Illusions getting arbitrarily nerfed by DMs

[Dalebert]

Tonight was the second time a DM arbitrarily decided I needed to roll a check to see how accurate my illusion was. I had just seen a drow woman while scouting ahead and someone asked me what she looked like to see if he knew her. I have Silent Image at will so I decided to just show him the woman I had JUST A TURN EARLIER BEEN LOOKING RIGHT AT. The DM has me roll a straight charisma check and I rolled a 3 with +2 cha bonus for 5. He decided the illusion looked nothing like the woman I had just seen.

I didn't make a fuss at the time because it didn't really matter. I'm definitely going to if it happens again. This was a different DM than the last time which makes it even more disturbing because it's starting to seem like a common misunderstanding.

This is a huge arbitrary nerf. There's already a mechanic to determine how convincing your illusion is. It's called your spell DC which someone can make an investigation roll against. Now I have to make a roll against some arbitrary number in the DM's head as well? This is making illusions night pointless to even attempt. This is a really disturbing trend. Has anyone else experienced anything like this?

[SwordChuck]

Tonight was the second time a DM arbitrarily decided I needed to roll a check to see how accurate my illusion was. I had just seen a drow woman while scouting ahead and someone asked me what she looked like to see if he knew her. I have Silent Image at will so I decided to just show him the woman I had JUST A TURN EARLIER BEEN LOOKING RIGHT AT. The DM has me roll a straight charisma check and I rolled a 3 with +2 cha bonus for 5. He decided the illusion looked nothing like the woman I had just seen.

I didn't make a fuss at the time because it didn't really matter. I'm definitely going to if it happens again. This was a different DM than the last time which makes it even more disturbing because it's starting to seem like a common misunderstanding.

This is a huge arbitrary nerf. There's already a mechanic to determine how convincing your illusion is. It's called your spell DC which someone can make an investigation roll against. Now I have to make a roll against some arbitrary number in the DM's head as well? This is making illusions night pointless to even attempt. This is a really disturbing trend. Has anyone else experienced anything like this?

Sounds like the DM realizes how unbalanced the game is and is trying to fix it*. I've seen this happen in 3e and 5e, it sucks but the rule 0 Bill crap makes the title of DM go to people's heads.

The DM should have spoken with you during character creation about how illusionist/illusions will work instead of making up stuff off the top of the it heads (houserules).

Though 5e is a huge supporter of "to DM, make some crap up" so the DM may have gotten it from there.

My advice is to get your PC killed in a glorious way and bring in a chara yet that doesn't have illusion abilities.

×××edit

* not that the illusions are unbalanced all that much. Just in the DM's eyes they see the illusion abilities as omg broken.

[Dalebert]

This is an AL game. I'm not killing off an AL character over one DM of many for a character I've been playing for months. I'm just going to put my foot down next time and insist the spell works a certain way and AL should largely work according to certain guidelines. It's organized play. The DM has some leeway but less so than in a home game. I don't have the option to change my build at this point. It should work as the spell says.

[Mellack]

This is an AL game. I'm not killing off an AL character over one DM of many for a character I've been playing for months. I'm just going to put my foot down next time and insist the spell works a certain way and AL should largely work according to certain guidelines. It's organized play. The DM has some leeway but less so than in a home game. I don't have the option to change my build at this point. It should work as the spell says.

I could see another reason for the check than just a nerf of illusion. Would you expect a DM to let you automatically draw an accurate picture? I know that I personally can have a subject right in front of me and not be able to draw them identifyably.

[Dalebert]

No, I would expect to make an ability check based on my artistic ability if I get out a pen and some ink and draw something.

This is magic so yes, absolutely. It already has a mechanic built into it and explained in the description for how convincing it is. I expect it to do what the spell says it does as well as the spell says it does it. If someone investigated it and determined it to be an illusion, maybe that's because there were flaws in it that gave it away.

The huge vast majority of spells base their success or failure either on an attack roll or a saving throw but hardly ever both. This is one that's based on a save. How hard it is to investigate is based on my spell DC. Adding a roll I have to make as well is like I'm always casting the spell with disadvantage. Would you bother to even learn a spell, or worse, waste an invocation on a spell if you're success was always determined with disadvantage?

Heck, this was a trivial situation outside of combat. I was just trying to show him an image of someone I had just looked at. I think if I had used my action in combat, I would have been more inclined to defend the spell and what it's supposed to be able to do. Because it was trivial at the time, I just dropped it. It didn't come up again this game. So now I'm fuming because I feel I should have said something. In some ways I'm more angry because it was such a trivial application of the spell. I wasn't even try to trick anyone. It was just a convenient communication method. It shouldn't have been difficult.

[E’Tallitnics]

As an AL DM I encourage you to ask this person what rule(s) they were following when they asked you to make that roll.

I hope it was just an honest mistake and a brief conversation will set things right.

[Dalebert]

I shouldn't let it bother me as much as I am. This guy usually responds to reason. It's just one of those cases where I'm frustrated because I thought of the right thing I should have said long after the fact.

[E’Tallitnics]

In any case that's an Intelligence check: "Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason." (PH, p.177)

The RAW help I can give you is the Keen Mind feat.

[Hairfish]

The spell DC save is for "is the target convinced that the illusionary thing is a real thing", not for "is my illusion an accurate representation of the likeness of a specific person".

[MrStabby]

In any case that's an Intelligence check: "Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason." (PH, p.177)

The RAW help I can give you is the Keen Mind feat.

I think this is a pretty good place to start.

The DM needed to come up with a ruling that would not invalidate the keen mind feat, requiring a roll of some sort covers that. For recollection I agree intelligence should cover it.

On the basis that the PC was making the task easier by using their class abilities the task difficulty should be easier that sketching an image or describing without error the person (which would also then need rolls - possibly an intelligence performance check?). My personal view is that I would require a roll if the player didn't have the keen mind feat but I would probably give advantage through using your illusion.

[Malifice]

As an AL DM I encourage you to ask this person what rule(s) they were following when they asked you to make that roll.

I hope it was just an honest mistake and a brief conversation will set things right.

Rule 0.

The same rule I use when I require a spell attack roll to land a fireball through an arrow slit.

[SwordChuck]

Rule 0.

The same rule I use when I require a spell attack roll to land a fireball through an arrow slit.

There is a difference between rule 0 for something like that and completely rewriting the rules on a whim. For your example you are making a rule for something that typically won't happen whereas this DM is changing a fundamental rules to the game that shouldn't require rule 0.

It would be more like If a DM made you perform a strength check (maybe athletics) to throw your fireball to the place you want it. On a bad roll you would just throw it 5'.

Not an attack roll (which would add your prof) but a ability check you aren't proficient with and most likely not even a skill, just the ability check.

This isn't rule 0, this is adding homebrew to an established game. I'm pretty sure people came to play D&D 5e and not "DMs heavily modified screw you rules".

But I may be wrong about that one.

This being an AL game... Get used to this nerf, find a different DM, or run a different character. If you aren't level 5 yet you can rebuild your character so there's that. I've seen people take advantage of character rebuilds because of DM shenanigans.

Three people in one game changed from martial characters to magic characters due to crappy "rule 0" type changes. They changed until they found a new DM and then went back to their old (martial) character.

Could be a good time to get some XP for some side characters so that if your PC ever does die you won't be all that far behind.

[MrStabby]

Well there are two steps. One is a faithful memory of what you are wanting to portray, and the other is a faithful rendition of your memory. I see illusion spells sidestepping the second issue but there still remains the issue forming the mental image of what you want to represent.

Demanding a roll for creating an illusion of something you don't have to remember - say a generic person where, whilst it matters that there are details, it doesn't matter what those details are, is a bit crappy and reasonable to complain about.

On the other hand reproducing something or someone that you have only studied for 5 minutes requires some memorising, even if it is just short term memory. Hairstyle, colour, thickness, length, greasyness etc. are all details to pick up in the top six inches of a head and there is enough detail available in a vision of a human form to fill a book. Memorising this is not part of the illusion spell, although producing the image from memory is.

It is pervasive in 5th edition that it is hard to remember and to replicate peoples features. This is why there exists the keen mind feat, the actor feat, and the assassin disguise ability.

[Dalebert]

I'll probably play under this DM again as he runs somewhat regularly. I'm curious to see if this was just something because I was trying to replicate a specific person for someone who may be intimately familiar with her and not something he's going to make me roll to do an image of a displacer beast (which I've seen and fought). As for the Keen Mind feat, it was literally seconds since I had seen this woman. I don't think it should require a feat to remember something for that long. Also, I wasn't trying to trick anyone into actually thinking it was her. It seems like it should be easier for me to make an image of someone I had just seen than to describe her. I'd be using my visual memory of her to do either, my memory of her from about 12 to 18 seconds earlier.

[SharkForce]

charisma check makes no sense. you're not doing performance art. you're trying to display something you saw, from your memory. an intelligence check to remember all the details makes sense. a check that results in you having no bloody clue what the person looked like whatsoever when you just saw them 10 minutes ago. in my opinion, a successful intelligence check would be required to get an exact likeness; exact shade of hair, exact height, etc. even a failed check would give you something fairly close; skin tone might be a bit different, hair length might be off, but someone seeing your image and then later seeing the actual person should think "hey, this person looks a lot like that image" at the very least, and will probably recognize the person as being the same as the one you made an image of unless there are a lot of fairly similar-looking people around.

i would generally say that no proficiency applies, but also that the DC should reflect that remembering the appearance of someone you saw and were focused on a few minutes ago is a relatively easy task. you could fairly believably get some details wrong (was her braid on the right or the left?) but you're unlikely to completely blow it (like remembering her as having a ponytail that goes down to her butt when she had a pixie cut).

as noted, the keen mind feat would allow you to completely bypass the memory check. you would get the details exactly right every single time.

on a side note, the save DC of your spell represents more how real the illusion looks, not necessarily how accurate it is to a single specific individual. presumably, your illusion looked like a real person... just not exactly what the specific real person looked like (though again, i would say that your image should have looked mostly like the specific individual with a few small details off if you failed a check).

[Dalebert]

It bothered me that I didn't get my proficiency because I'm proficient with my spells. It's why it's figured into the spell DC of this spell.

I feel like people are over-thinking this a bit, getting sciencey about D&D magic. I absolutely could see something like a deception check if I were trying to convince some hobgoblins their leader was actually there barking commands at them, where some fine detail could give me away, and giving someone with the Actor feat advantage on that check would make sense. And someone with Keen Mind might gain some benefit because extremely fine details are preserved. But for the most part, "it's magic" should be the end of the discussion. Spells often do very complicated things that are built into the spell itself. We don't make a caster roll some ability check every time they form a wall of stone to see if they failed to build it structurally sound. We don't make a druid roll an ability check so they don't turn into a deformed version of a bear based on their imperfect memory. The magic handles a lot of those details. Silent Image could very well be dipping into my subconscious memory to get it right "for the most part". The spell has to be assisting with that. If I could only form an image as well as I could paint a portrait, the spell would always turn out looking like a kindergartner's refrigerator crayon drawing! Only structural engineers could cast an effective Wall of Stone. No, details right down to the last strand of hair and the exact pattern on the embroidery of her cape may not be there, but creating a basic likeness of a person you JUST saw should not require extra feats. The spell doesn't say it requires the character to take feats for it to do the basic things that it says it does.

[ryan92084]

I can see an increasing intelligence DC as time passes. Given the recent viewing in this case i would have even a low roll give a passable likeness.

The failing charisma check makes no sense to me in this instance.

[SharkForce]

like i said, in the example given (just saw her very short time ago), a failed check would result in an image that looks like the person, but not identical. if the person walked in, everyone would say "hey, that's the person you made an image of", but if the person stood next to the image, they would notice some slight differences on closer inspection. it would still be quite obviously the person, just not a perfect representation.

in this particular situation, since you were just trying for "close enough to recognize the person" rather than "identical in every detail", the memory check does seem rather unnecessary i suppose, but in general a memory check to get the details right does make sense.

[KorvinStarmast]

NOthing new under the sun. The problem with Illusions and Illusionists (or mages casting illusions) since about Strategic Review Issue 4, Winter 1975. (When Illusionists were introduced).
Illusions getting arbitrarily nerfed by DM

There's been a tension between how overpowered an illusionist can get, and how DM's work to curb that potential. What I don't get is why he chose a Charisma check versus an Intelligence check. I do get why the DM posed a "check" in terms of how good a job at replicating something you say once (in terms of fidelity).

What was the DC?

[Dalebert]

like i said, in the example given (just saw her very short time ago), a failed check would result in an image that looks like the person, but not identical. if the person walked in, everyone would say "hey, that's the person you made an image of", but if the person stood next to the image, they would notice some slight differences on closer inspection. it would still be quite obviously the person, just not a perfect representation.

Yeah, I'd be fine with that. He said the image was a foot too short and looked like a guy. Might have been joking about the guy part.


NOthing new under the sun. The problem with Illusions and Illusionists (or mages casting illusions) since about Strategic Review Issue 4, Winter 1975. (When Illusionists were introduced).

I totally get that. I was on the conservative side of that argument in a recent thread here that got quite long (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?472305-Minor-Illusion-as-main-combat-action&highlight=minor%20illusion%20combat) where someone was trying to get an absurd amount of mechanical benefit in combat from Minor Illusion. The whole point was that for an illusion to be effective, you have to sell it which requires things like not getting too outrageous with it and making it fit the context. Fail to do that well and people are going to start off with skepticism. But there is a basic level of competence implied in the spell itself.


What I don't get is why he chose a Charisma check versus an Intelligence check.

Presumably because it's a warlock power and the effectiveness of my warlock spells is based on charisma. I'm also supposed to be proficient with my spells. I'd be particularly upset if he treated a warlock spell like a wizard spell.


What was the DC?

He never said. He just made it clear I failed. I didn't even know what I was rolling for at the time. It was baffling.

[gfishfunk]

I have wondered about this:

I wanted to make a dwarf illusionist that only made images of manly, scantly clad dwarves that looked remarkably like an idealized version of himself for a one-man dance troop. Its a work in progress.

Illusions that succeed imply detail enough to convince people: A failed image might be cartoonish, for example. If you are able to build an image that is good enough to fool people into thinking 'its a drow!' it should also be the same for convincing people that it is a specific drow that you have seen. I could see disadvantage on making a specific person that you have only seen from a distance.

[Daishain]

I have wondered about this:

I wanted to make a dwarf illusionist that only made images of manly, scantly clad dwarves that looked remarkably like an idealized version of himself for a one-man dance troop. Its a work in progress.

Illusions that succeed imply detail enough to convince people: A failed image might be cartoonish, for example. If you are able to build an image that is good enough to fool people into thinking 'its a drow!' it should also be the same for convincing people that it is a specific drow that you have seen. I could see disadvantage on making a specific person that you have only seen from a distance.
Except illusions don't succeed or fail (directly) based on your ability. They succeed or fail based on the observer's cognitive abilities.

This implies something quite different. The illusion's attention to detail is fairly static, and comes closer to perfection as one's effective DC goes up, making it harder and harder to notice the few mistakes

[Dalebert]

Here's the thing about really fine details. Most of us don't pay that much attention to them so no, I don't expect really fine details to be preserved in an illusion but I also don't expect most people to notice them. If they do, again, this is reflected in the spell's DC and the fact that investigation is used to find fault with it. It's unfair to apply yet another arbitrary mechanic on top of that.

For instance, picture a conjurer. He saw a key. He can now make a copy and it probably looks convincingly like the key except it's glowing. If not for the glowing part, it's probably close enough to convince others it's the same key. Meanwhile, someone with keen mind will probably automatically notice that the teeth don't match exactly. Also, if the conjurer had keen mind, he could probably duplicate the key such that it would work in the same locks and even convince someone else who also had keen mind.

I'm simply arguing that the spell implies a very basic competency that is provide by the magic in the spell and success or failure is already represented by the DC which improves as my casting ability improves. I don't need extra skills or abilities to make a basically competent illusion any more than a wizard needs to be a structural engineer and roll against a DC to cast a basically competent Wall of Stone.

I'm not getting carried away here. I'm arguing for the basics. Maybe she had a deviated septum and maybe her earrings were a totally different design. I don't have keen mind and I could miss those details. But accordingly, the average viewer without keen mind could overlook those small differences as well! I'm conceding that there's another level of complexity if I wanted to convince people who knew her well that she was standing there barking orders at them and they'd better obey. At that point I'm engaging in a rather elaborate display of deception and I imagine something like Actor would be more helpful than Keen Mind because what's going to give it away is that she's behaving in a manner that's not believable, her mannerisms, her accent, what she chooses to say in the context, more than her earrings are different or her eyes are a little farther apart by an quarter inch.

[Sir_Leorik]

This is an AL game. I'm not killing off an AL character over one DM of many for a character I've been playing for months. I'm just going to put my foot down next time and insist the spell works a certain way and AL should largely work according to certain guidelines. It's organized play. The DM has some leeway but less so than in a home game. I don't have the option to change my build at this point. It should work as the spell says.

Is there a store organizer you could speak to about this? Basically someone who can ajudicate disagreements over the rules?

[Mad_Saulot]

I'll never create a character which relies on illusions or alignments unless I know the DM very well first.

If it was AL dont they use carved in stone rule sets? (I've never played AL) And so cannot order unusual rolls on the fly?

Your DM just sounds like a jackass.

[Dalebert]

Not really. He's kind of the highest local authority on AL. But I'll talk to him if it comes up again.

Here's another thing. It's not like the mechanic is overly generous as it is. A starting character has a typical DC of 13 in their primary casting class. An average person without Int save proficiency will hit that DC 40% of the time. So if anyone scrutinizes your illusion for one turn, which is basically any amount of time at all out of combat, they will recognize it's just an illusion almost half the time within a span of six seconds. The spell is already very limited in it's usage.

Want to make an illusion of a familiar noble just sitting and reading a book to convince casual passers-by you don't have him tied up in the closet? Probably can get away with that easily enough. Want to convince someone who walks up and asks him something? Even if it's an illusion with sound or you've supplemented it with Minor Illusion and you can have him respond with a casual answer, almost half the time, you will fail simply from the bare bones mechanic. The former situation is a perfectly reasonable and intended use of a 1st level spell that would typically succeed. The latter is where it gets quite a bit more complicated and you need to employ more skills to successfully sell the illusion.

[Fwiffo86]

No, I would expect to make an ability check based on my artistic ability if I get out a pen and some ink and draw something.

This is magic so yes, absolutely. It already has a mechanic built into it and explained in the description for how convincing it is. I expect it to do what the spell says it does as well as the spell says it does it. If someone investigated it and determined it to be an illusion, maybe that's because there were flaws in it that gave it away.


Are you upset because he required a roll to determine how accurate a depiction of a specific individual you were able to produce, or upset there was no save throw involved for determining it was an illusion?

I am simply seeking clarification. I don't see how the mechanic to "see through" an illusion is in any way related to its representative accuracy. The save is to determine "if" its an illusion, not its accuracy. At least that is my understanding. And in this given situation, no save is required, they watch you cast the illusion, they already "know" its not real.

Walls, doors, etc. are not difficult and most people ignore the finer details, but to represent a specific individual accurately enough to be recognized as said specific individual is different. If I called for a roll, I wouldn't have used CHA personally, I would have used INT plus Prof, with advantage for it being such a short span of time. But that's me.

[Pex]

Some DMs just can't stand it that PCs are able to do stuff. They jump at any chance to nerf or say no to a PC ability. It's cynical, but it's based on personal experience and forum participation. There are a number of reasons: 1) DM is on a power trip. 2) DM fears losing control of the narrative. 3) DM is oversensitive about balance. 4) DM is unable or unwilling to respond spontaneously in a suitable to the situation manner.

[KorvinStarmast]

Presumably because it's a warlock power and the effectiveness of my warlock spells is based on charisma. I'm also supposed to be proficient with my spells. I'd be particularly upset if he treated a warlock spell like a wizard spell.
Whoops, my bad, forgot to read the OP carefully enough.

He never said. He just made it clear I failed. I didn't even know what I was rolling for at the time. It was baffling. Hmm, I can see why you were disappointed. Then again, a low roll will often have poor outcomes.


Here's the thing about really fine details. Most of us don't pay that much attention to them so no, I don't expect really fine details to be preserved in an illusion but I also don't expect most people to notice them. If they do, again, this is reflected in the spell's DC and the fact that investigation is used to find fault with it. It's unfair to apply yet another arbitrary mechanic on top of that.

I'm simply arguing that the spell implies a very basic competency that is provide by the magic in the spell and success or failure is already represented by the DC which improves as my casting ability improves. I don't need extra skills or abilities to make a basically competent illusion any more than a wizard needs to be a structural engineer and roll against a DC to cast a basically competent Wall of Stone. I like how well you presented this point. *thumbs up*

[Dalebert]

Walls, doors, etc. are not difficult and most people ignore the finer details, but to represent a specific individual accurately enough to be recognized as said specific individual is different. If I called for a roll, I wouldn't have used CHA personally, I would have used INT plus Prof, with advantage for it being such a short span of time. But that's me.

I agree. And that's why if anyone scrutinizes the illusion even momentarily, it will fail quite frequently. If an illusion were not supposed to achieve even that most basic competency, then extra mechanics would be pointed out. Fabricate, for instance, describes such extra mechanics. Wall of Stone does not. Silent Image does not. You need to be an armorer to fabricate a suit of armor with Fabricate. You don't need to be a structural engineer to conjure a competent Wall of Stone. You don't need to be an artist or have eiditic memory to create a competent illusion with a spell that is by specifically designed to fool people.

Now what might be reasonable is to apply advantage or disadvantage to the save circumstantially. If I make an illusion of the noble whom I've only just met and captured, and his daughter, who is extremely familiar with him scrutinizes him, I could see giving her advantage on her investigation check. By the same reasoning, if I make an illusion of someone I happen to be very familiar with and someone who doesn't know that person well scrutinizes, disadvantage might be called for. If you're not willing to do both of those, then you shouldn't do either. My familiarity and theirs either matters or they do not.

In this particular circumstance, it was a trivial use of the spell and conveying what someone looks like enough for them to recognize them, someone who I had just moments before been watching, should just be a given. I wasn't trying to fool him. I was making it clear that I was just creating an image which should have been far more effective at conveying what she looks like than me saying "She's a drow. She has white hair and dark skin and is about 5 and a half feet tall." It was such a trivial use of the spell and it was particularly annoying that I couldn't even do that without making an extra roll that the spell absolutely does not call for.

[mephnick]

This implies something quite different. The illusion's attention to detail is fairly static, and comes closer to perfection as one's effective DC goes up, making it harder and harder to notice the few mistakes

Ding Ding. The quality of an illusion is already built into the game mechanics. That's what the DC is for, no different than how hard it is to dodge a fireball cast by a more competent evoker.

To require an extra roll to define the quality of an illusion is absurd.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ding Ding. The quality of an illusion is already built into the game mechanics. That's what the DC is for, no different than how hard it is to dodge a fireball cast by a more competent evoker.

To require an extra roll to define the quality of an illusion is absurd. Whether or not it is absurd, it was an added requirement that the rules don't require. It is because this was in an AL setting that bells might go off.

[mephnick]

Agreed, so it's doubly wrong.

[Douche]

I can see both sides of the argument. Recreating someones image from memory is different than creating an illusion of a wall to conceal a door.

But at the same time, it's magic. And it's just roleplaying. It's not like he illusioned himself to look like the BBEG and commanded his troops to all fall on their swords. Plus, nothing in the spell description says that you have to craft the image yourself. It does say "as visualized by you" so as long as you saw the girl, magic should be able to construct a replica. Doesn't really matter how good your memory is. It's magic.

I guess you could start a discussion on how people visualize and contextualize how they perceive information. If you were a lecher, would your illusions of women have all the detail around the "sexy parts" and leave them with a blurry face cuz that's not important? What if your character has an Oedipus complex and sees his mother in all women? Then they'd all look slightly like his mom. It'd be super weird.

Point being, you go down that road and D&D just becomes a pointless philosophical discussion, when you just wanted to show a dude what some other NPC looked like. You did the right thing by not making a big deal out of it, but if something like that persists then you should speak up.

[eastmabl]

Alternatively, a DM could grant advantage to a monster who interacts with illusion if the monster is intimately familiar with the illusory object. For example, if you make an illusion of the drow that I'm on daily patrol with, I get the benefit of noticing that she's not acting normally. You keep your DC, but there's a higher chance of success.

But making up mechanics on the fly is not good to do in organized play - especially when there's perfectly good game mechanics to represent what the DM wants to do.

[Strill]

Here's another thing. It's not like the mechanic is overly generous as it is. A starting character has a typical DC of 13 in their primary casting class. An average person without Int save proficiency will hit that DC 40% of the time. So if anyone scrutinizes your illusion for one turn, which is basically any amount of time at all out of combat, they will recognize it's just an illusion almost half the time within a span of six seconds. The spell is already very limited in it's usage.It's an Intelligence (Investigation) check, not a saving throw. Save proficiency doesn't apply.

[Dalebert]

It's an Intelligence (Investigation) check, not a saving throw. Save proficiency doesn't apply.

Right. I knew that but had a momentary brain fart. I should have said investigation proficiency. I said it correctly elsewhere.

I think I first described this to casting with disadvantage all the time. It's really more like you have a spell that already allows a saving throw but also requiring a to-hit roll that's not in the spell description.

[AbyssStalker]

Sorry to hear about that, I would hate to see how Seeming would operate under this kind of ruling.

Maybe you should ask if there is going to be an Int DC to remember the correct polarity, ion accumulation, and atmospheric conditions for a Lighting Bolt spell, or what the proper temperature is for a Fireball, or if you can remember the creature you want to Polymorph someone into. Just kidding, but only half-so, it is only to illustrate my point that if a spell says you it does something, it should probably do it without any questions being asked other than the already specified conditions in the description, if you take any more "logical" steps along the line than that, it just gets weird quick as magic is almost illogical by definition.

I would probably try to keep going with the character, but if it happens too much it might be time to go back to character creation.

[Talakeal]

Ding Ding. The quality of an illusion is already built into the game mechanics. That's what the DC is for, no different than how hard it is to dodge a fireball cast by a more competent evoker.

To require an extra roll to define the quality of an illusion is absurd.

Following that logic illusion becomes the world's most powerful divination tool.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that someone can only make an illusion of something which they already know the appearance of, indeed I think it the opposite would be quite absurd, to allow people to create images of things that they have never seen with their own eyes, and indeed may know nothing about, with perfect clarity.


I don't think there is anything wrong with asking for a test to see how well someone remembers someone whom they only saw briefly, and I imagine that if it was a mundane character trying to convey such information no one would bat an eye at the DM requiring a test to get the details right.

[AbyssStalker]

I don't think there is anything wrong with asking for a test to see how well someone remembers someone whom they only saw briefly, and I imagine that if it was a mundane character trying to convey such information no one would bat an eye at the DM requiring a test to get the details right.

I don't know about you, but I can remember a person's face after I have just taken my eyes off of them, I would understand if it was several hours later and you had to match a DC to convey the information, but if a player expends a valuable resource they should get the bang for their buck if they are using it in a responsible manner.

And no, if that is how illusions worked they would not be the most valuable divination tool, if someone told me to make an illusion of a person I have never seen before I will use the current information I have to create what I picture the person to look like, not how they actually are. If I had seen a location prior and you told me to create it as an illusion I would still create what I saw before (or as I pictured it now), not how it actually is at present.

[mephnick]

Following that logic illusion becomes the world's most powerful divination tool.

the opposite would be quite absurd, to allow people to create images of things that they have never seen with their own eyes, and indeed may know nothing about, with perfect clarity.

I'm...not sure where you're getting this from. Who's arguing for this? I wouldn't let you make an illusion of something you've never seen just like I wouldn't let you roll to jump 5000 feet.

He saw someone clearly and six seconds later recreated her image with an illusion. I have a warlock do this exact thing with disguise self all the time. It sounds like a DM who can't handle players using their abilities effectively.

[Talakeal]

I don't know about you, but I can remember a person's face after I have just taken my eyes off of them, I would understand if it was several hours later and you had to match a DC to convey the information, but if a player expends a valuable resource they should get the bang for their buck if they are using it in a responsible manner.

And no, if that is how illusions worked they would not be the most valuable divination tool, if someone told me to make an illusion of a person I have never seen before I will use the current information I have to create what I picture the person to look like, not how they actually are. If I had seen a location prior and you told me to create it as an illusion I would still create what I saw before (or as I pictured it now), not how it actually is at present.

I absolutely agree, you create the image as you picture it, not as it is. It is only if the illusion shows things as the ARE that it becomes a powerful form of divination.

By RAW you can create an illusion of just about anything. If, say, I am investigating a murder, I can conjure up an illusion of the murderer. If the illusion is of what they are, rather than how I picture them, well that illusion spell skips a whole lot of investigation and let's me identify the murderer clearly.


Now, in this particular case I don't know what the exact circumstances were. If he had been having a face to face chat with her in a well lit room, yeah, it is probably automatic (although he might still have missed some subtle detail). On the other hand, if he only caught a brief glimpse of her by torchlight at 30 paces, requiring a test to see how good a look he got at her would be totally appropriate.

[Vogonjeltz]

Tonight was the second time a DM arbitrarily decided I needed to roll a check to see how accurate my illusion was. I had just seen a drow woman while scouting ahead and someone asked me what she looked like to see if he knew her. I have Silent Image at will so I decided to just show him the woman I had JUST A TURN EARLIER BEEN LOOKING RIGHT AT. The DM has me roll a straight charisma check and I rolled a 3 with +2 cha bonus for 5. He decided the illusion looked nothing like the woman I had just seen.

I didn't make a fuss at the time because it didn't really matter. I'm definitely going to if it happens again. This was a different DM than the last time which makes it even more disturbing because it's starting to seem like a common misunderstanding.

This is a huge arbitrary nerf. There's already a mechanic to determine how convincing your illusion is. It's called your spell DC which someone can make an investigation roll against. Now I have to make a roll against some arbitrary number in the DM's head as well? This is making illusions night pointless to even attempt. This is a really disturbing trend. Has anyone else experienced anything like this?

I mean, even if it were considered appropriate to have a skill check for that, it wouldn't be Charisma, it would be Intelligence for your memory.

So that's awful on two counts.


Rule 0.

The same rule I use when I require a spell attack roll to land a fireball through an arrow slit.

A) Where is this "Rule 0" of which you speak? Can you cite the AL approved book, paragraph and page #?
B) Fireball's targeting rules are found on page 204 of the PHB. It targets a selected point. If that point is visible it automatically lands as this is not a spell attack (distinguished on page 205).


This being an AL game... Get used to this nerf, find a different DM, or run a different character. If you aren't level 5 yet you can rebuild your character so there's that. I've seen people take advantage of character rebuilds because of DM shenanigans.

Alternatively, if the DM is recalcitrant or even hostile following attempts to rectify the error... Report them to the AL administrators.


I totally get that. I was on the conservative side of that argument in a recent thread here that got quite long where someone was trying to get an absurd amount of mechanical benefit in combat from Minor Illusion. The whole point was that for an illusion to be effective, you have to sell it which requires things like not getting too outrageous with it and making it fit the context. Fail to do that well and people are going to start off with skepticism. But there is a basic level of competence implied in the spell itself.

Yes, but that was about how plausible the illusion was as an idea, not how passible it was for the real mccoy.

How passable an Illusion is when compared to reality is directly attributable to the Intelligence (Investigation) check for examining it. i.e. Your Spell save DC.


Except illusions don't succeed or fail (directly) based on your ability. They succeed or fail based on the observer's cognitive abilities.

Well, the quality is directly linked to your spell save (that's in the spell itself), and an observer would rely on their investigative ability to tell fake from reality (also in the spell).

[Foxhound438]

like i said, in the example given (just saw her very short time ago), a failed check would result in an image that looks like the person, but not identical. if the person walked in, everyone would say "hey, that's the person you made an image of", but if the person stood next to the image, they would notice some slight differences on closer inspection. it would still be quite obviously the person, just not a perfect representation.

in this particular situation, since you were just trying for "close enough to recognize the person" rather than "identical in every detail", the memory check does seem rather unnecessary i suppose, but in general a memory check to get the details right does make sense.

no, you would definitely make an image of the Xenomorph on accident /s

I can kind of see the point to this, however. it should have been like a dc 5 including your prof, since you just saw the person, but depending on distance, lighting, maybe the person was wearing a hood(?) i could see not getting key details, like jawline, nose, eye separation, and so on... If it was in an area you could see fine from 30 feet or so and they weren't disguised/obscured by a hood, it should have been easy to replicate those key features.

[SharkForce]

no, you would definitely make an image of the Xenomorph on accident /s

I can kind of see the point to this, however. it should have been like a dc 5 including your prof, since you just saw the person, but depending on distance, lighting, maybe the person was wearing a hood(?) i could see not getting key details, like jawline, nose, eye separation, and so on... If it was in an area you could see fine from 30 feet or so and they weren't disguised/obscured by a hood, it should have been easy to replicate those key features.

in context, this is a character who was specifically on a scouting mission to gather information, encountered a single drow, and returned to report. it's a fairly safe bet that the character didn't just glance over without caring, on account of the whole reason for having gone up in the first place was to look for exactly this sort of thing. if we're talking random person in a crowded market, sure, you might not have looked too close. this is not that scenario. it is not reasonable to presume that the person has no idea what the individual looked like. noticing if they have a small scar on their left hand, sure, that's gonna take a test. noticing if they had a sword or a whip? not so much.

[Dalebert]

Following that logic illusion becomes the world's most powerful divination tool.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that someone can only make an illusion of something which they already know the appearance of...

Well of course. Who are you responding to? I don't recall anyone saying otherwise. That would be absurd. And I don't think anyone has argued for a perfect illusion even for something you've seen. The point is that details might be off but that it should at least be a competent illusion and that your spell DC and the observer's investigative abilities are the given mechanic for determining how convincing the illusion is.

As for lighting and so forth, this character has Devil's Sight and darkvision so he always see's normally and in full color regardless of lighting conditions.

Had I been trying to deceive this particular person with a very specific illusion of someone he was very familiar with and whom I'd only seen briefly, I would absolutely understand giving him advantage on his investigation. That's more complicated than making a convincing illusion of a generic creature like a beholder to scare someone, for instance. But I was just trying to show him what she looked like to see if he recognized her. That should have been a cake walk.

[Tanarii]

Tonight was the second time a DM arbitrarily decided I needed to roll a check to see how accurate my illusion was. I had just seen a drow woman while scouting ahead and someone asked me what she looked like to see if he knew her. I have Silent Image at will so I decided to just show him the woman I had JUST A TURN EARLIER BEEN LOOKING RIGHT AT. The DM has me roll a straight charisma check and I rolled a 3 with +2 cha bonus for 5. He decided the illusion looked nothing like the woman I had just seen.Should have been an Int check.

Personally and completely off the top of my head, I would have set it at DC 0 for something seen/heard less than an hour before, DC 5 for a day, DC 10 for up to a week, DC 15 for up to a month, DC 20 for up to a year. +5 DC if you didn't tell me at the time you were making an effort to memorize whatever it was.


I don't know about you, but I can remember a person's face after I have just taken my eyes off of them, I would understand if it was several hours later and you had to match a DC to convey the information, but if a player expends a valuable resource they should get the bang for their buck if they are using it in a responsible manner.You're actually outside the human norm if that's the case. Most people can *recognize* somebody's face they've seen shortly before, but very few people can *visualize* it. Especially if it's someone they don't personally know. And even recognition drops rapidly. That's why police line-ups are such crap. Besides the whole 'being influenced by the police officers present' thing.

OTOH and even so, as you can see from my suggested DCs above, I'm totally willing to give the player / character the benefit of the doubt. ;)

[Talakeal]

Well of course. Who are you responding to? I don't recall anyone saying otherwise. That would be absurd. And I don't think anyone has argued for a perfect illusion even for something you've seen. The point is that details might be off but that it should at least be a competent illusion and that your spell DC and the observer's investigative abilities are the given mechanic for determining how convincing the illusion is.

As for lighting and so forth, this character has Devil's Sight and darkvision so he always see's normally and in full color regardless of lighting conditions.

Had I been trying to deceive this particular person with a very specific illusion of someone he was very familiar with and whom I'd only seen briefly, I would absolutely understand giving him advantage on his investigation. That's more complicated than making a convincing illusion of a generic creature like a beholder to scare someone, for instance. But I was just trying to show him what she looked like to see if he recognized her. That should have been a cake walk.

Mephnick seemed to be implying that not running the spell by RAW was unreasonable and screwing the character.

I was merely pointing out that, by RAW, you can make an image of ANYTHING, with no regard to what the caster is or is not able to picture, and thus a reasonable DM needs to draw the line somewhere and, depending on the circumstances, your DM might have been right to draw the line where he did.

Note that I am not saying what he did was right, (or wrong for that matter), just that I might agree with him based on the exact circumstances.

[AbyssStalker]

Note that I am not saying what he did was right, (or wrong for that matter), just that I might agree with him based on the exact circumstances.

That's perfectly fine, I can see where your coming from in that regard, but I think it would be generally easier and more satisfying if it was dependent on the person who observes the illusion to discern whether it is fake or not, if I had went this route as DM (for whatever reason I find adequate) I would have probably imposed advantage on the subjects ability to determine if the image was fake or not. Just because you didn't put a scar where it should be doesn't mean that the person looking at the illusion will also remember or notice a scar should be there (just an example).

P.S. I would also keep in mind that people can believe some REALLY stupid things, even despite all evidence to the contrary. It often doesn't matter how intelligent you are, you can still come to a delusional conclusion even when by all rights you shouldn't.

[Strill]

I was merely pointing out that, by RAW, you can make an image of ANYTHING, with no regard to what the caster is or is not able to picture, and thus a reasonable DM needs to draw the line somewhere and, depending on the circumstances, your DM might have been right to draw the line where he did.I don't see why a reasonable DM needs to draw the line anywhere. Could you explain?

[SharkForce]

I don't see why a reasonable DM needs to draw the line anywhere. Could you explain?

based on his explanation, if there is no line (and your DM has brain damage and no spine at all, making for essentially a complete lack of any nervous system) then you can make an illusion of something you have no real information about and get an accurate picture.

for example "the castle's weakest spot" or "the area that evil mcvillain is standing in" or "the person behind this evil plot" would be things you could claim to make illusions of.

that said, i'm inclined to say that there is plenty of room for drawing the line in a place where it doesn't get ridiculous at all. for example, you can only create illusions of things you have a mental picture of (or... er... whatever you call the sound version or smell version or heat version of a picture).

[Tanarii]

that said, i'm inclined to say that there is plenty of room for drawing the line in a place where it doesn't get ridiculous at all. for example, you can only create illusions of things you have a mental picture of (or... er... whatever you call the sound version or smell version or heat version of a picture).the problem with that is that, despite what people often believe, humans really aren't that good at mental pictures of things they aren't directly observing. That's one reason artistic representation of what we 'visualize', which isn't really very visualized at all, comes from a combination of refining our limited ability to mentally visualize things, making corrections as its created to make it recognizable, and most importantly practicing technique.

That's why personally for D&D (any edition) I draw the line in a place where it is ridiculous, or at least fantasy: I assume someone who can create illusions can visualize & create reasonable facsimiles of non-unique objects or individuals they have seen before (ie a chair or a dwarf), and with an decent Int check they can create illusions of specific things they recall (the Kings throne or Thorin the dwarf).

Adding a Int check to recall specific details of a unique object or creature isn't unreasonable or abusive DM adjudication. Since IMX its fairly common practice any time a character tries to recall anything important. and not specific to illusions being cast.

[Zalabim]

To clarify why the investigation DC of the spell can't be used to determine if your party member recognizes the drow. They can tell that it is an image, and not an actual creature, with that check. There's no way for your party to know if this drow image does or does not look like a drow they have never seen before. If they've seen a specific drow before, they could know it does not look like that drow, but that's a given if the drow you just saw is not the drow they've seen before.

Though I don't think describing a creature you just recently saw warrants any kind of check, for D&D. That's true whether you sketch it, describe it, or make an illusionary depiction of it, as long as the purpose is depiction rather than deception. If you saw a drow that your party member would recognize, I could see a check between the two of you to see if the party member remembers the drow from your description, assuming the player didn't recognize it automatically. It's still probably not important enough to bother with.

[Telok]

Most people are crappy at drawing and recreating things like faces because they have no practice or training in doing so. Untill you've taken drawing classes or really practiced drawing from life you won't draw what you see. You will draw what you think.

This is why cartoons and caricture are so powerful, they are visual communications aimed at your ideas. Asking untrained people to draw a face usually results in something that you can recognize as a face but with serious distortions. Eyes and noses will be too big, mouths too small, ears misplaced, and often missing several inches off the top of the head. This is because people draw and visualize ideas, and in your idea of a person the eyes and nose are more important than ears and hair.

The first lesson in drawing is to stop drawing what you think and to start drawing what you see. If you draw what you think then what ends up on the page is a distorted cartoon. Only by constant practice and conscious intent will you draw something life-like.

This applies to all the visual arts, not just drawing. Painting, sculpture, carving, all of it. To get realism you create what you see or have seen, creating what you think will get you symbols and cartoons.

[Tanarii]

Most people are crappy at drawing and recreating things like faces because they have no practice or training in doing so. Untill you've taken drawing classes or really practiced drawing from life you won't draw what you see. You will draw what you think.
Yup. Most people don't realize what you 'visualize' is a crappy representation of reality. Unless you can *also* directly see the thing you are visualizing.

But IMO D&D assumes that anyone that can cast an illusion can create a reasonable facsimile of their reality. Ie you don't create stick figures in your illusions. ;)

At least in general terms. The ability to create specific details, especially of unique objects or individuals, don't have to be assumed. Int checks, and occasionally (rarely) even Performance or Dex checks, might be appropriate.

Edit: to be clear though, I think the OP got screwed if a DC 5 check to create an illusion of a unique individual he had *just seen* wasn't sufficient.

[Telok]

Yup. Most people don't realize what you 'visualize' is a crappy representation of reality. Unless you can *also* directly see the thing you are visualizing.

But IMO D&D assumes that anyone that can cast an illusion can create a reasonable facsimile of their reality. Ie you don't create stick figures in your illusions. ;)

At least in general terms. The ability to create specific details, especially of unique objects or individuals, don't have to be assumed. Int checks, and occasionally (rarely) even Performance or Dex checks, might be appropriate.

Edit: to be clear though, I think the OP got screwed if a DC 5 check to create an illusion of a unique individual he had *just seen* wasn't sufficient.

I can't draw a horse, not a good one at any rate. I haven't spent enough time around horses, looking at horses, or drawing horse-like creatures. I can do a pretty good cat, from memory, because I see them every day and have drawn them a bunch of times. I can put bunches of detail in and do a whole range of colorations, but not because I've seen every possible coloration. Once you get a form down, like cat or horse or person, you have a good feel for the usual variations of that form and can do good work from imagination and memory.

If I draw cats that are decently real and then see a cat and want to draw something recognizable as that individual cat it's not going to be six inches too short and a tux where it should be tabby.

An illusionist is doing a professional level job of creating models that are mistaken for the real thing untill somebody stops and intentionally investigates that model. Being off in minor details is fine. Screwing up by a foot of height and the wrong gender isn't just a bad likeness of someone it's the kind of mistake someone makes the very first time they ever attempt the job. Even raw amateurs given two inch paint brushes and a wall and told to draw a six foot tall woman will not produce a five foot tall guy with facial hair.

[AbyssStalker]

I just don't think this was a very good ruling (not just that he used an improper stat for the roll too). This is something that could get ridiculous easily if it sets a precedent for other similar spells, an almost entirely needless complication for what already is clearly defined.

When I looked up illusion in the spells section of the handbook had this to say. "Illusion spells deceive the minds and senses of others", this goes back to what I said earlier, people can believe stupid things even with direct evidence otherwise, illusion isn't quite about making a perfect image, but making the viewer "believe" it is the perfect image, most people are not going to be analyzing a person's face to determine if they are not real, they are going to go off the basic assumption that it is a real image, and then go on from there to find the truth and may not notice small false details, that is, unless the viewer is aware that an illusionist might be trying fool them, or is specifically trained against such, then it might be fair to roll a check for how accurate the image is to truth, or you could just give the viewer advantage in the first place, if the viewer succeeds THEN will be the time to state that they noticed an inconsistency between the image and what they know is real.

[Tanarii]

Even raw amateurs given two inch paint brushes and a wall and told to draw a six foot tall woman will not produce a five foot tall guy with facial hair.
No, untrained people given paintbrushes and a wall won't make a 6ft tall woman. It probably won't even be recognizable as a human except in very vague terms, unless they have a reference picture, and even then their first attempt will garbage.

But yes, D&D assumes that someone that can cast illusion spells is assumed to be as good as a skilled artist at what they do. But that doesn't mean they'll be able to draw unique individuals or objects right out of memory, with no visual references at all. Any more than IRL artists can. hint: We artists are not very good at that. Unless we have a lot of practice drawing the individual in question (ie it's drilled into memory). And the reason is humans don't visualize things very well independent from a visual reference.

An illusionist might be able to show a drow woman. But the facial features wouldn't necessarily be accurate enough to allow a third party to then later on recognize one specific drow woman based on the illusion being created. But they wouldn't think it's the human male king they've met before either.

I'm not sure we're really disagreeing though. My position is that a check should only necessary if an illusionist is trying to generate an illusion of something unique & specific (an object or an individual) based on memory alone. Otherwise there shouldn't be an additional check necessary.

Want an illusion of a dwarf male? No problem. Want an illusion of Sergeant Grumbleguts, who you only met once a year ago? Int check time.

(Note my original assumption was an Int check of DC 0 if the player was paying attention and it'd been less than an hour. That's only possible to fail with an Int 8 or lower.)

[SwordChuck]

No, untrained people given paintbrushes and a wall won't make a 6ft tall woman. It probably won't even be recognizable as a human except in very vague terms, unless they have a reference picture, and even then their first attempt will garbage.

But yes, D&D assumes that someone that can cast illusion spells is assumed to be as good as a skilled artist at what they do. But that doesn't mean they'll be able to draw unique individuals or objects right out of memory, with no visual references at all. Any more than IRL artists can. hint: We artists are not very good at that. Unless we have a lot of practice drawing the individual in question (ie it's drilled into memory). And the reason is humans don't visualize things very well independent from a visual reference.

An illusionist might be able to show a drow woman. But the facial features wouldn't necessarily be accurate enough to allow a third party to then later on recognize one specific drow woman based on the illusion being created. But they wouldn't think it's the human male king they've met before either.

I'm not sure we're really disagreeing though. My position is that a check should only necessary if an illusionist is trying to generate an illusion of something unique & specific (an object or an individual) based on memory alone. Otherwise there shouldn't be an additional check necessary.

Want an illusion of a dwarf male? No problem. Want an illusion of Sergeant Grumbleguts, who you only met once a year ago? Int check time.

The illusion doesn't have to actually look perfect, the magic tricks the mind into thinking it is.

So for people who made their saves the illusion could be a see through stick figure but people who don't make their save sees the 6' tall beautiful blonde bombshell waitress.

[Tanarii]

The illusion doesn't have to actually look perfect, the magic tricks the mind into thinking it is.

So for people who made their saves the illusion could be a see through stick figure but people who don't make their save sees the 6' tall beautiful blonde bombshell waitress.
Hey, I really like that interpretation. But one thing to take into account is many illusions don't have saves. They just work unless investigated.

Still, I like it because that's kind of what the mind actually does anyway. I mean, that's how we can look at a couple of lines drawn on a page and see a face. It takes broad outlines and edges and stuff and back-fills in lots of the details. Some stuff comes by directly querying our visual field, others by assumptions the mind makes.

[AbyssStalker]

The illusion doesn't have to actually look perfect, the magic tricks the mind into thinking it is.

So for people who made their saves the illusion could be a see through stick figure but people who don't make their save sees the 6' tall beautiful blonde bombshell waitress.

I can understand an additional check in the situation Tanarii provided, but if it failed, I would still make the viewer roll to save, except with advantage. If for no other reason than to make sure that the player didn't waste resources in vein in a completely spontaneous complication the caster wasn't warned of.

[SwordChuck]

I can understand an additional check in the situation Tanarii provided, but if it failed, I would still make the viewer roll to save, except with advantage. If for no other reason than to make sure that the player didn't waste resources in vein in a completely spontaneous complication the caster wasn't warned of.

To many rolls, 5e is about simplicity.

Spell DC and attack rolls cover a all thasst fiddly stuff.

[PoeticDwarf]

Illusions are very strang and in almost every situation good but not OP (reminds me of bards).
A check for this illusion just was not right in my opinion, but he's the DM, try to talk to him I think.

[SwordChuck]

Bards are definitely OP in 5e. Not in the way 3e wizards were but in the way they are a good martial character and a full caster (much like clerics can be).

But making illusionist have multiple checks to cast an illusion spell would be like making a Rogue make an Int check to be able to sneak attack.

[Tanarii]

To many rolls, 5e is about simplicity.

Spell DC and attack rolls cover a all thasst fiddly stuff.There no roll at all for most illusions.

And a viewers mind can't 'provide the details' for something they never seen. Such as a specific individual that they're being shown in the illusion for the first time, that is being created based on the recall ability of the caster.

Making an additional check in this case is the same as requiring a check for someone to accurately describe or draw the individual. Or write down the details of a conversation. Ie not called for if there's no chance of failure, but called for if there is a chance of failure.

[LordBlades]

I was merely pointing out that, by RAW, you can make an image of ANYTHING, with no regard to what the caster is or is not able to picture, and thus a reasonable DM needs to draw the line somewhere and, depending on the circumstances, your DM might have been right to draw the line where he did.


Silent Image says 'you create the image of a creature, an object or some other visible phenomenon'. There is nowhere specified that you get to decide any detail regarding the creature. Therefore, running Silent Image 100% RAW would not only disallow you frim getting an illusion of 'the murderer', you'd be unable to even get the illusion of 'a drow'. All you'd get would be 'a creature', chosen by the DM as he sees fit.

[gameogre]

The DM's choice was a bad one.

How did it help the fun at the table to disallow a illusionist to use a illusion to show the party what someone looked like?

He is obviously not a fan of the character and or illusions in general.

It would be like a swordsman being involved in a duel and rolling to hit and saying "I want to make the wound in the shape of the fist letter in my name on his chest"

And the DM saying" Roll to hit with a -2, then make a int check to make sure you know how to spell that and a Cha check to see what kind of job you make of it."

That's just bad DMing!

Doing cool moves like you see in movies and read in books especially those that are not overpowering or add to the damage etc. should be encouraged!

This was a player getting into character and using his abilities outside of a narrowly defined game combat mechanic and the DM thinking wow! I need to limit this like crazy otherwise this illusionist might start using illusions!

[gfishfunk]

Silent Image says 'you create the image of a creature, an object or some other visible phenomenon'. There is nowhere specified that you get to decide any detail regarding the creature. Therefore, running Silent Image 100% RAW would not only disallow you frim getting an illusion of 'the murderer', you'd be unable to even get the illusion of 'a drow'. All you'd get would be 'a creature', chosen by the DM as he sees fit.

Its implicit that you get to choose the specific image. If you really want to grammar it up and keep following your reasoning, you simply create 'an image' and the DM can chose whether it is 'a creature, an object, or some other visible phenomenon.' So the DM could choose to create an arrow pointed at your character that states 'kill this guy'.

That is following your logic. It is the player's spell. The player gets to choose the image. Saying its not RAW is simply ridiculous. Its implicit through player agency.

[mephnick]

The DM's choice was a bad one.

How did it help the fun at the table to disallow a illusionist to use a illusion to show the party what someone looked like?

For all the ridiculous art and eyewitness theory in this thread, it basically comes down to this. The guy is an illusionist, let him use his powers to add flavour to the game.

It's decisions like this that have made so many older players unimaginative role-players who can only think of the numbers on their character sheet.

[Tanarii]

Meh. I boil it down to the most core and basic of all DM-adjudication rule: Does this player action have a reasonable chance of failure, and is that failure going to affect game-play?

If no, no check needed. If yes, a check of some kind needs to be decided on.

[endur]

level of the spell could also matter. A higher lvl spell might be more likely to be check free.

[JumboWheat01]

Silent Image says 'you create the image of a creature, an object or some other visible phenomenon'.

Now here's a question, does that mean Silent Image can create something for visual effect, or does it mean you have to be able to see something visually to make an Illusion of it via Silent Image?

[Dalebert]

I actually wouldn't have minded an int check if I was trying to remember and recreate a specific person whom I hadn't seen in a while and wasn't especially familiar with. This person was literally seconds earlier.

[AbyssStalker]

To many rolls, 5e is about simplicity.

Spell DC and attack rolls cover a all thasst fiddly stuff.

I concur, I was just saying if I had for whatever reason done this I still wouldn't take away the chance of the spell working entirely, that just doesn't feel right, if he didn't want them to believe the illusion after they failed the DC he could come up with a more creative way of making the viewer realize that it isn't real.


Bards are definitely OP in 5e. Not in the way 3e wizards were but in the way they are a good martial character and a full caster (much like clerics can be).

But making illusionist have multiple checks to cast an illusion spell would be like making a Rogue make an Int check to be able to sneak attack.

This isn't really the time or place for it, but that is debatable as to whether bards or overpowered or not, comparing how martials currently are they could easily be considered OP, but I think that is more a problem with martials getting shafted on the versatility end, and should probably get more abilities to compensate for the lack of spells.

[Tanarii]

I actually wouldn't have minded an int check if I was trying to remember and recreate a specific person whom I hadn't seen in a while and wasn't especially familiar with. This person was literally seconds earlier.Yeah that's pretty unreasonable. It doesn't pass the test of a reasonable chance of failure.

In fact, my off-the-cuff 'DC 0 for 1 hr or less, +5 DC if you're not really paying attention' is kind of unreasonable too. Unless it's an hour full of adventuring and encounters or something.

[SwordChuck]

I concur, I was just saying if I had for whatever reason done this I still wouldn't take away the chance of the spell working entirely, that just doesn't feel right, if he didn't want them to believe the illusion after they failed the DC he could come up with a more creative way of making the viewer realize that it isn't real.



This isn't really the time or place for it, but that is debatable as to whether bards or overpowered or not, comparing how martials currently are they could easily be considered OP, but I think that is more a problem with martials getting shafted on the versatility end, and should probably get more abilities to compensate for the lack of spells.

You must have some very very low optimization points if you consider martials OP. Wow, I haven't had a good laugh yet today.

Most DMs aren't very creative and they take the .lazy way out of a situation. Sometimes it is in general and other times in very specific instances.

[AbyssStalker]

You must have some very very low optimization points if you consider martials OP. Wow, I haven't had a good laugh yet today.

Most DMs aren't very creative and they take the .lazy way out of a situation. Sometimes it is in general and other times in very specific instances.

:smallconfused: Perhaps I mis-worded that, but my intention was not to declare martials as OP, but actually a slight agreement on your point, hope you enjoyed your laugh though, I like being a bard that makes people laugh. I guess you kinda skipped over the next part where I mentioned it feels like martials get shafted on versatility.

[Finieous]

If you were using Misty Visions, couldn't you just keep altering the illusion until it more closely matched your recollection?

My main takeaway: AL seems like an awful way to play D&D, all around.

[AbyssStalker]

My main takeaway: AL seems like an awful way to play D&D, all around.

Although I haven't played it and so won't pass final judgement on it till I have (and probably with different AL DMs to get a full picture), I honestly kinda agree, but if someone else thinks it's great than I suppose there is a good reason for it being there.

[SwordChuck]

:smallconfused: Perhaps I mis-worded that, but my intention was not to declare martials as OP, but actually a slight agreement on your point, hope you enjoyed your laugh though, I like being a bard that makes people laugh. I guess you kinda skipped over the next part where I mentioned it feels like martials get shafted on versatility.

Most people see high damage and go straight for "this is op". It looked like you was saying martials are OP but still lack versatility (which people tend to be ok with when they think high damage is op).

[Mr.Moron]

What happens if one casts an illusion worded as follows:


"I cast an illusion depicting an accurate map to the nearest cache of money or treasure that would legally be available for acquisition (abandoned or salvageable, not in possession of of a living authority etc). The map is annotated with the locations of all traps, monsters, guards or other hazards between here and the treasure as well as detailed descriptions on the safest and fastest ways to defeat each. All of the information on the map is accurate, and written legibly utilizing up to the entire surface area of the illusionary space. If such information can not legibly fit in it's entirety , information will be omitted such that the least important details of the least threatening hazards & creatures are omitted first following with their larger details and repeating this process with the details of greater hazards & threads, then the locations of other threats before finally omitting the location of the treasure. The least possible amount of information is omitted such that the maximum amount of information displayed on the surface. Note that if space is sufficient, the "Details of hazards" include all the exact actions of all potentially hostile creatures from the first in moment in which contact is initiated."

or

"I cast an illusion that depicts a floor plan of Lord BloodSkull's fortress. It also contains personnel notes on each of his guards and their fears, as well as their level of loyalty and what if any things would work as bribes for them"

[Finieous]

Has the illusionist seen this map in order to reproduce it?

[Mr.Moron]

Has the illusionist seen this map in order to reproduce it?

No. He just casts an illusion, per RAW of creating an image he wants. The illusionist is also blind, new to the area and has no understanding of monster behavior, dungeon design or really anything beyond how to cast illusion spells and whatever else got put in his spell book because there weren't enough illusion spells to fill every slot learned at level up. His name is Pierre and his favorite food is chicken roasted with garlic. He intends to spend his share of the treasure to buy chicken dinners.

[Finieous]

In that case, I'm gonna say it's a Str check with disadvantage. I'll tell Pierre the DC after he rolls.

[huttj509]

I'd rule it similarly to this situation: Disguise Self can alter my appearance from human to elf. Can I alter it to a *specific* elf?

Unfortunately I can't find any reference to disguise self or a disguise kit being used to imitate a specific individual.

For me, it would also depend on the state of the contact. "There's a drow over there, I should get back and tell the others" is different from "there's a Drow over there, I'll watch her to see what she's doing" is different from "There's a Drow over there, I should pay attention to her features so I can impersonate her to pass the guards later" is different from "there's a drow here, we're having a chat."

I mean, I could see "she had white hair, and was between 5.5 and 6 feet tall, wearing a cloak" but unless she had a distinctive hairstyle or sigil or something, I can't see the result of a scouting mission (assuming the intent was "are there drow" rather than "which drow") getting more than general bodytype. I mean, there's a lot of drow. Trying to get sufficient detail that the party member knows "oh, that's Suzie" is gonna be rough unless Suzie's distinctive, or if there's a reason to think Suzie would have been there.

I'd view it as similar to scouting a room, and seeing a document on the desk, then reporting back. "What was the document" would require a check if it wasn't specifically checked while in the room, unless it had "War Plans" in big red letters at the top. Well, depending on needed detail. I mean, if you're being asked what the War Plans were, you'd better have either read the document, or have a photographic memory. If you just scanned the room and wanted to make an illusion of the document to read it in more detail, yeah, no.

[JoeJ]

What happens if one casts an illusion worded as follows:


"I cast an illusion depicting an accurate map to the nearest cache of money or treasure that would legally be available for acquisition (abandoned or salvageable, not in possession of of a living authority etc). The map is annotated with the locations of all traps, monsters, guards or other hazards between here and the treasure as well as detailed descriptions on the safest and fastest ways to defeat each. All of the information on the map is accurate, and written legibly utilizing up to the entire surface area of the illusionary space. If such information can not legibly fit in it's entirety , information will be omitted such that the least important details of the least threatening hazards & creatures are omitted first following with their larger details and repeating this process with the details of greater hazards & threads, then the locations of other threats before finally omitting the location of the treasure. The least possible amount of information is omitted such that the maximum amount of information displayed on the surface. Note that if space is sufficient, the "Details of hazards" include all the exact actions of all potentially hostile creatures from the first in moment in which contact is initiated."

or

"I cast an illusion that depicts a floor plan of Lord BloodSkull's fortress. It also contains personnel notes on each of his guards and their fears, as well as their level of loyalty and what if any things would work as bribes for them"

Easy. You cast the image you described, exactly as you imagine it.

[krugaan]

Easy. You cast the image you described, exactly as you imagine it.

I imagine it would trivial for PCs to play Dungeons and Dragons with Minor Illusion.

Talk about meta! All they need is dice, they can illusion up everything else, including character sheets, diagrams, and adventures, lol.

[Mr.Moron]

Easy. You cast the image you described, exactly as you imagine it.

Well Pierre imagines it accurately of course, exact to real world conditions. Fully actionable by him or his allies without error or deviation.

[Vogonjeltz]

Most people are crappy at drawing and recreating things like faces because they have no practice or training in doing so. Untill you've taken drawing classes or really practiced drawing from life you won't draw what you see. You will draw what you think.

This is why cartoons and caricture are so powerful, they are visual communications aimed at your ideas. Asking untrained people to draw a face usually results in something that you can recognize as a face but with serious distortions. Eyes and noses will be too big, mouths too small, ears misplaced, and often missing several inches off the top of the head. This is because people draw and visualize ideas, and in your idea of a person the eyes and nose are more important than ears and hair.

The first lesson in drawing is to stop drawing what you think and to start drawing what you see. If you draw what you think then what ends up on the page is a distorted cartoon. Only by constant practice and conscious intent will you draw something life-like.

This applies to all the visual arts, not just drawing. Painting, sculpture, carving, all of it. To get realism you create what you see or have seen, creating what you think will get you symbols and cartoons.

I am terrible at drawing. I (to date) have not been able to put to paper what I see in my mind's eye.

Magic Illusions simply bypass this basic problem in that what appears is simply what is imagined and requires no dextrous skill with a pencil or paint. So to hold magic to the same standards as required by drawing or painting something is reaching into the absurd realm of the guy at the gym fallacy (wherein we impose additional limitations on what an exceptionally strong character can do based purely, and speciously, on what some dude at the local gym can do).


There no roll at all for most illusions.

And a viewers mind can't 'provide the details' for something they never seen. Such as a specific individual that they're being shown in the illusion for the first time, that is being created based on the recall ability of the caster.

Making an additional check in this case is the same as requiring a check for someone to accurately describe or draw the individual. Or write down the details of a conversation. Ie not called for if there's no chance of failure, but called for if there is a chance of failure.

There is, but only if the subject actually chooses to investigate it. Absent investigation, the thing in question should look perfectly real.

[Tanarii]

Absent investigation, the thing in question should look perfectly real.
Oh, it's definitely looks perfectly real. Unless investigated. That goes without saying.

It just doesn't necessarily look perfectly accurate. If it's supposed to be a specific individual. :p

[Dalebert]

It won't be exactly right if you don't have Keen Mind. It also doesn't need to be exactly right if the viewer also doesn't have Keen Mind. The details the creator forgot are just as likely to not be remembered or at last noticed particularly by the viewer. That's where we need to be consistent. I would give someone with Keen Mind advantage on investigating illusions of anything specific that they've personally viewed within the last month if it wasn't also created by someone with Keen Mind, e.g. "Lady Ephedra's blouse has four buttons but it only had three yesterday. That's... suspicious."

[Tanarii]

Remembering what Lady Ephdra's face looks like is more the issue. Not to mention grosser details ... hairstyle & color, body height and weight, what they sound like (if that's part of the illusion). But granted, in many situations that may be unnecessary level of detail. I mean, it'd be fine if you're effectively creating a 'wanted' poster, so someone will wonder if they have seen this individual. ;)

For game purposes, and avoiding the Guy at the Gym Fallacy, so a lot of DM leeway should be allowed. IRL depicting a person reasonably accurately, except in the broadest way, without a visual reference is almost impossible. You end up with things that look like police sketches, ie nothing like the person in question. That doesn't mean it should be impossible in game. But it also means that trying to portray an image of a unique object or individual, that is recognizably accurate as that specific individual, after some significant time has passed ... an Int check isn't unreasonable.

[Dalebert]

I generally agree. As I said earlier, if illusion spells were dependent on our artistic talent to essentially paint things but in three dimensions, everything would look like a cartoon or maybe an expressionist painting and would be completely unconvincing, whether or not it was a specific individual. It's assumed that the magic does a lot of the work here just as it manages to build a structurally sound Wall of Stone for a wizard who isn't a structural engineer or even a carpenter.

I wouldn't even attempt to portray a specific individual unless I'd either just seen the person recently or I was already very familiar with them from interactions over a long period of time. Ideally, I'd even cast the illusion while I was observing the individual. Example: The case of creating the noble whom you just captured and tied up. I'd look at him and then cast the illusion of him reading a book so people walking by wouldn't be suspicious.

[JoeJ]

Well Pierre imagines it accurately of course, exact to real world conditions. Fully actionable by him or his allies without error or deviation.

He can imagine it however you, the player, want him to. However, reality (which is to say, my imagination as DM) is under no obligation to conform. But feel free to draw any map you like.

[JohnDoe]

Intelligence checks:

"Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason."

PHB page 177

That's why feats like Keen Mind exist, with a +1 to int.

-----------------------------------------------
I suggest you use it with the sage background / researcher feature to *optimize* role playing ;]

(And to meta game and ask the DM anything you've been told or seen)

[Vogonjeltz]

Now here's a question, does that mean Silent Image can create something for visual effect, or does it mean you have to be able to see something visually to make an Illusion of it via Silent Image?

It means, as is clarified in the immediately following sentence, that it's not an illusion for senses that aren't sight.


Most people see high damage and go straight for "this is op". It looked like you was saying martials are OP but still lack versatility (which people tend to be ok with when they think high damage is op).

Martial is too nebulous a generalization. Fighters specifically are quite versatile thanks to Extra Attack being usable for improvised actions, giving them better action economy than most other classes. Action Surge just compounds this advantage.


Oh, it's definitely looks perfectly real. Unless investigated. That goes without saying.

It just doesn't necessarily look perfectly accurate. If it's supposed to be a specific individual. :p

I mean it has to be accurate to what you've seen in order to be 'real'. So if you saw them in profile, you would be able to create someone in profile using silent image. Now, if you didn't see that they have a scar on the left side of their face then you wouldn't have included that in the illusion, which would be a giveaway to someone who knew the subject. That however would be dependent on their investigating the illusion. Which is what the DC in the spell is for, when someone scrutinizes an illusion.

So if the Illusionist got a good view of the subject, the illusion should look exactly as they saw it, and no more than that.


I wouldn't even attempt to portray a specific individual unless I'd either just seen the person recently or I was already very familiar with them from interactions over a long period of time. Ideally, I'd even cast the illusion while I was observing the individual. Example: The case of creating the noble whom you just captured and tied up. I'd look at him and then cast the illusion of him reading a book so people walking by wouldn't be suspicious.

Pretty much this. I'd have Illusions essentially function as well as holograms in say, Total Recall. They look entirely real, but require investigation to reveal the truth (or special sight). Now, if someone only had a likeness or a description of the person they wanted to create, it would probably be iffier as to how closely the end product resembled them.

[Talakeal]

Incase anyone is still unclear about what I was saying, it is this:

Illusions are primarily meant to fool people, conveying information is not their primary purpose.

The problems in using an illusion to convey information come not from artistic skill, but accurate mental recall.

If you want to use them to convey information, the caster needs to already have that information clear in their mind.

Thus if you want to use an illusion to show someone exactly what another person looks like you might need to make some other test to see if you have the information in your head and can accurately recall it.

It has nothing to do with the illusion looking fake or the spell failing, it has everything to do with the caster not having an adequate mental picture in their head to base the illusion off of.

[Tanarii]

Thus if you want to use an illusion to show someone exactly what another person looks like you might need to make some other test to see if you have the information in your head and can accurately recall it.

It has nothing to do with the illusion looking fake or the spell failing, it has everything to do with the caster not having an adequate mental picture in their head to base the illusion off of.Exactly. The illusion creates a realistic image of what you remember.

It's not a mnemonic spell that scours your memories for you, digging out barely remembered details.

[Dalebert]

It's been said multiple times that the illusion is presumed to not get all the details exact unless the caster has Keen Mind. But my point made many times is that it's probably not a big deal because observers usually don't have Keen Mind either. Details will be off but observers are just as likely not to notice as the caster is to forget them. If you've seen them recently or you're just very familiar with the individual, then I don't think this should call for anything extra. Some sort of intelligence check to remember if some time has passed seems fine to me.

[Doug Lampert]

Exactly. The illusion creates a realistic image of what you remember.

It's not a mnemonic spell that scours your memories for you, digging out barely remembered details.

I agree that the magic presumably fills in details you've forgotten or never saw.

And it fills them in with something plausible, which may well be actively incorrect.


It's been said multiple times that the illusion is presumed to not get all the details exact unless the caster has Keen Mind. But my point made many times is that it's probably not a big deal because observers usually don't have Keen Mind either. Details will be off but observers are just as likely not to notice as the caster is to forget them. If you've seen them recently or you're just very familiar with the individual, then I don't think this should call for anything extra. Some sort of intelligence check to remember if some time has passed seems fine to me.

They won't notice something that gives away that it's an illusion, but if they key on something like shape of the mouth and hairline around the face as a major part of how they recognize people, and you only saw the person from behind or in profile, then they're going to get it wrong when they try to ID that person.

"Nope, that can't be who Joe saw, she had all her teeth and they were all straight. This drow has a gap between two of her upper teeth."

"Yeah, and the shape of her chin is different."

"And her bangs are a bit longer."

"Definitely not the drow Joe saw."

Unless everyone cares about the SAME details, there's no guarantee that the details you remember will be the ones that let someone else recognize someone.

[huttj509]

It's been said multiple times that the illusion is presumed to not get all the details exact unless the caster has Keen Mind. But my point made many times is that it's probably not a big deal because observers usually don't have Keen Mind either. Details will be off but observers are just as likely not to notice as the caster is to forget them. If you've seen them recently or you're just very familiar with the individual, then I don't think this should call for anything extra. Some sort of intelligence check to remember if some time has passed seems fine to me.

Are the details one observer notices the details someone else notices?

Studies have shown 'no.' When you recognize someone, you're not "seeing" their whole face unless you look carefully. Your brain has learned to scan various features (eye shape, nose size, cheekbones), and compare to memory. What features are noted differ between people (which is why some of my friends can tell me and my twin brother apart easily, and others couldn't if you put a gun to their heads (well, if I shaved), and the former can't explain to the latter how).

This is why the method of observation affects the call I'd make. Someone you saw on the other side of the room before booking it because "crud, Drow"? That's gonna need an int check to recall features well enough, unless you had had prior contact with that individual. Someone you were closely interacting with, with the intent of replicating later? No check needed.

[JackPhoenix]

Unless everyone cares about the SAME details, there's no guarantee that the details you remember will be the ones that let someone else recognize someone.

That's another important thing. You were on a recon, presumably looking for enemies...I think your character would pay more attention to her equipment (weapons, armor...you want to know if she's dangerous and what could she likely do) then her face...even if she was turned towards you.

"She had a sword and plate armor, propably a fighter. Also, no pack, so she wouldn't be far from a place with supplies. How did she looked like? Like a drow, I guess?"

[Mara]

It's silly to add nonsense like this in organized play. RAW is God. Add not what is unneeded.

In a home game this kind of thing is more up to the DM. The check to require in this situation, if any, would be a perception check to see if you saw the woman clearly enough to replicate her. Even then, your character would know this before the spell was cast.

Lots of DMs take 5e as a mandate to F with players in a way they wouldn't in other systems. Don't play with those DMs in any system.

[Tanarii]

It's silly to add nonsense like this in organized play. RAW is God.Int checks to recall specific details or information you may have forgotten is within RAW.

[Talakeal]

Int checks to recall specific details or information you may have forgotten is within RAW.

If it wasn't wouldn't the keen mind feat be rather pointless?

In any case I dont believe it is nonsense. Innapropriate to the situation maybe, possibly even unfair to the player, but not nonsense.

[E’Tallitnics]

Int checks to recall specific details or information you may have forgotten is within RAW.

True, but no where in the spells description is such a check needed. That's the elegant simplicity of 5e.

[Tanarii]

True, but no where in the spells description is such a check needed. That's the elegant simplicity of 5e.Thats because making an Int check to remember details doesn't specifically have anything to do with the spell. It has to do with being able to remember details. And that's covered under Ability Checks.

Specifically PHB page 177, Intelligence:
An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning.


In any case I dont believe it is nonsense. Innapropriate to the situation maybe, possibly even unfair to the player, but not nonsense.IMO the specific situation that arose in the OP, a Cha check to make an illusion that resembled a creature at all, was inappropriate and unfair to the player. I also think that requiring a check for someone/thing you've only just seen (or seen recently and unlikely to have forgotten) is unfair to the player.

[JakOfAllTirades]

True, but no where in the spells description is such a check needed. That's the elegant simplicity of 5e.

This. All freaking day.

Every single illusion spell already has a mechanic for noticing the illusion: Investigation (Int) vs. the spell save DC, which already makes them easy enough to spot. They're balanced under RAW that way. Adding a second check makes illusion spells so much more likely to fail that they're practically useless. (Do the math.) It's lousy game-mastering, plain and simple. In the example given in the OP, I can only assume the DM quite simply didn't want the illusion to work, and pulled an extra dice roll out of his butt to screw it up for the player.

Surprise, he succeeded. Multiple skill checks on the same task = lousy game design. That's why it's not in the rules.

[hawklost]

This question comes down to this.

Would anyone be complaining if the DM required the player to make an Int check to say or write down the details of the person?
- If the answer is no, then there really shouldn't be a complaint about requiring the check for an Illusion

If you have ever played a memory game and seen an object or person for a few seconds before having it disappear and then be required to describe it, you would realize that details are forgotten almost immediately.


Sure, the Illusion can create whatever silent image the person is thinking of, but did that person have long medium or short hair? Where their ears pointed slightly or alot? Was their eye color blue, green, brown, woody, black ect? What about their nose, was it pointed, rounded, flat? Was their mouth hairline or full? Were they crouching down and therefore you cannot say their height well? What about their cloths, was there a cloak, daggers, swords, bows, pouches, armor (what kind), was anything specifically noticeable about the person like a scar?

I remember a time when I was in school and some cops were explaining to our class the issue with peoples memories. One of the cops 'took a call' outside the room after a minute or so in there and the other than asked us immediately to give details about the other cop. Interestingly enough the cop had a fake scar across his forehead and yet no one in the class had noticed it. People couldn't even remember the type of shirt and jacket he was wearing other than agree mostly on the color.

So by that logic, the player made a facsimile of the enemy he saw from a distance. Got probably the cloths colors right as well as some very basic details and yet didn't remember enough to give people a useful picture.

[Tanarii]

This question comes down to this.

Would anyone be complaining if the DM required the player to make an Int check to say or write down the details of the person?
- If the answer is no, then there really shouldn't be a complaint about requiring the check for an Illusion
I agree, obviously, based on my previous posts in this thread. The investigation vs spell DC is an independent thing from an Int check being required to recall something. If that Int check is called for, it's called for. Although I personally would give heroes more leeway than the humans in reality, because fun and heroes. Also most people don't believe humans suck as bad as they actually do at visual memory, and it'll cause stupid arguments at the table.

But the thing to keep in mind here is that the DM didn't call for an Int check. He called for a Cha check. In other words, he called for a check to make the illusion good enough to accurately resemble the perceived creature. To paint it with the spell if you will. And THAT is doubling up on checks. Because that's what the spell does automatically, within the accuracy of the spell DC.

[Mara]

Int checks to recall specific details or information you may have forgotten is within RAW.
RAW, you aren't required to recall specific information.

We could argue RAI all day, but the RAW is clear. Do what the spell says.

SIDENOTE: If the DM asks for extra skill checks to use your class features, that is a red flag. "Don't play with those DMs in any system." Read a book instead.

[Tanarii]

RAW, you aren't required to recall specific information.lol. Guess your characters all have eidetic memory and the Keen Intellect feat isn't needed.


We could argue RAI all day, but the RAW is clear. Do what the spell says.Most spells don't indicate they can be used to make an illusion of a specific unique individual, let alone based on the casters potentially faulty recall of what they look like. So if you want to use 'do what the spell says' as your guideline, it's just as arguable that you can't do it at all.


SIDENOTE: If the DM asks for extra skill checks to use your class features, that is a red flag. "Don't play with those DMs in any system." Read a book instead.You must hate playing with actual real-world non-forum-theorycraft DMs. Ability Checks to do things not already covered by the rest of the rules is a central concept to D&D 5e.

[Dalebert]

TL;DR version: Stop trying to explain magic with science!

Some folks are way over-thinking this and getting sciency about the human brain and what it can remember, etcetera and so forth. Mixing science and D&D is the path to madness. The point is this is a spell intended and designed to trick people. That's ALL that it does. There is already a mechanic in place to resolve that. It's there for balance. The spell is supposed to be useful but not excessively so. If anyone touches it, the deception is over. If anyone successfully investigates it, it's over. If anyone is expecting sound and that doesn't come, it's probably over.

There are a bajillion places where adding science to the mechanics breaks the game's balance and I think this is one of those. Fluff it however you want to keep balance. Say that the spell reaches into my subconscience for more details. Say that the spell manipulates the mind of the viewer a bit to make it foggy on details. The point is the spell is supposed to do a certain thing and it should do that thing within the parameters given... within reason, for the sake of balance. The spell represents an investment of character resources based on an expectation of a reasonable payoff for that investment.

[JackPhoenix]

TL;DR version: Stop trying to explain magic with science!

Some folks are way over-thinking this and getting sciency about the human brain and what it can remember, etcetera and so forth. Mixing science and D&D is the path to madness. The point is this is a spell intended and designed to trick people. That's ALL that it does. There is already a mechanic in place to resolve that. It's there for balance. The spell is supposed to be useful but not excessively so. If anyone touches it, the deception is over. If anyone successfully investigates it, it's over. If anyone is expecting sound and that doesn't come, it's probably over.

There are a bajillion places where adding science to the mechanics breaks the game's balance and I think this is one of those. Fluff it however you want to keep balance. Say that the spell reaches into my subconscience for more details. Say that the spell manipulates the mind of the viewer a bit to make it foggy on details. The point is the spell is supposed to do a certain thing and it should do that thing within the parameters given... within reason, for the sake of balance. The spell represents an investment of character resources based on an expectation of a reasonable payoff for that investment.

So you're saying that it's ok when you invent an explanaiton why the spell should work as you want, but when the DM have an different idea and different explanation, he's breaking the game balance?

The spell does a certain thing: creates the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon. The DM never disputed the spell's ability to create the image of *a* female drow. He was entirely in his right to ask for an intelligence (not charisma...that was stupid) check to create the image of one specific female drow precise enough to be identified, when you saw her only for a short time at a distance.

The game doesn't have thousands of pages of rules to cover every possible situation, that's why it needs the DM who can call for a ruling instead of a computer who uses the pre-programed rules and scenarios. Different DM's have different ideas how the game should work.

[Sitri]

When in doubt, side with the players. I am pretty certain published books and AL literature say to make rulings that are fun.

If the act would bypass a major portion of the AL scenario, then just make the players aware of that, they will probably moderate themselves in that case.

In my experience, illusions in organized play are anything but standardized.

[E’Tallitnics]

Strength
Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force.

So everyone that agrees that the DM was well with his right to call for an ability check would also agree that a DM would also be well with his right to have a fighter make a Strengh check for Extra Attack(s)?

I just want to make sure that the fighter, like the wizard, is capable of doing what they're attempting to do.

[Keltest]

Well Pierre imagines it accurately of course, exact to real world conditions. Fully actionable by him or his allies without error or deviation.

Then whats he need a map for? he already knows where he's going.


Strength
Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force.

So everyone that agrees that the DM was well with his right to call for an ability check would also agree that a DM would also be well with his right to have a fighter make a Strengh check for Extra Attack(s)?

I just want to make sure that the fighter, like the wizard, is capable of doing what they're attempting to do.

Unlike making an int check to see if you can remember details, there already exists a mechanic to check the competency with which a fighter makes their extra attacks.

[SharkForce]

Then whats he need a map for? he already knows where he's going.



Unlike making an int check to see if you can remember details, there already exists a mechanic to check the competency with which a fighter makes their extra attacks.

the OP wasn't about a memory check. it was about a charisma check to create an illusion that looks the way the OP wanted. which is not something you should be rolling a check for.

[georgie_leech]

the OP wasn't about a memory check. it was about a charisma check to create an illusion that looks the way the OP wanted. which is not something you should be rolling a check for.

This. An INT Check to remember details is one thing. Letting it be a CHA check because that's what the Warlock has is... questionable from a versimilitude perspective. A CHA check to make the spell do what he wanted instead of failing miserably? Yeah, no.

[Keltest]

the OP wasn't about a memory check. it was about a charisma check to create an illusion that looks the way the OP wanted. which is not something you should be rolling a check for.

The check in particular, and the results of it were out of line, but in general the idea of having a check to see how well you can remember something is reasonable.

And the check wasn't for if it looked like how the OP wanted, its if how his character wanted it to look matched up with reality. the DM took it way too far, and in that particular scenario it was a waste of everyones time, but in principal having a check for that sort of thing is not completely uncalled for.

[georgie_leech]

The check in particular, and the results of it were out of line, but in general the idea of having a check to see how well you can remember something is reasonable.

And the check wasn't for if it looked like how the OP wanted, its if how his character wanted it to look matched up with reality. the DM took it way too far, and in that particular scenario it was a waste of everyones time, but in principal having a check for that sort of thing is not completely uncalled for.

The particular details are important though. Like, making a STR Check to see if you can move something heavy is reasonable. Deciding it can be moved without a check but a STR Check to make it go in the right direction or else instead block the door with it or something is more slapstick than realistic.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Then whats he need a map for? he already knows where he's going.



Unlike making an int check to see if you can remember details, there already exists a mechanic to check the competency with which a fighter makes their extra attacks.

And illusions already have a mechanic to see if people notice they aren't real. They don't need two checks.

[JoeJ]

And illusions already have a mechanic to see if people notice they aren't real. They don't need two checks.

Nobody is disputing that. But looking like a real drow is not the same thing as looking like a specific drow.

[georgie_leech]

Nobody is disputing that. But looking like a real drow is not the same thing as looking like a specific drow.

Say there was an item you wanted to steal from a cliche display stand in some museum or other. You've bypassed security through whatever means and you're standing by the plinth, object in hand. You decide to cast an illusion spell of the object in question, say Silent Image, in case a guard happens to walk by in the next few minutes whilst you escape. However, according to OP's DM, you've got to make a check to make the illusion of what you have right there. The DM didn't say they couldn't remember what they looked like; this was a just a check to make the illusion look like what they wanted ("He said the image was a foot too short and looked like a guy. Might have been joking about the guy part"). And you can apparently botch said check hard enough that if the object was a Golden Trophy like any cliche sports trophy, you might end up with a blotchy, squat, pottery thing that looks like it was made by a 5 year old. That's beyond not being able to get it perfect and into ridiculous incompetence.

[Mara]

"You create the image of an object, a creature, or some
other visible phenomenon that is no larger than a
20.foot cube. The image appears at a spot that you
can see within range and lasts for the duration. It
seems completely real, including sounds, smells, and
temperature appropriate to the thing depicted. You
can't create sufficient heat or cold to cause damage, a
sound loud enough to deal thunder damage or deafen a
creature, or a smell that might sicken a creature (like a
troglodyte's stench)...
...Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an
illusion, because things can pass through it. A creature
that uses its action to examine the image can determine
that it is an illusion with a successful Intelligence
(Investigation) check against your spell save DC. If a
creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature
can see through the image, and its other sensory
qualities become faint to the creature."

No limit is given for how specific the illusion can be. The spell reads more as wish-fulfillment rather than a conscious reconstruction of visual phenomenon.

Your DM could make you roll 5 checks or more to use this spell, but they are just being a bad DM. This is 5e so the DM is given the latitude to be adversarial and hostile to the players daring to interact with his or her plot. It's a good way to run a bad game.

I could make the fighter roll a dex check to draw their weapon, a dex check not to fall over while walking, a strength check to lift their weapon, a strength check to successfully swing it (the attack roll is for hitting not swinging after all), and a con check to keep breathing. I could also have no players.

[JoeJ]

Say there was an item you wanted to steal from a cliche display stand in some museum or other. You've bypassed security through whatever means and you're standing by the plinth, object in hand. You decide to cast an illusion spell of the object in question, say Silent Image, in case a guard happens to walk by in the next few minutes whilst you escape. However, according to OP's DM, you've got to make a check to make the illusion of what you have right there. The DM didn't say they couldn't remember what they looked like; this was a just a check to make the illusion look like what they wanted ("He said the image was a foot too short and looked like a guy. Might have been joking about the guy part"). And you can apparently botch said check hard enough that if the object was a Golden Trophy like any cliche sports trophy, you might end up with a blotchy, squat, pottery thing that looks like it was made by a 5 year old. That's beyond not being able to get it perfect and into ridiculous incompetence.

Not quite. The illusion was of someone who was not currently in sight but had been seen a very short time before. I wouldn't have required a roll for that, but if you tried to create an illusion of somebody you didn't know well and had last seen a month before, I very likely would. (An Intelligence roll, however, not Charisma). But even if you fail, you still wouldn't mess up as badly as was described. That's just ridiculous.

[georgie_leech]

Not quite. The illusion was of someone who was not currently in sight but had been seen a very short time before. I wouldn't have required a roll for that, but if you tried to create an illusion of somebody you didn't know well and had last seen a month before, I very likely would. (An Intelligence roll, however, not Charisma). But even if you fail, you still wouldn't mess up as badly as was described. That's just ridiculous.

I agree with the idea of an INT check to remember details; my point with this example was that from what the OP has said his character's ability to recall said details was never in question.

[Tanarii]

Strength
Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force.

So everyone that agrees that the DM was well with his right to call for an ability check would also agree that a DM would also be well with his right to have a fighter make a Strengh check for Extra Attack(s)?

I just want to make sure that the fighter, like the wizard, is capable of doing what they're attempting to do.strawman. The two situations are not remotely the same.

In the your example, the player is trying to use the feature in the intended fashion as specified by the ability. Attacking using Extra attack. In that case, attacking already is a Str check.

In the case of using an illusion to replicate a specific individual, detail perfect, especially one seen so long ago details may have been forgotten, that's something the illusion is not specified to be able to do. An Int check is appropriate, since it's an unrelated function.


the OP wasn't about a memory check. it was about a charisma check to create an illusion that looks the way the OP wanted. which is not something you should be rolling a check for.agreed.


Your DM could make you roll 5 checks or more to use this spell, but they are just being a bad DM. This is 5e so the DM is given the latitude to be adversarial and hostile to the players daring to interact with his or her plot. It's a good way to run a bad game. Throwing around language like "bad DM" and "run a bad game" is not helpful to discussions. Would you like it if I started saying your attitudes on illusions indicate you'd be a 'bad player' and would turn a game you participate in into a 'bad game'? I think not.

[Mara]

Throwing around language like "bad DM" and "run a bad game" is not helpful to discussions. Would you like it if I started saying your attitudes on illusions indicate you'd be a 'bad player' and would turn a game you participate in into a 'bad game'? I think not.Like I do anything but DM 5e.

No one else in my friend circle can be arsed to tackle the fuzzy logic problem of 5e rulings.

EDIT: Actually one did. I moved away from the campaign, but his died as soon as he started farting around with the players' spells because the players then lost all interest. "No it's a magic desert. Create water makes sand."

[KorvinStarmast]

No limit is given for how specific the illusion can be. The spell reads more as wish-fulfillment rather than a conscious reconstruction of visual phenomenon. I am with Mara on this, as well as with Dalebert's "don't mix magic and science like that!"

IMO, the granularity isn't that fine on illusion spells, they are magic. The more I consider the scenario presented in the OP, the more I dislike what the DM did.

Those defending that ruling strike me as trying to overwrite a template for a deeply simulationist game onto D&D 5e ... whose chassis isn't built for that level of detail.

[Shaofoo]

Like I do anything but DM 5e.

No one else in my friend circle can be arsed to tackle the fuzzy logic problem of 5e rulings.

EDIT: Actually one did. I moved away from the campaign, but his died as soon as he started farting around with the players' spells because the players then lost all interest. "No it's a magic desert. Create water makes sand."

5e is all about the DM taking a hands on approach on a lot of things. Maybe your friends don't like that and would rather want a codified set of rules that gives you all the options in paper rather than think up of stuff ad hoc. I think this isn't a problem with 5e but a preference of what people want. It'd be like complaining that a vegan restaurant doesn't have meat options.

And quite frankly no system in the world can ever fix a bad DM without basically taking away all of the DM's powers and creativity. If the person sucks then he will suck regardless if you play D&D, White Wolf, Star Wars d20, GURPS or Call of Cthulu (though I guess people do like getting screwed over in Call of Cthulu so maybe that is a plus for you in this case).

D&D takes no responsibility in fixing bad DMs, no writing in the world can help you when you want to get water and you get sand instead, that is up to you.

[Mara]

5e is all about the DM taking a hands on approach on a lot of things. Maybe your friends don't like that and would rather want a codified set of rules that gives you all the options in paper rather than think up of stuff ad hoc. I think this isn't a problem with 5e but a preference of what people want. It'd be like complaining that a vegan restaurant doesn't have meat options.

And quite frankly no system in the world can ever fix a bad DM without basically taking away all of the DM's powers and creativity. If the person sucks then he will suck regardless if you play D&D, White Wolf, Star Wars d20, GURPS or Call of Cthulu (though I guess people do like getting screwed over in Call of Cthulu so maybe that is a plus for you in this case).

D&D takes no responsibility in fixing bad DMs, no writing in the world can help you when you want to get water and you get sand instead, that is up to you.
For some odd reason DMs of 5e are more likely to take the rulings philosophy as an excuse to maliciously houserule the codified rules in 5e.

[Shaofoo]

For some odd reason DMs of 5e are more likely to take the rulings philosophy as an excuse to maliciously houserule the codified rules in 5e.

Like I said, D&D is not responsible for dealing with bad DMs (and bad players as well), unless you can point to me an excerpt of the books where they encourage DMs to change rules to the detriment of the players. If it seems that people are more prone to be bad DMs in 5e than any other system I still would place the blame squarely on the people than the system because the system does not encourage such behavior (in fact previous editions DID encourage adversarial DMs).

But also I find that quite a few "bad DM" accusations are because things as a player don't pan out exactly as they like it. I would take any random accusation of a bad DM in a public forum to be taken with a grain of salt big enough to crush a dump truck.

[Dalebert]

I definitely don't want to make the leap from "the DM made a bad call IMHO" to "This was a bad DM". One bad call does not a bad DM make. Heck, I was just thinking back to last night when I was spontaneously called upon to replace a DM who didn't show up for an AL game and I'm recalling things that I now believe were bad calls. I had to make decisions on the fly and keep the game moving.

If someone had called me out right then, I might have reconsidered. They didn't. Maybe they didn't notice or weren't bothered by it. In my situation, it was hardly a life-threatening situation so I didn't call him out either.

[Pex]

Like I said, D&D is not responsible for dealing with bad DMs (and bad players as well), unless you can point to me an excerpt of the books where they encourage DMs to change rules to the detriment of the players. If it seems that people are more prone to be bad DMs in 5e than any other system I still would place the blame squarely on the people than the system because the system does not encourage such behavior (in fact previous editions DID encourage adversarial DMs).

But also I find that quite a few "bad DM" accusations are because things as a player don't pan out exactly as they like it. I would take any random accusation of a bad DM in a public forum to be taken with a grain of salt big enough to crush a dump truck.

5E does not cause bad DMs. However, 5E makes them easier to exist because there aren't defined rules requiring the DM to make a ruling on "everything" so they have an excuse.

We've had this discussion before. I find it telling that it keeps cropping back up in 5E discussions. There are bad DM stories in the general and 3E forums, but it's obvious bad DMing because it's obvious the DM is going against the rules or showing bad behavior. In 5E it isn't so clear cut a bad DM is going against the rules because it's all about "rulings". Yes, it is simply a different design style than previous editions, but this new design style is what's causing the problems.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes, it is simply a different design style than previous editions, but this new design style is what's causing the problems.
This is a symptom of a problem, with the problem being that some players and DMs do not get on the same page. When expectations clash or are unmet, conflict happens. And people are people regardless of what game they play.

[Tanarii]

Like I do anything but DM 5e.

No one else in my friend circle can be arsed to tackle the fuzzy logic problem of 5e rulings.Nice dodge.

[Keltest]

This is a symptom of a problem, with the problem being that some players and DMs do not get on the same page. When expectations clash or are unmet, conflict happens. And people are people regardless of what game they play.

Indeed. A bad DM is going to be bad regardless of whether their poor calls are blatantly against the RaW, or are made in a scenario where a ruling is asked for. Its just easier to call them on the former.

[Shaofoo]

5E does not cause bad DMs. However, 5E makes them easier to exist because there aren't defined rules requiring the DM to make a ruling on "everything" so they have an excuse.

We've had this discussion before. I find it telling that it keeps cropping back up in 5E discussions. There are bad DM stories in the general and 3E forums, but it's obvious bad DMing because it's obvious the DM is going against the rules or showing bad behavior. In 5E it isn't so clear cut a bad DM is going against the rules because it's all about "rulings". Yes, it is simply a different design style than previous editions, but this new design style is what's causing the problems.

Rulings are where the rules aren't clear, if the DM goes against the clear cut rules then that isn't a ruling, that is homebrewing. This problem was always in D&D.

Forcing someone to make a check for their illusion to be of a specific and detailed item constructed from their memory is not what I would consider a bad DM. You can call it making a bad call but I do not put the label of bad DM just because of one instance of conflict. This is a ruling because there are a lack of rules that the DM can use.

Saying that being in a magic desert that create water gives you sand instead isn't a ruling, it is homebrew because that is tinkering with a specific and hard coded part of the rules but even then I wouldn't consider that a bad DM (maybe the fact that magic is screwy should have been warned before, if it wasn't then that is a bad DM).

5e does not obfuscate or give bad DMs a chance to hide any more than any other editions, ignoring the rules is as easy in 5e as it is in any edition of D&D and even other RPGs in general (or even any games). Bad DMs are apparent and easy to root out if you pay attention and bad DMs don't need an excuse to be bad.

If you have a problem with DMs having to make a ruling more often then maybe 5e isn't for you and you should go back to a system where there are more hard coded rules to follow and tell you what to do, I never found this logic that people playing with DMs that they don't trust in making a fair judgement. But a bad DM will break even hard coded rules.

If you mean more of a novice DM making a bad ruling because of his newbiness then maybe just sit him down and explain yourself.

[Dalebert]

This did not call for a rulling, period!

Spell: Smoogen
Desc: This spell does X.

Player: I cast Smoogen to do X.

DM: I don't want you to be able to do X with Smoogen. Roll with this thing that I just made up to see if you can do X.

*Player rolls.*

DM: That's not a high enough roll. Smoogen doesn't do X.

[GloatingSwine]

Say there was an item you wanted to steal from a cliche display stand in some museum or other. You've bypassed security through whatever means and you're standing by the plinth, object in hand. You decide to cast an illusion spell of the object in question, say Silent Image, in case a guard happens to walk by in the next few minutes whilst you escape. However, according to OP's DM, you've got to make a check to make the illusion of what you have right there. The DM didn't say they couldn't remember what they looked like; this was a just a check to make the illusion look like what they wanted ("He said the image was a foot too short and looked like a guy. Might have been joking about the guy part"). And you can apparently botch said check hard enough that if the object was a Golden Trophy like any cliche sports trophy, you might end up with a blotchy, squat, pottery thing that looks like it was made by a 5 year old. That's beyond not being able to get it perfect and into ridiculous incompetence.

Especially since the Illusion spell per its rules bypasses the specific competence of the caster and faithfully reproduces their mental image of the subject without specific effort.

It's not limited by the caster's ability to imagine the subject, it just magically produces whatever their mind believes the subject to look like.

[Shaofoo]

Especially since the Illusion spell per its rules bypasses the specific competence of the caster and faithfully reproduces their mental image of the subject without specific effort.

It's not limited by the caster's ability to imagine the subject, it just magically produces whatever their mind believes the subject to look like.

Except it still requires the mental image for it to work and specifics might be lost in translation.

Lets say you want to create the image of a specific guy that was seen running around. if you were to fail this check you would still make the illusion of a human, no one is saying that you suddenly have the image of a cantaloupe when you meant a human but things like say a scar over his eye or a not so obvious tattoo on his neck will probably be lost in the image and these specific things would be useful to ID this particular guy, maybe you are able to clue in some details but not enough.

It is the same reasoning I would make to a player that wishes to draw up a sketch of a person from memory. The check isn't for competence in drawing (I am just going to assume that if drawing is part of your repertoire in your life then you can do it) or that you suddenly draw up a potion when you meant to draw a human but details might be lost that could be used to good effect.

If all you care about is the image of a human then no check is necesary, even a human with broad characteristics still doesn't require a check. Coming up with specifics on the fly is what there is some room for error.

[Mara]

Nice dodge.There tends to be an assumption that those calling out crap calls are primally players.

Well it's not true at all. I can tell you from personal experience how easy it is to not frustrate players by making up house rules. In 5e, make a ruling when the rules actually ask you to make a ruling.

But DMs like the one in the OP and anyone here who vaguely agrees with similar behavior give 5e a bad name as a poor and frustrating system where the DM just tries to find ways to restrict agency. They may not even be bad DMs, because even the devs encourage this kind of behavior with sage advice all the time.

[Keltest]

This did not call for a rulling, period!

Spell: Smoogen
Desc: This spell does X.

Player: I cast Smoogen to do X.

DM: I don't want you to be able to do X with Smoogen. Roll with this thing that I just made up to see if you can do X.

*Player rolls.*

DM: That's not a high enough roll. Smoogen doesn't do X.

In the computer industry, we have a saying. Computers do what you tell them to, not what you want them to. This is a similar scenario, taken to outrageous extremes.

You have a spell that does X (create an image). You want to do Y (give someone else information). The check is to see how well you can do Y by using method X. The idea that you can fail that badly is outrageous. The idea that maybe your memory of that drow wasn't quite as good as you thought it was, and you make her nose a bit bigger than it was and get her eye color wrong is not.

I personally would not have called for a check there. Calling for a check is not in and of itself a bad call, though it may be a bit of a waste of time.

[Shaofoo]

There tends to be an assumption that those calling out crap calls are primally players.

Well it's not true at all. I can tell you from personal experience how easy it is to not frustrate players by making up house rules. In 5e, make a ruling when the rules actually ask you to make a ruling.

But DMs like the one in the OP and anyone here who vaguely agrees with similar behavior give 5e a bad name as a poor and frustrating system where the DM just tries to find ways to restrict agency. They may not even be bad DMs, because even the devs encourage this kind of behavior with sage advice all the time.

I don't see how asking for a check one time is giving bad name to 5e, if this was 4e or 3.x I would still call for a check to remember unimportant details that the player did not recognize at first glance.

I don't see your complaint as valid because changing the rules isn't something that only happened in 5e and nowhere else. Even the hard coded rules can be changed by the DM at a whim. Restricting player agency is a DM problem not a system problem.

Also I don't see the devs changing the rules as they see fit, they only give clarifications to questions. If you don't have a problem with the system you don't have to follow their twitter. Heck the book doesn't even mention Sage Advice so this stuff is basically off the radar if you are only to follow the books and nothing else.

[Mara]

I don't see how asking for a check one time is giving bad name to 5e, if this was 4e or 3.x I would still call for a check to remember unimportant details that the player did not recognize at first glance.

I don't see your complaint as valid because changing the rules isn't something that only happened in 5e and nowhere else. Even the hard coded rules can be changed by the DM at a whim. Restricting player agency is a DM problem not a system problem.

Also I don't see the devs changing the rules as they see fit, they only give clarifications to questions. If you don't have a problem with the system you don't have to follow their twitter. Heck the book doesn't even mention Sage Advice so this stuff is basically off the radar if you are only to follow the books and nothing else.

if you would call for extra checks for a player to use spells or powers in 3.x or 4e then that instance of ruling would be poor and uncalled for. It's less likely though because there is no precedent or dev encouragement for such behavior in those editions.

[Shaofoo]

if you would call for extra checks for a player to use spells or powers in 3.x or 4e then that instance of ruling would be poor and uncalled for. It's less likely though because there is no precedent or dev encouragement for such behavior in those editions.

I don't see dev encouragement to just change around the hard coded rules in 5e either. If the DM wants to do it then they will do it regardless whether the dev says so or not. Most things that the dev says are stuff where things are ambiguous, not saying that Fireballs now deal 4d12 necrotic damage in a line because lol.

Also I said that extra checks are called for to give specific details. If you just want an illusion of an orc then that can be arranged no checks needed. If you wanted to convey basic information with illusions that can be arranged. But if you want to say specific details that might not be apparent then I would rule that would require a check because I feel that failure is possible. If you have the Keen Mind feat then no check is needed, heck you can have other people help you out remember any detail but I also question why are you playing the game if asking to roll one d20 is suddenly the straw the broke the camel's back. I truly like to hear the reasoning where one roll is the difference between a good or bad DM.

[Mr.Moron]

Then whats he need a map for? he already knows where he's going.


He hasn't a clue where he's going. The "He Imagines" there is strictly within the context of "Imagining" being a part of casting the spell as put forward by that poster. In all honesty I probably answered that original question somewhat inaccurately. It's not so much that he has any particular mental image of the map, as he simply uses the spell to produce an image of what he wants. The intended response to "It appears as he imagines" was more along the lines of "He doesn't need to need to imagine anything in particular". The spell does not produce images of 'What you imagine', it produces images of what you specify.

In this case he specifies the highly accurate and bizarrely specific map, and the spell produces that because the spell produces what he specifies. If it produced anything else the spell would not be producing an image of what he specifies, and would be in violation of RAW. I apologize for muddling up my answer so badly before... I suspect I was quite tired at the time.

This not limited to maps of course. One can specify all kinds of images for example.

"I produce an image of a sphere that has properties such that when an image of it of it produced by specifically me, specifically casting minor image to produce said image of said sphere causes the head of everyone named Robert to implode"

We can see here I've specified an image: The image of the sphere.
I've specified that this is an image of a particular sphere: One that has the property of when I produce an image of it, the sphere (not the image) implodes Robert's head.

Such a sphere must exist and must behave as described because it needs to in order for the image I've specified to appear as I've specified it, and per RAW the spell produces images I specify. For it to do otherwise would be re-writing the rules (the spell would be producing things other than what I specify), to maliciously screw me over as a player and rob me of my agency with house rules.

[Pex]

I don't see how asking for a check one time is giving bad name to 5e, if this was 4e or 3.x I would still call for a check to remember unimportant details that the player did not recognize at first glance.

I don't see your complaint as valid because changing the rules isn't something that only happened in 5e and nowhere else. Even the hard coded rules can be changed by the DM at a whim. Restricting player agency is a DM problem not a system problem.

Also I don't see the devs changing the rules as they see fit, they only give clarifications to questions. If you don't have a problem with the system you don't have to follow their twitter. Heck the book doesn't even mention Sage Advice so this stuff is basically off the radar if you are only to follow the books and nothing else.

It is a system problem because if a 3E DM changes a rule or game effect on a whim the players know about it immediately, presuming they know the rules. There could be an Unknown Factor in the encounter at hand that caused something to happen not the way they expected the players didn't know about but are now alerted to look for it. Sure, that's a thing. Given the case of a DM changing things arbitrarily during the game, the players can call him on it and get an explanation. What the DM says goes. If he says enough stupid stuff the players go too.

However, in 5E the lack of defined rules leaves players no recourse. The DM makes a "ruling" and the players have nothing to rely on to even know that's not how it should be. The players can still go if the DM does enough stupid rulings, but they'll stay longer than they should have because they wouldn't know it was stupid ruling after stupid ruling because there is nothing in the rules to compare. The DM can rightly say the rules tell him to make his rulings and the players must lump it. If a player quits the DM gets to righteously call him a rollplaying minmaxing munchkin.

Edit clarification: This is given the assumption the DM is a bad DM. When it's a good DM or willing to learn from mistakes new DM, there is no problem. As I said, 5E does not cause bad DMs, just makes them easier to exist.

[JoeJ]

It is a system problem because if a 3E DM changes a rule or game effect on a whim the players know about it immediately, presuming they know the rules. There could be an Unknown Factor in the encounter at hand that caused something to happen not the way they expected the players didn't know about but are now alerted to look for it. Sure, that's a thing. Given the case of a DM changing things arbitrarily during the game, the players can call him on it and get an explanation. What the DM says goes. If he says enough stupid stuff the players go too.

However, in 5E the lack of defined rules leaves players no recourse. The DM makes a "ruling" and the players have nothing to rely on to even know that's not how it should be. The players can still go if the DM does enough stupid rulings, but they'll stay longer than they should have because they wouldn't know it was stupid ruling after stupid ruling because there is nothing in the rules to compare. The DM can rightly say the rules tell him to make his rulings and the players must lump it. If a player quits the DM gets to righteously call him a rollplaying minmaxing munchkin.

Edit clarification: This is given the assumption the DM is a bad DM. When it's a good DM or willing to learn from mistakes new DM, there is no problem. As I said, 5E does not cause bad DMs, just makes them easier to exist.

Are you saying that 5e players will stay with a game they don't enjoy longer than 3.5 players, or that not having as many specific rules causes them to enjoy something you think they shouldn't?

In the end it doesn't matter whether or not the DM is changing the rules, or whether or not the players know that the DM is changing the rules. All that matters is whether or not they're having fun. And I really don't see how the rules in use changes that even slightly.

[Pex]

Are you saying that 5e players will stay with a game they don't enjoy longer than 3.5 players, or that not having as many specific rules causes them to enjoy something you think they shouldn't?

In the end it doesn't matter whether or not the DM is changing the rules, or whether or not the players know that the DM is changing the rules. All that matters is whether or not they're having fun. And I really don't see how the rules in use changes that even slightly.

Could be worse. They may quit playing altogether. Experienced players from grognards basic set to 4E of course aren't going to put up with it. It's the new players who wouldn't know any better. "No game is better than a bad game" does still need to be taught. However, a DM who keeps denying PCs being able to do stuff and the new players not knowing they should be allowed to do stuff will either quit because it's not fun and not try again because they're convinced they can't do anything or keep playing but stop trying to do stuff. They just go through the motions. They'll get their fun from the socializing (which is not a bad thing for those who purposely play just for that), but it's not the game itself that's giving them the fun. What makes a game a fun is a series of interesting decisions, but the unknowing players never get to make decisions having learned they'll always be shot down.

[JoeJ]

Could be worse. They may quit playing altogether. Experienced players from grognards basic set to 4E of course aren't going to put up with it. It's the new players who wouldn't know any better. "No game is better than a bad game" does still need to be taught. However, a DM who keeps denying PCs being able to do stuff and the new players not knowing they should be allowed to do stuff will either quit because it's not fun and not try again because they're convinced they can't do anything or keep playing but stop trying to do stuff. They just go through the motions. They'll get their fun from the socializing (which is not a bad thing for those who purposely play just for that), but it's not the game itself that's giving them the fun. What makes a game a fun is a series of interesting decisions, but the unknowing players never get to make decisions having learned they'll always be shot down.

That's not going to be any different in 5e than in 3.5, though. A bad DM is a bad DM, and new players won't know whether it's the DM or the game, regardless of system. Players experienced enough to recognize that the DM is making bad rulings in 3.5 are experienced enough to recognize it in 5e too.

[Tanarii]

This not limited to maps of course. One can specify all kinds of images for example.

"I produce an image of a sphere that has properties such that when an image of it of it produced by specifically me, specifically casting minor image to produce said image of said sphere causes the head of everyone named Robert to implode"

We can see here I've specified an image: The image of the sphere.
I've specified that this is an image of a particular sphere: One that has the property of when I produce an image of it, the sphere (not the image) implodes Robert's head.

Such a sphere must exist and must behave as described because it needs to in order for the image I've specified to appear as I've specified it, and per RAW the spell produces images I specify. For it to do otherwise would be re-writing the rules (the spell would be producing things other than what I specify), to maliciously screw me over as a player and rob me of my agency with house rules.
That's the most amazing Reductio ad absurdum argument I've seen in a while. :)

[Mara]

That's not going to be any different in 5e than in 3.5, though. A bad DM is a bad DM, and new players won't know whether it's the DM or the game, regardless of system. Players experienced enough to recognize that the DM is making bad rulings in 3.5 are experienced enough to recognize it in 5e too.
That's what I would assume too. Yet the evidence is against me. It seems there is just a problem with 5e that enables this kind of behavior in instances where it would normally be absent.

Perhaps the nature of 5e is just more likely to attract less than savory DMs? It may be the case that most DMs that don't want to screw with their players will avoid a system that demands rulings as frequently as 5e.

We should be able to agree that it's not the rules of 5e itself calling for caustic houseruling of codified rules, then it must just be the case that 5e is more appealing for DMs who want to DM like that.

[Keltest]

He hasn't a clue where he's going. The "He Imagines" there is strictly within the context of "Imagining" being a part of casting the spell as put forward by that poster. In all honesty I probably answered that original question somewhat inaccurately. It's not so much that he has any particular mental image of the map, as he simply uses the spell to produce an image of what he wants. The intended response to "It appears as he imagines" was more along the lines of "He doesn't need to need to imagine anything in particular". The spell does not produce images of 'What you imagine', it produces images of what you specify.

In this case he specifies the highly accurate and bizarrely specific map, and the spell produces that because the spell produces what he specifies. If it produced anything else the spell would not be producing an image of what he specifies, and would be in violation of RAW. I apologize for muddling up my answer so badly before... I suspect I was quite tired at the time.

This not limited to maps of course. One can specify all kinds of images for example.

"I produce an image of a sphere that has properties such that when an image of it of it produced by specifically me, specifically casting minor image to produce said image of said sphere causes the head of everyone named Robert to implode"

We can see here I've specified an image: The image of the sphere.
I've specified that this is an image of a particular sphere: One that has the property of when I produce an image of it, the sphere (not the image) implodes Robert's head.

Such a sphere must exist and must behave as described because it needs to in order for the image I've specified to appear as I've specified it, and per RAW the spell produces images I specify. For it to do otherwise would be re-writing the rules (the spell would be producing things other than what I specify), to maliciously screw me over as a player and rob me of my agency with house rules.

I was being sarcastic. Of course allowing them to make illusions of anything they want without respect for it they actually know what such would look like is silly.


That's what I would assume too. Yet the evidence is against me. It seems there is just a problem with 5e that enables this kind of behavior in instances where it would normally be absent.

Perhaps the nature of 5e is just more likely to attract less than savory DMs? It may be the case that most DMs that don't want to screw with their players will avoid a system that demands rulings as frequently as 5e.

We should be able to agree that it's not the rules of 5e itself calling for caustic houseruling of codified rules, then it must just be the case that 5e is more appealing for DMs who want to DM like that.

I think youre overcomplicating things. 5e is new, and its advertised as the simple edition for simple people. That attracts new people and new DMs who aren't well practiced and don't know what is or is not necessarily a good or fair call.

[Mara]

I think youre overcomplicating things. 5e is new, and its advertised as the simple edition for simple people. That attracts new people and new DMs who aren't well practiced and don't know what is or is not necessarily a good or fair call.Perhaps you are right and that is all that is going on.

We'll see if this topic becomes 5e's caster/martial disparity debate (C/M will just flow into this idea because the nitty gritty of that debate comes down to skill checks in 5e, thus it won't be the endlessly looping debate that PF finds itself in)

[Fwiffo86]

"He doesn't need to need to imagine anything in particular". The spell does not produce images of 'What you imagine', it produces images of what you specify.

In this case he specifies the highly accurate and bizarrely specific map, and the spell produces that because the spell produces what he specifies. If it produced anything else the spell would not be producing an image of what he specifies, and would be in violation of RAW. I apologize for muddling up my answer so badly before... I suspect I was quite tired at the time.


So... by this interpretation, I can use minor image to create a perfectly accurate layout of a castle I have never been to, never heard about, never read about, and have in no way any previous knowledge of. If the spell produces the image I specify, and it has to comply as per RAW, I have now invalidated nearly all divination magic with the simplest of illusions.

Going further, this means that any illusion created affects what senses it does (as per RAW) perfectly and without the possibility of error. While this makes simpler illusions only detectable if actually analyzed for their missing components, higher level illusions (affecting all the senses) become impossible to determine and defeat.

Is that what you were meaning to allude to? I hope I am just misunderstanding you.

[Mr.Moron]

So... by this interpretation, I can use minor image to create a perfectly accurate layout of a castle I have never been to, never heard about, never read about, and have in no way any previous knowledge of. If the spell produces the image I specify, and it has to comply as per RAW, I have now invalidated nearly all divination magic with the simplest of illusions.

Going further, this means that any illusion created affects what senses it does (as per RAW) perfectly and without the possibility of error. While this makes simpler illusions only detectable if actually analyzed for their missing components, higher level illusions (affecting all the senses) become impossible to determine and defeat.

Is that what you were meaning to allude to? I hope I am just misunderstanding you.


I've made the following assertions in that post:


Per RAW Illusion spells produce images you specify. The spell text makes no reference to character imagination, character knowledge or any other conceptual limitations on what the images can be of. Nor does it make any limitations of images being restricted to things that must have (or not have) any particular properties SIDE NOTE: The fact the images themselves have limitations on their properties is not particularly relevant here (what senses they affect, animation etc...).
For any concept X, I can specify an image Y in such way that Y can only exist per my specification if concept X is true.
Therefore since per RAW Illusions spells produce an image I specify, if I specify an image all concepts required for that image to exist according to my specification must exist and behave per my specification or the RAW has been contradicted.


EDIT:
Another example, per RAW and RAW only (RAW IS GOD! OBEY THE RAW!) This general form of illusion specification would be valid:


"I create an image of [A Particular Thing] where [A Particular Thing] is a specific and special instance of [A General Thing] that is in all ways identical to a typical example of [A General Thing] with the exception that [A Particular Thing] has the property such that when an image of [A Particular Thing] is produced by me through this specific casting of [Spell Name Here] the image becomes of in all ways a real and wholly non-illusionary instance of [A General Thing] overriding the normal effects of [Spell Name Here]."

tl;dr

per RAW. Minor Image is several orders of magnitudes stronger than Wish. Hell you could just use it to cast wish if you really wanted.

[Shaofoo]

I've made the following assertions in that post:


Per RAW Illusion spells produce images you specify. The spell text makes no reference to character imagination, character knowledge or any other conceptual limitations on what the images can be of. Nor does it make any limitations of images being restricted to things that must have (or not have) any particular properties SIDE NOTE: The fact the images themselves have limitations on their properties is not particularly relevant here (what senses they affect, animation etc...).
For any concept X, I can specify an image Y in such way that Y can only exist per my specification if concept X is true.
Therefore since per RAW Illusions spells produce an image I specify, if I specify an image all concepts required for that image to exist according to my specification must exist and behave per my specification or the RAW has been contradicted.


EDIT:
Another example, per RAW and RAW only (RAW IS GOD! OBEY THE RAW!) This general form of illusion specification would be valid:


"I create an image of [A Particular Thing] where [A Particular Thing] is a specific and special instance of [A General Thing] that is in all ways identical to a typical example of [A General Thing] with the exception that [A Particular Thing] has the property such that when an image of [A Particular Thing] is produced by me through this specific casting of [Spell Name Here] the image becomes of in all ways a real and wholly non-illusionary instance of [A General Thing] overriding the normal effects of [Spell Name Here]."

tl;dr

per RAW. Minor Image is several orders of magnitudes stronger than Wish. Hell you could just use it to cast wish if you really wanted.

Actually, it isn't RAW if nothing is written. For something to be RAW it has to be written (otherwise the W in RAW is moot). Your logic stems from "It doesn't say I can't therefore I can". RAW doesn't say that you can populate the world with My Little Ponies because you think it and therefore it must be true because the text doesn't restrict you from doing it.

By RAW the DM is many magnitudes stronger than Wish and he will be the one to judge if you can have Rainbow Dash. The DM can reject your interpretation and substitute it for his own and still be fully within RAW because the system expects the DM to fill in the blanks. Basically you should hope your DM is a brony.

[georgie_leech]

I'd like to thank Mr. Moron for giving me an excellent example to point to when someone asks me about Poe's Law:smallbiggrin:

[Mara]

I'd like to thank Mr. Moron for giving me an excellent example to point to when someone asks me about Poe's Law:smallbiggrin:
It's amazing how there is no middle ground between not adding extra checks to use an ability and illusions being top tier divination spells that make people's minds explode.

Are we trying to prove that 5e has lots of poorly written abilities or that DMs are intended to **** over their players? Either option sound stupid to me.

[Pex]

That's not going to be any different in 5e than in 3.5, though. A bad DM is a bad DM, and new players won't know whether it's the DM or the game, regardless of system. Players experienced enough to recognize that the DM is making bad rulings in 3.5 are experienced enough to recognize it in 5e too.

The point is they would know in 3E because there are defined rules to compare. Players would know if the DM arbitrarily changes DCs or adds extra dice rolls to abilities. In 5E the DM is told to make up rulings.

[JoeJ]

It's amazing how there is no middle ground between not adding extra checks to use an ability and illusions being top tier divination spells that make people's minds explode.

If someone wants to use an ability I see only three possible ways of resolving it:

1) It automatically succeeds.
2) It automatically fails.
3) Make a check of some kind to see whether or not it succeeds.

If you don't allow Minor Illusion to be abused the way Mr. Moron described, then you're already agreeing that it can't create an image of literally anything; there are some limits. The only question, then, is what limits seem reasonable to you.

[JoeJ]

The point is they would know in 3E because there are defined rules to compare. Players would know if the DM arbitrarily changes DCs or adds extra dice rolls to abilities. In 5E the DM is told to make up rulings.

A difference that is meaningless, since 3.5 also explicitly gives the DM authority to arbitrarily change the rules. And also meaningless because people aren't going to leave because the DM is using their authority, they're going to leave (if they do) because they're not enjoying the game.

[Shaofoo]

It's amazing how there is no middle ground between not adding extra checks to use an ability and illusions being top tier divination spells that make people's minds explode.

Are we trying to prove that 5e has lots of poorly written abilities or that DMs are intended to **** over their players? Either option sound stupid to me.

I would think that normal players wouldn't resort to such ridiculous claims as saying that now you can summon Calise, Wonder Woman and Lumpy Space Princess or if they did then the DM will slap them over the head for wanting to reenact their fanfiction. Common sense exists and is expected to be used.


The point is they would know in 3E because there are defined rules to compare. Players would know if the DM arbitrarily changes DCs or adds extra dice rolls to abilities. In 5E the DM is told to make up rulings.

Except if the DM in 3e did change the rules then you can't do anything about it. The DM wasn't beholden to any point of the rules, the only thing is that now you can call it homebrew rather than ruling but the end result is that the DM's call is what happens. You could always walk away if you don't agree with the changes.

The DM has and always have held all the cards, the difference is whether the game itself gets a say or not but the game has no power to prevent anything that a DM wants.

[Mr.Moron]

Actually, it isn't RAW if nothing is written. For something to be RAW it has to be written (otherwise the W in RAW is moot). Your logic stems from "It doesn't say I can't therefore I can". RAW doesn't say that you can populate the world with My Little Ponies because you think it and therefore it must be true because the text doesn't restrict you from doing it.


The text doesn't "not restrict me from doing it" the text demands it. Everything I've said is a direct consequence of the RAW. The rule is clearly and explicitly written: The spell produces images as the caster specifies, within limitations to certain sensory effects. I'm not populating the world with My Little Ponies, rather the world being populated with My Little Ponies is a necessity of remaining in adherence to RAW when I specify an image of them in a certain way. All my casting the spell does is produce an image of Rainbow Pony, the caster has no ability to generate my little ponies.

However when I cast Minor Image, saying I make "An image of Rainbow Pony, where Rainbow Pony is an actual my little pony that actually exists in the town next door"

only one of two outcomes is possible:


Rainbow Pony is an actual my little pony that actually exists in the town next door and I create an image of her, as I specified.
Something happens when casting the spell OTHER than what I as a player specified. In this case the RAW has been violated because the RAW is that it produces the image I specify. What I've specified is an image of an actual MLP that actually exists in the next town over.


The only way for the RAW to remain unviolated is for the pony to actually exist. I'm not populating the world with ponies, but yet by my will it must be populated with them. The distinction is important here.



The DM can reject your interpretation and substitute it for his own and still be fully within RAW because the system expects the DM to fill in the blanks. Basically you should hope your DM is a brony.

There are no "Blanks" in the text, they're whole entries. Nowhere in the RAW does it explicitly say the GM qualifies spell effects. I'm also not making an interpretation here, I'm outlining a simple logical necessity of the spells as written.

Anything else would be a House Rule/Ruling, depending on how you want to nitpick the semantics of it.

Which as has been established is:


In violation of God's will. RAW is God and not just "a god" RAW is big capital G monotheistic, GOD God. (See post #103)
Is Bad DMing (See roughly the last 2 pages)
Is Malicious (See post #132)
Indicates 5e is written poorly (See post #143)
Is only being done to remove player agency. (See post #143)




Now if any of the above weren't true, and reasonable curbs and caveats on RAW could be undertaken in good faith to keep the game healthy you'd have a point. In such a mad realm PCs might face restrictions or complications outside or even contradictory to the specific structures of RAW when the situation demands. In that zone of pure insanity, devoid of the light of our god RAW it might be that all the rules including spell entries are best-effort abstractions, a sort incomplete set of general procedures meant to be useful in most but not all situations.

In such a system a GM might even occasionally make a mistake, or simply be somewhat mistaken about their player's expectations when attempting make a ruling in good faith or introduce a complication that drives engagement. Such a mistake or misunderstanding might be unfun or cause confusion but it'd be understandable and acceptable given human fallibility. However, we do not live in such a world and anything that might even resemble those can only be chalked up to a simultaneous combination of blasphemy, malice, incompetence and greed.

[Mara]

If someone wants to use an ability I see only three possible ways of resolving it:

1) It automatically succeeds.
2) It automatically fails.
3) Make a check of some kind to see whether or not it succeeds.

If you don't allow Minor Illusion to be abused the way Mr. Moron described, then you're already agreeing that it can't create an image of literally anything; there are some limits. The only question, then, is what limits seem reasonable to you.

The answer is using 1 or 2. That perfectly fits with not adding extra checks. What you are doing with the spell either works or does not work.

3 is never OK. (Unless it's not an extra check)

[Mara]

The text doesn't "not restrict me from doing it" the text demands it. Everything I've said is a direct consequence of the RAW. The rule is clearly and explicitly written: The spell produces images as the caster specifies, within limitations to certain sensory effects. I'm not populating the world with My Little Ponies, rather the world being populated with My Little Ponies is a necessity of remaining in adherence to RAW when I specify an image of them in a certain way. All my casting the spell does is produce an image of Rainbow Pony, the caster has no ability to generate my little ponies.

However when I cast Minor Image, saying I make "An image of Rainbow Pony, where Rainbow Pony is an actual my little pony that actually exists in the town next door"

only one of two outcomes is possible:


Rainbow Pony is an actual my little pony that actually exists in the town next door and I create an image of her, as I specified.
Something happens when casting the spell OTHER than what I as a player specified. In this case the RAW has been violated because the RAW is that it produces the image I specify. What I've specified is an image of an actual MLP that actually exists in the next town over.


The only way for the RAW to remain unviolated is for the pony to actually exist. I'm not populating the world with ponies, but yet by my will it must be populated with them. The distinction is important here.




There are no "Blanks" in the text, they're whole entries. Nowhere in the RAW does it explicitly say the GM qualifies spell effects. I'm also not making an interpretation here, I'm outlining a simple logical necessity of the spells as written.

Anything else would be a House Rule/Ruling, depending on how you want to nitpick the semantics of it.

Which as has been established is:


In violation of God's will. RAW is God and not just "a god" RAW is big capital G monotheistic, GOD God. (See post #103)
Is Bad DMing (See roughly the last 2 pages)
Is Malicious (See post #132)
Indicates 5e is written poorly (See post #143)
Is only being done to remove player agency. (See post #143)




Now if any of the above weren't true, and reasonable curbs and caveats on RAW could be undertaken in good faith to keep the game healthy you'd have a point. In such a mad realm PCs might face restrictions or complications outside or even contradictory to the specific structures of RAW when the situation demands. In that zone of pure insanity, devoid of the light of our god RAW it might be that all the rules including spell entries are best-effort abstractions, a sort incomplete set of general procedures meant to be useful in most but not all situations.

In such a system a GM might even occasionally make a mistake, or simply be somewhat mistaken about their player's expectations when attempting make a ruling in good faith or introduce a complication that drives engagement. Such a mistake or misunderstanding might be unfun or cause confusion but it'd be understandable and acceptable given human fallibility. However, we do not live in such a world and anything that might even resemble those can only be chalked up to a simultaneous combination of blasphemy, malice, incompetence and greed.
Raw is God for organized play. And only organized play. There are inherent problems with organised play.

Asking for extra unneeded checks is always bad. Passionately defending such checks is a sign of bad DMing.

[Shaofoo]

The text doesn't "not restrict me from doing it" the text demands it. Everything I've said is a direct consequence of the RAW. The rule is clearly and explicitly written: The spell produces images as the caster specifies, within limitations to certain sensory effects. I'm not populating the world with My Little Ponies, rather the world being populated with My Little Ponies is a necessity of remaining in adherence to RAW when I specify an image of them in a certain way. All my casting the spell does is produce an image of Rainbow Pony, the caster has no ability to generate my little ponies.


However when I cast Minor Image, saying I make "An image of Rainbow Pony, where Rainbow Pony is an actual my little pony that actually exists in the town next door"

only one of two outcomes is possible:


Rainbow Pony is an actual my little pony that actually exists in the town next door and I create an image of her, as I specified.
Something happens when casting the spell OTHER than what I as a player specified. In this case the RAW has been violated because the RAW is that it produces the image I specify. What I've specified is an image of an actual MLP that actually exists in the next town over.



Or the image can just appear nothing because no such thing exists. You are saying as if the world has to conform to your will because the spell says so because you decided that the image MUST happen. By your logic then Antimagic fields are a walking contradiction because it nullifies spells, but the spells HAS to work because of RAW, but then it doesn't work because RAW says that Antimagic fields prevent spells from working, but they HAVE to work because of RAW (repeat ad nauseum). You are working backwards from the solution. You are saying because an image is made therefore the object must exist not somehow thinking that because the object doesn't exist then the magic fails (and magic can fail, see previous rambling). Basically you are saying that because the end result is 7 therefore 2+2 must equal 7.


The only way for the RAW to remain unviolated is for the pony to actually exist. I'm not populating the world with ponies, but yet by my will it must be populated with them. The distinction is important here.

Or the image can be of nothing as stated, an image of nothing is still an image. Nothing says that you have to get what you want.



There are no "Blanks" in the text, they're whole entries. Nowhere in the RAW does it explicitly say the GM qualifies spell effects. I'm also not making an interpretation here, I'm outlining a simple logical necessity of the spells as written.

Nah, the DM always has carte blanche to do whatever he wants. The DM can and will qualify spell effects as he sees fit, there is nothing that he has to allow your little diatribe to go on (not that he has to enforce his will because I have proven that your logic is very much unlogic so it basically falls apart)


Anything else would be a House Rule/Ruling, depending on how you want to nitpick the semantics of it.

Which as has been established is:


In violation of God's will. RAW is God and not just "a god" RAW is big capital G monotheistic, GOD God. (See post #103)
Is Bad DMing (See roughly the last 2 pages)
Is Malicious (See post #132)
Indicates 5e is written poorly (See post #143)
Is only being done to remove player agency. (See post #143)




Quite frankly I don't care what individual people think of house ruling, I don't play D&D with a hated DM either and I assume any house rules are done with some form of logic and cohesion even if the rules are to my detriment. And in the event that I really don't like the rules I can also assume that I can have a civil discussion to discuss things over and either convince the DM that maybe the rule is too much or me that the rule is okay really.


Now if any of the above weren't true, and reasonable curbs and caveats on RAW could be undertaken in good faith to keep the game healthy you'd have a point. In such a mad realm PCs might face restrictions or complications outside or even contradictory to the specific structures of RAW when the situation demands. In that zone of pure insanity, devoid of the light of our god RAW it might be that all the rules including spell entries are best-effort abstractions, a sort incomplete set of general procedures meant to be useful in most but not all situations.


Basically you come to me as both player and DM at the same time. It is easy to break the game when you hold all the cards in your hand. You as a player made your unsound logic and you as a DM vetted it that it must be so, a self fulfilling prophecy. It is mad because you made it so not because the DM was bound to the rules.


In such a system a GM might even occasionally make a mistake, or simply be somewhat mistaken about their player's expectations when attempting make a ruling in good faith or introduce a complication that drives engagement. Such a mistake or misunderstanding might be unfun or cause confusion but it'd be understandable and acceptable given human fallibility. However, we do not live in such a world and anything that might even resemble those can only be chalked up to a simultaneous combination of blasphemy, malice, incompetence and greed.

I would assume that people can follow logic and patterns and how things might unfold, even a beginner DM I assume to have a bit of foresight. Quite frankly I find it a bit alarming that people in general give your average DM little credit in being able to resolve things and be fair and partial, as if they are just children to either be manipulated to your will or malicious brats that only wish to hurt others.

Sure the system is far from perfect but if it was then we wouldn't need a DM.

[Shaofoo]

Raw is God for organized play. And only organized play. There are inherent problems with organised play.

Asking for extra unneeded checks is always bad. Passionately defending such checks is a sign of bad DMing.

Just curious, what constitutes as unneeded? Cause the game says to always use checks whenever a chance of failure is possible, so if a DM asks for a check it should be because there is a possibility that something can fail. If the DM is making checks to stuff that should be obvious that they should happen or not happen at all then that can be said as unneeded but then that is on the DM not the game and in fact the game is against such things.

[mephnick]

Just curious, what constitutes as unneeded?

Obviously that's going to depend on who you ask. In my opinion, the check in OP's situation was completely unneeded because a successful result could only help the player pull off a fun/useful character moment without breaking anything. In my campaign, my warlock constantly uses disguise self at will to do the exact same thing and it's been a great tool in his arsenal, which is important I foster because that kind of thing is important to his character. If your campaign is so shaky that it can't handle a player using magic in inventive ways, you need to go back to DM school. I generally dislike this new DM mantra of "always say yes", but in this case....just say yes.

Edit:

Yes, I meant to say this as well.


I'd say it's unneeded if the spell already has a mechanic for success or failure.

[Dalebert]

I'd say it's unneeded if the spell already has a mechanic for success or failure. In that case, there's no need to add another one and to do so is unfair. And in this case, there's already a chance of failure with every creature that investigates the illusion. To make a check just to create the illusion in the first place when that's already the case is excessive.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I am with Mara on this, as well as with Dalebert's "don't mix magic and science like that!"

IMO, the granularity isn't that fine on illusion spells, they are magic. The more I consider the scenario presented in the OP, the more I dislike what the DM did.

Those defending that ruling strike me as trying to overwrite a template for a deeply simulationist game onto D&D 5e ... whose chassis isn't built for that level of detail.

They're also advocating a rule which makes illusions mathematically more likely to fail than other spells due to the unnecessary extra skill check. Re-designing the game on the fly without thinking things like this through leads to some really bad results, and this is a case in point. It's the same old story: amateur attempts game design, thinks it's easy, mucks everything up, doesn't even understand the problem.

One thing hasn't changed in 5E: D&D house rules are still the b@st@rd love children of Dunning-Kruger and Sturgeon's Law.

[Mara]

Just curious, what constitutes as unneeded? Cause the game says to always use checks whenever a chance of failure is possible, so if a DM asks for a check it should be because there is a possibility that something can fail. If the DM is making checks to stuff that should be obvious that they should happen or not happen at all then that can be said as unneeded but then that is on the DM not the game and in fact the game is against such things.
Lots of things count as unneeded. The game recommends colapsing multiple checks into one check. Like hoping across tables behind the desk to kick down some alcohol barrels across the floor so they are lighted on fire should be one check as far as the game recommends, but doing several there is not the same as unneeded, but such simulationist actions could lead to making players roll checks to use spells. Int check to make am illusion. Attack roll to aim a fireball. Charisma checks to see of summons listen to you. Dex checks to see if the fighter can sheathe their sword without cutting off fingers, ect.

You should only use checks when an action is undefined by the codified rules. Even then, only when failure modes are not already tied to an action that requires them. Like rolling an int check to decide the level of detail your illusion has when spell DC is already a mechanic.

An int check isn't what stops you from making an illusion of the bbeg's secret plans in text form. You can say you can't do that because you don't know it but an int check is not what decides that. In AL, you would have to find some raw reason for it. Like what are trying to make is invisible or something.

[Keltest]

I'd say it's unneeded if the spell already has a mechanic for success or failure. In that case, there's no need to add another one and to do so is unfair. And in this case, there's already a chance of failure with every creature that investigates the illusion. To make a check just to create the illusion in the first place when that's already the case is excessive.

In general, I agree, but there are cases where success is measured differently from the intent of the spell. To stick with your original example, you aren't trying to convince someone of something that isn't true, which is what the check by RAW is for, youre trying to create a specific image. Using a different check might be applicable.

[Demonslayer666]

But, you are not using the spell to do X, you are trying to use the spell to do Y.

X = create a realistic, believable image in order to fool someone
Y = create a specific, accurate image from memory to communicate an accurate description

I think a roll was warranted, just as your DM did. The roll has to do with communicating an accurate description, not simply creating an image.

CHA is perfectly acceptable as an ability check since that is your spell casting ability and would determine how well you match the image from memory. I agree that you should have gotten your proficiency bonus.
INT would also be perfectly acceptable to measure how well you recall the image.
A perception check would also be justified to measure how many details you caught. Ditto with investigation.
I would certainly not do more than one check, but any one would suffice, and the roll would not have been difficult unless the modifiers made it so (like 5). Modifiers to that roll could easily include: time past since observation, time spent observing, distance, lighting, cover, relative objects, etc. Why the last one? It's really hard to judge size without relative objects (underground).

Relax. It's just a game. Have fun, even at your own expense. I'm sure it was pretty funny to the group that you created a male drow (can you even tell the difference?). Just be happy it wasn't a dwarf. :smallsmile:
I would have just cast it again and again until I got it right in my mind's eye.

Don't play just to be playing, play to have fun with the group and create lasting memories, like "We're gonna need more cats..." :smallsmile:

[JakOfAllTirades]

It's amazing how there is no middle ground between not adding extra checks to use an ability and illusions being top tier divination spells that make people's minds explode.

Are we trying to prove that 5e has lots of poorly written abilities or that DMs are intended to **** over their players? Either option sound stupid to me.

As far as I know, nobody intentionally writes RPG's in which the DM is intended to *** over the players. Maybe a few, Cthulhu? Paranoia? I don't play 'em. But yeah, sometimes if you're going for horror or comedy, someone is supposed to get the short end of the stick. If you do it right, it's not so stupid.

On the other hand, lots of RPG's turn out to be poorly written. It's not so much stupidity as a lack of industry standards.

Okay, sometimes it's just stupidity. Sometimes when I'm reading 5E I have to wonder....

[Mr.Moron]

Lots of things count as unneeded. The game recommends colapsing multiple checks into one check. Like hoping across tables behind the desk to kick down some alcohol barrels across the floor so they are lighted on fire should be one check as far as the game recommends, but doing several there is not the same as unneeded, but such simulationist actions could lead to making players roll checks to use spells. Int check to make am illusion. Attack roll to aim a fireball. Charisma checks to see of summons listen to you. Dex checks to see if the fighter can sheathe their sword without cutting off fingers, ect.

You should only use checks when an action is undefined by the codified rules. Even then, only when failure modes are not already tied to an action that requires them. Like rolling an int check to decide the level of detail your illusion has when spell DC is already a mechanic.

An int check isn't what stops you from making an illusion of the bbeg's secret plans in text form. You can say you can't do that because you don't know it but an int check is not what decides that. In AL, you would have to find some raw reason for it. Like what are trying to make is invisible or something.


I define my illusion in such a way that they aren't invisible, are to give everyone free Ice Cream, and my character is now an awesome cyborg with guns that shoot out other smaller guns, which shoot laser swords.

[mephnick]

Relax. It's just a game. Have fun

Exactly. So the DM should have gone along with a player's good plan instead of arbitrarily nullifying it and making the character look incompetent.

[Dalebert]

I don't care about that instance. If I had, I would have protested right then. I care about the precedent and how often I will have to use a primary ability of my character effectively at disadvantage, because I have to succeed an extra time on top of all the investigation checks I have to defeat.

[Shaofoo]

You should only use checks when an action is undefined by the codified rules. Even then, only when failure modes are not already tied to an action that requires them. Like rolling an int check to decide the level of detail your illusion has when spell DC is already a mechanic.

An int check isn't what stops you from making an illusion of the bbeg's secret plans in text form. You can say you can't do that because you don't know it but an int check is not what decides that. In AL, you would have to find some raw reason for it. Like what are trying to make is invisible or something.

The spell DC is for disbelieving the illusion. I thought the point of the illusion in this topic was to communicate how a particular person looks, not tricking anyone into thinking the person is actually there. There is no spell failure to communicate what you know. When I say that there needs to be an extra check it isn't because of the spell but because of the memory regardless if you use Silent Image, drawing a picture or just trying to talk it out if I feel that you shouldn't know (or don't know) the exact details.

Unless you are saying that the people should roll against the spell DC to be able to tell the specific details?

[Shaofoo]

I define my illusion in such a way that they aren't invisible, are to give everyone free Ice Cream, and my character is now an awesome cyborg with guns that shoot out other smaller guns, which shoot laser swords.

Except now you are basically violating RAW. You basically are saying that Minor Illusion does what I want and the text is irrelevant. Unless you as a DM rule that images can now give physical items and can polymorph you into Borderlands 2 characters.

At this point there isn't even effort anymore.

[Mr.Moron]

Except now you are basically violating RAW. You basically are saying that Minor Illusion does what I want and the text is irrelevant. Unless you as a DM rule that images can now give physical items and can polymorph you into Borderlands 2 characters.

At this point there isn't even effort anymore.

Again I can do this strictly within coherence of raw. No violation is needed

"I create an image of sphere with properties such that it is impossible for anything to stop me from creating an image of it (invisibility etc..) and that when an image of it is created by me through this casting of minor illusion it...<villains plans/ice cream/cyborg etc..>"

I can appended anything I want to that statement and it will be valid. For RAW to remain consistent either minor illusion doesn't create things I specify, or must be given caveats/limitations outside what is written.

[Dalebert]

But the spell is intended to fool someone. It's the intention of the spell. If I can fool someone that the illusion is of the person I just saw, then simply conveying information of what someone looks like should be a cake-walk. If I could fool someone into thinking that's the person, then obviously it looks like her, at least well enough to be recognizable even if it's not perfect. And as I've said many times, I assume it's not perfect. All I expect from the spell is basic competency because that's what the description conveys.

[Shaofoo]

Again I can do this strictly within coherence of raw. No violation is needed

"I create an image of sphere with properties such that it is impossible for anything to stop me from creating an image of it (invisibility etc..) and that when an image of it is created by me through this casting of minor illusion it...<villains plans/ice cream/cyborg etc..>"

I can appended anything I want to that statement and it will be valid. For RAW to remain consistent either minor illusion doesn't create things I specify, or must be given caveats/limitations outside what is written.

Again you are talking as a DM and a player, you are saying it will be valid because you are forcing the wording to be valid. Also you are violating the rules because the rules state that you must name an object, creature or effect.

"I create an image of sphere with properties such that it is impossible for anything to stop me from creating an image of it (invisibility etc..) and that when an image of it is created by me through this casting of minor illusion it...<villains plans/ice cream/cyborg etc..>"

Is not a valid creature, object or effect. You can't create properties for the image, you create an image of a particular item (stemming again from your desire to work backwards from the solution regardless if the solution is even valid).

Answer me this, what image would I get if I were to say I want to create the image of an object that can create fire?

Also


For RAW to remain consistent either minor illusion doesn't create things I specify, or must be given caveats/limitations outside what is written.

Occam's Razor dude, instead of just trying to rewrite reality the spell just makes an image of nothing. Of course feel free in your games to rule as you wish and if you want ice cream cyborgs or whatever then go nuts. But don't think that because you break the game rules it means the game itself is faulty (it is in a number of ways but summoning ice cream cyborgs with minor illusion using bad logic is not one of them)

[Mr.Moron]

Again you are talking as a DM and a player, you are saying it will be valid because you are forcing the wording to be valid. Also you are violating the rules because the rules state that you must name an object, creature or effect.

"I create an image of a sphere with properties such that it is impossible for anything to stop me from creating an image of it (invisibility etc..) and that when an image of it is created by me through this casting of minor illusion it...<villains plans/ice cream/cyborg etc..>"

Is not a valid creature, object or effect. You can't create properties for the image, you create an image of a particular item (stemming again from your desire to work backwards from the solution regardless if the solution is even valid).


"I create an image of..."

"a sphere with properties such that ~", "a sphere that is green and lumpy", "a sphere, specifically that round rock sitting over there <points at rock on ground>"

are all interchange as they're all objects. The text of the spell outlines no guidelines for the "Validity" for objects beyond their sizes. My definitions all put things strictly in the terms of creating an image of an object. I'm saying it's valid because I do nothing outside the text of the spell. I'm doing only what the spell says and no more: Creating images of objects.

[Shaofoo]

But the spell is intended to fool someone. It's the intention of the spell. If I can fool someone that the illusion is of the person I just saw, then simply conveying information of what someone looks like should be a cake-walk. If I could fool someone into thinking that's the person, then obviously it looks like her, at least well enough to be recognizable even if it's not perfect. And as I've said many times, I assume it's not perfect. All I expect from the spell is basic competency because that's what the description conveys.

So is the point to fool or to give information cause to fool is to give faulty information. Are you using the illusion on enemies or allies?

[Shaofoo]

"I create an image of..."

"a sphere with properties such that ~", "a sphere that is green and lumpy", "a sphere, specifically that round rock sitting over there <points at rock on ground>"

are all interchange as they're all objects. The text of the spell outlines no guidelines for the "Validity" for objects beyond their sizes. My definitions all put things strictly in the terms of creating an image of an object. I'm saying it's valid because strictly speaking, that's what the text of the spell says. I'm doing only what the spell says and no more: Creating images of objects.

You still didn't answer my question

What image do I get if I say "I create an image with the properties such that it is an object that creates fire?"

What would I get?

The latter two are actual defined things though so good for you. You can have a green and lumpy sphere or you get a sphere with a rock texture. No word on the mystery fire starter image though.

[Mr.Moron]

You still didn't answer my question

What image do I get if I say "I create an image with the properties such that it is an object that creates fire?"

What would I get?

The latter two are actual defined things though so good for you. You can have a green and lumpy sphere or you get a sphere with a rock texture. No word on the mystery fire starter image though.

Well the way you've worded here, any number of things qualify a lighter, a lighting bolt, a dragon's fire gland. However since we're playing in RAWland, you get exactly what you said: "An object that creates fire". When you look at it and the ask the GM what you see the response would be "An object that creates fire" until a passed will save I guess, in which case "An object that creates fire that's just an illusion and not really there" would be the answer. The answer to the question "How tall is it?", would be "As tall as an object that creates fire is". It is an image of an object that creates fire, no more and no more less.

I suppose a particularly liberal, incompetent and malicious GM might simply choose a more specific qualifying object for it to be or assign it randomly from among more specific valid objects. A particularly overbearing. demanding (and of course malicious) one might ask for further clarification to narrow it down to a smaller set of fire-producing objects. However all that veers far to deep into the horrid house rule territory.

EDIT: They would remain strictly RAW though, as stinky and ruling-y as they are.

[Demonslayer666]

Exactly. So the DM should have gone along with a player's good plan instead of arbitrarily nullifying it and making the character look incompetent.

No, he should challenge the players.

If he thought it was difficult to provide an accurate description, then that's the challenge. :smallcool:

[Keltest]

Well the way you've worded here, any number of things qualify a lighter, a lighting bolt, a dragon's fire gland. However since we're playing in RAWland, you get exactly what you said: "An object that creates fire". When you look at it and the ask the GM what you see the response would be "An object that creates fire" until a passed will save I guess, in which case "An object that creates fire that's just an illusion and not really there" would be the answer. The answer to the question "How tall is it?", would be "As tall as an object that creates fire is". It is an image of an object that creates fire, no more and no more less.

I suppose a particularly liberal, incompetent and malicious GM might simply choose a more specific qualifying object for it to be or assign it randomly from among more specific valid objects. A particularly overbearing. demanding (and of course malicious) one might ask for further clarification to narrow it down to a smaller set of fire-producing objects. However all that veers far to deep into the horrid house rule territory.

EDIT: They would remain strictly RAW though, as stinky and ruling-y as they are.

and what happens when you ask for an object that cannot exist?

[JoeJ]

The answer is using 1 or 2. That perfectly fits with not adding extra checks. What you are doing with the spell either works or does not work.

3 is never OK. (Unless it's not an extra check)

By RAW you're wrong. Calling for a roll is entirely okay according to p. 236 of the DMG.

You're already accepted that the spell can not create an image of absolutely anything. So what are the limits? That it can only create images of things the caster can imagine? YMMV, but that sounds pretty reasonable to me, and it's what I would rule. The die roll, then, is not to create an image of what the caster imagines; that's automatic. It's to determine whether or not the caster's imagination matches a reality that is not currently being viewed. In the situation originally described, the caster had seen the drow just seconds before, and as DM I would not have required a roll to remember what she looked like. If the time interval had been longer (it had been a full day, for example) or there was some particular reason to have forgotten her exact appearance, I very well might.

[Mr.Moron]

and what happens when you ask for an object that cannot exist?

Well on the one hand: https://youtu.be/SNgNBsCI4EA?t=16

On the other hand this would be very hard. You'd have to specifically ask for "An image of an object that cannot have images made of it" or something similar. Which assuming you're unwilling to accept that the question simply does not have an answer, I guess the game would do whatever it does when it enters an illegal state. I guess it might just hang indefinitely. What's the pen & paper version of a null pointer exception?

[KorvinStarmast]

They're also advocating a rule which makes illusions mathematically more likely to fail than other spells due to the unnecessary extra skill check.

Re-designing the game on the fly without thinking things like this through leads to some really bad results, and this is a case in point. It's the same old story: amateur attempts game design, thinks it's easy, mucks everything up, doesn't even understand the problem.

One thing hasn't changed in 5E: D&D house rules are still the b@st@rd love children of Dunning-Kruger and Sturgeon's Law.
What Jack said.

And if we may repeat what Dalebert pointed out: there is already a mechanic for spell failure. There is no need to punish the mage by adding a second, unless there is an explicit reason to give disadvantage on this task.

Was there? If so, then it needs to be stated and the roll with "disadvantage" be made.

[Tanarii]

What Jack said.

And if we may repeat what Dalebert pointed out: there is already a mechanic for spell failure. There is no need to punish the mage by adding a second, unless there is an explicit reason to give disadvantage on this task.No there wasn't. Because the allies (assumedly) weren't trying to disbelieve the spell. He was trying to communicate information that he was attempting to recall. The spell doesn't have a mechanism for the success or failure of that. Unless you're saying his allies should have had to pass an Investigation vs the spell DC to correctly discern the details of what the drow looked like?

That doesn't mean a check was called for. IMO, given the circumstances, it should have been an automatic success.

[Shaofoo]

Well on the one hand: https://youtu.be/SNgNBsCI4EA?t=16

On the other hand this would be very hard. You'd have to specifically ask for "An image of an object that cannot have images made of it" or something similar. Which assuming you're unwilling to accept that the question simply does not have an answer, I guess the game would do whatever it does when it enters an illegal state. I guess it might just hang indefinitely. What's the pen & paper version of a null pointer exception?

Occam's Razor dude, I keep telling you.

Basically nothing, nothing happens and the spell is wasted because you wanted to bring forth something that doesn't exist.

Or rather you create what is on your mind (how I would actually rule that the spell works and not some parser that you must command) so you can create the illusion of Harry Potter even if Harry Potter doesn't exist because you have your imagination to give you an image.

So basically to resolve the spell you either resolve what the caster was thinking of when he said his action in mind exactly or in the event that it was all logohrea and nothing was truly thought out then nothing appears because the words mean nothing to the caster so they mean nothing to the spell.

Also maybe if we are to create specific people to fool and I find that there is reasonable doubt that the caster knows the details of the person instead of asking for a check I might just give advantage or even auto success to disbelieve the illusion given the people that you want to fool, of course I won't mention this at all to the players.

[Mr.Moron]

Occam's Razor dude, I keep telling you.


What page of the PHB is that on?

[Shaofoo]

What page of the PHB is that on?

If you have to ask, you'll never know.

[huttj509]

What Jack said.

And if we may repeat what Dalebert pointed out: there is already a mechanic for spell failure. There is no need to punish the mage by adding a second, unless there is an explicit reason to give disadvantage on this task.

Was there? If so, then it needs to be stated and the roll with "disadvantage" be made.

What's the mechanic for spell failure in that example? "He knows it's an illusion" Well, he already knows that. The cha/int check would (well, should) have replaced the save the friendly observer might have made, because the check is now not "does the illusion look like an illusion," but "does the illusion look like Lady Darkelven, of the house of Lurgh."

Or would you prefer a scenario where the friendly observer needs to make a save, but if he rolls better, he doesn't recognize the specific drow, where if he failed the save he would? Could he voluntarily fail the save to automatically recognize the drow, even if the caster saw her from across a dark room by the light of a single candle in fog?

[GloatingSwine]

What's the mechanic for spell failure in that example? "He knows it's an illusion" Well, he already knows that. The cha/int check would (well, should) have replaced the save the friendly observer might have made, because the check is now not "does the illusion look like an illusion," but "does the illusion look like Lady Darkelven, of the house of Lurgh."

Or would you prefer a scenario where the friendly observer needs to make a save, but if he rolls better, he doesn't recognize the specific drow, where if he failed the save he would? Could he voluntarily fail the save to automatically recognize the drow, even if the caster saw her from across a dark room by the light of a single candle in fog?

Actually, in the OP's example the chances of success or failure for the whole task don't rest on the casting of the illusion spell but on observing the subject closely enough to produce a recognisable illusion. The Illusion spell is magic, it magically produces an image which you don't have to put any effort into getting right, just as you don't have to put any effort into heating up your fireballs beyond the expenditure of the magic.

It's not "can you artistically construct an image of that specific person", it's "were you observing that person closely enough to produce the image".

But the DM didn't ask for some kind of relevant "studying a person to reproduce their image" test (an Investigation check), they asked for some kind of bull**** drawing a picture test which determined the quality of the illusion itself, the former could not possibly have failed in the way this task was failed, and the DM needs a clip athwart the ear for doing it.

If the DM wanted to introduce a chance of failure into this action, then the appropriate thing to do would be to say "Roll Investigation to see if you get a good enough look at whatsherface" (which I would even only bother with if there was some reason why it might fail, eg. the need to remain unseen or significant distance), not to interact with the casting of the spell, and the consequences for failure would be "the details are too fuzzy to specifically convey that person" not "your illusion is of a hobbit not a drow".

[Tanarii]

It's not "can you artistically construct an image of that specific person", it's "were you observing that person closely enough to produce the image".

But the DM didn't ask for some kind of relevant "studying a person to reproduce their image" test (an Investigation check), they asked for some kind of bull**** drawing a picture test which determined the quality of the illusion itself, the former could not possibly have failed in the way this task was failed, and the DM needs a clip athwart the ear for doing it.

If the DM wanted to introduce a chance of failure into this action, then the appropriate thing to do would be to say "Roll Investigation to see if you get a good enough look at whatsherface" (which I would even only bother with if there was some reason why it might fail, eg. the need to remain unseen or significant distance), not to interact with the casting of the spell, and the consequences for failure would be "the details are too fuzzy to specifically convey that person" not "your illusion is of a hobbit not a drow".
Not necessarily. The time to check for recall is when the recall is happening. It's not a "studying a person to reproduce their image" test, it's a "can you remember something you've previously studied at this point in time" test.

Edit: That said, it's a fine line. Because what matters is both how (and how much) you crammed before the test, as well as how good your recall is during the final. For example.

[Vogonjeltz]

That's what I would assume too. Yet the evidence is against me. It seems there is just a problem with 5e that enables this kind of behavior in instances where it would normally be absent.

Perhaps the nature of 5e is just more likely to attract less than savory DMs? It may be the case that most DMs that don't want to screw with their players will avoid a system that demands rulings as frequently as 5e.

We should be able to agree that it's not the rules of 5e itself calling for caustic houseruling of codified rules, then it must just be the case that 5e is more appealing for DMs who want to DM like that.

I don't know why you would think that. If the 3.5 forums are any guideline (and given that they're the only means of shared experience we can all examine), than the 3.5 era was incredibly dysfunctional along these lines, far more so than I've noticed on the 5e boards.

It bears mentioning that there's literally no rulebook difference in terms of how DMs are told to address the game, both 3.5 and 5e straight out tell the DM to do what they like and take or leave anything written in the books, as they see fit.


Taking this back to the original post, I think it's a bad judgment call which bears discussion with ones DM. Illusions simply aren't intended to be caveated that extensively, especially considering that they barely have any value at all beyond fooling someone temporarily. Going out of the way to hamstring that is overkill. In this case in particular, there's no reason at all to believe the character wouldn't recall what the subject looked like.

I tend to think this may be one of those meta-gaming situations on the part of the DM: If the player had asked what the NPC looked like before casting the illusion, there would be no question their character recalled that. It's only because they attempted to cast the illusion before confirming that they knew what the NPC looked like that the DM even considered the possibility they wouldn't remember.

[Tanarii]

In this case in particular, there's no reason at all to believe the character wouldn't recall what the subject looked like.All other back and forth aside, I think that's the key here. Even if there might be times when an extra check could be called for, this didn't sound like one of them.

OTOH we weren't there, and he was the one who had to make a judgement on the fly. It's easy to diss in retrospect.

[pwykersotz]

I define my illusion in such a way that they aren't invisible, are to give everyone free Ice Cream, and my character is now an awesome cyborg with guns that shoot out other smaller guns, which shoot laser swords.

I'd just like to say, Mr.Moron, that your arguments are some of the most entertaining on this forum, as well as insightful. Good show. :smallsmile:


While I probably wouldn't call for a check on that situation myself, I do think that using spells or abilities in nonstandard situations can carry a chance of failure. If my swordsman is mopping the floor (yes I'm thinking of Zoro from One Piece three-sword-styling the mops here) and decides to use extra attack to finish faster, rolling a check to see if he breaks the mop he's using due to wielding it like a weapon could happen. The question to me isn't if a check is relevant though, it's more about what is interesting about the check. If the DM doesn't have something in mind, they may as well let it succeed.

[GloatingSwine]

Not necessarily. The time to check for recall is when the recall is happening. It's not a "studying a person to reproduce their image" test, it's a "can you remember something you've previously studied at this point in time" test.

Edit: That said, it's a fine line. Because what matters is both how (and how much) you crammed before the test, as well as how good your recall is during the final. For example.

Right, but in this case it's something that was seen within the last few seconds. It's not "recall" if you were focusing on someone literally within the last six seconds and then reproducing what you've just seen, and a recall test literally could not have failed in the way that the OP was told they failed.

The only point of failure was "did you get a good enough look at this person?" and the only reason that would prompt a test is if there's some other pressure like trying to observe without being seen so taking a brief glance or the visibility conditions are bad.

[Trixie]

Right, but in this case it's something that was seen within the last few seconds. It's not "recall" if you were focusing on someone literally within the last six seconds and then reproducing what you've just seen, and a recall test literally could not have failed in the way that the OP was told they failed.

Um, no. Human mind doesn't work like that. What we actually see is mostly optical illusion based on eyes sweeping back and forth left-right, up-down, our brains producing static image of what 'should' be there if it looks like nothing changed. That's why despite having huge blind spot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_spot_%28vision%29) each one of us seems to see continuously.

And here's the thing - unless you're trained secret service agent, once you see someone, your mind fills in the blanks and says 'it's that person'. That doesn't mean you noticed all details, far from it. You need to study them consciously and know what to focus at to have all details. I bet every random person shown a photo of someone new to them will fail at least one detail of their appearance even 30 seconds later. This had been confirmed time and time again.

Then there is the fact that due to our imperfect perception of the world, our brains have extra machinery only responsible for recognizing other faces. This forms the basis of our social skills - accurate recognition of similar family members is a must. How we do it, is not well known yet, but our brain checks dozen or so parameters and if even one of them is slightly off it displays huge 'ERROR, UNKNOWN PERSON' that is the more jarring because other things matched and the mechanism expected to arrive at name, as it was not someone completely new. This is why disguise checks get harder the more specific we want them to be, and why we have uncanny valley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley) - because one of the fundamental tests if failed the brain cannot reconcile 'error, not human' and 'human #5235253' it gets.

If we were to examine the illusionary magic in that context, one extra check was quite lenient, I'd say - since you're trying to create extremely specific image you'd need intelligence check to perfectly recall what you're creating, charisma check to make illusion behave believably and have right body cues if it isn't just standing there blank faced (yes, mannerisms are part of the brain checks mentioned above), and possibly even wisdom check to accurately gauge what your illusionary person would react to what is unfolding to not fall into uncanny valley. Of course, doing so would just drag the game so it's normally skipped, but one easy extra check if you want to wring extra mileage out of magic is nothing uncalled for. No, illusion DC is not that easy check, that covers just your target not seeing immediately through your magic.

Also, I must say I like all the complains about, let me quote, 'power tripping GM' and 'Dunning-Kruger' and 'amateur game design'. It's not like Wizards are Tier 1 classes and they are exactly the first example of 'amateur game design' in D&D, capable of levelling countries alone, any attempt to reign in their power a bit is obviously pure evil even when based on things that wouldn't work in reality despite them still being miles stronger than everyone else, eh? :smallamused:

[Dalebert]

If I'm trying to trick someone (the intended use of the spell) who knows the subject well and I only just saw them -- advantage on their investigation check. Adv and disad are strongly encouraged as the means for adjusting all these situations. The DC represents my skill with my spells.

Now if they actually start talking to her and I have to have her behave in a specific manner, that's a whole other ballpark outside the realm of the spell which just has mechanics for making an image that looks a certain way. Then we'd probably be getting into a deception check as well that could have its own modifiers for adv and disad.

This case was trivial by comparison--just "does she kinda look like this?"
"Well, that's her hair style and style of clothing. Yeah, that could be the woman I'm thinking of."

It's like I was using a fireball to light some paper on fire and the DM made me do a check. Is that something other than it's intended use? Yes, but it was something that should be trivial by comparison to its intended use so it should have been automatic. If I had only seen her briefly and it had been a while, I think an int check would be reasonable.

[GloatingSwine]

Um, no. Human mind doesn't work like that. What we actually see is mostly optical illusion based on eyes sweeping back and forth left-right, up-down, our brains producing static image of what 'should' be there if it looks like nothing changed. That's why despite having huge blind spot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_spot_%28vision%29) each one of us seems to see continuously.

The human mind cannot also produce freestanding images in air just by wanting it. Trying to apply the limits of neurophysiology to actual magic which breaks all known physical laws is on a hiding to nothing.

Minor Image, as a spell, does not make any reference to the caster having to put any effort into the detail of what they're creating with it at all. That stuff happens by magic.

Other spells do not require these extra checks, you don't have to roll to see if you remembered to make your fireball hot enough to burn an orc, or to see if you knew how many volts your lightning bolt needed to have.

[Mara]

Other spells do not require these extra checks, you don't have to roll to see if you remembered to make your fireball hot enough to burn an orc, or to see if you knew how many volts your lightning bolt needed to have.

Some DMs do make you roll an attack roll to put the fireball in a tricky spot. Believe it or not there are plenty of 5e DMs that think adding random extra checks is fair, fun, and immersive. And they swear that all their non awful players love the system.

[Tanarii]

The only point of failure was "did you get a good enough look at this person?" and the only reason that would prompt a test is if there's some other pressure like trying to observe without being seen so taking a brief glance or the visibility conditions are bad.


And here's the thing - unless you're trained secret service agent, once you see someone, your mind fills in the blanks and says 'it's that person'. That doesn't mean you noticed all details, far from it. You need to study them consciously and know what to focus at to have all details. I bet every random person shown a photo of someone new to them will fail at least one detail of their appearance even 30 seconds later. This had been confirmed time and time again.GloatingSwine (that handle tho ...) covers this point sufficiently with the point "did you get a good enough look at this person?" That concelt includes studying them sufficiently.

And given its a heroic fantasy game, giving the character a huge amount of leniency in that regard is probably a good idea. Especially when they're just trying to provide overall recognizability of general details to provide identification, say for targeting in an immediately following combat.

I agree with your analysis of how the human brain works. I just think it's covered sufficiently by the rules abstractions. The only question is when should a chance of failure be appropriate to the action's method and intended result?

[mephnick]

Some DMs do make you roll an attack roll to put the fireball in a tricky spot. Believe it or not there are plenty of 5e DMs that think adding random extra checks is fair, fun, and immersive. And they swear that all their non awful players love the system.

Yep, I've played in groups where the DM did everything wrong and players loved it because they were very inexperienced. "Make a Perception check to see if you find your friends at the tavern. Nope. You wander outside for hours lololol". In one session I saw things I thought were unimaginable from a DM. I wanted to kill myself, the new players ate it up.

Now obviously this isn't as bad as that, but "the players didn't quit!" doesn't mean it's a good or fair ruling.

[Argo]

The character using an Illusion spell, a major character resource, to aid in roleplaying should be REWARDED by the DM.

You saw a person. You could have just described her verbally "I saw a Drow woman. She was wearing X and Y and had longish white hair and she had a scar on her face and she went THATTAWAY!" for free. Nobody would ask for a check.

But you instead chose to use a major character resource, an Illusion spell, to create the image of the person you just saw. Why? You could describe her for free! Well, you chose to do that BECAUSE THAT'S THE SORT OF THING A WARLOCK WHO SHOOTS ILLUSIONS OUT OF HIS BRAIN WOULD TOTALLY DO BECAUSE IT'S AWESOME.

The DM choosing to block that ability is simply him being a dullard.

Other people in this thread have said "talk to him if it happens again," I would disagree with that, and suggest you pull him aside BEFORE the next session and talk to him about it before it can happen again.

Nothing in the rules of the spell indicate anywhere that the caster needs to make a check of ANY SORT when casting the illusion to determine how accurate it is. Illusion spells are ALWAYS accurate. How? THEY'RE LITERALLY MAGIC. You think about what you saw, or what you want to see, and the spell creates the image perfectly, unerringly, from the image in your brain. That's WHAT the spell does.

[KorvinStarmast]

IMO, given the circumstances, it should have been an automatic success.
We agree, though I can see where you saw me going in a different direction. Hmm. Huttj509 also pointed out that I was wandering off into disagreeing with myself (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20291365&postcount=199). Heh, we old people do that sometimes, it comes with the mileage on the odometer! :smallbiggrin:

Let me put this differently:

We don't save versus healing spells. As the other player characters are not opposing the illusion, or have no need to oppose the illusion, or get no benefit from opposing the illusion, there is no reason for them to not benefit form the illusion. The DM's logic in the "ability check" is similar to demanding a Bard to make a Charisma or Wisdom check to see if a Bard casting a healing spell on another character actually heals the character, or fails due to failing an Ability check.

I tend to agree more with Argo.

The character using an Illusion spell, a major character resource, to aid in roleplaying should be REWARDED by the DM.

You saw a person. You could have just described her verbally "I saw a Drow woman. She was wearing X and Y and had longish white hair and she had a scar on her face and she went THATTAWAY!" for free. Nobody would ask for a check.

But you instead chose to use a major character resource, an Illusion spell, to create the image of the person you just saw. Why? You could describe her for free! Well, you chose to do that BECAUSE THAT'S THE SORT OF THING A WARLOCK WHO SHOOTS ILLUSIONS OUT OF HIS BRAIN WOULD TOTALLY DO BECAUSE IT'S AWESOME.

The DM choosing to block that ability is simply him being a dullard.
What page of the PHB is that on?
You might find it in the DMG section on advice with ability checks. Do not resort to them unless it is necessary, in terms of success or failure, and significant for the story to progress. (Page 240+ something, I was looking at it this morning somewhat at random while searching for some detail on custom monsters).

[Dalebert]

Illusion spells are ALWAYS accurate. How? THEY'RE LITERALLY MAGIC. You think about what you saw, or what you want to see, and the spell creates the image perfectly, unerringly, from the image in your brain. That's WHAT the spell does.

This feels like the opposite extreme from the people who claim I have to make an extra roll and almost literally paint the image using my artistic skills. I have a more moderate view somewhere in between.

My view is the spell creates a competent illusion that will generally fool most people if they don't examine it closely. My memory as the caster is not perfect but their memory as the viewer is ALSO not perfect. If they examine it closely, it will fail about half the time on average, a little less as I get higher level, and a little more if their investigation sucks. And a competent illusion is overkill just to check and see if someone is familiar when you're not even attempting to fool them.

The spell does the art part for me just as a Wall of Stone does the engineering part for the caster. The spell dips into my sub-conscience or the universal unconscience or seeks the spirits of the muses or whatever to fill in some of the detail, but it's not perfect. (However it does it, it's not with brain science! Kill science in D&D! Kill it with magic fire!) If it was perfect, it would fool everyone all of the time.

[Mr.Moron]

Yep, I've played in groups where the DM did everything wrong and players loved it because they were very inexperienced..

If the players were engaged, and having fun when the entire point is to be engaged how can the DM be doing "Everything Wrong"? By definition if the players are loving the experience the DM is doing things right. Even if those things don't fit your particular preferred style, the styles most popular on this board, or the style(s) called out in the DMG. The DM was passing the one and only metric that matters in any fashion: The game being a worthwhile experience for the people at the table. Passing that metric with flying colors too, if your "loved it" description is accurate.

There isn't some objective "ideal game" floating out there every session should be measured against.

[Shaofoo]

There isn't some objective "ideal game" floating out there every session should be measured against.

What are you talking about? Of course there is an ideal game that everyone must strive to achieve and that you must force everyone you know to follow. If you don't play the game the way some random nobodies on the internet say you should then you are playing it wrong and are an abject failure in life in general. Go back to your Call of Battlefield and your Steven Undertales and leave the tabletop gaming for the real human beings who understand that there is only one way to play the game and it is the way some guy on a forum say you should play. Even if everyone says that they like how the game is played they are doing it wrong and they should feel bad.

tl;dr git gud scrub, following stuff on the internet is always the best thing you should do.

[JackPhoenix]

The human mind cannot also produce freestanding images in air just by wanting it. Trying to apply the limits of neurophysiology to actual magic which breaks all known physical laws is on a hiding to nothing.

Minor Image, as a spell, does not make any reference to the caster having to put any effort into the detail of what they're creating with it at all. That stuff happens by magic.

Other spells do not require these extra checks, you don't have to roll to see if you remembered to make your fireball hot enough to burn an orc, or to see if you knew how many volts your lightning bolt needed to have.

That's the thing...the magic does break the laws of physics...in exactly the ways it is described to. Creating a huge ball of fire from nothing is impossible by physical laws...does that mean that your Fireball can create a cube of acid from nothing, just because that's equally impossible and you want it to?

[mephnick]

If the players were engaged, and having fun when the entire point is to be engaged how can the DM be doing "Everything Wrong"?

At what point does it stop being D&D? Once you've decided to not follow any of the core rules? Rolling attack rolls to pat a friend on the back? Why use a system? You can have fun and still be playing the game wrong, don't be obtuse.

[Vogonjeltz]

If I'm trying to trick someone (the intended use of the spell) who knows the subject well and I only just saw them -- advantage on their investigation check. Adv and disad are strongly encouraged as the means for adjusting all these situations. The DC represents my skill with my spells.

Now if they actually start talking to her and I have to have her behave in a specific manner, that's a whole other ballpark outside the realm of the spell which just has mechanics for making an image that looks a certain way. Then we'd probably be getting into a deception check as well that could have its own modifiers for adv and disad.

This case was trivial by comparison--just "does she kinda look like this?"
"Well, that's her hair style and style of clothing. Yeah, that could be the woman I'm thinking of."

It's like I was using a fireball to light some paper on fire and the DM made me do a check. Is that something other than it's intended use? Yes, but it was something that should be trivial by comparison to its intended use so it should have been automatic. If I had only seen her briefly and it had been a while, I think an int check would be reasonable.

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense if the illusion doesn't match up with the mental image the character has of the NPC.

I would imagine illusionary spells as functioning similar to the Holodeck in star trek the next generation. If you want specifics, you get those specifics, if you don't then either the DM just makes up the details or interrogates the player for specifics as needed.

i.e. I use a couple Major Images or a Programmed Image to make it appear as if I and an associate are playing chess in our prison cell, even though we're already on our way out in an escape attempt.


Some DMs do make you roll an attack roll to put the fireball in a tricky spot. Believe it or not there are plenty of 5e DMs that think adding random extra checks is fair, fun, and immersive. And they swear that all their non awful players love the system.

Mistakes don't get excused just because others also make them. Two wrongs don't suddenly make a right.


If the players were engaged, and having fun when the entire point is to be engaged how can the DM be doing "Everything Wrong"? By definition if the players are loving the experience the DM is doing things right. Even if those things don't fit your particular preferred style, the styles most popular on this board, or the style(s) called out in the DMG. The DM was passing the one and only metric that matters in any fashion: The game being a worthwhile experience for the people at the table. Passing that metric with flying colors too, if your "loved it" description is accurate.

There isn't some objective "ideal game" floating out there every session should be measured against.

Probably because, as shown in this very thread's first post, DMs making up things willy-nilly is prone to making things not fun for players whose character creation decisions are rooted in the social contract that is typically set a priori. To wit: That things operate as they are portrayed in the books.

Now, if the DM clearly makes no such contract with the players, and clearly denotes that things are gonna get crazy...then that's great fun all the way. If you happen to listen to the "D&D is for Nerds" podcast, you'll find that this is exactly how things work, and the players enjoy themselves immensely. But they also are extremely detached from a concrete understanding of the rules that they are playing under. Which is not the case in this particular thread.

So, no, no objective ideal per se is in play, just default expectations. The same way that Calvinball is great fun, but not so much when you've been told you're playing Baseball.

[GloatingSwine]

That's the thing...the magic does break the laws of physics...in exactly the ways it is described to. Creating a huge ball of fire from nothing is impossible by physical laws...does that mean that your Fireball can create a cube of acid from nothing, just because that's equally impossible and you want it to?

According to the OP's GM it apparently can, if using an illusion spell to create an image of a drow gets you a hobbit instead.

Minor Image gives you an illusion of the thing you wanted to make an illusion of, you do not have to roll anything to see if it does so.

[JackPhoenix]

According to the OP's GM it apparently can, if using an illusion spell to create an image of a drow gets you a hobbit instead.

Minor Image gives you an illusion of the thing you wanted to make an illusion of, you do not have to roll anything to see if it does so.

Not true...according to OP, creating the image of a drow created the image of a drow. Not just the specific drow he wanted to...or did it? There isn't any explanation WHY the DM wanted the roll...if he wanted an charisma check to make the image look like he wanted to, then sure, he was wrong... but if he wanted an intelligence check to remember how exactly did she looked like, with the character's memory being wrong and his mind filling in the details...but the character still believes the image he has created is the image he wanted...that's OK. Maybe not 1 round later, but I have no problem with that ruling, either from DM's or player's perspective.

You DO have to roll, if the DM thinks it's appropriate, or even automatically fail when you want inappropriate things. Or do you think that just because it's magic, you can stand over a dead body, say "I want to create an image of the murderer who killed this guy" and you get his precise likeness just because you want to? Or in a room full of suspects, you say "I want to create an image of an arrow poiting to the traitor" and you get that, even if you have no idea who is it? Or you see someone carrying a folder with secret documents and you can later create an illusion of this folder and its content you never actually saw, just because "it's magic"?

[Mara]

Or do you think that just because it's magic, you can stand over a dead body, say "I want to create an image of the murderer who killed this guy" and you get his precise likeness just because you want to? Or in a room full of suspects, you say "I want to create an image of an arrow poiting to the traitor" and you get that, even if you have no idea who is it? Or you see someone carrying a folder with secret documents and you can later create an illusion of this folder and its content you never actually saw, just because "it's magic"?

RAW: yes

But RAW is stupid, RANBAT (Rules as not being a ****): the spell either works or doesn't work. Rolling an additional check is silly. Using an illusion to convey information you know should be automatically successful. You don't need keen mind to describe a person accurately. You may need keen mind to reproduce a book you read once as a child, but I wouldn't say you could make an illusion of that just by rolling a high int check. If you as a DM would think a high int check could provide the information needed to make the illusion, then the illusion can automatically do that because it is magic. Adding a check here is just not appropriate. If you are adding a check here, it should be because you would just say no otherwise and are stating that the player is using the spell beyond what it should be able to do. You should even inform your player that that is why the check is being ask, because they are essentially performing custom magic that you as a DM are being most generous in letting such a mighty feat even be attempted.

[GloatingSwine]

Not true...according to OP, creating the image of a drow created the image of a drow. Not just the specific drow he wanted to...or did it? There isn't any explanation WHY the DM wanted the roll...if he wanted an charisma check to make the image look like he wanted to, then sure, he was wrong... but if he wanted an intelligence check to remember how exactly did she looked like, with the character's memory being wrong and his mind filling in the details...but the character still believes the image he has created is the image he wanted...that's OK. Maybe not 1 round later, but I have no problem with that ruling, either from DM's or player's perspective.

Except the DM ruled that he failed the illusion so hard that the drow he produced an image of was two feet shorter and the wrong gender.

There is no sane way that this happens with any interpretation of the Minor Image spell, and certainly not with a Charisma check.

It literally is as different as producing that pool of acid because you forgot what a fireball was when casting Fireball, and desperately needs the DM to recieve six of the best from the clue stick.


You DO have to roll

You don't have to roll to make the illusion look like what you want it to look like. If you did, the spell would say so.

[JackPhoenix]

Except the DM ruled that he failed the illusion so hard that the drow he produced an image of was two feet shorter and the wrong gender.

There is no sane way that this happens with any interpretation of the Minor Image spell, and certainly not with a Charisma check.

It literally is as different as producing that pool of acid because you forgot what a fireball was when casting Fireball, and desperately needs the DM to recieve six of the best from the clue stick.

I'm pretty sure I've wrote that calling for a cha instead of the int check doesn't make sense at least 3 times before. I also disagree with the DM's extragated interpretation (even OP said that the man part may have been a joke) of the result of that check. But the spell did what it was supposed to: created the image of a drow. That's hardly the same as getting the pool of acid when you cast a spell that only creates a ball of fire when the spell says otherwise.


You don't have to roll to make the illusion look like what you want it to look like. If you did, the spell would say so.

Sure...you don't roll to make the illusion look like what you want to...the check was (or should've been, again, we lack the access the DM's reasoning and calling for charisma check doesn't make sense) to decide if the character knows the details of the image he wants. Apparently, he wanted the image of a man-ish looking drow woman about a foot shorter then the woman he saw actually was, and got exactly that. The check (should've) had nothing to do with the spell, but with the character's mind and memory.

The DM could've just as easily call for a Perception roll to notice the drow's details when the character saw her, but he didn't think it's important because he had no idea what will the player want to do in the future. The check he called for was a replacement solution (and far from perfect, but I would be repeating myself).

[GloatingSwine]

The check (should've) had nothing to do with the spell, but with the character's mind and memory.

Right, but the stated failure mode cannot possibly proceed from any such check, so the DM asked for a check to make the illusion, which is not part of the spell.

Now, you might think it's not important because maybe there was another check they could have asked for, but they didn't ask for that other check which leaves the player wondering what other bull**** they are going to have to deal with when trying to use a major character feature in the future.


The DM could've just as easily call for a Perception roll to notice the drow's details when the character saw her, but he didn't think it's important because he had no idea what will the player want to do in the future. The check he called for was a replacement solution (and far from perfect, but I would be repeating myself).

Could have, but didn't, and almost certainly would not have if the player just described the person, because it's such a normal activity.

[KorvinStarmast]

What are you talking about? Of course there is an ideal game that everyone must strive to achieve and that you must force everyone you know to follow. --snip--

tl;dr git gud scrub, following stuff on the internet is always the best thing you should do.
Thank you, that was a fun read.

[JackPhoenix]

Right, but the stated failure mode cannot possibly proceed from any such check, so the DM asked for a check to make the illusion, which is not part of the spell.

Now, you might think it's not important because maybe there was another check they could have asked for, but they didn't ask for that other check which leaves the player wondering what other bull**** they are going to have to deal with when trying to use a major character feature in the future.

Neither of us can read the DM's thoughts and OP haven't provided (and likely never recieved) any explanaition behind the DM's ruling. Unless the DM in question shows up here and explains his reasoning, discussing this is pointless. Nobody is disputing (I think, I'm not about to read the whole thread from the start) that the exact thing the DM did don't make sense.

That doesn't invalidate the fact that there's nothing wrong about asking for an intelligence check to r


Could have, but didn't, and almost certainly would not have if the player just described the person, because it's such a normal activity.

You don't know that and neither can I. But what would the player's description be, if it didn't required the check? "She's a drow, she's got black skin, long white hair, red eyes, wears dark chain shirt and a black cloak with white spiderweb motives. She wields a sword." Great, player just described the drow, I'm sure you can use this description to recognise this exact drow amongst all the other similary equiped drow women in the Underdark. Sure, you may add precise details as a scar on her face (which you haven't payed much attention to, as what she's armed with is more important during a recon mission), her precise height (which you don't know, because she was in motion and you had nothing to compare it to), and how exactly her face looked like (good luck explaining that without anyone involved imagining their own thing without looking at her), but that's what the check was for.

[georgie_leech]

You don't know that and neither can I. But what would the player's description be, if it didn't required the check? "She's a drow, she's got black skin, long white hair, red eyes, wears dark chain shirt and a black cloak with white spiderweb motives. She wields a sword." Great, player just described the drow, I'm sure you can use this description to recognise this exact drow amongst all the other similary equiped drow women in the Underdark. Sure, you may add precise details as a scar on her face (which you haven't payed much attention to, as what she's armed with is more important during a recon mission), her precise height (which you don't know, because she was in motion and you had nothing to compare it to), and how exactly her face looked like (good luck explaining that without anyone involved imagining their own thing without looking at her), but that's what the a check was for.

Made a slight correction. The existence of potential valid reasons for a check does not mean that this one was a good one. Up thread it was mentioned that the CHA check was chosen because it's the spellcasting stat for Warlocks. All those extra details are, yes, something that could be modeled with a check. But that isn't what the DM called for. That was an arbitrary nerf, not a realistic one. This was a check to determine basic competence with an ability they are presumed to have. As a player, I would rightly call foul if I needed to make a DEX check to put a key in a lock barring other circumstances, or a STR check to muster the force needed to eat dinner. As a DM, I understand the difference between a check being necessary to model a chance of meaningful failure and a check at the expense of the players. In the situation above, I probably would have called for an an INT (Investigation) check, as I figure being trained to notice key details would also impact how likely a character is to start noticing them even when not making a particular effort. If the check failed, it would result in missing key details. It would not result in an image unrecognizable as the intended illusion. Humour directly at the expense of one of your players is the only result of that CHA check, and that's just not worth it.

[JackPhoenix]

Made a slight correction. The existence of potential valid reasons for a check does not mean that this one was a good one. Up thread it was mentioned that the CHA check was chosen because it's the spellcasting stat for Warlocks. All those extra details are, yes, something that could be modeled with a check. But that isn't what the DM called for. That was an arbitrary nerf, not a realistic one. This was a check to determine basic competence with an ability they are presumed to have. As a player, I would rightly call foul if I needed to make a DEX check to put a key in a lock barring other circumstances, or a STR check to muster the force needed to eat dinner. As a DM, I understand the difference between a check being necessary to model a chance of meaningful failure and a check at the expense of the players. In the situation above, I probably would have called for an an INT (Investigation) check, as I figure being trained to notice key details would also impact how likely a character is to start noticing them even when not making a particular effort. If the check failed, it would result in missing key details. It would not result in an image unrecognizable as the intended illusion. Humour directly at the expense of one of your players is the only result of that CHA check, and that's just not worth it.

The, a...stupid english, it's much easier in my language...consider that a typo :smallannoyed:

Sure, I agree with you...I always said that while I find the rulings (both the charisma check and the results of its failure) in the OP suspect, I was arguing for the validity of a request for a check in similar situation in general.