A really good use for Major Image.

[Battlebooze]

In my current game I'm running a sixth level Half-elf Lore Bard. I've been roleplaying him as a traveling rockstar type who longs to live out the heroic adventures that he sings songs about.

Here is the deal. For my third level spells I went with Dispel Magic and Major Illusion. Dispel is defensive, but has proved useful so I don't mind it. I took Major Illusion for out of combat uses and roleplay reasons. I finally found a really good use for it in combat though.

Using Major Image to simulate a 20 by 20 "fog cloud" really helped during a recent tough fight. It stopped an group of enemy archers from firing on my party while we were tied down fighting a couple of nasty monsters.

The best part about using Major Image this way is that my Bard can see right through it without penalty, giving really nice combat bonuses. As the caster, he inherently knows that the cloud of smoke/fog/darkness is an illusion.

I intend to set up a code word with the rest of my party so they know if the bard calls a "Code black" that any cloud they see should be disbelieved. It is reasonable that they will still have to spend an action to make an investigate check, but hopefully my GM will give them a bonus. I'm sure our Rogue will really love having this kind of selective cover to fight behind. :)

[Grand Warchief]

It Was only a perception check in 3.5 which didn't take an action. See if your dm will allow it to be part of passive perception in 5e. Maybe with advantage since they know the code word. Also try using major image, or oven the lesser versions, to cast darkness. My Illusionist in 3.5 did that a lot. Should work even better in 5e due to the save system.

[Myzz]

I was thinking about posting a thread asking:

"Should Passive Investigation, be used to disbelieve ALL illusions? Success on passive = not having to use an action to disbelieve?"

personally I think so. But wanted to see what the Playground thought...
Does 3 things:

1. Makes Int and Investigation have (combat?) meaning <perhaps Int not such a dump stat after all?>
2. Boosts the value of the Feat Observant
3. Weakens Illusion Magic

[Grand Warchief]

I was thinking about posting a thread asking:

"Should Passive Investigation, be used to disbelieve ALL illusions? Success on passive = not having to use an action to disbelieve?"

personally I think so. But wanted to see what the Playground thought...
Does 3 things:

1. Makes Int and Investigation have (combat?) meaning <perhaps Int not such a dump stat after all?>
2. Boosts the value of the Feat Observant
3. Weakens Illusion Magic

I know in 3.5 there was the effective "auto disbelieve." Basically the perception check took no action if you interacted with the illusion using another action, I.e. moving through it, shooting an arrow at it, etc. Otherwise, you could use an action to observe it, letting you do so with a bonus Ave to critical observation. But that was 3.5.

Now in 5e we have a slightly different mechanic with a more streamlined save system. Let's take the casters save DC and compare it to an average enemy's passive perception:

Save DC for the OP would be 8 base +3 proficiency +3 casting state (assumption)

Passive perception for an enemy with proficiency is 10 base +3 proficiency (assuming same level as caster) +0-2 wisdom (possibly lower depending on the class of the enemy)

That leaves a comparison of:

DC = 14
Save = 13-15

By allowing passive perception to see through illusions, an enemy of equal level to you will almost always succeed depending on it's wisdom bonus. Your allies will also almost always succeed even without a code word.

I don't know that allowing passive perception would be a good idea. I tile the concept, but I don't know that it would work mechanically. Let me know if I missed anything.

Maybe the enemy has disadvantage on the passive check while allies who know the code have advantage?

[Myzz]

I know in 3.5 there was the effective "auto disbelieve." Basically the perception check took no action if you interacted with the illusion using another action, I.e. moving through it, shooting an arrow at it, etc. Otherwise, you could use an action to observe it, letting you do so with a bonus Ave to critical observation. But that was 3.5.

Now in 5e we have a slightly different mechanic with a more streamlined save system. Let's take the casters save DC and compare it to an average enemy's passive perception:

Save DC for the OP would be 8 base +3 proficiency +3 casting state (assumption)

Passive perception for an enemy with proficiency is 10 base +3 proficiency (assuming same level as caster) +0-2 wisdom (possibly lower depending on the class of the enemy)

That leaves a comparison of:

DC = 14
Save = 13-15

By allowing passive perception to see through illusions, an enemy of equal level to you will almost always succeed depending on it's wisdom bonus. Your allies will also almost always succeed even without a code word.

I don't know that allowing passive perception would be a good idea. I tile the concept, but I don't know that it would work mechanically. Let me know if I missed anything.

Maybe the enemy has disadvantage on the passive check while allies who know the code have advantage?

Passive INVESTIGATION, Intelligence based NOT Wisdom based. Currently only Wiz, EK and AT's probably don't use it as a dump stat. AND only get a prof bonus to passive if they have it as a skill...

so DC = 14-15
Save = 9-16 (if using standard array many characters are likely to use Int as their 8, and a Wiz with +4 Int skilled in Investigation would be at 16)

The result being anyone trained in Investigation and Non-Int dumper, or have Observant would be the only ones not to fail at lower levels. As the prof bonus and Casting Stat of the caster went up and therefore DC, those not trained in Investigation would start to fail even if they have Observant.

DC = 8+prof+mod = 8+3+4 =15...
DC = 8+4+4 = 16 = where observant only falls off

Anyone with INT<12, AND not trained in Investigation will have a passive of 10, unless they take Observation. Arcane Trickster Rogues could possibly be amazing at disbelieving Illusions... but then again, Illusions are kinda their thing!

[Grand Warchief]

Passive INVESTIGATION, Intelligence based NOT Wisdom based. Currently only Wiz, EK and AT's probably don't use it as a dump stat. AND only get a prof bonus to passive if they have it as a skill...

so DC = 14-15
Save = 9-16 (if using standard array many characters are likely to use Int as their 8, and a Wiz with +4 Int skilled in Investigation would be at 16)

The result being anyone trained in Investigation and Non-Int dumper, or have Observant would be the only ones not to fail at lower levels. As the prof bonus and Casting Stat of the caster went up and therefore DC, those not trained in Investigation would start to fail even if they have Observant.

DC = 8+prof+mod = 8+3+4 =15...
DC = 8+4+4 = 16 = where observant only falls off

Anyone with INT<12, AND not trained in Investigation will have a passive of 10, unless they take Observation. Arcane Trickster Rogues could possibly be amazing at disbelieving Illusions... but then again, Illusions are kinda their thing!

True. If you make it investigation instead of perception, (which is contrary to the 3 e era though does make more sense, it certainly strengthens illusions) then you can give party members who know the code advantage. Then maybe if they don't beat it with the passive check, allow anyone to make either a wisdom (perception) or intelligence (investigation) check as an action to see through it.

The only issue I have with this is that via the definitions of investigation and perception, one does not passively investigate, and Perception is passive. I've always been inclined to believe that, even in 3.5, you shouldn't be able to make a perception check. It should be perception is just a passive score used to generally notice things and investigation (search) is the act of actively looking at things and deciphering their reality/ finding hidden things. But that's just me.

[Myzz]

The only issue I have with this is that via the definitions of investigation and perception, one does not passively investigate, and Perception is passive.

I dont think thats exactly true. By my reading of PHB 175, ALL abilities have passive uses.

AND the Observant Feat (PHB 168) gives +5 bonus to passive Wisdom (Perception) and passive Intelligence (Investigation) scores...


I've always been inclined to believe that, even in 3.5, you shouldn't be able to make a perception check. It should be perception is just a passive score used to generally notice things and investigation (search) is the act of actively looking at things and deciphering their reality/ finding hidden things. But that's just me.

And with Illusions, they are definitely Intelligence (investigation) based...

[Grand Warchief]

I dont think thats exactly true. By my reading of PHB 175, ALL abilities have passive uses.

AND the Observant Feat (PHB 168) gives +5 bonus to passive Wisdom (Perception) and passive Intelligence (Investigation) scores...



And with Illusions, they are definitely Intelligence (investigation) based...

I meant as in the definitions of the words, not the rule. I know all scores have a passive component. I just think perception should be general observation And investigation should be active searching. But like I said, that's just me. A little off topic though.

[Myzz]

To the OP

That is a pretty good use of Major Image... You could even add illusory shadows that are moving through the fog in the shape of your party members in order to get ranged opponents to shoot at their own allies...

[Battlebooze]

That is a pretty good use of Major Image... You could even add illusory shadows that are moving through the fog in the shape of your party members in order to get ranged opponents to shoot at their own allies...

Thank you and that's a nice idea! I'll give that a try next time. If they can't be sure what they are seeing, they still can't be sure if their ranged attacks hit or not. One of the things I really like about using an illusion this way is that it really makes it tough to casually figure out it's unreal by touch or observation when objects interact with it.

Hopefully my Gm will grant advantage to my party's Investigation check with a code word. I really don't care if checking takes an action or not. It balances out nicely either way to me. If it takes an action to investigate that will slow my party by forcing a check, but it will also do the same for my foes. If a passive check works, then my party can immediately make their check and then fire through it. My spell save DC is 15 now, so I'm not worried about it being easy to see through, aside from certain skilled types that really aren't that common.

Major image is no fireball, (or stinking cloud) but with my limited spell choices I really need to squeeze what I can out of every spell.


Also try using major image, or oven the lesser versions, to cast darkness. My Illusionist in 3.5 did that a lot. Should work even better in 5e due to the save system.

Another great idea. :) An illusion of darkness would be less "detectable" since the real spell effect wouldn't be effected by wind and/or air movement.

[Myzz]

In an upcoming Ambush for my PC's...

(IF YOUR IN MY GAME STOP READING) lol

the BBEG will be utilizing Hallucinatory Terrain. Pits (foxholes) have been dug in an area the PC's have been in before. And Hallucinatory Terrain will be used to hide the above ground portion and make the pits disapear... <archers in the foxholes>

some other surprises will be present too, just dont want to ruin the awesome ideas just yet!

[Galen]

The best part about using Major Image this way is that my Bard can see right through it without penalty, giving really nice combat bonuses. As the caster, he inherently knows that the cloud of smoke/fog/darkness is an illusion. Please quote RAW source to prove a caster can automatically see through his own illusion.

[Battlebooze]

the BBEG will be utilizing Hallucinatory Terrain. Pits (foxholes) have been dug in an area the PC's have been in before. And Hallucinatory Terrain will be used to hide the above ground portion and make the pits disapear... <archers in the foxholes>

some other surprises will be present too, just dont want to ruin the awesome ideas just yet!

Oh boy, they are in for some fun! Time to break out the Punji sticks!

[Battlebooze]

Please quote RAW source to prove a caster can automatically see through his own illusion.

As far as I know, there isn't one. There isn't a RAW source going the other way either.
The spell effect is countered simply by knowing for certain that the image is an illusion, determined normally by an investigation roll.
Requiring the caster to investigate the spell that he just cast and is currently concentrating on... That's just silly.

It does make for some funny quotes though.

"Wait, is that my illusion or a real red dragon? I can't tell, run!"

[MIC132]

Please quote RAW source to prove a caster can automatically see through his own illusion.

Well, from Major Image description (PHB 258) (emphasis mine):
"If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image, and its other sensory qualities become faint to the creature."

We can safely assume that since you created the illusion, you in fact know it is an illusion (if you were made to cast an illusion when unconscious or something that would be different case), so you can see through it without penalties.

[Grand Warchief]

As far as I know, there isn't one. There isn't a RAW source going the other way either.
The spell effect is countered simply by knowing for certain that the image is an illusion, determined normally by an investigation roll.
Requiring the caster to investigate the spell that he just cast and is currently concentrating on... That's just silly.

It does make for some funny quotes though.

"Wait, is that my illusion or a real red dragon? I can't tell, run!"

The only thing I can think of is a wizard making the illusion of a warhorse, believing it's real because of bad saves, and then riding it into town. To him, it's a real horse, to everyone else who saves, he's riding on thin air in the manner of a horse, up and down, up and down. Lol

[Galen]

Well, from Major Image description (PHB 258) (emphasis mine):
"If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image, and its other sensory qualities become faint to the creature."

We can safely assume that since you created the illusion, you in fact know it is an illusion (if you were made to cast an illusion when unconscious or something that would be different case), so you can see through it without penalties.

Yes, yes. However, you have conveniently neglected the previous sentences. Let me put them together, so we all have the entire paragraph for context:


Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an
illusion, because things can pass through it.
A creature that uses its action to examine the image can determine
that it is an illusion with a successful Intelligence
(Investigation) check against your spell save DC. If a
creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature
can see through the image, and its other sensory
qualities become faint to the creature.

Clearly, the third sentence, "If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is ..." refers to the same creature from the first sentences, ie. "A creature that uses its action to examine the image" or a creature who had a "Physical interaction with the image".

The three sentences are in the same paragraph and are meant to come together. Discerning the illusion for what it is comes as a result of either:
(a) Physically interacting with it, or,
(b) taking an action to examining it and making a successful Investigation check

If a caster wanted to convince me they are able to automatically see through their illusions, I would refer them instead to the first paragraph of the spell description:


You create the image of an object, a creature, or some
other visible phenomenon that is no larger than a
20-foot cube. The image appears at a spot that you
can see within range and lasts for the duration. It
seems completely real, including sounds, smells, and
temperature appropriate to the thing depicted.

There you have it. It seems completely real. Your bard is just that good at making illusions. You made an illusion of a solid wall, it appears as a completely real solid wall. Barring the "physically interacting" and "taking your action to examine it" clause.

[MIC132]

There you have it. It seems completely real. Your bard is just that good at making illusions. You made an illusion of a solid wall, it appears as a completely real solid wall. Barring the "physically interacting" and "taking your action to examine it" clause.

It seems completely real, but your bard knows it's not. And as per my quoted line, any creature that knows it's not real, can see through. The "If the creature discerns (...)" line does not state that the creature has to discern through "above methods" and I don't think anyone will argue that the bard doesn't know that what he just created isn't a wall but just an illusion.

I'm not sure if you are speaking from player or GM perspective, but I would never rule that the caster has to "disbelieve" his own illusion, unless the rules specifically state so.

And if we want to go RAW, as I said, the line I quoted isn't directly linked to to the previous test, especially since the previous sentence mentions the effects of that test - you know it's an illusion.

I read that as:
- if you interact physically with the illusion, you'll know it's an illusion
- you can make test, if you pass you'll know it's an illusion
- if you know it's an illusion, by any means (it doesn't state it has to be by above), you can see through it, and also ignore other sensory aspects.

And as per third point the bard that created it, and thus knows it to be an illusion, can see through it from the get go.

[Galen]

It's not about disbelieving. You're setting the bar a bit too low here. I concede he knows the wall isn't real. He can take actions based on his knowledge of the wall being not real, such as run into it headlong.

However, he hasn't discerned it to be non-real, therefore it doesn't appear transparent to him. He made a nice illusionary wall. Which is not transparent to him, unless he takes the time squinting his eyes just right (metaphor for an Investigation check). That's what I would convey to the player.

[MIC132]

Well, this basically boils down to understanding of the sentence "If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is", which you interpret as "If the creature took active action to identify that this in fact is an illusion" and I interpret as "If the creature knows this is an illusion".

And this is basically as far as we can go, as unless we get official input from Wizards, we can't know which interpretation is correct.

As I said, I would generally rule that the caster can see through his own illusions immediately, you would rule otherwise. This edition is full of "up to GM" really, so this isn't much of a problem, as long as we both are consistent in our 'rulings'.

Though I would gladly hear some input from some third party.

[Shining Wrath]

Why would any Illusionist ever believe her own illusion? Why would it require the slightest effort on their part to know it is unreal?

The RAW supplied enough describes the process for someone investigating the illusion to disbelieve it. The caster never enters the process as it is superfluous.

[Battlebooze]

High level bard creates Illusion of a wall.

Fails investigation check mainly because his CHA is way higher than his INT.
Gets confused.
Stops concentrating, thinking the wall is real.
Wall fades away.
Rinse and repeat.
Run out of spells.

And this is why high level bards go insane.

[Galen]

Why would any Illusionist ever believe her own illusion? Why would it require the slightest effort on their part to know it is unreal?Again, you are shifting the goalposts, and conflating "believing" with "being able to see through".

He knows the wall isn't real. He knows it's not made of actual solid matter, However, the illusion of wall creates a visual obstacle preventing him to see what's behind it.

[Falling Icicle]

Again, you are shifting the goalposts, and conflating "believing" with "being able to see through".

He knows the wall isn't real. He knows it's not made of actual solid matter, However, the illusion of wall creates a visual obstacle preventing him to see what's behind it.

The spell's rules state that "if a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image, and its other sensory qualities become faint to the creature."

According to dictionary.reference.com, "discern" means:
1. to perceive by the sight or some other sense or by the intellect; see, recognize, or apprehend:
"They discerned a sail on the horizon."
2. to distinguish mentally; recognize as distinct or different; discriminate:
"He is incapable of discerning right from wrong."

I think it's pretty obvious that a spellcaster discerns its own illusion for what it is. A wizard doesn't need to do anything else to discern his own illusions because he already recognizes, distinguishes mentally, and apprehends that it's an illusion. The parts about physically interacting with or making Intelligence checks to recognize the illusion are obviously there for creatures that don't already know that the spell is an illusion. It's absurd to suggest that a wizard who creates and controls his own major image doesn't "discern" his own illusion. There really is nothing to debate here.