How would something passing through an illusion of fog or mist reveal it to be illusory?











up vote
18
down vote

favorite
1












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?










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    @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.
    – SevenSidedDie
    yesterday








  • 2




    @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.
    – SevenSidedDie
    yesterday

















up vote
18
down vote

favorite
1












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?










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    @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.
    – SevenSidedDie
    yesterday








  • 2




    @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.
    – SevenSidedDie
    yesterday















up vote
18
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
18
down vote

favorite
1






1





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?










share|improve this question















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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday









V2Blast

17.9k248113




17.9k248113










asked yesterday









MarkTO

1,11216




1,11216








  • 1




    @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.
    – SevenSidedDie
    yesterday








  • 2




    @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.
    – SevenSidedDie
    yesterday
















  • 1




    @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.
    – SevenSidedDie
    yesterday








  • 2




    @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.
    – SevenSidedDie
    yesterday










1




1




@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.
– SevenSidedDie
yesterday






@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.
– SevenSidedDie
yesterday






2




2




@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.
– SevenSidedDie
yesterday






@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.
– SevenSidedDie
yesterday












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
20
down vote



accepted










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.)






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    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.
    – guildsbounty
    yesterday












  • @guildsbounty That's a good point. I'll add that as well.
    – Ryan Thompson
    yesterday










  • Fog machine fog works that way, but real fog? I'm not so sure about that.
    – Pink Sweetener
    yesterday










  • @PinkSweetener A cloud of fog contained within a 5-foot cube is more like the product of a fog machine than ambient fog.
    – Ryan Thompson
    yesterday






  • 3




    @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.
    – Gandalfmeansme
    yesterday


















up vote
30
down vote













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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 2




    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?
    – David Mulder
    yesterday






  • 1




    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.
    – Gandalfmeansme
    22 hours ago






  • 3




    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).
    – Gandalfmeansme
    22 hours ago










  • 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.
    – HellSaint
    7 hours ago












  • 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.
    – Gandalfmeansme
    7 hours ago


















up vote
2
down vote













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.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Sobekneferu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 1




    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.
    – Gandalfmeansme
    yesterday











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',
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
});


}
});














 

draft saved


draft discarded


















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








up vote
20
down vote



accepted










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.)






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    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.
    – guildsbounty
    yesterday












  • @guildsbounty That's a good point. I'll add that as well.
    – Ryan Thompson
    yesterday










  • Fog machine fog works that way, but real fog? I'm not so sure about that.
    – Pink Sweetener
    yesterday










  • @PinkSweetener A cloud of fog contained within a 5-foot cube is more like the product of a fog machine than ambient fog.
    – Ryan Thompson
    yesterday






  • 3




    @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.
    – Gandalfmeansme
    yesterday















up vote
20
down vote



accepted










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.)






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    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.
    – guildsbounty
    yesterday












  • @guildsbounty That's a good point. I'll add that as well.
    – Ryan Thompson
    yesterday










  • Fog machine fog works that way, but real fog? I'm not so sure about that.
    – Pink Sweetener
    yesterday










  • @PinkSweetener A cloud of fog contained within a 5-foot cube is more like the product of a fog machine than ambient fog.
    – Ryan Thompson
    yesterday






  • 3




    @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.
    – Gandalfmeansme
    yesterday













up vote
20
down vote



accepted







up vote
20
down vote



accepted






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.)






share|improve this answer














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.)







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 12 hours ago

























answered yesterday









Ryan Thompson

3,74811243




3,74811243








  • 1




    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.
    – guildsbounty
    yesterday












  • @guildsbounty That's a good point. I'll add that as well.
    – Ryan Thompson
    yesterday










  • Fog machine fog works that way, but real fog? I'm not so sure about that.
    – Pink Sweetener
    yesterday










  • @PinkSweetener A cloud of fog contained within a 5-foot cube is more like the product of a fog machine than ambient fog.
    – Ryan Thompson
    yesterday






  • 3




    @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.
    – Gandalfmeansme
    yesterday














  • 1




    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.
    – guildsbounty
    yesterday












  • @guildsbounty That's a good point. I'll add that as well.
    – Ryan Thompson
    yesterday










  • Fog machine fog works that way, but real fog? I'm not so sure about that.
    – Pink Sweetener
    yesterday










  • @PinkSweetener A cloud of fog contained within a 5-foot cube is more like the product of a fog machine than ambient fog.
    – Ryan Thompson
    yesterday






  • 3




    @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.
    – Gandalfmeansme
    yesterday








1




1




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.
– guildsbounty
yesterday






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.
– guildsbounty
yesterday














@guildsbounty That's a good point. I'll add that as well.
– Ryan Thompson
yesterday




@guildsbounty That's a good point. I'll add that as well.
– Ryan Thompson
yesterday












Fog machine fog works that way, but real fog? I'm not so sure about that.
– Pink Sweetener
yesterday




Fog machine fog works that way, but real fog? I'm not so sure about that.
– Pink Sweetener
yesterday












@PinkSweetener A cloud of fog contained within a 5-foot cube is more like the product of a fog machine than ambient fog.
– Ryan Thompson
yesterday




@PinkSweetener A cloud of fog contained within a 5-foot cube is more like the product of a fog machine than ambient fog.
– Ryan Thompson
yesterday




3




3




@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.
– Gandalfmeansme
yesterday




@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.
– Gandalfmeansme
yesterday












up vote
30
down vote













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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 2




    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?
    – David Mulder
    yesterday






  • 1




    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.
    – Gandalfmeansme
    22 hours ago






  • 3




    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).
    – Gandalfmeansme
    22 hours ago










  • 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.
    – HellSaint
    7 hours ago












  • 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.
    – Gandalfmeansme
    7 hours ago















up vote
30
down vote













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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 2




    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?
    – David Mulder
    yesterday






  • 1




    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.
    – Gandalfmeansme
    22 hours ago






  • 3




    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).
    – Gandalfmeansme
    22 hours ago










  • 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.
    – HellSaint
    7 hours ago












  • 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.
    – Gandalfmeansme
    7 hours ago













up vote
30
down vote










up vote
30
down vote









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.






share|improve this answer














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.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited yesterday

























answered yesterday









Gandalfmeansme

16.8k361107




16.8k361107








  • 2




    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?
    – David Mulder
    yesterday






  • 1




    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.
    – Gandalfmeansme
    22 hours ago






  • 3




    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).
    – Gandalfmeansme
    22 hours ago










  • 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.
    – HellSaint
    7 hours ago












  • 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.
    – Gandalfmeansme
    7 hours ago














  • 2




    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?
    – David Mulder
    yesterday






  • 1




    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.
    – Gandalfmeansme
    22 hours ago






  • 3




    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).
    – Gandalfmeansme
    22 hours ago










  • 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.
    – HellSaint
    7 hours ago












  • 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.
    – Gandalfmeansme
    7 hours ago








2




2




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?
– David Mulder
yesterday




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?
– David Mulder
yesterday




1




1




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.
– Gandalfmeansme
22 hours ago




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.
– Gandalfmeansme
22 hours ago




3




3




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).
– Gandalfmeansme
22 hours ago




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).
– Gandalfmeansme
22 hours ago












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.
– HellSaint
7 hours ago






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.
– HellSaint
7 hours ago














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.
– Gandalfmeansme
7 hours ago




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.
– Gandalfmeansme
7 hours ago










up vote
2
down vote













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.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Sobekneferu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 1




    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.
    – Gandalfmeansme
    yesterday















up vote
2
down vote













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.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Sobekneferu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 1




    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.
    – Gandalfmeansme
    yesterday













up vote
2
down vote










up vote
2
down vote









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.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Sobekneferu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









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.







share|improve this answer








New contributor




Sobekneferu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor




Sobekneferu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered yesterday









Sobekneferu

211




211




New contributor




Sobekneferu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Sobekneferu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Sobekneferu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1




    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.
    – Gandalfmeansme
    yesterday














  • 1




    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.
    – Gandalfmeansme
    yesterday








1




1




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.
– Gandalfmeansme
yesterday




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.
– Gandalfmeansme
yesterday


















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

Bundesstraße 106

Verónica Boquete

Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten