Yet another illusion thread

[Dalebert]

Silent Image and Major Image both say you can make an illusion of "an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon" within the limits of a certain space (emphasis mine). Now, I take that last part to make it fairly open-ended. I've tried to make an illusion of multiple creatures within a space and had one DM say "yes" and another say "no".

Here's why I think it should be more liberally-interpreted. There used to be many illusion spells. Now there aren't many. It seems absurd to me that you would need an extremely powerful illusion to, for instance, make it appear that an empty table is actually set up for a feast, or that there are various furniture pieces in an empty room, or that there is a man sitting on a chair and reading a book, which at the very least would be multiple objects even though it says "an object", singular. Even the third level version, Major Image, uses the same verbiage. Is it intended to be so bizarrely limited?

Now, that said, there are many things people try to do with illusions that I flat out say "no" to. These two spells make an illusion of something; not an illusion of something there no longer being there. For that you have to make something invisible. You can't make a table or creature disappear with one of these spells. You can't make an illusion of a pit, i.e. of a chunk of ground not being there. At best you could make a 2D illusory trick of perspective that would only trick someone if they're standing in a specific spot. The moment they move, it would look like a 2D painting of a pit with weird proportions like those extremely creative chalk drawings that do the same thing.

[ClintACK]

Interesting. I'd make a few different calls -- the pit's okay by me, but no invisible objects or people, and there's a limit to how many different things you could make. (The set table might work, in part because the place settings are all duplicates, for example.)

I've got two basic rules of thumb:
1) How hard would it be for the caster to hold the whole illusion in his head at once; and
2) How hard would it be to do in Photoshop.

The difference between a pit and an invisible object is that the whole "revealed background" in the pit is made up, whereas when you make a table disappear, what's "revealed" has to actually match the floor and wall and other objects in the room -- and it has to do that from multiple viewing angles. It's a *much* more complicated illusion than a pit. A pit is more like an inside-out object laid on top of the floor, if that makes any sense. The difference between a pit in a floor and a box on top of the floor is just visual perspective -- there's no difference in the level of detail.

[Tanarii]

Is it intended to be so bizarrely limited?Gonna chime in early: Yes. It is intended to be limited. Illusions are still incredibly powerful, because by default they are automatically accepted as real, unless a creature chooses to spend an action to Investigate them, or physically interacts with them.


Now, that said, there are many things people try to do with illusions that I flat out say "no" to. These two spells make an illusion of something; not an illusion of something there no longer being there. For that you have to make something invisible. You can't make a table or creature disappear with one of these spells. You can't make an illusion of a pit, i.e. of a chunk of ground not being there. At best you could make a 2D illusory trick of perspective that would only trick someone if they're standing in a specific spot. The moment they move, it would look like a 2D painting of a pit with weird proportions like those extremely creative chalk drawings that do the same thing.Interestingly, the 2D perspective trick is what is meant by "a visible phenomenon". If it was literally an illusion of a chalk or paint on the surface, then it'd be an object. If it's an illusion of a very real looking perspective trick, then it's a visible phenomenon.

The other most common thing that qualifies as a visible phenomenon are illusions of fog or some other thing hanging in the air. Of course, that runs into the object interaction rule as soon as anything moves into that space, so it may be of limited utility.

(Everything in this post is seriously IMO :smallwink: )

[atlas_hugged]

I haven't had this come up in my games yet, but I'd be pretty liberal with the illusions. As long as the illusion technically fits within the parameters of the spell (i.e., no trying to make a silent image loud), then I'll probably allow it.

Most illusions work with the same basic framework:

Player describes effect
Effect happens
NPCs can try to disbelieve effect, making a check against the player's spellsave DC.

As the player gets a higher proficiency, and a higher spell stat, his illusions become stronger, harder to recognize as fake. I've always imagined this as the illusions being more internallly and externally consistent. For example, a character with 8 intelligence might try to make an illusion of a gold coin. But the illusion is flawed in several ways that clue an NPC into disbelieving it. The coin might be off color, or lopsided instead of round, etc. It might even be blurry. As the character improves their proficiency and spell casting stat, the illusions become more realistic.

So going with the example of making an illusion of a pit, there might be several inconsistencies with the border of the pit that give away that it is an illusion. But as the character levels up, the number of inconsistencies gets smaller.

If an illusion is especially crazy or hard to sell, based on the context of story surrounding it, I might give the NPCs trying to investigate it advantage on their saving throws, but I wouldn't stop the player from trying.

The only time I might say no to an illusion that fits within the basic parameters of the spell, is if there was a problem player, who was making the game less fun somehow. In that case, I might need to reevaluate the process I've laid out here, for that player in particular.

[Tanarii]

So going with the example of making an illusion of a pit, there might be several inconsistencies with the border of the pit that give away that it is an illusion. But as the character levels up, the number of inconsistencies gets smaller.The biggest inconsistency with an illusion of a 3D pit is it doesn't do anything to remove the actual ground that's there intersecting with it, so all people see is the actual ground. "Nothing" is not an object, creature or visible phenomenon, so it can't be created with these illusion spells. At best you can create an 2D illusion of depth perspective of another pit floor some distance away layered over the top of the actual floor.

However, I do think it's totally fair for a DM to rule, if they so choose, that said 2D illusion perspective tricks works from any angle of viewing. In other words, unlike a chalk drawing, it isn't automatically screwed up just from moving around. In that case, it's (mostly) functionally the same as a 3D illusion, so there's no point in quibbling about it.

(Edit: anyone familiar with my previous comments on illusions from other threads will note that is a change in my previous positions. Sometimes I do actually change my mind after participating in debates instead of just hardening my position. :smallbiggrin: )

[atlas_hugged]

The biggest inconsistency with an illusion of a 3D pit is it doesn't do anything to remove the actual ground that's there intersecting with it, so all people see is the actual ground. "Nothing" is not an object, creature or visible phenomenon, so it can't be created with these illusion spells. At best you can create an 2D illusion of depth perspective of another pit floor some distance away layered over the top of the actual floor.

However, I do think it's totally fair for a DM to rule, if they so choose, that said 2D illusion perspective tricks works from any angle of viewing. In other words, unlike a chalk drawing, it isn't automatically screwed up just from moving around. In that case, it's (mostly) functionally the same as a 3D illusion, so there's no point in quibbling about it.

(Edit: anyone familiar with my previous comments on illusions from other threads will note that is a change in my previous positions. Sometimes I do actually change my mind after participating in debates instead of just hardening my position. :smallbiggrin: )

Of course, if someone was standing on the pit and not falling, the jig would be up.

Now a bigger question would be, if you allow someone to make an illusion of a hole or pit of some type, would you then allow them to make it a real hole or pit using the level 14 illusionist feature? How about a player who makes an illusion of a door, makes it real, and then walks on through it through an otherwise solid wall to the other side? My rulings are yes generally on these, because it seems to me like the illusionist mage is supposed to be a cartoon mage, and those are the sorts of things I've seen done in cartoons.

[Darth Ultron]

If the spell makes an illusion of ''a'' creature, note that is one creature.

As a house rule I've often gone something like ''one creature per intelligence point'', with the idea that the caster need to ''think'' or concentrate on the images.

[Tanarii]

Now a bigger question would be, if you allow someone to make an illusion of a hole or pit of some type, would you then allow them to make it a real hole or pit using the level 14 illusionist feature? How about a player who makes an illusion of a door, makes it real, and then walks on through it through an otherwise solid wall to the other side? My rulings are yes generally on these, because it seems to me like the illusionist mage is supposed to be a cartoon mage, and those are the sorts of things I've seen done in cartoons.Whereas my ruling would be definitely not for both, since it's now a real 2D thing layered on top of the actual thing behind it. In other words, you stand on a 'real' 2D perspective pit on top of the real ground and thus don't fall, or open the 'real' 2D door and there's a wall behind it.

Like I said, my stance is the illusion thing can't make it appear to be nothing (ie invisible). The real thing is always still there and visible unless obscured by an illusion of something else visible instead. If you try to overlay an image with another object, you see whichever one obscures the other. Similarly, a 'real' illusion still has the other real thing there to deal with.

[JellyPooga]

For me it comes down to three things;

1) How complex the desired illusion is.

2) How skilled the illusionist is.

3) What the illusionist is drawing on to create his illusion.

Creating an illusion of a pit, to use the running example, is pretty easy. It's a static feature with no moving parts. Details like the flicker of torchlight or a pebble accidentally kicked in its direction come down to the illusionists skill at altering the illusion to match the developing environment (which is where the Illusionist ability to change existing illusions comes in).

Creating an illusion of a flaming torch, on the other hand, is relatively complex; making the flame appear real, considering ambient environmental conditions such as wind shift, the actual light being generated in the area (given that the illusory torch creates no light in and of itself) and so on, is a tricky task.

Now, the complexity of an illusion also depends on what the mage has on hand for inspiration. Creating an illusion of a specific person you last met 10 years ago would be quite hard to get completely accurate because the mage only has his own memory and imagination to draw upon. Creating the illusion of someone standing right in front of the mage, on the other hand is relatively simple; it's just a case of copy/pasting the image before him.

So, in the case of a fully laden dining table, replicating a real place setting on the table a dozen times would be easy and I'd allow it. Creating the illusion of a sumptuous banquet of dozens of different dishes and courses, on the other hand, I'd likely restrict to higher level or more skilled magi.

Likewise, creating the illusion of a regiment of soldiers would be much easier if the mage has a soldier or squad of soldiers on hand to "replicate", much as the CGI guys in films find it easier to create a handful of soldier templates they can simply copy/paste to make a regiment instead of drawing up each soldier individually.

NB- Yes, I largely ignore the written limitations of illusions when deciding what I will or won't allow. Generally speaking I'm quite generous and I'll actually allow most things, but change the DC or give advantage/disadvantage to recognise it at illusory based on how convincing I think the illusion would be under the circumstances. I've even given "free" checks to recognise particularly blatant illusions as being illusory, without the usual interaction or study. Sometimes an illusion just isn't believable even in a world of magic and monsters (e.g. creating the illusion of a 30ft monster in a 10ft room is simply not going to convince anyone that it was just summoned when its head and tail are "clipping" through the walls; you don't need to touch it or take an action to notice that kind of discrepancy).

I am fair with my players though and will give them an idea of how convincing their illusion is likely to be before they actually cast the spell, giving them the option (under most circumstances) of going for a simple or more complex illusion, or changing their action altogether.

[Dalebert]

I've got two basic rules of thumb:
1) How hard would it be for the caster to hold the whole illusion in his head at once; and
2) How hard would it be to do in Photoshop.


The spell says nothing about complexity being an issue, or that certain illusions would be less realistic which would equate to a lower DC, or that a particular familiarity is required for the illusion to be more believable. Your DC is your spellcassting DC--the end. It's not based on how complicated of an illusion you attempt. It's reasonable to say you have to have seen what you're making an illusion of, but the rest is freaking magic. The magic handles most of those complications for you.

I'd posit that a hydra would be more complicated than three guards marching in formation and yet the DMs strict interpretation (one and only one creature) means I could do the hydra no problem. "Some other visible phenomenon" sure seems to me that you can make any illusion that fits within the area of the spell.

And as for this idea that you can make a single object, well that means I can't make an illusion of a person sitting in a chair and reading a book. That's a creature and at least two objects, possibly more depending on what he's wearing or if he's holding a candle to read the book by. And yet this seems like a perfectly reasonable illusion to make with Silent Image.

Can I make a stack of books? Is a stack an object? Can I make several stacks that are touching one another? Would that be treated as one object? What if there are two stacks that are connected by only one book? It just gets silly and the distinction between what is an object or not starts to seem rather arbitrary and should be irrelevant to determining what the spell can do, i.e. create a visual illusion within the area restriction of the spell.

[JellyPooga]

The spell says nothing about complexity being an issue, or that certain illusions would be less realistic which would equate to a lower DC, or that a particular familiarity is required for the illusion to be more believable. Your DC is your spellcassting DC--the end. It's not based on how complicated of an illusion you attempt. It's reasonable to say you have to have seen what you're making an illusion of, but the rest is freaking magic. The magic handles most of those complications for you.

I'd posit that a hydra would be more complicated than three guards marching in formation and yet the DMs strict interpretation (one and only one creature) means I could do the hydra no problem. "Some other visible phenomenon" sure seems to me that you can make any illusion that fits within the area of the spell.

And as for this idea that you can make a single object, well that means I can't make an illusion of a person sitting in a chair and reading a book. That's a creature and at least two objects, possibly more depending on what he's wearing or if he's holding a candle to read the book by. And yet this seems like a perfectly reasonable illusion to make with Silent Image.

Can I make a stack of books? Is a stack an object? Can I make several stacks that are touching one another? Would that be treated as one object? What if there are two stacks that are connected by only one book? It just gets silly and the distinction between what is an object or not starts to seem rather arbitrary and should be irrelevant to determining what the spell can do, i.e. create a visual illusion within the area restriction of the spell.

Your concerns over what constitutes "a single creature or object" is precisely why I throw the spells' specific rules out the window and base what I do and don't allow on the complexity of the illusion in question versus the level of the illusion spell and the skill of the illusionist. Use the rules of the spell as a guideline, but using a bit of headspace to make a judgement call is a much fairer approach.

An illusion of a man sitting in a chair reading a book is probably beyond Minor Illusion cast by a 1st level Evoker, but would be a cinch for a 20th level illusionist casting Major Illusion. IMO of course.

[Tanarii]

An illusion of a man sitting in a chair reading a book is probably beyond Minor Illusion cast by a 1st level Evoker, but would be a cinch for a 20th level illusionist casting Major Illusion. IMO of course.thats majorly overpowering Minor Illusion, since it's not possible to use it to create illusions of creatures at all.

[JellyPooga]

thats majorly overpowering Minor Illusion, since it's not possible to use it to create illusions of creatures at all.

???

Might want to re-read my post. I'm saying Minor Illusion couldn't create that illusion, but Major Image cast by a high level Illusionist could.

[Shaofoo]

???

Might want to re-read my post. I'm saying Minor Illusion couldn't create that illusion, but Major Image cast by a high level Illusionist could.

And what about anyone that has Major Image? A 5th level Evoker can learn it as well as an Illusionist. Also all Illusionist does is add more abilities based on illusions, it does nothing to the illusion spells itself beyond what it says. An Evoker with higher Intelligence will create harder to disbelieve illusions than an Illusionist could.

If you have your own system to make illusions where the complexity is depending on more factors than the spell itself then more power to you but it is useless for discussions such as this. It'd be like me saying that I'd make the 20th level Evoker have his Fire Bolts be AoE because he is that good at Evoking while the 1st level Illusionist actually gets a penalty over the spell.

[JellyPooga]

And what about anyone that has Major Image? A 5th level Evoker can learn it as well as an Illusionist. Also all Illusionist does is add more abilities based on illusions, it does nothing to the illusion spells itself beyond what it says. An Evoker with higher Intelligence will create harder to disbelieve illusions than an Illusionist could.

If you have your own system to make illusions where the complexity is depending on more factors than the spell itself then more power to you but it is useless for discussions such as this. It'd be like me saying that I'd make the 20th level Evoker have his Fire Bolts be AoE because he is that good at Evoking while the 1st level Illusionist actually gets a penalty over the spell.

The entire discussion is about taking a more liberal approach to illusions spells, so my comments are far from useless; I'm saying that taking the strictest interpretation of the rules as more of a guideline is perfectly acceptable. I do it and it works for me and my players.

Stating what the RAW insist upon is a useless addition to the discussion; the OP is aware of them.

As I've said, putting what is and isn't acceptable in the GMs court and making a judgement call based on a number of factors is my approach, including the actual spell used, the caster in question and his level/class, the illusion he's looking for and so on.

[Shaofoo]

The entire discussion is about taking a more liberal approach to illusions spells, so my comments are far from useless; I'm saying that taking the strictest interpretation of the rules as more of a guideline is perfectly acceptable. I do it and it works for me and my players.

Stating what the RAW insist upon is a useless addition to the discussion; the OP is aware of them.

As I've said, putting what is and isn't acceptable in the GMs court and making a judgement call based on a number of factors is my approach, including the actual spell used, the caster in question and his level/class, the illusion he's looking for and so on.

Well of course Rule 0 will always work if you can make it work. I didn't think that needed to be mentioned.

The problem is that you are basically putting something that is patently illegal by the rules. If you want to say "Forget about it and just do what you want" then fine and dandy but since we don't know you or your players we can't really judge whether it could actually work in general or not.

The problem is that you only present two extremes: The 1st level evoker that tries to make an old man with Minor Illusion (Impossible to anyone, even a 20th level Illusionist) and the 20th level illusionist trying to make an old man with Major Image (Possibe to anyone, including a Fighter that has access to a Major Image wand or any 5th level caster that has Major Image as part of their repertoire).

Even a "do whatever you want" still needs some structure and consistency.

[JellyPooga]

Well of course Rule 0 will always work if you can make it work. I didn't think that needed to be mentioned.

The problem is that you are basically putting something that is patently illegal by the rules. If you want to say "Forget about it and just do what you want" then fine and dandy but since we don't know you or your players we can't really judge whether it could actually work in general or not.

The problem is that you only present two extremes: The 1st level evoker that tries to make an old man with Minor Illusion (Impossible to anyone, even a 20th level Illusionist) and the 20th level illusionist trying to make an old man with Major Image (Possibe to anyone, including a Fighter that has access to a Major Image wand or any 5th level caster that has Major Image as part of their repertoire).

Even a "do whatever you want" still needs some structure and consistency.

Yet without knowing you personally or going into a massive list of specific calls I've made in play and examples I would or wouldn't allow, the best I can say is "use yer noggin" with the RAW as a guide. I've already posted in length about a few examples I've considered. What more do you want?

For instance, I could tell you that I would probably allow the "man in chair" example with Minor Illusion, but only as a static, "low-res" image; it wouldn't take a genius to notice that it's static and obviously a fake, but it might, just might, fool a passing glance.

I'm not, however, going to write an essay of my thoughts on the subject of every conceivable illusion in relation to every illusion spell, since that *would* be useless because what works for me might not suit someone else.

[Tanarii]

I'm with Shafoo on this one. It's one thing to say how you liberally interpret the rules on illusions. But you're not doing that. You've completely house-ruled them. Edit: I mean, it's totally fair to talk about how you house-rule something. But lets just be clear that's what you're doing. Not 'liberally interpreting' the RAW.

[Shaofoo]

Yet without knowing you personally or going into a massive list of specific calls I've made in play and examples I would or wouldn't allow, the best I can say is "use yer noggin" with the RAW as a guide. I've already posted in length about a few examples I've considered. What more do you want?

For instance, I could tell you that I would probably allow the "man in chair" example with Minor Illusion, but only as a static, "low-res" image; it wouldn't take a genius to notice that it's static and obviously a fake, but it might, just might, fool a passing glance.

I'm not, however, going to write an essay of my thoughts on the subject of every conceivable illusion in relation to every illusion spell, since that *would* be useless because what works for me might not suit someone else.

Nor do I want to hear your thoughts to be honest, if I may be so blunt.

I don't care how you make it work but you can't just declare that it works as some sort of system that you have cobbled up that anyone can use. You just basically said "I used Rule 0" and that is it, never going beyond that by only giving specific examples as opposed to any structure, or to say it another way "I just wing it".

Why is an illusion of a torch hard? You seem to have a big emphasis on realism when I would just say that it just makes a flaming torch and let the DC set by the spell say how good or bad the illusion is and not try to micromanage if they made the flames flicker just right with the wind. Likewise I would just allow a banquet table to be made if the spellcaster has seen enough banquet tables but of course if he wants A banquet table filled with whatever, a specific banquet table made on the fly could pose a bit more challenge but again I would rather let the DC do the talk than trying to micromanage what is available (Basically if a person who is investigating should know well enough about said banquets in said place then he gets to disbelieve at an Advantage). I would allow an army to be made without having an army next to me if I feel that the spell can support such an image.

Of course when fine details do matter, like how a person looks down to the scar, then I might micromanage but nothing more than just an Intelligence check to remember (if he has the Keen Mind feat then he just remembers no check at all) of course unless the spellcaster has been in their company enough times which then a check is unnecessary.

I don't care to hear your justification about why you use it but for someone that isn't in your group it is basically useless since your structure is "Use Rule 0 to flavor"

I am not criticizing you for using Rule 0 in your games but I don't find much value is discussing that you use Rule 0 in your games.

[JellyPooga]

I'm with Shafoo on this one. It's one thing to say how you liberally interpret the rules on illusions. But you're not doing that. You've completely house-ruled them. Edit: I mean, it's totally fair to talk about how you house-rule something. But lets just be clear that's what you're doing. Not 'liberally interpreting' the RAW.

I thought I'd made it perfectly clear that my house rule on this is just that when I said that I was throwing out the RAW in one of my first posts. I see a use in discussing it because that was my interpretation of the sort of thing the OP was looking for. I've discussed it at length, giving examples of what I'd do in some of the examples given by the OP, as well as some examples of my own and I can't codify it because if you're going to interpret such things liberally, as the OP suggests, then IMO it is entirely down to Rule 0 and personal taste. Yes, you can make minor changes or bend the rules and write it down, but when it comes to illusions, which are a tricksy subject at the best of times, I've found every codified house-rule unsatisfactory, because there's always that fringe case or unexpected player request that hasn't been considered by that interpretation or house-rule, leaving you with Rule 0 anyway.

If you or anyone else don't find it useful, fine, but you can't claim that my interpretations are useless, because those sort of interpretations are the kind of Rule 0 calls others might find useful inspiration, even if they aren't a list of specific rules. Taking inspiration from a novel or film is just as "useless" or useful as taking inspiration from another GM or Players' experience. My own inspiration for the rulings I make on illusions come, in large part, from a character in "The Deed of Paksenarrion", by Elizabeth Moon. Does that render my translation from that source useless or useful? The point is moot and very much subjective, but isn't that the point of almost any discussion of this sort? Take what you will from it, but don't insult the effort I've put into trying to help by relaying my own experience and opinion on the subject.

Peace :smallwink:

[Shaofoo]

I thought I'd made it perfectly clear that my house rule on this is just that when I said that I was throwing out the RAW in one of my first posts. I see a use in discussing it because that was my interpretation of the sort of thing the OP was looking for. I've discussed it at length, giving examples of what I'd do in some of the examples given by the OP, as well as some examples of my own and I can't codify it because if you're going to interpret such things liberally, as the OP suggests, then IMO it is entirely down to Rule 0 and personal taste. Yes, you can make minor changes or bend the rules and write it down, but when it comes to illusions, which are a tricksy subject at the best of times, I've found every codified house-rule unsatisfactory, because there's always that fringe case or unexpected player request that hasn't been considered by that interpretation or house-rule, leaving you with Rule 0 anyway.

If you or anyone else don't find it useful, fine, but you can't claim that my interpretations are useless, because those sort of interpretations are the kind of Rule 0 calls others might find useful inspiration, even if they aren't a list of specific rules. Taking inspiration from a novel or film is just as "useless" or useful as taking inspiration from another GM or Players' experience. My own inspiration for the rulings I make on illusions come, in large part, from a character in "The Deed of Paksenarrion", by Elizabeth Moon. Does that render my translation from that source useless or useful? The point is moot and very much subjective, but isn't that the point of almost any discussion of this sort? Take what you will from it, but don't insult the effort I've put into trying to help by relaying my own experience and opinion on the subject.

Peace :smallwink:

Well I never said that it is useless as a whole but it is useless for discussion because I can't relate to your thought process (if someone else can then fine).

I wouldn't oversell it if I was you and say that it might inspire because what you are doing is basically throwing out all the rules and coming up with your own system which only you know how it works. A film or novel has structure and I can at least say where I got my inspiration (I take inspiration from the setting, story, theme, characters, etc...) but you have no structure, I can't really give you much credit for "I use Rule 0". I mean at what point can a non Illusionist be able to match an illusionist in abilities (can it even happen, can a level 20 non illusionist never dream of making illusions that a fresh level 2 illusionist can?).

I think this is basically a difference in what we want in the end. I am willing to just let things roll while you desire a more intimate approach in illusions (which I could've said that your search for house rules would've been moot because I doubt there is a system exhaustive enough to think of every single situation that can arise).

Peaches... I mean peaces.

[Tanarii]

The point is moot and very much subjective, but isn't that the point of almost any discussion of this sort? Take what you will from it, but don't insult the effort I've put into trying to help by relaying my own experience and opinion on the subject.

Peace :smallwink:Yeah okay, sorry about that, I didn't mean it to be such a shut-down comment as it clearly was in retrospect.

[Dalebert]

This is the problem with illusions is just how arbitrary DMs can be about them. Jelly seems to demonstrate that to a degree I have not seen before. I feel like they already have plenty of built-in limitations. They can't actually (generally) harm anyone and only affect certain senses and have a limited size/area. To me, that's plenty. It doesn't seem intended that you are restricted to a single object or a single creature for Silent Image or Major Image because it then follows with "or some other visible phenomeon" which is WIDE open. And it's no big deal to allow that within the area of the spell considering how powerless illusions are. The thing is, if you make a bigger illusion, for instance of a room full of gnolls, you've also dramatically increased the likelihood of a physical interaction which reveals all of them to be part of an illusion.

Here's where DM judgment is call for. If you get carried away with an illusion, you potentially increase the likelihood that someone will be suspicious and thus will investigate it to see if it's real or not. It's the DM's job to roleplay the NPCs and thus decide whether a particular illusion would inspire suspicion and thus an investigation check. If they do buy the illusion, he then needs to decide how they react to it. The reaction might be to attack it immediately or touch it in some way which would mean the gig is up in one round. I could fill an empty room with furniture but now if anyone walks around in there, it's nigh inevitable that the illusion will be discovered. There's just no need to put further limits on them.

[Vogonjeltz]

Silent Image and Major Image both say you can make an illusion of "an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon" within the limits of a certain space (emphasis mine). Now, I take that last part to make it fairly open-ended. I've tried to make an illusion of multiple creatures within a space and had one DM say "yes" and another say "no".

Here's why I think it should be more liberally-interpreted. There used to be many illusion spells. Now there aren't many. It seems absurd to me that you would need an extremely powerful illusion to, for instance, make it appear that an empty table is actually set up for a feast, or that there are various furniture pieces in an empty room, or that there is a man sitting on a chair and reading a book, which at the very least would be multiple objects even though it says "an object", singular. Even the third level version, Major Image, uses the same verbiage. Is it intended to be so bizarrely limited?

Yes it's intended, and no the limitations aren't bizarre.

Some of the different illusion spells and how they scale in power:
Cantrip: Minor Illusion - Sound OR Image of an object.
1st level: Silent Image - single Obect, Creature, or Phenomena but only Visuals. With effort by caster can animate a visual.
2nd level: Mirror Image - Fake duplicates; Blur - Fuzzy creature; Phantasmal Force - Fake threat; Magic Mouth - Permanent Sound; Invisibility - Absence of creature; Silence - Absence of sound;
3rd level: Major Image - Completely real seeming single object, creature, or phenomena (includes sound, smell, temperature);
4th level: Hallucinatory Terrain - False terrain image
5th level: Mislead - Invisible + Fake Image.
6th level: Programmed Illusion - Permanent Major Image + Magic Mouth.
7th level: Mirage Arcane - Superior Hallucinatory Terrain, can create structures or hide them; Project Image - Remotely controlled Image of self; Simulacrum - Quasi-real (golem) of a creature.;


For instance, I could tell you that I would probably allow the "man in chair" example with Minor Illusion, but only as a static, "low-res" image; it wouldn't take a genius to notice that it's static and obviously a fake, but it might, just might, fool a passing glance.

That or have a Minor Illusion of the Chair (lasts for one minute, no concentration) and a Major Image of the man sitting in the chair.

Or have a real chair, major image of a man, minor image of a book or whatever.

[NNescio]

Minor Illusion of a 'lifelike' (depending on the DC) sculpture of a man sitting on a chair while reading a book.

It will be completely inanimate though, and as such won't hold up to scrutiny except from very far away.

[Dalebert]

Yes it's intended, and no the limitations aren't bizarre.

I disagree that it's intended because otherwise it IS bizarre. I described a fairly basic illusion and you went through a massive list and there's no way to make it because at no point does it have a type of illusion that specifically says "multiple creatures or objects". There isn't a 9th level illusion spell that can make this simple illusion. That's why I contend that "other visible phenomenon" is intended to cover multiples that fit within the area of the spell. Even a 6th level Programmed Illusion still uses that verbiage. You can program the illusion of the dude, but he still can't be sitting in a chair and reading a book.

[Tanarii]

That's why I contend that "other visible phenomenon" is intended to cover multiples that fit within the area of the spell.Tweet JC. I'd be interested to see what he has to say. Especially if you word it something like this, ie presenting your point of view. Obviously a tweet is limited characters, but I have faith you can frame the question appropriately. :)

[Vogonjeltz]

I disagree that it's intended because otherwise it IS bizarre. I described a fairly basic illusion and you went through a massive list and there's no way to make it because at no point does it have a type of illusion that specifically says "multiple creatures or objects". There isn't a 9th level illusion spell that can make this simple illusion. That's why I contend that "other visible phenomenon" is intended to cover multiples that fit within the area of the spell. Even a 6th level Programmed Illusion still uses that verbiage. You can program the illusion of the dude, but he still can't be sitting in a chair and reading a book.

Well, you can it just has to be multiple illusions. I.e. A real room, fake person, fake book. 2 illusions.

But no, you can't go full wish master bs on someone unless of course you use phantasmal force to make them (and only them) think something else is going on.

[Tanarii]

Some of the different illusion spells and how they scale in power:
Cantrip: Minor Illusion - Sound OR Image of an object.
1st level: Silent Image - single Obect, Creature, or Phenomena but only Visuals. With effort by caster can animate a visual.
2nd level: Mirror Image - Fake duplicates; Blur - Fuzzy creature; Phantasmal Force - Fake threat; Magic Mouth - Permanent Sound; Invisibility - Absence of creature; Silence - Absence of sound;
3rd level: Major Image - Completely real seeming single object, creature, or phenomena (includes sound, smell, temperature);
4th level: Hallucinatory Terrain - False terrain image
5th level: Mislead - Invisible + Fake Image.
6th level: Programmed Illusion - Permanent Major Image + Magic Mouth.
7th level: Mirage Arcane - Superior Hallucinatory Terrain, can create structures or hide them; Project Image - Remotely controlled Image of self; Simulacrum - Quasi-real (golem) of a creature.;That's an awesome summary! I'm going to flesh this out a bit and use it as a "primer on 5e illusions". Thanks!

[Dalebert]

Well, you can it just has to be multiple illusions. I.e. A real room, fake person, fake book. 2 illusions.

That doesn't get around the absurdity considering most illusions are concentration and even when you get around that, like with a permanent Major Image, they still don't work together. This simple concept remains impossible. You'd have to use your action to move the person and another action to then move the book he's carrying.

Similarly, there's no way to make an ant hill covered in ants (multiple creatures) or a swarm of bees or a swarm of anything. Are folks still not wrapping their heads around just how absurd this limitation is? I'd get it if it only applied to the first level Silent Image but the only true upgrades to that spell are Major Image and Programmed Illusion and they are worded the same way!

[Tanarii]

That doesn't get around the absurdity considering most illusions are concentrationIMO, there's a reason Minor Illusion isn't concentration. It's clearly intended to work in conjunction with other illusions, enhancing them. Especially the ongoing sound usage, which is awesome in conjunction with Silent Image.

[Dalebert]

I agree that Minor Image seems intended to compliment Silent Image with sound, but Major Image also gets around that. But that's not the issue. The issue is that IF you choose to interpret "other visible phenomenon" strictly vs. broadly, there are countless simple illusions that just aren't possible but that intuitively should be. It's a bizarre, arbitrary limitation to say "one object" or "one creature" when a swarm of bees is arguably simpler than a hydra.

[Tanarii]

I'm with you. I'm in the middle ground between strictly and loosely interpreting the terms one object/creature. I'd allow a swarm of bees (or rats) as one creature. I'd allow a stack of plates as a single object. A fast talking player could probably even talk me into a sumptuous banquet laid out on a table. I'm not afraid to admit that I'm susceptible to player persuasion. :smallbiggrin:

Hell, technically most chairs are several objects joined together, so clearly there's some DM adjudication on what qualifies no matter what.

[Shaofoo]

Tweet JC. I'd be interested to see what he has to say. Especially if you word it something like this, ie presenting your point of view. Obviously a tweet is limited characters, but I have faith you can frame the question appropriately. :)

I thought tweeting the makers was only useful to get people riled up against them regardless of what they have to actually say.

[Vogonjeltz]

But no, you can't go full wish master bs on someone unless of course you use phantasmal force to make them (and only them) think something else is going on.

Killer not Force; that's what I get for not doublechecking.


That's an awesome summary! I'm going to flesh this out a bit and use it as a "primer on 5e illusions". Thanks!

Thank you! Try to bear in mind that I've left out quite a few of the other illusion spells mostly because I was trying to show progression, but there are some similar examples that fall outside, i.e. Weird (9th lvl) is Mass Phantasmal Killer (4th lvl).


That doesn't get around the absurdity considering most illusions are concentration and even when you get around that, like with a permanent Major Image, they still don't work together. This simple concept remains impossible. You'd have to use your action to move the person and another action to then move the book he's carrying.

Similarly, there's no way to make an ant hill covered in ants (multiple creatures) or a swarm of bees or a swarm of anything. Are folks still not wrapping their heads around just how absurd this limitation is? I'd get it if it only applied to the first level Silent Image but the only true upgrades to that spell are Major Image and Programmed Illusion and they are worded the same way!

Ok, I went through the PHB and collated the spells needed for this attempt to gaslight a viewer into thinking there's a Wizard in a room who's reading a book, and everything is an illusion. Unless noted, nothing requires Concentration.

Here's the list of spells I came up with:

Hallucinatory Terrain - 24 hours - Natural Terrain Change.
Illusory Script - 10 days - Garble or Rewrite text
Magic Mouth - Until Dispelled - Object Speaks
Minor Illusion - 1 minute (to win it) - Sound or Object
Mirage Arcane - 10 days - Terrain and Structure creation/Alteration (includes Tactile sensations!)
Mislead - Conc. to 1 hour - Illusory Double that is operated by the caster
Phantom Steed - 1 hour - What it says on the tin
Programmed Illusion - Until Dispelled - Can be layered, lasts only 5 minutes, 10 minute dormancy, triggered by some condition.
Simulacrum - Until Dispelled - Illusionary golem made of snow and ice that looks like someone.

Ok so, for our purposes we don't need anything but Programmed Illusion, but where's the fun in that right?

Let's say our all powerful level 20 Illusionist, a master of his craft, got drunk at the local tavern and talked up a big game about his incredible tower and it's amazing library staffed by only the most dedicated and efficient servants in all the land, and, when he wakes up in the morning, realizes he invited some serious bigwigs who he actually respects to come visit and peruse the place.

One problem. There is no tower. There is no library. There are definitely no servants.

On the plus side, our Wizard fortuitously scheduled the visit a month out, so he's got some time to figure out what the heck he's going to do. So, what does he need to do?

A Building containing at least one library room, servants who can interact with the visitors, books for them to see.

First, cast Mirage Arcane. It lasts for 10 days, but even better it can both create and alter structures, the illusion provides not only sight, sound, smell, it also can be touched. So, that's all we need for our mages tower and to create the room for our wonderful library and servants to occupy. Even though it will inevitably end, it can be recast and provides a method for our wizard to get to the correct points in space to establish his other illusions.

Now comes the programming part. For every illusionary object or creature you wish to create in the tower, cast Programmed Illusion 3 times.
1 casting creates the initial interaction desired, which (at its conclusion in 5 minutes) triggers the next programmed illusion (for 5 minutes) which triggers the next illusion so that, at a minimum, we have a looped illusion which goes for 15 minutes with each copy leading seamlessly into the next.

Now, the inherent problem is that these illusions can't really be interacted with, they're only good for showing some servants walking around in the background, kitting out rooms (so that they appear to have furniture and books in them 24/7, or a fire in the fireplace) and are basically on autopilot.

This is basically "good enough" to provide a cursory vision of an illusion of a man sitting (3x 6th lvl slot) in an illusory chair (3x 6th level slots), reading an illusory book (3x 6th lvl slots), in an illusory room. (1x 7th lvl slot)

But we can trick it out some more. Maybe we want our guests to be able to interact some.

Ok, let's put a programmed Illusion of a guard near the gate (3x 6th lvl slots). In reality there will be a post or whatever with a mouth carved into it. Then we throw down however many Magic Mouth castings we need to carry out a conversation. It's 1st level spell and it lasts forever, so we don't have much in the way of constraints, it just needs to be able to respond to (be triggered by) specific questions in non-open ended ways or to ask questions that don't require responses.

That is pretty much that. All the Illusionist needs is time, effort, and 6th and 7th level spell slots.

If you want to create an ant-hill covered by ants you would need Hallucinatory terrain (4th lvl) to create an ant hill where there isn't one; and programmed illusion (6th lvl) once for every creature you wanted to have present, minus say, 1 which you could create in the moment using major image.

The problem with creating illusions of multiple creatures is that the caster would have to operate those creatures, which is literally impossible to do simultaneously.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95256794

Programmed Illusion is extremely powerful and it can be established quickly, but creating a complex persistent illusion which requires no monitoring also requires many many iterations. If you want ants that exist 24/7 you're going to need at least 3 days for every 2 ants

[Segev]

Going to try to avoid the "illusion of emptiness" argument surrounding pits and the like.

To me, a "visible phenomenon" is anything that you can see that isn't an object, creature, or collection thereof. It's meant to cover things like fog, or fire, or darkness, or "heat shimmer" in the air, or "saint elmo's fire" or the like.

I would definitely allow a table laden with a feast. If I were being pedantic about it, the illusion is "technically" of a table with highly realistic carvings of food built into its surface, or the like. But really, a burning torch should be feasible. Heck, I count that as "an object," despite fire being a phenomenon by itself.

Whether "a crowd of creatures" should be allowed or not is more questionable, but I'd probably allow it if they were closely packed enough. Heck, one might characterize a swarm as "a phenomenon."

[Vogonjeltz]

Going to try to avoid the "illusion of emptiness" argument surrounding pits and the like.

To me, a "visible phenomenon" is anything that you can see that isn't an object, creature, or collection thereof. It's meant to cover things like fog, or fire, or darkness, or "heat shimmer" in the air, or "saint elmo's fire" or the like.

I would definitely allow a table laden with a feast. If I were being pedantic about it, the illusion is "technically" of a table with highly realistic carvings of food built into its surface, or the like. But really, a burning torch should be feasible. Heck, I count that as "an object," despite fire being a phenomenon by itself.

Whether "a crowd of creatures" should be allowed or not is more questionable, but I'd probably allow it if they were closely packed enough. Heck, one might characterize a swarm as "a phenomenon."

Terrain morphing is specifically something Hallucinatory Terrain (fake) and Mirage Arcane (quasi-real) do. Therefore I would posit it can not possibly be one of the three other options that the lower level spells are for.

If an illusion is encompassed by creature it's definitely not a phenomena or object, and vice versa.

Phenomena Examples include: sunrise, weather, fog, thunder, tornadoes; biological processes, decomposition, germination; physical processes, wave propagation, erosion; tidal flow, and natural disasters such as electromagnetic pulses, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes.

PHB 24 references natural phenomena as being something a wood elf can hide while obscured by: "foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena"

[Segev]

Terrain morphing is specifically something Hallucinatory Terrain (fake) and Mirage Arcane (quasi-real) do. Therefore I would posit it can not possibly be one of the three other options that the lower level spells are for.I don't think that's actually true. Terrain is a collection of objects and phenomena. Hallucinatory terrain can already do more than major image in that respect by simple virtue of the scale and the fact that it's not limited to a single object or phenomenon.


If an illusion is encompassed by creature it's definitely not a phenomena or object, and vice versa.Arguable. I can see argument either way for, say, swarms of bees.


Phenomena Examples include: sunrise, weather, fog, thunder, tornadoes; biological processes, decomposition, germination; physical processes, wave propagation, erosion; tidal flow, and natural disasters such as electromagnetic pulses, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes.A lot of these are objects - or at least, their appearance would constitute an object or illusory creature (decomposition).

...although that's an interesting argument. If you can do "phenomena" that are applied to things, you could argue that silent image can make the illusion of decomposition on an extant object or creature, creating an illusion that it's aged. Or just do it to everything in the spell's AoE; it's one phenomenon. Could be interesting, but I think it is unintended. Still, not necessarily bad.


PHB 24 references natural phenomena as being something a wood elf can hide while obscured by: "foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena"Huh. Foliage counts, huh? So a silent image or major image could be of "foliage," which would be more than "one plant."

[Tanarii]

...although that's an interesting argument. If you can do "phenomena" that are applied to things, you could argue that silent image can make the illusion of decomposition on an extant object or creature, creating an illusion that it's aged. Or just do it to everything in the spell's AoE; it's one phenomenon. Could be interesting, but I think it is unintended. Still, not necessarily bad.problem is, if your phenomenon intersects an object, it gives the illusion away automatically. For spells that are revealed by physical interaction.

Edit: fix quote

[jleonardwv]

I think the fun with illusions is the creativity and role playing of the caster. Take Minor Illusion. A wizard wants to flee an approaching enemy. He casts minor illusion of an opening over a solid wall followed by minor illusion of a door over an opening after passing through. Would the new opening or new door fit within a 5' cube? No. Would I allow it? Probably, especially if the player put his heart into describing what he wants to happen--simple-minded enemy runs into solid wall. A common house door is about 3'x6.5'x2"? It's slightly larger than 5' in a single dimension.

I'd apply the same 'fun' rule to other illusions. Closely read the RAW, but then interpret based on player skill.

Would I allow minor illusion to create an "opening" in a solid wall that was 10'x10'? No, that's too much of a stretch.

BTW: Major Image RAW is super powerful for a creative player.

[LordVonDerp]

How about a player who makes an illusion of a door, makes it real, and then walks on through it through an otherwise solid wall to the other side? .

Wouldn't that just create a door that opened to reveal a solid wall?

[Dalebert]

If you want to create an ant-hill covered by ants you would need Hallucinatory terrain (4th lvl) to create an ant hill where there isn't one; and programmed illusion (6th lvl) once for every creature you wanted to have present, minus say, 1 which you could create in the moment using major image.

You're making my point for me. That's an absurd amount of effort to make a simple illusion that Silent Image should be good for. If you want to have the ants crawling around, you have to spend your actions to keep them moving.


The problem with creating illusions of multiple creatures is that the caster would have to operate those creatures, which is literally impossible to do simultaneously.

Two things:
1) If it's impossible to move some bees around in a familiar swarm pattern, it's impossible to control all the intricate movements of a hydra. Complexity is not the issue. But now I'm repeating myself and we're going in circles. Point is, the complexity issues has already been thoroughly debunked as a legitimate reason for not having multiple creatures.
2) Nothing is impossible with magic. Magic helps you do things that would otherwise be impossible. If the wizard doesn't have to be familiar with every molecule of the creature's body that he duplicates with Simulacrum, why does he have to with an illusion? If the spell says you make an illusion of something, then you can make the illusion of that something--a hydra, an elaborate construct made of 1000 moving gears and 6 arms, a swarm of bees, an anthill with ants crawling on it. All of us can envision these things to some extent and the spell makes them into a viable image. You might try to draw these things and if you're not an artist, it might look like a kindergartner's stick figure, but you can still make an illusion of it that will generally food most onlookers. How? One word: "MAGIC" !


Programmed Illusion is extremely powerful and it can be established quickly, but creating a complex persistent illusion which requires no monitoring also requires many many iterations. If you want ants that exist 24/7 you're going to need at least 3 days for every 2 ants

Again, making my case for me. It shouldn't take months of prep to make a hologram of ants. Silent Image can do that.

Scenario:
Your party just snuck in and killed the king and you want to buy time before the alarm is raised. You want to make an illusion of him sitting at his desk reading like he was when you found him. Problem is you used Burning Hands and now his desk and chair are toast. You quickly move the burnt furniture aside out of view of the door and cast Silent Image of the king, sitting and reading a book at his desk. You leave the door open so as the patrol goes by they don't suspect anything.

With a little luck, you've bought yourself 10-ish minutes to discreetly make your exit before the place goes on high alert for the assassins. Presumably it's not cool to sit and stare at the king, thus realizing that he's REALLY still and never turns pages. Bad luck, someone has a reason to address him and he doesn't respond, but you'll still probably get a few minutes out of it.

This is EXACTLY the kind of scenario that Silent Image seems intended for and it's not OP just because you made a desk, chair, and book. The spell is rife with limitations and is extremely context-dependent to be useful.

[Tanarii]

2) Nothing is impossible with magic. Magic helps you do things that would otherwise be impossible. If the wizard doesn't have to be familiar with every molecule of the creature's body that he duplicates with Simulacrum, why does he have to with an illusion? If the spell says you make an illusion of something, then you can make the illusion of that something--a hydra, an elaborate construct made of 1000 moving gears and 6 arms, a swarm of bees, an anthill with ants crawling on it. All of us can envision these things to some extent and the spell makes them into a viable image. You might try to draw these things and if you're not an artist, it might look like a kindergartner's stick figure, but you can still make an illusion of it that will generally food most onlookers. How? One word: "MAGIC" !this is actually required, because we don't actually visualize these things. No matter how hard we try, it's impossible to so more than vaguely visualize a hydra, an elaborate construct, a swarm of bees, or an anthill crawling.

I'm intentionally using the term visualize as opposed to your envision. We can imagine it, which is what I took you envision to mean. But we certainly can't visualize it with anything even approaching the detail necessary to make what would actually be seen, assuming it needs to look even remotely realistic. For illusions to work, they must translate a bare bones abstract st best partially-visual concept into a richly detailed and believable visual illusion.

Note that I'm not trying to get into the 'can you make an illusion of things you're not aware of' or the 'illusions based on artistic skill' arguments. This is about the human brains inability to visualize in the required level of detail independent of actually looking at something. Detailed visualizing requires actually using your eyes to look at something.

To a degree this holds true for any senses.

[Vogonjeltz]

You're making my point for me. That's an absurd amount of effort to make a simple illusion that Silent Image should be good for. If you want to have the ants crawling around, you have to spend your actions to keep them moving.



Two things:
1) If it's impossible to move some bees around in a familiar swarm pattern, it's impossible to control all the intricate movements of a hydra. Complexity is not the issue. But now I'm repeating myself and we're going in circles. Point is, the complexity issues has already been thoroughly debunked as a legitimate reason for not having multiple creatures.
2) Nothing is impossible with magic. Magic helps you do things that would otherwise be impossible. If the wizard doesn't have to be familiar with every molecule of the creature's body that he duplicates with Simulacrum, why does he have to with an illusion? If the spell says you make an illusion of something, then you can make the illusion of that something--a hydra, an elaborate construct made of 1000 moving gears and 6 arms, a swarm of bees, an anthill with ants crawling on it. All of us can envision these things to some extent and the spell makes them into a viable image. You might try to draw these things and if you're not an artist, it might look like a kindergartner's stick figure, but you can still make an illusion of it that will generally food most onlookers. How? One word: "MAGIC" !



Again, making my case for me. It shouldn't take months of prep to make a hologram of ants. Silent Image can do that.

Scenario:
Your party just snuck in and killed the king and you want to buy time before the alarm is raised. You want to make an illusion of him sitting at his desk reading like he was when you found him. Problem is you used Burning Hands and now his desk and chair are toast. You quickly move the burnt furniture aside out of view of the door and cast Silent Image of the king, sitting and reading a book at his desk. You leave the door open so as the patrol goes by they don't suspect anything.

With a little luck, you've bought yourself 10-ish minutes to discreetly make your exit before the place goes on high alert for the assassins. Presumably it's not cool to sit and stare at the king, thus realizing that he's REALLY still and never turns pages. Bad luck, someone has a reason to address him and he doesn't respond, but you'll still probably get a few minutes out of it.

This is EXACTLY the kind of scenario that Silent Image seems intended for and it's not OP just because you made a desk, chair, and book. The spell is rife with limitations and is extremely context-dependent to be useful.

My point was that silent image isn't capable of such complicated concepts, that requires significant magic, and a lot of it.

and many many independent illusions is basically off the charts magic, not easy by any stretch of the imagination just because it takes up a small amount of space is irrelevent.

[ClintACK]

Jumping back to the simpler case... (Illusion of "Man Perusing Book")

It sounds like a lot of people here would rule that Major Image could not create the illusion of a man perusing a book, because that's *two* objects -- one man and one book.

Question for those people: Can I create an illusion of a man wearing clothes? Aren't those clothes each distinct objects, too?

I'd argue that so long as the man doesn't put the book down it's an extension of the same "creature, object, or phenomenon" -- just like his clothes are (as long as he keeps them on). And that as long as the caster keeps concentrating and spending his actions, the "man reading book" can continue to scan his eyes and periodically flip pages.

[Vogonjeltz]

Jumping back to the simpler case... (Illusion of "Man Perusing Book")

It sounds like a lot of people here would rule that Major Image could not create the illusion of a man perusing a book, because that's *two* objects -- one man and one book.

Question for those people: Can I create an illusion of a man wearing clothes? Aren't those clothes each distinct objects, too?

I'd argue that so long as the man doesn't put the book down it's an extension of the same "creature, object, or phenomenon" -- just like his clothes are (as long as he keeps them on). And that as long as the caster keeps concentrating and spending his actions, the "man reading book" can continue to scan his eyes and periodically flip pages.

Interesting idea, and I would be on board as a DM (probably), but it's still not strictly rules legal, and there's the possibility of slippery slope.

[Dalebert]

I'm intentionally using the term visualize as opposed to your envision. We can imagine it, which is what I took you envision to mean. But we certainly can't visualize it with anything even approaching the detail necessary to make what would actually be seen, assuming it needs to look even remotely realistic. For illusions to work, they must translate a bare bones abstract st best partially-visual concept into a richly detailed and believable visual illusion.

Note that I'm not trying to get into the 'can you make an illusion of things you're not aware of' or the 'illusions based on artistic skill' arguments. This is about the human brains inability to visualize in the required level of detail independent of actually looking at something. Detailed visualizing requires actually using your eyes to look at something.

Good clarification and I agree. This is my point. You need magic to fill in the gaps. Wizards aren't generally artists and their minds can't visualize any illusion in any detail if you were to think of it as them instantly painting a 3D picture with their minds. And even if they were artists, there's that whole "instant" part. It's quite obvious that magic is doing most of the work. So I soundly reject the "too complicated" argument for an ant hill or a swarm of bees.


My point was that silent image isn't capable of such complicated concepts, that requires significant magic, and a lot of it.

and many many independent illusions is basically off the charts magic, not easy by any stretch of the imagination just because it takes up a small amount of space is irrelevent.

"You want to make a thesselahydra with eight heads with Silent Image? Okay, NP."

"WHAT? You want to make an illusion of an ant hill with ants crawling on it? Maybe if you're a cleric with the power to call upon divine intervention! Are you CRAZY? Are you MAD with power?"

[NNescio]

Interesting idea, and I would be on board as a DM (probably), but it's still not strictly rules legal, and there's the possibility of slippery slope.

ClintACK still has a point there. Your reading of RAW would mean you can't create illusions of non-naked creatures via Silent/Major Image, as they would be carrying objects.

[Segev]

problem is, if your phenomenon intersects an object, it gives the illusion away automatically. For spells that are revealed by physical interaction.

Edit: fix quote

Only if it pokes through it. Nothing prevents you from having an illusory patina on a stationary object.

[Tanarii]

Only if it pokes through it. Nothing prevents you from having an illusory patina on a stationary object.
For sure. But your comment included creatures. As soon as they moved, they'd give away the illusion. That's specifically what prompted my comment.

If it was a stationary creature with an illusion of decomposition surrounding / covering it, but not intersecting it, then yeah, it wouldn't give it away.

[Segev]

For sure. But your comment included creatures. As soon as they moved, they'd give away the illusion. That's specifically what prompted my comment.

If it was a stationary creature with an illusion of decomposition surrounding / covering it, but not intersecting it, then yeah, it wouldn't give it away.

Technically, a phenomenon can go unrevealed if the creatures interacting with it don't do something impossible. A goblin walking through your illusory fog bank wouldn't, for instance, auto-reveal the fog as illusory to observers (though one might argue he can feel its absence). Though this is definitely in the arguable space, and I don't really feel like rehashing it, so if you think "there's a goblin in that fog, so it's automatically revealed as illusory" is how it works, then you obviously disagree with me.

Where I was going with this, though, is the question of whether "decay" is a phenomenon you can just overlay on an area, the way you do "fog." If so, the creature remains in a state of decay moving through the phenomenon, without having to have the specific "object" of "decayed flesh" (or "creature" of "zombie") overlayed on him specifically.

I honestly don't know that I'd allow that, myself, because I tend to see illusions more as creating "holograms," at least the silent image-like line of them. But it's an interesting concept to explore.

[Tanarii]

Technically, a phenomenon can go unrevealed if the creatures interacting with it don't do something impossible. A goblin walking through your illusory fog bank wouldn't, for instance, auto-reveal the fog as illusory to observers (though one might argue he can feel its absence). Though this is definitely in the arguable space, and I don't really feel like rehashing it, so if you think "there's a goblin in that fog, so it's automatically revealed as illusory" is how it works, then you obviously disagree with me.I absolutely disagree with you. Anything that intersects an illusion phenomenon is a physical interaction, and thus reveals it. A Goblin walking through a fog bank, or an arrow shot into it, reveals it to anyone that sees that happen.


Where I was going with this, though, is the question of whether "decay" is a phenomenon you can just overlay on an area, the way you do "fog." If so, the creature remains in a state of decay moving through the phenomenon, without having to have the specific "object" of "decayed flesh" (or "creature" of "zombie") overlayed on him specifically.Fog is a phenomenon of a bunch of water droplets suspended in the air, and that's the illusion you overlay in the area. I don't see the difference between that and decayed flesh overlaying a creature? Apart from the latter being a 'thinner' overlay, so to speak.

[Segev]

I absolutely disagree with you. Anything that intersects an illusion phenomenon is a physical interaction, and thus reveals it. A Goblin walking through a fog bank, or an arrow shot into it, reveals it to anyone that sees that happen.Like I said, this is an argument that's already been done, and I don't see me convincing you nor you convincing me, so I won't bother trying.


Fog is a phenomenon of a bunch of water droplets suspended in the air, and that's the illusion you overlay in the area. I don't see the difference between that and decayed flesh overlaying a creature? Apart from the latter being a 'thinner' overlay, so to speak.It's a question as to whether it's a "hologram" of "water droplets" or "decaying flesh," or it's an illusion of the phenomenon of fog filling the space or of the things in the space being decaying.

I actually lean towards the former, so I don't disagree with you here. The latter is a very different reading and interpretation of the spells than I give it. It may even violate the RAW, if you read "image" as requiring it to be holographic.

[Tanarii]

Like I said, this is an argument that's already been done, and I don't see me convincing you nor you convincing me, so I won't bother trying.Okay fair enough.


It's a question as to whether it's a "hologram" of "water droplets" or "decaying flesh," or it's an illusion of the phenomenon of fog filling the space or of the things in the space being decaying.I'm lost. I don't even understand what "phenomenon <snip> things in the space being decaying" can mean other than an illusion of decay overlaying the objects in the space. Similarly, the "phenomenon of fog filling the space" must necessarily mean an illusion of water droplets filling the space. And an illusion of phlogiston filling the space would be an illusion of phlogiston-stuff filling the space. If you want to call that "hologram" okay then.

[Segev]

I'm lost. I don't even understand what "phenomenon <snip> things in the space being decaying" can mean other than an illusion of decay overlaying the objects in the space. Similarly, the "phenomenon of fog filling the space" must necessarily mean an illusion of water droplets filling the space. And an illusion of phlogiston filling the space would be an illusion of phlogiston-stuff filling the space. If you want to call that "hologram" okay then.

Okay.

"The phenomenon of things decaying" would be almost an invisible miasma of rot that causes anything within it to appear as if it were in a state of decay.

Think of it like an illusion of "things on fire."

One reason I don't think silent image and its siblings can do it is because the best analogy I have is disguise self, where the illusion is "you are somebody else." It achieves this by essentially overlaying and creating selective invisibility, but it isn't just a holographic disguise between the viewer and your clothes/flesh. It's an illusory change to what you look like. It includes making you shorter or taller, fatter or thinner. And it moves with you. It could be described as a "phenomenon of you being somebody else."

If you used disguise self to appear as "a zombie version of you," it would work.

Likewise, if you accept "a phenomenon of decay" as a valid major image, then you'd get anything encompassed by that phenomenon looking like that sort of "disguise self" effect was altering their appearance.


Put another way, like disguise self actually changes your appearance rather than overlaying a hologram on top of you, a phenomenon of decay would change the appearance of things within it to be decayed versions of themselves.

I don't think it works, despite my efforts to explain what it would mean, because it isn't an image of a phenomenon. It isn't a figment. It would be a glamour, and I don't think silent image or its siblings can do those.

[Tanarii]

I still can't wrap my head around that concept. I don't think it could work because it doesn't sound like a thing that exists to me. An illusion of things of fire is an illusion of fire. An illusion of fog is an illusion of fog. An illusion of rot would have to be an illusion of rot.

And any of those are an illusion of specific things. Things that don't move with the things they are around. Ignoring the physically intersecting thing for a second, if you had an illusion of a chair on fire, and you moved the chair, you'd have an illusion of where the chair used to be happily still on fire. Just like you'd have an illusion of rot floating in the air if the real not-rotting thing it was overlaying was moved.

Even Disguise Self works that way as far as I can see. It just has the added capabilities of being attached to a mobile object, being able to make said object (partially) invisible if needed to maintain the illusion, and not being completely messed up by physical interaction.

Edit: Like, at this point, I'm not so much trying to argue that this is the best way to visualize it or it's the rules or whatever. It's that I straight up can't envision whatever it is you're envisioning was meant by a "phenomenon of decay." Not that it's wrong, just that I can't even understand what you're getting at. It's bugging me hahaha

[Segev]

Eh, that's fine. I can envision it, but apparently not well enough to describe it, so I'll leave it off there. I do think it outside the power of silent image or major image, so it's not like I'm pushing for them to do it, anyway.

Sorry I couldn't be more clear.

[LordVonDerp]

2) Nothing is impossible with magic. Magic helps you do things that would otherwise be impossible. If the wizard doesn't have to be familiar with every molecule of the creature's body that he duplicates with Simulacrum, why does he have to with an illusion? If the spell says you make an illusion of something, then you can make the illusion of that something--a hydra, an elaborate construct made of 1000 moving gears and 6 arms, a swarm of bees, an anthill with ants crawling on it. All of us can envision these things to some extent and the spell makes them into a viable image. You might try to draw these things and if you're not an artist, it might look like a kindergartner's stick figure, but you can still make an illusion of it that will generally food most onlookers. How? One word: "MAGIC" !


This is the bane of all fantasy.

[Dalebert]

This is the bane of all fantasy.

It's the only way illusions are viable at all. It makes an illusion of a tiger with sufficient detail to be believable possible so that it doesn't look like a blob of orange and white, whatever the illusionist can actually envision in his head. If the illusionist had to "paint" a tiger instantaneously, ever single illusion would be a worthless joke.

[Segev]

I think we're conflating two distinct things.

"Magic doesn't have to explain every physical law and property of how it works" is not the bane of all fantasy.

What might be argued to be a bane to fantasy is, "Magic doesn't have to follow any rules at all, and doesn't have to be consistent. Anything I want to happen can be explained by magic!"

The latter leads to stories where magic is not interesting. It's just a deus ex machina. There's nothing it can't do, and if it would make the story too easy, it just can't do it right now. For no real reason.

"Magic A is Magic A" - or, rather, "magic operates by this well-defined set of rules" - allows magic to be used integrally in a fantasy work, because what CAN be done and CAN'T be done is defined. And those who use it can exploit its strengths, while anybody facing it can exploit its weaknesses.


The idea that illusions can do specific things without having to explain HOW they do them is not necessarily harmful to fantasy, or even to illusion magic. What's important is that we know what illusions can (and cannot) do, so they're a tool and not a "win" button that can do whatever...but only when convenient for the plot.

[tieren]

ClintACK still has a point there. Your reading of RAW would mean you can't create illusions of non-naked creatures via Silent/Major Image, as they would be carrying objects.

I believe this is the answer to the OP's original question regarding a strict reading of Silent Image that enforces the singular pronoun.

A common use I've seen of the spell is to create an illusionary threat to draw attention away from the party, and that could be an orc in armor with a weapon, or a troll with a club. inherent in these basic uses of the spell is the creation of the creature, its clothing/armor, and a weapon.

A table laid out for a feast should be an object, not something requiring 20 different castings of a simple object. Don't even make it a feast, make it a table with a plate, cup, fork, and teapot, would you let one illusionist create a 5 foot diameter crystal chandelier and not let another one make a simple table with a place setting?

Strict enforcement of the singular pronoun in the spell description is absurd and only allows for naked illusions.

[Segev]

Yeah, I'd personally draw the line at the point where you would need more than one initiative roll for the "creature" you've made an illusion of (if they were real). So a swarm's okay. And objects can be "one connected set of objects." Though I would be inclined towards pedantry if my DM was a stickler, and just say "it's not an illusion of a feast on a table; it's an illusion of a table carved and cleverly painted to look like a feast is on it." When the image is visual-only, it doesn't really matter if it's "really" of something that would have other sensory impressions different from what you want.

[Dalebert]

The idea that illusions can do specific things without having to explain HOW they do them is not necessarily harmful to fantasy, or even to illusion magic. What's important is that we know what illusions can (and cannot) do, so they're a tool and not a "win" button that can do whatever...but only when convenient for the plot.

I'm not quoting the whole thing but I agree completely with this post. Yes, magic needs to have consistent rules and in a game, those will be largely based on balance rather than scientific limitations. What I hate is when people start over-complicating magic with science or picky details. Questions like "How can the illusionist create something as complicated as multiple ants on an ant hill?" imply that all the spell is doing is giving him the power to essentially use a magical version of MS Paint to draw in 3 dimensions and animate it using his raw brain power. It's clearly doing much more than that. It's taking his limited abstract notion of a tiger or a hydra or an anthill and adding the detail necessary to bring it to life, albeit only in illusory form and only as convincingly as his spell DC allows. Do I have the brain power to draw and animate a thousand ants on an ant hill in an instant? No. Do I have the brain power to draw and animate all the heads, legs, and claws of a hydra in an instant? No. Do I have the brain power to draw and animate all the bits of a tiger in an instant? No.

My point is that "an anthill is too complicated" is an argument that has been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked. And my bigger point is that illusions that involve multiple objects or creatures in the limited area as defined by the spell are not OP and should be possible to do within reason. They're only illusions and the bigger or more elaborate you choose to make them, the more likely that you will physically interact with any part of it and spoil the entire ruse. The only viable spells for doing this are Silent Image or Major Image and thus I believe "other visible phenomenon" is intended to be interpreted rather broadly.

[Vogonjeltz]

"You want to make a thesselahydra with eight heads with Silent Image? Okay, NP."

"WHAT? You want to make an illusion of an ant hill with ants crawling on it? Maybe if you're a cleric with the power to call upon divine intervention! Are you CRAZY? Are you MAD with power?"

It's the one creature vs a thousand distinction + terrain modification distinction. If the difference in power was merely one of space, then there would be no limitations, but it's the number of moving parts and the type, not merely a space limitation.


ClintACK still has a point there. Your reading of RAW would mean you can't create illusions of non-naked creatures via Silent/Major Image, as they would be carrying objects.

I found a relevant rules text in the DMG on this:

DMG page 246, "For the purposes of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects."

AFB need to check MM for information on if equipment is considered to be part and parcel of a creature. I suppose it would be considered "part" of the creature as long as the item never actually gets removed from them.

i.e. a Creature holding a book is just one illusion, a creature. But if the book is not being held then it would be two illusions (a book 'and' a creature).

[Tanarii]

DMG page 246, "For the purposes of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects."What's the context of that quote? Illusions? Or something that's got nothing to do with illusions? :smallbiggrin:

[Dalebert]

What's the context of that quote? Illusions? Or something that's got nothing to do with illusions? :smallbiggrin:

The latter, but it's irrelevant due to the "or other visible phenomenon" part. That's been my point all along.

[Segev]

I'll be honest, I'd allow "an anthill crawling with ants" from silent image. It seems in the right ballpark, even if the RAW might need to strain to call that a "phenomenon" rather than "a lot of creatures and an object."

[Vogonjeltz]

What's the context of that quote? Illusions? Or something that's got nothing to do with illusions? :smallbiggrin:

It's the one definition we have within the rules as to what constitutes an object. As illusions routinely refer to being able to create the image of an object, it's directly relevant.

Produce another rule book definition of object that is in competition with that one, and I'll gladly give it due consideration.

Until that time, there's no reason at all not to adhere to the definition provided within the rules.

[Segev]

I have a sneaking suspicion "these rules" are about attacking objects, which means that context becomes very important, since it brings up composite objects like vehicles as being "not objects." This sounds like the kind of rule designed to prevent somebody from using "break object" to crush a whole wagon or building. I find suspect its intended interaction with "object" as discussed in silent image or minor illusion. Particularly since it opens with "For purposes of these rules," which sound like they had nothing to do with illusions at all.

[tieren]

It's the one definition we have within the rules as to what constitutes an object. As illusions routinely refer to being able to create the image of an object, it's directly relevant.

Produce another rule book definition of object that is in competition with that one, and I'll gladly give it due consideration.

Until that time, there's no reason at all not to adhere to the definition provided within the rules.

The spell description for Minor Illusion explicitly states "muddy footprints" as an example of an image of an object. Not a singular muddy footprint, but foot printS - plural. I presume you're allowed to make them look appropriate as left and right feet and not all left feet duplicates.

Point is there is an explicit example inside the description of an actual illusion spell that "an object" can be more than one thing.

[Vogonjeltz]

I have a sneaking suspicion "these rules" are about attacking objects, which means that context becomes very important, since it brings up composite objects like vehicles as being "not objects." This sounds like the kind of rule designed to prevent somebody from using "break object" to crush a whole wagon or building. I find suspect its intended interaction with "object" as discussed in silent image or minor illusion. Particularly since it opens with "For purposes of these rules," which sound like they had nothing to do with illusions at all.

It does give us an idea of what constitutes an object. A vehicle, for example, is called out as being an object which is treated as many for the purposes of attacks. The same set of rules indicates that huge objects, like a giant statue, would also be broken down into subsets.

That still lets us know that objects are discrete items. If you have a feast, each dish is its own object, they aren't even remotely linked in the way a wagon is, for example.


The spell description for Minor Illusion explicitly states "muddy footprints" as an example of an image of an object. Not a singular muddy footprint, but foot printS - plural. I presume you're allowed to make them look appropriate as left and right feet and not all left feet duplicates.

Point is there is an explicit example inside the description of an actual illusion spell that "an object" can be more than one thing.

A fair point, of course it's all of a thing there (prints), not different things.

Let's not try to get too far away from the fact that I was agreeing that the illusion of a creature would be able to have clothing/equipment as long as it was not separated.

I think a better errata would be to say that the spell can create any number of X type effects (i.e. Creature(s), Object(s), and/or Phenomena) so long as they don't exceed the scope of a single 5 foot square.

So Minor Illusion could be any number of objects within a 5 foot square; Silent Image would be any number of creatures and/or objects and/or phenomena in a single 5 foot square (i.e. 1 creature + their gear); Major Image would be the same deal but with many of the sensory effects that the former spells lack.

I would however say, based on the other spells in the progression, that it looks intended that each of the spells is only creating a single creature, a single object, or a single phenomenon.

So although you could create the image of a Wizard with their hat and staff and robes, you couldn't create the image of freestanding hat and staff and robes without a wizard in it, as that would consitute 3 distinct objects, and the spell text suggests only one, not three.

[Saeviomage]

That is pretty much that. All the Illusionist needs is time, effort, and 6th and 7th level spell slots.


Or he could just cast magic mansion from a single 7th level spell and get a real mansion and real servants. From a single conjuration spell. Face it, your scenario leads to illusions being pretty terrible.

As ever, ask your DM about a bunch of situations before you ever take an illusion spell.

If he's going to make all your creature illusions nude without extra spellcastings, if he's going to make your illusions anchored to the spot you were standing when you cast them, if he's going to say an illusion of a pit is impossible, if he's going to say that mist is instantly dispelled because air currents fail to affect it, if he's going to have monsters gingerly test everything that he knows is an illusion, but never has a monster run into a newly created wall etc etc, then don't bother. Other spells are much more powerful even if these things are allowed.

[Tanarii]

if he's going to make your illusions anchored to the spot you were standing when you cast them, if he's going to say an illusion of a pit is impossible, if he's going to say that mist is instantly dispelled because air currents fail to affect itthat's funny, because players think they are exceptional powerful despite my ruling all of these. Generally speaking, and accounting what I assume was intentional hyperbole on your part on the last one.

Probably because:

if he's going to have monsters gingerly test everything that he knows is an illusion, but never has a monster run into a newly created wall etc etc, then don't bother.I don't do that. I mean, yeah, the enemy is probably going to react intelligently (if appropriate). A creature that strongly suspects an illusion of a wall / box / cover might pop-off a shot at it just because ... but far more likely is trying to maneuver to get a clear line of sight. (I actually thought about and changed some enemy behavior in response to illusions do to a previous thread on this issue.)

Illusions are hugely powerful when they're automatically believed by default.

[Segev]

It does give us an idea of what constitutes an object. A vehicle, for example, is called out as being an object which is treated as many for the purposes of attacks. The same set of rules indicates that huge objects, like a giant statue, would also be broken down into subsets.

That still lets us know that objects are discrete items. If you have a feast, each dish is its own object, they aren't even remotely linked in the way a wagon is, for example.

I still think you're over-applying it. It is a nice guideline...except that it's very specific here, in that it's dealing with "attacking an object." The reason it calls out that it's just for the purpose of these rules is that they didn't want it to be a blanket, game-wide definition of "an object." But they needed to make sure you couldn't say "okay, this entire train is one object, so if I attack 'the train' I can destroy the whole thing by dealing enough hp damage." They wanted you to have to attack multiple points along it, rather than your one arrow - no matter how damaging - taking out the whole thing.

[Vogonjeltz]

Or he could just cast magic mansion from a single 7th level spell and get a real mansion and real servants. From a single conjuration spell. Face it, your scenario leads to illusions being pretty terrible.

As ever, ask your DM about a bunch of situations before you ever take an illusion spell.

If he's going to make all your creature illusions nude without extra spellcastings, if he's going to make your illusions anchored to the spot you were standing when you cast them, if he's going to say an illusion of a pit is impossible, if he's going to say that mist is instantly dispelled because air currents fail to affect it, if he's going to have monsters gingerly test everything that he knows is an illusion, but never has a monster run into a newly created wall etc etc, then don't bother. Other spells are much more powerful even if these things are allowed.

That creates a portal to a mansion, you still wouldn't have an impressive tower. And it only lasts 24 hours, Programmed Illusions are permanent.

Also, what illusions were you thinking of that aren't anchored to a specific point in space?

I agree that it's bad form to inject out of game knowledge into in-game character actions.


I still think you're over-applying it. It is a nice guideline...except that it's very specific here, in that it's dealing with "attacking an object." The reason it calls out that it's just for the purpose of these rules is that they didn't want it to be a blanket, game-wide definition of "an object." But they needed to make sure you couldn't say "okay, this entire train is one object, so if I attack 'the train' I can destroy the whole thing by dealing enough hp damage." They wanted you to have to attack multiple points along it, rather than your one arrow - no matter how damaging - taking out the whole thing.

I mean yes, I'd say that for the purposes of the illusions, an object constitutes a single thing.

So even though it's made up of parts, a Clock would be a single thing.

A feast just seems like it really really goes above and beyond in not adhering to the letter of the spell because it is asking for so many objects (a table, dishes, plates, silverware, how many different kinds of food?) We're talking like 100+ discrete objects per single table object (not even including the chairs!).

Where do you draw the line if not at the specific statement that it's an object?

If we agree that a bowl of soup constitutes a single object, why are two bowls of soup suddenly ok when the spell specifies a single object?

Why is a feast ok when two bowls of soup aren't? Etcetera.

Ultimately I think it's just because Illusions aren't intended to be creating ridiculously elaborate mouse-traps.

[Dalebert]

Interesting. First off, it's Mearls just stating what he would allow and even then I don't think he's giving free reign to create moving object illusions. I think he's just being lenient in a case of minimal movement.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/05/can-improved-minor-illusion-create-an-illusion-of-a-ticking-clock-with-moving-hands/

[Tanarii]

Interesting. First off, it's Mearls just stating what he would allow and even then I don't think he's giving free reign to create moving object illusions. I think he's just being lenient in a case of minimal movement.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/05/can-improved-minor-illusion-create-an-illusion-of-a-ticking-clock-with-moving-hands/Another example would be a boiling pot (with steam), or a toy windmill turning in the wind.

IMO even though I've contrasted with Silent Illusion permitting movement in the past to say Minor Illusion shouldn't allow it, it's a fair ruling to allow a object that has moving components for Minor Illusion. That's considerably different from something that moves around within the area of effect / range.

[Segev]

Another example would be a boiling pot (with steam), or a toy windmill turning in the wind.

IMO even though I've contrasted with Silent Illusion permitting movement in the past to say Minor Illusion shouldn't allow it, it's a fair ruling to allow a object that has moving components for Minor Illusion. That's considerably different from something that moves around within the area of effect / range.

Precisely. I would argue that minor illusion allows for things that have moving parts. But not for something to move about. A minor illusion of a fountain or a rustling bush or a crackling fire (especially if the caster is an Illusionist and thus can do sound as well as sight with one casting) seems perfectly within the bounds of the spell, to me.

[Tanarii]

crackling fire thats both a phenomena and creates light.

Edit: also with your examples don't forget you'd need two castings, one for sound and one for vision. Since your descriptors involved both.

[Segev]

thats both a phenomena and creates light.

Edit: also with your examples don't forget you'd need two castings, one for sound and one for vision. Since your descriptors involved both.

I noted that it works best with an Illusionist, since the sound couldn't accompany without their 1st level class feature. And fire can create the illusion of light without casting real light. It just looks "bright," but nothing actually gets illuminated.

[Tanarii]

I noted that it works best with an Illusionist, since the sound couldn't accompany without their 1st level class feature.Yep. My bad.


And fire can create the illusion of light without casting real light. It just looks "bright," but nothing actually gets illuminated.'Bright' sounds like 'creates light' to me. ie it sounds like trying to say the same thing in different words to get around a restriction. Let me ask this then: Would the illusion of the flames be unable to be seen without a local light source if it was in the darkness? If not, then it's creating light, isn't it? And if that is the case it'll be a fairly quick give away IMO.

Also, what's your position on flames = phenomena?

[Segev]

'Bright' sounds like 'creates light' to me. ie it sounds like trying to say the same thing in different words to get around a restriction. Let me ask this then: Would the illusion of the flames be unable to be seen without a local light source if it was in the darkness? If not, then it's creating light, isn't it? And if that is the case it'll be a fairly quick give away IMO.
Personally, I'd probably let it be visible in the dark, but I'm prone to allow illusory light to illuminate illusions where there isn't real light to illuminate real things.

However, the real answer in this is "that's up to the DM."

As to an illustration of how something can look bright without emitting light: have you ever seen a painting or photo of fire that looks like it's glowing due to the skill of the artist or photographer? Have you ever seen a room painted in a bright color be brighter than a room painted a dark color? Neither is emitting light. (It might REFLECT light, but it's not emitting it.)


Also, what's your position on flames = phenomena?Again, there's a fuzzy area here that falls into "DM call." I would argue that "a camp fire" is an object. "A (disembodied) flame" probably is a "phenomenon."

Probably couldn't make an illusion of fire on a log or candle, but could make an illusion of a burning log or lit candle, if all you can do is make "objects." But again, I emphasize this, I'd say this is really up to the DM.

[Tanarii]

Personally, I'd probably let it be visible in the dark, but I'm prone to allow illusory light to illuminate illusions where there isn't real light to illuminate real things.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean if there's an illusion of a fire, and an illusion of a chair, the chair would be visible in the dark and nothing else would?

Or do you mean if there's an just illusion of a chair in the darkness, the chair would be visible in the darkness?

[Saeviomage]

That creates a portal to a mansion, you still wouldn't have an impressive tower. And it only lasts 24 hours, Programmed Illusions are permanent.

Fine, throw out some wall of stone and stone shape castings too. The 24 hrs isn't really a problem: your scenario covers a visit, not an extended stay.


Also, what illusions were you thinking of that aren't anchored to a specific point in space?

I was referring to things like moving a silent image being tethered to the spot of casting instead of the current location of the caster.

[Zorku]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean if there's an illusion of a fire, and an illusion of a chair, the chair would be visible in the dark and nothing else would?


Sounds right to me. You probably wouldn't intentionally create situations where it was so obvious that there are two distinct illusions quite like that though.

[Segev]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean if there's an illusion of a fire, and an illusion of a chair, the chair would be visible in the dark and nothing else would?

Or do you mean if there's an just illusion of a chair in the darkness, the chair would be visible in the darkness?

Both, actually; the illusory chair by itself includes illusory light illuminating it. If there's an illusion of fire to be the source for the illusory light, that works, too.

[Tanarii]

Both, actually; the illusory chair by itself includes illusory light illuminating it. If there's an illusion of fire to be the source for the illusory light, that works, too.Oh okay. Well in that case we have totally different views of how Illusions work at a basic level. As if we didn't know that. :smallwink: But it's good for me to be reminded exactly where the differences of opinion lie so we don't have to hash it all out again.

OTOH it's threads like these that have made me both clarify, and sometimes change, my views on illusions. IMO that's pretty important for anyone that's going to DM for an arcane caster. Both because players just love to try and abuse illusions, and (most) DMs love to try and nerf them. For example, I'm inclined to rule strictly on what they can do, so I rule loosely (now) on if creatures would think to spend an action using Investigation. And I'd allow a Minor Illusion object that involved some kind of moving parts now, although it hasn't come up yet.