Let me preface with as I have read Sage advice and Jeremy Crawford commends on the topics in isolation.
However based on what has been stated that minor illusion can create cover, and glass counts as cover.
Would this mean it would be possible for a low level party with just minor illusion to mess up a spellcaster of higher level without risk of most damage spells by using minor illusion turn it is investigated?
Let me preface with as I have read Sage advice and Jeremy Crawford commends on the topics in isolation.
However based on what has been stated that minor illusion can create cover, and glass counts as cover.
Would this mean it would be possible for a low level party with just minor illusion to mess up a spellcaster of higher level without risk of most damage spells by using minor illusion turn it is investigated?
Do you have a specific example you have in mind? You can Dimension Door through a Minor Illusion, because "things" can pass through it, and hence it does not provide total cover.
Where in Sage advice or from JC did you hear that minor illusion can create cover? Cover requires an obstacle; illusions are not obstacles. JC has said you can hide behind minor illusions, but that's not the same as having cover.
Where in Sage advice or from JC did you hear that minor illusion can create cover? Cover requires an obstacle; illusions are not obstacles. JC has said you can hide behind minor illusions, but that's not the same as having cover.
Minor illusion can create an illusory object that is big enough for you to hide behind or within (assuming you're not Large+). However, if you're taller than 5 ft., you'll often have to be effectively prone if you're trying to attack from inside the illusion. #DnD
The wording of the quote is why I'm asking this question. Would they have to waste an action to determine if it is a real object (pane of glass)
Right. So the Minor Illusion is essentially messing with the lightly obscured and heavily obscured mechanics, as opposed to cover.
If an Enemy Caster simply wanted to deal damage, then a spell like Fireball would completely ignore the illusion without wasting an action. In principle, a spell like Fire Bolt would also work, though the Target hiding within the illusion would be effectively invisible, which results in disadvantage on the attack against the obscured Target. The obscured Target would also have advantage on attacks against Enemy Caster.
However, if the caster wanted to cast certain targeted spells that rely on sight, like Bane, then the minor illusion would block it.
Spending an action to discern the illusion for what it is would render it translucent, which eliminates the psuedo-invisibility effect.
The illusion of a pane of glass is basically pointless.
about the mix between (closed window being considered full cover) and the other tweet, since a lot of spells like eldritch blast, magic missile, finger of death specify only a creature and not a object.
So then would those spell still go through a closed window since it is just a target you can see?
Just to be clear i'm trying to make sure I understand how these two tweets interact or if they don't since an illusion is not solid:
A solid obstacle, regardless of material, can provide total cover. A closed window counts. #DnD
Minor illusion can create an illusory object that is big enough for you to hide behind or within (assuming you're not Large+). However, if you're taller than 5 ft., you'll often have to be effectively prone if you're trying to attack from inside the illusion. #DnD
Mostly yes, though Eldritch Blast is a ranged attack against a creature within range, not against a target you can see. The other two you mentioned, though - Magic Missile and Finger of Death - can indeed be cast through a window/glass wall. You could also Misty Step through, as another example. Just keep a close eye on that wording in spells' to know whether cover would hinder them or if they just require sight - either to a target or an area. If you have to make a ranged attack, a window will block it, whereas if you just have to see it... well, a window doesn't hinder that.
While not mentioned in each spell description, it is a fundamental rule that any spell whose effect passes through space needs a "line of effect" to the target. A physical pane of glass or a thin sheet of paper can both block "line of effect". However, many DMs may handwave this in some cases if the obstacle is considered functionally inconsequential.
Other spells, like Misty Step, don't actually pass through space, so they can bypass this requirement, so long as the target space is visible.
Yeah, in a way there's no concrete rule. There are several non-attack spells, such as Fireball for example, that I'd be very hesitant to allow to go through a closed window. Even Magic Missile seems iffy, but I do think the intent is that it could go through glass. Kind of have to play it by ear, but for most spells the intent is usually pretty obvious.
Edit: Just chuckling over the idea of Fireball going through windows, because if so there would be no reason not to let it go through walls; it just says a point you choose within range, not that you have to see it.
Edit: Just chuckling over the idea of Fireball going through windows, because if so there would be no reason not to let it go through walls; it just says a point you choose within range, not that you have to see it.
Yea the window would stop the FB (don't expect it to survive it though).
The FB would completely ignore the minor illusion though.
Important note: a caster wouldn't try to shoot a spell through a window if it wouldn't work. They know how their magic works. It would be a waste of a spell slot and they'd look foolish. Similarly, if they believe there's a window (but actually it's an illusion), they COULD shoot through it, but they would THINK they couldn't, so they wouldn't try.
I wouldn't award cover for an illusion. The +2 or +5 AC bonus represents hitting the cover instead of the target, but in the case of a Minor Illusion, it will just go through it anyway.
While not mentioned in each spell description, it is a fundamental rule that any spell whose effect passes through space needs a "line of effect" to the target. A physical pane of glass or a thin sheet of paper can both block "line of effect". However, many DMs may handwave this in some cases if the obstacle is considered functionally inconsequential.
Other spells, like Misty Step, don't actually pass through space, so they can bypass this requirement, so long as the target space is visible.
Sacred Flame can't ignore the rules for cover preventing targeting - it ignores the rules for cover buffing a saving throw. Says so right in the spell. "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw." Italic+bold emphasis mine.
On a separate note, the rules for transparent total cover don't actually exist, so you need your DM to interpret the rules for opaque cover and decide if and how they apply to transparent cover.
Rules text: "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 of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." Italic+bold emphasis mine.
So when you're not concealed at all by an obstacle which is interceding - as is the case with any transparent wall made of any solid continuous material, including clear glass, clear ice, and clear force - there's no rule saying you have total cover and no rule saying you don't. Most DMs agree you do, but this is interpretive. One of the issues is that it's clearly absurd to prevent people from targeting people behind windows with attacks - if you throw a rock at someone with a window in the way, you'll hit the window with the rock, but it's not like the gods themselves reach down and stop you from throwing in the first place. If you port over the Xanathar's optional rules for invalid targets and modify the rules for total cover to force the attack or spell to target the total cover instead, thrown rocks hit windows, and everything becomes ok again.
While not mentioned in each spell description, it is a fundamental rule that any spell whose effect passes through space needs a "line of effect" to the target. A physical pane of glass or a thin sheet of paper can both block "line of effect". However, many DMs may handwave this in some cases if the obstacle is considered functionally inconsequential.
Other spells, like Misty Step, don't actually pass through space, so they can bypass this requirement, so long as the target space is visible.
Sacred Flame can't ignore the rules for cover preventing targeting - it ignores the rules for cover buffing a saving throw. Says so right in the spell. "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw." Italic+bold emphasis mine.
On a separate note, the rules for transparent total cover don't actually exist, so you need your DM to interpret the rules for opaque cover and decide if and how they apply to transparent cover.
Rules text: "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 of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." Italic+bold emphasis mine.
So when you're not concealed at all by an obstacle which is interceding - as is the case with any transparent wall made of any solid continuous material, including clear glass, clear ice, and clear force - there's no rule saying you have total cover and no rule saying you don't. Most DMs agree you do, but this is interpretive. One of the issues is that it's clearly absurd to prevent people from targeting people behind windows with attacks - if you throw a rock at someone with a window in the way, you'll hit the window with the rock, but it's not like the gods themselves reach down and stop you from throwing in the first place. If you port over the Xanathar's optional rules for invalid targets and modify the rules for total cover to force the attack or spell to target the total cover instead, thrown rocks hit windows, and everything becomes ok again.
Depending on how much you value Crawford's input, he has stated that a transparent physical barrier does provide total cover. He states this about wall of force which does not have specific text granting total cover.
"Crawford's unofficial ruling confirms that "concealed" here is a synonym for "covered", not "invisible" as it meant in earlier editions of the game. And, as per PHB p.204, this prevents a caster from targeting you"
How this applies to an illusory window, however, would be that the enemy spellcaster only "thinks" they cannot cast through the window. It should block their ability to cast through it all the same even if it is only their own mind working against them. That's what illusions do. However, in my opinion, if the party casts the illusion while in plain sight of the enemy spellcaster or begins firing their own projectiles through it (or otherwise treating it as not real), then it becomes clear that the window is just an illusion without any requisite action on the part of the enemy spellcaster. There might be an argument that could be made when casting the illusion within sight of the enemy spellcaster for an Arcana check on the part of the enemy spellcaster, since a spell creating such a window could be a conjuration rather than an illusion as well, but this should at least be automatic and impose a risk of it not working.
Regarding targeting creatures behind windows, sure it is all well and good that you can target them with attacks, but spells work different and tend to have much more specific targeting requirements which is all due to the magic involved. Some spells can only target creatures and not objects, why? It doesn't make sense logically but those are the rules of the game. The rules aren't there to explain the world but rather the other way around, the players and DMs are there to rationalize how the rule manifests in the game world. There must be some sort of connection with the target creature required in order for the spell casting to be successful and a barrier, even a transparent one, disrupts that link in the mind of the spellcaster.
None of that really changes anything, and claiming that being behind transparent total cover makes you heavily obscured has no basis in the rules. Yes, glass & other transparent obstructions count as cover for anything that needs to pass through them - attacks (weapon or spells) and Dex save spells like Lightning Bolt or Acid Splash. There's no debating that; what matters is the spells that are not attacks/Dex saves and just require being able to see the target, and windows or other transparent obstacles don't & shouldn't block these as they don't obscure the caster's vision. These spells "say otherwise", as JC puts it in his tweet. An opaque wall only protects the target from these spells because it blocks sight to it.
Sacred Flame can't ignore the rules for cover preventing targeting - it ignores the rules for cover buffing a saving throw. Says so right in the spell. "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw." Italic+bold emphasis mine.
Sacred Flame is an oddity of a Dex save cantrip, but it outright specifies that it ignores cover and affects a creature you can see. Given that it says both of these, it can target through glass or other transparent cover just fine. Most spells are pretty clear about what they allow, but there are some oddities. For example...
I see in that JC tweet that Chill Touch is the example, and it does read kind of funny: "You create a ghostly, skeletal hand in the space of a creature within range.Make a ranged spell attack against the creature to assail it with the chill of the grave." The flavor text I emboldened certainly sounds like it shouldn't be blocked by transparent cover, considering - given that flavor text - it just appears in the target's space. However, it doesn't specify that it's against a creature you can see; instead it simply states the general make a ranged spell attack, and given the rules for ranged attacks, we know - unless specified otherwise - that ranged attacks "send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance," and thus would be blocked by transparent cover.
Heck, if you fall on the "it can see through walls" side of the blindsight debate, then even solid walls don't prevent a creature from casting spells that just require you to see the target.
Depends on how smart the enemy caster is. If they know the PC casting minor illusion has that ability, and a 5x5 pane of glass appears in front of a character in a field, they could gamble on it being an illusion without spending their action to investigate.
While Minor Illusion doesn't provide any cover since its not an obstacle, it could lead creature to believe it is though and lend them to naturally move around or avoid attempt to target those behind an illusion of what would be assumed to be total cover for exemple, even though in reality nothing prevent it as it only affect what it can can see.
Depends on how smart the enemy caster is. If they know the PC casting minor illusion has that ability, and a 5x5 pane of glass appears in front of a character in a field, they could gamble on it being an illusion without spending their action to investigate.
For sure. You've gotta be thoughtful with your illusions. And a window in an open field is useless because anyone can just step to the side and shoot around it.
Really I can't think of any good reason to ever create an illusory window.
While Minor Illusion doesn't provide any cover since its not an obstacle, it could lead creature to believe it is though and lend them to naturally move around or avoid attempt to target those behind an illusion of what would be assumed to be total cover for exemple, even though in reality nothing prevent it as it only affect what it can can see.
I agree with you comment, but even though you dont get directly cover from casting Minor Illusion and an attack can go through it. I would still rule that as long as a creature dont know it is an illusion then the object created should be treated as the real thing for those creatures and therefore if used in the right way, it could provoide cover, let med try to explaine my thinking.
So if you create lets say a 5ft high and wide boulder (withing what Minor Illusion can create), then everyone who has not used their action to find out if it is an illusion or not, would beleive that there really is a big boulder where you cast the spell (even if they saw you cast it and the boulder was not there before). My character is lets say 6ft tall and now walks up and stands behind this boulder everyone who has not seen through the illusion now think that I stand behind a big boulder and would therefore has to aim again the parts of my character they can see to hit me. I would in such case rule that the character has atleast half-cover, or maybe even three-quarters cover from ranged attacks made by anyone who has still not seen though the illusion. An ranged attack that would have hit you if not for the cover of the illusion then passes through the illusion and the creature who made the attack now knows it is an illusion and you dont get cover bonus against that creatures next attack. Melee fighters would also think it is there and might has to use exstra movement to reach you, or force them to move another route so you wont be attacked by them.
Thats how I would rule it at my table. I know the argument in this threat is about an illusionary glass wall/box and use as cover but as ChoirOfFire mentioned what is the real use for that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Let me preface with as I have read Sage advice and Jeremy Crawford commends on the topics in isolation.
However based on what has been stated that minor illusion can create cover, and glass counts as cover.
Would this mean it would be possible for a low level party with just minor illusion to mess up a spellcaster of higher level without risk of most damage spells by using minor illusion turn it is investigated?
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
Do you have a specific example you have in mind? You can Dimension Door through a Minor Illusion, because "things" can pass through it, and hence it does not provide total cover.
Where in Sage advice or from JC did you hear that minor illusion can create cover? Cover requires an obstacle; illusions are not obstacles. JC has said you can hide behind minor illusions, but that's not the same as having cover.
I'm going based on Jeremy Crawfords twitter: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/960239719861821440
The wording of the quote is why I'm asking this question. Would they have to waste an action to determine if it is a real object (pane of glass)
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
Right. So the Minor Illusion is essentially messing with the lightly obscured and heavily obscured mechanics, as opposed to cover.
If an Enemy Caster simply wanted to deal damage, then a spell like Fireball would completely ignore the illusion without wasting an action. In principle, a spell like Fire Bolt would also work, though the Target hiding within the illusion would be effectively invisible, which results in disadvantage on the attack against the obscured Target. The obscured Target would also have advantage on attacks against Enemy Caster.
However, if the caster wanted to cast certain targeted spells that rely on sight, like Bane, then the minor illusion would block it.
Spending an action to discern the illusion for what it is would render it translucent, which eliminates the psuedo-invisibility effect.
The illusion of a pane of glass is basically pointless.
I'd say it counts as obscurement but not cover.
You can hide in a shadow, but it won't block spells. Minor illusion is the same way.
Okay thank you.
about the mix between (closed window being considered full cover) and the other tweet, since a lot of spells like eldritch blast, magic missile, finger of death specify only a creature and not a object.
So then would those spell still go through a closed window since it is just a target you can see?
Just to be clear i'm trying to make sure I understand how these two tweets interact or if they don't since an illusion is not solid:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/803404321484247040
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/960239719861821440
Edit: how do I do those reference links?
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
Mostly yes, though Eldritch Blast is a ranged attack against a creature within range, not against a target you can see. The other two you mentioned, though - Magic Missile and Finger of Death - can indeed be cast through a window/glass wall. You could also Misty Step through, as another example. Just keep a close eye on that wording in spells' to know whether cover would hinder them or if they just require sight - either to a target or an area. If you have to make a ranged attack, a window will block it, whereas if you just have to see it... well, a window doesn't hinder that.
While not mentioned in each spell description, it is a fundamental rule that any spell whose effect passes through space needs a "line of effect" to the target. A physical pane of glass or a thin sheet of paper can both block "line of effect". However, many DMs may handwave this in some cases if the obstacle is considered functionally inconsequential.
Other spells, like Misty Step, don't actually pass through space, so they can bypass this requirement, so long as the target space is visible.
For example, Sacred Flame can ignore transparent cover, but Eldritch Blast cannot.
Yeah, in a way there's no concrete rule. There are several non-attack spells, such as Fireball for example, that I'd be very hesitant to allow to go through a closed window. Even Magic Missile seems iffy, but I do think the intent is that it could go through glass. Kind of have to play it by ear, but for most spells the intent is usually pretty obvious.
Edit: Just chuckling over the idea of Fireball going through windows, because if so there would be no reason not to let it go through walls; it just says a point you choose within range, not that you have to see it.
Also Orthusaku instructions for the tooltip links can be found here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/homebrew-house-rules/9811-how-to-add-tooltips
Yea the window would stop the FB (don't expect it to survive it though).
The FB would completely ignore the minor illusion though.
Important note: a caster wouldn't try to shoot a spell through a window if it wouldn't work. They know how their magic works. It would be a waste of a spell slot and they'd look foolish. Similarly, if they believe there's a window (but actually it's an illusion), they COULD shoot through it, but they would THINK they couldn't, so they wouldn't try.
I wouldn't award cover for an illusion. The +2 or +5 AC bonus represents hitting the cover instead of the target, but in the case of a Minor Illusion, it will just go through it anyway.
Sacred Flame can't ignore the rules for cover preventing targeting - it ignores the rules for cover buffing a saving throw. Says so right in the spell. "The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw." Italic+bold emphasis mine.
On a separate note, the rules for transparent total cover don't actually exist, so you need your DM to interpret the rules for opaque cover and decide if and how they apply to transparent cover.
Rules text: "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 of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle." Italic+bold emphasis mine.
So when you're not concealed at all by an obstacle which is interceding - as is the case with any transparent wall made of any solid continuous material, including clear glass, clear ice, and clear force - there's no rule saying you have total cover and no rule saying you don't. Most DMs agree you do, but this is interpretive. One of the issues is that it's clearly absurd to prevent people from targeting people behind windows with attacks - if you throw a rock at someone with a window in the way, you'll hit the window with the rock, but it's not like the gods themselves reach down and stop you from throwing in the first place. If you port over the Xanathar's optional rules for invalid targets and modify the rules for total cover to force the attack or spell to target the total cover instead, thrown rocks hit windows, and everything becomes ok again.
Depending on how much you value Crawford's input, he has stated that a transparent physical barrier does provide total cover. He states this about wall of force which does not have specific text granting total cover.
Direct tweet: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/677556662333403136
More analysis: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/59734/can-spells-be-cast-through-a-wall-of-force
"Crawford's unofficial ruling confirms that "concealed" here is a synonym for "covered", not "invisible" as it meant in earlier editions of the game. And, as per PHB p.204, this prevents a caster from targeting you"
How this applies to an illusory window, however, would be that the enemy spellcaster only "thinks" they cannot cast through the window. It should block their ability to cast through it all the same even if it is only their own mind working against them. That's what illusions do. However, in my opinion, if the party casts the illusion while in plain sight of the enemy spellcaster or begins firing their own projectiles through it (or otherwise treating it as not real), then it becomes clear that the window is just an illusion without any requisite action on the part of the enemy spellcaster. There might be an argument that could be made when casting the illusion within sight of the enemy spellcaster for an Arcana check on the part of the enemy spellcaster, since a spell creating such a window could be a conjuration rather than an illusion as well, but this should at least be automatic and impose a risk of it not working.
Regarding targeting creatures behind windows, sure it is all well and good that you can target them with attacks, but spells work different and tend to have much more specific targeting requirements which is all due to the magic involved. Some spells can only target creatures and not objects, why? It doesn't make sense logically but those are the rules of the game. The rules aren't there to explain the world but rather the other way around, the players and DMs are there to rationalize how the rule manifests in the game world. There must be some sort of connection with the target creature required in order for the spell casting to be successful and a barrier, even a transparent one, disrupts that link in the mind of the spellcaster.
None of that really changes anything, and claiming that being behind transparent total cover makes you heavily obscured has no basis in the rules. Yes, glass & other transparent obstructions count as cover for anything that needs to pass through them - attacks (weapon or spells) and Dex save spells like Lightning Bolt or Acid Splash. There's no debating that; what matters is the spells that are not attacks/Dex saves and just require being able to see the target, and windows or other transparent obstacles don't & shouldn't block these as they don't obscure the caster's vision. These spells "say otherwise", as JC puts it in his tweet. An opaque wall only protects the target from these spells because it blocks sight to it.
Sacred Flame is an oddity of a Dex save cantrip, but it outright specifies that it ignores cover and affects a creature you can see. Given that it says both of these, it can target through glass or other transparent cover just fine.
Most spells are pretty clear about what they allow, but there are some oddities. For example...
I see in that JC tweet that Chill Touch is the example, and it does read kind of funny: "You create a ghostly, skeletal hand in the space of a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the creature to assail it with the chill of the grave." The flavor text I emboldened certainly sounds like it shouldn't be blocked by transparent cover, considering - given that flavor text - it just appears in the target's space. However, it doesn't specify that it's against a creature you can see; instead it simply states the general make a ranged spell attack, and given the rules for ranged attacks, we know - unless specified otherwise - that ranged attacks "send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance," and thus would be blocked by transparent cover.
Heck, if you fall on the "it can see through walls" side of the blindsight debate, then even solid walls don't prevent a creature from casting spells that just require you to see the target.
Depends on how smart the enemy caster is. If they know the PC casting minor illusion has that ability, and a 5x5 pane of glass appears in front of a character in a field, they could gamble on it being an illusion without spending their action to investigate.
While Minor Illusion doesn't provide any cover since its not an obstacle, it could lead creature to believe it is though and lend them to naturally move around or avoid attempt to target those behind an illusion of what would be assumed to be total cover for exemple, even though in reality nothing prevent it as it only affect what it can can see.
For sure. You've gotta be thoughtful with your illusions. And a window in an open field is useless because anyone can just step to the side and shoot around it.
Really I can't think of any good reason to ever create an illusory window.
I agree with you comment, but even though you dont get directly cover from casting Minor Illusion and an attack can go through it.
I would still rule that as long as a creature dont know it is an illusion then the object created should be treated as the real thing for those creatures and therefore if used in the right way, it could provoide cover, let med try to explaine my thinking.
So if you create lets say a 5ft high and wide boulder (withing what Minor Illusion can create), then everyone who has not used their action to find out if it is an illusion or not, would beleive that there really is a big boulder where you cast the spell (even if they saw you cast it and the boulder was not there before).
My character is lets say 6ft tall and now walks up and stands behind this boulder everyone who has not seen through the illusion now think that I stand behind a big boulder and would therefore has to aim again the parts of my character they can see to hit me.
I would in such case rule that the character has atleast half-cover, or maybe even three-quarters cover from ranged attacks made by anyone who has still not seen though the illusion.
An ranged attack that would have hit you if not for the cover of the illusion then passes through the illusion and the creature who made the attack now knows it is an illusion and you dont get cover bonus against that creatures next attack.
Melee fighters would also think it is there and might has to use exstra movement to reach you, or force them to move another route so you wont be attacked by them.
Thats how I would rule it at my table. I know the argument in this threat is about an illusionary glass wall/box and use as cover but as ChoirOfFire mentioned what is the real use for that.