Spells for an arcane trickster

[Chronos]

My rogue is currently level 2, and the DM has asked us to prepare level 3 versions of our characters for next session, in case we level up. I'm planning on taking the Arcane Trickster path, which means I need to choose my spells. So far, I've got:
0 Mage Hand (of course)
0 Minor Illusion
0 Friends
1 Disguise Self

Minor Illusion is in some ways even better than Silent Image, and I know I'm going to have a lot of fun with something like that at will. Friends and Disguise Self (especially in combination) will help with the party's social skills, where we're currently a bit underwhelming. But that still leaves me with one other first-level illusion or enchantment, and one other first level from any school.

I'm thinking Sleep for my other school-restricted spell, though by third level an unaugmented Sleep is going to start falling off in effectiveness. A few more levels, and I'll definitely have to trade it in for something else, and it'll be a while before I get 2nd-level spells, so I'll eventually have to find another 1st-level illusion or enchantment I like anyway. Silent Image would be tempting, except that with already having Minor Illusion, it'd be somewhat redundant. Anything else I should try?

For my non-school-restricted spell, I want something that'll stay useful at higher levels, since that one can't be replaced (or rather, it can be, but only with an illusion or enchantment). Right now, my top choices are Grease (for generating advantage, and contributing to fights with many opponents) and Thunderwave (mostly for pushing away things I don't want to be in melee with, though the damage isn't a bad extra). Which is the better choice, or is there another that I'm missing?

Possibly relevant background information: Our DM is not using the Elemental Evil spells. I'm a variant human and took Ritual Caster as my feat (currently know Find Familiar and Comprehend Languages), so picking a ritual spell would be a waste. The rest of the party includes an abjurer wizard, a war cleric, a paladin (probably vengeance), and a totem barbarian. The wizard knows and currently prepares Sleep, and I don't know what else.

[Ralanr]

When you can get mirror image, get mirror image.

The fact that such a spell is not on the bards list confuses me.

For non school, I'd recommend shield.

[ruy343]

When you can get mirror image, get mirror image.

The fact that such a spell is not on the bards list confuses me.

For non school, I'd recommend shield.

Shield (always a good choice), charm person (can be added later) feather fall (never underestimate it), grease, and fog cloud are all good choices. What kind of effects are you after?

[Chronos]

So far, I've been doing a pretty good job of staying out of the line of fire (yay, bonus action Dash and ranged weapons!), so I'm not sure Shield is really needed. And Charm Person doesn't really do anything that Friends doesn't do better. Fog Cloud, I can partly replace with Minor Illusion.

Meanwhile, at second level (once I get there), Mirror Image is definitely on my list for consideration, but there's a lot of competition for good spells at 2nd level: That's also Enlarge/Reduce, Invisibility, Levitate, Misty Step, Phantasmal Force, Suggestion, and Web.


What kind of effects are you after?
The character is primarily a dungeon-delving treasure hunter sort, but I can mostly cover that via skills. In combat, I'm finding that Sneak Attack is more than adequate vs. most single targets. I'm mostly looking to spells for general utility, and for combat against groups of enemies or things I can't easily Sneak Attack.

[Ralanr]

Misty step could be very useful. Good for wen you're surrounded.

Then again you have the disengage and dash combo.

[RulesJD]

1. Always Find Familiar, but you already have that.

2. Shield. Besides FF, it's the only one where you will get fantastic use for it levels 1-20. It never stops being useful.

[Chronos]

Y'know, on thinking about it, there just aren't that many good 1st-level wizard enchantments or illusions. The only things that are even options are Charm Person, Color Spray, Disguise Self, Illusory Script, Silent Image, Sleep, and Tasha's Hideous Laughter. Given that I'm going to end up with at least three of those, it's really a matter of choosing which four I don't want. Charm Person and Color Spray just don't do enough, and if I really need Illusory Script for some reason I can probably get it as a ritual. So I guess I'm going to go with Disguise Self and Sleep at 3rd, add Silent Image at 4th, and probably replace Sleep with Tasha's at 5th or 6th (and then start replacing some of those with better 2nd-level spells once I reach 7th, since 2nd level has more than its fair share of good AT spells).

For my any-school spell, it looks like the best choices are either Shield or Grease. I'll probably just leave that blank for now, and decide when I actually level up based on what I see before then.

[DivisibleByZero]

For my any-school spell, it looks like the best choices are either Shield or Grease. I'll probably just leave that blank for now, and decide when I actually level up based on what I see before then.

I disagree completely about shield.
Rogues should be using Cunning Action to get back out of melee again, and when they do get hit they shouldn't be spending one of their precious few slots to try to stop it. They should be using Uncanny Dodge to cut the damage in half.
Shield is great on a Wizard. It's almost a waste of a slot on a Trickster.

[SharkForce]

sleep stays useful to finish off enemies that are almost down even at higher levels. obviously, not *as* useful as at low levels, but it doesn't necessarily need to be replaced.

[MustacheFart]

I disagree completely about shield.
Rogues should be using Cunning Action to get back out of melee again, and when they do get hit they shouldn't be spending one of their precious few slots to try to stop it. They should be using Uncanny Dodge to cut the damage in half.
Shield is great on a Wizard. It's almost a waste of a slot on a Trickster.

Having watched my wife play an arcane trickster for many levels now (we're level 7 now) I couldn't disagree more with the above! She took shield over grease and it has saved her more than once.

Don't forget that uncanny dodge works for ONE single attack at the cost of your reaction. Shield works for the entire turn. If you're being attacked by more than one bad guy or a bad guy with multi-attack that uncanny dodge isn't going to do much. Also cunning action is nice but it doesn't always work versus things such as ranged attacks... Shield WILL.

Plus you can always NOT cast shield. It's a spell with a casting time of reaction. More importantly it says you cast the spell when you ARE hit by an attack, meaning you can essentially wait until the attack actually hits you to use it. It's there if you need it.

We also have a lot of casters in our party so holding back that shield spell doesn't cost much at all.

So I employ you to disregard the above info. That person is 100% wrong. Take the shield spell and thank me later.

[DivisibleByZero]

That person is 100% wrong.

Thank you for pointing out that my opinion, which is 100% subjective, is somehow not correct.
I don't think shield is worth a slot on a Trickster.
You apparently do.
That's fine. We can disagree. And neither of us is wrong, because there is no right or wrong here, there are only opinions.

[MustacheFart]

Thank you for pointing out that my opinion, which is 100% subjective, is somehow not correct.
I don't think shield is worth a slot on a Trickster.
You apparently do.
That's fine. We can disagree. And neither of us is wrong, because there is no right or wrong here, there are only opinions.

Except it is not completely subjective. Also opinions are often incorrect.

There is a right and wrong here. You would be wrong and I would be right. Here's why: You state because a rogue has Uncanny Dodge they do not need Shield. That is false thinking for the below reasons.

First a bit of description for both:

Uncanny Dode:
Starting at 5th level, when an attacker that you can see hits you with an attack, you can use your reaction to halve the attack's damage against you.

Shield:
Casting time: 1 reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell
Duraction: 1 round
An invisible barrier of magical force appears and protects you. Until the start of your next turn, you have a +5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack, and you take no damage from magic missile.

Here's what we know:

Uncanny Dodge:
1) Doesn't come online until 5th level. Better hope you don't get hit at all during levels 3 and 4.
2) Only works against ONE SINGLE ATTACK FROM AN ATTACKER YOU CAN SEE. Better hope it's not a surprise round for the enemy or re-enforcements, etc.
3) You still take half damage on a character with only d8s for hit dice and likely a rather lower con.

Shield:
1) Only have to cast it if you are hit, thus it simply takes up a spell known and not necessarily a slot.
2) Goes for the entire round thus any future attacks after the first triggering attack are also affected.
3) If the +5 prevents the attack you don't take any damage AT ALL. A +5 to AC is a huge bonus in 5th ed with bounded accuracy.
4) You can use it against even enemies you can't see unlike Uncanny dodge.
5) Works on ranged attacks just like uncanny dodge does on a single attack (from someone you can see) which may be likely since you have a significant number of potential ranged attackers in your party.

That's straight up mechanical advantage to shield over uncanny dodge. Hell, the fact that you don't get uncanny dodge until 5th level is reason enough to take shield. Rogues are still fairly squishy and it is possible to get taken down by a single attack or even multiple attacks. Shield can prevent that.

So, yes it does come down to opinion. However, my opinion is based off the mechanics PLUS actual significant play-testing. Yours is based off....just opinion.

Hopefully the OP makes the wise decision. He/she won't regret it if they do.

[DivisibleByZero]

Except it is not completely subjective. Also opinions are often incorrect.

There is a right and wrong here. You would be wrong and I would be right.

This is where I stopped reading. And by that, I mean anything that you ever type.

[MustacheFart]

This is where I stopped reading. And by that, I mean anything that you ever type.

Oooh, sweet! Can I sig?


P.S. I provided an actual justifiable reason Shield is good on a rogue. You provided a reason that it is not that falls apart when you actually look at the mechanics. All obvious butthurt aside, my intent wasn't to be snarky. It was simply to provide accurate information to the OP in response to the fact that your suggestion you passed off as though it were fact when it really breaks down rather easily. For that reason, I didn't want the OP to be misguided which he would be following your advise.

[MeeposFire]

Actually I see both points and they are both true. Shield does offer a large benefit AND it has some overlap with what the rogue already offers.

Shield is an effective spell for sure even for a trickster. It has uses that uncanny dodge does not cover and sometimes does even more in the same situation.

However it does constitute an opportunity cost not just in spell slots (UD is at will) but more importantly in spells known which are a relatively tight resource on a trickster. Considering that rogues naturally have an effective reaction based ability already this does mean that shield is not quite as needed as it is for most other classes. Still very useful but you should look at what you are giving up first.

You essentially gain one spell to use outside of enchantment and illusion per spell level so you really need to consider whether an additional choice of added defense with a reaction is worth the cost of no other 1st level spells of any school.

Shield is a strong choice for those that really want to turtle. As for proving it with math or something that would be difficult since many awesome spells give versatility rather than straight up defense or offensive numbers. A spell like find familiar can help in many ways but will not come up in a numbers sort of question (not saying yo umust take that spell since I would try to get that as a ritual just listing a versatile spell).

[DivisibleByZero]

Actually I see both points and they are both true. Shield does offer a large benefit AND it has some overlap with what the rogue already offers.

Yeah, it's almost as if neither of us are wrong, and that it basically comes down to personal opinion on the matter.

[MeeposFire]

Yeah, it's almost as if neither of us are wrong, and that it basically comes down to personal opinion on the matter.

I think he takes issue with the idea that it is "nearly a waste" for a trickster which I think is far too strong of a way to put it. Certainly shield offers strong defensive benefits so if you are interested in maximizing your defensive potential then I think you should go shield. However there are a lot of options for that one spell known and defense may not be your number one priority for it in which case shield is far from being a waste but it will not help you get what you want.

[MustacheFart]

Actually I see both points and they are both true. Shield does offer a large benefit AND it has some overlap with what the rogue already offers.

Shield is an effective spell for sure even for a trickster. It has uses that uncanny dodge does not cover and sometimes does even more in the same situation.

However it does constitute an opportunity cost not just in spell slots (UD is at will) but more importantly in spells known which are a relatively tight resource on a trickster. Considering that rogues naturally have an effective reaction based ability already this does mean that shield is not quite as needed as it is for most other classes. Still very useful but you should look at what you are giving up first.

You essentially gain one spell to use outside of enchantment and illusion per spell level so you really need to consider whether an additional choice of added defense with a reaction is worth the cost of no other 1st level spells of any school.

Shield is a strong choice for those that really want to turtle. As for proving it with math or something that would be difficult since many awesome spells give versatility rather than straight up defense or offensive numbers. A spell like find familiar can help in many ways but will not come up in a numbers sort of question (not saying yo umust take that spell since I would try to get that as a ritual just listing a versatile spell).

Sure it has a cost, but where else in the game are you going to find a +5 to AC? Given the fact that AC is a pretty precious commodity, would up the value of it. Also yes Uncanny Dodge is at-will but it's still ONE attack per round. How do you get around that? Are you honestly banking on only ever being attacked 1 time per round? If so, you've got a very lenient DM and even I will admit that there's less need to take Shield.

Now, oddly enough the phb states that you can retrain the "any-school spells" you learn at 8th, 14th, and 20th but not the one at 1st level. This seems odd to me and something about a reasonable DM would rule fairly on (ie. stating you can retrain that one as well). But I accept that that needs a DM to decide so for the point of discussion I'll leave that out.

Another point that's not been brought up is healing. Healing doesn't go as far in this addition. With the fact that they've limited the number of spells a caster has that also means the number of healing spells are also limited. Taking half damage still means taking half damage. That means damage that adds up and will need to be healed. Sure you can heal it with a short/long rest but you're banking on that pretty harshly if you're attacked more than once.

Also let's not forget that the OP stated this was a dungeon-delver PC. You don't always get a short/long rest within a dungeon. Dungeons are also filled with traps, hidden creatures, etc. so there are plenty of things that even the rogue may not see that can attack him. Things that uncanny dodge will do nothing against.

Let's also not forget that the wizard or other spellcasters will typically stay back at range. That in and of itself has historically proven to offer a bit of protection. The arcane trickster however is still a Rogue. That means they will still more than likely wade into "the thick of it." That puts them in a greater position to be attacked by more than one enemy. What happens if the Rogue misses with that first attack and decides to use his bonus action to take another chance at delivering the sneak attack? Hopefully, it's against a single opponent but sometimes situations arise where it is not. If he's then swarmed, that Uncanny Dodge is going to fall apart.

Shield is a lot more versatile.

Taking all of that into account I think you're overestimating the impact of uncanny dodge and the cost of having the Shield spell while underestimating the usefulness of the Shield spell.

For a dungeondelver who will be susceptible to more of the unknown it's safe to say Shield is an invaluable resource.

[MustacheFart]

I think he takes issue with the idea that it is "nearly a waste" for a trickster which I think is far too strong of a way to put it. Certainly shield offers strong defensive benefits so if you are interested in maximizing your defensive potential then I think you should go shield. However there are a lot of options for that one spell known and defense may not be your number one priority for it in which case shield is far from being a waste but it will not help you get what you want.

Yep, that's the just of it. Admittedly, I was a bit snarky but that was largely in part to how matter of fact his post came across. Then the butthurt flowed through him so easily lol.

[Chronos]

Quoth MustacheFart:

Also let's not forget that the OP stated this was a dungeon-delver PC.
That's my PC, but it does not necessarily follow that that's the adventure. So far, we've had one set of combats in a cave, and another set of combats on open ground. I don't know how much of the campaign will be in what sort of environment.


Quoth MeeposFire:

A spell like find familiar can help in many ways but will not come up in a numbers sort of question (not saying yo umust take that spell since I would try to get that as a ritual just listing a versatile spell).
Yup, got that already, and the party's two familiars (the wizard has one, too) have already saved us a world of hurt by spotting ambushes before they could be sprung on us.

And while Shield definitely has value, it does come at an opportunity cost, and must therefore be weighed against other options. I'm already doing a pretty good job of staying out of trouble, which weighs against Shield in that comparison. I had forgotten about Uncanny Dodge, which weighs even further against it.

[MustacheFart]

That's my PC, but it does not necessarily follow that that's the adventure. So far, we've had one set of combats in a cave, and another set of combats on open ground. I don't know how much of the campaign will be in what sort of environment.


Yup, got that already, and the party's two familiars (the wizard has one, too) have already saved us a world of hurt by spotting ambushes before they could be sprung on us.

And while Shield definitely has value, it does come at an opportunity cost, and must therefore be weighed against other options. I'm already doing a pretty good job of staying out of trouble, which weighs against Shield in that comparison. I had forgotten about Uncanny Dodge, which weighs even further against it.


The opportunity cost is pretty low when you consider that you were comparing it with Grease. Don't get me wrong, if this were the Grease of old I would be all for it but it's not. It covers a 10 ft square for a minute with grease that requires a dex save to prevent falling prone. This square also affects allies. Lastly, how high is your spell save dc? Are you intending to pump it or keep it where it is at? Are you intending to focus your magic on debuffing/directly affecting enemies, stuff that requires saves often? If so, then go for it.

If not, the use of Grease will wane rather quickly as you level. Not to mention bad guys can simply go around it and you can't move it at all. It does have it's applications but it is highly situational.

A flat outright +5 to AC? I don't know. I guess I consider that a bit less situational. :smallwink:

Shield is a safety net. If you're always on the top of your game and your DM isn't a ****, you're probably good. Hope that's the case for you, I really do.

[Ralanr]

Plus you could always swap out shield when you level up.

[MeeposFire]

Plus you could always swap out shield when you level up.

You could though shield is one of those spells that stay useful so if you want extra defense it will likely stay especially since you want good uses of your 1st level slots at higher levels.

[numerek]

shield will be competing with uncanny dodge for your reaction, and competing all your other first level spells for your limited spell slots.

[coredump]

the question isn't if Shield is better/worse than Uncanny Dodge.

The question is if Shield is so much better that it is worth using up one of your 'known spells' to be able to cast it, and one of your spell slots to actually cast it....when you already get Uncanny Dodge for 'free'.

I think DbZero's point is that the incremental improvement from Uncanny Dodge to Shield isn't worth the opportunity cost of learning it and then casting it.

[RulesJD]

shield will be competing with uncanny dodge for your reaction, and competing all your other first level spells for your limited spell slots.

No, it isn't.

1. An enemy tries to hit you. You have AC 16, they hit 18. You trigger Shield because it blocks ALL of the damage + any further attack that round.

2. An enemy tries to hit you. You have AC 16, they hit 22. You don't trigger Shield because it would be pointless, and use Uncanny Dodge instead to 1/2 the damage of that attack.

They shouldn't be conflicting. Yes, Shield uses a 1st level slot, but AT don't get that many good first level spells regardless. All the good ones (Hold Person, Magic Weapon, Suggestion, Phantasmal Force) are all 2nd level. You can make a case for Tasha's Hideous Laughter, but as a ranged class it's pretty situational.

[DivisibleByZero]

<snip>

You're assuming that the DM doesn't simply tell you that you've been hit, and that he provides you with the attack roll's total so that you can make a decision.

I've never played with a DM who told us what s/he rolled. If they don't know for certain whether or not you got hit, they'll simply ask what your AC is (or more likely, just look on the sheet where they have ACs and passives recorded for each character).... and then tell you if you got hit.

[RulesJD]

You're assuming that the DM doesn't simply tell you that you've been hit, and that he provides you with the attack roll's total so that you can make a decision.

I've never played with a DM who told us what s/he rolled. If they don't know for certain whether or not you got hit, they'll simply ask what your AC is (or more likely, just look on the sheet where they have ACs and passives recorded for each character).... and then tell you if you got hit.

Then you play with DMs that care more about their own pleasure of their player's.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/11/shield-before/

Get a different DM that isn't powertripping.

[DivisibleByZero]

Then you play with DMs that care more about their own pleasure of their player's.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/11/shield-before/

Get a different DM that isn't powertripping.

Doing things the same way that we've been doing them for decades doesn't suddenly mean the DM is powertripping. I can guarantee that our table isn't the only one that's been doing it that way for just about ever.

[Chronos]

The DM not telling you the monsters' rolls isn't powertripping. The player expecting the DM to tell them rolls is. In fact, I would be quite upset if I had the Shield spell and the DM told me that, because it's giving me an unfair advantage.

[Ralanr]

My DM only askes for our AC when she rolls to hit. Only ever tells the number when it's really close or really far.

I like my DM.

[MustacheFart]

I don't think it's a powertrip one way or the other. I think it's just another style of dming. Personally I've always played under people who told what they rolled against me. I guess it is because we've kind of operated off a gentleman's agreement to be honest.

If you think knowing the roll would make it unfair and not knowing makes the spell too much of a gamble to know when to cast, then pick something else. I will say Grease's usefulness will wane heavily as you level. Shield is still nice at higher levels where you don't even want to take half damadge. Don't forget some creatures have nasty side effects when you get hit. Those can't be avoided with uncanny dodge. They potentially can be with Shield.

[-Jynx-]

Doing things the same way that we've been doing them for decades doesn't suddenly mean the DM is powertripping. I can guarantee that our table isn't the only one that's been doing it that way for just about ever.

When I DM at my table I don't tell my players what they need to beat a monsters AC or what the monster rolled to beat theirs. However if a player were to ask me "If I use shield would that bump my AC up enough to not get hit?" I would tell them yes or no. They still don't know what I rolled, but it's an awfully low thing for a DM to still not say, and have the trickster eat a spell slot for nothing.

On that note though to all the people that think shield is useless or not nearly as necessary in the presence of uncanny dodge... You must have DMs that don't believe in throwing larger numbers of monsters at you, creatures that utilize any kind of tactics, or generally giving you a hard time every so often in encounters if you think a +5 AC until your next turn isn't necessary when you can halve ONE attacks damage.

[numerek]

No, it isn't.

1. An enemy tries to hit you. You have AC 16, they hit 18. You trigger Shield because it blocks ALL of the damage + any further attack that round.

2. An enemy tries to hit you. You have AC 16, they hit 22. You don't trigger Shield because it would be pointless, and use Uncanny Dodge instead to 1/2 the damage of that attack.

They shouldn't be conflicting. Yes, Shield uses a 1st level slot, but AT don't get that many good first level spells regardless. All the good ones (Hold Person, Magic Weapon, Suggestion, Phantasmal Force) are all 2nd level. You can make a case for Tasha's Hideous Laughter, but as a ranged class it's pretty situational.

Yes if your dm treats shield as a get out of damage free card on 25% of attacks then it is definitely worth taking. my dm does not do it that way.

[DivisibleByZero]

However if a player were to ask me "If I use shield would that bump my AC up enough to not get hit?" I would tell them yes or no. They still don't know what I rolled, but it's an awfully low thing for a DM to still not say, and have the trickster eat a spell slot for nothing.

Here's how it would go at our table:

DM: The goblin slashes your arm for 5 points of damage.
Player: I cast shield.
DM: *checks sheet* The goblin was quicker then you. You don't get shield off in time.

The player still takes the 5 points and used his reaction for the round, but he didn't expend the spell slot.

[Chronos]

Why is it low to let a player use a spell slot for nothing? That can happen with nearly all spells. Do you let players roll their attack rolls before deciding whether to cast Scorching Ray, too? If the enemy saves against Hold Person, do you let the caster say "Oh, in that case, I'm attacking instead"? The player spent a spell slot for a chance at negating an attack. Sometimes that chance pays off, sometimes it doesn't. Shield is already better than most fallible spells, in that you never have the situation where you cast it but it wasn't needed because the attack would have missed anyway.

[Safety Sword]

Doing things the same way that we've been doing them for decades doesn't suddenly mean the DM is powertripping. I can guarantee that our table isn't the only one that's been doing it that way for just about ever.

I never tell players what numbers they are going for. Only whether what they attempted was successful or not.

It ruins the chance for players to metagame, which is the single greatest contribution I can make to keeping my game a role playing experience during combat.


Why is it low to let a player use a spell slot for nothing? That can happen with nearly all spells. Do you let players roll their attack rolls before deciding whether to cast Scorching Ray, too? If the enemy saves against Hold Person, do you let the caster say "Oh, in that case, I'm attacking instead"? The player spent a spell slot for a chance at negating an attack. Sometimes that chance pays off, sometimes it doesn't. Shield is already better than most fallible spells, in that you never have the situation where you cast it but it wasn't needed because the attack would have missed anyway.

Agreed. Your character would decide to use shield without "all of the data" about how close an attack come to wounding them, so I make my players do the same.

[RulesJD]

I never tell players what numbers they are going for. Only whether what they attempted was successful or not.

It ruins the chance for players to metagame, which is the single greatest contribution I can make to keeping my game a role playing experience during combat.



Agreed. Your character would decide to use shield without "all of the data" about how close an attack come to wounding them, so I make my players do the same.

So of course your NPCs don't get the benefit either right? They waste their Shield spells before you know what the player rolled for their attack rolls? They always rush head long into traps you know that the party has set, through Spike Growths, etc? Obviously you aren't being a hypocrite right?

[HarrisonF]

For my high elf arcane trickster (level 5), I ended up with these spells:

Cantrips:

Mage Hand, Minor Illusion (High Elf), Message, Prestidigitation

Spells Known:

Silent Image, Charm Person, Disguise Self, Fog Cloud


For comparing to your spell list:

* Friends is kinda garbage, whereas Charm person is way better. The biggest part is the added duration. I have found the only real use for friends is with disguise self when you intentionally want to make them hostile towards someone else. Using it for actual social interaction is a no-go due to the 1 minute duration. Charm Person + Persuasion expertise is real good.
* Still taking Silent Image even with Minor Illusion. Silent Image is better than minor illusion in a lot of cases, such that it is still worthwhile. The larger area, ability to look like a creature, ability to move all have come into play for me. Keep in mind you can combine them since only Silent Image requires concentration, so you can give some noise effects using Minor Illusion.
* Fog Cloud works really well with cunning action for hiding. Popping out to shoot at someone, moving back into the Fog Cloud, using Cunning Action to hide, and then move to an unknown spot in the fog is a really nice way to vanish at will. If you are also primarily in dungeons, then it has lots of added bonus places to use where you can create havoc.
* Message is very nice for scouting. You can easily relay back info you have found to the group.

[XianTheCoder]

* Fog Cloud works really well with cunning action for hiding. Popping out to shoot at someone, moving back into the Fog Cloud, using Cunning Action to hide, and then move to an unknown spot in the fog is a really nice way to vanish at will. If you are also primarily in dungeons, then it has lots of added bonus places to use where you can create havoc.

While reading this thread I kept saying to myself, "Wow, the lack of love being paid to Fog Cloud is surprising". It's just an all around versatile spell with all kinds of roguish uses. It's often been my "go to" spell with a lot of my rogue characters.

Just throwing my 2 cents in on Charm Person vs Friends... They are both rather crappy spells that fall behind quickly, but the Charm Person duration along with the fact that there is limited competition for good first level spells results in me typically taking it with my social-rogues.

And the 2 cents on Shield... great spell all around, but it's game dependant. I play with a lot of DMs that focus more on roleplay and less on combat (going a couple sessions without an actual encounter is not uncommon), so Shield falls way behind the utility of Fog Cloud or Disguise Self or Silent Image in these games. On the other side of the spectrum, in a game where combat occurs several times a session (especially facing a DM who likes mob tactics) shield is a strong choice, even with the overlap.

[Chronos]

My main objection to Fog Cloud is that most of what it does can also be done with illusions. Heck, make an illusion of a cloud of fog, and it won't even be a giveaway when arrows pass right through it. Yes, the enemy has a chance to see through it, but the flip side is that you and your allies have a much better chance to see through it (establish a code word with your party to let them know you're casting an illusion). Throw in that non-illusions have a higher opportunity cost than illusions (since there are more non-illusions to choose from, and you get to choose more illusions), and it just doesn't look like a good choice at all.

[XianTheCoder]

It's a fair comment, and one I've had to address several times. The main difference is that the low level Illusion spells are mostly static and don't scale well, where Fog Cloud is not static and scales a bit better (although there comes a point where you just don't need any more fog). Illusions are also subject to disbelief and saves where Fog cloud isn't. I've found that illusions are more versatile in the problems they solve, but for the problems that can be resolved using either spell Fog Cloud just has a lot more flexibility and is way more likely to succeed. I also tend to play characters that avoid direct combat and have high risk tolerance for antics, so when they are doing something I value the improved success ratio over the versatility when casting my spells. I tend to take Disguise Self, Minor Illusion, and Fog Cloud though, and forgo Shield, so my opinion is a bit biased since I'm usually casting from a character that could use either spell.

[SharkForce]

you get a chance to see through an illusion if you make an investigation check. as an action.

most enemies should not start doing that when they see an illusion of a fog cloud, unless they would also do that in the event that there was a real fog cloud.

(note that technically, an object passing through the fog cloud automatically breaks the illusion for most illusions, but i would hope most DMs would not enforce the literal RAW in this matter because objects *should* be able to pass through fog).

[Easy_Lee]

Right. Illusions are a particularly effective school of spell because one has to deliberately try to disbelieve them. They are "no save unless the DM doesn't think that the player's illusion was believable" spells, that even then take an action to try to resist.

[HarrisonF]

you get a chance to see through an illusion if you make an investigation check. as an action.

most enemies should not start doing that when they see an illusion of a fog cloud, unless they would also do that in the event that there was a real fog cloud.

(note that technically, an object passing through the fog cloud automatically breaks the illusion for most illusions, but i would hope most DMs would not enforce the literal RAW in this matter because objects *should* be able to pass through fog).
When something pass through it, a real fog cloud would react differently compared to an illusionary one. The fog would swirl and such, whereas an illusion it wouldn't (silent image could if you are using an action for it).

IMO, in some cases, an illusion can replace a real fog cloud spell, but not in the general case.

[Easy_Lee]

IMO, in some cases, an illusion can replace a real fog cloud spell, but not in the general case.

How closely do you, personally, watch fog clouds? If one behaved oddly, would you assume that it was a trick of the light, an off for, or a malignant caster? I guess that's not a fair question, because we don't live in the D&D world, and when we do many of us investigate everything that comes out of the DM's mouth.

That said, this is just one example of how an illusion can be used. Some illusions, such as crouching on the ground and conjuring the illusion of a barrel over the top of yourself, probably won't warrant any inspection.

[Safety Sword]

So of course your NPCs don't get the benefit either right? They waste their Shield spells before you know what the player rolled for their attack rolls? They always rush head long into traps you know that the party has set, through Spike Growths, etc? Obviously you aren't being a hypocrite right?

I'm so glad you've gotten to know my games so well. I do try my best to conduct combat according to what the NPCs would know.

And I often get NPCs to cast shield before knowing what a player has rolled. Doesn't everyone?

I'm glad it's obvious that I don't run a hypocritical game.

[Safety Sword]

How closely do you, personally, watch fog clouds? If one behaved oddly, would you assume that it was a trick of the light, an off for, or a malignant caster? I guess that's not a fair question, because we don't live in the D&D world, and when we do many of us investigate everything that comes out of the DM's mouth.

That said, this is just one example of how an illusion can be used. Some illusions, such as crouching on the ground and conjuring the illusion of a barrel over the top of yourself, probably won't warrant any inspection.

If I were guarding a castle in a world where people are known to be able to cast illusions to trick the senses I might spend some of my boring hours standing on a wall looking at fog clouds.

I mean, if I was attacking said castle, I might use the fog as cover for my sappers.

That being said, I might be scrutinising fog clouds too closely and miss other things that might be going on.

We are of course assuming that the fortification is in an area where fog forms regularly... otherwise it might be a give away that something is going on because there is fog...

So many options...

[Chronos]

Quoth Easy_Lee:

That said, this is just one example of how an illusion can be used. Some illusions, such as crouching on the ground and conjuring the illusion of a barrel over the top of yourself, probably won't warrant any inspection.
It might, if someone sees you do it: Spells to conjure real barrels are much less common than spells to conjure real fog.

And if you're worried about your illusory fog cloud being too obvious because it's not moving like real fog, then you could instead make an illusory globe of darkness for the same effect. I don't think magical darkness is ever described as moving in any way.

Plus, of course, illusions can be used for all sorts of effects that fog or darkness can't.

[HarrisonF]

How closely do you, personally, watch fog clouds? If one behaved oddly, would you assume that it was a trick of the light, an off for, or a malignant caster? I guess that's not a fair question, because we don't live in the D&D world, and when we do many of us investigate everything that comes out of the DM's mouth.

The point is that the fog cloud isn't behaving at all. It is a totally fixed non-moving static thing, which is going to always be odd when interacted with.



That said, this is just one example of how an illusion can be used. Some illusions, such as crouching on the ground and conjuring the illusion of a barrel over the top of yourself, probably won't warrant any inspection. I agree! Except that if you keep leaving and re-entering the barrel, that would. And the entire point of Fog Cloud as I gave it was the ability to rehide.



And if you're worried about your illusory fog cloud being too obvious because it's not moving like real fog, then you could instead make an illusory globe of darkness for the same effect. I don't think magical darkness is ever described as moving in any way.


Silent image can't duplicate perfect darkness, nor invisibility, etc...

Illusions always come down to DM rulings. If your DM allows your illusions to perfectly duplicate a higher level spell with your illusion, then I would definitely agree you should go with it. I would argue that most DMs will not allow that, and hence it is still useful.

[Chronos]

If I make an illusion of an opaque black sphere, how does that look any different from a darkness spell? I'm not duplicating it entirely, because there's the possibility of it being disbelieved, but it's hard to see how it's not mostly-duplicating it.

[HarrisonF]

If I make an illusion of an opaque black sphere, how does that look any different from a darkness spell? I'm not duplicating it entirely, because there's the possibility of it being disbelieved, but it's hard to see how it's not mostly-duplicating it.

Darkness swallows light. My torch light doesn't show upon a globe of darkness. It would look quite a bit different than an opaque black sphere.

[MustacheFart]

It's been my experience that there is a direct correlation between any potential shenanigan the player is trying to pull off with an illusion and a potentially, equally harsh reaction from the DM. For this reason, actual spells like Fog Cloud shouldn't be underestimated and really, any plans of significant use of illusions should be discussed with the DM prior to the game.

Illusions are ambiguous at best. That is their biggest strength but also their biggest weakness, which is why they're often a point of contention.

As for the barrel example, yeah my wife tried that once in our current game on her trickster rogue. Guess how it worked out? Not as she planned. This was at the mill in the first chapter of HOTDQ. She went into a corner beside a door while we were fighting some mooks and created a barrel over herself. Another npc came out of the doorway (who never saw her create the illusion) and the DM basically said:

DM: The NPC turns the corner, comes through the doorway, and sees the fighting. He also looks to his right seeing the barrel sitting beside him in the corner, and immediately investigates the barrel.

US: Wait, why? Why would he do that?

DM: Well, they had scouted this place out before you arrived. He didn't remember there being a barrel there!

Now, obviously in this case my DM is/was being a d*ck. I will openly admit that 99% of other DMs wouldn't have ignored ACTUAL combat to do what he did but that said, his reasoning was just. The barrel trick only works if your enemy has reasonable doubt tied the presence of the barrel. If he has any real lay of the land so to speak it will fail.

Illusions are great but they require a bit more thought than normal.

[-Jynx-]

First and foremost I agree that illusions are handled on a case by case basis and are very DM dependent on their usefulness.

On the case of the fog cloud here would be my interpretation of an illusionist making a "false" fog cloud. Archers loose a few arrows at the rogue feinting in and out of the fog. They would assume that the fog is either natural froma distance (because the rogue is indeed trying to mimic real fog) or simply assume that a magic user casted fog cloud (since it's a lower level fairly common spell) after a couple rounds (2 or 3?) they begin noticing whether the arrows entering the fog cloud 'move' the fog as they pass through. The air resistance from the arrow flying through the fog should causing some kind of ripply in the fog that they just simply weren't looking for at first and then after their first round or next sub-sequentially rounds they figure it out and disbelieve it. Once the first archer figures it out, he yells it out so everyone knows.

Meanwhile a melee combatant entering said fog would disbelieve it much sooner being in the actual fog itself as the "feeling" of density and the movement of the fog are easier to recognize in the cloud than farther away and once they figure it out, shout it out etc.

Not that I'm saying this ir right, or any other interpretation is wrong this is just how I see myself DMing a situation like that. Similarly with a fake darkness spell it would indeed look like a sphere of total darkness from the outside but once you step inside the sphere it would not obscure your vision more than a light shady of black. Causing any hostile creature to instantly question the sphere upon entering the illusion, but for all intensive purposes it would LOOK like a sphere of darkness (that you wouldn't want to just carelessly run into) from outside.

[HarrisonF]

It's been my experience that there is a direct correlation between any potential shenanigan the player is trying to pull off with an illusion and a potentially, equally harsh reaction from the DM. For this reason, actual spells like Fog Cloud shouldn't be underestimated and really, any plans of significant use of illusions should be discussed with the DM prior to the game.

Illusions are ambiguous at best. That is their biggest strength but also their biggest weakness, which is why they're often a point of contention.

As for the barrel example, yeah my wife tried that once in our current game on her trickster rogue. Guess how it worked out? Not as she planned. This was at the mill in the first chapter of HOTDQ. She went into a corner beside a door while we were fighting some mooks and created a barrel over herself. Another npc came out of the doorway (who never saw her create the illusion) and the DM basically said:

DM: The NPC turns the corner, comes through the doorway, and sees the fighting. He also looks to his right seeing the barrel sitting beside him in the corner, and immediately investigates the barrel.

US: Wait, why? Why would he do that?

DM: Well, they had scouted this place out before you arrived. He didn't remember there being a barrel there!

Now, obviously in this case my DM is/was being a d*ck. I will openly admit that 99% of other DMs wouldn't have ignored ACTUAL combat to do what he did but that said, his reasoning was just. The barrel trick only works if your enemy has reasonable doubt tied the presence of the barrel. If he has any real lay of the land so to speak it will fail.

Illusions are great but they require a bit more thought than normal.

Yea, that is definitely a case with the DM being a bit overzealous in his interpretation for inspection. Static illusions that fit into the scene are really the ideal case and where illusions should be able to shine. Examples I have made work that I think make sense:

* Minor illusion of a stump to hide in
* Minor illusion of a noise of someone tripping over something coming from a nearby alley
* Minor illusion of someone screaming for help
* Minor illusion of a a pink sign in air to tell people our team to avoid an area
* Silent image of an elf sneaking along and then running away when spotted
* Silent image of an extra few feet on a cliff wall for our group to hide in
* Silent image of a mute hill giant that we had beat up (yea, this was a stretch, but it was against Ogres...)
* Silent image of a wall continuing on top of a door

If given time, you can combine Silent Image with unseen servant to make it look like they are interacting with things as well.

[Chronos]

Oh, yeah, anyone entering a fake fog cloud would definitely get a chance to notice, as it wouldn't be clammy and humid.

[SharkForce]

Oh, yeah, anyone entering a fake fog cloud would definitely get a chance to notice, as it wouldn't be clammy and humid.

sure, unless the illusion includes touch. mirage arcane, phantasmal force, and of course the spells that are actually "real" illusions (phantom steed, creation, and simulacrum for example).

though it's debatable whether mirage arcane would be able to create fog; it's not exactly terrain. you could create soft cover that is terrain however (thick brush that obscures sight but has gaps an arrow could pass through, for example).

on the other hand, a swampy forest with fog clinging to the trees sounds like the sort of thing you should be able to create with the spell, so there's some argument to be made :P

[coredump]

How closely do you, personally, watch fog clouds? If one behaved oddly, would you assume that it was a trick of the light, an off for, or a malignant caster?
I don't think its a matter of 'watching closely' as much as 'this doesn't seem right'. Have you every watched a movie or TV show that uses a lot of Green Screen effects.... and sometimes they are just....'off'. You can't necessarily say exactly what is wrong, but it just doesn't look and react the way it should.
When the entire cloud is completely stationary..... that will often make something seem 'wrong' even if you can't explain why.

Plus, there is a size issue. Even the 3rd level Major Image can only make a cloud that is maybe 20% of the size of a real fog cloud spell. Silent image or Minor image would be even less. If you cast a fireball that was only 4' diameter.... wouldn't that be a clue it was fake?

[Easy_Lee]

I don't think its a matter of 'watching closely' as much as 'this doesn't seem right'. Have you every watched a movie or TV show that uses a lot of Green Screen effects.... and sometimes they are just....'off'. You can't necessarily say exactly what is wrong, but it just doesn't look and react the way it should.
When the entire cloud is completely stationary..... that will often make something seem 'wrong' even if you can't explain why.

Plus, there is a size issue. Even the 3rd level Major Image can only make a cloud that is maybe 20% of the size of a real fog cloud spell. Silent image or Minor image would be even less. If you cast a fireball that was only 4' diameter.... wouldn't that be a clue it was fake?

You know, this kind of thing is why I don't like to cast illusion spells personally. They're very useful usually, as they should be, but somebody always starts an argument about the particulars of the illusion or spell and how believable or effective it actually is. This kind of thing derails sessions.

If I'm casting a spell to do X, and the spell basically allows me to do it, you would think that would be good enough, right? Nope. Let's discuss the exact text and what that illusion actually looks like, regardless of the caster's intent.

[MustacheFart]

If I'm casting a spell to do X, and the spell basically allows me to do it, you would think that would be good enough, right? Nope. Let's discuss the exact text and what that illusion actually looks like, regardless of the caster's intent.

That's the nature of the beast though. Illusion spells aren't entirely straightforward. When I cast a fireball you know exactly what it is because the rules say so but an illusion spell is as much up to the interpretation of the caster. That flexibility is also ambiguity that will be a point of discussion.

I don't see any way around it unless they made illusion spells of only very specific functions such as, "Fake Wall: This spell creates a fake wall that matches a wall next to it as though the real wall continued." Current illusion spells are much more open ended and thus illicit discussion as they really should.

[-Jynx-]

I don't think its a matter of 'watching closely' as much as 'this doesn't seem right'. Have you every watched a movie or TV show that uses a lot of Green Screen effects.... and sometimes they are just....'off'. You can't necessarily say exactly what is wrong, but it just doesn't look and react the way it should.
When the entire cloud is completely stationary..... that will often make something seem 'wrong' even if you can't explain why.


That's more of a computer limitation than anything else. CGI looked way worse years ago and progressively has improved over time. Illusion magic to me (in a real life example) would be more akin to a mirage. Off in the distance you can't tell if there is truly a body of water, or if the heat is playing tricks on you. Or hallucinating and seeing things that look very real to you, but in fact aren't there at all.

Illusion magic isn't some bad low-resolution gif.

[MustacheFart]

That's more of a computer limitation than anything else. CGI looked way worse years ago and progressively has improved over time. Illusion magic to me (in a real life example) would be more akin to a mirage. Off in the distance you can't tell if there is truly a body of water, or if the heat is playing tricks on you. Or hallucinating and seeing things that look very real to you, but in fact aren't there at all.

Illusion magic isn't some bad low-resolution gif.

Except most mirages are seen from hundreds of feet away. As soon as a person gets close (aka the typical range illusion spells are cast) they see it to be false.

His point remains. Fog is a gas. It's an ever-moving substance. To create it effectively you would at least need an illusion spell that includes movement.

[Chronos]

Eh, maybe illusions really are low resolution. It's possible to tell them apart from the real thing, after all. Maybe your save DC is just a description of how good the resolution of your illusions is.

[Easy_Lee]

Personally, I like the idea that an illusion looks exactly like the real thing, and doesn't reveal itself until one tries to touch it. But, admittedly, that's probably my programmer tendencies coming out (just spawn an object with no collision).

Off-topic, I'm surprised that more games don't try to use illusions that way rather than just having them be static effects (as with Skyrim or Everquest).

[-Jynx-]

Eh, maybe illusions really are low resolution. It's possible to tell them apart from the real thing, after all. Maybe your save DC is just a description of how good the resolution of your illusions is.

Level 20 Arcane trickster now featuring 1080p HD illusions!

[SharkForce]

it takes an action and an investigation check to notice something is an illusion apart from physically moving an object through the illusion. i'm inclined to say that generally speaking, illusions look pretty real if the only way to tell is to explicitly devote effort towards telling if it's an illusion or not, and even when doing so it isn't a sure thing even if you're the most intelligent human being in the world.