Illusions as cover for archers

[tieren]

I am currently a ranger and am considering multiclassing into rogue and possibly taking arcane trickster.

I am wondering if there is a way to create an illusion that I could see through and my opponents could not that would also stand up to the opponents shooting arrows through it and not disbelieving. I am thinking like an illusionary smoke screen. I am ok if it is only possible with a higher level illusion (like silent image or major illusion instead of the minor illusion cantrip).

I understand I could make an illusion of a solid object and get advantage on the first arrow shooting out of it (probably), but what I want is something that wouldn't visually appear to be terribly out of place with arrows going through it (either direction). I am fine if it doesn't stand up to an enemy actually touching or entering it, but I want it to still be believable if they shoot ranged things through it.

Examples:
At some distance I make a (illusionary) fog cloud via silent image and hide in it while shooting out. The enemies would know where the shots are coming from but wouldn't see through the illusion even if their arrows interact with it because you would expect them to go through it.

Create a Wall of fire with major illusion (with heat and everything) and shoot through it.

Create some other effect clearly magical but not necessarily an illusion like a prismatic wall; or a gaping black portal ringed in bones that the arrows pass in and out of as we exchange volleys.

A programmed illusion of a heavy curtain, programmed to react to objects passing through it by displaying black holes and tears where they passed through.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Using Silent Image to create a one-way Fog Cloud seems fine. They're both the same level, even. And it doesn't obsolete Fog Cloud because that covers a larger area, lasts longer and can't be disbelieved.

[Shaofoo]

I don't know how are you expecting to make an illusion affect your opponent and not affect you, I am not sure how are you getting this.

Also as it is written any physical interaction with an illusion discerns it for what it is because things can pass through it. I would assume that even an illusion of something like a fog bank can be disbelieved because the fog isn't affected by an arrow flying through it, RAW says that once you shoot an arrow through the illusion everyone will believe it to be an illusion and no one will believe it anymore.

Also it only takes one guy to disbelieve the illusion for everyone to disbelieve since I would assume that anyone fighting in a team can communicate that the wall is fake.

Basically your idea can work if you want to set up some quick cover to get the drop on an enemy but you can't use it in any sustained fight since any arrow or effect from either side runs the risk of exposing the illusion for what it truly is.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I don't know how are you expecting to make an illusion affect your opponent and not affect you, I am not sure how are you getting this.

From the text of Silent Image:


"If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image."

As the creator of the illusion, you surely know that it is an illusion.

And I don't think anyone in a combat situation would be paying close enough attention to the individual smoke particles to notice that they didn't drift in quite the right way when the arrow passed through. Maybe if someone is super observant, I'd have them do the "A creature that uses its action to examine the image..." thing on their next turn, but that's about it.

[DivisibleByZero]

As for shooting through an illusory fog bank immediately identifying it as an illusion, this is less than straightforward. A fog bank is, after all, something which things will normally pass through.
The difference here will be that the fog won't swirl and shift the way that it normally would.
So the arrow passing through it would not immediately identify it as illusory. But the lack of swirling after it does.... might.
Here, as DM, I'd secretly roll Intelligence (perception) for everyone within melee range of the illusion, and for the person firing the arrow. If any of them pass the check, then I'd tell that player what they saw (and what they think should have happened) and let them decide (or not) to actively make an Intelligence (investigation) check to disbelieve it. I wouldn't tell them that this active check is an option. I'd simply tell them what they saw and what they would have expected to see, and let them figure the rest out on their own.

* Int (perception) is not a normal roll, yes, I know this

[Shaofoo]

From the text of Silent Image:


"If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image."

As the creator of the illusion, you surely know that it is an illusion.


By RAW you actually believe it is as much of an illusion as your enemies. You can take steps to disbelieve it yourself but nothing in the RAW says that you start off disbelieving the illusion, nothing in the text that says that the caster starts of knowing that the illusion is fake. The caster isn't separated from everyone else.

Of course by logic you should know that the illusion is fake since you created it but you can't bring up a fragment of the rules and then try to use out of book logic to justify it, especially when the book has several examples of caster exclusion in their effects.


And I don't think anyone in a combat situation would be paying close enough attention to the individual smoke particles to notice that they didn't drift in quite the right way when the arrow passed through. Maybe if someone is super observant, I'd have them do the "A creature that uses its action to examine the image..." thing on their next turn, but that's about it.

From the text of Silent Image

"Physical Interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion"

I take having arrows passing through the illusion as physical interaction since arrows are physical objects. If you disagree with this assessment because enemies be dumb then that is your decision but by RAW as soon as the arrow flies through the illusion everyone will know that it is an illusion and see through it, you can't argue with this. It doesn't matter if the enemies aren't normally observant enough by the rules they should know that the fog is fake as soon as the first arrow whizzes through.

Like I said, if you want to make some quick cover on unsuspecting enemies then I would agree it is a good idea but if you are in the middle of a fire fight I doubt shotting through your illusory walls will do you much good since by RAW as soon as the first arrow comes through then everyone knows that it is fake by RAW. Self defeating

[Ninja_Prawn]

By RAW you actually believe it is as much of an illusion as your enemies. You can take steps to disbelieve it yourself but nothing in the RAW says that you start off disbelieving the illusion, nothing in the text that says that the caster starts of knowing that the illusion is fake. The caster isn't separated from everyone else.

Of course by logic you should know that the illusion is fake since you created it but you can't bring up a fragment of the rules and then try to use out of book logic to justify it, especially when the book has several examples of caster exclusion in their effects.

Don't be absurd. Of course the caster knows their illusion is an illusion.


From the text of Silent Image

"Physical Interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion"

I take having arrows passing through the illusion as physical interaction since arrows are physical objects. If you disagree with this assessment because enemies be dumb then that is your decision but by RAW as soon as the arrow flies through the illusion everyone will know that it is an illusion and see through it, you can't argue with this. It doesn't matter if the enemies aren't normally observant enough by the rules they should know that the fog is fake as soon as the first arrow whizzes through.

I see where you're coming from. In this case my reading is different to yours - I understand it as "Physical Interaction [by Creature A] with the image reveals it to be an illusion [to Creature A]". Anyone observing Creature A would still need to make a check.

[DivisibleByZero]

Like I said, if you want to make some quick cover on unsuspecting enemies then I would agree it is a good idea but if you are in the middle of a fire fight I doubt shotting through your illusory walls will do you much good since by RAW as soon as the first arrow comes through then everyone knows that it is fake by RAW. Self defeating

That would be true if we were talking about an illusory wall, where an arrow would normally not pass through it.
That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about an illusion of something that an arrow normally WOULD pass through. So an arrow passing through something that it would normally pass through isn't exactly so out of place an immediately indicative of said item being an illusion.
You're being far too literal and lawyer-ish.
Cases such as this are exactly the reason that the DM is the final arbiter, and in this case not immediately detecting that it's an illusion is the right and reasonable call.
Hence the secret check that I would make for the players, which would indicate that something seems off to them (or not).

[Battlebooze]

As a player who uses this particular trick sometimes, I have some useful advice.

Don't make the cover look like "fog" unless you have a particular reason you want to keep it low key. Wind, weapons, so on, all are hints that might give your illusion away.

If you are in combat, make the illusion look like the effects of a Darkness spell, a big black void. That works much better.

[Shaofoo]

Don't be absurd. Of course the caster knows their illusion is an illusion.


Sure by logic and everyone who isn't out to get you they will agree that a caster should know that their illusion is an illusion.



I see where you're coming from. In this case my reading is different to yours - I understand it as "Physical Interaction [by Creature A] with the image reveals it to be an illusion [to Creature A]". Anyone observing Creature A would still need to make a check.

I would assume at all times everyone is aware of everything around them at all times. If a person is stepping in a pit of fire and is unharmed I will make it so that he communicates to his team that the fire is fake because nothing is happening, I don't make the other people take checks to realize that the fake fire is fake when he is told that it is fake. No man's an island


That would be true if we were talking about an illusory wall, where an arrow would normally not pass through it.
That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about an illusion of something that an arrow normally WOULD pass through. So an arrow passing through something that it would normally pass through isn't exactly so out of place an immediately indicative of said item being an illusion.

Sure an arrow passing through a fog bank is believable, but an arrow not disturbing a fog bank is not so much. That is what defeats the illusion.


You're being far too literal and lawyer-ish.

Cases such as this are exactly the reason that the DM is the final arbiter, and in this case not immediately detecting that it's an illusion is the right and reasonable call.
Hence the secret check that I would make for the players, which would indicate that something seems off to them (or not).

So then what if the DM were to make the decision that people should know that an arrow not affecting the fog bank will immediately defeat the illusion? Maybe the enemy is aware on how fog banks work? Are all enemies dumb as bricks and unaware of their surroundings? You seem to think that your decision is the only true one and that everyone else is wrong, you are saying that reading the rules is wrong because you wouldn't rule it like that.


As a player who uses this particular trick sometimes, I have some useful advice.

Don't make the cover look like "fog" unless you have a particular reason you want to keep it low key. Wind, weapons, so on, all are hints that might give your illusion away.

If you are in combat, make the illusion look like the effects of a Darkness spell, a big black void. That works much better.

You can't make the illusion take the effects of a Darkness spell, you create an Image of a Darkness effect. And of course it can still be defeated by having someone look at it or someone seeing something go through it since it doesn't negate the being disbelieved by physical interaction.

[tieren]

My take is the physical interaction language in the spell describes how it doesn't stand up to physical inspection. No matter how much you believe the illusion of a stone wall it won't stop your hand from going through.

Once your hand goes through a stone wall anyone knows it's an illusion no matter how low your Int score is.

I am talking here more about visual illusions that wouldn't be obvious to an observer, particularly at range.

The darkness effect is a great example. Suppose instead of a fog cloud you made a black hemisphere which would visually look like someone cast a darkness spell. It's not unusual at all for objects or creatures to move in and out of a darkness spell effect without it reacting. So arrows going in and out would be completely ordinary.

And really, to say the caster does not know the illusion is an illusion is absurd unless it sprang into being unbidden by a wild surge or something. Do you think if I make an illusion of a monster that I have to check to see if I am tricked into attacking it?

[Battlebooze]

You can't make the illusion take the effects of a Darkness spell, you create an Image of a Darkness effect. And of course it can still be defeated by having someone look at it or someone seeing something go through it since it doesn't negate the being disbelieved by physical interaction.

Um, yes, you can make Illusionary darkness. Which can be disbelieved, of course, since it is an Illusion.

As for physical interaction, I challenge you to touch a shadow and tell me if it's "real". An arrow shooting into fake darkness looks no different that a arrow shooting into "fake" darkness.

[Mjolnirbear]

So RAW, any phisical interactions reveal it to be illusion. This is absolutely the case, no exception is written and can only be assumed.

However.

Physical interaction is not limited to solid objects. Air is everywhere. Any illusion with the physical interaction clause would fail instantly. Since this makes these spells absolutely worthless in every way, a strict RAW cannot be what the devs intended.

It is logical therefore that what was *intended* is that 'physical interaction' was intended to mean 'an interaction that would reveal to anyone paying attention that the illusion is, to put it scientifically, wonky'. The creature needs a reason to disbelieve. Given said reason, he will disbelieve it.

Were i DMing i would require a difficult perception check to notice the lack of disturbance from the arrow's passage through the fog bank. A fog bank in a wind of anykind would require an easy check. A darkness spell might be different.

Also: it is stupid to expect the caster of an illusion to not know it's an illusion. "Oh hey, look guys! This angry dragon that suddenly appeared looks exactly like the one i was imagining when i just cast my illusion spell!! It's got all the same colours and shadows and EVERYTHING!! What are the chances?!?! Hey, do you think i've become a seer somehow??" That is Elan-level stupidity.

[Shaofoo]

Um, yes, you can make Illusionary darkness. Which can be disbelieved, of course, since it is an Illusion.

As for physical interaction, I challenge you to touch a shadow and tell me if it's "real". An arrow shooting into fake darkness looks no different that a arrow shooting into "fake" darkness.

Simple, maybe the Illusion doesn't readily make objects disappear into darkness. Maybe it could be that while an actual Darkness has some sort of fading transition the Illusion doesn't have that, the hand or arrow just disappears suddenly. It can be ruled in so many ways as to be pointless, it is basically your ruling against mine and both are valid.




Were i DMing i would require a difficult perception check to notice the lack of disturbance from the arrow's passage through the fog bank. A fog bank in a wind of anykind would require an easy check. A darkness spell might be different.


Technically the DC to disbelieve is your Spell DC according to your class. You can make changes to the DC as you see fit but by RAW its got that covered.

[WickerNipple]

It should be noted that combining a 1/2 lvl caster with a 1/3 lvl caster makes for particularly awful spell progression - and you're giving up assassin (which is amazing for an archer) in order to get it.

Half/Third casters also tend to be much better off using spells that don't rely on spell save DCs since they tend not to be very good.

But if you really wanted Silent Image on a ranger/rogue I'd probably just dip wizard/sorc/bard for it. Major Image is 13 levels away via Trickster...

[Mjolnirbear]

Technically the DC to disbelieve is your Spell DC according to your class. You can make changes to the DC as you see fit but by RAW its got that covered.. I meant to notice the thing that would allow him to disbelieve. Not the actual disbelieve save itself.

[Madeiner]

I don't have a text in front of me but if raw says every physical interaction reveals the illusion, you should work your descriptions around that. Who is to day illusions dont flicker when disrupted? Maybe its an effect akin to putting an hand in front of a projector or the illusion sparkles, but it is revealed in any case

[tieren]

Also think about ways you could reinforce the illusion. Suppose I cast a real fog bank on the enemy and then later in the same fight cast an illusionary one on myself at range.

The mooks would already know I have that ability and the natural assumption would be I cast it again. They would know it's a magical effect but probably wouldn't conclude it's an illusion.

Another option would be to toss some smoke bombs of different colors and illusion up a swirling billowing mass of purple smoke around me. Clearly magical but not necessarily an illusion and if it's moving enough on its own turbulence they wouldn't notice if their arrows disturbed it any as they entered.

[Corey]

The bit about you being forced to believe your own illusion can easily be worked around. E.g., the Fog Cloud looks like fog from the outside but like hail on the inside. When you don't feel the hail, you have a reason to disbelieve.

[JoeJ]

By RAW you actually believe it is as much of an illusion as your enemies. You can take steps to disbelieve it yourself but nothing in the RAW says that you start off disbelieving the illusion, nothing in the text that says that the caster starts of knowing that the illusion is fake. The caster isn't separated from everyone else.

Where in the text does it say you start out believing your own illusion?

[Alerad]

It's a big miss the designers didn't put it in the PHB. "As a creator of the illusion, you know it's an illusion."

There are many things not in RAW, but this is getting absurd.

Anyway, back to the question. I think it's totally ok to make an illusion of a tree, rock, etc., hide behind it and get a surprise attack. Your enemies get a chance to figure it out (Investigation, Int saves), but if they don't, more Sneak attacks for you. Once you attack from the illusion, it should make it obvious it was a trick. And yes, I think you can see perfectly fine through your illusions.

As you said, fog should be fine too. Remember, some enemies might try to Search for you in the fog so that will also give them a chance of seeing through your illusion.

[Shaofoo]

Where in the text does it say you start out believing your own illusion?

Where in the text does it say you start out not believing it? If you can quote me in the rules where the caster is supposed to be treated differently from everyone else. The text makes no distinction between caster and everyone else so by RAW the caster is unaware that the illusion is an illusion even though it is real.

The point I wanted to make was basically at what point can you no action disbelieve an illusion? Sure you know it is an illusion because you cast it but can anyone else so easily disbelieve an illusion? Can another Wizard see the casting (verbal and somatic and even some have material components) and immediately disbelieve since he knows the casting is consistent with an Illusion spell and not anything else? Could a Wizard proficient in Illusion spells be able to immediately spot discrepancies?

Of course this isn't true because you need people to believe illusions for balance reasons but if you want to say the caster knows the illusion because it is so obvious that he cast it then you open the can of worms that now anyone that can identify spells immediately can know it is an illusion. And yes before you ask I do believe that the caster should know his Illusion is an Illusion without him doing anything. This is more of an exercise in ruling.

But well lets stop talking about you now believing in your own illusions, seems to get people mad around these parts for some reason.



Anyway, back to the question. I think it's totally ok to make an illusion of a tree, rock, etc., hide behind it and get a surprise attack. Your enemies get a chance to figure it out (Investigation, Int saves), but if they don't, more Sneak attacks for you. Once you attack from the illusion, it should make it obvious it was a trick. And yes, I think you can see perfectly fine through your illusions.

By RAW as soon as you make an attack your attacking position is revealed (Unless you have the Skulker feat and your attack misses). As soon as you attack they are aware that there is someone behind the tree or rock shooting at them. They might not immediately believe that the rock or tree is fake but they know someone is behind it.


As you said, fog should be fine too. Remember, some enemies might try to Search for you in the fog so that will also give them a chance of seeing through your illusion.

As soon as they are in the fog they know it is an illusion and immediately disbelieve by RAW since they are physically interacting with the illusion.

[tieren]

The rules say explicitly that everyone who knows it is an illusion can see through it. If you intentionally cast an illusion you know it is an illusion and can see through it, RAW.

You could also prep your party by saying "I am going to cast the illusion of a fog cloud, remember it's not real", and they could see through it too.

I agree if the enemy enters the illusion they will know what it is, but I don't think arrows entering it reveal it unless the enemy was really observant as evidenced by a check.

[DivisibleByZero]

You could also prep your party by saying "I am going to cast the illusion of a fog cloud, remember it's not real", and they could see through it too.

Instead of stating, in the middle of combat, where enemies can hear you say it as well, I yell "BONZAI!"
If I yell BONZAI!, then my party knows that the spell I just cast was illusory.... but the enemy does not.

And incidentally, the character in question almost exclusively casts illusions with his slots, just because they are so freaking versatile that you can almost literally do anything you want with them. It's odd for me not to end a description of what happens with the word BONZAI!

[Bubzors]

I don't have a text in front of me but if raw says every physical interaction reveals the illusion, you should work your descriptions around that. Who is to day illusions dont flicker when disrupted? Maybe its an effect akin to putting an hand in front of a projector or the illusion sparkles, but it is revealed in any case

This right here. This small little explanation fits both the RAW of physical interaction and a logical in game reason for it. This is how I run illusions. If an arrow was fired into it the whole image flutters like a bad star wars hologram.

And I think the whole argument about believing your illusion is ridiculous. Of course you don't believe it. Remember that this is a game of interpretation that explicitly tells the DM to rule/interpret how they feel is best. Just because the designers don't specifically mention a corner case of something doesn't mean you have to follow the RAW blindly.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Instead of stating, in the middle of combat, where enemies can hear you say it as well, I yell "BONZAI!"
If I yell BONZAI!, then my party knows that the spell I just cast was illusory.... but the enemy does not.

And incidentally, the character in question almost exclusively casts illusions with his slots, just because they are so freaking versatile that you can almost literally do anything you want with them. It's odd for me not to end a description of what happens with the word BONZAI!

...I believe the preferred spelling is 'banzai (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banzai)'. :smalltongue:

[JoeJ]

Where in the text does it say you start out not believing it? If you can quote me in the rules where the caster is supposed to be treated differently from everyone else. The text makes no distinction between caster and everyone else so by RAW the caster is unaware that the illusion is an illusion even though it is real.

So "RAW" only in the same way that, according to RAW, characters who die as a result of massive damage or SOD spells like Finger of Death can still take actions because they don't become unconscious and Dead is not a condition defined in the rules. Or that by RAW a character can only suffocate if they're holding their breath. That's not a useful definition of the term "RAW."

I don't see anywhere in the rules either for this spell or generally that casters are not distinguished from everybody else.

[Battlebooze]

The text for Silent images says "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."

So, presenting a image of something that objects could normally pass through, like a darkness spell in the air, would not reveal anything at all.

RAW says nothing about any "magical shimmer", it is simply stating the obvious, you shoot an arrow at an illusionary person, your arrow will pass through and reveal that its an illusion. The obvious inverse, which is not stated, would be an illusionary pit would be revealed to be solid ground, if struck.

As for believing your own illusions are real while actively concentrating on them and being able to control them, I don't know how to argue with that level of madness.

RAW says... "If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image." If there is anyone in the game universe who can discern that, it's the caster who is actively concentrating on the spell.

[Louro]

Wow! Are reople really arguing that the caster itself is prone to believe his own illusions? Maybe on Discworld.

But there are situations in which an illusionist could actually wanted to believe his own illusions. Trying to disguise a stink, creating a wall to protect himself from a horrible view, turning the cheap whore into a stunning babe...

I miss when illusions could kill you.

[JackPhoenix]

They still do! Phantasmal Force, Phantasmal Killer, Simulacrum, Weird... They aren't very good (not counting Simulacrum, but that's something else), but they work.

[Louro]

Rubbish!
I'm talking about those times in which if you miraculously survive a wall crumbling onto you, then you could create that illusion to make people believe they just died.

[Susano-wo]

The text for Silent images says "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."

So, presenting a image of something that objects could normally pass through, like a darkness spell in the air, would not reveal anything at all.

RAW says nothing about any "magical shimmer", it is simply stating the obvious, you shoot an arrow at an illusionary person, your arrow will pass through and reveal that its an illusion. The obvious inverse, which is not stated, would be an illusionary pit would be revealed to be solid ground, if struck.

As for believing your own illusions are real while actively concentrating on them and being able to control them, I don't know how to argue with that level of madness.

RAW says... "If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image." If there is anyone in the game universe who can discern that, it's the caster who is actively concentrating on the spell.

Gee, its surprising how much clearer a game rule is when you quote the whole rule and not just the part that seems to support one rather literal interpretation :smallwink:

[Battlebooze]

Rubbish!
I'm talking about those times in which if you miraculously survive a wall crumbling onto you, then you could create that illusion to make people believe they just died.

In first edition, I think you could make people pass out from illusionary damage. I guess it was like the Matrix, the mind makes it real! :P

By the way, I wouldn't have a problem with a DM giving a "free" INT(investigation) check when someone notices that a obscuring effect is being ignored by an enemy as if it's not there.

[Louro]

Yep, it was that way in AD&D too.

Illusion were always a controversial thing. They give you a HUGE versatility (requiring the same amount of imagination) but they don't offer any real effect (besides some specific spells like phantasmal killer or mirror image).

Soooo... If you give free save roll on sight (some DMs do) they they are absolutely worthless. If you only give save when direct/physical contact occurs then they might become too powerful. In my opinion intelligent NPCs could get save roll if they have some sort of clue that might reveal something is wrong.

The darkness idea is really good, but a guy who knows the darkness spell could be intrigued by its small size.

[Shaofoo]

So "RAW" only in the same way that, according to RAW, characters who die as a result of massive damage or SOD spells like Finger of Death can still take actions because they don't become unconscious and Dead is not a condition defined in the rules. Or that by RAW a character can only suffocate if they're holding their breath. That's not a useful definition of the term "RAW."

I don't see anywhere in the rules either for this spell or generally that casters are not distinguished from everybody else.

So you are saying that by RAW casters are affected by their own illusions like everyone else? Just want to be sure.

[JoeJ]

So you are saying that by RAW casters are affected by their own illusions like everyone else? Just want to be sure.

If you're trying to be funny you should put in an emoticon or something. RAW definitely does not say any such thing.

[Battlebooze]

Okay, let's just break down this one part...

RAW says... "If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image."

When a caster casts an illusion spell, we have two options. They either know what appears before them is an illusion from the spell that they just cast and are concentrating on, or they think what they see is real, somehow created from godlike powers they didn't even know they had.

Crazy option one: "Oh my gods! I just created a real red dragon right there, when I meant to cast major illusion! I guess I don't need to concentrate on my illusion spell anymore, I got the real thing somehow. Oh damn, it just faded away like the last real dragon I somehow summoned with an illusion spell. This is really confusing."

Sane Option two: "Haha, suckers, I'll distract you with my illusionary dragon!"


MMm.. One of these options makes sense and fits the Raw. Hint, it's not option one.

[Corey]

Yep, it was that way in AD&D too.

Illusion were always a controversial thing. They give you a HUGE versatility (requiring the same amount of imagination) but they don't offer any real effect (besides some specific spells like phantasmal killer or mirror image).

Soooo... If you give free save roll on sight (some DMs do) they they are absolutely worthless. If you only give save when direct/physical contact occurs then they might become too powerful. In my opinion intelligent NPCs could get save roll if they have some sort of clue that might reveal something is wrong.

The darkness idea is really good, but a guy who knows the darkness spell could be intrigued by its small size.

In 2E, when my Fireball was used up, I cast an illusory one. Even better, it had whatever area of effect I said it did.

[Shaofoo]

If you're trying to be funny you should put in an emoticon or something. RAW definitely does not say any such thing.

Oh I am definitely not trying to be funny, friend.

I was just saying what you are describing.

Lets analyze your key sentence.

"I don't see anywhere in the rules either for this spell or generally that casters are not distinguished from everybody else."

If casters are NOT distinguished from everybody else then they are affected like everyone else because the spell makes no distinction between caster and creature (anything that moves is considered a creature, right? I am also including things like golems and zombies).

And I am assuming that casters are creatures. Unless there is something in the rules that I am missing that separates them from everyone else.

Of course maybe I am missing your point since you went in a wild tangent about death not being defined for some odd reason, maybe instead of going off topic you should stick to the topic at hand so any confusion doesn't result?


Okay, let's just break down this one part...

RAW says... "If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image."

...

MMm.. One of these options makes sense and fits the Raw. Hint, it's not option one.

You forgot that there are established steps to disbelieve an illusion. Either something must physically interact with the solution or someone uses an action and saves to disbelieve. So by RAW there are established ways to disbelieve already. But I am not arguing that you truly believe in the illusion, I already said as much before.

[Corey]

RAW says... "If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image." If there is anyone in the game universe who can discern that, it's the caster who is actively concentrating on the spell.

I agree. The two sentences right before that in the spell description give two different ways for a creature to so discern. But that's not an exhaustive list.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Of course maybe I am missing your point

Yep. You missed the word "don't". They said they didn't see where in the rules the things you're claiming are written.

Just like everyone else here. Because we're sane.

[Ultimate_Coffee]

Okay, let's just break down this one part...

RAW says... "If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image."

When a caster casts an illusion spell, we have two options. They either know what appears before them is an illusion from the spell that they just cast and are concentrating on, or they think what they see is real, somehow created from godlike powers they didn't even know they had.

Crazy option one: "Oh my gods! I just created a real red dragon right there, when I meant to cast major illusion! I guess I don't need to concentrate on my illusion spell anymore, I got the real thing somehow. Oh damn, it just faded away like the last real dragon I somehow summoned with an illusion spell. This is really confusing."

Sane Option two: "Haha, suckers, I'll distract you with my illusionary dragon!"


MMm.. One of these options makes sense and fits the Raw. Hint, it's not option one.

There is another option... I don't know if it is how illusions were intended to work in RAI, but it is how my group interprets the intent of the illusions.
Basically, everybody has a conscious mind and a subconscious mind. The illusion fools the subconscious mind.
That means that any illusion created is believed by all creatures (including the caster), but only by the subconscious mind. So the caster of an illusion knows that he cast an illusion spell, he knows that the result is an illusion, but the image appears so real in the world that his subconscious mind will not disbelieve it without taking the proper measures to convince his subconscious mind (an investigation check or some kind of interaction that would prove the image false).
This works the same for enemies that recognize that you cast an illusion spell, or allies that you warned beforehand that you would be casting illusion spells. They don't have to believe them, but their subconscious has no choice, and so they can't see through them.
It has worked really well at my table so far.

[Louro]

Cast an illusion over yourself to make you look like an aarakocra.
You can fly now!

Casters are aware of their own illusions, and according to RAW you can see through illusions you bare aware of. The subconscious mind trick on the last post doesn't follow RAW but I think it isn't bad at all, just a small nerf.

[Shaofoo]

Yep. You missed the word "don't". They said they didn't see where in the rules the things you're claiming are written.

Well I am just using the catch all that the spell makes no distinction, if they don't want to rule it that way is one thing but saying that they can't see it when I explained it is a bit worrisome.


Just like everyone else here. Because we're sane.

And if you read before you would know that I already said that I believe that a caster should know his own illusion and this was just an exercise in RAW. If you think that I am trying to make people believe in something that I already said I don't believe in then you should rest easy that the stuff that I have already said I don't believe in I don't believe in.


Cast an illusion over yourself to make you look like an aarakocra.
You can fly now!


Sure, you can pull it off.

Disguise Self isn't a Concentration spell so you can have that and the Fly spell on you at the same time, you can fool people with making yourself as a bird person and fly.

[Louro]

Disguise Self isn't a Concentration spell so you can have that and the Fly spell on you at the same time, you can fool people with making yourself as a bird person and fly.
Assuming the caster is aware that he is not really an aarakocra, which some people seem to be arguing about.

[JoeJ]

Oh I am definitely not trying to be funny, friend.

I was just saying what you are describing.

Lets analyze your key sentence.

"I don't see anywhere in the rules either for this spell or generally that casters are not distinguished from everybody else."

If casters are NOT distinguished from everybody else then they are affected like everyone else because the spell makes no distinction between caster and creature (anything that moves is considered a creature, right? I am also including things like golems and zombies).

And I am assuming that casters are creatures. Unless there is something in the rules that I am missing that separates them from everyone else.


"I don't see anywhere in the rules either for this spell or generally that casters are not distinguished from everybody else." i.e. RAW does NOT say that the caster and the target are treated the same either for the purpose of this spell, or for spells in general. You may interpolate that, but it is not in the text of the rules. It is therefore not RAW.

[Shaofoo]

"I don't see anywhere in the rules either for this spell or generally that casters are not distinguished from everybody else." i.e. RAW does NOT say that the caster and the target are treated the same either for the purpose of this spell, or for spells in general. You may interpolate that, but it is not in the text of the rules. It is therefore not RAW.

So you are saying that by RAW all casters are immune to their own spells?

So you are saying that if a caster targets his own space with a Fireball then he doesn't have to take any Fire damage? If he lays a Sleep or Confusion effect on his feet then he has no risk to be confused or asleep?

Cause if you are saying " RAW does NOT say that the caster and the target are treated the same either for the purpose of this spell, or for spells in general" then it seems that you are insinuating that casters are immune to their own spells because they are never valid targets (unless they choose to be I am assuming). I would really like to see some direct quotes that casters and everyone else are separate.

So now it is my turn to say if you are kidding?

Not to mention that there is no "target" to these spells, the "target" is anyone that sees the illusion. Illusions don't work by beaming an image into the brain of a target, there is an actual magical illusion present in reality, like a hologram I am assuming.

[georgie_leech]

So you are saying that by RAW all casters are immune to their own spells?

So you are saying that if a caster targets his own space with a Fireball then he doesn't have to take any Fire damage? If he lays a Sleep or Confusion effect on his feet then he has no risk to be confused or asleep?

Cause if you are saying " RAW does NOT say that the caster and the target are treated the same either for the purpose of this spell, or for spells in general" then it seems that you are insinuating that casters are immune to their own spells because they are never valid targets (unless they choose to be I am assuming). I would really like to see some direct quotes that casters and everyone else are separate.

So now it is my turn to say if you are kidding?

Not to mention that there is no "target" to these spells, the "target" is anyone that sees the illusion. Illusions don't work by beaming an image into the brain of a target, there is an actual magical illusion present in reality, like a hologram I am assuming.

If the circumstances allow for the Wizard to be immune to fire, perhaps due to a spell, being some sort of powerful creature, or a magical macguffin of some sort, then they are absolutely immune to their own Fireball. It's just that the bar for being unaffected by or immune to a sensory illusion like Silent Image is generally considerably lower.

[JoeJ]

So you are saying that by RAW all casters are immune to their own spells?

So you are saying that if a caster targets his own space with a Fireball then he doesn't have to take any Fire damage? If he lays a Sleep or Confusion effect on his feet then he has no risk to be confused or asleep?

Cause if you are saying " RAW does NOT say that the caster and the target are treated the same either for the purpose of this spell, or for spells in general" then it seems that you are insinuating that casters are immune to their own spells because they are never valid targets (unless they choose to be I am assuming). I would really like to see some direct quotes that casters and everyone else are separate.

So now it is my turn to say if you are kidding?

Not to mention that there is no "target" to these spells, the "target" is anyone that sees the illusion. Illusions don't work by beaming an image into the brain of a target, there is an actual magical illusion present in reality, like a hologram I am assuming.

Your response is illogical. "The text does not say A" =/= "the text says Not A."

edit: also, your example of fireball is a particularly bad choice. The spell description explicitly says, "Each creature is a 20-foot radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw." There is no equivalent text in the illusion spells we're discussing.

[Shaofoo]

Your response is illogical. "The text does not say A" =/= "the text says Not A."

edit: also, your example of fireball is a particularly bad choice. The spell description explicitly says, "Each creature is a 20-foot radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw." There is no equivalent text in the illusion spells we're discussing.

I am saying that all animate things are within the subset of "creatures".

You are saying that somewhere within the text (which you did not disclose) all spells have a distinction between creatures and casters. You are saying that because a caster is not a creature to the spell then he isn't affected, you are then saying that any caster of their own spell is immune to it.

You are saying that a caster doesn't believe his own Illusion because he is immune to his own spell in the first place.

So there isn't a " says not A != doesn't say A" but rather for any spell a caster is not a creature to be considered. That is my takeaway.

And to your edit, basically it does make sense because both illusion spells and fireball use creatures to describe what they affect, you said that creatures and casters aren't one in the same so I am assuming that a caster is not a creature for the spell as you said.

[JoeJ]

I am saying that all animate things are within the subset of "creatures".

You are saying that somewhere within the text (which you did not disclose) all spells have a distinction between creatures and casters. You are saying that because a caster is not a creature to the spell then he isn't affected, you are then saying that any caster of their own spell is immune to it.

You are saying that a caster doesn't believe his own Illusion because he is immune to his own spell in the first place.

So there isn't a " says not A != doesn't say A" but rather for any spell a caster is not a creature to be considered. That is my takeaway.

And to your edit, basically it does make sense because both illusion spells and fireball use creatures to describe what they affect, you said that creatures and casters aren't one in the same so I am assuming that a caster is not a creature for the spell as you said.

What you just wrote is so bizarre that I must conclude you are doing it deliberately in an attempt to troll.

[Shaofoo]

What you just wrote is so bizarre that I must conclude you are doing it deliberately in an attempt to troll.

Well you have yet to even explain yourself beyond saying I am wrong because I am wrong. Heck your explanation is supposedly RAW and yet you haven't even given one single quote from the book directly (Which I thought was the most basic requirement for claiming something is RAW).

But lets just stop here and continue with the actual topic instead.

[georgie_leech]

Well you have yet to even explain yourself beyond saying I am wrong because I am wrong. Heck your explanation is supposedly RAW and yet you haven't even given one single quote from the book directly (Which I thought was the most basic requirement for claiming something is RAW).

But lets just stop here and continue with the actual topic instead.

If an archer can use their illusions for one-way cover is the topic. And we have suggested RAW: being aware that something is an illusion let's you disbelieve it, and she person who made an illusion knows what they just cast (barring somehow casting from a scroll or wand or something and not knowing what it did, in which case they wouldn't know it was an illusion).

[Mith]

Shaofoo, if you want to play/DM Illusionists to be affected by their own illusions, go ahead. We obviously will not convince you. If you will enjoy the game better that way, go ahead. However, if you are playing an illusionist, and the DM decides that illusionist is able to distinguish their illusions from reality, you should accept that as their ruling, since they are the law of the game.

[Shaofoo]

If an archer can use their illusions for one-way cover is the topic. And we have suggested RAW: being aware that something is an illusion let's you disbelieve it, and she person who made an illusion knows what they just cast (barring somehow casting from a scroll or wand or something and not knowing what it did, in which case they wouldn't know it was an illusion).

I was kinda hoping we could set up ways as to up to what point could someone immediately know an illusion since maybe an actual Illusionist or someone with intimate knowledge of the spells could also say that they immediately disbelieve because they are as aware what was cast as the caster himself but I know better not to continue that thread.


Shaofoo, if you want to play/DM Illusionists to be affected by their own illusions, go ahead. We obviously will not convince you. If you will enjoy the game better that way, go ahead. However, if you are playing an illusionist, and the DM decides that illusionist is able to distinguish their illusions from reality, you should accept that as their ruling, since they are the law of the game.

And if you actually read the topic you would realize that what you have said does not apply to me at all. I just said an interpretation, not how I would apply to it. Of course it got cocked up quite quick in the end.

And also Dm being above all is par for the course, I can just as easily say "and the DM decides that illusionist isn't able to distinguish their illusions from reality, you should accept that as their ruling, since they are the law of the game."

And the Dm can also say "and the DM decides that all illusion spells are banned from the game , you should accept that as their ruling, since they are the law of the game."

And the DM can also say "and the DM decides that illusionists can only make illusions of giant spiders only, you should accept that as their ruling, since they are the law of the game."

Saying DM fiat trumps RAW is always implicit, I never assumed that the book is above the DM in any point.

[Mith]

Saying DM fiat trumps RAW is always implicit, I never assumed that the book is above the DM in any point.

Then some times, you'll agree that RAW should be RAPW (Rules As Poorly Written)? My confusion of your stance with the caster being fallible to his own illusion under his control (since he is actively Concentrating on the spell), which seems like something they would beat out of any Illusionist apprentice before they can cast their first cantrip if it would ever actually arise. The fact that you state "Sure by logic and everyone who isn't out to get you they will agree that a caster should know that their illusion is an illusion." means that the caster is not the point as to where the line could be drawn.

My suggestion for where the line could be drawn: The caster knows their illusions. Therefore, they can see through it. Anyone who is notified that the illusion is going to be cast/ what the specific illusion is gets Advantage on fully disbelieving the illusion and seeing through it. Anyone who is not aware of the specific illusion has to take two steps to first notice that the illusion is not behaving properly, and then take steps to actively disbelieve the illusion.

Does that work?

Also, my apologies for my assumptions. My reading of the thread was more that you have stuck with an interpretation of RAW that you declared not to be a strong point to stand on (as everyone who isn't out to get you will agree that it is a weak argument), without appearing to try and draw any other options. This makes it seem like you are only sticking to that point, and not actively considering other point of views. If you have been, and I missed it, sorry.

[Louro]

Common sense.
It all depends on what the DM thinks about common sense on a medieval fantasy world.

Uses for illusion spells:
- Suddenly a demon/elefant/tree appears.
(Pretty standard in a world where wizards can actually do that kind of stuff for real)

- Fog, darkness, walls, **** rain...
(Nothing new here)

- Pink unicorns wearing skirts and dancing
(A bit suspicious, might be an illusion)

- A green dragon with 4 wings and one big eye
(Hey! I saw one once, they are not like that. Could it be an illusion?)

- Suddenly a dwarf "pops" out from the Minotaur's ass
(HOLY XIT! WHAT KIND OF WITCHERY IS THIS?)

- The gnome hits you with his quarterstaff for 8 piercing damage.
(Piercing? Quarterstaff? Is it that sharp?)

- Goblin #14 hits you 3 times for a total of 35 damage.
(Whoaaa! Is he on cocaine or what?)

[Susano-wo]

the RAW doesn't say whether the caster believes their own illusion or not, but it does say that those aware it is an illusion are not affected. So, since there is no RAW contradicting it , the common sense that a caster knows he is casting an illusion spell wins, especially in this edition. There is no RAW leg to stand on that a caster is affected by their own illusion.

[JackPhoenix]

You are saying that a caster doesn't believe his own Illusion because he is immune to his own spell in the first place.

Caster isn't immune to his spells because he is the caster (as a general rule), but because of Silent Image's specific rule: "If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image." Any creature that knows it's an illusion can see through it, and there is a few ways to do it: truesight, physicaly interacting with the illusion, spending action on Investigation check (without the need to physicaly interact with it), watching someone else interact with it physicaly, depending on the GM possibly identifying the spell as an illusion as it's cast or being the one who casted it in the first place. Arguably, even the caster or someone of the above saying it's just an illusion should negate it to anyone in the hearing distance! There's no such rule for Fireball, if you get hit and aren't immune to fire or aren't a rogue with Evasion or Shield Master who succeeded on his Dex save, you'll take the damage, it doesn't matter if you're the caster, caster's friend, enemy or an random bystander or an object caught in the blast.

[Corey]

Now I'm envisioning a senior citizen center, for Demented Gnomes With Dementia, whose short-term memory is so bad that they ARE fooled by their own illusions.

[georgie_leech]

Now I'm envisioning a senior citizen center, for Demented Gnomes With Dementia, whose short-term memory is so bad that they ARE fooled by their own illusions.

*Scribbles notes furiously*

[PoeticDwarf]

If you shoot throug an illusion, they know that it is an illusion, so it works for just one round/attack.

[JoeJ]

If you shoot throug an illusion, they know that it is an illusion, so it works for just one round/attack.

Unless the illusion is of something that could be shot through, like darkness.

[Shaofoo]

Unless the illusion is of something that could be shot through, like darkness.

Except the spell says that if there is physical interaction with the illusion then anyone that can see it can discern that it is an illusion, even if it is something that can be shot through like darkness. You can rule that things that could be shot through won't defeat the illusion but by RAW all illusions will not stand up to physical interaction regardless of what the illusion is. There has been arguments on either side already about this.

[JoeJ]

Except the spell says that if there is physical interaction with the illusion then anyone that can see it can discern that it is an illusion, even if it is something that can be shot through like darkness. You can rule that things that could be shot through won't defeat the illusion but by RAW all illusions will not stand up to physical interaction regardless of what the illusion is. There has been arguments on either side already about this.

Yes. Arguments that pointed out the full text of the relevant rule, not just the little bit you're quoting. "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."

[Shaofoo]

Yes. Arguments that pointed out the full text of the relevant rule, not just the little bit you're quoting. "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."

Of course then we go to the semantics that you aren't creating darkness but the image of darkness so it should be different when things come out of it. There can be reasons for a DM to have creatures disbelieve objects coming from an illusion such as the same feeling one gets when CGI and real people are interacting with each other and has this uncanny feeling. It isn't just that things can pass through but also in how they pass through.

Of course I am also in the camp of balance that I shouldn't think that Silent Image should replace the Darkness spell especially since the former is 1st level and the latter is 2nd level. Even if things don't make the most obvious sense I always believe that game balance should be above all.

[Madeiner]

On the subject of cover for archers, i'd also argue that illusion for cover doesn't really work that good.
Cover is meant to take some of the incoming fire and deflect it. Illusory walls cannot deflect anything. Actually, incoming fire is going through the wall, and that should count as interacting (you surely can see your own arrows passing through that illusory wall, can't you?) thus allowing for a disbelief.

[tieren]

On the subject of cover for archers, i'd also argue that illusion for cover doesn't really work that good.
Cover is meant to take some of the incoming fire and deflect it. Illusory walls cannot deflect anything. Actually, incoming fire is going through the wall, and that should count as interacting (you surely can see your own arrows passing through that illusory wall, can't you?) thus allowing for a disbelief.

I agree, if we are talking about the illusion of a wall. I don't think anyone is implying the wall would actually protect from missiles fired at it.

The mechanic we are discussing involves attacks when you can see your target and they can not see you which gives you advantage and them disadvantage on attack rolls.

The deeper question is if seeing an arrow pass through an illusion of something that is opaque, but something arrows would normally pass through (like smoke or fog or darkness) would automatically reveal the illusion the way passing through a stone wall would.

I believe the best answer is that if the enemy archer is very observant and notices something odd about where their arrow went as it passed into the illusion they may get a check to see if they discern the nature of the illusion, otherwise it would persist and they would continue to not see through it while the caster can see through it.