Can I create an upright 7-foot × 5-foot wall with the Minor Illusion spell?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







31












$begingroup$


The Minor Illusion spell description states:




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 image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it.




(emphasis mine). My question is how to interpret this cube. If we rotate the cube vertically so that it looks like a diamond from the side (the cube in red in the drawing), i.e. the diagonal of the cube is vertical, then a 7ft by 5ft wall would certainly fit, since the diagonal (the blue line) is about 7ft long:



Red is a 5ft cube, blue is a wall 7ft tall, 5ft wide (the width doesn't really matter here)



Much better drawing thanks to @Sdjz:



Actually reasonable visualisation



Is this "layout" of a cube valid for the Minor Illusion spell?



Note that this could potentially change the argument of the answer to "Can I use Minor Illusion to create a wall, hide behind it, and attack with advantage?".



Also related: How does orienting a cube-shaped spell work in three-dimensional space?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    Mar 25 at 22:59






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    For the record I like the original drawing way better. (no offense to sdjz)
    $endgroup$
    – lightcat
    Mar 26 at 12:41


















31












$begingroup$


The Minor Illusion spell description states:




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 image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it.




(emphasis mine). My question is how to interpret this cube. If we rotate the cube vertically so that it looks like a diamond from the side (the cube in red in the drawing), i.e. the diagonal of the cube is vertical, then a 7ft by 5ft wall would certainly fit, since the diagonal (the blue line) is about 7ft long:



Red is a 5ft cube, blue is a wall 7ft tall, 5ft wide (the width doesn't really matter here)



Much better drawing thanks to @Sdjz:



Actually reasonable visualisation



Is this "layout" of a cube valid for the Minor Illusion spell?



Note that this could potentially change the argument of the answer to "Can I use Minor Illusion to create a wall, hide behind it, and attack with advantage?".



Also related: How does orienting a cube-shaped spell work in three-dimensional space?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    Mar 25 at 22:59






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    For the record I like the original drawing way better. (no offense to sdjz)
    $endgroup$
    – lightcat
    Mar 26 at 12:41














31












31








31





$begingroup$


The Minor Illusion spell description states:




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 image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it.




(emphasis mine). My question is how to interpret this cube. If we rotate the cube vertically so that it looks like a diamond from the side (the cube in red in the drawing), i.e. the diagonal of the cube is vertical, then a 7ft by 5ft wall would certainly fit, since the diagonal (the blue line) is about 7ft long:



Red is a 5ft cube, blue is a wall 7ft tall, 5ft wide (the width doesn't really matter here)



Much better drawing thanks to @Sdjz:



Actually reasonable visualisation



Is this "layout" of a cube valid for the Minor Illusion spell?



Note that this could potentially change the argument of the answer to "Can I use Minor Illusion to create a wall, hide behind it, and attack with advantage?".



Also related: How does orienting a cube-shaped spell work in three-dimensional space?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




The Minor Illusion spell description states:




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 image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it.




(emphasis mine). My question is how to interpret this cube. If we rotate the cube vertically so that it looks like a diamond from the side (the cube in red in the drawing), i.e. the diagonal of the cube is vertical, then a 7ft by 5ft wall would certainly fit, since the diagonal (the blue line) is about 7ft long:



Red is a 5ft cube, blue is a wall 7ft tall, 5ft wide (the width doesn't really matter here)



Much better drawing thanks to @Sdjz:



Actually reasonable visualisation



Is this "layout" of a cube valid for the Minor Illusion spell?



Note that this could potentially change the argument of the answer to "Can I use Minor Illusion to create a wall, hide behind it, and attack with advantage?".



Also related: How does orienting a cube-shaped spell work in three-dimensional space?







dnd-5e spells area-of-effect






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 25 at 23:01









V2Blast

26.1k590159




26.1k590159










asked Mar 25 at 18:55









SebasSebas

25718




25718












  • $begingroup$
    Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    Mar 25 at 22:59






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    For the record I like the original drawing way better. (no offense to sdjz)
    $endgroup$
    – lightcat
    Mar 26 at 12:41


















  • $begingroup$
    Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    Mar 25 at 22:59






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    For the record I like the original drawing way better. (no offense to sdjz)
    $endgroup$
    – lightcat
    Mar 26 at 12:41
















$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Mar 25 at 22:59




$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Mar 25 at 22:59




4




4




$begingroup$
For the record I like the original drawing way better. (no offense to sdjz)
$endgroup$
– lightcat
Mar 26 at 12:41




$begingroup$
For the record I like the original drawing way better. (no offense to sdjz)
$endgroup$
– lightcat
Mar 26 at 12:41










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















27












$begingroup$

Yes, though a DM might not want to deal with abnormal spell positioning



In the Sage Advice compendium, a similar question was asked about the spell Cloud of Daggers:




Using 5-foot squares, does cloud of daggers affect a single square? Cloud of daggers (5 ft. cube) can affect more than one square on a grid, unless the DM says effects snap to the grid. There are many ways to position that cube.




While the Sage Advice article deals with a different spell, the matter is directly related to your question. To wit: "non-snapped" positioning of a spell's area of effect is legal, strictly speaking, though it might not fly with a DM who can house-rule otherwise.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    3












    $begingroup$

    The answer is technically yes.



    Due to the wording of the spell, if the object (illusion) that you want to create fits within the 5 ft cube, you can use the spell to create it. However, like all interpretations of the rules in D&D, the DM makes the final decision. Especially in this scenario, the DM might decide that the theoretical cube (the size requirement) must be placed flat on the ground or something like that. What I'm trying to say, is that even if the DM allows it, they might not let it work the way that you want.



    Good question. I really love that you are using your math to find loopholes in the rules; I'll have to remember to do that myself in the future. Hope this helped!






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Worth a caveat about the math: The main problem with doing math in D&D for these kinds of things is that at least one person (the DM) has to think about, understand and approve your math. Other players might have to at least understand it to know what is going on in the game. Eventually the group as a whole can end up doing quite a lot of math to explain 6 seconds in the game world, and less of the rest of D&D as a result, all to get some marginal benefit out of a low-level effect. This could be fun if enough of you like geometry and trigonometry problems, but it is somewhat niche.
      $endgroup$
      – Neil Slater
      Mar 26 at 7:56










    • $begingroup$
      Yeah, I can see that.
      $endgroup$
      – Smart_TJ
      Mar 26 at 10:09



















    -4












    $begingroup$

    The other answers do a great job of covering the RAI perspective. If you'd like to push it further, there's also:



    Rules-lawyer It for Maximum Cheese



    The spell description doesn't say the image you create must fit inside of a 5-foot cube. It says it must be "no larger than" a 5 foot cube. Which says it's about putting the total size (or, since we're dealing with a 3-dimensional object, "volume") of a 5-foot cube against the total size (again, volume) of the illusion.



    That gives you 125 cubic-feet to work with, so you can do a 7' x 5' wall so long as it's not more than ~3.5' thick. Or make it half an inch thick instead, and you can have a 7' x 425' wall, which is even better and still strictly not larger than a 5-foot cube.



    I assume an infinitely large planar image (of zero thickness) would be out, however, as the description at least implies that the illusion is 3-dimensional and based upon some tangible object that you've actually observed in the 3-dimensional world. But if you're good at dividing by very small fractions of units then even taller and longer walls should be possible. It's not like illusory walls need any significant thickness to be effective, and you can probably argue that you've seen some quite flimsy/thin facade walls before.



    You should be prepared for your DM to cite this answer to the question "Does “no larger than” imply shapability?" (or something like it) in reply.



    At which point you'll have to do some further rules-lawyering to argue that the 5-foot cube constraint isn't describing the area of effect for the spell. You're not being asked to choose an existing area or object to work within or upon; you're told you can create a magical image of any object you like, subject to the constraints that it:




    • doesn't create sound, light, smell, or any other sensory effect; and

    • is not strictly larger than a 5-foot cube


    A tall, long, skinny wall is not volumetrically larger than a 5-foot cube and does not create sensory effects, so it should therefore be allowed.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$














      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "122"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143902%2fcan-i-create-an-upright-7-foot-%25c3%2597-5-foot-wall-with-the-minor-illusion-spell%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









      27












      $begingroup$

      Yes, though a DM might not want to deal with abnormal spell positioning



      In the Sage Advice compendium, a similar question was asked about the spell Cloud of Daggers:




      Using 5-foot squares, does cloud of daggers affect a single square? Cloud of daggers (5 ft. cube) can affect more than one square on a grid, unless the DM says effects snap to the grid. There are many ways to position that cube.




      While the Sage Advice article deals with a different spell, the matter is directly related to your question. To wit: "non-snapped" positioning of a spell's area of effect is legal, strictly speaking, though it might not fly with a DM who can house-rule otherwise.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        27












        $begingroup$

        Yes, though a DM might not want to deal with abnormal spell positioning



        In the Sage Advice compendium, a similar question was asked about the spell Cloud of Daggers:




        Using 5-foot squares, does cloud of daggers affect a single square? Cloud of daggers (5 ft. cube) can affect more than one square on a grid, unless the DM says effects snap to the grid. There are many ways to position that cube.




        While the Sage Advice article deals with a different spell, the matter is directly related to your question. To wit: "non-snapped" positioning of a spell's area of effect is legal, strictly speaking, though it might not fly with a DM who can house-rule otherwise.






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          27












          27








          27





          $begingroup$

          Yes, though a DM might not want to deal with abnormal spell positioning



          In the Sage Advice compendium, a similar question was asked about the spell Cloud of Daggers:




          Using 5-foot squares, does cloud of daggers affect a single square? Cloud of daggers (5 ft. cube) can affect more than one square on a grid, unless the DM says effects snap to the grid. There are many ways to position that cube.




          While the Sage Advice article deals with a different spell, the matter is directly related to your question. To wit: "non-snapped" positioning of a spell's area of effect is legal, strictly speaking, though it might not fly with a DM who can house-rule otherwise.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Yes, though a DM might not want to deal with abnormal spell positioning



          In the Sage Advice compendium, a similar question was asked about the spell Cloud of Daggers:




          Using 5-foot squares, does cloud of daggers affect a single square? Cloud of daggers (5 ft. cube) can affect more than one square on a grid, unless the DM says effects snap to the grid. There are many ways to position that cube.




          While the Sage Advice article deals with a different spell, the matter is directly related to your question. To wit: "non-snapped" positioning of a spell's area of effect is legal, strictly speaking, though it might not fly with a DM who can house-rule otherwise.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Mar 25 at 19:35

























          answered Mar 25 at 19:00









          RykaraRykara

          5,0761141




          5,0761141

























              3












              $begingroup$

              The answer is technically yes.



              Due to the wording of the spell, if the object (illusion) that you want to create fits within the 5 ft cube, you can use the spell to create it. However, like all interpretations of the rules in D&D, the DM makes the final decision. Especially in this scenario, the DM might decide that the theoretical cube (the size requirement) must be placed flat on the ground or something like that. What I'm trying to say, is that even if the DM allows it, they might not let it work the way that you want.



              Good question. I really love that you are using your math to find loopholes in the rules; I'll have to remember to do that myself in the future. Hope this helped!






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Worth a caveat about the math: The main problem with doing math in D&D for these kinds of things is that at least one person (the DM) has to think about, understand and approve your math. Other players might have to at least understand it to know what is going on in the game. Eventually the group as a whole can end up doing quite a lot of math to explain 6 seconds in the game world, and less of the rest of D&D as a result, all to get some marginal benefit out of a low-level effect. This could be fun if enough of you like geometry and trigonometry problems, but it is somewhat niche.
                $endgroup$
                – Neil Slater
                Mar 26 at 7:56










              • $begingroup$
                Yeah, I can see that.
                $endgroup$
                – Smart_TJ
                Mar 26 at 10:09
















              3












              $begingroup$

              The answer is technically yes.



              Due to the wording of the spell, if the object (illusion) that you want to create fits within the 5 ft cube, you can use the spell to create it. However, like all interpretations of the rules in D&D, the DM makes the final decision. Especially in this scenario, the DM might decide that the theoretical cube (the size requirement) must be placed flat on the ground or something like that. What I'm trying to say, is that even if the DM allows it, they might not let it work the way that you want.



              Good question. I really love that you are using your math to find loopholes in the rules; I'll have to remember to do that myself in the future. Hope this helped!






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Worth a caveat about the math: The main problem with doing math in D&D for these kinds of things is that at least one person (the DM) has to think about, understand and approve your math. Other players might have to at least understand it to know what is going on in the game. Eventually the group as a whole can end up doing quite a lot of math to explain 6 seconds in the game world, and less of the rest of D&D as a result, all to get some marginal benefit out of a low-level effect. This could be fun if enough of you like geometry and trigonometry problems, but it is somewhat niche.
                $endgroup$
                – Neil Slater
                Mar 26 at 7:56










              • $begingroup$
                Yeah, I can see that.
                $endgroup$
                – Smart_TJ
                Mar 26 at 10:09














              3












              3








              3





              $begingroup$

              The answer is technically yes.



              Due to the wording of the spell, if the object (illusion) that you want to create fits within the 5 ft cube, you can use the spell to create it. However, like all interpretations of the rules in D&D, the DM makes the final decision. Especially in this scenario, the DM might decide that the theoretical cube (the size requirement) must be placed flat on the ground or something like that. What I'm trying to say, is that even if the DM allows it, they might not let it work the way that you want.



              Good question. I really love that you are using your math to find loopholes in the rules; I'll have to remember to do that myself in the future. Hope this helped!






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              The answer is technically yes.



              Due to the wording of the spell, if the object (illusion) that you want to create fits within the 5 ft cube, you can use the spell to create it. However, like all interpretations of the rules in D&D, the DM makes the final decision. Especially in this scenario, the DM might decide that the theoretical cube (the size requirement) must be placed flat on the ground or something like that. What I'm trying to say, is that even if the DM allows it, they might not let it work the way that you want.



              Good question. I really love that you are using your math to find loopholes in the rules; I'll have to remember to do that myself in the future. Hope this helped!







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Mar 25 at 23:02









              V2Blast

              26.1k590159




              26.1k590159










              answered Mar 25 at 20:47









              Smart_TJSmart_TJ

              52915




              52915












              • $begingroup$
                Worth a caveat about the math: The main problem with doing math in D&D for these kinds of things is that at least one person (the DM) has to think about, understand and approve your math. Other players might have to at least understand it to know what is going on in the game. Eventually the group as a whole can end up doing quite a lot of math to explain 6 seconds in the game world, and less of the rest of D&D as a result, all to get some marginal benefit out of a low-level effect. This could be fun if enough of you like geometry and trigonometry problems, but it is somewhat niche.
                $endgroup$
                – Neil Slater
                Mar 26 at 7:56










              • $begingroup$
                Yeah, I can see that.
                $endgroup$
                – Smart_TJ
                Mar 26 at 10:09


















              • $begingroup$
                Worth a caveat about the math: The main problem with doing math in D&D for these kinds of things is that at least one person (the DM) has to think about, understand and approve your math. Other players might have to at least understand it to know what is going on in the game. Eventually the group as a whole can end up doing quite a lot of math to explain 6 seconds in the game world, and less of the rest of D&D as a result, all to get some marginal benefit out of a low-level effect. This could be fun if enough of you like geometry and trigonometry problems, but it is somewhat niche.
                $endgroup$
                – Neil Slater
                Mar 26 at 7:56










              • $begingroup$
                Yeah, I can see that.
                $endgroup$
                – Smart_TJ
                Mar 26 at 10:09
















              $begingroup$
              Worth a caveat about the math: The main problem with doing math in D&D for these kinds of things is that at least one person (the DM) has to think about, understand and approve your math. Other players might have to at least understand it to know what is going on in the game. Eventually the group as a whole can end up doing quite a lot of math to explain 6 seconds in the game world, and less of the rest of D&D as a result, all to get some marginal benefit out of a low-level effect. This could be fun if enough of you like geometry and trigonometry problems, but it is somewhat niche.
              $endgroup$
              – Neil Slater
              Mar 26 at 7:56




              $begingroup$
              Worth a caveat about the math: The main problem with doing math in D&D for these kinds of things is that at least one person (the DM) has to think about, understand and approve your math. Other players might have to at least understand it to know what is going on in the game. Eventually the group as a whole can end up doing quite a lot of math to explain 6 seconds in the game world, and less of the rest of D&D as a result, all to get some marginal benefit out of a low-level effect. This could be fun if enough of you like geometry and trigonometry problems, but it is somewhat niche.
              $endgroup$
              – Neil Slater
              Mar 26 at 7:56












              $begingroup$
              Yeah, I can see that.
              $endgroup$
              – Smart_TJ
              Mar 26 at 10:09




              $begingroup$
              Yeah, I can see that.
              $endgroup$
              – Smart_TJ
              Mar 26 at 10:09











              -4












              $begingroup$

              The other answers do a great job of covering the RAI perspective. If you'd like to push it further, there's also:



              Rules-lawyer It for Maximum Cheese



              The spell description doesn't say the image you create must fit inside of a 5-foot cube. It says it must be "no larger than" a 5 foot cube. Which says it's about putting the total size (or, since we're dealing with a 3-dimensional object, "volume") of a 5-foot cube against the total size (again, volume) of the illusion.



              That gives you 125 cubic-feet to work with, so you can do a 7' x 5' wall so long as it's not more than ~3.5' thick. Or make it half an inch thick instead, and you can have a 7' x 425' wall, which is even better and still strictly not larger than a 5-foot cube.



              I assume an infinitely large planar image (of zero thickness) would be out, however, as the description at least implies that the illusion is 3-dimensional and based upon some tangible object that you've actually observed in the 3-dimensional world. But if you're good at dividing by very small fractions of units then even taller and longer walls should be possible. It's not like illusory walls need any significant thickness to be effective, and you can probably argue that you've seen some quite flimsy/thin facade walls before.



              You should be prepared for your DM to cite this answer to the question "Does “no larger than” imply shapability?" (or something like it) in reply.



              At which point you'll have to do some further rules-lawyering to argue that the 5-foot cube constraint isn't describing the area of effect for the spell. You're not being asked to choose an existing area or object to work within or upon; you're told you can create a magical image of any object you like, subject to the constraints that it:




              • doesn't create sound, light, smell, or any other sensory effect; and

              • is not strictly larger than a 5-foot cube


              A tall, long, skinny wall is not volumetrically larger than a 5-foot cube and does not create sensory effects, so it should therefore be allowed.






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                -4












                $begingroup$

                The other answers do a great job of covering the RAI perspective. If you'd like to push it further, there's also:



                Rules-lawyer It for Maximum Cheese



                The spell description doesn't say the image you create must fit inside of a 5-foot cube. It says it must be "no larger than" a 5 foot cube. Which says it's about putting the total size (or, since we're dealing with a 3-dimensional object, "volume") of a 5-foot cube against the total size (again, volume) of the illusion.



                That gives you 125 cubic-feet to work with, so you can do a 7' x 5' wall so long as it's not more than ~3.5' thick. Or make it half an inch thick instead, and you can have a 7' x 425' wall, which is even better and still strictly not larger than a 5-foot cube.



                I assume an infinitely large planar image (of zero thickness) would be out, however, as the description at least implies that the illusion is 3-dimensional and based upon some tangible object that you've actually observed in the 3-dimensional world. But if you're good at dividing by very small fractions of units then even taller and longer walls should be possible. It's not like illusory walls need any significant thickness to be effective, and you can probably argue that you've seen some quite flimsy/thin facade walls before.



                You should be prepared for your DM to cite this answer to the question "Does “no larger than” imply shapability?" (or something like it) in reply.



                At which point you'll have to do some further rules-lawyering to argue that the 5-foot cube constraint isn't describing the area of effect for the spell. You're not being asked to choose an existing area or object to work within or upon; you're told you can create a magical image of any object you like, subject to the constraints that it:




                • doesn't create sound, light, smell, or any other sensory effect; and

                • is not strictly larger than a 5-foot cube


                A tall, long, skinny wall is not volumetrically larger than a 5-foot cube and does not create sensory effects, so it should therefore be allowed.






                share|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  -4












                  -4








                  -4





                  $begingroup$

                  The other answers do a great job of covering the RAI perspective. If you'd like to push it further, there's also:



                  Rules-lawyer It for Maximum Cheese



                  The spell description doesn't say the image you create must fit inside of a 5-foot cube. It says it must be "no larger than" a 5 foot cube. Which says it's about putting the total size (or, since we're dealing with a 3-dimensional object, "volume") of a 5-foot cube against the total size (again, volume) of the illusion.



                  That gives you 125 cubic-feet to work with, so you can do a 7' x 5' wall so long as it's not more than ~3.5' thick. Or make it half an inch thick instead, and you can have a 7' x 425' wall, which is even better and still strictly not larger than a 5-foot cube.



                  I assume an infinitely large planar image (of zero thickness) would be out, however, as the description at least implies that the illusion is 3-dimensional and based upon some tangible object that you've actually observed in the 3-dimensional world. But if you're good at dividing by very small fractions of units then even taller and longer walls should be possible. It's not like illusory walls need any significant thickness to be effective, and you can probably argue that you've seen some quite flimsy/thin facade walls before.



                  You should be prepared for your DM to cite this answer to the question "Does “no larger than” imply shapability?" (or something like it) in reply.



                  At which point you'll have to do some further rules-lawyering to argue that the 5-foot cube constraint isn't describing the area of effect for the spell. You're not being asked to choose an existing area or object to work within or upon; you're told you can create a magical image of any object you like, subject to the constraints that it:




                  • doesn't create sound, light, smell, or any other sensory effect; and

                  • is not strictly larger than a 5-foot cube


                  A tall, long, skinny wall is not volumetrically larger than a 5-foot cube and does not create sensory effects, so it should therefore be allowed.






                  share|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  The other answers do a great job of covering the RAI perspective. If you'd like to push it further, there's also:



                  Rules-lawyer It for Maximum Cheese



                  The spell description doesn't say the image you create must fit inside of a 5-foot cube. It says it must be "no larger than" a 5 foot cube. Which says it's about putting the total size (or, since we're dealing with a 3-dimensional object, "volume") of a 5-foot cube against the total size (again, volume) of the illusion.



                  That gives you 125 cubic-feet to work with, so you can do a 7' x 5' wall so long as it's not more than ~3.5' thick. Or make it half an inch thick instead, and you can have a 7' x 425' wall, which is even better and still strictly not larger than a 5-foot cube.



                  I assume an infinitely large planar image (of zero thickness) would be out, however, as the description at least implies that the illusion is 3-dimensional and based upon some tangible object that you've actually observed in the 3-dimensional world. But if you're good at dividing by very small fractions of units then even taller and longer walls should be possible. It's not like illusory walls need any significant thickness to be effective, and you can probably argue that you've seen some quite flimsy/thin facade walls before.



                  You should be prepared for your DM to cite this answer to the question "Does “no larger than” imply shapability?" (or something like it) in reply.



                  At which point you'll have to do some further rules-lawyering to argue that the 5-foot cube constraint isn't describing the area of effect for the spell. You're not being asked to choose an existing area or object to work within or upon; you're told you can create a magical image of any object you like, subject to the constraints that it:




                  • doesn't create sound, light, smell, or any other sensory effect; and

                  • is not strictly larger than a 5-foot cube


                  A tall, long, skinny wall is not volumetrically larger than a 5-foot cube and does not create sensory effects, so it should therefore be allowed.







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Mar 26 at 23:23









                  V2Blast

                  26.1k590159




                  26.1k590159










                  answered Mar 26 at 22:12









                  arotharoth

                  7512511




                  7512511






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143902%2fcan-i-create-an-upright-7-foot-%25c3%2597-5-foot-wall-with-the-minor-illusion-spell%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

                      "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'. (on update cascade, on delete cascade,)

                      Alcedinidae

                      Origin of the phrase “under your belt”?