Help me understand this Minor Illusion "Inviisibility" trick!

[Laurefindel]

The image of a person would be decidedly not an object.

Fine-Arts me disagrees. Even philosopher me disagrees. A person isn't merely an object, but its body is an object in space. It's material and tangible. Being sentient doesn't make your body less of an object.

The one-object limit can quickly become rather limiting if taken literally however. Is a sheathed sword an object, or is the scabbard a different one? Can you make the illusion of a pile of gold, or are you limited to a single gold piece? Does an illusionary barrel needs to appear empty? Could it have a tap? Is a skeleton an object or is it just a number of bones?

[Cybren]

Fine-Arts me disagrees. Even philosopher me disagrees. A person isn't merely an object, but its body is an object in space. It's material and tangible. Being sentient doesn't make your body less of an object.

The one-object limit can quickly become rather limiting if taken literally however. Is a sheathed sword an object, or is the scabbard a different one? Can you make the illusion of a pile of gold, or are you limited to a single gold piece? Does an illusionary barrel needs to appear empty? Could it have a tap? Is a skeleton an object or is it just a number of bones?

Object is a game mechanical construct. This post is just sophistry

[Laurefindel]

Object is a game mechanical construct. This post is just sophistry

True, I forgot that major image specifies object AND creature.

The second part was an honest question though. What constitute a single object? Text for Minor Illusion does include muddy footprints as an example. Is a pile of gold pieces an object? It also lists a chair and a chest as examples, and while I understand you can't make a single minor illusion of a chest on a chair, could you make a sheathed sword?

[Cybren]

True, I forgot that major image specifies object AND creature.

The second part was an honest question though. What constitute a single object? Text for Minor Illusion does include muddy footprints as an example. Is a pile of gold pieces an object? It also lists a chair and a chest as examples, and while I understand you can't make a single minor illusion of a chest on a chair, could you make a sheathed sword?

For that I will simply say we should all strive to be Justice Potter Stewart

[Laurefindel]

For that I will simply say we should all strive to be Justice Potter Stewart

hum, I'm not familiar with American justice/politics. Is that the "I know it when I see see it" thing? So a "rulings not rules" kind of deal?

[Segev]

Another possibility, which I had not considered till now; muddy footprints might simply refer to a single grouping.
i.e. Two muddy footprints.

Generally, I assume that the "muddy footprints" example is achieved by creating the image of an object that is a mud patch, and that mud patch is shaped such that it has footprints in it.

I did get a good laugh out of your claim that Segev provided textual support.

Pretending that I haven't doesn't make it not so. I won't bother again, however, as you've demonstrated repeatedly that you are unwilling or unable to read and respond with intellectual honesty to my detailed references in the text. The BEST reply you've given is "nuh-uh, I say it is this way because this list of things falls into this category, and it falls into this category because it's on this list, but this list isn't arbitrary because it just isn't."

When that was picked apart, you started trying to redefine "arbitrary" and argued in ever-wider circles until you hoped we'd lost sight of the original point so that you could use your claim, again, as a premise to justify your claim.

And we're back here, now, to you pretending I never gave textual support, hoping that people have forgotten when I did. All you have to do to find it is reread my discussion in this thread with BurgerBeast. It contains little to nothing new (except, perhaps, in phrasing) from when I discussed it with you in the other threads. But by all means, substitute smirking and laughter for debate in hopes that people assume you're not full of it when you declare that anybody who says the Emperor has no clothes is patently stupid.

[Douche]

DM fiat can do anything, but as far as I'm concerned, if an object (oe effect that normally couldn't) passes through the illusion, that counts as physical interaction- anything that sees that happen isn't affected by the illusion anymore. Basically, 1 free hide if you can use it to ambush enemies, otherwise no.

Yeah, and with all the other points made in this thread, I think it'd be more believable to just hide in a barrel or some similar piece of scenery. Turn yourself into a lazy-boy, or a suit of armor, or a pile of potatoes. Don't try to replicate a 2nd level spell with a cantrip

[Vogonjeltz]

True, I forgot that major image specifies object AND creature.

The second part was an honest question though. What constitute a single object? Text for Minor Illusion does include muddy footprints as an example. Is a pile of gold pieces an object? It also lists a chair and a chest as examples, and while I understand you can't make a single minor illusion of a chest on a chair, could you make a sheathed sword?

As the sword can't be drawn, I suppose I'd say yes.

That being said, I don't see a reason why it would matter if the sword had no sheathe at all (greatswords typically have none, iirc).

Generally, I assume that the "muddy footprints" example is achieved by creating the image of an object that is a mud patch, and that mud patch is shaped such that it has footprints in it.

I had assumed that at first too, but it makes a little more sense if it's just the prints on stone or wood, like someone had just walked into a house after tromping around in the mud. They leave prints behind, not a whole pile of mud typically.

As written it suggests just prints, not a patch of mud.