I can hide inside the image of a barrel, right?

I'm sure this has come up before: I can cast Minor Illusion to create the illusion of a large barrel or box or whatever, and then hide inside the image (I'm a gnome, so shorter than 5').

Enemies would specifically need to take the study action to determine the barrel isn't real, at which point I'd be visible to them. But until then, and for the next minute, I could be firing my crossbow (no verbal component to give away my position, though I suppose the twang of my crossbow might be audible). 

Similarly I could hide our bard or an NPC, right?

Yes, that should work, and it's a common use of Minor Illusion. 

However, depending on what sort of enemies you're fighting, it may not be reasonable to assume that they won't figure out roughly where you are after your first attack.

Quote from MongooseGef >>

I'm sure this has come up before: I can cast Minor Illusion to create the illusion of a large barrel or box or whatever, and then hide inside the image (I'm a gnome, so shorter than 5').

Enemies would specifically need to take the study action to determine the barrel isn't real, at which point I'd be visible to them. But until then, and for the next minute, I could be firing my crossbow (no verbal component to give away my position, though I suppose the twang of my crossbow might be audible). 

Similarly I could hide our bard or an NPC, right?

 Probably any short creature could hide. Your DM might make you roll a stealth check to stay hidden (especially after firing the crossbow), but it could work, especially for an ambush of some sort.

Yeah, an ambush is what I'm expecting this tactic to be used for primarily. Anything to give me an extra round or two where I can attack but the enemy can't!

You can hide, but there's some ambiguity as to what you can do without revealing the illusion. The way I see it, shooting through the illusion counts as physical interaction. If someone sees a bolt fly through the object, they will know it's an illusion.

Quote from MongooseGef >>

Yeah, an ambush is what I'm expecting this tactic to be used for primarily. Anything to give me an extra round or two where I can attack but the enemy can't!

 If you attack through it, they will know it is an illusion. I've used minor illusion to hide my gnome druid at low levels but the monsters we have fought the last few levels (we are 10 now) are way to smart to fall for the trick.  maybe if you're in a room full of barrels (mimics used that trick in a different campaign)...even then maybe not.

Quote from Foodgeek >>

Quote from MongooseGef >>

Yeah, an ambush is what I'm expecting this tactic to be used for primarily. Anything to give me an extra round or two where I can attack but the enemy can't!

 If you attack through it, they will know it is an illusion. I've used minor illusion to hide my gnome druid at low levels but the monsters we have fought the last few levels (we are 10 now) are way to smart to fall for the trick.  maybe if you're in a room full of barrels (mimics used that trick in a different campaign)...even then maybe not.

Quote from Frachese >>

You can hide, but there's some ambiguity as to what you can do without revealing the illusion. The way I see it, shooting through the illusion counts as physical interaction. If someone sees a bolt fly through the object, they will know it's an illusion.

I disagree with this. The enemy has to physically interact with the illusion to automatically disbelieve it.  That is, they have to literally walk up and poke it (or poke it with something they're physically touching) to know that it actually went through the object without resistance, not just close to it.  (If they're throwing something at the illusion to see if it passes through, that should be a study action).  Letting everyone who thinks they see something pass through an illusion automatically disbelieve it makes illusion magic far too weak. 

(I will agree the rules passages to this effect are readable both ways, but it makes far more sense for the 'accidental' discovery that something is an illusion to be a bit more involved than just seeing something far from you - whereas if your hand passes through it, you know it's not real.  That's what physical interaction should look like.  If it would just make them think 'huh, that was weird', that's grounds for investigation, not automatic disbelief.  And i think this is the better reading too, because belief or disbelief in the illusion is decided individually for each creature, so the physical interaction should be individual for each creature).

So seeing a crossbow bolt come from vaguely the direction of a barrel 60' away might not even be suspicious.  Maybe someone is behind the barrel and popped up to fire over it.  It might give him reason to suspect its an illusion, especially the second time it happens, when he's paying more attention to the barrel because he suspects someone is behind it, and doesn't see anyone pop up. (and that would allow him to take the study action - i wouldn't even let him make a study action unless something gave him a reason to be suspicious).

That said, you can't be hidden and firing your crossbow, because making an attack roll ends Hidden.  The enemy knows approximately where you are - enough to make an attack against you.  That doesn't mean he can see you.  (A minor illusion which completely blocks your body should count as being heavily obscured).  You are still unseen, and should get advantage on attack rolls, even though you're not hidden.

If you pop up/around and shoot, you won't be unseen, but you should prevent the enemy from even taking the study action, because they'll have no reason to suspect it's an illusion.

But really, talk to your DM on how they think illusions work.  

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

Quote from Foodgeek >>

Quote from MongooseGef >>

Yeah, an ambush is what I'm expecting this tactic to be used for primarily. Anything to give me an extra round or two where I can attack but the enemy can't!

 If you attack through it, they will know it is an illusion. I've used minor illusion to hide my gnome druid at low levels but the monsters we have fought the last few levels (we are 10 now) are way to smart to fall for the trick.  maybe if you're in a room full of barrels (mimics used that trick in a different campaign)...even then maybe not.

 

Quote from Frachese >>

You can hide, but there's some ambiguity as to what you can do without revealing the illusion. The way I see it, shooting through the illusion counts as physical interaction. If someone sees a bolt fly through the object, they will know it's an illusion.

 

I disagree with this. The enemy has to physically interact with the illusion to automatically disbelieve it.  That is, they have to literally walk up and poke it (or poke it with something they're physically touching) to know that it actually went through the object without resistance, not just close to it.  (If they're throwing something at the illusion to see if it passes through, that should be a study action).  Letting everyone who thinks they see something pass through an illusion automatically disbelieve it makes illusion magic far too weak. 

(I will agree the rules passages to this effect are readable both ways, but it makes far more sense for the 'accidental' discovery that something is an illusion to be a bit more involved than just seeing something far from you - whereas if your hand passes through it, you know it's not real.  That's what physical interaction should look like.  If it would just make them think 'huh, that was weird', that's grounds for investigation, not automatic disbelief.  And i think this is the better reading too, because belief or disbelief in the illusion is decided individually for each creature, so the physical interaction should be individual for each creature).

So seeing a crossbow bolt come from vaguely the direction of a barrel 60' away might not even be suspicious.  Maybe someone is behind the barrel and popped up to fire over it.  It might give him reason to suspect its an illusion, especially the second time it happens, when he's paying more attention to the barrel because he suspects someone is behind it, and doesn't see anyone pop up. (and that would allow him to take the study action - i wouldn't even let him make a study action unless something gave him a reason to be suspicious).

That said, you can't be hidden and firing your crossbow, because making an attack roll ends Hidden.  The enemy knows approximately where you are - enough to make an attack against you.  That doesn't mean he can see you.  (A minor illusion which completely blocks your body should count as being heavily obscured).  You are still unseen, and should get advantage on attack rolls, even though you're not hidden.

If you pop up/around and shoot, you won't be unseen, but you should prevent the enemy from even taking the study action, because they'll have no reason to suspect it's an illusion.

But really, talk to your DM on how they think illusions work.  

I don't think I agree. If you don't want enemies to be automatically know it's an illusion, at the very least the enemies (all of them with a sight line) should get a free perception check to see if they saw the bolt pass through the barrel.  No, cancel that. Making an attack reveals the attackers position (barring Skulker or Greater Invisibility). You can't justify "maybe they think the enemy is behind the barrel" under the rules; "behind the barrel" is not the same position as "at the barrel's position".

In any case, if you're shooting through an illusory barrel, enemies don't necessarily need to take the Study action to determine it's an illusion before they can attack. They could do this thing called "making an educated guess" and just attack at the barrel's position without spending their action to Study.

Quote from Stabbey_TC >>

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

Quote from Foodgeek >>

Quote from MongooseGef >>

Yeah, an ambush is what I'm expecting this tactic to be used for primarily. Anything to give me an extra round or two where I can attack but the enemy can't!

 If you attack through it, they will know it is an illusion. I've used minor illusion to hide my gnome druid at low levels but the monsters we have fought the last few levels (we are 10 now) are way to smart to fall for the trick.  maybe if you're in a room full of barrels (mimics used that trick in a different campaign)...even then maybe not.

 

Quote from Frachese >>

You can hide, but there's some ambiguity as to what you can do without revealing the illusion. The way I see it, shooting through the illusion counts as physical interaction. If someone sees a bolt fly through the object, they will know it's an illusion.

 

I disagree with this. The enemy has to physically interact with the illusion to automatically disbelieve it.  That is, they have to literally walk up and poke it (or poke it with something they're physically touching) to know that it actually went through the object without resistance, not just close to it.  (If they're throwing something at the illusion to see if it passes through, that should be a study action).  Letting everyone who thinks they see something pass through an illusion automatically disbelieve it makes illusion magic far too weak. 

(I will agree the rules passages to this effect are readable both ways, but it makes far more sense for the 'accidental' discovery that something is an illusion to be a bit more involved than just seeing something far from you - whereas if your hand passes through it, you know it's not real.  That's what physical interaction should look like.  If it would just make them think 'huh, that was weird', that's grounds for investigation, not automatic disbelief.  And i think this is the better reading too, because belief or disbelief in the illusion is decided individually for each creature, so the physical interaction should be individual for each creature).

So seeing a crossbow bolt come from vaguely the direction of a barrel 60' away might not even be suspicious.  Maybe someone is behind the barrel and popped up to fire over it.  It might give him reason to suspect its an illusion, especially the second time it happens, when he's paying more attention to the barrel because he suspects someone is behind it, and doesn't see anyone pop up. (and that would allow him to take the study action - i wouldn't even let him make a study action unless something gave him a reason to be suspicious).

That said, you can't be hidden and firing your crossbow, because making an attack roll ends Hidden.  The enemy knows approximately where you are - enough to make an attack against you.  That doesn't mean he can see you.  (A minor illusion which completely blocks your body should count as being heavily obscured).  You are still unseen, and should get advantage on attack rolls, even though you're not hidden.

If you pop up/around and shoot, you won't be unseen, but you should prevent the enemy from even taking the study action, because they'll have no reason to suspect it's an illusion.

But really, talk to your DM on how they think illusions work.  

 

I don't think I agree. If you don't want enemies to be automatically know it's an illusion, at the very least the enemies (all of them with a sight line) should get a free perception check to see if they saw the bolt pass through the barrel.  No, cancel that. Making an attack reveals the attackers position (barring Skulker or Greater Invisibility). You can't justify "maybe they think the enemy is behind the barrel" under the rules; "behind the barrel" is not the same position as "at the barrel's position".

In any case, if you're shooting through an illusory barrel, enemies don't necessarily need to take the Study action to determine it's an illusion before they can attack. They could do this thing called "making an educated guess" and just attack at the barrel's position without spending their action to Study.

 

 On the one hand, I don't think creatures have radar that tells them the exact position of creatures they can't see.  The rules are not a physics simulator.  They know someone is over there near that barrel somewhere, good enough to potentially target with an attack, but not good enough they actually know they're in the barrel.  Greater invisibility doesn't change this at all - it doesn't hide your position in the first place.  Invisible only makes you unseen, not unheard.  (Skulker only helps on a miss).

On the other hand, that person has apparent full cover.  They don't believe they can target them until they disbelieve the illusion.

And there's no such thing as a free investigation check.  Either it takes a study action, or they haven't done it.  Being suspicious is necessary grounds to take the study action in the first place, not grounds to do it for free.  If they aren't suspicious, they can't even take the study action.  Belief in the illusion is the default state.

If am a sentient entity and I see a crossbow bolt come out of a solid object, I might not KNOW for 100% certain that it's an illusion, but I might be willing to test that out by attacking at the solid object. Phantasmal Force has text which explicitly says (paraphrasing) any contradictions are justified by the target's mind. I don't agree that the "any contradictions are justified" clause applies to all illusions, so that a bolt coming from a solid barrel isn't going to raise some suspicions in the mind of a sentient entity.

I agree that the attacker won't be able to see the person hiding in the illusion of the barrel. However, if they have seen a bolt coming through a "solid barrel," I don't think that they are blocked from from targeting the barrel until they spend an action to do a Study action. If the attacker pops up out of the barrel to attack, then ducks down, then the attacker would not have cause to disbelieve the illusion and attack the barrel - for that they'd need a Study action.

Quote from Stabbey_TC >>

If am a sentient entity and I see a crossbow bolt come out of a solid object, I might not KNOW for 100% certain that it's an illusion, but I might be willing to test that out by attacking at the solid object. Phantasmal Force has text which explicitly says (paraphrasing) any contradictions are justified by the target's mind. I don't agree that the "any contradictions are justified" clause applies to all illusions, so that a bolt coming from a solid barrel isn't going to raise some suspicions in the mind of a sentient entity.

I agree that the attacker won't be able to see the person hiding in the illusion of the barrel. However, if they have seen a bolt coming through a "solid barrel," I don't think that they are blocked from from targeting the barrel until they spend an action to do a Study action. If the attacker pops up out of the barrel to attack, then ducks down, then the attacker would not have cause to disbelieve the illusion and attack the barrel - for that they'd need a Study action.

 Human perception isn't that perfect.  He'd see a crossbow bolt that came from the vicinity of the barrel.  Did it pass through the barrel?  He wouldn't know.

And the rule in spells like silent image says: "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, since things can pass through it."  Not seeing physical interaction with an illusion, actual physical interaction by the creature.  

Phantasmal Force makes it nearly impossible to justify a study action at all, because you automatically justify the results of 'physical interaction' with the illusion.  So while you could take a study action, theoretically, you probably won't, because the spell actively convinces you that it's behaving normally for whatever it is you're experiencing.

Quote from Squirrelloid >>

Quote from Stabbey_TC >>

If am a sentient entity and I see a crossbow bolt come out of a solid object, I might not KNOW for 100% certain that it's an illusion, but I might be willing to test that out by attacking at the solid object. Phantasmal Force has text which explicitly says (paraphrasing) any contradictions are justified by the target's mind. I don't agree that the "any contradictions are justified" clause applies to all illusions, so that a bolt coming from a solid barrel isn't going to raise some suspicions in the mind of a sentient entity.

I agree that the attacker won't be able to see the person hiding in the illusion of the barrel. However, if they have seen a bolt coming through a "solid barrel," I don't think that they are blocked from from targeting the barrel until they spend an action to do a Study action. If the attacker pops up out of the barrel to attack, then ducks down, then the attacker would not have cause to disbelieve the illusion and attack the barrel - for that they'd need a Study action.

 Human perception isn't that perfect.  He'd see a crossbow bolt that came from the vicinity of the barrel.  Did it pass through the barrel?  He wouldn't know.

And the rule in spells like silent image says: "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, since things can pass through it."  Not seeing physical interaction with an illusion, actual physical interaction by the creature.  

Phantasmal Force makes it nearly impossible to justify a study action at all, because you automatically justify the results of 'physical interaction' with the illusion.  So while you could take a study action, theoretically, you probably won't, because the spell actively convinces you that it's behaving normally for whatever it is you're experiencing.

If there is doubt about whether the creature saw the bolt pass through the barrel or not, that's what perception checks are there for. You should not just arbitrarily declare that it's impossible for anyone to see the origin of the bolt when there are systems for arbitrating whether or not someone perceives something.

Not seeing physical interaction with an illusion, actual physical interaction by the creature.  

You're literally making up rules which don't exist. Nothing in the text says anything about who has to physically interact with the image.

Quote from Stabbey_TC >>

Quote from Squirrelloid>>

Quote from Stabbey_TC>>

If am a sentient entity and I see a crossbow bolt come out of a solid object, I might not KNOW for 100% certain that it's an illusion, but I might be willing to test that out by attacking at the solid object. Phantasmal Force has text which explicitly says (paraphrasing) any contradictions are justified by the target's mind. I don't agree that the "any contradictions are justified" clause applies to all illusions, so that a bolt coming from a solid barrel isn't going to raise some suspicions in the mind of a sentient entity.

I agree that the attacker won't be able to see the person hiding in the illusion of the barrel. However, if they have seen a bolt coming through a "solid barrel," I don't think that they are blocked from from targeting the barrel until they spend an action to do a Study action. If the attacker pops up out of the barrel to attack, then ducks down, then the attacker would not have cause to disbelieve the illusion and attack the barrel - for that they'd need a Study action.

 Human perception isn't that perfect.  He'd see a crossbow bolt that came from the vicinity of the barrel.  Did it pass through the barrel?  He wouldn't know.

And the rule in spells like silent image says: "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, since things can pass through it."  Not seeing physical interaction with an illusion, actual physical interaction by the creature.  

Phantasmal Force makes it nearly impossible to justify a study action at all, because you automatically justify the results of 'physical interaction' with the illusion.  So while you could take a study action, theoretically, you probably won't, because the spell actively convinces you that it's behaving normally for whatever it is you're experiencing.

If there is doubt about whether the creature saw the bolt pass through the barrel or not, that's what perception checks are there for. You should not just arbitrarily declare that it's impossible for anyone to see the origin of the bolt when there are systems for arbitrating whether or not someone perceives something

Not seeing physical interaction with an illusion, actual physical interaction by the creature.  

You're literally making up rules which don't exist. Nothing in the text says anything about who has to physically interact with the image.

I'm afraid you're making up rules which don't exist.  The rules never say seeing physical interaction with it reveals it to be an illusion.  The rules require actual physical interaction, because you can't use different implied agents for the different parts of the sentence.  If you physically interact with it, then it is revealed to you to be an illusion.  Knowledge its an illusion is individual -- telling something its an illusion only gives them grounds for studying it or interacting with it themselves.  

Further, basic logic demands that conclusion.  Seeing is never referenced at all with respect to the physical interaction.  And it cannot be the case that any physical interaction qualifies, because if I create an illusion of a barrel around my friend that necessarily passes through them, so they immediately know its an illusion, but no one else could even observe the part which passes through them, nobody else knows its an illusion.  Yet there was physical interaction.  Physical interaction with another creature, on its own, cannot be enough to affect your knowledge, ergo, it must be your physical interaction to provide you with knowledge its an illusion.

i agree it could be better worded.  

I will grant a perception check could give them reasonable suspicion it was an illusion, but you don't just get a perception check.  Perception checks require a search action (which they'd have to ready in this case).  Now, if their passive perception is great, sure, i'll also grant that could give them suspicion.  But it's not going to be an easy perception DC unless you're very close or its the second bolt and you're already paying attention to the barrel.  (And suspicion only gets you to 'take a study action', not automatic disbelief).

I still don't agree, but I'm not invested enough to spend more energy arguing.