I concede that would only let you throw the rock and not necessarily hit, but like I said, you could also use many other options like a bucket of water that can guaranteed hit the pc. Keep in mind that these would be tactics used by the DM, so they can really just say it will work.
A DM can say anything, but it would really be a jerk move to do that to a player just because they want to. Even with the water, there are no guarantees. If you are trying to do something to another creature, there’s a roll: attack, skill check, saving throw. You can’t just decide you want a thing to work. There’s people who can dodge a fireball centered on them. A water bucket is nothing.
To a player who is exploiting the rules? A DM does, in fact, have the power to just make a thing work. Sure there are people who can dodge a fireball, but can a cleric in heavy armor?
So in this scenario, rather than just shutting it down, the DM allows a player to exploit the rules, then responds by exploiting them also. What a bad game experience.
How is intelligently identifying an illusion the DM exploiting the rules? I would rather my DM say "No, they could just toss a pebble to see which one is the illusion.", than say "No."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are to fast: I would catch it."
"I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
"Well of course I know that. What else is there? A kitten?"
"You'd like to think that, Wouldn't you?"
"What do you mean? An African or European swallow?"
I concede that would only let you throw the rock and not necessarily hit, but like I said, you could also use many other options like a bucket of water that can guaranteed hit the pc. Keep in mind that these would be tactics used by the DM, so they can really just say it will work.
A DM can say anything, but it would really be a jerk move to do that to a player just because they want to. Even with the water, there are no guarantees. If you are trying to do something to another creature, there’s a roll: attack, skill check, saving throw. You can’t just decide you want a thing to work. There’s people who can dodge a fireball centered on them. A water bucket is nothing.
To a player who is exploiting the rules? A DM does, in fact, have the power to just make a thing work. Sure there are people who can dodge a fireball, but can a cleric in heavy armor?
So in this scenario, rather than just shutting it down, the DM allows a player to exploit the rules, then responds by exploiting them also. What a bad game experience.
How is intelligently identifying an illusion the DM exploiting the rules? I would rather my DM say "No, they could just toss a pebble to see which one is the illusion.", than say "No."
First, you've already conceded that tossing a pebble wouldn't just work, it would require a roll. Then, you asserted a bucket of water (btw, who, exactly, carries a bucket of water with them?) would somehow not require a roll, and would just work. So, are we back to this perfectly tossed pebble, now? Which goalposts are we working with.
Besides that. It is absolutely a DM's job to shut down a player trying to break the rules. In this case, it's probably less break the rules and more work with the player to figure out how a power works, but that's really a semantic difference. In a previous post, I gave my reasoning for this particular situation of why it wouldn't be allowed. My proposed answer is clear and well-grounded in a reading of the rules. Yours invents a houserule of some kind of free action unerring pebble toss, which would also set a precedent that could be used to dismiss any illusion. Because if you can use it on invoke duplicity, why can't you just do it all the time on any other illusion?
I appreciate you giving this topic a good-faith response Xalthu. Until they address the ability directly (even candidly) it seems clear to only use the explicitly listed effects, despite the obvious roleplaying implications. At least for contexts like Adventurer's League.
It's frustrating that this is a class that got some good attention in 5.24, but they failed to address this and left the problematic text utterly unchanged.
So in this scenario, rather than just shutting it down, the DM allows a player to exploit the rules, then responds by exploiting them also. What a bad game experience.
How is intelligently identifying an illusion the DM exploiting the rules? I would rather my DM say "No, they could just toss a pebble to see which one is the illusion.", than say "No."
First, you've already conceded that tossing a pebble wouldn't just work, it would require a roll. Then, you asserted a bucket of water (btw, who, exactly, carries a bucket of water with them?) would somehow not require a roll, and would just work. So, are we back to this perfectly tossed pebble, now? Which goalposts are we working with.
Besides that. It is absolutely a DM's job to shut down a player trying to break the rules. In this case, it's probably less break the rules and more work with the player to figure out how a power works, but that's really a semantic difference. In a previous post, I gave my reasoning for this particular situation of why it wouldn't be allowed. My proposed answer is clear and well-grounded in a reading of the rules. Yours invents a houserule of some kind of free action unerring pebble toss, which would also set a precedent that could be used to dismiss any illusion. Because if you can use it on invoke duplicity, why can't you just do it all the time on any other illusion?
A pebble was my first example and is what I would tell a player trying to do something like this. Other things are only required if I humor the player arguing that it wouldn't work.
The reason I asserted a flask of water would automatically work is that you could cover a large enough area that the cleric would pretty much guaranteed be hit by the water. (or not hit if it is the illusion) A bag of flour would really work better, but most intelligent enemies are likely to carry some water and would be frustrated by these tactics. Many would come up with some kind of solution resembling this.
It's a good point that the pcs could also use this, but most enemies that use illusions specifically give rules for what they do. (eg: displacer beast) If it's out of combat, this is a valid strategy I would allow at the risk of angering someone when throwing a rock at them.
Also, it depends on the situation, but I would definitely consider the cleric's tactics to be exploiting the rules.
A pebble was my first example and is what I would tell a player trying to do something like this. Other things are only required if I humor the player arguing that it wouldn't work.
The reason I asserted a flask of water would automatically work is that you could cover a large enough area that the cleric would pretty much guaranteed be hit by the water. (or not hit if it is the illusion) A bag of flour would really work better, but most intelligent enemies are likely to carry some water and would be frustrated by these tactics. Many would come up with some kind of solution resembling this.
It's a good point that the pcs could also use this, but most enemies that use illusions specifically give rules for what they do. (eg: displacer beast) If it's out of combat, this is a valid strategy I would allow at the risk of angering someone when throwing a rock at them.
Also, it depends on the situation, but I would definitely consider the cleric's tactics to be exploiting the rules.
While the ability definitely could be exploitable by a bad-faith or excessively creative player, I think super basic, non-edge case situations still raise a lot of question marks.
Trickster Cleric is definitely intended to be sneaky; in fact, I'd be shocked to see one at my table that didn't take a level 1 dip into Rogue. As such, what do Rogues love to do a lot? Sneak right up behind someone and stab them in the back, right? So I sneak up behind an unaware enemy, Invoke Duplicity so there's two of me behind them, and then Sneak Attack them. We enter initiative and they turn to see two of me. Explain to me how it's exploiting the rules to assume this guy has no idea which illusion to attack first?
I'm not inventing some wild hyper-specific armchair scenario here. I'm describing the basic way a character like this is intended to function, and the RAW fail to directly address the details of it. RAW the enemy somehow knows exactly which one is which despite the "perfect illusion" description, and is just a bit confused enough to give me Advantage attacking them, but somehow not Disadvantage on them attacking me or at least forcing them to figure it out? Because if we're being extremely pedantic, RAW, nothing even implies directly that they would need to throw a pebble or water or flour. Except for basic common sense. The ability passes the sniff test for what I'm suggesting without getting anywhere near "exploitation" territory.
Not like he's a rules lawyer or anything, but here's RPGBot on the subject in his class guide: "In most cases, creatures have no mechanism to identify the duplicate until they interact with it unless you’re doing something to obviously distinguish yourself from the duplicate. If you’re leaning into this, talk to your DM about keeping the answer secret from the DM, such as by keeping the answer on a face-down slip of paper. Whenever you move the duplicate, reconsider the answer and turn the paper face down. This will help your DM to play the monsters realistically, and it could be a lot of fun for both sides of the table." I don't think this is exploitation. I think this is reading words in a game about roleplaying and playing the role those words describe with their precise meaning and immediate implications.
A pebble was my first example and is what I would tell a player trying to do something like this. Other things are only required if I humor the player arguing that it wouldn't work.
The reason I asserted a flask of water would automatically work is that you could cover a large enough area that the cleric would pretty much guaranteed be hit by the water. (or not hit if it is the illusion) A bag of flour would really work better, but most intelligent enemies are likely to carry some water and would be frustrated by these tactics. Many would come up with some kind of solution resembling this.
It's a good point that the pcs could also use this, but most enemies that use illusions specifically give rules for what they do. (eg: displacer beast) If it's out of combat, this is a valid strategy I would allow at the risk of angering someone when throwing a rock at them.
Also, it depends on the situation, but I would definitely consider the cleric's tactics to be exploiting the rules.
While the ability definitely could be exploitable by a bad-faith or excessively creative player, I think super basic, non-edge case situations still raise a lot of question marks.
Trickster Cleric is definitely intended to be sneaky; in fact, I'd be shocked to see one at my table that didn't take a level 1 dip into Rogue. As such, what do Rogues love to do a lot? Sneak right up behind someone and stab them in the back, right? So I sneak up behind an unaware enemy, Invoke Duplicity so there's two of me behind them, and then Sneak Attack them. We enter initiative and they turn to see two of me. Explain to me how it's exploiting the rules to assume this guy has no idea which illusion to attack first?
I'm not inventing some wild hyper-specific armchair scenario here. I'm describing the basic way a character like this is intended to function, and the RAW fail to directly address the details of it. RAW the enemy somehow knows exactly which one is which despite the "perfect illusion" description, and is just a bit confused enough to give me Advantage attacking them, but somehow not Disadvantage on them attacking me or at least forcing them to figure it out? Because if we're being extremely pedantic, RAW, nothing even implies directly that they would need to throw a pebble or water or flour. Except for basic common sense. The ability passes the sniff test for what I'm suggesting without getting anywhere near "exploitation" territory.
Not like he's a rules lawyer or anything, but here's RPGBot on the subject in his class guide: "In most cases, creatures have no mechanism to identify the duplicate until they interact with it unless you’re doing something to obviously distinguish yourself from the duplicate. If you’re leaning into this, talk to your DM about keeping the answer secret from the DM, such as by keeping the answer on a face-down slip of paper. Whenever you move the duplicate, reconsider the answer and turn the paper face down. This will help your DM to play the monsters realistically, and it could be a lot of fun for both sides of the table." I don't think this is exploitation. I think this is reading words in a game about roleplaying and playing the role those words describe with their precise meaning and immediate implications.
Apologies, there I was referring to the idea you mentioned of, "...what's to stop me from using my bonus action to move the image into my space, aligning with it, and then stepping out again to "reset" the enemy's perception of which is which?", which wasn't super clear from my post.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are to fast: I would catch it."
"I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
"Well of course I know that. What else is there? A kitten?"
"You'd like to think that, Wouldn't you?"
"What do you mean? An African or European swallow?"
I think the bit where it says "While it persists, you gain the following benefits" is key. It lists the benefits that you get, period (RAW) trying to get an angle on the text for additional benefits that are not listed would be a no go for me. It specifically lists advantage on your attack rolls, it specifically does not give enemies disadvantage.
Cast Spells. You can cast spells as though you were in the illusion’s space, but you must use your own senses.
Distract. When both you and your illusion are within 5 feet of a creature that can see the illusion, you have Advantage on attack rolls against that creature, given how distracting the illusion is to the target.
Move. As a Bonus Action, you can move the illusion up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space you can see that is within 120 feet of yourself.
As an (ex) fencer we called the motion of blade against blade as you jostle for openings, change lines, guard and parry the "conversation of blades". So yes identical illusion check, doing same motions check, but only one of them will be aligned to actually attack you and react to your blade etc, so auto discover which is fake check. "Distracting" check so you get advantage. I see it fine as written.
A pebble was my first example and is what I would tell a player trying to do something like this. Other things are only required if I humor the player arguing that it wouldn't work.
The reason I asserted a flask of water would automatically work is that you could cover a large enough area that the cleric would pretty much guaranteed be hit by the water. (or not hit if it is the illusion) A bag of flour would really work better, but most intelligent enemies are likely to carry some water and would be frustrated by these tactics. Many would come up with some kind of solution resembling this.
It's a good point that the pcs could also use this, but most enemies that use illusions specifically give rules for what they do. (eg: displacer beast) If it's out of combat, this is a valid strategy I would allow at the risk of angering someone when throwing a rock at them.
Also, it depends on the situation, but I would definitely consider the cleric's tactics to be exploiting the rules.
While the ability definitely could be exploitable by a bad-faith or excessively creative player, I think super basic, non-edge case situations still raise a lot of question marks.
Trickster Cleric is definitely intended to be sneaky; in fact, I'd be shocked to see one at my table that didn't take a level 1 dip into Rogue. As such, what do Rogues love to do a lot? Sneak right up behind someone and stab them in the back, right? So I sneak up behind an unaware enemy, Invoke Duplicity so there's two of me behind them, and then Sneak Attack them. We enter initiative and they turn to see two of me. Explain to me how it's exploiting the rules to assume this guy has no idea which illusion to attack first?
I'm not inventing some wild hyper-specific armchair scenario here. I'm describing the basic way a character like this is intended to function, and the RAW fail to directly address the details of it. RAW the enemy somehow knows exactly which one is which despite the "perfect illusion" description, and is just a bit confused enough to give me Advantage attacking them, but somehow not Disadvantage on them attacking me or at least forcing them to figure it out? Because if we're being extremely pedantic, RAW, nothing even implies directly that they would need to throw a pebble or water or flour. Except for basic common sense. The ability passes the sniff test for what I'm suggesting without getting anywhere near "exploitation" territory.
Not like he's a rules lawyer or anything, but here's RPGBot on the subject in his class guide: "In most cases, creatures have no mechanism to identify the duplicate until they interact with it unless you’re doing something to obviously distinguish yourself from the duplicate. If you’re leaning into this, talk to your DM about keeping the answer secret from the DM, such as by keeping the answer on a face-down slip of paper. Whenever you move the duplicate, reconsider the answer and turn the paper face down. This will help your DM to play the monsters realistically, and it could be a lot of fun for both sides of the table." I don't think this is exploitation. I think this is reading words in a game about roleplaying and playing the role those words describe with their precise meaning and immediate implications.
Well, the thing is, other creatures don’t need a mechanism to distinguish, they just do, is my reading. And fwiw I’d not play a guessing game with the DM. If you’re going to go down that road, just let the DM figure out how they’re going to choose; if you can’t trust your DM to be fair, you’ve got much bigger problems. One thing I thought of (though we are arguably into house rules here, or maybe just a strange attempt at an in-game justification) is that the fact that it is insubstantial could make it clear which is which. Insubstantial is not a defined game term, so we need to go with the plain English. So, it has no weight and things could pass through it. It’s not transparent (because it doesn’t say it’s transparent) but it still might just catch the light in a wierd way or something. It might just be that it’s insubstantial-ness is obvious to the point that others can tell which is you and which is the duplicate. It’s still strange enough to be distracting, but it’s clear which is which.
One thing I thought of (though we are arguably into house rules here, or maybe just a strange attempt at an in-game justification) is that the fact that it is insubstantial could make it clear which is which. Insubstantial is not a defined game term, so we need to go with the plain English. So, it has no weight and things could pass through it. It’s not transparent (because it doesn’t say it’s transparent) but it still might just catch the light in a wierd way or something. It might just be that it’s insubstantial-ness is obvious to the point that others can tell which is you and which is the duplicate. It’s still strange enough to be distracting, but it’s clear which is which.
I would argue that whether or not it should be apparent which is real and which is not would depend on the Intelligence of the monster. If you are facing a dumb beast with an intelligence of 4, I'd argue that it should be equally possible for the monster to attack the wrong target. Even with a humanoid monster, a knee-jerk reaction to being attacked could easily result in swinging at the wrong target. Thinking that monsters always act in the most coolly rational way is unrealistic.
One thing I thought of (though we are arguably into house rules here, or maybe just a strange attempt at an in-game justification) is that the fact that it is insubstantial could make it clear which is which. Insubstantial is not a defined game term, so we need to go with the plain English. So, it has no weight and things could pass through it. It’s not transparent (because it doesn’t say it’s transparent) but it still might just catch the light in a wierd way or something. It might just be that it’s insubstantial-ness is obvious to the point that others can tell which is you and which is the duplicate. It’s still strange enough to be distracting, but it’s clear which is which.
I would argue that whether or not it should be apparent which is real and which is not would depend on the Intelligence of the monster. If you are facing a dumb beast with an intelligence of 4, I'd argue that it should be equally possible for the monster to attack the wrong target. Even with a humanoid monster, a knee-jerk reaction to being attacked could easily result in swinging at the wrong target. Thinking that monsters always act in the most coolly rational way is unrealistic.
I agree that would make sense. (Though I'd point out the dumb beast might have its own way of telling. Like the duplicate has so scent, for example. But that’s a whole can of worms that’s not really worth opening.) But that aside, powers only do what they say, not what we might logically infer based upon what they say. So enemies not knowing which is which and attacking it then gives the duplicate a power which it doesn’t have in the description. Overall, that changes the duplicate and makes it more powerful. And drawing an enemy’s attack — impacting the action economy— is an incredibly strong benefit.
Quote from Estaln>>As an (ex) fencer we called the motion of blade against blade as you jostle for openings, change lines, guard and parry the "conversation of blades".
Thanks for this, this is an excellent way to explain in roleplaying terms how an enemy might tell the difference without actually doing a check or attack roll. As it’s assumed that creatures don’t stay absolutely still between turns, it’s fair to assume that two creatures in melee with one another would do some feints or scouting strikes while looking for an opening (that opening being the attack they actually take during their turn). In doing so, it would become immediately obvious which were real. But scouting for an opening with the illusion would be the exact thing that gives the real Cleric advantage on their attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How is intelligently identifying an illusion the DM exploiting the rules? I would rather my DM say "No, they could just toss a pebble to see which one is the illusion.", than say "No."
Homebrew: dominance, The Necrotic
Extended signature
First, you've already conceded that tossing a pebble wouldn't just work, it would require a roll. Then, you asserted a bucket of water (btw, who, exactly, carries a bucket of water with them?) would somehow not require a roll, and would just work. So, are we back to this perfectly tossed pebble, now? Which goalposts are we working with.
Besides that. It is absolutely a DM's job to shut down a player trying to break the rules. In this case, it's probably less break the rules and more work with the player to figure out how a power works, but that's really a semantic difference. In a previous post, I gave my reasoning for this particular situation of why it wouldn't be allowed. My proposed answer is clear and well-grounded in a reading of the rules. Yours invents a houserule of some kind of free action unerring pebble toss, which would also set a precedent that could be used to dismiss any illusion. Because if you can use it on invoke duplicity, why can't you just do it all the time on any other illusion?
I appreciate you giving this topic a good-faith response Xalthu. Until they address the ability directly (even candidly) it seems clear to only use the explicitly listed effects, despite the obvious roleplaying implications. At least for contexts like Adventurer's League.
It's frustrating that this is a class that got some good attention in 5.24, but they failed to address this and left the problematic text utterly unchanged.
Also, it depends on the situation, but I would definitely consider the cleric's tactics to be exploiting the rules.
Homebrew: dominance, The Necrotic
Extended signature
While the ability definitely could be exploitable by a bad-faith or excessively creative player, I think super basic, non-edge case situations still raise a lot of question marks.
Trickster Cleric is definitely intended to be sneaky; in fact, I'd be shocked to see one at my table that didn't take a level 1 dip into Rogue. As such, what do Rogues love to do a lot? Sneak right up behind someone and stab them in the back, right? So I sneak up behind an unaware enemy, Invoke Duplicity so there's two of me behind them, and then Sneak Attack them. We enter initiative and they turn to see two of me. Explain to me how it's exploiting the rules to assume this guy has no idea which illusion to attack first?
I'm not inventing some wild hyper-specific armchair scenario here. I'm describing the basic way a character like this is intended to function, and the RAW fail to directly address the details of it. RAW the enemy somehow knows exactly which one is which despite the "perfect illusion" description, and is just a bit confused enough to give me Advantage attacking them, but somehow not Disadvantage on them attacking me or at least forcing them to figure it out? Because if we're being extremely pedantic, RAW, nothing even implies directly that they would need to throw a pebble or water or flour. Except for basic common sense. The ability passes the sniff test for what I'm suggesting without getting anywhere near "exploitation" territory.
Not like he's a rules lawyer or anything, but here's RPGBot on the subject in his class guide:
"In most cases, creatures have no mechanism to identify the duplicate until they interact with it unless you’re doing something to obviously distinguish yourself from the duplicate. If you’re leaning into this, talk to your DM about keeping the answer secret from the DM, such as by keeping the answer on a face-down slip of paper. Whenever you move the duplicate, reconsider the answer and turn the paper face down. This will help your DM to play the monsters realistically, and it could be a lot of fun for both sides of the table."
I don't think this is exploitation. I think this is reading words in a game about roleplaying and playing the role those words describe with their precise meaning and immediate implications.
Apologies, there I was referring to the idea you mentioned of, "...what's to stop me from using my bonus action to move the image into my space, aligning with it, and then stepping out again to "reset" the enemy's perception of which is which?", which wasn't super clear from my post.
Homebrew: dominance, The Necrotic
Extended signature
I think the bit where it says "While it persists, you gain the following benefits" is key. It lists the benefits that you get, period (RAW) trying to get an angle on the text for additional benefits that are not listed would be a no go for me. It specifically lists advantage on your attack rolls, it specifically does not give enemies disadvantage.
Cast Spells. You can cast spells as though you were in the illusion’s space, but you must use your own senses.
Distract. When both you and your illusion are within 5 feet of a creature that can see the illusion, you have Advantage on attack rolls against that creature, given how distracting the illusion is to the target.
Move. As a Bonus Action, you can move the illusion up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space you can see that is within 120 feet of yourself.
As an (ex) fencer we called the motion of blade against blade as you jostle for openings, change lines, guard and parry the "conversation of blades". So yes identical illusion check, doing same motions check, but only one of them will be aligned to actually attack you and react to your blade etc, so auto discover which is fake check. "Distracting" check so you get advantage. I see it fine as written.
Life's hard - get a helmet!
Well, the thing is, other creatures don’t need a mechanism to distinguish, they just do, is my reading. And fwiw I’d not play a guessing game with the DM. If you’re going to go down that road, just let the DM figure out how they’re going to choose; if you can’t trust your DM to be fair, you’ve got much bigger problems.
One thing I thought of (though we are arguably into house rules here, or maybe just a strange attempt at an in-game justification) is that the fact that it is insubstantial could make it clear which is which. Insubstantial is not a defined game term, so we need to go with the plain English. So, it has no weight and things could pass through it. It’s not transparent (because it doesn’t say it’s transparent) but it still might just catch the light in a wierd way or something. It might just be that it’s insubstantial-ness is obvious to the point that others can tell which is you and which is the duplicate. It’s still strange enough to be distracting, but it’s clear which is which.
I would argue that whether or not it should be apparent which is real and which is not would depend on the Intelligence of the monster. If you are facing a dumb beast with an intelligence of 4, I'd argue that it should be equally possible for the monster to attack the wrong target. Even with a humanoid monster, a knee-jerk reaction to being attacked could easily result in swinging at the wrong target. Thinking that monsters always act in the most coolly rational way is unrealistic.
I agree that would make sense. (Though I'd point out the dumb beast might have its own way of telling. Like the duplicate has so scent, for example. But that’s a whole can of worms that’s not really worth opening.) But that aside, powers only do what they say, not what we might logically infer based upon what they say. So enemies not knowing which is which and attacking it then gives the duplicate a power which it doesn’t have in the description. Overall, that changes the duplicate and makes it more powerful. And drawing an enemy’s attack — impacting the action economy— is an incredibly strong benefit.
Thanks for this, this is an excellent way to explain in roleplaying terms how an enemy might tell the difference without actually doing a check or attack roll. As it’s assumed that creatures don’t stay absolutely still between turns, it’s fair to assume that two creatures in melee with one another would do some feints or scouting strikes while looking for an opening (that opening being the attack they actually take during their turn). In doing so, it would become immediately obvious which were real. But scouting for an opening with the illusion would be the exact thing that gives the real Cleric advantage on their attack.