Illusory Light, Weather, and holes?

[Segev]

I've been thinking about cool things illusionists can do, and have found some gaps that I think could be addressed, or otherwise abilities that would be nifty (in my opinion) if they existed. I'm not entirely sure how to enact them, but I have some rough ideas, and would be grateful for others' thoughts on them. Whether they can be balanced at all, what mechanisms to use to implement them, or what level they should be available at. As well as any other ideas people might have.

Deceptive Environment Alteration
I'm not talking about hallucinatory terrain, here. Imagine facing an obvious wizard in a room with a corpse or two strewn about. He casts a spell, and one of the corpses rises, lurching towards you! Obviously, the assumption would be animate dead,, but what if it was a silent image, instead? The latter wouldn't work if the corpse was real originally, because the illusion would leave the real one behind. Some method of making a real thing invisible and replacing it with an illusion would be cool, I think.

Or have your project image spell pick up an object in the real world; in reality, it leaves the object there, but an illusory one is in your illusory hand and the real one's invisible.

The first thing that occurred to me to try to make this happen was something like invisibility sphere, but altered to make all objects in its radius invisible, rather than creatures. But that requires a two-step process: make things invisible, then replace them with silent image or the like. Perhaps a unique spell that gave illusory control over all objects in its area? But there's something alluring, to me, mechanically, to enabling other illusion spells to do these things. So some sort of enabler that doesn't require an awkward series of actions with a clearly-fake inbetween-stage. I'm not sure how to do this.

Illusory holes, pits, and possibly seeing through walls
This grew from the above, initially, but also pulls from discussions I've had in the past regarding 3e illusions. It's not possible to make illusory holes that are particularly convincing, because they at best can look right from one particular angle (like those impressive street-chalk artworks that look 3D from one particular angle). This is because few to no illusions in 3e could make an illusion of void or absence (except for the invisibility family, and those were very specific in how they worked).

2e and earlier did have a spell called illusory pit or something like that; it specifically made an illusion of a pit that had a will save to avoid being convinced you were plummeting while you really were laying down on the floor.

If a spell or other effect that worked for the above trick could also create illusions of absence/voids, it would let you make illusions of pits, holes, etc. If it were designed such that it could do both, it would be a neat interaction in the above and useful on its own here. I'm thinking a specialized sort of shapeable invisibility, perhaps, which can make parts of objects, terrain, etc. invisible in specified shapes.

Of course, illusory pit would probably be a spell on its own, if it could make the very specific combination of illusions that would convince observers there is a pit, and that anybody who entered its area actually fell in. And convince those who "fell in" (and failed a save) that they're falling (probably incapacitating them). But it wouldn't be very versatile; just a good obstacle spell against non-flying foes and possibly a save-or-lose if cast under somebody.

Illusions interacting with each other
I'm thinking this one might be best done as a feat, but the thought here originates with discussions about what, exactly, illusions do in 5e. I had at one point thought that major image should react to people's pantomimes as if it were solid. Sure, they can't feel it, but pick up the major image of a sword and it moves as if you're holding it.

But that probably isn't really how it works, and would take the caster spending his action trying to make it move "naturally." And that still could screw up.

This led to me considering illusions interacting with each other. Would a feat that let your illusions interact with other illusions (or even just your own other illusions) as if both were real/solid be overpowered? I will note that another powerful use of this would be that both creation and phantom steed are illusion spells, so a created object can be used to interact with an illusory object as if it were solid, at that point (e.g. pick up an illusory coin with a creation-made glove).

This is particularly cool with phantom steed, as your silent image of a bridge could carry the steed over a river, with you on it. And your illusion of a floating platform could similarly hold it up. It would be potentially very potent. (That said, I'm inspired by it because I still find phantom steed to be kind-of lackluster and particularly disappointing as an Illusion, as it currently stands, so...it could be way overpowered.)

Illusory Light
Pretty much all of the illusion spells say they cannot create light, which makes a certain amount of sense. I'm thinking, however, of a spell which creates an illusory light source, whose illusory light interacts with other illusions. That is, it can light them up (even if it can't light up real things). It may also create an illusion of lighting up real things (though will fail to reveal any details not visible without the light) in a deceptive sort of way. So that book LOOKS lit, but is still somehow hard to read/see. A particularly cool thing this might do is shed illusory light that is visible even in magical darkness, but again only lights up illusions within that darkness.

This stems from an older idea I'd had of a devious illusionist casting magical darkness, then putting up an illusion of the space within, so that people don't realize the darkness is there. Selectively leaving things out of the illusion would make them effectively invisible (though if it's not magical darkness, those with Darkvision would see them in black-and-white...which would be confusing in its own right).

Illusory Weather and Environmental Conditions
Hallucinatory terrain and mirage arcane can change an environment, but they can't make day into night, night into day, or change prevailing weather or temperature. While there's a powerful spell for actual weather control, would it be reasonable to have an illusion spell or family thereof which could change apparent time-of-day, change apparent weather conditions, or make it feel hotter or colder than it is? Higher-level, it might actually provide protection from dangerous natural heat or cold; lower-level, it might be dangerous because it fools you into thinking you're comfortable when you're really burning up or freezing.




Anyway, thoughts on whether these work best as feats, spells, or something else? What level spells, if so, and how would you really construct them? Like I said, these are rough ideas right now. What would you do to balance them if they're too strong or too weak to be good uses of spell slots or ASIs?

[Ninja_Prawn]

You have some seriously interesting ideas here! I wouldn't mind trying my hand at 'brewing a few spells along these lines, if I can find the time.

Oh, and a while back Socratov wrote a spell called Ninja_Prawn's Brilliant Fusion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20471260&postcount=10) that lets you cast two spells at once. That could be one way to approach the Invisibility plus Silent Image combo (though you'd have to modify the text to allow illusions).

Or it could be a metamagic ability.

Segev's Deceptive Duplicate
3rd-level illusion

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 30 feet
Components: V, S, M (a bit of fleece encased in gum arabic)
Duration: Concentration, up to 10 minutes

Choose a medium or smaller object you can see within range. When you cast this spell, the object becomes invisible and an illusory duplicate appears in its place. The double is purely visual; it isn't accompanied by sound, smell, or other sensory effects.
You can use your action to cause the double to move to any spot within range. As the double changes location, you can alter its appearance so that its movements appear natural for it. For example, if you create a double of a pile of bones, you can make it appear to rise as a skeleton and then move it, altering the image as it goes so that it appears to be walking.
Physical interaction with the double reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it. A creature that uses its action to examine the double 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 double becomes faint and translucent for it, but the original is not revealed.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 6th level or higher, you may target a medium or smaller creature instead of an object. An unwilling creature may make a Wisdom saving throw to resist the effect. When cast on a creature, the double lasts for the duration, but the invisibility ends if the creature attacks or casts a spell.

[Tanarii]

I'm not sure there is a problem with an illusion making things invisible, or holes, provided the illusion can explicitly affect the thing.

For example, since Minor Illusion can only create objects, it clearly can't make things invisible or a hole. (Unless it's the street art version of one, the "object" being chalk or paint on the ground.) Other spells that create an illusion of an object, creature of visible phenomena (Silent Image, Major Image, Programmed Image) would have the specific issues you described though, because they are creating a new thing, not modifying the appearance of an existing thing.

However, Disguise Self allows you to appear thinner or shorter. The description explicitly mentions people trying to touch you encountering your body before the illusion's appearance of where your body is in such cases. That means it's removed the real you from view.

So it's not something inherent to illusions. It's about what effect the illusion is creating, and what it affects.

[Segev]

I'm not sure there is a problem with an illusion making things invisible, or holes, provided the illusion can explicitly affect the thing.

(...)

Disguise Self allows you to appear thinner or shorter. The description explicitly mentions people trying to touch you encountering your body before the illusion's appearance of where your body is in such cases. That means it's removed the real you from view.

So it's not something inherent to illusions. It's about what effect the illusion is creating, and what it affects.

Hm, that's a good point. I had forgotten (in this context) about those clauses in disguise self and seeming. But yes, I agree, there's no reason an illusion couldn't be created to make holes, turn objects invisible, etc.

The question is how best to go about it. Lots of specific spells? One spell that does it all (somehow)? And how to interact them with other effects, if at all (e.g. the illusion of a suit of armor coming to life, leaving the real suit of armor invisible against the wall).

[tieren]

I think some of this already goes on table to table.

I've heard of people using illusions to hide things, maybe even the whole party, with things like "I make an illusion of an empty room", somebody looks in the door, sees an empty room and goes on to search somewhere else.

You could say "I make an illusion that makes it appear the corpse isn't lying on the ground anymore and is really standing in the same space".

[Tanarii]

I've heard of people using illusions to hide things, maybe even the whole party, with things like "I make an illusion of an empty room", somebody looks in the door, sees an empty room and goes on to search somewhere else.

You could say "I make an illusion that makes it appear the corpse isn't lying on the ground anymore and is really standing in the same space".
Using what spells? Because most 5e illusions are pretty specific in what they create or modify, even when they are broadly written to allow flexibility.

For example, Minor Illusions can only create motionless objects. Not moving objects, creatures or visible phenomena. Silent Illusion, Major Image and Programmed Illusion only create objects, creatures, or visible phenomena. None of those could be used to create an illusion of an empty room, or make it appear corpses aren't lying on the ground any more. They create new things, they don't remove old things. (Note: you could create an illusion of something over the corpse on the ground, of course.)

[Segev]

As an attempt to tackle at least part of these thoughts...

Magic Eraser
Level 2 Illusion
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: 60 feet
Components: S, M (a bit of gum Arabic)
Duration: 10 minutes or the duration of the associated spell (see text)
Choose a visible illusion that is a result of a spell you have cast, or a region no greater than a cube 15 feet on a side. If you choose an illusion, you may not only cause it to create visual phenomena, but you may have it create illusions of absence or void. Thus, a silent image of an orc could seem to open a door, rendering the real door invisible, or a minor illusion of a window could be looked through. Creatures who perceive the illusion for what it is also dimly see what is rendered invisible by this spell, and can tell the difference between real things rendered invisible and illusory things rendered transparent. This spell may be explicitly cast in the same round as another illusion which it targets.

If you choose a region, for the next 10 minutes, you may selectively make objects, structures, and environmental elements within that cube invisible. You may make parts of things invisible (creating apparent holes or gaps) or entire things invisible (hiding a table in the middle of a room, for example). While the spell lasts, you may take an action on your turn to render as many additional valid targets in the region invisible, and make visible other things rendered invisible by this spell, as long as you are within range.

You perceive things rendered invisible by this spell as partially transparent, and are able to notice and avoid them but they provide no concealment to your sight. Creatures which interact with the region may make an Investigation check against your spell DC as an action on their turn; if they succeed, they perceive things rendered invisible by this spell as you do. Objects held or worn by other creatures cannot be made invisible by this spell, and picking up an object renders it visible.

[Tanarii]

Other possibilities are an alternate Illusionist class feature (ie replace Malable Illusions or something), a new Metamagic (although might be a bit niche), or a new Invocation. To cover the three Arcane blaster/utility classes. Not sure how to cover Bards.

[Hrugner]

You could certainly have an illusionist with blindsight go into a magically darkened room and create an illusion of what the room would look like if it were lit up. Since the illusion can't interact with light, and magical darkness is somehow projected outward from a source like a light, the illusion should be resistant to magical darkness. I think, I'm not sure. The more I think about it, the more I think illusion as a school and as a mechanic requires more specificity.

[Theodoxus]

Mislead is a 5th level spell... I would suspect that anything similar would likewise need to be higher level... though I don't know how much of a boost in spell level the whole 'sensing through your illusory clone' is.

[tieren]

Using what spells? Because most 5e illusions are pretty specific in what they create or modify, even when they are broadly written to allow flexibility.

For example, Minor Illusions can only create motionless objects. Not moving objects, creatures or visible phenomena. Silent Illusion, Major Image and Programmed Illusion only create objects, creatures, or visible phenomena. None of those could be used to create an illusion of an empty room, or make it appear corpses aren't lying on the ground any more. They create new things, they don't remove old things. (Note: you could create an illusion of something over the corpse on the ground, of course.)

Silent image for example.

Just inside the door make an object just larger than the door that looks like an empty room when viewed from outside the door. The illusion itself can be 10x10, but utilize forced perspective and such to appear to be a representation of a larger empty space, kind of like the image of an empty room on a greenscreen.

[Tanarii]

Okay that could work. You're basically blocking the door with a photo-realistic painting of an empty room. It might be fairly easy to discern something is weird in that case, since you're using perspective, or it might not. Probably depends on the specifics.

Another way to do that would be a freestanding illusionary veil blocking the view of everything behind it, similar to a theatre backdrop, replacing it with whatever the illusionist wants to appear there instead. Again the potential for perspective giving things away, but I can see it working effectively in many cases. Similar to a hunter's hide.

[Segev]

I believe forced-perspective tricks fail when parallax comes into play. That is, if you're not looking at them from exactly the right angle, the distortions become obvious quickly. This is especially obvious when moving. Now, I also think that the deeper the fake is, the less impact this has, but it's still going to be there.


It's worth noting that mislead actually renders a moving creature (the caster) invisible, not just a stationary object. And moving doesn't break it. The objects in this spell being moved (well, "picked up,") causes them to become visible again.

I'm not convinced 2nd level is the right level for it, mind, but I'm basing it on it being roughly on par with invisibility for utility. Gives up moveability, but is useful for increasing fidelity of your other illusions. And for hiding specific things. Or peering through walls, honestly. If you don't mind people peering back at you.

I can't see it at 5th level. Even 4th seems a bit much. By 3rd, we're flying. Is this as powerful as flying?

[tieren]

I believe forced-perspective tricks fail when parallax comes into play. That is, if you're not looking at them from exactly the right angle, the distortions become obvious quickly. This is especially obvious when moving. Now, I also think that the deeper the fake is, the less impact this has, but it's still going to be there.



I agree which is why I think its appropriate for a 1st level spell, anyone not paying much attention may not notice, somebody looking at it closer may need an int check, seems like a decent enough use to me.

I was also thinking it could be used this way in a corridor where the perspective doesn't change much from straight ahead. An approaching patrol may just see a long empty hallway ahead, and suddenly they walk through the illusion and are surrounded by the party of adventurers.

[Segev]

I agree which is why I think its appropriate for a 1st level spell, anyone not paying much attention may not notice, somebody looking at it closer may need an int check, seems like a decent enough use to me.

I was also thinking it could be used this way in a corridor where the perspective doesn't change much from straight ahead. An approaching patrol may just see a long empty hallway ahead, and suddenly they walk through the illusion and are surrounded by the party of adventurers.

That is actually a fairly clever way to do it.

[Douche]

Trust me, I've tried making Illusory holes a bunch of times, but it's never as good as the real thing... :smallfrown:

[Segev]

Trust me, I've tried making Illusory holes a bunch of times, but it's never as good as the real thing... :smallfrown:

Use mirage arcane. The illusory holes you put in the terrain are functionally there due to the ability to delete things and the tactile properties of the illusion. The only restriction is that you have to follow the general lay of the land, and can't entirely remove extant structures (they have to keep their general size...as a minimum).

But a hole should be perfectly doable. It's silly powerful. But then, it's a 7th level spell, so...

[Douche]

Use mirage arcane. The illusory holes you put in the terrain are functionally there due to the ability to delete things and the tactile properties of the illusion. The only restriction is that you have to follow the general lay of the land, and can't entirely remove extant structures (they have to keep their general size...as a minimum).

But a hole should be perfectly doable. It's silly powerful. But then, it's a 7th level spell, so...

Yeah, but, ya know, making your own imaginary hole isn't the same. When you use a real hole it wants you to fill it. When you make an illusion of a hole you're just lying to yourself. To each his own, I suppose, but I don't think you can compare it to the real thing.

[Segev]

Yeah, but, ya know, making your own imaginary hole isn't the same. When you use a real hole it wants you to fill it. When you make an illusion of a hole you're just lying to yourself. To each his own, I suppose, but I don't think you can compare it to the real thing.

Of course you can! In fact, you just did, and decided you liked real ones better.



That said, the point behind "illusory holes" is more the illusion-of-void. The ability to create a 3D image of "nothing" that lets you have illusions do more than overlay, but out-and-out replace (even when they have holes where the object they're replacing does not).

It has other uses, too - peering through walls is convenient, if you don't mind those on the other side seeing you as well. But as has come up in the thread on minor illusion, the desire to be able to trick people into thinking there's a gap, a hole, a pit, etc., exists, but is not possible with anything short of hallucinatory terrain as things stand.

Heck, tricking a charging barbarian into charging you through an illusory door in a wall so he slams full-force into the invisible part of the wall he thinks is an opening is just hilarious. ;)

As discussed in my first post in this thread, though, there's a lot of flexibility that is added to illusion use when things can look like they're not where they really are as well as adding new things to a scene.

[Douche]

Listen, man, if you want to go fashioning your own artificial holes out of thin air, that's fine. I'm just saying that I prefer to use natural holes. Using artificial holes just feels wrong to me.

[Segev]

Listen, man, if you want to go fashioning your own artificial holes out of thin air, that's fine. I'm just saying that I prefer to use natural holes. Using artificial holes just feels wrong to me.

To be fair, all holes are a little boring.

[Segev]

Here's another one. This one's trying to basically make illusory light that can light up other illusions, but can't replace a simple light spell or real torch for illuminating reality. Amongst tricks specifically in mind here: magically dark room with a silent image inside that is lit up by this spell, causing an entirely false impression of what's in there. Would do creepy things as people walked in and found themselves "turning invisible" or "vanishing." Since they're not illuminated by the illusory light, and the room is otherwise magically dark.

Illusory Illumination
1st level illusion
Range: 60 ft.
Components: V, M (a bit of reflective material)
Duration: 10 minutes
You create an image of a light source or light sources which all fit within a 15 ft. cube. They can be anything you like, from "sourceless ambient light" to "a window through which the sun shines" to a torch or set thereof to a chandellier...anything which could shed light.

The light they shed appears real, and dances on existing surfaces realistically, but will not illuminate anything that is in the dark. So while it could make it look like it was casting flickering light on an otherwise-illuminated book, it wouldn't make the book more visible without another source of light. On the other hand, this illusory light is visible even in magical darkness, and will illuminate other illusory objects within its radius. The light can illuminate anything illusory within the 15 ft. cube, and can dimly illuminate illusions out to 20 feet beyond that cube.

[Saeviomage]

Using what spells? Because most 5e illusions are pretty specific in what they create or modify, even when they are broadly written to allow flexibility.

For example, Minor Illusions can only create motionless objects. Not moving objects, creatures or visible phenomena.

I don't see anything that supports this point of view. If you're drawing on the lack of the paragraph on movement that appears in silent illusion, then I would point out to you that apparently objects produced with creation also must be totally immobile. As must conjured phantom steeds. And mirage arcana. In fact why are we restricting ourselves to illusion spells?

The paragraph which is your only conceivable reference is clarifying that when you move the area of effect of an illusion, you don't get adverse effects that ruin the illusion. It's only present in illusion spells which have a limited area of effect that can be moved about within range.


Silent Illusion, Major Image and Programmed Illusion only create objects, creatures, or visible phenomena. None of those could be used to create an illusion of an empty room, or make it appear corpses aren't lying on the ground any more.

An empty room is an object. So is a portable hole. In fact so is a pile of dirt with a hole in it.


They create new things, they don't remove old things. (Note: you could create an illusion of something over the corpse on the ground, of course.)
Why? What's the reasoning here? Where is the problem if you allow it? Is there one beyond "I don't like my illusionists being able to do things"?

[Tanarii]

I don't see anything that supports this point of view. If you're drawing on the lack of the paragraph on movement that appears in silent illusion, then I would point out to you that apparently objects produced with creation also must be totally immobile. As must conjured phantom steeds. And mirage arcana. In fact why are we restricting ourselves to illusion spells?

The paragraph which is your only conceivable reference is clarifying that when you move the area of effect of an illusion, you don't get adverse effects that ruin the illusion. It's only present in illusion spells which have a limited area of effect that can be moved about within range.Minor illusion specifies it can create an illusion of objects. Not that they can move around.

Silent Image and Major Image allows the illusion to move around, appearing real as it does so.

Phantom Steed is quasi-real phantasm as opposed to an illusion, and it definitely allows the phantasm to move around.

Mirage Arcane doesn't allow the created terrain to move around, because that would be silly. But interestingly, since physical interaction (or investigation) can't break the illusion, it does allow individual components to be interacted with and moved around by someone ie a rock or stick being removed from the area.

(Edit: if you mean that nothing says a Minor Illusion object must remain motionless as in not moving around but moving in place, yeah, that's a different thing. A minor illusion hot steam swirling above an actually cold puddle of water would be an example of a not motionless and immobile in that manner. And I'll grant saying that doesn't work would probably be particulary restrictive.)


An empty room is an object. So is a portable hole. In fact so is a pile of dirt with a hole in it.Someone tried to claim this in a different thread. Under what definition of 'object' do you think nothingness qualifies as an object? (The other poster was only able to provide definitions that made it clear nothingness was in fact definitely not an object.)

The walls of an empty room is an object. The insides of a portable hole is an object. The pile of dirt around the hole is an object. But the nothingness in between is not an object. Creating nothingness isn't covered by creating an object.


Why? What's the reasoning here? Where is the problem if you allow it? Is there one beyond "I don't like my illusionists being able to do things"?It's invisibility, and it's a kind that isn't broken by attacking.

I prefer "I don't like illusionists trying to gain a mechanical advantage because they think the spells should be able to do something it doesn't do".

[Segev]

I don't see anything that supports this point of view. If you're drawing on the lack of the paragraph on movement that appears in silent illusion, then I would point out to you that apparently objects produced with creation also must be totally immobile. As must conjured phantom steeds. And mirage arcana. In fact why are we restricting ourselves to illusion spells?

The paragraph which is your only conceivable reference is clarifying that when you move the area of effect of an illusion, you don't get adverse effects that ruin the illusion. It's only present in illusion spells which have a limited area of effect that can be moved about within range.You're largely correct, though I think with Tanarii's clarification, all three of us might be on the same page. Minor illusion can only create objects, and it can't change where its AoE is. But having an illusory object "move in place" (e.g. a shrub whose leaves are rustling in the wind, or that swirling steam over water) seems reasonable.


An empty room is an object. So is a portable hole. In fact so is a pile of dirt with a hole in it.

Why? What's the reasoning here? Where is the problem if you allow it? Is there one beyond "I don't like my illusionists being able to do things"?

The illusion spells in question say they can add things. They say nothing about being able to subtract them. (This is why I want something like my "add holes" spell I threw together earlier in this thread.) An illusion of a box that covers a real corpse would work to obscure the corpse because there's a visible item in the line of sight. An illusion of an empty room that looks just like the extant room except the corpse isn't there would require REMOVING the corpse; you aren't laying anything OVER it to obscure it.

You might be able to pull off a forced-perspective trick, or overlay the corpse with a pattern/color scheme which makes it blend in with the floor or something. But you can't make it effectively invisible. You can only add things, not subtract them, with the spells we're discussing.

Mirage arcane is the only official illusion spell I know of that doesn't expressly call out rendering things invisible which can remove things as well as add them. (It can, for example, turn difficult terrain into normal terrain, which means it's able to make those thorny briars invisible and intangible.)

[Segev]

Now for an effect I think could be achieved in a few ways, whether as a feat or something else. Here, I'm going to try it as a cantrip, on the grounds that those are surprisingly precious resources even for wizards and clerics (who normally would not find a new spell to be that costly to obtain).

Shadow Infusion
Illusion cantrip
Casting time: 1 action
Range: Sight
Components: S, M (a bit of black soot)
Duration: See text
When you cast this spell on an illusion you created which you can see, you infuse it with just a little bit of shadow stuff. This renders it just slightly more real, giving it the ability to interact with other illusions as if both of them were real. A silent image of a goblin infused with shadows could thus pick up a minor illusion of a coin, or open a minor illusion of a door. A shadow infused minor illusion of a wall could stop a major image of a goblin (until it climbed over), or halt a phantom steed. A glove that is a creation infused with shadow would let its wearer pick up and hold illusory objects.

This spell's duration is as long as the affected illusion remains.

[Saeviomage]

You're largely correct, though I think with Tanarii's clarification, all three of us might be on the same page. Minor illusion can only create objects, and it can't change where its AoE is. But having an illusory object "move in place" (e.g. a shrub whose leaves are rustling in the wind, or that swirling steam over water) seems reasonable.

Yep, good. We're in agreement.


The illusion spells in question say they can add things. They say nothing about being able to subtract them. (This is why I want something like my "add holes" spell I threw together earlier in this thread.) An illusion of a box that covers a real corpse would work to obscure the corpse because there's a visible item in the line of sight. An illusion of an empty room that looks just like the extant room except the corpse isn't there would require REMOVING the corpse; you aren't laying anything OVER it to obscure it.

You might be able to pull off a forced-perspective trick, or overlay the corpse with a pattern/color scheme which makes it blend in with the floor or something. But you can't make it effectively invisible. You can only add things, not subtract them, with the spells we're discussing.

Right now, I can walk into the next room and turn on a 3d tv, and see a chasm that appears to have depth shown on a flat surface that functions from a wide range of angles.

Why bother creating unwritten additional restrictions on the spells and then creating MORE spells to remove them? If the effects you are achieving aren't unbalanced, effectively you're just saying "illusion spells count as two preparation slots and two spell slots, take 2 rounds to cast, cost twice as much to scribe and take twice as many slots to learn". Your spell above, for instance: it doesn't let you do anything that you can't already do with the existing illusions.

Now a magic item or spell that lets you interact with illusions as if they were real would be pretty cool.


Mirage arcane is the only official illusion spell I know of that doesn't expressly call out rendering things invisible which can remove things as well as add them. (It can, for example, turn difficult terrain into normal terrain, which means it's able to make those thorny briars invisible and intangible.)
No, it's the only spell which expressly has one example of something that could only be done via removal AND it doesn't have any specific rules text to do so. It just lists "x could look like a chasm". I think it's a stretch to suggest that other spells without that specific example cannot do that.


It's invisibility, and it's a kind that isn't broken by attacking.

How is it not broken by attacking? Any attack you make will have to pass through it, breaking the illusion. Additionally, compared with the 2nd level invisibility spell, it cannot move and lasts 1/60th the duration, plus if anyone 'investigates' it, it has a chance of breaking it. It's not functionally different from putting an illusory barrel in the room to hide behind... except for the fact that it's proof against lazy DMs stocking dungeons with empty rooms.

[Segev]

Right now, I can walk into the next room and turn on a 3d tv, and see a chasm that appears to have depth shown on a flat surface that functions from a wide range of angles.The only 3D technology of the sort you're discussing requires either a very specific angle and distance (e.g. what a 3DS can pull off) or special glasses which ensure that two images are properly sorted to go to the correct eye to create the illusion of depth.

The closest other thing I can think of is some very well-made "holographic" images that are most common on some DVD boxes, but they're still obviously fake due to "jumping" after a few degrees of motion.


Why bother creating unwritten additional restrictions on the spells and then creating MORE spells to remove them? If the effects you are achieving aren't unbalanced, effectively you're just saying "illusion spells count as two preparation slots and two spell slots, take 2 rounds to cast, cost twice as much to scribe and take twice as many slots to learn". Your spell above, for instance: it doesn't let you do anything that you can't already do with the existing illusions.Honestly, it'd be cool if this could be done without additional spells, but I'm not creating a restriction when I say that the spell says it makes an image of an object. Or the higher-level versions make images of objects, creatures, or phenomena. You might be able to claim that "a void" is a "phenomenon," but you're treading on thin rhetorical ice to do so. "A void" is really just "nothing there."

It would be very cool if major image+silent image could create the illusion of a real egg cracking and exploding to reveal a tiny dragon flying out, leaving a cracked shell and no visible egg behind. (Major image for the dragon and silent image for the broken egg.) But it just doesn't support that. It can create the broken egg, but it can't create the absence of the existing egg. Not as written.

Though I admit, I know there's disagreement over what the limits of the spells are. It is not my goal to create air-breathing mermaid spells. This is why I am so interested in precisely establishing the abilities and limits of the spells already in place. It is just as bad, to me, to create an air-breathing mermaid spell as it is to want to be able to do something with a spell only to discover it can't do it.


Now a magic item or spell that lets you interact with illusions as if they were real would be pretty cool.The spell as written only lets your illusions interact with others as if they were real. You have to game it a bit to let yourself do so. (I confess that a huge part of the inspiration here is that I keep wanting my phantom steed to have the fact that it's an illusion be useful. Having it able to gallop across a silent image of a bridge would be pretty useful.)


No, it's the only spell which expressly has one example of something that could only be done via removal AND it doesn't have any specific rules text to do so. It just lists "x could look like a chasm". I think it's a stretch to suggest that other spells without that specific example cannot do that.It would be if those spells didn't specify exactly what they could create, and "a chasm" or "a pit" or "an illusion of nothing there" were not on the list. I can see why people think otherwise, and I'm usually one for wanting to get every last bit of use out of something, but I can't see how "you can create an image of an object" translates to "you can make an object invisible."


How is it not broken by attacking? Any attack you make will have to pass through it, breaking the illusion.Halfling or gnome wizard stands in his "illusion of nothing" that's in his 5 ft. square, and casts touch spells through his owl familiar. Shocking grasp is a good choice, since it shuts down reactions. This is just one example. A willingness to cast higher-level spells that don't have an obvious link to the caster would work, as well.


Additionally, compared with the 2nd level invisibility spell, it cannot move and lasts 1/60th the duration, plus if anyone 'investigates' it, it has a chance of breaking it. It's not functionally different from putting an illusory barrel in the room to hide behind... except for the fact that it's proof against lazy DMs stocking dungeons with empty rooms.It is fundamentally and functionally different from putting up an illusory barrel behind which to hide.

As an example of what I would be planning if your interpretation worked in next week's game, based on how last night's ended, let me set the stage by saying we came across a cavern in a volcano wherein fire elementals were clearly defending an egg from some sort demonic or hellish hounds (not sure if they're hell hounds or not, but it doesn't matter). We are here on a mission to rescue that egg. The egg and elementals are on a platform out in the middle of a lake of lava. We arrived at a cave exit overlooking said lake from the cavern wall, a good 15 feet from the nearest edge of the platform.

If these spells worked as you suggested, I would cast silent image to have a sparkly fog rise up around the egg, very obviously, and then fly over to coalesce near me (leaving "nothing" where the egg is). I would then cast minor illusion of the egg inside the mist, and let silent image end with a flourish, drawing the enemy off of the egg.

If I instead made an illusion of a big box around the egg, all that would do is tell the hounds they have to shatter or break open the box to get to it. Their goal remains to push to the center of the platform to get to the egg.

What I am planning to do is cast minor image out near the egg, of a sound set to go off next round (an ogre landing and yelling). Then I'll cast silent image next round to have an ogre appear and run out of the cave behind me, leap onto the platform, and land loudly, yelling...with his massive foot completely covering (and thus appearing to have crushed and smothered) the egg. I'll cast one more minor image on the third round of more yelling, with an image of a thick, yellow-tinged clear liquid shot through with red lines and some bits of gore leaking out from under the ogre's foot. The ogre will be too stupid to realize it's crushed the egg its defending.



The fundamental difference is the same as the jokes surrounding Solid Snake and his box. It's kind-of silly, sometimes, how a box that wasn't there before goes unremarked. And how nobody ever notices that it has moved. Yes, I know, change blindness is a very real thing. But it isn't 100%. And the difference between a barrel to hide behind in a room with a few other things (which apparently weren't sufficient for hiding) and an illusion of "nothing there" (i.e. invisibility) is that nobody is going to check behind an invisible object, nor even necessarily poke or shake or try to open it to see if a fugitive is hiding inside.

And minor illusion may only last 1 minute, but it's concentration-free invisibility if run as you suggest, which is honestly just as useful as concentration-requiring mobile invisibility of a longer duration, especially when you can just re-cast it as often as you want. (Admittedly, having to find a way to hide your voice is a downside, but not as big as running out of 2nd level spell slots.)

[PoeticDwarf]

It are some cool ideas. Illusionists aren't weak but with other spells it's very nice

[Saeviomage]

The only 3D technology of the sort you're discussing requires either a very specific angle and distance (e.g. what a 3DS can pull off) or special glasses which ensure that two images are properly sorted to go to the correct eye to create the illusion of depth.

Just a plug for the company I work for...
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-3d.html


Honestly, it'd be cool if this could be done without additional spells, but I'm not creating a restriction when I say that the spell says it makes an image of an object. Or the higher-level versions make images of objects, creatures, or phenomena. You might be able to claim that "a void" is a "phenomenon," but you're treading on thin rhetorical ice to do so. "A void" is really just "nothing there."

It would be very cool if major image+silent image could create the illusion of a real egg cracking and exploding to reveal a tiny dragon flying out, leaving a cracked shell and no visible egg behind. (Major image for the dragon and silent image for the broken egg.) But it just doesn't support that. It can create the broken egg, but it can't create the absence of the existing egg. Not as written.

No, not as read.


The spell as written only lets your illusions interact with others as if they were real. You have to game it a bit to let yourself do so. (I confess that a huge part of the inspiration here is that I keep wanting my phantom steed to have the fact that it's an illusion be useful. Having it able to gallop across a silent image of a bridge would be pretty useful.)

Now this is actually a pretty cool idea. As is the idea of conjuring an illusion that can attack someone else's illusion. I would suggest having an upgraded silent image that has the "interacts with other illusions" text rather than a spell which simply makes illusions interact with each other. It's hard to justify spending known slots on a spell which does nothing on it's own, and it's hard to balance a spell which by it's nature relies on combining other spells.


It would be if those spells didn't specify exactly what they could create, and "a chasm" or "a pit" or "an illusion of nothing there" were not on the list. I can see why people think otherwise, and I'm usually one for wanting to get every last bit of use out of something, but I can't see how "you can create an image of an object" translates to "you can make an object invisible."

Halfling or gnome wizard stands in his "illusion of nothing" that's in his 5 ft. square, and casts touch spells through his owl familiar. Shocking grasp is a good choice, since it shuts down reactions. This is just one example. A willingness to cast higher-level spells that don't have an obvious link to the caster would work, as well.

He can do the exact same thing without line of sight at all, and he can do all of those things with illusions of smoke, fog, barrels, walls, what have you.


It is fundamentally and functionally different from putting up an illusory barrel behind which to hide.

As an example of what I would be planning if your interpretation worked in next week's game, based on how last night's ended, let me set the stage by saying we came across a cavern in a volcano wherein fire elementals were clearly defending an egg from some sort demonic or hellish hounds (not sure if they're hell hounds or not, but it doesn't matter). We are here on a mission to rescue that egg. The egg and elementals are on a platform out in the middle of a lake of lava. We arrived at a cave exit overlooking said lake from the cavern wall, a good 15 feet from the nearest edge of the platform.

If these spells worked as you suggested, I would cast silent image to have a sparkly fog rise up around the egg, very obviously, and then fly over to coalesce near me (leaving "nothing" where the egg is). I would then cast minor illusion of the egg inside the mist, and let silent image end with a flourish, drawing the enemy off of the egg.

... you've a problem there. Unless the egg starts within 15' of you, you can't make it disappear AND make the mist float over to you at the same time, because the silent image won't cover both things at once.

Finally - unless this is an enormous egg, you could achieve what you want only for real with a single casting of mage hand.


If I instead made an illusion of a big box around the egg, all that would do is tell the hounds they have to shatter or break open the box to get to it. Their goal remains to push to the center of the platform to get to the egg.

What I am planning to do is cast minor image out near the egg, of a sound set to go off next round (an ogre landing and yelling). Then I'll cast silent image next round to have an ogre appear and run out of the cave behind me, leap onto the platform, and land loudly, yelling...with his massive foot completely covering (and thus appearing to have crushed and smothered) the egg. I'll cast one more minor image on the third round of more yelling, with an image of a thick, yellow-tinged clear liquid shot through with red lines and some bits of gore leaking out from under the ogre's foot. The ogre will be too stupid to realize it's crushed the egg its defending.

... in other words a very, very similar outcome. Which is kind of my point: the only thing really changing is the flavour text here.


The fundamental difference is the same as the jokes surrounding Solid Snake and his box. It's kind-of silly, sometimes, how a box that wasn't there before goes unremarked. And how nobody ever notices that it has moved. Yes, I know, change blindness is a very real thing. But it isn't 100%. And the difference between a barrel to hide behind in a room with a few other things (which apparently weren't sufficient for hiding) and an illusion of "nothing there" (i.e. invisibility) is that nobody is going to check behind an invisible object, nor even necessarily poke or shake or try to open it to see if a fugitive is hiding inside.

Except "peering around the supposedly empty room" is spending an action investigating. If they were going to look behind barrels because they think someone is there, then they're going to get the chance to defeat the illusion if they're scrutinizing an empty room.


And minor illusion may only last 1 minute, but it's concentration-free invisibility if run as you suggest, which is honestly just as useful as concentration-requiring mobile invisibility of a longer duration, especially when you can just re-cast it as often as you want. (Admittedly, having to find a way to hide your voice is a downside, but not as big as running out of 2nd level spell slots.)
Concentration free, immobile, breaks-if-someone-spends-an-action invisibility. So what?

[Segev]

Just a plug for the company I work for...
http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-3d.htmlInteresting. If you can discuss the science and technology behind that without violating NDAs or proprietary secrets, I'd be interested in talking more about this in a private message. Or another thread, if you prefer.

For this topic, however, the requirement is that you be able to demonstrate an ability to produce a screen of an image that has, at most, "in-place" motion (e.g. leaves rustling or flames flickering; not a goblin pacing in a circle) which can appear 3D from all angles where the face of the screen is visible, and not be just a reflection (which is doable, obviously, with a mirror).


No, not as read.As written, as I described later in another part of the post you quoted. The spells in question list what they can make. Pits, holes, and the like are not listed. They are not "objects, creatures, or phenomena." They are absences. (I really do wish it was otherwise.)


Now this is actually a pretty cool idea. As is the idea of conjuring an illusion that can attack someone else's illusion. I would suggest having an upgraded silent image that has the "interacts with other illusions" text rather than a spell which simply makes illusions interact with each other. It's hard to justify spending known slots on a spell which does nothing on it's own, and it's hard to balance a spell which by it's nature relies on combining other spells.My issue with "an upgraded silent image" is that it just feels like a replacement spell; in the 5e paradigm, such an effect should be a "at higher spell slots" addition. I will consider that, though.

The reason I made it a cantrip is because I didn't want to make it a feat. Making it a cantrip keeps it at a fixed resource cost (a consumed slot of something known) without making it extend into consumable daily resources. I'm not sure if I'd put it just on the wizard list, or on wizard, warlock, and sorcerer lists. It also, as a cantrip, prevents the wizard from just adding it to his spellbook; he IS spending a genuinely limited character-build resource on it. Obviously, anybody who takes it will also have spells with which to use it.


He can do the exact same thing without line of sight at all, and he can do all of those things with illusions of smoke, fog, barrels, walls, what have you.True, because familiars can share his senses.

He has a lot harder time doing this with evard's black tentacles, web, or other such spells without line of sight, though. And yes, a familiar can still enable it, but that's another spell he has to have (find familiar), so this use of minor illusion as an impromptu invisibility would remove that need.


... you've a problem there. Unless the egg starts within 15' of you, you can't make it disappear AND make the mist float over to you at the same time, because the silent image won't cover both things at once.Okay, so I have the mist just disappear. The point is, with the ability to make the egg "vanish," it's a lot easier to fool the enemy into thinking there's no point. Even with my ogre illusion, there's something to attack there, which may mean they try in hopes that the egg survived (or if they don't notice the egg yolk illusion later).


Finally - unless this is an enormous egg, you could achieve what you want only for real with a single casting of mage hand.It's about 3 feet tall on its long axis.


... in other words a very, very similar outcome. Which is kind of my point: the only thing really changing is the flavour text here.It requires a couple more spell castings, a few more actions, and still gives them a focus of something there to attack, which they might do and reveal it. It's far less guaranteed to be seen as "no reason to keep attacking there."


Except "peering around the supposedly empty room" is spending an action investigating. If they were going to look behind barrels because they think someone is there, then they're going to get the chance to defeat the illusion if they're scrutinizing an empty room.Sure, but "glanced in a room, saw it was empty, and didn't waste time searching it" wouldn't. That's the whole point of the "illusion of nothing" vs. "illusion of something to hide behind/within." The illusion of something which could hide you invites investigation. The illusion of nothing is worth a glance, and then moving on.


Concentration free, immobile, breaks-if-someone-spends-an-action invisibility. So what?Breaks-if-somebody-knows-to-spend-an-action-and-can-make-the-check invisibility, you mean. The whole point of an illusion of nothing is that it can make something seem not worth spending an action investigating. An illusion of something gives the observer something to investigate.