.9k23581
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Also, fog is (usually) made of water. It usually has a cooler temperature to come into contact with it and can leave you slightly damp.
$endgroup$
– guildsbounty
Nov 15 '18 at 19:47
$begingroup$
@guildsbounty That's a good point. I'll add that as well.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Nov 15 '18 at 19:50
$begingroup$
Fog machine fog works that way, but real fog? I'm not so sure about that.
$endgroup$
– Pink Sweetener
Nov 15 '18 at 19:54
$begingroup$
@PinkSweetener A cloud of fog contained within a 5-foot cube is more like the product of a fog machine than ambient fog.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Nov 15 '18 at 19:55
3
$begingroup$
@PinkSweetener Real fog would work that way too: but real fog is usually surrounded by a much larger quantity of other real fog, that fills in the air when you displace fog by moving your hand through it. So it is usually not a visible event. However, a 5' cube of "fog" (if it could be created by this spell) would appear odd by not shifting with your movement.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 15 '18 at 19:56
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Fog Isn't An Object
As has been stated elsewhere, gasses and liquids are not considered objects. So fog would not be a valid image created by Minor Illusion.
There could be some edge cases where physical inspection might not reveal an illusion (for example, an illusion of a brick in a wall painted green, cast a nanometer in front of a real brick in a wall painted red, that would feel the same to a person investigating it), and a DM would have to decide whether to ignore that part of the spell's description. However, creating illusions of intangible things would normally be impossible with minor illusion.
NOTE: If the spell in question had been silent image (which contains similar text about physically interacting with the illusion, but allows the spell to create most any "visual phenomenon"), then see Ryan Thompson's answer on how physical interaction could still reveal illusory fog.
answered Nov 15 '18 at 19:51
GandalfmeansmeGandalfmeansme
23.6k487138
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
But a "bowl of water" works, so wouldn't a "5-foot cube box with walls of 'perfect' glass with fog in the middle" work as well then leaving the same problem anyway?
$endgroup$
– David Mulder
Nov 16 '18 at 12:16
1
$begingroup$
Feel free to pitch that to your DM. My take on it would be that you haven't created "the image of an object" if the "object" part of your illusion is invisible.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 14:40
3
$begingroup$
Also, according to the DMG p. 246, "For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete. inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects." The 5-foot cube box you described is an object (though it has no "image"), but as the mist is not contiguous within it, it's hard to argue that the box and mist combo is "discrete." (You could make it not a box but a strange undulating mass of glass, or a solid statue of foggy crystal: but in those cases it would be surprising that a hand passed through it).
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 14:45
$begingroup$
Not sure why this is not the accepted answer, but yeah, I came here just to check if anyone had already given this answer. Still it should be improved by adding Ryan's answer in order to be complete.
$endgroup$
– HellSaint
Nov 17 '18 at 5:14
$begingroup$
I figure that Ryan's answer is already the best version of the explanation of what he was explaining. That's why I linked to his answer in my note at the end.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 17 '18 at 5:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In my experience of fog, you can see it a ways away but as you near fog, you realize that there is no point in time that the fog fully obfuscates your ability to see. So if you were to walk up to and into illusory fog, it would continue to block your sight. REAL fog doesn't.
So being aware that real fog doesn't block sight as well as fake fog would, you would realize that it is an illusion, and thus, see through it.
Pun intended.
answered Nov 15 '18 at 21:03
SobekneferuSobekneferu
211
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This idea is somewhat complicated by the conjuration spell fog cloud, which creates fog that heavily obscures an area. If you ran into fog that obscured your sight, you might conclude it was actually there, but the result of a different spell.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 3:57
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135645%2fhow-would-something-passing-through-an-illusion-of-fog-or-mist-reveal-it-to-be-i%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Real fog still interacts visibly with things passing through it
If you pass your hand through a real cloud of fog, the fog will visibly flow around your hand, and the air current produced by your hand will cause the fog to swirl around after your hand passes through it. An inanimate illusory cloud of fog will not exhibit any of these effects, revealing it as fake. In addition, depending on what the fog is made of, it may have other associated sensory effects, such as dampness or coolness, none of which can be replicated by minor illusion.
(Also, as another answer points out, minor illusion in particular cannot produce the image of a cloud of fog.)
answered Nov 15 '18 at 19:46
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
10.9k23581
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Also, fog is (usually) made of water. It usually has a cooler temperature to come into contact with it and can leave you slightly damp.
$endgroup$
– guildsbounty
Nov 15 '18 at 19:47
$begingroup$
@guildsbounty That's a good point. I'll add that as well.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Nov 15 '18 at 19:50
$begingroup$
Fog machine fog works that way, but real fog? I'm not so sure about that.
$endgroup$
– Pink Sweetener
Nov 15 '18 at 19:54
$begingroup$
@PinkSweetener A cloud of fog contained within a 5-foot cube is more like the product of a fog machine than ambient fog.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Nov 15 '18 at 19:55
3
$begingroup$
@PinkSweetener Real fog would work that way too: but real fog is usually surrounded by a much larger quantity of other real fog, that fills in the air when you displace fog by moving your hand through it. So it is usually not a visible event. However, a 5' cube of "fog" (if it could be created by this spell) would appear odd by not shifting with your movement.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 15 '18 at 19:56
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Real fog still interacts visibly with things passing through it
If you pass your hand through a real cloud of fog, the fog will visibly flow around your hand, and the air current produced by your hand will cause the fog to swirl around after your hand passes through it. An inanimate illusory cloud of fog will not exhibit any of these effects, revealing it as fake. In addition, depending on what the fog is made of, it may have other associated sensory effects, such as dampness or coolness, none of which can be replicated by minor illusion.
(Also, as another answer points out, minor illusion in particular cannot produce the image of a cloud of fog.)
answered Nov 15 '18 at 19:46
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
10.9k23581
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Also, fog is (usually) made of water. It usually has a cooler temperature to come into contact with it and can leave you slightly damp.
$endgroup$
– guildsbounty
Nov 15 '18 at 19:47
$begingroup$
@guildsbounty That's a good point. I'll add that as well.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Nov 15 '18 at 19:50
$begingroup$
Fog machine fog works that way, but real fog? I'm not so sure about that.
$endgroup$
– Pink Sweetener
Nov 15 '18 at 19:54
$begingroup$
@PinkSweetener A cloud of fog contained within a 5-foot cube is more like the product of a fog machine than ambient fog.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Nov 15 '18 at 19:55
3
$begingroup$
@PinkSweetener Real fog would work that way too: but real fog is usually surrounded by a much larger quantity of other real fog, that fills in the air when you displace fog by moving your hand through it. So it is usually not a visible event. However, a 5' cube of "fog" (if it could be created by this spell) would appear odd by not shifting with your movement.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 15 '18 at 19:56
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Real fog still interacts visibly with things passing through it
If you pass your hand through a real cloud of fog, the fog will visibly flow around your hand, and the air current produced by your hand will cause the fog to swirl around after your hand passes through it. An inanimate illusory cloud of fog will not exhibit any of these effects, revealing it as fake. In addition, depending on what the fog is made of, it may have other associated sensory effects, such as dampness or coolness, none of which can be replicated by minor illusion.
(Also, as another answer points out, minor illusion in particular cannot produce the image of a cloud of fog.)
answered Nov 15 '18 at 19:46
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
10.9k23581
$endgroup$
Real fog still interacts visibly with things passing through it
If you pass your hand through a real cloud of fog, the fog will visibly flow around your hand, and the air current produced by your hand will cause the fog to swirl around after your hand passes through it. An inanimate illusory cloud of fog will not exhibit any of these effects, revealing it as fake. In addition, depending on what the fog is made of, it may have other associated sensory effects, such as dampness or coolness, none of which can be replicated by minor illusion.
(Also, as another answer points out, minor illusion in particular cannot produce the image of a cloud of fog.)
answered Nov 15 '18 at 19:46
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
10.9k23581
edited Nov 17 '18 at 0:52
answered Nov 15 '18 at 19:46
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
10.9k23581
answered Nov 15 '18 at 19:46
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
10.9k23581
answered Nov 15 '18 at 19:46
Ryan ThompsonRyan Thompson
10.9k23581
10.9k23581
1
$begingroup$
Also, fog is (usually) made of water. It usually has a cooler temperature to come into contact with it and can leave you slightly damp.
$endgroup$
– guildsbounty
Nov 15 '18 at 19:47
$begingroup$
@guildsbounty That's a good point. I'll add that as well.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Nov 15 '18 at 19:50
$begingroup$
Fog machine fog works that way, but real fog? I'm not so sure about that.
$endgroup$
– Pink Sweetener
Nov 15 '18 at 19:54
$begingroup$
@PinkSweetener A cloud of fog contained within a 5-foot cube is more like the product of a fog machine than ambient fog.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Nov 15 '18 at 19:55
3
$begingroup$
@PinkSweetener Real fog would work that way too: but real fog is usually surrounded by a much larger quantity of other real fog, that fills in the air when you displace fog by moving your hand through it. So it is usually not a visible event. However, a 5' cube of "fog" (if it could be created by this spell) would appear odd by not shifting with your movement.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 15 '18 at 19:56
|
show 1 more comment
1
$begingroup$
Also, fog is (usually) made of water. It usually has a cooler temperature to come into contact with it and can leave you slightly damp.
$endgroup$
– guildsbounty
Nov 15 '18 at 19:47
$begingroup$
@guildsbounty That's a good point. I'll add that as well.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Nov 15 '18 at 19:50
$begingroup$
Fog machine fog works that way, but real fog? I'm not so sure about that.
$endgroup$
– Pink Sweetener
Nov 15 '18 at 19:54
$begingroup$
@PinkSweetener A cloud of fog contained within a 5-foot cube is more like the product of a fog machine than ambient fog.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Nov 15 '18 at 19:55
3
$begingroup$
@PinkSweetener Real fog would work that way too: but real fog is usually surrounded by a much larger quantity of other real fog, that fills in the air when you displace fog by moving your hand through it. So it is usually not a visible event. However, a 5' cube of "fog" (if it could be created by this spell) would appear odd by not shifting with your movement.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 15 '18 at 19:56
1
1
$begingroup$
Also, fog is (usually) made of water. It usually has a cooler temperature to come into contact with it and can leave you slightly damp.
$endgroup$
– guildsbounty
Nov 15 '18 at 19:47
$begingroup$
Also, fog is (usually) made of water. It usually has a cooler temperature to come into contact with it and can leave you slightly damp.
$endgroup$
– guildsbounty
Nov 15 '18 at 19:47
$begingroup$
@guildsbounty That's a good point. I'll add that as well.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Nov 15 '18 at 19:50
$begingroup$
@guildsbounty That's a good point. I'll add that as well.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Nov 15 '18 at 19:50
$begingroup$
Fog machine fog works that way, but real fog? I'm not so sure about that.
$endgroup$
– Pink Sweetener
Nov 15 '18 at 19:54
$begingroup$
Fog machine fog works that way, but real fog? I'm not so sure about that.
$endgroup$
– Pink Sweetener
Nov 15 '18 at 19:54
$begingroup$
@PinkSweetener A cloud of fog contained within a 5-foot cube is more like the product of a fog machine than ambient fog.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Nov 15 '18 at 19:55
$begingroup$
@PinkSweetener A cloud of fog contained within a 5-foot cube is more like the product of a fog machine than ambient fog.
$endgroup$
– Ryan Thompson
Nov 15 '18 at 19:55
3
3
$begingroup$
@PinkSweetener Real fog would work that way too: but real fog is usually surrounded by a much larger quantity of other real fog, that fills in the air when you displace fog by moving your hand through it. So it is usually not a visible event. However, a 5' cube of "fog" (if it could be created by this spell) would appear odd by not shifting with your movement.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 15 '18 at 19:56
$begingroup$
@PinkSweetener Real fog would work that way too: but real fog is usually surrounded by a much larger quantity of other real fog, that fills in the air when you displace fog by moving your hand through it. So it is usually not a visible event. However, a 5' cube of "fog" (if it could be created by this spell) would appear odd by not shifting with your movement.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 15 '18 at 19:56
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Fog Isn't An Object
As has been stated elsewhere, gasses and liquids are not considered objects. So fog would not be a valid image created by Minor Illusion.
There could be some edge cases where physical inspection might not reveal an illusion (for example, an illusion of a brick in a wall painted green, cast a nanometer in front of a real brick in a wall painted red, that would feel the same to a person investigating it), and a DM would have to decide whether to ignore that part of the spell's description. However, creating illusions of intangible things would normally be impossible with minor illusion.
NOTE: If the spell in question had been silent image (which contains similar text about physically interacting with the illusion, but allows the spell to create most any "visual phenomenon"), then see Ryan Thompson's answer on how physical interaction could still reveal illusory fog.
answered Nov 15 '18 at 19:51
GandalfmeansmeGandalfmeansme
23.6k487138
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
But a "bowl of water" works, so wouldn't a "5-foot cube box with walls of 'perfect' glass with fog in the middle" work as well then leaving the same problem anyway?
$endgroup$
– David Mulder
Nov 16 '18 at 12:16
1
$begingroup$
Feel free to pitch that to your DM. My take on it would be that you haven't created "the image of an object" if the "object" part of your illusion is invisible.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 14:40
3
$begingroup$
Also, according to the DMG p. 246, "For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete. inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects." The 5-foot cube box you described is an object (though it has no "image"), but as the mist is not contiguous within it, it's hard to argue that the box and mist combo is "discrete." (You could make it not a box but a strange undulating mass of glass, or a solid statue of foggy crystal: but in those cases it would be surprising that a hand passed through it).
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 14:45
$begingroup$
Not sure why this is not the accepted answer, but yeah, I came here just to check if anyone had already given this answer. Still it should be improved by adding Ryan's answer in order to be complete.
$endgroup$
– HellSaint
Nov 17 '18 at 5:14
$begingroup$
I figure that Ryan's answer is already the best version of the explanation of what he was explaining. That's why I linked to his answer in my note at the end.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 17 '18 at 5:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Fog Isn't An Object
As has been stated elsewhere, gasses and liquids are not considered objects. So fog would not be a valid image created by Minor Illusion.
There could be some edge cases where physical inspection might not reveal an illusion (for example, an illusion of a brick in a wall painted green, cast a nanometer in front of a real brick in a wall painted red, that would feel the same to a person investigating it), and a DM would have to decide whether to ignore that part of the spell's description. However, creating illusions of intangible things would normally be impossible with minor illusion.
NOTE: If the spell in question had been silent image (which contains similar text about physically interacting with the illusion, but allows the spell to create most any "visual phenomenon"), then see Ryan Thompson's answer on how physical interaction could still reveal illusory fog.
answered Nov 15 '18 at 19:51
GandalfmeansmeGandalfmeansme
23.6k487138
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
But a "bowl of water" works, so wouldn't a "5-foot cube box with walls of 'perfect' glass with fog in the middle" work as well then leaving the same problem anyway?
$endgroup$
– David Mulder
Nov 16 '18 at 12:16
1
$begingroup$
Feel free to pitch that to your DM. My take on it would be that you haven't created "the image of an object" if the "object" part of your illusion is invisible.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 14:40
3
$begingroup$
Also, according to the DMG p. 246, "For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete. inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects." The 5-foot cube box you described is an object (though it has no "image"), but as the mist is not contiguous within it, it's hard to argue that the box and mist combo is "discrete." (You could make it not a box but a strange undulating mass of glass, or a solid statue of foggy crystal: but in those cases it would be surprising that a hand passed through it).
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 14:45
$begingroup$
Not sure why this is not the accepted answer, but yeah, I came here just to check if anyone had already given this answer. Still it should be improved by adding Ryan's answer in order to be complete.
$endgroup$
– HellSaint
Nov 17 '18 at 5:14
$begingroup$
I figure that Ryan's answer is already the best version of the explanation of what he was explaining. That's why I linked to his answer in my note at the end.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 17 '18 at 5:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Fog Isn't An Object
As has been stated elsewhere, gasses and liquids are not considered objects. So fog would not be a valid image created by Minor Illusion.
There could be some edge cases where physical inspection might not reveal an illusion (for example, an illusion of a brick in a wall painted green, cast a nanometer in front of a real brick in a wall painted red, that would feel the same to a person investigating it), and a DM would have to decide whether to ignore that part of the spell's description. However, creating illusions of intangible things would normally be impossible with minor illusion.
NOTE: If the spell in question had been silent image (which contains similar text about physically interacting with the illusion, but allows the spell to create most any "visual phenomenon"), then see Ryan Thompson's answer on how physical interaction could still reveal illusory fog.
answered Nov 15 '18 at 19:51
GandalfmeansmeGandalfmeansme
23.6k487138
$endgroup$
Fog Isn't An Object
As has been stated elsewhere, gasses and liquids are not considered objects. So fog would not be a valid image created by Minor Illusion.
There could be some edge cases where physical inspection might not reveal an illusion (for example, an illusion of a brick in a wall painted green, cast a nanometer in front of a real brick in a wall painted red, that would feel the same to a person investigating it), and a DM would have to decide whether to ignore that part of the spell's description. However, creating illusions of intangible things would normally be impossible with minor illusion.
NOTE: If the spell in question had been silent image (which contains similar text about physically interacting with the illusion, but allows the spell to create most any "visual phenomenon"), then see Ryan Thompson's answer on how physical interaction could still reveal illusory fog.
answered Nov 15 '18 at 19:51
GandalfmeansmeGandalfmeansme
23.6k487138
edited Nov 15 '18 at 20:23
answered Nov 15 '18 at 19:51
GandalfmeansmeGandalfmeansme
23.6k487138
answered Nov 15 '18 at 19:51
GandalfmeansmeGandalfmeansme
23.6k487138
answered Nov 15 '18 at 19:51
GandalfmeansmeGandalfmeansme
23.6k487138
23.6k487138
2
$begingroup$
But a "bowl of water" works, so wouldn't a "5-foot cube box with walls of 'perfect' glass with fog in the middle" work as well then leaving the same problem anyway?
$endgroup$
– David Mulder
Nov 16 '18 at 12:16
1
$begingroup$
Feel free to pitch that to your DM. My take on it would be that you haven't created "the image of an object" if the "object" part of your illusion is invisible.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 14:40
3
$begingroup$
Also, according to the DMG p. 246, "For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete. inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects." The 5-foot cube box you described is an object (though it has no "image"), but as the mist is not contiguous within it, it's hard to argue that the box and mist combo is "discrete." (You could make it not a box but a strange undulating mass of glass, or a solid statue of foggy crystal: but in those cases it would be surprising that a hand passed through it).
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 14:45
$begingroup$
Not sure why this is not the accepted answer, but yeah, I came here just to check if anyone had already given this answer. Still it should be improved by adding Ryan's answer in order to be complete.
$endgroup$
– HellSaint
Nov 17 '18 at 5:14
$begingroup$
I figure that Ryan's answer is already the best version of the explanation of what he was explaining. That's why I linked to his answer in my note at the end.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 17 '18 at 5:21
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
But a "bowl of water" works, so wouldn't a "5-foot cube box with walls of 'perfect' glass with fog in the middle" work as well then leaving the same problem anyway?
$endgroup$
– David Mulder
Nov 16 '18 at 12:16
1
$begingroup$
Feel free to pitch that to your DM. My take on it would be that you haven't created "the image of an object" if the "object" part of your illusion is invisible.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 14:40
3
$begingroup$
Also, according to the DMG p. 246, "For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete. inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects." The 5-foot cube box you described is an object (though it has no "image"), but as the mist is not contiguous within it, it's hard to argue that the box and mist combo is "discrete." (You could make it not a box but a strange undulating mass of glass, or a solid statue of foggy crystal: but in those cases it would be surprising that a hand passed through it).
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 14:45
$begingroup$
Not sure why this is not the accepted answer, but yeah, I came here just to check if anyone had already given this answer. Still it should be improved by adding Ryan's answer in order to be complete.
$endgroup$
– HellSaint
Nov 17 '18 at 5:14
$begingroup$
I figure that Ryan's answer is already the best version of the explanation of what he was explaining. That's why I linked to his answer in my note at the end.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 17 '18 at 5:21
2
2
$begingroup$
But a "bowl of water" works, so wouldn't a "5-foot cube box with walls of 'perfect' glass with fog in the middle" work as well then leaving the same problem anyway?
$endgroup$
– David Mulder
Nov 16 '18 at 12:16
$begingroup$
But a "bowl of water" works, so wouldn't a "5-foot cube box with walls of 'perfect' glass with fog in the middle" work as well then leaving the same problem anyway?
$endgroup$
– David Mulder
Nov 16 '18 at 12:16
1
1
$begingroup$
Feel free to pitch that to your DM. My take on it would be that you haven't created "the image of an object" if the "object" part of your illusion is invisible.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 14:40
$begingroup$
Feel free to pitch that to your DM. My take on it would be that you haven't created "the image of an object" if the "object" part of your illusion is invisible.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 14:40
3
3
$begingroup$
Also, according to the DMG p. 246, "For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete. inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects." The 5-foot cube box you described is an object (though it has no "image"), but as the mist is not contiguous within it, it's hard to argue that the box and mist combo is "discrete." (You could make it not a box but a strange undulating mass of glass, or a solid statue of foggy crystal: but in those cases it would be surprising that a hand passed through it).
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 14:45
$begingroup$
Also, according to the DMG p. 246, "For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete. inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects." The 5-foot cube box you described is an object (though it has no "image"), but as the mist is not contiguous within it, it's hard to argue that the box and mist combo is "discrete." (You could make it not a box but a strange undulating mass of glass, or a solid statue of foggy crystal: but in those cases it would be surprising that a hand passed through it).
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 14:45
$begingroup$
Not sure why this is not the accepted answer, but yeah, I came here just to check if anyone had already given this answer. Still it should be improved by adding Ryan's answer in order to be complete.
$endgroup$
– HellSaint
Nov 17 '18 at 5:14
$begingroup$
Not sure why this is not the accepted answer, but yeah, I came here just to check if anyone had already given this answer. Still it should be improved by adding Ryan's answer in order to be complete.
$endgroup$
– HellSaint
Nov 17 '18 at 5:14
$begingroup$
I figure that Ryan's answer is already the best version of the explanation of what he was explaining. That's why I linked to his answer in my note at the end.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 17 '18 at 5:21
$begingroup$
I figure that Ryan's answer is already the best version of the explanation of what he was explaining. That's why I linked to his answer in my note at the end.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 17 '18 at 5:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In my experience of fog, you can see it a ways away but as you near fog, you realize that there is no point in time that the fog fully obfuscates your ability to see. So if you were to walk up to and into illusory fog, it would continue to block your sight. REAL fog doesn't.
So being aware that real fog doesn't block sight as well as fake fog would, you would realize that it is an illusion, and thus, see through it.
Pun intended.
answered Nov 15 '18 at 21:03
SobekneferuSobekneferu
211
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This idea is somewhat complicated by the conjuration spell fog cloud, which creates fog that heavily obscures an area. If you ran into fog that obscured your sight, you might conclude it was actually there, but the result of a different spell.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 3:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In my experience of fog, you can see it a ways away but as you near fog, you realize that there is no point in time that the fog fully obfuscates your ability to see. So if you were to walk up to and into illusory fog, it would continue to block your sight. REAL fog doesn't.
So being aware that real fog doesn't block sight as well as fake fog would, you would realize that it is an illusion, and thus, see through it.
Pun intended.
answered Nov 15 '18 at 21:03
SobekneferuSobekneferu
211
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This idea is somewhat complicated by the conjuration spell fog cloud, which creates fog that heavily obscures an area. If you ran into fog that obscured your sight, you might conclude it was actually there, but the result of a different spell.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 3:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In my experience of fog, you can see it a ways away but as you near fog, you realize that there is no point in time that the fog fully obfuscates your ability to see. So if you were to walk up to and into illusory fog, it would continue to block your sight. REAL fog doesn't.
So being aware that real fog doesn't block sight as well as fake fog would, you would realize that it is an illusion, and thus, see through it.
Pun intended.
answered Nov 15 '18 at 21:03
SobekneferuSobekneferu
211
$endgroup$
In my experience of fog, you can see it a ways away but as you near fog, you realize that there is no point in time that the fog fully obfuscates your ability to see. So if you were to walk up to and into illusory fog, it would continue to block your sight. REAL fog doesn't.
So being aware that real fog doesn't block sight as well as fake fog would, you would realize that it is an illusion, and thus, see through it.
Pun intended.
answered Nov 15 '18 at 21:03
SobekneferuSobekneferu
211
answered Nov 15 '18 at 21:03
SobekneferuSobekneferu
211
answered Nov 15 '18 at 21:03
SobekneferuSobekneferu
211
answered Nov 15 '18 at 21:03
SobekneferuSobekneferu
211
211
1
$begingroup$
This idea is somewhat complicated by the conjuration spell fog cloud, which creates fog that heavily obscures an area. If you ran into fog that obscured your sight, you might conclude it was actually there, but the result of a different spell.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 3:57
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
This idea is somewhat complicated by the conjuration spell fog cloud, which creates fog that heavily obscures an area. If you ran into fog that obscured your sight, you might conclude it was actually there, but the result of a different spell.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 3:57
1
1
$begingroup$
This idea is somewhat complicated by the conjuration spell fog cloud, which creates fog that heavily obscures an area. If you ran into fog that obscured your sight, you might conclude it was actually there, but the result of a different spell.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 3:57
$begingroup$
This idea is somewhat complicated by the conjuration spell fog cloud, which creates fog that heavily obscures an area. If you ran into fog that obscured your sight, you might conclude it was actually there, but the result of a different spell.
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
Nov 16 '18 at 3:57
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135645%2fhow-would-something-passing-through-an-illusion-of-fog-or-mist-reveal-it-to-be-i%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
@PinkSweetener We do not require people to leave comments when they downvote. We actively discourage comments unless the voter sees a constructive change that they can suggest in a positive manner. Deciding this is entirely at voters' discretion. There is nothing special happening on this question that merits your comment in particular, which suggests you believe it is a general thing people should do. Let me state clearly: please do not leave such comments without exceptional reason. It is actively harmful to the site to leave such comments merely because you disagree with the voting.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 15 '18 at 21:50
2
$begingroup$
@Nacht The text is, emphasis mine: “Please consider adding a comment if you think this post can be improved.” Which is up to the voter. Now, everyone: comments here aren't for discussing policy, let alone arguing about it. If anything further needs saying, I do not discourage it, but I insist it be taken to the appropriate venue the site provides for it: opening a discussion on Role-playing Games Meta. I will delete further comments on the subject here.
$endgroup$
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 15 '18 at 21:57