Help me understand this Minor Illusion "Inviisibility" trick! [Archive]

Zorku

2017-03-31, 06:22 PM

Yeah, but their reasoning seems very weak. A picture of a mirror "reflects light". It isn't invisible. But it does not have the reflective properties of an actual mirror. What am I missing?

If he's referencing the thread where I've been being the worst kind of person you find in forums (which I think is likely due to timing,) then you're not missing anything. I haven't read every word of the responses by the other fellow on my side, but as far as I know neither of us was arguing that not being able to make a functional mirror means that the illusion is useless.

The reasons presented for why you should not be able to make a functional mirror are what make the spell useless, in that terribly tedious argument. We've gone down a bunch of rabbit holes of bringing science into the equation only to turn around and say that you shouldn't bring science into the equation and it's all just a mess. In my defense, the reasoning that I have rejected also says that you cannot make a mirror with the kind of illusory reflected image in it that is present in the image of a mirror in this thread (or at least I think it does. It's terribly difficult to get clarification on what that jerk means when he says things.)

I find the way that you've been describing the illusions to be well within the intent of the spell, and not in violation of the exact written text of the spell.

Then why are the checks so hard? I don't think we'd normally say it was DC 17 to spot if a chest of drawers has a shadow or not.

It's worse than that though: the DC for detecting shadow (non)interaction depends on who cast the spell. Certainly that doesn't make any sense for such a simple mechanical test.

If we -don't- want to spiral downwards into the cluster**** that is the other thread, I would suggest avoiding attempts to define DM rulings out of the equation. 5e clearly leaves lots of open space for those kind of DM choices, especially in situations like this.

For people wanting to model this in a way where the investigation checks make sense, I would advocate that you leave all of the details about an illusory object as undefined as possible for as long as possible. If an enemy performs an investigation check (can they do that at range? Oh hey! That's up to the DM too!) then you can represent that any way you would like, and the result of that dice roll determines what kind of flaws, if any, that they uncover.

This method is not useful for people that do not want to investigate an illusion, meaning anyone trying to use it as a tool... or is it? "I cast minor illusion to make a mirror facing around the corner." "Ok, do you want to see what's around the corner with it?" "Of course." "Ok, give me an investigation check."

Now, a high roll should ruin the illusion for them, but you may feel that failing a task by rolling high violates the essence of 5e, so you'd be free to run this however you want, even if that means one of your players rolls up Jim Bob the mentally challenged illusionist with the gimmick of fooling himself with his own illusions (and hey, maybe that's perfect for the kind of game you run!)

This is obviously getting away from the written rules, but when it comes to illusions in 5e those rules are quite sparse, so you almost have to get away from them (or argue in circles about whether or not surface texture counts as another sensory effect...)

Thank you for the links. I also wouldn't even have imagined that it would cast shadows on its own either, but I would think that you can make an illusion with its shadow as part of the effect.Going by the harshest reading of the spell text that I can still reasonably see falling anywhere near RAI, creating an illusory shadow would be relegated to the 1st level illusion spell, silent image.

What level of spell an illusory shadow actually belongs in seems to be quite contentious, but after the first few levels (assuming full caster,) it's not really a big deal no matter how you rule it.

-

If we assume that minor illusion only makes a static (or close enough,) image, and you wanted to create something like a ghostblind without actually using a reflection, you could do a decent job of that by creating a really distorted diorama of the room, rather a lot like what you would see by looking in a convex mirror. The maximum area is a 5x5 cube, but if we instead make a cylinder that fits within that space (or more appropriately, we take the overlap of this cube and a larger cylinder, because we know of some angles that we do not need this illusion to be convincing at,) with a small area at the center (or in the corner,) occluded by wall, then you could still hide in it. Moving around a bit doesn't require any updating to the illusion itself, but there's still some perception of depth there so that it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb (and going by my earlier proposal your spell save DC determines how seamlessly you can pull this off.) Because this is very much the kind of fun house trick that is sounds like, you wouldn't expect this to hold up to prolonged scrutiny, but we also don't expect that of minor illusions in the first place. It just needs to look normal enough, and like the ghostblinds demonstrate, you don't even really need to crouch to obscure your head (gnomes: piss off,) if observers aren't getting enough body pattern details to recognize what they're looking at.

As to how reasonable it is for someone of the time period to know that they can do this? Well, that's also going to be DM dependent. We've known a fair deal about optical illusions for a long time, but much of that is also 19th century stuff, so this probably boils down to the question, "Do the people in your world actually test what they are capable of doing with their magic?" Because arcane trickster is a thing you can expect the criminal elements of the world to have come up with some really clever ways to hide what's going on, but if you propagate that kind of thing too far it can easily force you into a world that's not really the one you want to play, so...

It's up to the DM.

Potato_Priest

2017-03-31, 07:01 PM

Because good wizards are better at making convincing illusions.

If illusions couldn't interact with light, I don't think even the cleverest of wizards would be able to frequently craft illusions that could stand up to a lamp.

Edit: I prefer a more moderate approach, where illusionary mirrors work and illusionary desks cast shadows, but an illusionary microscope doesn't function exactly as advertised.

Sabeta

2017-03-31, 07:02 PM

That's kind of the point.

Does the illusion have light bouncing off of it or does the light go through it?

If the light goes through the illusion, the illusion has no shadow. If it has no shadow it's pretty much useless because any light that falls on it will show it to be an illusion. If light passes through it, then there's only one possible angle you could -maybe- make the illusion look realistic from and an inch to the left or the right and it fails.

If light does bounce off the illusion, then mirrors and polished wood are totally possible.

It's ultimately a question of semantics. Did the developers mean an image in the sense of a duodimensional picture wherein you're seeing a representation of an object with no functional interaction with reality whatsoever... or did they mean image in the sense that you're only creating the visual component of a physical object that has no real physicality?

If the former, then you're right. If the latter, then I'm right.

And, ultimately, there's no way to further this discussion without asking Crawford and Mearls. Fortunately, someone did.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/06/11/can-minor-illusion-create-a-working-mirror-with-reflection/
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/02/15/can-a-monk-of-the-shadow-use-the-shadow-cast-by-an-object-created-with-minor-illusion-cantrip/

The image is static. It does not interact with light sources or light bouncing off of it. It casts no shadow of it's own, and ostensibly anyone hiding behind or within such an illusion would cast a shadow that passes through it without issue.

Annnnnd I'll never run it that way because it's bad. But RAI you were right.

I'm pretty sure that's RAW, not RAI. Like I said earlier, it says that it cannot be used to produce a sensory effect, and that things will pass through it. The reason it's visible despite not reflecting light is because...wait for it...it's an Illusion. It's literally created within the mindscape, it fools your mind into seeing something that never existed. That's why it fades from view once you realize it's an Illusion, similar to how your mind ignores your nose being within your field of view at all times. (Yes, I'm aware that's a bad metaphor.)

I also don't think that makes it bad. It's a Cantrip. It's not meant to have the reality shattering properties that people try to assign to it. If you want that, go ahead and play an Illusionist. Just because something doesn't cast a shadow doesn't mean it's incredibly obvious either. Generally speaking, most people don't make a point of actively looking for odd or misplaced shadows or light patterns. In fact, I know of two anime that removed shadows from characters to show you that they were dead, without revealing it to the audience or the character's themselves.

http://i.imgur.com/8gP9c8p.png

Here, most of the protagonists died during a mass suicide event which they had no recollection of thanks to mind-hacking. They go through most the rest of the show never realizing this, and most of the fanbase didn't catch on until midway through, after a few clever individuals started posting speculations on it.

http://i.imgur.com/r5Ew2P3.png

Here, is a somewhat forgotten gem called Paranoia Agent. In this episode, the three wearing backpacks were trying to commit suicide for their own personal reasons, and decided to do it together.
They make several attempts on their own lives, but what they don't realize is that the first one was actually successful. Pic related was just before or after trying to throw themselves in front of a train, before suddenly realizing that that's a rather grizzly way to go out and opted out.

I think the RAW makes it a perfectly fine Cantrip with plenty of uses. The Barrel trick still works, a false wall still works, and many of the other "normal" uses for the cantrip are still perfectly serviceable. Just, no 3d holofoil cards that perfectly match a number of walls or mirrors that actually reflect.

kulosle

2017-04-01, 02:18 AM

It's interesting that people are having so much trouble with this. My group has apparently been playing with a house rule I guess. It's not something that even cares about light. The illusion isn't an object. So why even question if it interacts with light. Other wise the illusion would still be there if you disbelieved it. So it's magic nonsense. It's all in the person's head. It's not a real thing. You are tricking someone's brain into thinking something is real that isn't. You don't have to draw a picture. It's not your drawing skill. Other wise you'd need perform painter or something.

And the person's brain doesn't want to believe it's wrong. So it makes up any excuses for why that's missing. Your brain already does this. Some of what you see is just good guess work by your brain. You aren't actually seeing all of it. Your brain just makes up something that makes the most sense. Which is why you really have to investigate hard into believing other wise. Your brain isn't use to guessing wrong. And the better the caster the stronger the belief.

I think there is a spell about an illusionist bridge that actually discusses this.

Steampunkette

2017-04-01, 09:10 AM

I'm pretty sure that's RAW, not RAI. Like I said earlier, it says that it cannot be used to produce a sensory effect, and that things will pass through it. The reason it's visible despite not reflecting light is because...wait for it...it's an Illusion. It's literally created within the mindscape, it fools your mind into seeing something that never existed. That's why it fades from view once you realize it's an Illusion, similar to how your mind ignores your nose being within your field of view at all times. (Yes, I'm aware that's a bad metaphor.)

I also don't think that makes it bad. It's a Cantrip. It's not meant to have the reality shattering properties that people try to assign to it. If you want that, go ahead and play an Illusionist. Just because something doesn't cast a shadow doesn't mean it's incredibly obvious either. Generally speaking, most people don't make a point of actively looking for odd or misplaced shadows or light patterns. In fact, I know of two anime that removed shadows from characters to show you that they were dead, without revealing it to the audience or the character's themselves.

http://i.imgur.com/8gP9c8p.png

Here, most of the protagonists died during a mass suicide event which they had no recollection of thanks to mind-hacking. They go through most the rest of the show never realizing this, and most of the fanbase didn't catch on until midway through, after a few clever individuals started posting speculations on it.

http://i.imgur.com/r5Ew2P3.png

Here, is a somewhat forgotten gem called Paranoia Agent. In this episode, the three wearing backpacks were trying to commit suicide for their own personal reasons, and decided to do it together.
They make several attempts on their own lives, but what they don't realize is that the first one was actually successful. Pic related was just before or after trying to throw themselves in front of a train, before suddenly realizing that that's a rather grizzly way to go out and opted out.

I think the RAW makes it a perfectly fine Cantrip with plenty of uses. The Barrel trick still works, a false wall still works, and many of the other "normal" uses for the cantrip are still perfectly serviceable. Just, no 3d holofoil cards that perfectly match a number of walls or mirrors that actually reflect.

If you hide in an illusionary barrel, the barrel has no shadow: But you do. So the barrel would appear to have the shadow of a crouching person.

Light would also not fall on the barrel. So if you get close with a torch, that barrel would still be just as shadowed as when it was in the darkness. Or, if the barrel illusion is formed as it would be in light, the barrel looks like it's under normal light while it's shrouded in darkness which makes no freaking sense. Even if it's somehow colored to look like light is falling on it without it interfering with the shadows it's in, that light-sourcing is static so the second light falls on it in a way that doesn't conform to the way the light should appear on the barrel, the illusion fails (Though the light on you and the shadow should also screw that pooch).

That's not even "Interacting" with the illusion. That's "Being within 40ft of an illusion" ruins it.

Same thing happens with the illusory wall. The second the light shifts and the wall doesn't respect the change in light the illusion breaks.

And no. It's not "In the mind of the viewer". There are illusions that explicitly are (Like Phantasma Force). But those are exceptions to the rule rather than the core of illusions.

And yeah. It's bringing "Science" into it to discuss things like this, but that's how people interact with a coherent world around them and why you can't shadowstep through an illusion's shadow. It's called Verisimilitude. Except in places where it expressly doesn't, the D&D world works like our world. Same gravity. Same light speed. Same absolute zero.

Which means it's perfectly valid to discuss how an illusion interacts with physics as presumed in the game world and how one can use simple physical interactions (Like light and shadow) to completely, and instantly, foil an illusion by walking near it with a torch.

Cybren

2017-04-01, 09:17 AM

If you hide in an illusionary barrel, the barrel has no shadow: But you do. So the barrel would appear to have the shadow of a crouching person.

Light would also not fall on the barrel. So if you get close with a torch, that barrel would still be just as shadowed as when it was in the darkness. Or, if the barrel illusion is formed as it would be in light, the barrel looks like it's under normal light while it's shrouded in darkness which makes no freaking sense. Even if it's somehow colored to look like light is falling on it without it interfering with the shadows it's in, that light-sourcing is static so the second light falls on it in a way that doesn't conform to the way the light should appear on the barrel, the illusion fails (Though the light on you and the shadow should also screw that pooch).

That's not even "Interacting" with the illusion. That's "Being within 40ft of an illusion" ruins it.

Same thing happens with the illusory wall. The second the light shifts and the wall doesn't respect the change in light the illusion breaks.

And no. It's not "In the mind of the viewer". There are illusions that explicitly are (Like Phantasma Force). But those are exceptions to the rule rather than the core of illusions.

And yeah. It's bringing "Science" into it to discuss things like this, but that's how people interact with a coherent world around them and why you can't shadowstep through an illusion's shadow. It's called Verisimilitude. Except in places where it expressly doesn't, the D&D world works like our world. Same gravity. Same light speed. Same absolute zero.

Which means it's perfectly valid to discuss how an illusion interacts with physics as presumed in the game world and how one can use simple physical interactions (Like light and shadow) to completely, and instantly, foil an illusion by walking near it with a torch.
You're begging the question. You keep taking your presumed conclusion as an invincibility rather than proving it. Because you can't prove it, because illusion magic isn't real and thus can't behave in any specific set of characteristics other than the ones specifically described by the game rules. The person viewing the illusion has no particular reason to
A) notice a particular detail in passing. That's the whole point of the investigation check, to give a specific examination, like, not only bringing a light source near enough to see how it interacts with the illusion, but actively paying attention to the result of that experiment
or
b) believe immediately that this is an illusion, because how often has someone in this world even seen an illusion? Why wouldn't they assume it's a magic object, or bewitched, or a hallucination?

Beelzebubba

2017-04-01, 09:21 AM

Steampunkette

2017-04-01, 09:30 AM

Cybren

2017-04-01, 09:35 AM

Sabeta

2017-04-01, 10:18 AM

And no. It's not "In the mind of the viewer". There are illusions that explicitly are (Like Phantasma Force). But those are exceptions to the rule rather than the core of illusions.

You focus your studies on magic that dazzles the
senses, befuddles the mind, and tricks even the wisest
folk. Your magic is subtle, but the illusions crafted by
your keen mind make the impossible seem real.
---Player's Handbook p.118, "School of Illusion"

Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They
cause people to see things that are not there, to miss things
that are there, to hear phantom noises, or to remember
things that never happened. Some illusions create phantom
images that any creature can see, but the most insidious
illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature.
---Player's Handbook p.203, sidebar: "The Schools of Magic"

I think it's safe to say that Illusions are indeed in the mind of the viewer. Hence why things like Minor Illusion fade once detected, your mind no longer believes in the lie, but still percieves its false existence. Phantasmal Force is not unique in its ability to deceive the senses or minds of others.

Further, I reference the two anime pictures I linked before. Just because the object casts no shadow of its own does not mean that the object cannot be textured so as to have shadow on it. The wall will not appear ghostly white in a dark room, you can change it to appear shaded. Someone walking through may indeed notice something is off about the wall, as determined by his Perception Score, but to realize that it's an illusion still requires a successful Investigation or interaction. Again though, the mind is built to fill in the gaps for you. If you saw a barrel with a man shadow, and didn't pay particular attention to that shadow then chances are you "saw" a barrel's shadow. The brain is imperfect, as has been pointed out by a few times now.

It's almost as if cantrips were meant to be fallible and not reality altering. But hey, Steampunkette if that's how you want to play the game that's fine. Play your table however you like, I certainly won't stop you. We're just here to clarify how Minor Illusion works. If you want to house rule it stronger than it's intended to be, then by all rights go ahead. I've yet to hear of any games completely breaking because Minor Illusion was allowed to get away things it oughtn't.

I personally think it's fine as written. It's a useful tool in a number of situations. It's just not the end-all to every situation.

Steampunkette

2017-04-01, 12:13 PM

You're just reiterating your previous logical fallacy. Illusions aren't real. There's no reason to believe that they would be immediately obvious if they don't interact with light or cast shadows. They're magic. They can work in any possible way so long as the result is they can create things that seem real but offer some method of detection via the investigation check.

If an object doesn't obey the laws of physics (Which according to Mearls and Crawford these illusions don't) you're bound to notice them. When the word of God literally says "These things do not interact with light like real objects" all the statements of "Magic!" in the world won't save them.

If it casts no shadow it casts no shadow. If a shadow has to be drawn on the ground as part of the object, and light does not dispell that shadow, it is clearly not a shadow. Minor Illusion objects should be ridiculously easy to detect unless you're in a well lit room with no light changes at all.

You focus your studies on magic that dazzles the
senses, befuddles the mind, and tricks even the wisest
folk. Your magic is subtle, but the illusions crafted by
your keen mind make the impossible seem real.
---Player's Handbook p.118, "School of Illusion"

Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They
cause people to see things that are not there, to miss things
that are there, to hear phantom noises, or to remember
things that never happened. Some illusions create phantom
images that any creature can see, but the most insidious
illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature.
---Player's Handbook p.203, sidebar: "The Schools of Magic"

I think it's safe to say that Illusions are indeed in the mind of the viewer. Hence why things like Minor Illusion fade once detected, your mind no longer believes in the lie, but still percieves its false existence. Phantasmal Force is not unique in its ability to deceive the senses or minds of others.

Further, I reference the two anime pictures I linked before. Just because the object casts no shadow of its own does not mean that the object cannot be textured so as to have shadow on it. The wall will not appear ghostly white in a dark room, you can change it to appear shaded. Someone walking through may indeed notice something is off about the wall, as determined by his Perception Score, but to realize that it's an illusion still requires a successful Investigation or interaction. Again though, the mind is built to fill in the gaps for you. If you saw a barrel with a man shadow, and didn't pay particular attention to that shadow then chances are you "saw" a barrel's shadow. The brain is imperfect, as has been pointed out by a few times now.

It's almost as if cantrips were meant to be fallible and not reality altering. But hey, Steampunkette if that's how you want to play the game that's fine. Play your table however you like, I certainly won't stop you. We're just here to clarify how Minor Illusion works. If you want to house rule it stronger than it's intended to be, then by all rights go ahead. I've yet to hear of any games completely breaking because Minor Illusion was allowed to get away things it oughtn't.

I personally think it's fine as written. It's a useful tool in a number of situations. It's just not the end-all to every situation.

Make a wall appear to have shadows, and the shadows are static even when the light changes. Therein lies the problem. It fails to interact with reality. Like a painting without a frame, as light shifts, the shadows do not, and it is revealed. It's bad enough when it's a brick wall, but if it's a 3d object which doesn't interact with light? Woof.

As to "In the Mind" I point you to the bolded and italics sections. Also the fact that "Or" comes after them. Showing that it's one or the other, maybe both in some cases but not always.

Dalebert

2017-04-01, 12:48 PM

Minor Illusion objects don't produce light as the description explicitly states for that specific spell (a limitation higher level spells like Silent Image don't have) but they obviously interact with light. It's a visual illusion. Light bounces off and back to your eye. Yes, of course they produce shadows.

As for how they become transparent once you disbelieve them (note that they don't disappear altogether), don't over-think that. It kinda doesn't work with real-world physics. It's just a balance thing--once you realize it's an illusion, you can't use it to hide or obscure vision, etc. Mixing magic and real-world laws of science too much is like the opposite of chocolate and peanut butter. They DON'T go well together.

Steampunkette

2017-04-01, 12:54 PM

Sabeta

2017-04-01, 01:26 PM

snip

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01120/blackballs_1120775i.jpg

The mind is easily tricked though. I honestly don't know why you have some problem with the spell being imperfect, but them's the breaks. Do it differently if you want, but the RAW is clear.

Dalebert

2017-04-01, 01:33 PM

Sage Advice has stated that it does not cast a shadow. I linked it, previously.

Add it to the long list of bad calls from Sage Advice. They need to erata it if they want it to behave in an other-than-stated fashion. From p. 203 of the PHB where they describe the schools of magic, illusions include this text.

"Some illusions create phantom images that any creature can see, but the most insidious illusions plant an image directly in the mind o f a creature."

They're clearly making a distinction between illusions that are directly manipulating the mind (e.g. Phantasmal Force or Phantasmal Killer) and the ones that fool the senses. Saying it's "just an image" is a "duh". It's interacting with light but not with anything else because you can see it. Every creature who can see nearby can see it because it's not in any creature's mind. Pretty sure the cantrip is not amongst "the most insidious illusions". It's out there in the real world. It's not solid so you can't feel it and you can pass through it. It's not creating other sensory manifestations so you can't smell it or feel heat from it. And common sense says if you can see it, it's interacting with light--reflecting light and blocking vision through it like a real object would.

So my rulings based on my interpretation of the RAW, not just that spell by itself but the full context with the school descriptions and the other illusion spells, are based on it casting a shadow and people can make minor images of mirrors. Mirrors aren't complicated. They're just a reflective surface. They can't make a lit torch because the spell specifically says it can't produce light. They can make a lit torch with Silent Image and it will shed actual real light because the illusion is manipulating and even creating light.

Steampunkette

2017-04-01, 02:24 PM

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01120/blackballs_1120775i.jpg

The mind is easily tricked though. I honestly don't know why you have some problem with the spell being imperfect, but them's the breaks. Do it differently if you want, but the RAW is clear.

If the RAW were clear this thread wouldn't exist. Nor the various twitter asks to Sage Advice.

I don't have an issue with the spell being imperfect, either. It's not that it's an imperfect illusion, it's that it's so far from perfect as to be, essentially, useless.

You could use it to show someone what a barrel or book looks like, but not a person. You can't reasonably hide behind it or use it to disguise a trap or doorway... it's less useful than prestidigitation.

Dalebert

2017-04-01, 02:36 PM

Of course it's imperfect, but that's already built into the mechanics based on the DC of the caster. Inspect it and you can find flaws if your investigation is as high as the DC. Or just touch it. BAM--revealed. It's just an image.

Saying it never casts shadows is an automatic tell for free. Someone could just ask the DM "Is it casting a shadow?" I call B.S. Touch it or inspect it. Easy but not totally free. For all visual purposes, it's there. It's interacting with light and vision just like a normal object short of actually shedding light itself since the spell explicitly states that limitation. The spell says nothing about it not casting a shadow. That came out of Crawford's butt for all I can tell. If he intended that, he should have put it in the description or under illusions in general somewhere in the books or he should errata it so we can all never ever prepare another illusion spell ever again since that would nerf them to pointlessness.

kulosle

2017-04-01, 03:00 PM

Look if illusions are things then they have to interact with light or you wouldn't be able to see them. If they aren't things than they are magic that just tricks people into seeing it.

Prophes0r

2017-04-01, 03:44 PM

This isn't actually that hard guys. The Minor Illusion spell is literally intended to do things like this.

Illusion spells have ALWAYS been 3 dimensional things. No spell illusion spell I could find from OD&D to 5E has ever specified that it only creates a 2d image (I looked for over an hour before posting, if you find one, post the book + page number). "Image" in this context literally means "Thing you can see" not "Photograph".

Illusion spells with visual components MUST, by definition, interact with or simulate interacting with light. We HAVE to ignore Mearls' twitter post on this one, or illusions cannot be visual. I'm fine with them not casting shadows, but they must do 2 things in order to work.

They must reflect light, or simulate reflecting it (near)perfectly. They must do this from all angles at once like a normal object. They MUST do this, because that is how we see things. Light bounces off objects. If it did not, the object would be a uniform, perfect blackness.

They must block light, or simulate the effect of blocking light from passing through them. They MUST do this. If they did not, you would see THROUGH the illusion. Imagine a piece of paper. When you look at it, you don't see the paper AND the stuff behind the paper do you? Now imagine a sheet of glass the same size as the paper. You DO see through the glass.

If it did not do one or both of these things, the illusion would either be invisible, perfectly evenly black, or you would see the object behind it in addition to the object.

It just doesn't cast shadows on anything but ITSELF, because "Magic".

But wait, how can an illusionary door block the light from behind it so I can't see through it, but NOT cast a shadow? Because "Magic". If there was a real world way to explain it, it literally would not be magic anymore.

We have one last thing to take into account that tells us how to deal with illusions.
How do they work when someone disbelieves?This is spelled out in the description of Minor Illusion itself, and it works pretty much the same for all illusions.

If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the illusion becomes faint to the creature.

Now that we know all that, let's look at an example. Let's say a halfling wizard is standing in a dimly lit hallway with three barrels against a wall. He casts Minor Illusion and creates the image of a fourth barrel next to the other three.

Our wizard now see's three real barrels, and the faint image of his illusionary barrel since he already knows it isn't real.

Now let's say our wizard steps into the image of the barrel, and he is small enough that no parts of him stick out.

Our wizard sees the faint image of the INSIDE of the barrel. He can also see the scene outside it. He can see through it, because that is what it means to be a faint image.

A guard walks through the hallway with a lit torch and as he passes the barrels, he uses the torch light to read the labels on each one.

The first three barrels look real (because they are) and he reads the labels normally. The fourth barrel also looks real. As he moves the torch up to it, the flickering light reflects off it normally, and the illusion casts shadows on ITSELF. But he MIGHT notice that the barrel does not cast shadows on the wall or floor. This brings up perception...

Passive perception is a character's innate "sense" of things in their environment. In this case, if the guard's passive perception is higher than the spell DC, he should have a "sense" that something is off. That "something" could be the lack of shadows on the surrounding environment, a misspelled word on the label, the memory of only three barrels the last time they looked, or something else entirely. If he notices something, then he has a reason to investigate.

Let's be clear though, a person should ALWAYS have a reason for investigating an illusion. You don't check every stair in your house to make sure it is real before using it, and neither do people in a world with illusion magic. Illusions should always be ASSUMED to succeed, unless they have a good reason not to.

What if our guard was searching for our little wizard, and the door at the other end of the hallway was blocked? Now the guard has a reason to believe the wizard might still be in the room. If he looks at the barrels to see if they are still sealed, he has a chance of noticing that one barrel isn't quite right. THIS is when he investigates.

If he fails the investigation, the fourth barrel looks normal. If he passes his investigation (maybe my trying to open it and having his hand pass through it) the barrel instantly becomes a faint image and he can see the halfling.

Hopefully this logic clears up some confusion. Remember that this is a game, and the rules need to actually be playable. But also remember that D&D is about telling a story. Things work the way they NEED to work, to facilitate the story. BUT, they should also be consistent with logic. Especially when dealing with magic, Things work the way they do, because that is how they SHOULD work to make the spell function as described.

Sigreid

2017-04-01, 04:00 PM

I think it would work a bit like a deer blind. Perfect camouflage? Probably not. Easily over looked by someone distracted or with no particular reason to be alert for it? Sure.

Dalebert

2017-04-01, 05:01 PM

The not-casting-shadows thing was just made up by Crawford at that moment. There's nothing in the actual RAW that says that or even implies it. If you can see it and you don't see through it, and assuming it's not in your head (and it's not. Went over that already) then light is bouncing off of it which means it would have a shadow.

If visual illusions don't cast shadows then they have a 100% reliable way to know if something's an illusion at no cost. Normally it takes an action to inspect which might fail, or you have to get close enough to physically interact with it to determine if it's an illusion.

Coffee_Dragon

2017-04-01, 05:07 PM

I'm not super convinced by arguments that go "this must be so because common sense/physics, and this must be so because common sense/physics, but this thing here is wonky so that's magic".

I also never bought the "illusions must reflect light or they'd be black cutouts" argument; I just assume the inability to shed light refers to an inability to change ambient light levels. So how does it visually fit into the environment? To some extent it's magic, and to some extent it's imperfect.

Dr.Samurai

2017-04-01, 05:19 PM

Nah, that idea is silly. It's too clever by half - and is the typical 'power creep' that you see in a 'rulings not rules' game where hundreds of thousands of words aren't devoted to legalistic mumbo jumbo.

It's also a way to pretend you're being clever when you're really just being complicated. Clever means solving a problem in the easiest way.

Just crouch down and become a small chest of drawers. Or a stack of firewood.
I pretty much agree with this sentiment as far as this trick is concerned.

@Prophes0r: I don't have much of an issue with what you said, except that I don't really get how you determine at what point you can just chalk it up to "it's magic". It seems to me, that illusions can work as you describe without anyone having to think about real world physics for even a second. I have never thought too hard about how illusions work. I always assumed they would accurately reflect the lighting of the room they are in. I think, intuitively, people get that the lighting and shadowing are there, despite Crawford saying to ask your DM. This all really just seems like an attempt to explain how an illusory mirror is actually just a real mirror that you can't interact with. That's... not what it is. So we get this entire appeal to science which just sort of confuses everything. All of this is to say that although your post is articulated well and I largely agree with you, at some point we will always have to fall back on "it's a spell, it's a magic effect", which makes the science argument moot in my opinion.

Dalebert

2017-04-01, 05:41 PM

ThePolarBear

2017-04-01, 06:11 PM

If an object doesn't obey the laws of physics (Which according to Mearls and Crawford these illusions don't) you're bound to notice them. When the word of God literally says "These things do not interact with light like real objects" all the statements of "Magic!" in the world won't save them.

Correct. But we are not talking about objects, but about ILLUSIONS. There's a world of difference, and in that world of distance "Magic" is the answer you are looking for.

Also remember: Minor illusion does not cast a shadow. That's what the tweet provided tells us.
This does not mean that all the illusions cannot cast a shadow or cannot be made to cast realistic shadows.

Personally when i encounter this kind on "nonsense" i do not try to apply too much "real" physics logic because that's something that simply cannot be done - Magic is something that (for all i know :D) simply does not exists in this world. We cannot apply any kind of common sense to this kind of discussions. We do not know how magic works if not for the boundaries given by RAW and RAI. We pick what we like the most.

For me, spells that do not allow interaction or that cannot be made to be "animated" are not able to be used for things like mirrors - and even then the ones that are "animated" can fool only one creature and it's still difficult to perform. There are no shadows cast by Minor Image's illusionary objects - but that's up to the player to come up with reasonable positioning of said illusion to make it "believable". The spell, in its limitations, will take care of the rest.

kulosle

2017-04-01, 06:38 PM

If you stick to the RAW, it is actually quite simple. What complicates the Hell out of it are arbitrary exceptions to what you'd normally expect like that it doesn't cast shadows.

RAW:
* Has to be an object (not a creature)
* Must fit into a 5 x 5 x 5 cube
* Can't shed light so a mirror is fine but a lit torch is not
* You can figure out it's an illusion by physically interacting with it or by successfully investigating it with your action

Checking whether it casts a shadow is not in there as a way to determine it's an illusion. If that's added, the spell is pointless.

I like this point the best. The spell doesn't offer any extra ways of being able to tell that it is an illusion. You have to interact with it or decide to investigate it. There isn't a reason to not believe it unless you do one of those things.

If illusions were as obviously not real as some would suggest they would be fairly terrible. And a lot less fun.

lperkins2

2017-04-01, 08:20 PM

So, it seems that the sticking point is the no 'any other sensory effect' phrase. If the spell cannot create any sensory effect, it may as well not exist, since seeing it is a sensory effect. If the illusion can be seen, light bouncing off of it does not count as creating a sensory effect for the purposes of this spell. It says it cannot create light, so the only other possibility is it reflects light (or is always matte black). The only way to interpret it that makes any sense is that it cannot emit more light than it absorbs, that is it cannot glow like a torch. Given that it can reflect light the only question which remains is what is the upper limit on the created image's albedo. Since nothing specifies an upper limit, I see no reason it could not be somewhere near 1. Note that if an illusionary coin glints in the torchlight, it is reflective enough to make a mirror.

The only way I could see it working differently is if it is like 3.5 where it is mind-affecting, but then I would expect things immune to charm-effects to see through it automatically.

I'm not trying to insert real-world physics into it, just pointing out the dichotomy of no glinting anything (coins, hinges, swords) or allowing mirrors.

Edit: If it is reflecting a portion of the light back (which it must, since it produces no light of its own and is not matte black), it must cast a shadow.

Cybren

2017-04-01, 10:49 PM

I like this point the best. The spell doesn't offer any extra ways of being able to tell that it is an illusion. You have to interact with it or decide to investigate it. There isn't a reason to not believe it unless you do one of those things.

If illusions were as obviously not real as some would suggest they would be fairly terrible. And a lot less fun.

Of course, not having a shadow isn't proof something is an illusion, since this is a world where shadows, treasure chests, and stalactites might try to eat you.

Dr.Samurai

2017-04-01, 10:55 PM

I'm not trying to insert real-world physics into it, just pointing out the dichotomy of no glinting anything (coins, hinges, swords) or allowing mirrors.

Edit: If it is reflecting a portion of the light back (which it must, since it produces no light of its own and is not matte black), it must cast a shadow.
Please explain to me what the light is reflecting off of when it hits the illusion. What surface is it striking and bouncing off of?

Dalebert

2017-04-01, 11:33 PM

Please explain to me what the light is reflecting off of when it hits the illusion. What surface is it striking and bouncing off of?

No. It's pointless to explain. It's magic!

Okay, fine. I'll explain it a little bit as best I can based on what we know about how the spell works.

We know it's creating a sensory effect because it's not in your mind like Phantasmal Force. The spell is creating a visual sensory effect that everything nearby can see. We know it's not able to emit light because this spell specifically says the object can't emit light. This means it can only reflect existing light (or whatever darkvision picks up) the same way that solid objects do in order to create the visual sensory effect of an actual object in that spot.

lperkins2

2017-04-01, 11:45 PM

No. It's pointless to explain. It's magic!

Okay, fine. I'll explain it a little bit as best I can based on what we know about how the spell works.

We know it's creating a sensory effect because it's not in your mind like Phantasmal Force. The spell is creating a visual sensory effect that everything nearby can see. We know it's not able to emit light because this spell specifically says the object can't emit light. This means it can only reflect existing light (or whatever darkvision picks up) the same way that solid objects do in order to create the visual sensory effect of an actual object in that spot.

Pretty much. Strictly, it might not be reflecting light, it might only refract it, or absorb it on one side and re-emit it on the other. The problem is anything except basic, ordinary reflection is likely to make it painfully obvious that it is an illusion. If it was no-casting-a-shadow painfully obvious it's an illusion, it wouldn't require any check to know it's fake (like modern holograms, which are painfully obviously not solid).

Sabeta

2017-04-02, 12:02 AM

@Dalebert: The spell doesn't create sensory effects. That's 100% RAW. You arguing that visibility being a sensory effect actually supports the idea that the spell is purely mental over the idea that the rules and the devs are mistaken. It doesn't cast shadows because objects, including the physical aspect of light, passes through it.

The book says this. The devs elaborated on it because people like you didn't get it. Then you said " no. you, who wrote the book on how the game is meant to be played, do not know what you're talking about. The guy whose job it is to clarify the rules doesn't understand the rules."

Quite frankly, it's hilarious how far people go just to rules lawyer a cantrip.

@Punkette: Common sense isn't always common. I found the RAW clear, and the SA supported my stance. This thread exists because not everyone shares the same level of reading comprehension.

Dr.Samurai

2017-04-02, 12:03 AM

We know it's creating a sensory effect because it's not in your mind like Phantasmal Force. The spell is creating a visual sensory effect that everything nearby can see.
Um... I guess. I don't see any reason to refer to it as a "visual sensory effect" when it is called an image. But ok.

We know it's not able to emit light because this spell specifically says the object can't emit light.
Yeah ok.

This means it can only reflect existing light
No that's not what that means.

the same way that solid objects do in order to create the visual sensory effect of an actual object in that spot.
How can it possibly reflect existing light the same way a solid object does if it literally has NONE of the properties of any solid object?

What you are suggesting is that you're conjuring some sort of intangible object into existence that operates like other physical tangible things, but can't be touched. That's not what the illusion is. There is *literally* no surface for light to bounce off of the illusion. It's not really there. It doesn't exist. It. is. an. illusion.

You're willing to delve into the science to justify working mirrors, but you fail to explain how exactly the illusion is reflecting the light that you require *must* be reflected.

It's magic. That's all the explanation you need. The wizard is creating a magical effect (the image) that somehow makes you see what he wants you to see, within the constraints of the spell. It doesn't do this by reflecting back light to you, because there is literally nothing there for the light to bounce off.

Dr.Samurai

2017-04-02, 12:12 AM

Pretty much. Strictly, it might not be reflecting light, it might only refract it, or absorb it on one side and re-emit it on the other.
How can it do any of these things? Seriously, if you're going to bring in science to invent a problem that justifies working mirrors, then stick to the science and explain how the light can be reflected, refracted, or absorbed in any way by an illusion.

The problem is anything except basic, ordinary reflection is likely to make it painfully obvious that it is an illusion.
Which is fine. Why should the cantrip be fool-proof?

If it was no-casting-a-shadow painfully obvious it's an illusion, it wouldn't require any check to know it's fake (like modern holograms, which are painfully obviously not solid).
You create an image. Presumably, the wizard, very smart and learned in magic, can craft some pretty good images. So you make the image and if someone isn't paying close attention (spending that action) or touching it, they don't notice it, lack of shadows and all. I'm not seeing the big problem here.

Coidzor

2017-04-02, 12:14 AM

I'm with Cybren on this. It's magic. There is no reason to restrain ourselves to these two possibilities.

But you see a reason to restrain yourself to the idea that illusions aren't capable of anything a computer screen isn't? :smallconfused:

It's interesting that people are having so much trouble with this. My group has apparently been playing with a house rule I guess. It's not something that even cares about light. The illusion isn't an object. So why even question if it interacts with light. Other wise the illusion would still be there if you disbelieved it. So it's magic nonsense. It's all in the person's head. It's not a real thing. You are tricking someone's brain into thinking something is real that isn't. You don't have to draw a picture. It's not your drawing skill. Other wise you'd need perform painter or something.

And the person's brain doesn't want to believe it's wrong. So it makes up any excuses for why that's missing. Your brain already does this. Some of what you see is just good guess work by your brain. You aren't actually seeing all of it. Your brain just makes up something that makes the most sense. Which is why you really have to investigate hard into believing other wise. Your brain isn't use to guessing wrong. And the better the caster the stronger the belief.

I think there is a spell about an illusionist bridge that actually discusses this.

Yes, you're playing with a houserule if you believe that this is how all illusion spells operate.

Phantasmal Force creates an illusion in a single creature's head, and the majority of things said in its spell description apply only to that single spell.

Most of the illusion spells that people debate endlessly are not targeted at a creature but instead create an actual optical illusion that doesn't care how many creatures look at it or if no creatures look at it. They create false sensory information and put it out into the environment.

Dr.Samurai

2017-04-02, 12:39 AM

But you see a reason to restrain yourself to the idea that illusions aren't capable of anything a computer screen isn't? :smallconfused:
The computer screen is the only way I can communicate with you guys on this thread. It's... completely irrelevant. If I hold a picture of a mirror in front of you and you wave your hand in front of that *image*, you won't see a reflection of your hand. The point is that nothing in the description of the spell suggests that the illusion you are creating (the image) has any of the properties of the thing it represents. The notion that because you are making an image of a mirror, it therefore *must* create mirror reflections is completely false.

In other words... there are mirrors (which create mirror reflections) and there are images of mirrors (which do not create mirror reflections). The minor illusion cantrip creates an image of a mirror.

Potato_Priest

2017-04-02, 01:29 AM

Quite frankly, it's hilarious how far people go just to rules lawyer a cantrip.

Before you accuse us, take a look at yourself. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20WrYQI784g)

BurgerBeast

2017-04-02, 02:12 AM

For me, an illusion is created by the person who casts it, and it is a static image. Any attempt to change it would require concentration to make the changes, because it is not reactive on its own. It can't contain AI scripts to respond to the environment independently. Also, it cannot have multiple appearances. The two-dimensional surface of a mirror is different to four different observers at any given instant. You cannot make a picture do that, and you can't make an illusion do that. Beyond the fact that I just don't think an illusion can have four appearances simultaneously, the ability of the human mind to perform the calculations to achieve it even if such illusions were possible would make the task impossible.

Many of the properties that make a mirror a mirror are a consequence of the fact that is physically real and can interact with the environment. An illusion is not physically real.

Also, illusions are not in the mind of the viewer. This is a distinction that was made quite clearly in 2e texts that differentiated the function of psionic illusions from magical illusions. A psionicist needed to invade the minds of all viewers whereas a wizard could simply cast one illusion for all to see. This distinction remains useful. If someone else can see it then it's not in your mind.

Edit: Also, all of this talk about shadows strikes me as mostly irrelevant. Just make an illusion of a shadow as part of the casting.

Zorku

2017-04-03, 03:23 PM

You're begging the question. You keep taking your presumed conclusion as an invincibility rather than proving it. Because you can't prove it, because illusion magic isn't real and thus can't behave in any specific set of characteristics other than the ones specifically described by the game rules. The person viewing the illusion has no particular reason to
A) notice a particular detail in passing. That's the whole point of the investigation check, to give a specific examination, like, not only bringing a light source near enough to see how it interacts with the illusion, but actively paying attention to the result of that experiment
or
b) believe immediately that this is an illusion, because how often has someone in this world even seen an illusion? Why wouldn't they assume it's a magic object, or bewitched, or a hallucination?
Little sanity check here: could you actually walk me through that 'begging the question' claim? There's a lot to the post you quoted so I'm not even sure which topic within it is supposed to be inferior even to a circular argument.

And strictly speaking, I don't know that the D&D world knows the difference between illusions and hallucinations.

Realistic shadows
I'm reasonably sure that fantasy logic doesn't consider anything a shadow unless it's a harsh silhouette in a powerful directional light.

All of those texture and lighting details ought to be the same single concept, but they've got different words and probably weren't even concepts that early story tellers knew how to describe (and modern ones don't have anything that really works for a campfire story,) so it's just not the same thing. This is exactly the kind of "these shadows are their own thing because I said so," logic that I absolutely hate to resort to myself, but it's all too clear that that's the kind of assumption the developers were operating with.

Although you've got the kind of rationale that I'd use myself for what a normal human being would notice and what a shadow obviously is, you didn't really get that kind of comprehension of how light interacts with real world surfaces until a century or three after the fuzzy and almost useless line we try to draw for the time period that this is all supposed to take place in, and you can expect another century delay on those ideas really clicking within the fraction of the general public that 'gets it,' but that's far from having everyone on the same page and if you're not going to spell these things out in legal terms you almost have to operate on simpler linguistic tradition, even if anyone that's ever so much as taken an introductory college art course has entirely contradicting sensibilities.

And if I don't want to be generous, I can read the description of phantasmal force and decide that this is only establishing that it's different from normal illusions in that only the one creature sees it and all that other description is just a negation of the "physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion" clause. I'm reasonable enough that I'm not actually going to insist that to be the case, but I've brought it up to demonstrate that this heuristic doesn't fully lock out the "illusions are more in your mind than they are in the real world," interpretation.

If we're looking at it from too modern of a perspective then these things are the smoke and mirrors of stage magicians, but that's both a weird confidence game to set up under someone's nose on the fly, and pre-Scooby Doo era meddling kids didn't really understand that you need a dark room and a mirror to project an image like that, and the actually-voodoo level superstitious types were even more susceptible* to the power of suggestion.

*Well, not exactly more susceptible per se, just more uniform in believing the same kinds of easily exploited delusions. You've still got people today that swear they saw someone transform into a vulture with eyebeams that killed dozens of people in a crowd, while anybody not indoctrinated into that would have seen them striking a silly pose and making some bad animal sounds until just one guy fainted. A fair number of the people indoctrinated into that also see it the latter way, but between that not seeming interesting enough to comment on and all their peers insisting that they must not have seen the same thing there's a lot of negative incentive against calling this out, and again this is too modern and needs too much spelling out. You don't just assume that all the readings are big enough psychology dorks to be able to make reasonable judgement calls about how far you can stretch these concepts... unless you're all over that D20 modern UA where you straight up retrodict the world to make the 'magic' happen right when the caster needs it to.

In a sense it's not even that you're bringing too much modern science into it, but that you're bringing too much modern art into it. This problem shares the same beating heart that the usual objections march under, but it's got a strange field of deflection around it, because we've all been taught that it belongs to this category that's emotionally the opposite of science.

p.s. Hopefully I will remain clear enough with my discussion that everyone can see that I'm not bringing a greater degree of science into this, so much as shedding light on the ways that the current amount doesn't hold up.

You're just reiterating your previous logical fallacy. Illusions aren't real. There's no reason to believe that they would be immediately obvious if they don't interact with light or cast shadows. They're magic. They can work in any possible way so long as the result is they can create things that seem real but offer some method of detection via the investigation check.
Can I make an illusory wall that looks like it was drawn in crayon, and if so, should I expect people to recognize that it doesn't match the stone walls around it?

Some illusions create phantom
images that any creature can see, but the most insidious
illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature.[/I]
---Player's Handbook p.203, sidebar: "The Schools of Magic"

I think it's safe to say that Illusions are indeed in the mind of the viewer.
It just became less safe for me. The text is presenting phantom images as a distinct option from images in the minds of creatures.

I also recognize that not every bit of text written about and within a school of magic was cross referenced against all other elements within the same category, and that when they were the cross reference didn't necessarily run in both directions, so I can still leave this one as much up in the air as I please.

Mirrors aren't complicated. They're just a reflective surface
Just for clarity: If you take light and shadows for granted, we know that light passes through illusions (you can see stuff through one, once you realize it's an illusion,) so illusory mirrors don't get to simply reflect light. Most of the people that cry foul of this, are picturing something along the lines of the caster having to think about where the subject is standing, where the mirror is positioned, mentally trace those lines to work out what space should be in the reflection, mentally rotate the parts of this that they can see themselves, and finally fabricate details for any elements that the caster cannot see (and possibly has not yet seen.) For these people the surface of the illusory mirror is not actually reflecting light (because light passes through it,) so this is either a flat image made to look like a mirror, or an exponentially more complicated depth trick, the likes of which ought to only work at a very limited angle.

None of that is satisfying, for lots of reasons, but obviously this doesn't apply if you take a more charlatan approach and declare that the creature looking at the mirror in merely convinced that it is a mirror, and mentally fills in the gaps themselves to make it mentally pass, right up until they focus on it close enough to actually hit the limits of what their own mind will do to try and tell them that this is a mirror. This also doesn't apply in a lot of potential "it's magic" type explanations, but what I really want to drive home is that we don't have enough information to determine exactly what the authors thought, or how thoroughly they even thought about it in the first place. Obviously the reviewed everything a fair deal, but you've got a lot of hazy text that's ripe for self inserting ideas, right up until a bunch of forum goers really tear into it and argue the meanings behind words. Were the developers this critical of the text? Almost certainly not. There's a high probability of them never having discovered how different their concepts of illusions were from each other, and a decent probability of them having left this vague even if they did realize some of those differences.

What we do have, is enough text to convince each other that it's probably this way or that, but that gets really ugly any time two isolated groups come to a conclusion then run into each other and have to call everything back into question.

If the RAW were clear this thread wouldn't exist. Nor the various twitter asks to Sage Advice.

I don't have an issue with the spell being imperfect, either. It's not that it's an imperfect illusion, it's that it's so far from perfect as to be, essentially, useless.

Although you (and I,) apparently walk down a hall seeing the spots that the painters didn't cover thoroughly enough on the last pass and had to go back to do another coat over, where the seams in the base boards are, and the spot where there's apparently a trickle of water down the interior of the wall whenever it rains (but before the paint really bubbles up or starts to chip,) most people don't notice most of that stuff most of the time (and realistically neither of us notice any one detail most of the time, but I guess our minds wander in a way where we particularly recognize a lot of details that others would immediately file away as useless.)

I think about, and classify these kinds of details as a certain kind of thing that stage magicians are really good at getting away with. Most people's eyes simply look somewhere else and blink at certain times, and they just skip right over something that was in plain sight, because they intuited that they were supposed to look somewhere else and pay attention to some other detail. If you act like your eyes work like a video camera then that makes no sense, but our eyes obviously don't work like that. We've got a hideously blurry and damn near colorless snapshot to go off of, with a mind boggling number of shortcuts and best approximation heuristics at at play to create an illusion of consistency and overall flawless perception, when what's really going on is sloppy, bug ridden, and at times so faulty that you can't imagine how someone would think it was functioning properly, yet we all pretty much feel like it's working all of the time until you cut the feed entirely or make it so blurry that not even that little patch in the center is sharp enough to read text (and a lot of people still think it's working normally if you screw up those major parts.)

So instead of eye catching flaws, the question is more "how much does this not look like the most interesting thing I should be paying attention to?" With a little battle mat and some figurines or even a 3d adventure set it's really tempting to act like we're looking at blank rooms that only have crumbled stone where it shows crumbled stone, furniture where we see furniture, and pretty much a perfectly uncluttered, open floorspace with nice flat walls that don't have shelving unless we see it, or really any storage of the thousands of items that large structures are built to house. When you think that of course people would see the human shadow sticking out of a barrel in hard light it's practically a white room, instead of the situation where I've got to isolate that shadow (which a large portion of my brain is busily trying to remove from the equation so I can see "more important" shapes,) from the branches of a nearby tree cast over a bunch of only-kinda-flat paving stones with moss growing up out of the cracks and what was probably horse droppings a week ago all while the shadow is that much blurrier because of the diffuse light cast off of that tailor's storefront and the dozens of other human shadows that are moving about up and down the street.

And if you've decided that the illusionist is basically just constructing whatever shape they can think up then there's a paper thin patch of ground just above the actual ground that masks parts of their shadow so I'm really trying to pick up itty bitty fractions of shadow that catch on tumbleweed fragments that blow about in the wind...

But as you think through all of that it should be clear just how much science we're trying to bring into a game that's basically told you that people will come up and try to poke this with a stick to figure out if it's real or not. In combat you've got a decent fraction of 6 seconds for them to come up and wave a torch around an illusion as part of their investigation check and that's a perfectly reasonable amount of time to take if you want to uncover an illusion without just throwing a handful of pebbles at it. The only problem here is how in the world this could ever be a DC 19 investigation check even with the time constraints, but the game's not made for both the player and DM to have to have 20INT in order to keep track of all the shadows being cast in a verbal and loosely visually described room in order to make the check harder to pull off, and there was any risk of this they especially wouldn't want to force you to figure out how to do that at a middling level if you were better at it than your character.

This stuff abstracts down to an investigation check or physical interaction, and if you can't make up an excuse for how someone failed a check, operating under your personal extrapolation of game principles the devs have tweeted, then you either extrapolated where you shouldn't have or you need to use your imagination in a more creative way.

If you've been reading me well then you'll know that I personally employ a mix of visual illusion and keeping-****-abstract to make this make enough sense to play, without the DM or the players having to needlessly describe minute details of how they've crafted something to fool their opponents.

They must reflect light, or simulate reflecting it (near)perfectly. They must do this from all angles at once like a normal object. They MUST do this, because that is how we see things. Light bounces off objects. If it did not, the object would be a uniform, perfect blackness.

This is an unwarranted assumption, or rather "Is bringing too much science into this."

You know that old school idea of how sight works, where your eyes emit some... thing, and you see it because that thing hit the target? In a world with basilisks and beholders there's good reason to think that that is not how you see things.

Because "Magic"Why not cut out the entire body of your argument and replace it with this one explanation?

For the most part your reasoning doesn't offer up anything that everyone else can't come up with for themselves. We don't talk about that stuff because we think that the various tweets and text rule it out, and the semantics of casting illusory shadows are "up to the DM."

Now for something gross: Your hypothetical wizard casts minor illusion to make that barrel with the sort-of-works shadows, and subsequently casts silent image to make the same barrel in the same position, but ever so slightly larger/smaller. The guard investigates the barrels and has that little epiphany that this must be an illusion... but the damn thing doesn't seem to have gone faint. There's still clearly a barrel there.

The not-casting-shadows thing was just made up by Crawford at that moment. There's nothing in the actual RAW that says that or even implies it. If you can see it and you don't see through it, and assuming it's not in your head (and it's not. Went over that already) then light is bouncing off of it which means it would have a shadow.

If visual illusions don't cast shadows then they have a 100% reliable way to know if something's an illusion at no cost. Normally it takes an action to inspect which might fail, or you have to get close enough to physically interact with it to determine if it's an illusion."Other sensory effect" is in the text, your assumptions are unwarranted, and even a paranoid creature expecting to be tricked doesn't automatically notice the absence of a shadow (for reasons that you probably have to make up on your own.)

Now, "other sensory effects" is a bizarre choice of words if you expect everyone to understand that you mean things like shadows and reflections (does this mean reflections? I really can't tell if it does or does not,) but it's a very sensible phrase if it doesn't actually mean anything and you basically want to force DMs to come up with their own rulings.

Correct. But we are not talking about objects, but about ILLUSIONS. There's a world of difference, and in that world of distance "Magic" is the answer you are looking for.
I am kind of interested in something... If I could make everyone answer this question I feel like it might change the course of these arguments:

Minor illusion doesn't cast shadows.
This doesn't automatically give it away as an illusion.
Can you make this work with personal rulings, and if so, what is the first method that came to mind?

I've kind of smuggled another question into this, but it would take forever to pressure people into actually answering it:

If illusions cannot do ____ what are some practical uses of them?

Most recent answer I've come up with is that minor illusion creates an image of a platonic object, and having been chained up in Plato's cave... well, you know the rest (assuming you even recognize what I'm talking about, in which case you can almost fit this into another idea that's been presented in this thread, except in the way that I broke it just now...)

For me, an illusion is created by the person who casts it, and it is a static image. Any attempt to change it would require concentration to make the changes, because it is not reactive on its own. It can't contain AI scripts to respond to the environment independently.We've got a dev tweet that's happy to let the hands on a clock face move. This seems to indicate an internal timer suitable for small programmed movements.

Also, illusions are not in the mind of the viewer. This is a distinction that was made quite clearly in 2e texts that differentiated the function of psionic illusions from magical illusions. A psionicist needed to invade the minds of all viewers whereas a wizard could simply cast one illusion for all to see. This distinction remains useful. If someone else can see it then it's not in your mind.There's also no officially released psionics in 5e as of yet. I like the reasoning, but don't find this to be high enough quality that I would use it myself while trying to convince others (or at least not without additional details to back up the interpretation.)

Edit: Also, all of this talk about shadows strikes me as mostly irrelevant. Just make an illusion of a shadow as part of the casting.That's up to DM ruling, so sometimes you can't. For what it's worth, I've yet to see a game where the DM insisted that you couldn't produce the image of a shadow.

BurgerBeast

2017-04-03, 05:24 PM

We've got a dev tweet that's happy to let the hands on a clock face move. This seems to indicate an internal timer suitable for small programmed movements.

Sorry, I do agree with this. I am differentiating between a programmed set of instructions that are cast at the initial time of the casting and a program that is responsive to external inputs. So I agree that you can make a clock with moving hands, or an illusion of a walking goblin (if the spell persists), for example. But you can't make a responsive illusion unless you (the caster) cause the response. This is why the goblin doesn't automatically react when someone speaks to it, and is also why a mirror can't respond to movements in the room.

There's also no officially released psionics in 5e as of yet. I like the reasoning, but don't find this to be high enough quality that I would use it myself while trying to convince others (or at least not without additional details to back up the interpretation.)

This shouldn't be relevant to the point. My point is, if the illusion is in the room, then it's not happening in the mind of the viewer.

That's up to DM ruling, so sometimes you can't. For what it's worth, I've yet to see a game where the DM insisted that you couldn't produce the image of a shadow.

Agreed.

ThePolarBear

2017-04-03, 07:25 PM

Can I make an illusory wall that looks like it was drawn in crayon, and if so, should I expect people to recognize that it doesn't match the stone walls around it?

Saving this quote, will help me with an answer later.

I am kind of interested in something... If I could make everyone answer this question I feel like it might change the course of these arguments:

Minor illusion doesn't cast shadows.
This doesn't automatically give it away as an illusion.
Can you make this work with personal rulings, and if so, what is the first method that came to mind?

I'd like to answer.

It isn't an automatic thing since it doesn't always invalidate the spell when used to project images? Yep,but this doesn't mean that the particular factor cannot be counted as a condition to apply rules on making rolls or not.

The very first method is simply "apply the usual concepts of being a decent DM: Try to be reasonable and bring the most fun for your group". Cheeky, right? But it's an important distinction that has to guide every discussion on forums like these. It's the perspective that has to be brought out as a disclaimer, and i want it to be clear. This usually leads me to consider the other conditions of the situation the illusion is placed in: Are there creatures that might notice? Is a roll necessary? Lighting, believability of the illusion, metal capacity of a creature... everything that i can count and that does not take me a noticeable amount of time to deliberate. Then, make a per-situation ruling.

What is my baseline on judgment of what is created? What the caster expects to have been created - within the limits of the spell. And i try to remember and make sure that any possible problem that might arise is clear to the player, being short in session and eventually have a conversation with him/her after the game/when possible if i have to cut it short.

I apply the "RAW" answer in short: DM adjudicates and narrates the results. In the other post i've already stated part of my thoughts - but remember that Simulacrum is ALSO an illusion - it's way to general of a question to really have a more satisfying answer. It's really a case by case type of scenario.

I've kind of smuggled another question into this, but it would take forever to pressure people into actually answering it:

If illusions cannot do ____ what are some practical uses of them?

Cast wish and create a clone army. Again, Simulacrum is ALSO an illusion.
Basic illusions, for me, are meant to complement something that "is" already, or possible and plausible to be. The little nudge in the right direction. As a general answer.
It's not even a question of being subtle or not - not everything has to be hush hush with illusions for them to be effective. It's the shortcut, the right cog in the machine. And it gets more flexible and less reliant on everything else the "higher" the illusion actually is.

The barrel in the stack, the people you expect, the firework to lift the spirit. The feeling of wonder.

Most recent answer I've come up with is that minor illusion creates an image of a platonic object, and having been chained up in Plato's cave... well, you know the rest (assuming you even recognize what I'm talking about, in which case you can almost fit this into another idea that's been presented in this thread, except in the way that I broke it just now...)

Yes, but i do not even try to go that way. For me it's enough for it to be fun. It doesn't NEED to be rational, even if it helps.
And i do love to have discussion on rules, rulings and whatnot. It's just that magic by itself doesn't really borrows to logical discussions over a certain point, specifically under the effects departments, since sometimes it just isn't consistent even with itself and itìs not possible to come to any resolution since there's not enough material to analyze.

I could make a better point on "why i think that Darkness (the spell) creates a sphere of inky black". This is just not the same.

We've got a dev tweet that's happy to let the hands on a clock face move. This seems to indicate an internal timer suitable for small programmed movements.

I would like to point out that while Mearls is a Dev, it's not an official RAI source. Unless something changed and nobody informed me :smallbiggrin:
In the end, i would be focusing more on the "the clock does can't tick, so the fact that it doesn't move makes it more realistic not less, even if prehaps if someone notices it will go to see what's wrong".

-----

I would like to pose you two questions, referring to the first quote i reserved, above.

Is said wall impossible to have in "real D&D life", or only improbable? For me, if a person think that there's something off is not equivalent to realize that's an illusion, but clearly would change the way said person would react.

Would the illusion of a barrel created with minor illusion in the center of a room, now completely in the dark, be revealed as an illusion should a creature with no ability whatsoever to see it walks over it? For me, no. There was no revelation, no discovery. Should the light come, there would be a very confused creature.

Vae

2017-04-03, 08:17 PM

In a game I play one of the players does something similar. He has the Warlock Silent Image at Will Evocation, which he uses to make an illusory inanimate object (eg. a box, barrel or crate) which he hides "inside". Knowing that its an illusion he can see throw it as if it was transparent.

There was also one time where we put a portable hole on a wall which we crowded into while he used silent image on the wall to hide the hole we where in.

UndeadArcanist

2017-04-03, 08:43 PM

Keep in mind that for the invisibility trick to work you would have to project two distinct images to each of the viewer's eyes, or they would see it as it is - a cube in the air in front of something else.

Dalebert

2017-04-04, 11:43 AM

The trick only works for one person standing in one spot. This is a complex perspective illusion that would need to be different from every single angle and distance of viewing that illusion. Have folks seen that amazing sidewalk art that appears to be a 3D scene but only when looked at from a specific position? It's like that.

I could see a DM allowing it for rule-of-cool, but even within those limitations, like if you want it to appear that way from the doorway of the room as a creature enters, it's extremely complicated. THe guy that does those sidewalk art pieces maps them out mathematically ahead of time to get the perspective right and spends hours to draw them.

http://www.boredpanda.com/44-amazing-3d-sidewalk-chalk-artworks-by-julian-beever/

kulosle

2017-04-05, 04:12 AM

So what use are illusions if they are just static images that can only fool people if the are standing in one particular spot?

Dalebert

2017-04-05, 08:20 AM

So what use are illusions if they are just static images that can only fool people if the are standing in one particular spot?

That's not generally the case. We're only referring to the "invisibility" trick that the OP describes. Minor Illusion isn't for making you invisible other than to make an object to hide inside of.

tieren

2017-04-05, 10:46 AM

Heres one related to the OP camouflaged blind question:

suppose you have a guard room with a couple of guards in it sitting at a table and playing cards. The door to the room is open and the party wants to sneak past the room unnoticed.

The wizard could cast a minor illusion of an image of the empty hallway in the doorway, and the party could crawl past the door behind the illusion unseen.

If the guards aren't moving around much they probably wouldn't notice the perspective issues.

Zorku

2017-04-05, 01:03 PM

Sorry, I do agree with this. I am differentiating between a programmed set of instructions that are cast at the initial time of the casting and a program that is responsive to external inputs. So I agree that you can make a clock with moving hands, or an illusion of a walking goblin (if the spell persists), for example. But you can't make a responsive illusion unless you (the caster) cause the response. This is why the goblin doesn't automatically react when someone speaks to it, and is also why a mirror can't respond to movements in the room.Since when is time internal? That's like, the MOST external thing.

This shouldn't be relevant to the point. My point is, if the illusion is in the room, then it's not happening in the mind of the viewer.You brought up psionics from another edition. This edition doesn't contain psionics (yet.) It should not be difficult to understand why I have a hard time utilizing psionics in the logic of how this edition works.

It isn't an automatic thing since it doesn't always invalidate the spell when used to project images? Yep,but this doesn't mean that the particular factor cannot be counted as a condition to apply rules on making rolls or not.As long as you've got a nice explanation of how someone could possibly fail an ability check for looking to see if an item casts shadows then we'll be good...

The very first method is simply "apply the usual concepts of being a decent DM: Try to be reasonable and bring the most fun for your group". Cheeky, right? But it's an important distinction that has to guide every discussion on forums like these. It's the perspective that has to be brought out as a disclaimer, and i want it to be clear. I tend not to bring it up because I don't trust relative strangers to recognize that, especially not ones so arbitrary that they argue about how arbitrary their rulings are...

This usually leads me to consider the other conditions of the situation the illusion is placed in: Are there creatures that might notice? Is a roll necessary? Lighting, believability of the illusion, metal capacity of a creature... everything that i can count and that does not take me a noticeable amount of time to deliberate. Then, make a per-situation ruling.

What is my baseline on judgment of what is created? What the caster expects to have been created - within the limits of the spell. And i try to remember and make sure that any possible problem that might arise is clear to the player, being short in session and eventually have a conversation with him/her after the game/when possible if i have to cut it short.

I apply the "RAW" answer in short: DM adjudicates and narrates the results. In the other post i've already stated part of my thoughts - but remember that Simulacrum is ALSO an illusion - it's way to general of a question to really have a more satisfying answer. It's really a case by case type of scenario.
Ok, so at this point you seem to have answered my "what personal rulings do you use to make this work?" question with "I make personal rulings."

Cast wish and create a clone army. Again, Simulacrum is ALSO an illusion.
Basic illusions, for me, are meant to complement something that "is" already, or possible and plausible to be. The little nudge in the right direction. As a general answer.
It's not even a question of being subtle or not - not everything has to be hush hush with illusions for them to be effective. It's the shortcut, the right cog in the machine. And it gets more flexible and less reliant on everything else the "higher" the illusion actually is.

The barrel in the stack, the people you expect, the firework to lift the spirit. The feeling of wonder.So if I said that "you have entered a 40' by 30' room with an alchemist's workstation in the corner, and little bit of hay on the ground. There is a sconce with a lit torch next to the door you came in through, and another on the opposite wall," and you wish to hide from someone, what sorts of things do you think minor illusion can actually do there, and what sorts of options are opened up if you decide to use silent image instead?

Yes, but i do not even try to go that way. For me it's enough for it to be fun. It doesn't NEED to be rational, even if it helps.
And i do love to have discussion on rules, rulings and whatnot. It's just that magic by itself doesn't really borrows to logical discussions over a certain point, specifically under the effects departments, since sometimes it just isn't consistent even with itself and itìs not possible to come to any resolution since there's not enough material to analyze.I feel that I have been saying as much for quite some time.

But as for the fun and whimsy emphasis, I greatly prefer that kind of magic in a narrative where the main character(s) do not have access to it. If this were not a game, but rather some novel, I would feel horrendously guilty contriving those Dukes of Hazard moments where it looks like they're going to be hit by a train, and then when we come back the train is much further back and they just scoot by like it was nothing, except that instead of country boys and trains we've got magic, which can do anything so long as I jump through some hoops to make it sound cool.

No, my protagonists need to be bound by rules. They're not Doctor WHO or Q or Doc Brown or Sherlock Holmes, but rather they're the companion, the captain, or the... 80's kid, or sort of Watson (maybe I'm straining the point with this many examples,) that the audience can actually relate to. Those folks know what kinds of tools are available and they experience a great triumph when they use them in a clever way. The omniscient characters get to create weird and troublesome problems just as often as they save the day, because they're not relatable (at least in that respect,) and solving problems with god powers that do anything is only interesting for about as long as some perfectly choreographed machinema of Samus and Master Chief bouncing off of Space Covenant Pirates like pinballs for as long as the animator felt like mapping it out.

Being a badass that only fails when you decide to make them fail isn't quite the force that I think brings anyone to my table, and definitely isn't what keeps them there.

Moreover, I really don't want to surprise my characters by saying "you can't do that" when they've built up some expectations of what a specific spell can do, and didn't think they were making any particular effort to push the limits. I'm fine with scrambling the rules via wild magic or whatnot, but that is imposed on the character either when they choose to be a wild magic sorcerer, or when some magical storm sweeps over the land- not when they move themselves into position to hide and then I tell them that they can not.

I would like to pose you two questions, referring to the first quote i reserved, above.

Is said wall impossible to have in "real D&D life", or only improbable? For me, if a person think that there's something off is not equivalent to realize that's an illusion, but clearly would change the way said person would react.I had some trouble reading this, but if I understand correctly, you are asking if the crayon-looking wall could actually be a non-illusory wall. It's made of wax that suffered shearing force such that small chunks were caught on paper fibers, which are all real materials that can exist, but my intent (which will help a lot if you understood the part I just said down to the same level that I was picturing it,) was for this to be at a wildly different scale than what wax ought to do against paper fibers. It would still be physically possible for the materials to exist in such a configuration, but there wouldn't be any known means of producing such a thing (and I didn't mention paper so presumably this has to be thick enough to be continuous wax.)

If you were asking about casting the spell, well, so was I. I can't very well say if something is possible when I have just asked others if it is possible.

Would the illusion of a barrel created with minor illusion in the center of a room, now completely in the dark, be revealed as an illusion should a creature with no ability whatsoever to see it walks over it? For me, no. There was no revelation, no discovery. Should the light come, there would be a very confused creature.I'm generally happier to run it that way, but now you've set yourself in opposition to A LOT of people that insist that any physical interaction reveals these things, no matter how little narrative sense that may make.

Keep in mind that for the invisibility trick to work you would have to project two distinct images to each of the viewer's eyes, or they would see it as it is - a cube in the air in front of something else.
You're bad at illusions if your fake open space "wall" is a perfectly flat and depth-less surface. If you treat it like a ~2 feet deep diorama (adjust depth as appropriate for the circumstances,) then there's a lot more potential for it to blend in, at least well enough that they need to spend an action investigating to realize what's wrong.

Little extra detail: we also use the light scattering in the air for our depth perception. With just one eye people can tell the difference between a normal penny and one that's 10 times the size but far enough away that it has the same apparent size. If you place the normal and giant pennies into a vacuum though, people lose the ability to tell that one isn't normal. In this same way, you could partially convince someone that a wall is further away by blurring some of the fine detail.

That's not generally the case. We're only referring to the "invisibility" trick that the OP describes. Minor Illusion isn't for making you invisible other than to make an object to hide inside of.

Kind of a lot of people keep arguing that the object that you hide in is also only going to fool people that are standing in one spot (or at least, this seems to be a consequence of other behaviors and attributes that they assign to the products of minor illusion.)

Dalebert

2017-04-05, 03:08 PM

The wizard could cast a minor illusion of an image of the empty hallway in the doorway, and the party could crawl past the door behind the illusion unseen.

An empty hallway is not an object. Silent Image, on the other hand, includes "or other visible phenomenon" which is pretty inclusive. I'd let him try that but I'd give the guards a perception check to get suspicious and see something as being off. If they happened to be looking at the door at that moment, they would see it shift.

tieren

2017-04-05, 03:18 PM

An empty hallway is not an object. Silent Image, on the other hand, includes "or other visible phenomenon" which is pretty inclusive. I'd let him try that but I'd give the guards a perception check to get suspicious and see something as being off. If they happened to be looking at the door at that moment, they would see it shift.

The object the minor illusion creates is a 2d photorealistic poster that looks like the opposite wall and flooring.

its possible someone might notice it isn't quite right, thats what passive perception and investigation checks are for. its not foolproof, its just an option.

Cybren

2017-04-05, 03:53 PM

The object the minor illusion creates is a 2d photorealistic poster that looks like the opposite wall and flooring.

its possible someone might notice it isn't quite right, thats what passive perception and investigation checks are for. its not foolproof, its just an option.

no, that's not how the spell works. That's a silly overly broad reading meant to manipulate the rules in the favor of the player, and it's eminently clear what the intentions of the spell are.

ThePolarBear

2017-04-05, 05:53 PM

Spoilers to avoid casting "Wall of Text".

As long as you've got a nice explanation of how someone could possibly fail an ability check for looking to see if an item casts shadows then we'll be good...

Are you checking for the existance of shadows? Good! Roll Investigation. Depending on what is actually there you roll with advantage, disadvantage, don't roll and fail or automatically succeed. You also get the information that you think it'll take around x time to do so, if you are checking all the shadows of a room.

I tend not to bring it up because I don't trust relative strangers to recognize that, especially not ones so arbitrary that they argue about how arbitrary their rulings are...

Considering that the role of the DM is also the one of judge...

Ok, so at this point you seem to have answered my "what personal rulings do you use to make this work?" question with "I make personal rulings."

Sorry i do not apply a flat +1 if you create a barrel in a stack of 5 or less barrels, +2 if the stack is between 6 and 10.
Illusions are MANY and DIFFERENT, and can be used in a plethora of ways. You either can accept the fact that i'm going to try to focus to the fun of the whole group as much as possible while remaining reasonable on rulings and situation, or you can't. If you can't we can have a discussion, and if you can't trust me, than do not. I'm not going to chain yo to a chair.
Don't worry, major rulings will be rolled out before the creation of a character, but i also expect my players to be open and ask if they find something they might have some doubts about, and be ready, should something come up, to hear a "no" as much as you can hear "yes". We can discuss things a bit immediatly, a lot later, but you are not alone there.

So if I said that "you have entered a 40' by 30' room with an alchemist's workstation in the corner, and little bit of hay on the ground. There is a sconce with a lit torch next to the door you came in through, and another on the opposite wall," and you wish to hide from someone, what sorts of things do you think minor illusion can actually do there, and what sorts of options are opened up if you decide to use silent image instead?

Wouldn't use a torch to begin with, less so two, even less so if there's no-one there. But well, nitpicks.

Spell descriptions state the major differences between Minor Illusion and Silent Image.
Duration, dimentions, concentration and type of effects you can create are blatant: You can create a "little" barrel with Minor Illusion, you can create a large fire with Silent Image. Silent Image cannot create sounds, but lets you move the image created to any other point within range, allowing you to also "animate" the image.

In the specific: You can create the sound of bubbling chemicals from the alchemy station with Minor Illusion and the puffs of smoke with Silent Image, but not the other way around.
A lifeless body with both, an apparently breathing sleeping person with SI, traces of fluids with both, a silent ooze with SI.
Again, i'm not going to list ALL the possible things you can do. I simply do not have the time.
One thing i'm going to tell you: For me, spending the action on Silent Image equals to animating the image for the whole round or until you are satisfied with the movement.

So Yes, for me you could conceivably create a mirror with Silent Image, as long as you try to foil a single creature and manage to predict how the creature would move or manage to react quick enough. No it would possibly not sustain a very close examination. It would require "extreme" prep or "extreme" immagination/intelligence/spatial awareness and memory to accomplish the feat.
And yes you can create shadows with Silent Image. Shadows are not allowed in Minor Illusion since are considered "environmental effects" as much as fog is.

p.s.
Oh, one thing that it's clear for me but happened in the past: You can't create a "illusionary hole in the wall" and see the other side. Being able to create something does not directly allow the removal of something. Illusion in particular follow this rule (with possible exceptions in some higher levelled spells/specific spells). It happened IRL, had same discussion in another place on the internet.
At the time i seriously had not considered the fact that someone could not think about it the same way i did. My fault, surely, but it was such a basic concept that it did never even cross my mind it was possible to see it another way.Ended up as an "aaah" moment for the other person, but... well...

Also another example of a ruling: "wasting" players action for me is not fun. If a player does something as an action that only affects an illusion (expecially in combat), that is replaced with the "investigate" roll if applicable. Extend to everyone for fairness.
Think of "i attack the Phantasmal Force - creature", or "does this wine smell good?", but not "Fireball against all! (including said phantasmal force creature)"

I feel that I have been saying as much for quite some time.

But as for the fun and whimsy emphasis, I greatly prefer that kind of magic in a narrative where the main character(s) do not have access to it. If this were not a game, but rather some novel, I would feel horrendously guilty contriving those Dukes of Hazard moments where it looks like they're going to be hit by a train, and then when we come back the train is much further back and they just scoot by like it was nothing, except that instead of country boys and trains we've got magic, which can do anything so long as I jump through some hoops to make it sound cool.

No, my protagonists need to be bound by rules. They're not Doctor WHO or Q or Doc Brown or Sherlock Holmes, but rather they're the companion, the captain, or the... 80's kid, or sort of Watson (maybe I'm straining the point with this many examples,) that the audience can actually relate to. Those folks know what kinds of tools are available and they experience a great triumph when they use them in a clever way. The omniscient characters get to create weird and troublesome problems just as often as they save the day, because they're not relatable (at least in that respect,) and solving problems with god powers that do anything is only interesting for about as long as some perfectly choreographed machinema of Samus and Master Chief bouncing off of Space Covenant Pirates like pinballs for as long as the animator felt like mapping it out.

Being a badass that only fails when you decide to make them fail isn't quite the force that I think brings anyone to my table, and definitely isn't what keeps them there.

Moreover, I really don't want to surprise my characters by saying "you can't do that" when they've built up some expectations of what a specific spell can do, and didn't think they were making any particular effort to push the limits. I'm fine with scrambling the rules via wild magic or whatnot, but that is imposed on the character either when they choose to be a wild magic sorcerer, or when some magical storm sweeps over the land- not when they move themselves into position to hide and then I tell them that they can not.

Different playstyles for different tastes. That's fine, we do not need to share every opinion and be all together with a single reading. I can also change the feeling of the games i play - different campaigns different feeling is perfectly acceptable.

I'll try to consistently tell you the same answer should you attempt the same task in the same situation. That's how much i can try to do. I'm not a machine, do not expect me to be. I am fallible, i can make bad calls. There might be problems in comunications, there might exist some places where i still have not have an opinion about. Rules are there, i'm there.

"No", for me, is a possible answer. I prefer not using it, if possible. "How?" is better, i agree.

I had some trouble reading this, but if I understand correctly, you are asking if the crayon-looking wall could actually be a non-illusory wall. It's made of wax that suffered shearing force such that small chunks were caught on paper fibers, which are all real materials that can exist, but my intent (which will help a lot if you understood the part I just said down to the same level that I was picturing it,) was for this to be at a wildly different scale than what wax ought to do against paper fibers. It would still be physically possible for the materials to exist in such a configuration, but there wouldn't be any known means of producing such a thing (and I didn't mention paper so presumably this has to be thick enough to be continuous wax.)

Yep, i was implying that you considered a wall of crayons or made of wax or scribbled on paper sort of idea. As long as it's possible: it might be blatant that's something that's not supposed to be there, but has to be an illusion 100%? Is there no other possibility? As long as the answer is reasonably "yes", then why should discovery be automatic? Again, it falls in the usual considerations that are made to adjudicate the situation. In a world where you know that magic might make you see things that are not there or things for other things, is it reasonable to think that there cannot be magics to make something into something else?
Either way, something is off about the wall. Is it worth for the onlooker checking it out? If so, how? This can only be answered by having as a complete grasp on a situation as possible. An accomplished wizard would react very differently from the lowest of goblins.

I'm generally happier to run it that way, but now you've set yourself in opposition to A LOT of people that insist that any physical interaction reveals these things, no matter how little narrative sense that may make.

Why? They are right. Physical interaction does reveal the illusion "because things pass through it". For me you are not seeing "things pass through it", so it does not reveal anything, so much more if the only feedback you have is the visual one as for the spell i suggested it was used. Were there other kinds of feedback then it's another story and other considerations need to be made.

I can agree that the other reasoning still has some ground, i would not feel unfairly mistreated if it was ruled the other way around. I simply chose to run it my way because i find it more fun and the group agrees/has no strong feeling either way.

Segev

2017-04-05, 08:16 PM

Dr.Samurai

2017-04-05, 08:35 PM

I, personally, fall into the camp that says that failure to cast shadows and bear reflections both makes it unusably unrealistic, and requires essentially arbitrary lists of what is and is not "part of the image." You can't ever predict what your DM will or won't allow the image to include, unless you know you're only using things he's already allowed in the past.
I think you should be able to make an image of an object that has reflections on it (like something shiny) and that has a shadow. But the image is made with the shadow, the shadow is not a natural effect of the ambient light.

I also will point out that a reflection of a mirror in another mirror is also an image, and that the image of the mirror will bear reflections just fine. So we have counter-examples of images which can bear reflections.

But no way to explain how the illusion is reflecting anything in the first place. The science takes you so far. If an illusion of a mirror operates as a real mirror does, having the physical qualities of an actual mirror, then yes. But nothing in the spell suggests that.

That said, no amount of arguing online will impact what your DM says at his table, unless he's reading the arguments with an intent to be persuaded. So the real question of what a minor illusion's image can include is, "What will your DM let it do?"
Maybe, to an extent. But... nothing in the spell suggests that you can make a clock with moving hands. Or that a mirror would reflect images in real time. So I think it's fair to have people explain how they're arriving at these uses of the spell.

Segev

2017-04-06, 10:05 AM

I think you should be able to make an image of an object that has reflections on it (like something shiny) and that has a shadow. But the image is made with the shadow, the shadow is not a natural effect of the ambient light.You're free to argue this. I have given counterarguments elsewhere, and don't want to clutter this thread up too much.

But no way to explain how the illusion is reflecting anything in the first place. The science takes you so far. If an illusion of a mirror operates as a real mirror does, having the physical qualities of an actual mirror, then yes. But nothing in the spell suggests that.Nothing in the spell suggests it doesn't, either. Bearing a reflection is part of the visual appearance of a mirror. There are examples of images of mirrors which bear reflections, so counter-examples of images of mirrors which do not are insufficient. I have, again, given lengthy discussions as to why I think as I do, but I'll refrain here, and simply say that this, too, is something between you and your DM at your table.

Maybe, to an extent. But... nothing in the spell suggests that you can make a clock with moving hands. Or that a mirror would reflect images in real time. So I think it's fair to have people explain how they're arriving at these uses of the spell.Nothing in the spell suggests that you can't, either. Nothing in the spell suggests that you can make a sword that looks shiny, just as nothing suggests that you cannot (i.e. being restricted to matte "paintings" of shiny things).

This isn't merely a case of "it doesn't say you can't," but rather a case of "it says you can make images; what the limits of that is are up to your table's idea of what an image can be."

To me, it seems very arbitrary to say "this is an image, but that is not" when pointing at, essentially, two visible "things," one of which is more realistic and able to pass casual inspection than the other.

The spell says it makes images of objects. Whether you think that image can include moving parts or not, whether you think it must be a matte cardboard standee or a realistic shadow-casting, textured item that shifts appearance under changing lighting conditions is up to you. I think it's the latter, because to me, the former requires a lot of arbitrary lines of "nope, I just don't think so" to be drawn.

tieren

2017-04-06, 11:14 AM

no, that's not how the spell works. That's a silly overly broad reading meant to manipulate the rules in the favor of the player, and it's eminently clear what the intentions of the spell are.

Thats exactly how the spell works. You make an object that fits in the size restrictions and doesn't violate the restrictions (not emitting light or moving making noise, etc...).

The most common use of the spell is to hide something or someone. In my example the people trying to crawl past the door.

The OP of the thread asked about the trick of making a blind in front of you to hide behind that looks just like the wall behind you making you seem invisible. As long as you can fit in the size requirements that is a perfectly valid thing to try.

It won't really make you invisible, and an investigation check has a good chance of discovering the ploy, but that doesn't mean it will never work.

Think about some of the amazing illusions real world magicians are able to pull off using forced perspective, misdirection, and point of view. Lots of cool stuff would be way easier if actually powered by magic but at least everything you can do without it should fly (if not otherwise restricted).

Dr.Samurai

2017-04-06, 02:02 PM

You're free to argue this.
Yes, that's what I'm doing :smallwink:.

Nothing in the spell suggests it doesn't, either.
I wouldn't agree here. I would say that the spell suggests the illusion is intangible, and not physical, and therefore lacks the qualities that can cause reflections.

Nothing in the spell suggests that you can't, either.
I think the word "image" suggests something static.

Nothing in the spell suggests that you can make a sword that looks shiny, just as nothing suggests that you cannot (i.e. being restricted to matte "paintings" of shiny things).
I think you're trying to make the two things equal and they're not.

We see by light. Probably most people haven't seen a sword that isn't reflecting light, because then it would mean they're in the dark. So it makes sense for a wizard to make an image of a sword with some shine on it.

Less sense to make an image of a sword that's hopping up and down in the air, which you say in your comment before this one Minor Illusion doesn't suggest you can't. It makes less sense that you can make an illusion of a sword in front of you and see in the blade of that illusion the moving reflection of a goblin sneaking up on you.

On the one hand, you're just making an image of an object as people commonly see it. On the other hand, you're making a chair do cartwheels and flashing a bright light in someone's eyes with an illusion of a mirror.

I don't think both of these are equally suggested by the spell, but that's why we're arguing I suppose.

This isn't merely a case of "it doesn't say you can't," but rather a case of "it says you can make images; what the limits of that is are up to your table's idea of what an image can be."
Uh, sure. This probably goes for most rules in the PHB.

Segev

2017-04-06, 02:19 PM

I wouldn't agree here. I would say that the spell suggests the illusion is intangible, and not physical, and therefore lacks the qualities that can cause reflections.What aspect of a reflection requires tangibility?

Consider, before you answer, that technically any use of light to see requires reflecting that light; it just doesn't reflect it with mirror-like fidelity.

I think the word "image" suggests something static.Clearly not; any reflection in a real mirror is an "image," and those are not necessarily static. Images on TV screens also need not be static. There's a reason we characterize static images with the adjective "static;" it differentiates them from animated images.

I think you're trying to make the two things equal and they're not.I'm really not, but let me give you some more rope here...

We see by light.I agree.

Probably most people haven't seen a sword that isn't reflecting light, because then it would mean they're in the dark. So it makes sense for a wizard to make an image of a sword with some shine on it.And that shine? That's a reflection. A heavily distorted one that is most notable only where it reflects the brightness of the light source, but that's still a reflection.

Less sense to make an image of a sword that's hopping up and down in the air, which you say in your comment before this one Minor Illusion doesn't suggest you can't.You could, though arguably that's getting into it being an image of a creature. Discuss with your DM.

The examples I would give are of a clock with moving hands, a tree whose leaves rustle and move in an imaginary breeze, or an illusory waterfall with falling illusory water.

It makes less sense that you can make an illusion of a sword in front of you and see in the blade of that illusion the moving reflection of a goblin sneaking up on you. Why? As you said, we see by light. The image is visible because light from the environment is interacting with it as if there really was a sword there. If a real sword could show a reflection of that goblin sneaking up behind you, so can this image of one.

On the one hand, you're just making an image of an object as people commonly see it.If you limit it the way you want to, you're really not. That sword won't have that shine react properly to changing light sources in the environment. It will be about as convincing as a cardboard cutout painted with a shine spot. It'll get the idea across, but it won't fool anybody.

On the other hand, you're making a chair do cartwheels and flashing a bright light in someone's eyes with an illusion of a mirror.Again, discuss with your DM whether that "chair" is an object or a creature (an animated object) at that point. As for "flashing a bright light in someone's eyes," you could do that without the illusory mirror, too. Use a real mirror (which you can actually move around!) or the actual bright light itself.

Note: even if the minor illusion's image can have moving parts, that doesn't mean you can control the motion once you create the illusion. When spells let you control their motion, the spell says so.

Roderick_BR

2017-04-06, 02:59 PM

tieren

2017-04-06, 03:21 PM

Yes, perspective matters. I got away with it once because I made it at a corridor's curse, so I had space to "extend" the wall, and the guard was walking down the other way, so it worked. Any other situation, the enemies would notice a piece of the wall "jumping" forward and ruin the trick.

well of course it would, using it while being observed would be difficult and not ideal. Unless you could perhaps set off a flash bang distraction to avert attention and then pull off your illusion (like a real magician's misdirection).

Zorku

2017-04-06, 03:59 PM

I cast wall of text!
...
inside this here demiplane.

Spoilers to avoid casting "Wall of Text".
Good idea.

Are you checking for the existance of shadows? Good! Roll Investigation. Depending on what is actually there you roll with advantage, disadvantage, don't roll and fail or automatically succeed. You also get the information that you think it'll take around x time to do so, if you are checking all the shadows of a room.[/quote]If you roll with advantage (so like, there's explicitly no other objects nearby casting shadows anywhere near this,) but you still fail... how?

Considering that the role of the DM is also the one of judge...Hey, if they're playing then sure. If they're coming on a forum to tell other people how they should be playing... then that's not really the same thing.

Sorry i do not apply a flat +1 if you create a barrel in a stack of 5 or less barrels, +2 if the stack is between 6 and 10.
I'm not necessarily asking for mechanics (though examples might be useful,) so much as I'm asking for anything that helps me understand what decisions you will make. I don't have to understand it perfectly, but having some comprehension should mean that I'm able to roughly guess how common situations go.

So whiteroom experiment: somebody creates an illusory barrel to hide in. Somebody else investigating that barrel only has disadvantage. Is that right?

Don't worry, major rulings will be rolled out before the creation of a character,It's a good idea to discuss these things, but in these threads I see a lot of people that thought they could take extreme liberties for granted.

Wouldn't use a torch to begin with, less so two, even less so if there's no-one there. But well, nitpicks.Heh.

Spell descriptions state the major differences between Minor Illusion and Silent Image.
Duration, dimentions, concentration and type of effects you can create are blatant: You can create a "little" barrel with Minor Illusion, you can create a large fire with Silent Image. Silent Image cannot create sounds, but lets you move the image created to any other point within range, allowing you to also "animate" the image.

In the specific: You can create the sound of bubbling chemicals from the alchemy station with Minor Illusion and the puffs of smoke with Silent Image, but not the other way around.
A lifeless body with both, an apparently breathing sleeping person with SI, traces of fluids with both, a silent ooze with SI.
Again, i'm not going to list ALL the possible things you can do. I simply do not have the time.
One thing i'm going to tell you: For me, spending the action on Silent Image equals to animating the image for the whole round or until you are satisfied with the movement.Those are suitable things to create in that setting, but I specified that you wish to hide, and I don't see an intended connection to any of those illusions.

So Yes, for me you could conceivably create a mirror with Silent Image, as long as you try to foil a single creature and manage to predict how the creature would move or manage to react quick enough. No it would possibly not sustain a very close examination. It would require "extreme" prep or "extreme" immagination/intelligence/spatial awareness and memory to accomplish the feat.
And yes you can create shadows with Silent Image. Shadows are not allowed in Minor Illusion since are considered "environmental effects" as much as fog is.

p.s.
Oh, one thing that it's clear for me but happened in the past: You can't create a "illusionary hole in the wall" and see the other side. Being able to create something does not directly allow the removal of something. Illusion in particular follow this rule (with possible exceptions in some higher levelled spells/specific spells). It happened IRL, had same discussion in another place on the internet.
At the time i seriously had not considered the fact that someone could not think about it the same way i did. My fault, surely, but it was such a basic concept that it did never even cross my mind it was possible to see it another way.Ended up as an "aaah" moment for the other person, but... well...The 'add but not subtract' concept was also one of the first concepts where I was taking something for granted and realized that I shouldn't.
Err, 'for me.' Brain doesn't want to string this into an easy to follow sentence right now for some reason.

Also another example of a ruling: "wasting" players action for me is not fun. If a player does something as an action that only affects an illusion (expecially in combat), that is replaced with the "investigate" roll if applicable. Extend to everyone for fairness.
Think of "i attack the Phantasmal Force - creature", or "does this wine smell good?", but not "Fireball against all! (including said phantasmal force creature)"I'm really encouraging towards that sort of thing. I much prefer to have my players saying "I don't trust this guy, seems fishy to me," than "I wanna roll insight." Having me make all the calls for when to roll dice and what bonus to use (aside from combat,) seems like it keeps people much more focused on what's going on.
I think this has other impacts on the general mood of games that I run, but they're harder to pin down.

Different playstyles for different tastes. That's fine, we do not need to share every opinion and be all together with a single reading. I can also change the feeling of the games i play - different campaigns different feeling is perfectly acceptable.
I'd agree with one caveat: I expect close to full agreement on what the RAW say, because that's rather concrete. If they're vague we should recognize that together, and if they're not clear we shouldn't both be saying that they are crystal clear but with different meanings (though you should be able to easily see that I have no qualms about doing that in service of a larger point I'm making. I tend to think poorly of people that can't recognize such after two or three steps taken to make it more blatant.)

Yep, i was implying that you considered a wall of crayons or made of wax or scribbled on paper sort of idea. As long as it's possible: it might be blatant that's something that's not supposed to be there, but has to be an illusion 100%? Is there no other possibility? As long as the answer is reasonably "yes", then why should discovery be automatic? Again, it falls in the usual considerations that are made to adjudicate the situation. In a world where you know that magic might make you see things that are not there or things for other things, is it reasonable to think that there cannot be magics to make something into something else?
Either way, something is off about the wall. Is it worth for the onlooker checking it out? If so, how? This can only be answered by having as a complete grasp on a situation as possible. An accomplished wizard would react very differently from the lowest of goblins."Possible" is a dangerous word, so I'll say that no, it's not possible.

Not for any reason in the book mind you, just for the case of this hypothetical scenario. The creature knows that this is impossible in the same way that you know that winged monkeys will not fly out of my pants.

Why? They are right. Physical interaction does reveal the illusion "because things pass through it". For me you are not seeing "things pass through it", so it does not reveal anything, so much more if the only feedback you have is the visual one as for the spell i suggested it was used. Were there other kinds of feedback then it's another story and other considerations need to be made.They seem to be insisting that it is clear that seeing the interaction has nothing to do with what's going on, but that even if you're looking away when something physically interacts with the illusion that the illusion is now faint to you. Because this is not my own argument I only understand it to about that depth and I can't necessarily defend it in the ways that they would.

Thats exactly how the spell works. You make an object that fits in the size restrictions and doesn't violate the restrictions (not emitting light or moving making noise, etc...).

The most common use of the spell is to hide something or someone. In my example the people trying to crawl past the door.

The OP of the thread asked about the trick of making a blind in front of you to hide behind that looks just like the wall behind you making you seem invisible. As long as you can fit in the size requirements that is a perfectly valid thing to try.

It won't really make you invisible, and an investigation check has a good chance of discovering the ploy, but that doesn't mean it will never work.

Think about some of the amazing illusions real world magicians are able to pull off using forced perspective, misdirection, and point of view. Lots of cool stuff would be way easier if actually powered by magic but at least everything you can do without it should fly (if not otherwise restricted).
Provided that you think through this as thoroughly as I expect, it should be kryptonite to the idea of "a box that's got a perspective painting of the opposite wall on each side."

The grid in 5e is optional.

What aspect of a reflection requires tangibility?

Since this conversation is a lot more level-headed:
I've got the strong impression that most of the developers views on illusion magic, begin with the idea of painting something on a canvas (or perhaps, telekinetic painting with fictional materials?) Because it is a spell, the time this takes is radically different from actual painting, and you don't necessarily have a bunch of brush strokes visible up close (or maybe that's the exact theme of your character so you roleplay that they do...) but there's still the notion of "you have to produce it." As the tweets linked in this thread show, at least one dev is fine with some very simple movement in minor illusion, but this is still running off of what you can easily conceive. He can't do a very good job of drawing what should be visible on the surface of a mirror without actively measuring it and thus noone can (well, after having played the portal games maybe I do have the mental architecture for doing that... but I'd have to know where someone was going to walk ahead of time to make sure I kept up and I'd be taking the shortcut of simply making it look consistent rather than actually providing the visual information that a real mirror would, and I'd be boned at the point that they should see themselves in the mirror because that seems enough like an illusion of a creature that I don't think it's allowed, and, and, and...) and all around this simply feels like a fancier category of things that what they want you to be able to draw on the fly like that.

There's a certain degree of complexity where they want this to take a better spell, but their either took a lot of details for granted, and/or they chose language that's not very helpful in order to force more table rulings early and often. The spell is simply not written in a way that reflects what seems to be going on in their heads, which is the instantaneous painting idea.

Segev

2017-04-06, 04:47 PM

There's a certain degree of complexity where they want this to take a better spell, but their either took a lot of details for granted, and/or they chose language that's not very helpful in order to force more table rulings early and often. The spell is simply not written in a way that reflects what seems to be going on in their heads, which is the instantaneous painting idea.

And, indeed, to be fair to Vogonjeltz, he seems to share a lot of the assumptions implicit to that "painting idea." But we are left with having to divine what's going on in the designers' heads (or Vogonjeltz's head) to determine what really falls where in that "instantaneous painting."

Zorku

2017-04-06, 05:05 PM

And, indeed, to be fair to Vogonjeltz, he seems to share a lot of the assumptions implicit to that "painting idea." But we are left with having to divine what's going on in the designers' heads (or Vogonjeltz's head) to determine what really falls where in that "instantaneous painting."
Well like I've said more than a few times: I don't think we're supposed to know that much about what's in the designer's heads.

I'm generally wary about "this all looks pretty dumb from the outside, but maybe it's actually this elegant (if somewhat convoluted,) sort of genius" claims (for reasons that you'd have a good chance of guessing but which I will decline to derail this thread with,) but it really seems like we can have this cake and eat it too. The designers have kind of a dumb way of looking at this, which possibly denies all attempts to lay it out in lawyer-ly fashion, but they had one really good idea for solving that: don't even try to define it like that.

"Is A within the basic rules or is A not within the basic rules?" Third category: "Yup."
They didn't necessarily run into problems with trying to define this in a non-arbitrary way and then tear that down and put this up instead; they probably simply went in trying to do this in the first place almost every time that something seemed hard and didn't really immediately congeal into the kinds of crunchy mechanics that dominate most of the combat portion of this game, so they've brilliantly hidden their idiocy from us.

We can stop trying to figure out what's in their heads (or at least, stop doing so beyond the point where it's 'intriguing' and 'fun,') if we simply declare that the words on the page don't give us an answer to that question, and that you must necessarily bring in table rulings or homebrew if you wish to address these issues.
*I dunno wtf adventure league does about gung-ho illusionists, and I don't particularly want to roll up enough illusionists to figure out if they even have a unified system for handling that.

BurgerBeast

2017-04-06, 06:00 PM

Sabeta

2017-04-06, 07:08 PM

I'm surprised that people are still arguing the spell is even capable of reflecting when it's clearly stated that things (of which, light is included) pass through it, and is further supported by SA stating the spell does not cast a shadow.

You don't need to understand physics to understand that in order for you to reflect, something needs to actually be there for light to reflect off of. Illusions however aren't real. They don't exist. It's simply a Wizard invoking the weave in such a way that you think you see what he wants you to see. In my opinion, and as stated by the school of Illusion's little blurb in the spells section, it's an entirely mental projection. Hence, why you're able to "tune it out" once you know it's fake. However you need to rationalize that the Illusion isn't actually there and therefore can't reflect (as per RAW).

Create a Mirror that has a static image on it if you want, but it's not actually reflecting anything and therefore won't update when something changes. Might be useful to convince someone they're a vampire though.

Segev

2017-04-06, 07:21 PM

Vogonjeltz

2017-04-06, 07:24 PM

No. It's pointless to explain. It's magic!

Okay, fine. I'll explain it a little bit as best I can based on what we know about how the spell works.

We know it's creating a sensory effect because it's not in your mind like Phantasmal Force. The spell is creating a visual sensory effect that everything nearby can see. We know it's not able to emit light because this spell specifically says the object can't emit light. This means it can only reflect existing light (or whatever darkvision picks up) the same way that solid objects do in order to create the visual sensory effect of an actual object in that spot.

This sounds an awful lot like: "I don't know, I have no real reason, let me throw a wall of nonsense and see if anything sticks."

I think you should be able to make an image of an object that has reflections on it (like something shiny) and that has a shadow. But the image is made with the shadow, the shadow is not a natural effect of the ambient light.

Other existing higher level spells explicitly allow an image to be of a creature, object, or phenomena.

Minor Illusion only allows an image of an object.

An image of an object isn't real, so of course it's not going to be realistic when compared to a real object, it's going to fail under scrutiny and only pass casual (or poor) inspection. Hence the DC. If it behaved identically to a real object, no amount of inspection would identify it as an illusion, only physical interaction would.

Sabeta

2017-04-06, 07:29 PM

And if your rebuttal is, "No, it's visible even though light goes through it, because it's MAGIC, duh," then my rebuttal to your rebuttal is, "Then the reflection is there because it's magic, duh."

Read the rest of my post before commenting then. The spell works how I said it does. Whether you want to accept that or not is for your table to decide, but this is RAW and RAI according to the SA. Whatever means you need to justify that is yours. I choose to read into the "School of Illusions" description of how its spells work.

"Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They
cause people to see things that are not there, to miss things
that are there, to hear phantom noises, or to remember
things that never happened."

The object doesn't exist, and light passes through it. You only perceive it because that's what the spell does; makes you perceive something that doesn't exist. This really shouldn't be hard, and I'm starting to suspect that you're just trying to levy a gain out of a spell that shouldn't be nearly as powerful as most people claim it is. Because you know. It's a damned Cantrip, not a 9th level spell.

ThePolarBear

2017-04-06, 07:32 PM

I cast wall of text!
...
inside this demiplane here.

You find an Illusory Script - Graffiti (somewhat appropriate) scribbled on the walls of your demiplane. Spoilers: It contains a wall of text.

If you roll with advantage (so like, there's explicitly no other objects nearby casting shadows anywhere near this,) but you still fail... how?

You do not fail at noticing the lack of shadows. You fail at noticing that the "object" that's not casting the shadows is an illusion. The investigation roll is asked for the possibility of recognising the illusion.The (lack of) shadow, if looked for in that particular instance, would be really unreasonable to be undetected. It still isn't enough to make the character see through the spell, weirdly enough. Your character knows that there's something wrong, how and why are still a mystery. Again, "magic" is an possible answer here. A player will be prone to believe that the barrel is an illusion, prehaps more than everything else, the character would be prone to think of an illusion before anything else, prehaps with way less reason than the player - the roll failed, after all - ... it is an illusion, but might have been the mutation of a mimic, or something like a devious trap about a shadow controlling other shadows inside the room, luring adventurers towards the center to make room for an encirclement or something. I do have a player that is horrendously able to come up with the worst possible explanation for this sort of things and its always a laugh.

In a world where magic exists, there might be some "unknowns". It's very likely for them to exist. At least Imho.

Hey, if they're playing then sure. If they're coming on a forum to tell other people how they should be playing... then that's not really the same thing.

Well, i read the phrase as an "you could be playing with people you met for the first time." But yeah, i like discussing RAW, but that's not what i did here. I always tried to specifically point out that those where my opinions. The only place where i'm sure i was stating a fact is in the "Illusions =/= objects", which i think is more than a fair and logical conclusion/assertion to make. And where i said that Magic is a valid explanation - we are talking about spells and magical powers that we have no first hand experience of - again, i think more than fair.

But then again, i do not see you trying to impose "your way". So, no problem.

I'm not necessarily asking for mechanics (though examples might be useful,) so much as I'm asking for anything that helps me understand what decisions you will make. I don't have to understand it perfectly, but having some comprehension should mean that I'm able to roughly guess how common situations go.

Yup sorry, could have passed as caustic. Had to word it a little better. Tried to provide at least a bit as you noticed.

So whiteroom experiment: somebody creates an illusory barrel to hide in. Somebody else investigating that barrel only has disadvantage. Is that right?

Again, illusory barrel created how? I know it's pedantic, but Mirage Arcane works very differently from Minor Image and from Silent Image. Also... Disadvantage?

In a whiteroom with no lighting specified, i can assume:

-No shadows for everyone: Light all around, no one has visible shadows. No reason for characters to roll investigation. "You see a barrel". Should someone ask/interact/check for illusions then it's a straight roll. (No Interact! Bad Interact!)
-Single light point, and distance that's enough to notice that there something strange with the shadow near the barrel, perception levels that are not "i'm not blind but i like to keep two fingers in my eyes and all the fingers that i can in all my orifices at all times" - stealth roll not beaten with perception: "You see a barrel. The shadow of the barrel is strangely malformed and seems oscillate slightly". Assuming players check the barrel but no physical interaction - roll Investigation. - Notice: I can see if this kind of situation gets ditched as "you see someone interacting with the barrel, the illusion drops"
-Same as above, better perception, still no beaten stealth: "You see a barrel. The shadow that you see, however, clearly has not the barrel's form. You clearly percieves it moving, very slightly, on the spot. Oscillating, prehaps." Likely not to end up with an investigation roll but with something else. Should something be done that calls for an investigation roll, roll with adv.

-Same as above, perception>stealth: "You see a barrel. You also see that the barrel's shadows is clearly not barrel shaped, but can resemble a humanoid's that's crouched. You have this idea because you are sure you heard something breathing and leather creaking." Roll with advantage should this be warrented.

Again, it depends on what is also asked: "i throw something at the barrel" is a way to see the illusion clearly for what it is. Also, i'm not really sure that this are calls i would really do in play - there's much much more going on that could give advantage / disadvantage on the investigation roll. I'm expecially unsure about the 2nd. But whiterooming - expecially illusions or magic effects - is something that i do not like. It requires finding logic where there might not be. Having a whole image of what happens helps a lot.

(also... argh typing is hard.)

It's a good idea to discuss these things, but in these threads I see a lot of people that thought they could take extreme liberties for granted.

I agree. I also think it's very human to give things for granted, expecially if we are used to them being like that. Guilty here too.

Heh.

well, i used to. I've just adapted to a more "either full blown fantasy lighting system or more realistic. Torches are 'eh'" approach. Not going full blown "Torches are baaaad do not buy them" for my players. I simply plan my world differently. I still use them, very much over use them. If i can i avoid.

Those are suitable things to create in that setting, but I specified that you wish to hide, and I don't see an intended connection to any of those illusions.

And that i totally missed. Derp.

I think that Minor illusion would help with a misdirection: It can create sounds and has no V component. Depending on how much time there's actually to hide you could create and mantain a decent hiding spot in the haystack complete with shadows and keep complementing your rouse with sounds, like steps running off in the distance from the door. Still not the best to cast because S can and does make sounds if things get longer in duration.

Silent image is visually focused, but would allow you to possibly "hide" the door inside the wall, depending on how is placed (is it in a corridor or right on the wall?), in a single cast.
A big cabinet filled with alchemical components is also more likely to be in the room than anything that a single casting of Minor Image could create. If placed correctly, shadows would be a non issue, going against the wall and thus being only of minor noticeability.

Combining the two spells, shadows become a non issue in any place.

The best thing about Silent Image, however, is duration. That alone could save you. 10 minutes in a single room is a lot of time. 1 minute is way more likely to be spent searching for someone. Should that happen, however, it's unlikely that someone would not notice.

The best thing you could do to hide in this case is douse and dispatch of the torches before attempting to do anything else. Without lights shadows are not a problem and any illusion becomes much stronger.

Or move the hay, lit it on fire, Place SI bigger flames on top, flee from the now "covered" door.

I do not believe i'm a creative enough person to be a good illusionist. And some are not really "hiding" per se :P

The 'add but not subtract' concept was also one of the first concepts where I was taking something for granted and realized that I shouldn't.
Err, 'for me.' Brain doesn't want to string this into an easy to follow sentence right now for some reason.

Don't worry, took around 3 hours for this post between interruptions and other things to do. Brain is not here. 404'd. Please read any possible stupid thing i'm saying under that light, too.

I'm really encouraging towards that sort of thing. I much prefer to have my players saying "I don't trust this guy, seems fishy to me," than "I wanna roll insight." Having me make all the calls for when to roll dice and what bonus to use (aside from combat,) seems like it keeps people much more focused on what's going on.
I think this has other impacts on the general mood of games that I run, but they're harder to pin down.

I know. I really do not feel i've found a true "solution" still. I'm still limiting it to actions (so no bonus actions an so on) so i feel it's weird. Better than nothing, i guess, but not "perfect". Not even "good enough".

I'd agree with one caveat: I expect close to full agreement on what the RAW say, because that's rather concrete. If they're vague we should recognize that together, and if they're not clear we shouldn't both be saying that they are crystal clear but with different meanings (though you should be able to easily see that I have no qualms about doing that in service of a larger point I'm making. I tend to think poorly of people that can't recognize such after two or three steps taken to make it more blatant.)

I respect that. I just prefer to have a clear "RAW = have fun, move to that goal, everything else can be changed for that goal, don't be a prick, expecially you DM since you are the one that, in the end, has to judge. Be Spiderman.". Rest comes later. If that is the solid baseline, you can have fun and agreement comes easy.
And again, i enjoy RAW discussions, "fixing" RAW would deprive me of my fun.

"Possible" is a dangerous word, so I'll say that no, it's not possible.

Not for any reason in the book mind you, just for the case of this hypothetical scenario. The creature knows that this is impossible in the same way that you know that winged monkeys will not fly out of my pants.

If it is "not possible" as impossible, then it's still an "object" what is being created?
If it is "not possible" as "i've never seen it happen" in a world where magic is a thing and you can will things into existance... well, that's a poor excuse for me. You roll Investigation because you do not believe what you see. It's a perfectly fine reaction. You can still fail, however, and your character would be non the wiser. For most illusions, there's a sure fire way to check.

This is a line i clearly trace. Do not mix your character knowledge with player knowledge. The player can have knowledge of the books, but the books are not necessarily what you encounter on your way. It's clear for me that a DM can and is encouraged to modify and adapt contenent (all of it). Do not assume knowledge you think your character has unless your character assumes such a knowledge. It obviously has not to be that "black or white", but "curveballs" can be there and are not there because of malicious intent (well, at least from me :P).
Clarity between master and players is important and a balance between mystery and clarity can be difficult, very much so. It's also, at least in my experience, something that a group comes to "understand" with the passing of time and knowledge of the other persons partecipating in the game.
I'm speaking for me, my experiences, and the fact that it has been quite some time since the last time i've played with someone "new".

They seem to be insisting that it is clear that seeing the interaction has nothing to do with what's going on, but that even if you're looking away when something physically interacts with the illusion that the illusion is now faint to you. Because this is not my own argument I only understand it to about that depth and I can't necessarily defend it in the ways that they would.

So can't i. I agree with you.

BurgerBeast

2017-04-07, 12:49 AM

The question in contention is whether an image can bear a reflection. That which appears in a reflection is an image. A reflected image of a mirror can, itself, bear a reflection.

Therefore, we have a definition of an image which is capable of bearing a reflection. It is certainly no less valid than the "here's a .jpg of a mirror I got off of google" image presented before as an example of an image of a mirror that doesn't bear a reflection.

So yes, I understand that you're claiming that the illusory mirror cannot bear a reflection. I am saying that you're presuming facts not in evidence when you say so; show me in the spell where it says it cannot. I say it can because it creates an image of a mirror, and I see no reason an image of a mirror must not bear reflections.

To be clear: are you contending that it would be possible for an illusory mirror to fool someone who peered into it and waved?

If so, then we disagree. For me, this would require that the illusion is capable of detecting and responding to its surroundings.

Dr.Samurai

2017-04-07, 08:32 AM

What aspect of a reflection requires tangibility?

Consider, before you answer, that technically any use of light to see requires reflecting that light; it just doesn't reflect it with mirror-like fidelity.
Reflection requires something to exist. I was being too easy when I said tangibility. Existence is a more appropriate term.

Clearly not; any reflection in a real mirror is an "image," and those are not necessarily static.
A mirror image is reflecting an image of an object. So if the object moves, the *reflection* moves. This is different than what you are creating with Minor Illusion. You are not creating a real time reflection of something.

Images on TV screens also need not be static.
Sure. If the wizard makes a bunch of minor illusions on the different pages of a little notepad, and then flips the pages real quick, I guess yeah, the image would appear to be "moving".

There's a reason we characterize static images with the adjective "static;" it differentiates them from animated images.
There's a reason that Silent Image specifically says the image can be moved, and Minor Illusion doesn't.

I'm really not, but let me give you some more rope here...
He says as the noose tightens around his neck...

And that shine? That's a reflection. A heavily distorted one that is most notable only where it reflects the brightness of the light source, but that's still a reflection.
Yes, I know. But not one that exists because of the ambient light. It exists because the wizard put it there.

You could, though arguably that's getting into it being an image of a creature. Discuss with your DM.
No it's not. You are arguing that Minor Illusion allows you to make an object that moves (it doesn't say I can't is your argument). So a chair hopping up and down is not a creature, it is an object that moves.

The examples I would give are of a clock with moving hands, a tree whose leaves rustle and move in an imaginary breeze, or an illusory waterfall with falling illusory water.
Purely arbitrary.

Why? As you said, we see by light. The image is visible because light from the environment is interacting with it as if there really was a sword there.
No, that's not why the image is visible. The image is visible because illusion magic is making you see something that is not actually there.

If a real sword could show a reflection of that goblin sneaking up behind you, so can this image of one.
Completely unsupported claim.

If you limit it the way you want to, you're really not. That sword won't have that shine react properly to changing light sources in the environment. It will be about as convincing as a cardboard cutout painted with a shine spot. It'll get the idea across, but it won't fool anybody.
It will fool them if they fail the DC after examining it. The wizard made it *that* convincing. I can just turn this around on you as well. It if works the way you say it does, no amount of inspection short of putting your hand through it would reveal it to be an illusion.

Again, discuss with your DM whether that "chair" is an object or a creature (an animated object) at that point.
You said we can make objects that move. How is a rocking chair rocking back and forth different than a table chair hopping up and down? It doesn't say I can't, remember? How are you drawing these arbitrary distinctions?

As for "flashing a bright light in someone's eyes," you could do that without the illusory mirror, too. Use a real mirror (which you can actually move around!) or the actual bright light itself.
Irrelevant. You are claiming that this can be done with illusions. We can pull off the "sunrise reflection" feat from the move Legend with Minor Illusion. That's what you're saying.

ven if the minor illusion's image can have moving parts, that doesn't mean you can control the motion once you create the illusion. When spells let you control their motion, the spell says so.
Or rather, when the spell lets you create something that can move, the spell says so.

I am saying that you're presuming facts not in evidence when you say so; show me in the spell where it says it cannot. I say it can because it creates an image of a mirror, and I see no reason an image of a mirror must not bear reflections.
...
And if your rebuttal is, "No, it's visible even though light goes through it, because it's MAGIC, duh," then my rebuttal to your rebuttal is, "Then the reflection is there because it's magic, duh."
Sabeta is spot on here. The description of illusion magic clearly states that it deceives the senses into believing something is there that doesn't exist. Your insistence that it *must* work like real objects doesn't hold water. What you are saying is that Fireball wouldn't work because you don't have fuel or heat necessary to create fire. Or that casting it in a small enough room would require everyone to make ability checks because the oxygen has run out. Or that the Fly spell must grant you power over gravity because the spell *must* give you the ability to fly by controlling theoretical Gravitons.

You're trying to explain how the magic spell does what it does through physics to justify giving it more power. But it just doesn't hold up. It is magic. That's not a cop out. That's just how it works. The combination of "it must operate under the laws of physics" and "the spell doesn't say I can't" can be used across the board to justify all types of stuff that spells don't currently do.

tieren

2017-04-07, 09:13 AM

Provided that you think through this as thoroughly as I expect, it should be kryptonite to the idea of "a box that's got a perspective painting of the opposite wall on each side."

I always picture this technique as a screen or blind, if you make it a box and then try to move through the space you'll have to interact with it and reveal the illusion.

I certainly would never expect to create such a box to make my gnome illusionist appear to go invisible from all perspectives. The DC to identify the thing would be too incredibly low (maybe 2?). Thats not to say I might not create it anyway as an obvious illusion to confuse people looking at it. ("what the heck is that obviously weird thing?"). But in that circumstance I would rather make the illusion of a 5 foot tall top hat.

CursedRhubarb

2017-04-07, 09:44 AM

I always figured it was like this...
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/naruto-bleach/images/5/5b/Cloak_of_Invisibility_Technique.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120407211230
But with magic instead of cloth, and making sure the pattern is in the right direction.

Or it works like a S.E.P field perhaps?

Segev

2017-04-07, 10:08 AM

This sounds an awful lot like: "I don't know, I have no real reason, let me throw a wall of nonsense and see if anything sticks."This sounds an awful lot like, "Darn, this argument is too sound for me to refute. Better pretend it doesn't say anything at all."

I was going to respond to all the responses to my posts, but frankly, this is once again repeating the same things over and over. I urge those who haven't done so already to go find other threads discussing minor illusion to see the points made in detail and well beyond the point of exhaustion. Repeating them here isn't going to do anybody any good. I have literally addressed every point raised in response to what I wrote in this thread at least 5 times. And I use "literally" correctly here, not as its antonym "figuratively" nor as a superlative "practically." Absolutely no new objections have been raised, and I've addressed them already elsewhere.

The one point I feel really needs driving home is this: a mirror no more "detects and responds" when it is real than when it is illusory. Also, no less. Same is true of an illusion of a statue vs. a real statue. Neither "detects and responds" to the motion of that torch as you walk around it, but their appearances shift similarly (if not identically) due to the changing light source.

Pretty much all of my arguments derive from this.

Dalebert

2017-04-07, 10:10 AM

To be clear: are you contending that it would be possible for an illusory mirror to fool someone who peered into it and waved?

If so, then we disagree. For me, this would require that the illusion is capable of detecting and responding to its surroundings.

Not necessarily. If you think of it as light, and only light, reacts to the image just as if it were an object, by bouncing off of it so that you can see the image, then an image of a mirror would allow you to see a reflection just as a real mirror would. Or maybe it's just some of the light and some light filters through since it is possible (once you investigate or physically interact) to see through the image. In that case, think of it like anything else that's just partially transparent or only transparent in some cases, like a window on a bright day when the lighting is much dimmer inside. They appear as a mirror. But if you look through the same window at night when it's well-lit inside, you can see through it easily.

Before anyone says this is over-powered, the idea of using a mirror to reflect sunlight at a vampire is quite silly. The legend has always been "direct sunlight" and reflected sunlight is obviously indirect. This remains mechanically true in D&D where it continues to require direct sunlight to affect a vampire.

Segev

2017-04-07, 10:16 AM

Honestly, anybody who says "creating illusory mirrors is overpowered if they can reflect light into people's eyes/onto targets vulnerable to it!" is committing some sort of fallacy. I don't know which one, but I can describe it: they're forgetting that a totally mundane object can be used to do the same thing with greater flexibility: use a real mirror.

For most of the "abusive" uses, you don't need a 5 ft. diameter mirror; a hand mirror would suffice just fine. And that can be aimed, rather than cast, then re-cast, then re-cast again to try to adjust it.

Dr.Samurai

2017-04-07, 10:47 AM

Not necessarily. If you think of it as light, and only light, reacts to the image just as if it were an object, by bouncing off of it so that you can see the image, then an image of a mirror would allow you to see a reflection just as a real mirror would.
Firstly... light cannot bounce off of something that does not exist. The illusion is not real. It isn't actually floating in the air or sitting on the floor. It is an illusion. You only think it is there because magic is making you think something is there. But in actuality nothing is there. Light can't bounce off of it because it doesn't exist.

Secondly, even if light can bounce off of it because it does exist (it doesn't, but for the sake of argument), it doesn't follow that the illusion would carry the properties of the thing it is based on. You can obviously see objects in real life without them having mirror reflections. Mirrors reflect light as they do because of special qualities that we have absolutely *zero* reason to assume an illusion (which doesn't exist) would have. So even IF we granted that the way you see the illusion is because light bounces off of it like any other object, it still doesn't necessitate that it can reflect things like a real working mirror, even if it is an illusion of a mirror. For the same reason that if you punch an illusory mirror, it won't shatter into pieces of illusory glass, if you look into an illusory mirror, it won't provide a mirror reflection. It isn't actually there.

Before anyone says this is over-powered, the idea of using a mirror to reflect sunlight at a vampire is quite silly. The legend has always been "direct sunlight" and reflected sunlight is obviously indirect. This remains mechanically true in D&D where it continues to require direct sunlight to affect a vampire.
Granted, I haven't read some of the larger walls of text, but I don't think anyone actually claimed this. But it is true that what you're describing means you can direct beams of light with illusory mirrors. Or telescopes and microscopes as someone else mentioned. Is it overpowered? No. Is it likely beyond the scope of the cantrip? Yeah, absolutely. Is there any reason to think that D&D illusions work this way? Absolutely not.

Segev

2017-04-07, 11:06 AM

Firstly... light cannot bounce off of something that does not exist. The illusion is not real. It isn't actually floating in the air or sitting on the floor. It is an illusion. You only think it is there because magic is making you think something is there. But in actuality nothing is there. Light can't bounce off of it because it doesn't exist.The problem with this claim is that it requires that the illusory image then be there "because magic." It also opens up questions as to whether the illusory image changes when light sources change. Can you see it just as clearly (and in as much color) in pitch darkness as you can in the light? If somebody walks around it with a torch, does the light play off of it differently?

And you also get the illusion creating shadows and reflections the same way it's visible in the first place: "because magic."

Secondly, even if light can bounce off of it because it does exist, it doesn't follow that the illusion would carry the properties of the thing it is based on. You can obviously see objects in real life without them having mirror reflections.Sure. Those things aren't mirrors. They have different reflective qualities. Your point?

Mirrors reflect light as they do because of special qualities that we have absolutely *zero* reason to assume an illusion would have.We have more than zero reason. We have the fact that it's an image of the object, which we expect to, well, look like the object. What we have is zero reason to assume it lacks this quality. The spell makes an image but forbids light generation, sound, and other senses. By context, "other senses" can't include visual, since that's the big thrust of being an image in this context.

Reflection is a visual property. Nothing in the spell says "no reflections."

So even IF we granted that the way you see the illusion is because light bounces off of it like any other object, it still doesn't necessitate that it can reflect things like a real working mirror, even if it is an illusion of a mirror. For the same reason that if you punch an illusory mirror, it won't shatter into pieces of illusory glass, if you look into an illusory mirror, it won't provide a mirror reflection. It isn't actually there.That doesn't hold. Solid objects don't touch it. That's covered in the spell. If light bounces off of it, it necessitates it working light bouncing off any object.

The argument you're making here could be used to say that even if light bounces off of this illusory bottle of ketchup, that doesn't necessitate that it show up red like a real bottle of ketchup. So obviously, you assuming the images created by minor illusion have color is just silly. We have zero reason to assume color is part of the illusion at all!

Granted, I haven't read some of the larger walls of text, but I don't think anyone actually claimed this. But it is true that what you're describing means you can direct beams of light with illusory mirrors. Or telescopes and microscopes as someone else mentioned. Is it overpowered? No. Is it likely beyond the scope of the cantrip? Yeah, absolutely. Is there any reason to think that D&D illusions work this way? Absolutely not.I'd say that this falls more under the auspices of why you won't let a player who is a real-life chemist have his character with no training in chemistry decide to take the actions that would put together working gun powder, diesel fuel, or other anachronistic technical concoctions that the character would have no way of knowing about. Even if the party fighter technically has the capability to gather the ingredients and mix them appropriately, he doesn't have the know-how. And substituting the player's know-how for the character's is a no-no in this case. Same applies to advanced optics. Even if the illusionist's spell is perfectly capable of creating them, the illusionist doesn't have the know-how to specify what the player is trying to specify.

Dr.Samurai

2017-04-07, 12:06 PM

Segev, I don't know if you're going to only respond to some posts and then use the Disengage action on others because "I've done this before in other threads", but I'll assume you're willing to have this conversation further...

The problem with this claim is that it requires that the illusory image then be there "because magic." It also opens up questions as to whether the illusory image changes when light sources change. Can you see it just as clearly (and in as much color) in pitch darkness as you can in the light? If somebody walks around it with a torch, does the light play off of it differently?
It isn't a claim Segev. It is what the rulebook says. Illusions do not really exist. They deceive you into believing something exists. If problems do arise because of that premise, it doesn't make the premise disappear.

And you also get the illusion creating shadows and reflections the same way it's visible in the first place: "because magic."
The rulebook specifically says illusions are not real. That puts the kibosh on the "light is bouncing off it" claim. Sage Advice says that mirror reflections are too dynamic for the cantrip (which I think should be obvious) and that illusions don't cast shadows.

Sure. Those things aren't mirrors. They have different reflective qualities. Your point?
Cute. Clearly part of a larger point, but put one on the scoreboard for you I guess, lol.

We have more than zero reason. We have the fact that it's an image of the object, which we expect to, well, look like the object.
It does look like the object Segev. That doesn't mean it has the properties of the object.

What we have is zero reason to assume it lacks this quality.
Because you're divorcing mirror reflections from the physical properties of mirrors. You're instead making the claim that things have mirror reflections simply because they look like mirrors. Which is nonsense.

Reflection is a visual property. Nothing in the spell says "no reflections."
Reflection requires light to interact with something. An illusion isn't real and doesn't exist.

That doesn't hold. Solid objects don't touch it. That's covered in the spell. If light bounces off of it, it necessitates it working light bouncing off any object.
Light doesn't bounce off of it. It doesn't exist. Solid objects can't touch it, because it doesn't exist.

The argument you're making here could be used to say that even if light bounces off of this illusory bottle of ketchup, that doesn't necessitate that it show up red like a real bottle of ketchup. So obviously, you assuming the images created by minor illusion have color is just silly. We have zero reason to assume color is part of the illusion at all!
A wizard can make the bottle of ketchup look like any color he wants. In the same way, an illusion of a scorpion won't change color under a black light.

If I made a coil of wire, cast Major Image of an iron bar going through that coil (without touching it) and then sent a current through the wire (with shocking grasp let's say), have I just created an electro-magnet?

Segev

2017-04-07, 12:36 PM

Segev, I don't know if you're going to only respond to some posts and then use the Disengage action on others because "I've done this before in other threads", but I'll assume you're willing to have this conversation further...It's a weakness of mine. >_<

It isn't a claim Segev. It is what the rulebook says. Illusions do not really exist. They deceive you into believing something exists. If problems do arise because of that premise, it doesn't make the premise disappear.It not being there is no impediment to it being seen. It is not necessarily an impediment to it being seen because light bounces off of it.

Now, if you want to claim otherwise - and yes, it's a claim, even if you feel it a claim backed by the text - then it is visible solely because of magic, and is visible regardless of lighting conditions.

Now, you have to answer this: How much does ambient light impact how it looks? Let's assume we have a dwarf and a human observing a room in which you've put an illusory table. It was brightly lit when you did so. They both see the table in full color (I assume; correct me if I'm wrong).

Now, I turn off the lights. Nonmagical but complete darkness. Do both of them still see a brightly lit table, in full color? Does the human see naught but pitch darkness, and the dwarf see the table in black and white (thanks to his darkvision)?

The human, irked that I turned off the lights, lights up a torch and stalks over to the light switch. Does the table still appear brightly lit, in full color? Or has it gone from black-and-white (in darkvision) for the dwarf and unseeable in the dark for the human to a dimly-lit table with shadows dancing across its surface in the flickering torch-light for both of them?

If your answer is anything but, "It remains brightly lit no matter what the lighting conditions, so even in pitch darkness the human sees a brightly lit table," then the illusion must 'react' to the light and its surroundings. In which case, an illusory mirror's reflection can do the same for exactly the same reasons.

It does look like the object Segev. That doesn't mean it has the properties of the object.To look like the object, it must have the visual properties of the object. Unless you're arguing that it can't be any more realistic than a matte cardboard standee. Which I don't see supported by the spell.

Because you're divorcing mirror reflections from the physical properties of mirrors. You're instead making the claim that things have mirror reflections simply because they look like mirrors. Which is nonsense.I'm claiming that images of mirrors can bear reflections. I've provided real-world evidence of images of mirrors which do, in fact, bear reflections.

Reflection requires light to interact with something. An illusion isn't real and doesn't exist.Seeing something requires light to interact with it. An illusion, if it "isn't real and doesn't exist" means that light cannot interact with it, cannot be seen.

Alternatively, light isn't required to interact with the illusion for it to be seen. In which case, neither is light required to interact with it for it to bear a reflection.

You don't get to arbitrarily change whether "light must interact" or not just based on the clarity with which it bounces off. The reason your arguments fail to convince me is because you have to keep switching positions on whether light is required to interact with it for something to be visibly true about it.

Apply light's interaction consistently, and I'll agree you have a coherent model for how the spell works.

Light doesn't bounce off of it. It doesn't exist. Solid objects can't touch it, because it doesn't exist.Light isn't a solid object. And I'm happy to agree that light doesn't bounce off of it, but if so, then light bouncing off of it either a) isn't required for it to bear a reflection, or b) is required for it to be visible. In case (a), even without light bouncing off of it, it bears a reflection if it is of an object which should. In case (b), the illusion isn't visible, which is degenerate and silly, so should be rejected out of hand.

A wizard can make the bottle of ketchup look like any color he wants.Apparently he can't; color is a property of how light bounces off of and is absorbed by the image. Since nothing says that the image has light react to the color the wizard says it is appropriately, clearly color can't be included. This absurdity is in response to your argument why reflection doesn't work because the spell doesn't say it does. Well, the spell doesn't say color works, either.

In the same way, an illusion of a scorpion won't change color under a black light.Interesting. How does this hold up as to whether it changes color under darkvision as the lights go out? What about if I use a different color light to shine on it? Would a, say, albino scorpion image look blue under a blue light, green under a green light, and red under a red light, or would it be clearly white under all lighting? Including no lighting at all?

If I made a coil of wire, cast Major Image of an iron bar going through that coil (without touching it) and then sent a current through the wire (with shocking grasp let's say), have I just created an electro-magnet?Despite the attempt to equate real-world physics of magnetism, electricity, and the electromagnetic spectrum of light, I will still say "no," because even under real-world physics, the properties of a self-propagating electromagnetic wave (light or radio, typically) are different from the properties of induced magnetic fields.

Besides, the images quite clearly only interact with visual spectrum EM, anyway. The magnetic forces involved in the solenoid you want to create aren't in that spectrum, so under ANY of our models, the image of an iron bar is not going to have the properties of an iron bar for those electric and magnetic experiments.

That said, you'd still induce a magnetic field, because the iron core of a solenoid is only there to enhance the effect; it isn't necessary for the effect to happen at all.

Assuming, that is, that electromagnetism works in D&D as it does IRL.

Zorku

2017-04-07, 02:42 PM

@Segev, on the question of reflective illusions:

I don't think your example of a mirror's ability to reflect an image form another mirror answers the contention.

Nobody is saying that you can't create an illusion that presents a reflection (you can create an illusion that shows whatever you like). What I and some others are contesting is that the illusion itself can reflect. This was articulated above, but I don't think you recognized the difference.
Doesn't help that he and I are in a thread with a guy that thoroughly rejects illusory reflections.

I'm starting to wise up to how often I have to throw adjectives onto every stupid thing I want to be part of an illusion in these discussions, but even if I'm perfectly clear that the elements of the illusion are all entirely fabricated by the illusionist, there are still a few people around that insist that if you make an illusory mirror that it's got to have a big gray-white-gray gradient from photoshop stretched over the space that would be reflective on a real mirror "because that's what a mirror without a reflection looks like."

...

Since it didn't get much play before, what's the platonic form of a mirror 'like'?

*Should I explain Plato's cave? I tend to just assume people know that kind of thing round these parts.

Hopefully this one does contain explosive runes.

You do not fail at noticing the lack of shadows. You fail at noticing that the "object" that's not casting the shadows is an illusion.I don't understand how there is a step between detecting the lack of shadows and detecting the illusory nature of the object. You seem to try to explain it in the text I cut but that just makes me more confused about how anyone succeeds at noticing illusions.

Again, illusory barrel created how? I know it's pedantic, but Mirage Arcane works very differently from Minor Image and from Silent Image. Also... Disadvantage?Whoops.

If there's a particular point where you think that illusions start to react to moving light sources (probably not casting actual shadows, but doing any number of things you might imagine that could convince a creature that they have 'normal shadows,') then simply state which spells don't have this shadow limitation. I consider most illusion creating spells to be 'a family' so higher level spells can usually do everything that a lower level spell in the family can, and more; If you name just one spell that can do this (and possibly cite the text that justifies that,) I'll know roughly which spells can or cannot.

But whiterooming - expecially illusions or magic effects - is something that i do not like. It requires finding logic where there might not be. Having a whole image of what happens helps a lot.I had meant to include a directional light source that would produce a very clear shadow- oh well.

When I resort to a white room like this I am very much asking "what does this actually depend on?" If the whiteroom is never supposed to exist then you should be able to see how the system breaks, and potentially piece the mechanisms back together from that. Those ideas might still be wrong and backwards, but they lead you to the next step where you find out that they're wrong, or if they're perhaps half-correct.

I think that Minor illusion would help with a misdirection: It can create sounds and has no V component. Depending on how much time there's actually to hide you could create and mantain a decent hiding spot in the haystack complete with shadows and keep complementing your rouse with sounds, like steps running off in the distance from the door. Still not the best to cast because S can and does make sounds if things get longer in duration.Quick detail because I had to look it up myself, and because within the spoiler I care not about frivolous bloat: the word for the misdirection you're talking about is ruse. Rouse is when you shake a sleeping person or scare off some birds in a bush.

I was also going for hay on the floor as more of a light covering that keeps the place from getting oily/slick, but a pile of hay in the corner does make some decent sense. The cantrip can't pull off a pile 'o hay at the same time that you make them think you've kept going, but since everybody suggests silent image plus minor illusion for more convincing effects this seems workable (and if you had a few seconds lead you might just make the sound of the opposite door slamming shut before you ducked into the corner and summoned your hiding place.)

Silent image is visually focused, but would allow you to possibly "hide" the door inside the wall, depending on how is placed (is it in a corridor or right on the wall?), in a single cast.
A big cabinet filled with alchemical components is also more likely to be in the room than anything that a single casting of Minor Image could create. If placed correctly, shadows would be a non issue, going against the wall and thus being only of minor noticeability.

Combining the two spells, shadows become a non issue in any place.

The best thing about Silent Image, however, is duration. That alone could save you. 10 minutes in a single room is a lot of time. 1 minute is way more likely to be spent searching for someone. Should that happen, however, it's unlikely that someone would not notice.

The best thing you could do to hide in this case is douse and dispatch of the torches before attempting to do anything else. Without lights shadows are not a problem and any illusion becomes much stronger.

Or move the hay, lit it on fire, Place SI bigger flames on top, flee from the now "covered" door.

I do not believe i'm a creative enough person to be a good illusionist. And some are not really "hiding" per se :P
These all seem like good uses of SI, but MI only seems useful for adding sounds to SI in most of these cases (which at least thus far I haven't had anyone argue against.)

I know. I really do not feel i've found a true "solution" still. I'm still limiting it to actions (so no bonus actions an so on) so i feel it's weird. Better than nothing, i guess, but not "perfect". Not even "good enough".Combat (and anything derived from it,) is the only place where I'm that concerned with the different action types (and even movement speed doesn't really apply outside of combat, because the speed you move while people are swinging weapons around and you don't want to end up short of breath, is really different from sprinting or long distance travel.) Improvising actions within combat is a different beast from the more general improv of puzzle solving and social interactions.

I respect that. I just prefer to have a clear "RAW = have fun, move to that goal, everything else can be changed for that goal, don't be a prick, expecially you DM since you are the one that, in the end, has to judge. Be Spiderman.". Rest comes later. If that is the solid baseline, you can have fun and agreement comes easy.
And again, i enjoy RAW discussions, "fixing" RAW would deprive me of my fun.That sounds closer to RAI, and closer still to personal rulings than RAW to me.

If it is "not possible" as impossible, then it's still an "object" what is being created?Possibly nothing. It's not real after all.

If it is "not possible" as "i've never seen it happen" in a world where magic is a thing and you can will things into existance... well, that's a poor excuse for me. You roll Investigation because you do not believe what you see. It's a perfectly fine reaction. You can still fail, however, and your character would be non the wiser. For most illusions, there's a sure fire way to check.How does someone even distinguish "I've never seen it happen" from "it absolutely can't happen"?

To be clear: are you contending that it would be possible for an illusory mirror to fool someone who peered into it and waved?

If so, then we disagree. For me, this would require that the illusion is capable of detecting and responding to its surroundings.
Real quick, you get how the illusions that are in someone's mind could convince them that they're seeing a reflection, yeah? Not necessarily anything that they could actually see stuff behind them, but just where they're convinced that they can.

There's a reason that Silent Image specifically says the image can be moved, and Minor Illusion doesn't.It appears that you're saying that minor illusion cannot produce a clock with moving hands (which goes against dev tweets.) Is this correct, and did I miss this earlier?

Yes, I know. But not one that exists because of the ambient light. It exists because the wizard put it there.For the sake of clarity: what prevents a wizard from "putting a reflection there?" Not a reflection that exists because of ambient light, but a... you know... illusion.

Purely arbitrary.A list of examples kind of has to be arbitrary, doesn't it?

Completely unsupported claim.He's already given you a model of how the highlights on items or the shiny bright spot on a bit of polished metal in the sun are the same thing as a reflection. That doesn't make it unsupported, that makes it something that you don't agree with.

Now, the clear motivation is that he thinks that illusions have to be able to produce these things, and up to this point he doesn't have any cogent model for what difference allows one thing but not the other. You seem to implicitly agree that highlights and glare are necessary (or at least, "allowed,") but you disagree that a reflection is allowed. To him, a reflection is exactly the same thing as those other elements, so you've got to provide a more thorough explanation for why it is not.

If you're answering my post sequentially then maybe you've already provided something, but I think it would be useful to describe what I think your reasons are, if only to show how clear the communication has been thus far.

People can't usually pick out fine details from a bit of light bouncing off of a rough surface. For a wizard that wants to 'fake' this effect, it's basically as easy as a swipe of their mental paintbrush, requiring only a little lighter color that is perhaps skewed slightly yellow/red/blue as is appropriate for the current light sources in the vicinity. One brush stroke. A reflection retains nearly full fidelity for the light, and that means that the wizard has to make hundreds or thousands of strokes of their mental paint brush. They don't just have to hold 5ft3 in their heads, they've got to hold the entire room, and then also distort it.
On a scale from 1-10, how much do you agree with that, and on the same scale, how closely does it match what you thought before reading it?

It will fool them if they fail the DC after examining it. The wizard made it *that* convincing. I can just turn this around on you as well. It if works the way you say it does, no amount of inspection short of putting your hand through it would reveal it to be an illusion.Just as I applied the principle of charity for you- when he says that these things have (illusory) reflections, he's not saying that the reflection is perfect. Maybe the investigator notices that the reflection is missing a vase that's present in the real world (and we will assume that this area is not know for vase shaped vampires,) or that some of the colors and patterns within the reflection don't match the real world. That's probably pretty high DC, so for something an average person would notice in about 6 seconds, maybe everything in the reflection is the same height, or other mirrors in the reflection don't update correctly (as the hedge wizard didn't have the time and skill to do this with recursive elements.)

I don't know that any of that matches what he's actually picturing, but because you've asserted perfection instead of asking about it, you don't either.

You said we can make objects that move. How is a rocking chair rocking back and forth different than a table chair hopping up and down? It doesn't say I can't, remember? How are you drawing these arbitrary distinctions?The rocking chair doesn't travel.

I think that if the table chair hopping is also alright so long as it stays within the original 5ft cube area of the spell.

Sabeta is spot on here. The description of illusion magic clearly states that it deceives the senses into believing something is there that doesn't exist. Your insistence that it *must* work like real objects doesn't hold water.I'll turn this into the kind of strong claim you want it to be: "If these images do not have reflections then they cannot deceive the senses into believing something is there that doesn't exist."
Go nut.

What you are saying is that Fireball wouldn't work because you don't have fuel or heat necessary to create fire. Or that casting it in a small enough room would require everyone to make ability checks because the oxygen has run out.Didn't it have math for that kind of thing in older versions?

Or that the Fly spell must grant you power over gravity because the spell *must* give you the ability to fly by controlling theoretical Gravitons.Well, you're not being pushed in the opposite direction of gravity by electromagnetic force or atomic interactions (which would be downright silly in a fantasy game,) so sure. If it's a limited kind of control that only applies within the bounds of the spell, are there any negative consequences from that? Is there some munchkin misuse concept here, or are you just mocking the kind of basic physics that ancient peoples already had a decent grasp of by referencing things that we didn't know about before particle accelerators?

You're trying to explain how the magic spell does what it does through physics to justify giving it more power.
Not very charitable of you. Do you recognize the difference between that and ttehtmsdwidtp to justify it keeping a small amount of power? You should be able to see the difference.

Seriously, step back and look at you and him. "If it can make real reflections it has infinite power!" "If it can't make fake reflections it has zero power!" However much you don't believe that he really means it when he says that, he doesn't believe that you really mean that when you say that.

Ok, now bring back the nuance and "reasonable limitations" that you're both confident you've kept in your arguments. The implications of what you're saying ARE that minor illusion is useless, and the implications of what he's saying ARE that minor illusion is god-tier magic. Until at least one of you figures out how to actually communicate with the other there's not enough information here for me to say otherwise.

But it just doesn't hold up. It is magic. That's not a cop out. That's just how it works. The combination of "it must operate under the laws of physics" and "the spell doesn't say I can't" can be used across the board to justify all types of stuff that spells don't currently do.Just a little more armchair psychology here: You've got some idea of what each of these spells does, and he is absolutely adding in elements that clash with that idea you've got. These elements radically alter how the spells work in that idea of yours, and now they seem limitless. He's got an idea in his head that actually plays rather similar to the way your idea does. You're stripping out radical elements of how his idea works much like a train strips most of the material away from a car that it runs into, and now it seems like there's no point in ever doing anything that's not direct damage or placing a named status effect on an opponent.

Best as I can tell, he's really used to people saying "it's magic" when they're wrong, and as a last ditch effort to protect their idea. I don't think that's what you were doing when you said that, but we've already fleshed out the ideas of whether these things are in someone's head or in the real world (or the clever combination and negation of those that I proposed as platonic forms /excessiveselfcongratulation,) so you probably need to reference at least some of that if you're proposing some magical combination of those, or magical concept outside of either. Otherwise you might as well be convincing us that you've got a dragon in your garage that's invisible, intangible, doesn't eat or poop, and breathes fire that's not hot, etc, etc.

So let's pretend for a second that you accept that minor illusion can produce illusory reflections. What does this necessarily change? Both in your mental model and in the more open world of what the rules actually say. What are the perceived consequences and which of those are actually inescapable?

I always picture this technique as a screen or blind, if you make it a box and then try to move through the space you'll have to interact with it and reveal the illusion.

I certainly would never expect to create such a box to make my gnome illusionist appear to go invisible from all perspectives. The DC to identify the thing would be too incredibly low (maybe 2?). Thats not to say I might not create it anyway as an obvious illusion to confuse people looking at it. ("what the heck is that obviously weird thing?"). But in that circumstance I would rather make the illusion of a 5 foot tall top hat.

What does that box look like if you're diagonal from it?

Honestly, anybody who says "creating illusory mirrors is overpowered if they can reflect light into people's eyes/onto targets vulnerable to it!" is committing some sort of fallacy. I don't know which one, but I can describe it: they're forgetting that a totally mundane object can be used to do the same thing with greater flexibility: use a real mirror.

For most of the "abusive" uses, you don't need a 5 ft. diameter mirror; a hand mirror would suffice just fine. And that can be aimed, rather than cast, then re-cast, then re-cast again to try to adjust it.

You can't use a mundane mirror for it though, or at least not as easily. Mundane mirrors need support, and probably need to be somewhere other than where you are standing to get the correct angle.

In the same way, an illusion of a scorpion won't change color under a black light.
If we're going with a spell that I can move or re-shape (I can at least do this with malleable illusions,) then can I make that illusion-scorpion appear to change color under a black light?

Sabeta

2017-04-07, 03:56 PM

I was going to respond to all the responses to my posts, but frankly, this is once again repeating the same things over and over.

I'm astoundingly surprised you think anyone would ever take you seriously after this post. You have yet to provide even a single word to disagree with the RAW provided in the book, aside from the repeated assertion that "if you can see it, it must be reflective to some degree. Let's just ignore the fact that the rules say that anything will pass through it, including light because it doesn't cast a shadow."

I'm not saying a Mirror is impossible. I'm saying a fully functional mirror is impossible. You can create a static image against the would-be mirrors surface, and as long as you use your action every turn you can change the image that appears in it, but to make a completely functional mirror without something to reflect off of is plainly impossible. Again, read the Sage Advice:

Mike Mearls‏
@mikemearls

Replying to @DaddyDM @JeremyECrawford
wouldn't allow it - too dynamic, requires too many changes moment to moment

The RAW is clear as day. The RAI given by the Devs is clear as day. If you want to leverage more out of the spell do it at your own table, but don't pretend you can come here and pretend as if the RAW is somehow different than what the book says because you're trying to ham-fist your own internal logic into the spell. I mean, if you're just going to casually dismiss our arguments, "because if you google around you might find a thread where it kind of looks like maybe I won from only my point of view because people eventually stopped talking to me" then I think we're done here. It's pretty obvious you have nothing of merit worth adding at this point. Either contribute meaningful discussion or admit you're wrong and walk.

Zorku

2017-04-07, 05:18 PM

I'm astoundingly surprised you think anyone would ever take you seriously after this post. You have yet to provide even a single word to disagree with the RAW provided in the book, aside from the repeated assertion that "if you can see it, it must be reflective to some degree. Let's just ignore the fact that the rules say that anything will pass through it, including light because it doesn't cast a shadow."

I'm not saying a Mirror is impossible. I'm saying a fully functional mirror is impossible. You can create a static image against the would-be mirrors surface, and as long as you use your action every turn you can change the image that appears in it, but to make a completely functional mirror without something to reflect off of is plainly impossible. Again, read the Sage Advice:

Mike Mearls‏
@mikemearls

The RAW is clear as day. The RAI given by the Devs is clear as day. If you want to leverage more out of the spell do it at your own table, but don't pretend you can come here and pretend as if the RAW is somehow different than what the book says because you're trying to ham-fist your own internal logic into the spell. I mean, if you're just going to casually dismiss our arguments, "because if you google around you might find a thread where it kind of looks like maybe I won from only my point of view because people eventually stopped talking to me" then I think we're done here. It's pretty obvious you have nothing of merit worth adding at this point. Either contribute meaningful discussion or admit you're wrong and walk.

Do note that in the tweet he says "wouldn't allow it" instead of a more flat "no." He provides a reason not to allow it, but there's no pretense of this going against the rules here.

-

As for threads that discuss this, here's 10 pages (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?368641-Best-Uses-for-Minor-Illusion/page10) of me'n'him being frustrated for a month. Given Vogonjeltz's appearance in this thread maybe that one is finally dead, but I'm not gonna take that for granted. Now stop for a second and assess how ****ty I am for linking that cluster****.

People talk past each other a lot. I'm trying to be more understanding (or rather, I think there's more potential with the people present,) in this thread, but the main person I want answers from is skipping my posts so I don't expect this to go anywhere productive (and only hold onto a very faint hope that it would if I was getting responses...)

Sabeta

2017-04-07, 05:31 PM

Given that Minor Illusion is a static image, and the reason that Mearls says he wouldn't allow a Mirror being due to requiring you to update the images being reflected, it follows that an Illusory Mirror isn't actually reflecting anything. It's simply a static image that the Wizard has shaped to look like a reflection. I take SA to be RAI, but in this case it's supported by my understanding of the RAW. Nobody here has managed to produce anything even remotely compelling towards changing that. Segev at the least doesn't seem to be arguing RAW, he's arguing about the physics implications of the RAW being dumb, and pretending that the RAW itself must somehow be wrong as a result.

As for the thread you linked, I ignore that particular style of arguing. I actually disagree with much of what Dr. Samurai has said in this thread, but I'm ignoring it because dissecting an argument line-by-line is bad form. An argument must be taken as a whole, not as individual parts. Each piece of what I say supports each other to build something cohesive, but each line out of context means nothing. Or at least, that's the intent of my writing style.

BurgerBeast

2017-04-07, 05:47 PM

Not necessarily. If you think of it as light, and only light, reacts to the image just as if it were an object, by bouncing off of it so that you can see the image, then an image of a mirror would allow you to see a reflection just as a real mirror would.

I don't like to get into the scientific descriptions because I don't think they are necessary, but if I accept this and play along, then you still have a problem. If regular light bounces off of the illusion, then the illusion is materially occupying space. That's the only way anything (including light) can bounce off of it. If it is materially occupying space, then it's not an illusion.

Or maybe it's just some of the light and some light filters through since it is possible (once you investigate or physically interact) to see through the image.

Light doesn't interact with it at all, because it's not materially present. If light interacts with it at all, then it must be materially present. If it is materially present, it's not an illusion.

In that case, think of it like anything else that's just partially transparent or only transparent in some cases, like a window on a bright day when the lighting is much dimmer inside.

It is my position that somewhere in this description, you've made an error. You can't consider an illusion to behave like a window because an illusion is not materially present. But a window is. An illusion will never behave like a real thing because an illusion is not a real thing - it's an image of a real thing.

They appear as a mirror. But if you look through the same window at night when it's well-lit inside, you can see through it easily.

This is because a real thing can respond to the environment by virtue of the fact that it is materially part of the environment. An illusion, by my view, is not.

Doesn't help that he and I are in a thread with a guy that thoroughly rejects illusory reflections.

You're not going to like this, but I'm not sure what "illusory reflection" means. I read it to mean the reflection of an illusion, viewed by looking into a real mirror. But it might mean an illusion created specifically on the mirror to look like a reflection.

Real quick, you get how the illusions that are in someone's mind could convince them that they're seeing a reflection, yeah? Not necessarily anything that they could actually see stuff behind them, but just where they're convinced that they can.

Illusions are not in the observer's mind. If they are, then they are thoughts or hallucinations. An illusion is objectively located at it's location in the real world (i.e. outside the observer's mind), but not physically so. This may be one of the roots of our disagreement.

If you think that the illusion itself behaves in this way, as a phantasm by 2e terms, then we simply disagree about that. I'm not sure that either method is better or worse, having not put a lot of thought into this particular view in this particular context.

ThePolarBear

2017-04-07, 06:49 PM

Since it didn't get much play before, what's the platonic form of a mirror 'like'?

I have no idea. *drumroll (well, the "pa tum cha", however is it called)*

Hopefully this one does contain explosive runes.

Well, reaction to Absorb Elements.

Here, have a potion with me. Read the label carefully, it has some very fine prints.

I don't understand how there is a step between detecting the lack of shadows and detecting the illusory nature of the object. You seem to try to explain it in the text I cut but that just makes me more confused about how anyone succeeds at noticing illusions.

The step is the same between seeing a creature that moves but makes no sound and seeing an illusion of a creature that makes no sound and moves.
How can you realize the difference? We know you can, the roll is there. How is however impossible to describe with certainty.
The fact that in our reality a barrel without a shadow would be, for me, an impossible anomaly does not mean that for our characters the same barrel has inextricably to be an illusion. It might, but it is not certain.

You fail to realize the true nature of the illusion. That is, that the object is not a weird object but an actual illusionary image of an object.

If there's a particular point where you think that illusions start to react to moving light sources (probably not casting actual shadows, but doing any number of things you might imagine that could convince a creature that they have 'normal shadows,') then simply state which spells don't have this shadow limitation. I consider most illusion creating spells to be 'a family' so higher level spells can usually do everything that a lower level spell in the family can, and more; If you name just one spell that can do this (and possibly cite the text that justifies that,) I'll know roughly which spells can or cannot.

Keep in mind that i have not committed all the spells to memory.
I would say that there's the cantrip: lowest form of the all around possibilities that illusion can take. It's a category per se, can't cast shadows or create them.

Then again, can you create a stack of logs with Minor illusion, Silent Image or Major Image? Is it an "object"? When should we stop going granular?
For me, here. As i said, for me illusions work "as the caster intended" inside the limits of the spell. All the "images" etc can create shadows, so for a creature to have shadows would be ok.
If a caster wants to keep the illusion going strong, inside the limits of the spell, he has to keep concentration running and use the action to continuously make the illusion seem as real as possible at least for the "Image" spells.
Mirage Arcane interacts with creatures in a limited manner. It would be ok to have it have working mirrors (or reflective surfaces in general), for me.

Quick detail because I had to look it up myself, and because within the spoiler I care not about frivolous bloat: the word for the misdirection you're talking about is ruse. Rouse is when you shake a sleeping person or scare off some birds in a bush.

Thanks for the correction. Rouse as "wake", or "excite". Ruse as "stratagem, ploy"

I was also going for hay on the floor as more of a light covering that keeps the place from getting oily/slick, but a pile of hay in the corner does make some decent sense. The cantrip can't pull off a pile 'o hay at the same time that you make them think you've kept going, but since everybody suggests silent image plus minor illusion for more convincing effects this seems workable (and if you had a few seconds lead you might just make the sound of the opposite door slamming shut before you ducked into the corner and summoned your hiding place.)

These all seem like good uses of SI, but MI only seems useful for adding sounds to SI in most of these cases (which at least thus far I haven't had anyone argue against.)

MI is still a spell that has no concentration. You could have a couple going easily in this situation. That is another plus.

Combat (and anything derived from it,) is the only place where I'm that concerned with the different action types (and even movement speed doesn't really apply outside of combat, because the speed you move while people are swinging weapons around and you don't want to end up short of breath, is really different from sprinting or long distance travel.) Improvising actions within combat is a different beast from the more general improv of puzzle solving and social interactions.

Yep.

That sounds closer to RAI, and closer still to personal rulings than RAW to me.

It's actually all in the first chapter of the PHB iirc. Totally my spin on it however :D

Possibly nothing. It's not real after all.

It is real. It's just not an object. Or a real object.
How real is something that you can possibly experience with all senses?
It's just not what you expect it to be.

How does someone even distinguish "I've never seen it happen" from "it absolutely can't happen"?

In a world where magic exists and we do not know how it works? It's up to the DM.

Hopefully i got everything right as far as quoting goes.

Dr.Samurai

2017-04-07, 06:58 PM

Moradin's Beard! there's a lot to quote and reply to!

Segev

2017-04-07, 07:10 PM

First off, sorry again for being terse. It's as close to pithy as one with as little wit as I have can come. I appreciate most of what people are writing. Despite somebody questioning how I could expect anybody to take me seriously, I do. Thanks, Zorku, for linking the threads where I have said pretty much everything I would say in response to people in this thread. ...and, sadly, probably will again, when I get more energy and less will to resist replying to specific points with which I disagree.

You can't use a mundane mirror for it though, or at least not as easily. Mundane mirrors need support, and probably need to be somewhere other than where you are standing to get the correct angle.Eh, even if you want it somewhere you aren't, you can hand it to a mage hand. Heck, I think prestidigitation can create REAL mirror "trinkets." Well, "real" in the sense that they're physical and act like mirrors, even if obviously magical.

In short, I don't see anything "it bears a reflection" can be done with that makes the spell more powerful than it's supposed to be. It's a tiny bit of versatility and a great deal of verisimilitude for the illusion itself. That's it. (I mean, I mostly picture it as a convenience thing for Illusionist Iris to call up a full length mirror and make sure her disguise self looks right, or that her hair isn't mussed.)

If we're going with a spell that I can move or re-shape (I can at least do this with malleable illusions,) then can I make that illusion-scorpion appear to change color under a black light?Provided you're taking your action to do so, I don't see how you couldn't be allowed to do this. I mean, now you're invoking a 6th level Illusionist class feature meant to do precisely this kind of thing. (Though the scorpion had best be a model, corpse, sculpture, or other object-that-is-not-a-living-or-undead-scorpion, since minor illusion only does objects.)

Given that Minor Illusion is a static imageMajor point of contention here: Show me in the spell text where it says the word "static."

Moradin's Beard! there's a lot to quote and reply to!I know. :smallsigh: I would actually count it a favor if you didn't reply poitn-by-point to me, but instead just gave a general rebuttal, or picked out a particular point or two.

Or I could take this to a private conversation if you like. But I really, honestly don't expect to say anything I haven't said at least 5x in the thread(s) Zorku linked.

Dr.Samurai

2017-04-07, 08:35 PM

No problem Segev! To answer your question about "turning the lights off", I think the answer must be, as you say, that the table would remain "lit" or observable in the dark. I am contending that light is not how it is seen. I think we already see this in cartoons or animated movies where the protagonist is in a dark woods and sees an illusion cast by a fairy or witch or something, and the illusion of the woman or animal is brighter than it should be, or even glowing almost. I wouldn't be surprised if most people didn't think it works this way, but it would be consistent with the fact that the illusion is not real and doesn't cast a shadow.

Well, mostly consistent. It does beg the question, I think, of whether a blind man can see a minor illusion.

I'm not sure why you say the wizard can't make something colored. It makes me think that some point is being lost in the mix here. I understand that color is a result of light being absorbed and reflected. But I grant that that is the way we see as well. I am arguing that we don't see illusions the same way we see real objects, and I think that is supported by the text on illusion magic and by Crawford's tweet. And color would fall under that. The ketchup isn't red because it is reflecting back red light. It's red because the wizard is making you see a bottle of red ketchup with magic.

Besides, the images quite clearly only interact with visual spectrum EM, anyway.
Well, I'm contesting that it interacts with the spectrum at all (because it doesn't actually exist), but you're claiming it does, but only part of it. What makes this clear to you? The fact that it is visual I presume?

And I want to be clear on another point that I see being repeated: I don't find mirror reflections overpowered. I started the thread looking for an explanation as to how to make these blinds that you can hide behind, because the issue of perspective, creature sizes and directions confused me on how they would work. I never in a thousand years would have thought we'd be arguing about illusions acting as working mirrors. In fact, I skimmed through one of the other threads looking to see if the blinds were discussed, saw some references to mirrors, and completely ignored it thinking it was a different topic of discussion. I just think it's not the intent of the cantrip, and I think the reasoning isn't strong enough to justify it. It seems like poor taste to me. I don't feel strongly enough about it that it'd be a problem at the table (like I said, someone had used it in another campaign I was in). But, I suppose I take issue mostly with the attitude that is simply must work this way because science. I don't think that's a strong argument when it comes to magic spells.

It appears that you're saying that minor illusion cannot produce a clock with moving hands (which goes against dev tweets.) Is this correct, and did I miss this earlier?
Correct. I haven't seen the tweet, but yeah, the spell doesn't say the image can move, so I would assume the image must be static. That's not necessarily how I'd run it, but it is a large grey area. Since the spell doesn't address it, you now have to determine how much movement is possible. Moving hands on a clock is one thing. What about the waterfall Segev mentioned earlier? That is significantly more movement, and very fluid (obviously). What about that chair hopping in place? Suddenly it's a creature? I think if the spell was intended to allow the illusion to move in any way, it would have described the limits of that movement.

For the sake of clarity: what prevents a wizard from "putting a reflection there?" Not a reflection that exists because of ambient light, but a... you know... illusion.
Maybe you misunderstood me. I am saying the wizard can make an illusion with a reflection on it. He can make a shiny sword if he wants. But it isn't shining because of light. It is shining because that's the illusion the wizard wants you to see.

A list of examples kind of has to be arbitrary, doesn't it?
On the one hand, a hopping chair needs DM approval. On the other hand, the movement of a waterfall is within the parameter of the spell. It is arbitrary. And has to be, because movement isn't mentioned in the spell. So you're saying it is allowed, but then immediately have to decide what is and isn't allowed. Because the spell doesn't tell you. I think that's because the spell doesn't allow it.

He's already given you a model of how the highlights on items or the shiny bright spot on a bit of polished metal in the sun are the same thing as a reflection. That doesn't make it unsupported, that makes it something that you don't agree with.
The only "image" of a sword that can show a mirror reflection is that of a mirror-polished sword in a mirror. Otherwise, a simple image of a sword will not give a mirror reflection, despite the fact that he is claiming it does. You need a mirror to do that, and an illusion isn't a mirror, even if it looks like one. I'm sorry, but nothing that I've read so far has come close to convincing me that, just by looking like a mirror, an illusion can behave like a mirror.

You seem to implicitly agree that highlights and glare are necessary (or at least, "allowed,") but you disagree that a reflection is allowed. To him, a reflection is exactly the same thing as those other elements, so you've got to provide a more thorough explanation for why it is not.

The highlights and glares are put there by the wizard. They are not a result of the ambient light. That would be inconsistent with that I've been saying.

People can't usually pick out fine details from a bit of light bouncing off of a rough surface. For a wizard that wants to 'fake' this effect, it's basically as easy as a swipe of their mental paintbrush, requiring only a little lighter color that is perhaps skewed slightly yellow/red/blue as is appropriate for the current light sources in the vicinity. One brush stroke. A reflection retains nearly full fidelity for the light, and that means that the wizard has to make hundreds or thousands of strokes of their mental paint brush. They don't just have to hold 5ft3 in their heads, they've got to hold the entire room, and then also distort it.
On a scale from 1-10, how much do you agree with that, and on the same scale, how closely does it match what you thought before reading it?
I don't do well with number scales, but I think this is certainly how Mearles sees it with his answer. And I think I agree. This was certainly one of my problems with the camouflage blinds. There just seems to be too much to keep track of to make the perspectives realistic and accurate.

It's important to note that Mearles response didn't even consider light reflecting from the mirror. He was taking the angle of programming the illusion to operate like a mirror, saying it's too dynamic, with too much going on to pull off. But yeah, it's one thing to imagine an object and create an illusion of an object. It's another to start keeping track of angles, lighting, reflections, perspective, and craft that all into a believable 3D illusion.

Just as I applied the principle of charity for you- when he says that these things have (illusory) reflections, he's not saying that the reflection is perfect.

....

I don't know that any of that matches what he's actually picturing, but because you've asserted perfection instead of asking about it, you don't either.
The reflection is "perfect" in the sense that it is 100% accurate. If it is caused by ambient light and reflects light like any normal object, to the point that it even provides mirror reflections, how can it be missing a vase in the reflection? It is acting just like a normal object. By definition, the reflections are perfect. Exactly as they should be according to the lighting in the room.

I'll turn this into the kind of strong claim you want it to be: "If these images do not have reflections then they cannot deceive the senses into believing something is there that doesn't exist."
I don't know what the disconnect is here. You can make the illusion with reflections on it. But the illusion you make will not lose or gain reflections based on the lighting in the room. This doesn't contradict the text in any way, whereas the claim that light bounces off the illusion contradicts the fact that the illusion is not real and doesn't exist, and the tweet that illusions do not cast shadows.

Not very charitable of you.
I'm not sure why. It was said without judgment. The spell becomes more versatile if you can make working mirrors with it. But nothing suggests you can until we get into this conversation about how light and vision works.

And I completely disagree that Minor Illusion becomes godlike or useless based on my interpretation or Segev's.

Sabeta

2017-04-07, 09:26 PM

In short, I don't see anything "it bears a reflection" can be done with that makes the spell more powerful than it's supposed to be. It's a tiny bit of versatility and a great deal of verisimilitude for the illusion itself. That's it. (I mean, I mostly picture it as a convenience thing for Illusionist Iris to call up a full length mirror and make sure her disguise self looks right, or that her hair isn't mussed.)

Major point of contention here: Show me in the spell text where it says the word "static."

Illusionist Iris knows better than to rely on an Illusory Mirror because she's prone to showing herself what she wants to see and not what's really there.

Anyway Sergev I think we're just going to have to disagree on this one. I firmly believe that the RAW very clearly states that things pass through it, and that includes light, as supported by the fact that it casts no Shadows. Anything more than that, and it strains my verisimilitude that something entirely unreal is interacting with the real in a meaningful way. Unless, of course you're using a much stronger spell which is specifically designed for that kind of thing. (or Illusory Reality) A cantrip being on par with 7th level spells seems a bit much to me.

Programmed Illusion, Major Image, Project Image, Silent Image are all Illusion spells that specifically state they can be moved. While Minor Illusion itself doesn't specifically use the word static, it can be inferred that since Illusions tell you when they can be moved, the ones that don't say they can are still or static. I believe the term has been brandied about before in this thread, but assuming the spell can be animated just because the rules don't say that it can't be is Air Bud. (Either that or I've mixed this thread up with that godawful Tenser's Disc thread).

Perhaps it's not RAW to go this far, but that's my justification for why the spell is capable of creating a photo-realistic statue of a man, but not an actual man. The image simply doesn't move. That's what I find immersive about the spell, it's just a simple image or sound and nothing more. It has weaknesses, and if you care that much about its shadows or lighting being slightly off then that's what reveals the Illusion on a saved DC rather than "he just knows".

Creating a mirror doesn't shatter the game, but it does break my immersion. There's nothing there for light to reflect off of, so I don't see why people try to leverage that out of the spell unless they wanted to commit to some kind of munchkin behavior.

georgie_leech

2017-04-07, 10:51 PM

BurgerBeast

2017-04-08, 11:19 AM

I usually think of illusions as hyper-realistic holograms, or the 3d equivalent of a picture. Light very much bounces off of those, but absent particular conditions it won't show a proper reflection. So I'd agree that objects can't mimic a phenomenon like empty space, except for from a very specific angle. Likewise negative space like a hole in the ground or something. But at the same time, I don't see my interpretation leading to a functional mirror.

Are you sure that light bounces off of 3D holograms? This would mean they cast shadows. They might be a light source.

Edit: found a link but not sure how to embed using my phone. I'll link it later.

georgie_leech

2017-04-08, 11:31 AM

Are you sure that light bounces off of 3D holograms? This would mean they cast shadows. They might be a light source.

Edit: found a link but not sure how to embed using my phone. I'll link it later.

Fair. Let me instead describe it as a hyper realistic video game model. Depending on the skill of the caster, of course.

Segev

2017-04-08, 09:28 PM

Sabeta

2017-04-08, 09:37 PM

It is not "consistent" with it not casting a shadow; the shadow could still be cast. But if that's how you view it, that's fine. I find it a less satisfactory illusion, myself, but *shrug*.

I'll point out that nothing prevents it from bearing a reflection, still. The same magic that makes it have apparent color and brightness can make it have a reflection.

As for the rest, yes, you do contend that it doesn't interact with light at all, and is just seen anyway. I contend, under that circumstance, that there's no reason why it can't bear a reflection nor cast a shadow for exactly the same reason that it's visible in the first place: magic.

The problem with that assertion is that the spell effects disagree with you. It's not "It does X because lolmagic", it does that because that's how the magic works. You're adding effects to it because "It's magic, it does whatever it wants to do, rules be damned". At that point, go ahead and make balloon creatures with realistically expanding chests to mimic breathing. Because in your ruling the spell can do almost anything it wants. Adding a component of motion to the spell makes it entirely more powerful than a cantrip is meant to be.

BurgerBeast

2017-04-08, 11:59 PM

@Segev

For me, the problem is that in order for the illusory mirror to reflect in the same way that a real mirror does:

(1) the illusion would have to change over time after it is cast
(2) the illusion would have to change in response to its environment, independently of its creator
(3) the illusuon would have to be able to appear differently to multiple observers at the same time

If you allow the illusion to do this in the case of an illusion of a mirror, then the illusion ought to be able to do 1, 2, and 3 generally. If not, you will have even more (and more difficult) explaining to do.

I can accept 1, but not 2 (without concentration), and not 3.

Dalebert

2017-04-09, 11:02 AM

(1) the illusion would have to change over time after it is cast
(2) the illusion would have to change in response to its environment, independently of its creator
(3) the illusuon would have to be able to appear differently to multiple observers at the same time

All of this becomes moot if you just decide that it reflects light. People saying "There's nothing there to reflect light or cast a shadow"--that's an assumption. The alternative is it's just in the minds of viewers. The simpler explanation is that there IS something there but all it can interact with is light so that's why we see it. To me that's far less complex than projecting something into creatures minds that doesn't have any existence in the real world at all, ala Phantasmal Force. The simplest way to make an illusion of an object that I can think of, for a simple spell that's just a cantrip, is to make a sort of extremely weak force field in the shape of an object that interacts minimally only with photons. Thus your hand passes through it but light doesn't.

If a spot on the object is white, it's more reflective. If a spot on it is black, it's absorbing more light. If a spot is some other color, it's absorbing some wavelengths of light but not others. Similarly, if a spot is very reflective, it's making a reflection, i.e. an illusion of a mirrored surface. It DOES exist but it's exist minimally. It's an image and by definition it exists to the extent that it can be seen like other objects. The spell lists various limitations but "can't make a mirror" which is a type of object, isn't one of those limitations. I presume all visual illusions to work in some way like this. This one is just limited to making objects of a small size.

Sabeta

2017-04-09, 11:22 AM

People saying "There's nothing there to reflect light or cast a shadow"--that's an assumption.

That's not an assumption that's RAW. It's also RAI as per the Sage Advice. It's also mildly hilarious that you find "Minor Illusion doesn't work like Phantasmal Force. It's too unbelievable that two spells would operate similarly even if they're both Illusions. It works based on low-level force fields that interact with only photons and no other particle in the known universe which completely defies all known laws of physics. That one makes more sense."

This has got to be willful ignorance at this point.

Daehron

2017-04-09, 11:25 AM

Didn't make it past the first page before I was banging my head into the desk.

Why do people need to try to prove how clever they are with "mirrors" and "smoke" illusions?

As you pass through the dungeon / area find an opaque object that is about a 5'x5' cube and take a note of it's appearance -- all clearly stated to the DM.

When needed, squat down so you fit inside the 5x5 cube and cast Minor Illusion to appear as a copy of that object. The Int save is basically an observer going "what is that barrel doing there?"

All the hubbub of "I make an illusion of a mirror" is needless complication.

BurgerBeast

2017-04-09, 12:07 PM

@ Dalebert: There's a bit to unpack here, for forgive me parsing your text line by line, because I think it will provide some clarity.

All of this becomes moot if you just decide that it reflects light.

True, but if you allow illusions to reflect light, then you are opening up a bigger can of worms than you may realize. For example, any item for which its function is determined by it's interaction with light can now be created using illusions. The examples that come to mind are lenses and mirrors, and therefore telescopes and microscopes.

People saying "There's nothing there to reflect light or cast a shadow"--that's an assumption.

Granted. It is confirmed by JC, but I am happy to concede that this does nothing more than tell us that JC shares the assumption.

The alternative is it's just in the minds of viewers.

I disagree. I think this alternative has been put forward, but I reject that explanation as well. For me, it's easy enough to consider illusions to be immaterial. They look like they are there but they are not (edit: materially) there.

The simpler explanation is that there IS something there but all it can interact with is light so that's why we see it.

It is by definition simpler for them to be there (edit: appear there) and not interact with light. This is the explanation I go with.

To me that's far less complex than projecting something into creatures minds that doesn't have any existence in the real world at all, ala Phantasmal Force. The simplest way to make an illusion of an object that I can think of, for a simple spell that's just a cantrip, is to make a sort of extremely weak force field in the shape of an object that interacts minimally only with photons.

I totally agree. But why stop at "interacts minimally"? Why not "doesn't interact at all"? Simpler.

Thus your hand passes through it but light doesn't.

So the two contentions remain here. (1) This is not simpler, and (2) this leads to a bigger can of worms.

If a spot on the object is white, it's more reflective. If a spot on it is black, it's absorbing more light. If a spot is some other color, it's absorbing some wavelengths of light but not others. Similarly, if a spot is very reflective, it's making a reflection, i.e. an illusion of a mirrored surface.

More or less the same objections. As an alternative, rather than a faint force-field, the illusion could just be a faint light-field. It could just be a creation of light in a particular place. This still presents problems (but to a lesser extent), because light interacts with light, which is why I also reject this explanation.

Using real-world physics leads down a rabbit-hole, in my opinion. I prefer to just think: an illusion of a statue looks like it is there, but it's not there - there's nothing there.

It DOES exist but it's exist minimally. It's an image and by definition it exists to the extent that it can be seen like other objects.

Again, there's a bit to unpack, here.

You could say that it exists materially and minimally, but this is not a necessity in my view. I find it undesirable as an explanation because I think it introduces new problems.

We can have a metaphysical discussion about what it means to exist but that seems unnecessary. I would say that illusions are not "seen like other objects." I would say they are seen in a different way.

The spell lists various limitations but "can't make a mirror" which is a type of object, isn't one of those limitations.

So, this brings us back to my original (1), (2), and (3). In order for an illusion to behave like a mirror, it would have to be X different things to X different people, because each person would see something different on the surface of the mirror. Also, the illusion would have to change in real time in response to its environment.

As a counterexample: Could you create the illusion go a puppy that stands in place, but that turns its head to follow the movements of someone (without concentrating to change it)? I would say no. Could you make the puppy appear, to three different onlookers, as thought it was looking at each of them personally? I would say no.

But these are more or less the same demands that would need to be placed on a mirror.

I presume all visual illusions to work in some way like this.

I think this is the problem. I don't know exactly how you are thinking about this, but I suspect you are not fully appreciating the complexity required in a fully functional mirror. I doubt that you afford this degree of complexity to all illusions, and if you do, then at some point you are almost certainly violating RAW - this is how it appears to me.

This one is just limited to making objects of a small size.

Again, the size is irrelevant.

That's not an assumption that's RAW. It's also RAI as per the Sage Advice. It's also mildly hilarious that you find "Minor Illusion doesn't work like Phantasmal Force. It's too unbelievable that two spells would operate similarly even if they're both Illusions. It works based on low-level force fields that interact with only photons and no other particle in the known universe which completely defies all known laws of physics. That one makes more sense."

This has got to be willful ignorance at this point.

I disagree. While I am in the same camp as you (illusions of functional mirrors are not allowed), I reject your explanation more-or-less completely. Illusions do not function in the same way as phantasms, in my opinion.

Didn't make it past the first page before I was banging my head into the desk.

Why do people need to try to prove how clever they are with "mirrors" and "smoke" illusions?

As you pass through the dungeon / area find an opaque object that is about a 5'x5' cube and take a note of it's appearance -- all clearly stated to the DM.

When needed, squat down so you fit inside the 5x5 cube and cast Minor Illusion to appear as a copy of that object. The Int save is basically an observer going "what is that barrel doing there?"

All the hubbub of "I make an illusion of a mirror" is needless complication.

Regardless of the fact that I agree with your conclusions, this is an awful argument, or series of arguments, if they can even be considered arguments. Also, in case you weren't aware, mirrors are opaque.

Sabeta

2017-04-09, 12:24 PM

I disagree. While I am in the same camp as you (illusions of functional mirrors are not allowed), I reject your explanation more-or-less completely. Illusions do not function in the same way as phantasms, in my opinion.

It was more to prove a point. On some level the Illusion fools the mind into existing. If it's not planted directly there, then some other explanation will suffice: ie, the weave in that space is twisted in a way that something appears to be where nothing is. Many explanations can work, I'm just showing that there's a clear precedent for Illusions being entirely mental, while there's absolutely nothing in this universe that behaves like what Dalebert says.

inb4 someone now says the 'if the weave can be twisted to see something then it can be twisted to allow reflections' because people still can't read past the "things pass through it"
and the "it doesn't cast a shadow" part.

Dr.Samurai

2017-04-09, 06:54 PM

For me, the problem is that in order for the illusory mirror to reflect in the same way that a real mirror does:

(1) the illusion would have to change over time after it is cast
(2) the illusion would have to change in response to its environment, independently of its creator
(3) the illusion would have to be able to appear differently to multiple observers at the same time

If you allow the illusion to do this in the case of an illusion of a mirror, then the illusion ought to be able to do 1, 2, and 3 generally. If not, you will have even more (and more difficult) explaining to do.

I can accept 1, but not 2 (without concentration), and not 3.
This is different to the argument I am making, but I agree 100%. (To be clear, I think this falls under the dynamism that Mearles mentions and that BurgberBeast brought up early on and I agreed with. There is simply too much going on for this cantrip to do if you allow reflections.)

Saeviomage

2017-04-10, 01:11 AM

I think that in general if a player tries to cast a straightforward illusion of something and they get blindsided by some fatal flaw in the illusion they create, then you've failed as a DM and are actively making the game less fun for no particular reason.

But if they're trying to make a mirror that looks like a mirror? It looks like a mirror. And that means that every visible thing that a mirror does, this illusion does.

If you have to bring out the list of "ways that minor illusion is not like a real thing", then your players can just start rattling that off as a list of ways that they detect illusions without needing to spend actions doing so.

That said, if they're trying to produce a high powered modern telescope using illusions of lenses and mirrors, you can probably feel free to say no on the grounds that it's not an object they are familiar with. Similarly with the invisibility field at the start of this thread: while I personally understand that you can create such an illusion with physical objects in a pretty compelling way (https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-3d.html - glasses free 3d), I find it highly unlikely that any wizard has ever seen such a thing.

Dr.Samurai

2017-04-10, 07:56 AM

All of this becomes moot if you just decide that it reflects light. People saying "There's nothing there to reflect light or cast a shadow"--that's an assumption.
The definition of illusion magic in the PHB tells you explicitly that the illusion is not actually there. How is this an assumption?

The developer tells you explicitly that it doesn't cast a shadow. How is this an assumption?

The simplest way to make an illusion of an object that I can think of, for a simple spell that's just a cantrip, is to make a sort of extremely weak force field in the shape of an object that interacts minimally only with photons. Thus your hand passes through it but light doesn't.
The simplest way to make an illusion???

What "sort of extremely weak force field" are you using exactly?

Come on, this claim is nonsense. By banking on science to prove your point, you defeat yourself. We all know (rudimentarily) how light works. So, by definition of illusion magic in the book, it can't possibly work the way you're saying it does.

It's an image and by definition it exists to the extent that it can be seen like other objects.
By definition you are being deceived into thinking it exists.

The spell lists various limitations but "can't make a mirror" which is a type of object, isn't one of those limitations.
You can make an image of a mirror. No one is disputing that. But the reflective properties of the mirror aren't there.

Would you argue that you can make an illusion of photochromic lenses and they would change color when exposed to sunlight, and become clear again in the dark?

I think that in general if a player tries to cast a straightforward illusion of something and they get blindsided by some fatal flaw in the illusion they create, then you've failed as a DM and are actively making the game less fun for no particular reason.
I just don't agree that not allowing the reflection to react to light in real time equates to blindsiding the player. The parameters for detection are the same. Touch it or spend an action.

But if they're trying to make a mirror that looks like a mirror? It looks like a mirror. And that means that every visible thing that a mirror does, this illusion does.
It should be pretty obvious that things can look like mirrors without being mirrors themselves.

If you have to bring out the list of "ways that minor illusion is not like a real thing", then your players can just start rattling that off as a list of ways that they detect illusions without needing to spend actions doing so.
The only people claiming that every PC and NPC notices every detail of lighting and shadowing on every object within their field of vision are you and the people that want mirror reflections. No one is auto-detecting illusions without touching them.

That said, if they're trying to produce a high powered modern telescope using illusions of lenses and mirrors, you can probably feel free to say no on the grounds that it's not an object they are familiar with. Similarly with the invisibility field at the start of this thread: while I personally understand that you can create such an illusion with physical objects in a pretty compelling way (https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-3d.html - glasses free 3d), I find it highly unlikely that any wizard has ever seen such a thing.
It's an at-will cantrip that allows the wizard to create working lenses and mirrors of any type, presumably. If the player spends the effort in game to experiment, why wouldn't a wizard eventually master this usage of it?

tieren

2017-04-10, 09:30 AM

I dislike the dichotomy of it has to be real or it can't possibly be real.

We have lots of examples of incorporeal things being seen on the material plane (like ghosts).

What if the illusions are real but on a different plane, like the ethereal, letting them be seen here but not interacted with?

Dr.Samurai

2017-04-10, 09:35 AM

Doesn't the game sort of differentiate when you're creating things or pulling things from other planes? Some spells are conjurations and you're just temporarily pulling stuff from another plane of existence. Some spells let you actually bring something from another plane more permanently and those are called calling spells. Some spells let you actually make a thing, and those are creation spells.

Illusions spells don't say that they do any of those things. Nothing suggests that you are actually crafting something or drawing from another place to create a pseudo-object.

I don't like these dichotomies much either, but if people are going to force them, then let's take it all the way.

I didn't look any of this up so this could all just be BS. I'm going by memory from 3rd edition.

Segev

2017-04-10, 01:31 PM

The problem with that assertion is that the spell effects disagree with you. It's not "It does X because lolmagic", it does that because that's how the magic works.Er, no. You're making a circular argument here. "It does this, but not that, because that's how the magic works. I know that's how the magic works, because it does this, but not that." You'd need the spell actually saying, "It does this, but not that," to claim "that's how the magic works."

All the spell says is that it makes an image that doesn't produce light, sound, or any other sensory effect. It says nothing about not producing reflections or shadows. It says nothing about being static (though somebody's already claimed it does in this thread, and I corrected them, but haven't noticed a response yet acknowledging that; this could be me missing it, though).

You're adding effects to it because "It's magic, it does whatever it wants to do, rules be damned".I'm really not. It makes an image of an object. You're the one insisting that it does this purely by magic. I'm asserting that if it makes the image with the limitations you describe by magic, it makes the image as I describe it by magic, since the image as I describe it is fully within the RAW of the spell. To prove otherwise, you'll have to show me where in the spell I am adding something that is forbidden.

Here's a hint how to do that: If I were claiming that the image must include a sense of temperature, because infra-red is part of the electromagnetic spectrum and thus is part of the image, I'd be wrong because warmth is one of the other senses that is forbidden: touch. That is covered in the spell as something it cannot do. If I claimed that the spell could create a spinning spiral-disk that required a Wisdom save to avoid being fascinated and unable to look away, I'd be wrong because that's describing a mechanical effect that is not a part of being an illusion that looks, visually, like an object. (Whether a skilled hypnotist could use an illusory focus to put somebody under is a matter for some other thread.)

At that point, go ahead and make balloon creatures with realistically expanding chests to mimic breathing. Because in your ruling the spell can do almost anything it wants. Adding a component of motion to the spell makes it entirely more powerful than a cantrip is meant to be.Interesting idea. I wouldn't rule it out as possible. But I fail to see where you're relying on text to support this assertion. It sounds more like you're adding text that isn't there to support your preconceived notion of what is "appropriate" for it to do, without regard to what the text actually says. Nowhere in the text does it say the image is in color, for example, so I could use your arguments to say that the image must be black-and-white only. And that you're adding text to make it more powerful than it's intended to be and have it "do whatever it wants" if you insist that it can be in color.

@Segev

For me, the problem is that in order for the illusory mirror to reflect in the same way that a real mirror does:

(1) the illusion would have to change over time after it is cast
(2) the illusion would have to change in response to its environment, independently of its creator
(3) the illusuon would have to be able to appear differently to multiple observers at the same time

If you allow the illusion to do this in the case of an illusion of a mirror, then the illusion ought to be able to do 1, 2, and 3 generally. If not, you will have even more (and more difficult) explaining to do.

I can accept 1, but not 2 (without concentration), and not 3.Does a real mirror, sitting in the middle of a room, presuming no physical force is exerted on it in a fashion that would cause it to topple, break, or move, "change in response to its environment, independently of its creator?"

Does it change over time?

Does it appear differently to multiple observers at the same time?

If so, I contend that the ways in which it does so are consistent with how an image of said mirror should do so. If not (which is more in line with what I'd assert), I'd say the illusory image of the mirror isn't, either, even though it bears reflections and casts shadows appropriate to the environment in which it exists.

Personally, I don't think its reasonable to assert that two people seeing different reflections in a mirror requires it to appear differently to different people; they're just observing it from different angles. Or would you refuse to allow an illusion of a statue of a Halfling to appear differently to somebody standing behind it than somebody standing in front of it? Would it have to present the same facing to all observers, from all angles?

That's not an assumption that's RAW.No, it isn't. The RAW simply state that it's an image that produces no light, no sound, and no other sensory stimuli. Anything else is not RAW. To make the claim that your assertion is part of the RAW, you must show that your assertion is defined by those criteria, and that anything violating your assertion violates those criteria.

It's also mildly hilarious that you find "Minor Illusion doesn't work like Phantasmal Force. It's too unbelievable that two spells would operate similarly even if they're both Illusions. It works based on low-level force fields that interact with only photons and no other particle in the known universe which completely defies all known laws of physics. That one makes more sense."It's entirely exasperating that you assume that a spell which calls out that it creates a sensory effect solely in the mind of a single observer obviously is no different than an effect which says nothing about creating false sensory impressions that only exist in observers' minds.

Does creation "obviously" work just like phantasmal force, too? The objects exist only in observers' minds, and their belief in them is so strong that they telekinetically affect themselves and their environment? It's "hilarious" that you'd think otherwise, just because creation never mentions that.

This has got to be willful ignorance at this point.
If you're admitting to it, sure. I think, however, you're more just unwilling to try to explore logic other than that which supports your position. As evidence, I point out that I've taken every premise offered and examined it to the most logical conclusion I can to illustrate why I think those other than the one I support either don't fit within the RAW or lead to paradoxical or silly outcomes...or (in the case of "it's magic, so it doesn't need to interact with light") why it doesn't preclude reflections or shadows.

I keep referencing the RAW: it's an image of an object which produces neither light nor sound nor any other sensory stimuli. I have, previously, stated several times that "other sensory stimuli" must mean "other than those previously listed," so must mean "other than sound, light, or being an image." I've also defined "image" as "all visual stimuli," because anything else seems to me to be a rather arbitrary distinction from which we cannot draw conclusions about what is or is not included. As evidence of this, I've challenged people to define what is and is not part of an "image" that would be considered "visual stimuli" without resorting to a list-based categorization.

Note that the spell excludes, by list, one specific item that would otherwise be part of it being "an image:" light generation. Which is further evidence that, if something that is part of that visual description of the object is to be excluded from it being "an image," it would be listed in the spell.

This is why I am firm in my statement that it is those who wish to apply restrictions that are not in evidence in the text of the spell are the ones adding things to the spell that aren't there.

Zorku

2017-04-10, 04:29 PM

Given that Minor Illusion is a static image,I don't think you've got full buy in on that claim. Saying that "the 5ft cube that the illusion occupies is stationary," would be much more appropriate as a "given."

and the reason that Mearls says he wouldn't allow a Mirror being due to requiring you to update the images being reflected, it follows that an Illusory Mirror isn't actually reflecting anything. It's simply a static image that the Wizard has shaped to look like a reflection. I take SA to be RAI, but in this case it's supported by my understanding of the RAW. Nobody here has managed to produce anything even remotely compelling towards changing that. Segev at the least doesn't seem to be arguing RAW, he's arguing about the physics implications of the RAW being dumb, and pretending that the RAW itself must somehow be wrong as a result. I'm not confident that this is actually his position. I suggest you ask him how accurately you have described it, so we can be sure.

As for the thread you linked, I ignore that particular style of arguing. I actually disagree with much of what Dr. Samurai has said in this thread, but I'm ignoring it because dissecting an argument line-by-line is bad form. An argument must be taken as a whole, not as individual parts. Each piece of what I say supports each other to build something cohesive, but each line out of context means nothing. Or at least, that's the intent of my writing style.If something is out of context you should say so, and point to what the context is as well as how that changes the meaning.

The degree of quibbling there was excessive, but if you can't break an argument down into bullet points then it's probably actually an emotional appeal, and I don't appreciate being manipulated like that.

You're not going to like this, but I'm not sure what "illusory reflection" means. I read it to mean the reflection of an illusion, viewed by looking into a real mirror. But it might mean an illusion created specifically on the mirror to look like a reflection.I actually rather like that you've taken the time to ask. When I use that term I'm talking about the second thing that you described.

Illusions are not in the observer's mind. If they are, then they are thoughts or hallucinations. An illusion is objectively located at it's location in the real world (i.e. outside the observer's mind), but not physically so. This may be one of the roots of our disagreement.
From the Schools of Magic box on PHB p 203: "Illusions spells deceive the senses and minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, to miss things that are there, to hear phantom noises, or to remember things that never happened. Some illusions create phantom images that any creature can see, but the most insideous illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature."

Illusions can be in the observer's mind. You've got a good case for the low level illusions not being in a creature's mind, but that doesn't seem to be what you were arguing. I would still like a yes or no answer though. Can you wrap your head around the idea of an illusion in a creature's mind, where they think that there is a mirror there? Where if you asked them "does it have a reflection" they would say yes, even without any actual experiences of seeing things reflected in that mirror? Regardless of the text of the book, does this make sense as a concept?

If you think that the illusion itself behaves in this way, as a phantasm by 2e terms, then we simply disagree about that. I'm not sure that either method is better or worse, having not put a lot of thought into this particular view in this particular context.I'm not entirely familiar with phantasms from 2e. Is there anything I should know other than the "image in a creature's head" concept?

I have no idea. *drumroll (well, the "pa tum cha", however is it called)*Typically people spell it "Ba dum tss."

The step is the same between seeing a creature that moves but makes no sound and seeing an illusion of a creature that makes no sound and moves.
How can you realize the difference? We know you can, the roll is there. How is however impossible to describe with certainty.
The fact that in our reality a barrel without a shadow would be, for me, an impossible anomaly does not mean that for our characters the same barrel has inextricably to be an illusion. It might, but it is not certain.

You fail to realize the true nature of the illusion. That is, that the object is not a weird object but an actual illusionary image of an object.
What I'm not getting is how you ever get from point A to point B. If you're in a world where maybe some shadowless shapechanger might have turned into a barrel, or it might be an illusion, and you wave your torch around and confirm that there's no shadow, then aren't you still stuck with "maybe it's an illusion, or maybe it's a shape changer"? Maybe "I feel like it's an illusion," happens sometimes and not others, but what's that got to do with knowing it's an illusion?

I suspect that what you really mean here is something along the lines of "the DM decides if you pick up some more specific details that you can know in this world, even if we don't describe what they are," but that's really different from what you've actually written, and as per above a suspicion doesn't get me to knowledge.... so, is that what you mean?

Keep in mind that i have not committed all the spells to memory.
I would say that there's the cantrip: lowest form of the all around possibilities that illusion can take. It's a category per se, can't cast shadows or create them.

Then again, can you create a stack of logs with Minor illusion, Silent Image or Major Image? Is it an "object"? When should we stop going granular?
For me, here. As i said, for me illusions work "as the caster intended" inside the limits of the spell. All the "images" etc can create shadows, so for a creature to have shadows would be ok.
If a caster wants to keep the illusion going strong, inside the limits of the spell, he has to keep concentration running and use the action to continuously make the illusion seem as real as possible at least for the "Image" spells.
Mirage Arcane interacts with creatures in a limited manner. It would be ok to have it have working mirrors (or reflective surfaces in general), for me.
DMG has got some description of objects as 'inanimate discrete things' so I think the pile of logs is in, but as best as I can tell the minor illusion cantrip is trying to limit you to the kind of things that you could carry, even if you had to be a giant to lift it- so boulders yes, puffs of smoke no.

For me, a mirror in the distance that has a rather static image on it, and seems to jitter when you move around, would probably be convincing enough for anyone that's not taking a moment to study what they see in the reflection, and this seems like the kind of thing that's RAI. Actually using an illusory mirror as a tool for seeing things, doesn't fit any model of illusion magic that I actually wish to implement. If you can conjure up a flat image that actually has the kind of depth that you get with a mirror then to me you ought to be able to conjure up a mirror showing that same space from the same angle at an entirely different position, and if we take the frame off of that and instead slap a doorway around it then there's a paper thin line left between being able to create phantom pits and holes through walls.

MI is still a spell that has no concentration. You could have a couple going easily in this situation. That is another plus.Not quite. "The illusion also ends if you dismiss it as an action or cast this spell again."

It is real. It's just not an object. Or a real object.
How real is something that you can possibly experience with all senses?
It's just not what you expect it to be.The way quotes work here makes this messy, but if I'm recalling the wording correctly, you seem to be declaring that illusions are real.

If the case of the minor illusion crayon wall your only sense that can experience it is sight, and sort of touch if you count not experiencing it in the apparent location as being among what your senses are telling you.

It's possible that we're falling into one of the many pitfalls of talking about what's possible that I warned you about, but without some clarification of what we're even talking about anymore I think that this particular line of questions is turning into weird semantics without any real substance.

In a world where magic exists and we do not know how it works? It's up to the DM.While I'm alright with that reasoning more broadly, I don't think that these kinds of metaphysical questions even have answers when the DM "says so." It seems like if we start with "you don't know that it's not a real thing made by magic you don't know about," then it's cheating to flip over to "you know that it's a real thing made by magic." The foundations of logic don't really seem like good play-space for the DM to have to make rulings in.

So... does it screw up your position if I move the DM fiat back to the front, where the DM says if you know (or rather that at least some people in the world know,) that this is or isn't something magic can do, before we get to the question of "how do you know that"?

First off, sorry again for being terse. It's as close to pithy as one with as little wit as I have can come. I appreciate most of what people are writing. Despite somebody questioning how I could expect anybody to take me seriously, I do. Thanks, Zorku, for linking the threads where I have said pretty much everything I would say in response to people in this thread. ...and, sadly, probably will again, when I get more energy and less will to resist replying to specific points with which I disagree.

Eh, even if you want it somewhere you aren't, you can hand it to a mage hand. Heck, I think prestidigitation can create REAL mirror "trinkets." Well, "real" in the sense that they're physical and act like mirrors, even if obviously magical.

In short, I don't see anything "it bears a reflection" can be done with that makes the spell more powerful than it's supposed to be. It's a tiny bit of versatility and a great deal of verisimilitude for the illusion itself. That's it. (I mean, I mostly picture it as a convenience thing for Illusionist Iris to call up a full length mirror and make sure her disguise self looks right, or that her hair isn't mussed.)Moving a mage hand has some action economy tied to it, and somebody could knock that mirror out of the sky... but I don't think these are really the kind of distinctions that people strongly opposed to mirrors are worried about.

I might as well pry into how far you think the cantrip can go though... so,
Let's say that you're in a room and there's a decent sized mirror on the wall. If you wanted to create an illusory duplicate of that mirror, that shows the same reflection as the real mirror, could you? Like if I go stand in front of the real one and start applying a disguise, somebody standing in front of the illusory mirror would have the same view that I do, instead of seeing themselves like in a normal mirror.

Because these phantom images don't actually interact with light, I don't see a good reason why this can't be done.

Correct. I haven't seen the tweet, but yeah, the spell doesn't say the image can move, so I would assume the image must be static. That's not necessarily how I'd run it, but it is a large grey area. Since the spell doesn't address it, you now have to determine how much movement is possible. Moving hands on a clock is one thing. What about the waterfall Segev mentioned earlier? That is significantly more movement, and very fluid (obviously). What about that chair hopping in place? Suddenly it's a creature? I think if the spell was intended to allow the illusion to move in any way, it would have described the limits of that movement.
Strictly speaking it does describe the limits of that movement: the illusion has to fit in a 5ft cube.

The text isn't actually so clear about what kind of movement is allowed, but silent image seems to recognize that there is a distinction between movement of the area of effect and animation of the phantom image within it, so there's room to interpret.

Maybe you misunderstood me. I am saying the wizard can make an illusion with a reflection on it. He can make a shiny sword if he wants. But it isn't shining because of light. It is shining because that's the illusion the wizard wants you to see.You seemed to have crossed over to denying that possibility, but it's good to see that you're not actually defending such a position. Thanks for clearing that up.

On the one hand, a hopping chair needs DM approval. On the other hand, the movement of a waterfall is within the parameter of the spell. It is arbitrary. And has to be, because movement isn't mentioned in the spell. So you're saying it is allowed, but then immediately have to decide what is and isn't allowed. Because the spell doesn't tell you. I think that's because the spell doesn't allow it.So the larger picture of what you're saying is "all of these things are stupid/too complicated, and it's better if we go with the narrowest definition of what has been provided"?

I've got the same response to a couple of elements in succession, and I'm stuffing them inside of a spoiler in hopes that you'll be able to respond to all of them in one go. It's an "I don't understand" situation, so if there's some major difference feel free to break these up like normal, but I -think- they're going to get the same answer.

The only "image" of a sword that can show a mirror reflection is that of a mirror-polished sword in a mirror. Otherwise, a simple image of a sword will not give a mirror reflection, despite the fact that he is claiming it does. You need a mirror to do that, and an illusion isn't a mirror, even if it looks like one. I'm sorry, but nothing that I've read so far has come close to convincing me that, just by looking like a mirror, an illusion can behave like a mirror."A wizard can make an illusion with a reflection on it" (A) and "A wizard can place a reflection upon their illusions" (B) seem to be the same statement to me. You said A just a minute ago, and you seem to be saying that B isn't possible now, but I don't "get it."

The highlights and glares are put there by the wizard. They are not a result of the ambient light. That would be inconsistent with that I've been saying.So the highlights and glares are put there by a wizard. A reflection is put there by the wizard.

What's different when I say the second phrase? "A wizard did it" seems to be our explanation in both cases, and I'm not getting why a wizard can do one but not the other.

I don't do well with number scales, but I think this is certainly how Mearles sees it with his answer. And I think I agree. This was certainly one of my problems with the camouflage blinds. There just seems to be too much to keep track of to make the perspectives realistic and accurate.

It's important to note that Mearles response didn't even consider light reflecting from the mirror. He was taking the angle of programming the illusion to operate like a mirror, saying it's too dynamic, with too much going on to pull off. But yeah, it's one thing to imagine an object and create an illusion of an object. It's another to start keeping track of angles, lighting, reflections, perspective, and craft that all into a believable 3D illusion.
Alright, good to establish that. If I can pin down what the model is in Segev's head then maybe we can figure out how to stop talking past each other.

The reflection is "perfect" in the sense that it is 100% accurate. If it is caused by ambient light and reflects light like any normal object, to the point that it even provides mirror reflections, how can it be missing a vase in the reflection? It is acting just like a normal object. By definition, the reflections are perfect. Exactly as they should be according to the lighting in the room.Because a wizard had to put it there, and it's pretty hard to capture every single detail in a room full of furniture. We haven't established that Segev doesn't think a wizard put it there. You seem to feel like that's a natural conclusion to some question you posited in his direction, but as far as I can tell he's only been saying that the absence of anything that could ever pass as a reflection negates the possibility of illusions deceiving a player, and ruins gameplay balance by bypassing the actual investigation check.

As with everything in these threads, it takes a lot of work to get a straight answer to "what do you think?" and you've got to steer a little to the left and then a little to the right to actually be sure that the answer means what you thought it did.
...but I feel like I'm getting close.

I don't know what the disconnect is here. You can make the illusion with reflections on it. But the illusion you make will not lose or gain reflections based on the lighting in the room. This doesn't contradict the text in any way, whereas the claim that light bounces off the illusion contradicts the fact that the illusion is not real and doesn't exist, and the tweet that illusions do not cast shadows.Based on changes to the lighting in the room (for cases where the spell or a class feature allows changes,) the wizard adds or removes reflections from their illusion.
Aside from matters of this being too complex, do you have any other problem with this?

I'm not sure why. It was said without judgment. The spell becomes more versatile if you can make working mirrors with it. But nothing suggests you can until we get into this conversation about how light and vision works. It's not a matter of judging or not, it's a matter of selecting the worst interpretation with the greatest attention placed on ancillary flaws. I'm saying that your criticism isn't appropriate for the underlying concept, but rather the rash and somewhat contorted version of it that you've found easiest to combat.

"The spell becomes more versatile" How much more versatile? In what way does this threaten game balance?

And I completely disagree that Minor Illusion becomes godlike or useless based on my interpretation or Segev's.If you think that's something to disagree with then you've missed the point. Did you at some point in this thread, say that "Segev is trying to make the spell too powerful"? If yes, then that's axiom number one (and if you say no then I'll eventually dig through the thread and pull up where you said that.) Has Segev said that illusions are powerless if you're correct? Also yes. Axiom 2 is in place. You're saying 'too stronk,' he's saying 'useless garbage.'

There you go. That's all there is to it. I probably have to explain some other element of why I presented it that way, but I won't know until you elaborate on what you think was wrong with it.

All of this becomes moot if you just decide that it reflects light. People saying "There's nothing there to reflect light or cast a shadow"--that's an assumption. The alternative is it's just in the minds of viewers. The simpler explanation is that there IS something there but all it can interact with is light so that's why we see it. To me that's far less complex than projecting something into creatures minds that doesn't have any existence in the real world at all, ala Phantasmal Force. The simplest way to make an illusion of an object that I can think of, for a simple spell that's just a cantrip, is to make a sort of extremely weak force field in the shape of an object that interacts minimally only with photons. Thus your hand passes through it but light doesn't.

If a spot on the object is white, it's more reflective. If a spot on it is black, it's absorbing more light. If a spot is some other color, it's absorbing some wavelengths of light but not others. Similarly, if a spot is very reflective, it's making a reflection, i.e. an illusion of a mirrored surface. It DOES exist but it's exist minimally. It's an image and by definition it exists to the extent that it can be seen like other objects. The spell lists various limitations but "can't make a mirror" which is a type of object, isn't one of those limitations. I presume all visual illusions to work in some way like this. This one is just limited to making objects of a small size.
Aside from a whole slew of objections that have come up in this thread, I've got just one situation to ask you about:

When you physically interact with an illusion or succeed an investigation check vs the caster's spell save DC it becomes faint to you.
Now, picture two creatures that can see the same illusion. One of them succeeds on an investigation check and doesn't share this information with the other creature in any way (the key thing here is that the other creature does not know the illusion is fake.) Is a different amount of light passing through the illusion now, and if so why doesn't the other creature see this? Can you even conceive a mechanism for making sense of this, if it's really just about how strongly the illusion interacts with light?

Doesn't the game sort of differentiate when you're creating things or pulling things from other planes? Some spells are conjurations and you're just temporarily pulling stuff from another plane of existence. Some spells let you actually bring something from another plane more permanently and those are called calling spells. Some spells let you actually make a thing, and those are creation spells.

Illusions spells don't say that they do any of those things. Nothing suggests that you are actually crafting something or drawing from another place to create a pseudo-object.

I don't like these dichotomies much either, but if people are going to force them, then let's take it all the way.

I didn't look any of this up so this could all just be BS. I'm going by memory from 3rd edition.
5th only seems to make the "calling" distinction for summoned creatures, because native vs foreign has a different behavior per the banishment spell.

Aside from that, this stuff is mostly left untouched. I think that's an intentional feature, so that one DM will say that you're making strange spectral things in the ethereal plane somewhat-detected by creatures in other planes, while another will say that you're making holograms, and another still will say that when you 'see' an illusion it uploads a computer virus to your brain (probably not using those same words...) that makes you think there's a proper object/phenomena in that space.

Seems like that was a design goal in this edition, but maybe that's just forum ideas that took root in my head.

e: I decided to look up how holograms work thanks to some of the chatter in this thread, and I want to kind of bring up funhouse illusions again. For the people constructing these things there are five or a dozen different sorts of ways that they craft these illusions, but they mostly set them up under the right conditions so that the people going through the house all see similarly convincing images. The classic Scooby Doo method of
having a darkish room,
a pane of glass (imperfect mirror,)
and a more brightly lit person round the corner
is probably the first things that comes to mind (provided that you know enough about illusions to summon forth any mechanical example,) but you tend not to know very much about what distance somebody has to be standing away from that to find it convincing, and a lot of people won't actually realize how hard it is to do that in an open field at noon.

That right there is what most people think of as a hologram, but it's not a hologram. A hologram is this sort-of-3d-picture, that works just like a picture, except that it's more like 2 pictures interacting with each other. That probably sounds confusing, but for physics reasons it is as if you have two pictures with different light sources, and you only see the stuff where those pictures agree, which gives you that sense of depth. You usually have to look through film* in order to see this with the whole sense of depth thing, which kind of has exactly the behavior we want for the lower level illusion spells: 5ft cube acts like holograph film on each surface, but once you walk up into that space you're not looking through the film anymore. Our game space is more granular than that, but this seemed like a neat coincidence.
*You can also do holograms on a mirror like surface or project onto a surface, which would make this conversation a terrible mess, so let's ignore that.
**I've intentionally made this in the lowest sci kind of description I could manage, so it's missing lots and lots of important details for how holograms actually work.

I would not want to actually treat illusions like holograph images, because this opens up that idea of simple illusions that take elements away from a scene (illusory pits and holes through walls, etc.)

Also, holograms you've ever interacted with were probably limited color or low quality, because you need vastly higher resolution film in order to store this sort of 3d information, and that we tend to record these things with lasers, but lasers only tend to use one or a few wavelengths of light. The more complex you want this the better raw materials are required, and I -think- you have to do more complex math to correct for how light bends through the medium.

BurgerBeast

2017-04-10, 05:24 PM

Does a real mirror, sitting in the middle of a room, presuming no physical force is exerted on it in a fashion that would cause it to topple, break, or move, "change in response to its environment, independently of its creator?"

It does not topple, break, to move. That is not what I mean.

Imagine that the reflective face of a mirror is a 2D bitmap or a television screen, for the purpose of analogy. As the observer moves, the 2D image on the "screen" of a real mirror changes.

Does it change over time?

Yes, provided that the angle of the observer changes, the 2D face must change. If the observer blinks, the "screen" must mimic the blink. How does an illusion know that the observer blinked?

Does it appear differently to multiple observers at the same time?

Yes. If Bob stands 5 feet back and 10 feet to the left of the mirror, and Joe stands 5 feet back and 10 feet to the right, and they both look into the mirror, Bob will see Joe as the 2D image. Joe will see Bob. These are different 2D images.

If so, I contend that the ways in which it does so are consistent with how an image of said mirror should do so.

Said mirror, yes, but not an illusion of a mirror.

If not (which is more in line with what I'd assert), I'd say the illusory image of the mirror isn't, either, even though it bears reflections and casts shadows appropriate to the environment in which it exists.

Then I really don't think you're properly considering the function of a mirror.

Personally, I don't think its reasonable to assert that two people seeing different reflections in a mirror requires it to appear differently to different people; they're just observing it from different angles.

No, this is not how a mirror works. The surface 2D image must in fact be different.

Or would you refuse to allow an illusion of a statue of a Halfling to appear differently to somebody standing behind it than somebody standing in front of it? Would it have to present the same facing to all observers, from all angles?

This is not even close to the same thing.

BurgerBeast

2017-04-10, 05:36 PM

I actually rather like that you've taken the time to ask. When I use that term I'm talking about the second thing that you described.

Then it is indeed a weird thing to reject.

From the Schools of Magic box on PHB p 203: "Illusions spells deceive the senses and minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, to miss things that are there, to hear phantom noises, or to remember things that never happened. Some illusions create phantom images that any creature can see, but the most insideous illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature."

I don't think this presents any problems to my position. I think an illusion must be one or the other. It is either there, in the room, or it is in the mind of a creature, but not both. To my mind, the litmus test is whether multiple people can see the same illusion. If they can, that's because it is objectively there in the room. If they can't then it is in the mind of one person.

Illusions can be in the observer's mind. You've got a good case for the low level illusions not being in a creature's mind, but that doesn't seem to be what you were arguing.

I honestly don't remember what I was arguing at this point. I do think that low level illusion spells are objectively there in the location they are cast.

I would still like a yes or no answer though. Can you wrap your head around the idea of an illusion in a creature's mind, where they think that there is a mirror there? Where if you asked them "does it have a reflection" they would say yes, even without any actual experiences of seeing things reflected in that mirror? Regardless of the text of the book, does this make sense as a concept?

Absolutely. This is the 2e concept of a phantasm. It exists in the mind of the observer and cannot be detected by others.

I'm not entirely familiar with phantasms from 2e. Is there anything I should know other than the "image in a creature's head" concept?

Precisely. From the passage you quoted, it's the last part: "the most insideous illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature." That is a 2e phantasm.

Zorku

2017-04-10, 05:46 PM

It does not topple, break, to move. That is not what I mean.

Imagine that the reflective face of a mirror is a 2D bitmap or a television screen, for the purpose of analogy. As the observer moves, the 2D image on the "screen" of a real mirror changes.With an actual mirror when you move the mirror doesn't change (except for the bit that reflect you, but I'm talking about everything else.) You just step into a space that was already getting a different image, and that's got very little to do with the mirror changing.

So, you seem to also be using the mental paint brush idea (confirm/deny?) but if this stuff isn't really light, you should be able to make something that sends different fake-light in different directions. You can and probably still should reject this on grounds of it being too complex, but in the landscape of ideas this notion exists and doesn't require any updating or prediction of movement from the wizard.

Just for kicks, if an illusionist can make a part of their illusion that looks different at different angles, and complexity isn't a problem, do you think there's still a problem here?

Yes, provided that the angle of the observer changes, the 2D face must change. If the observer blinks, the "screen" must mimic the blink. How does an illusion know that the observer blinked?Why does it have to mimic blinks? People don't actually notice drastic changes that happen while they blink. That's the basis of a ton of stage magic.

No, this is not how a mirror works. The surface 2D image must in fact be different.It's kind of hard to keep track of when you're talking about real mirrors or illusory mirrors, with the way that quotes get clipped, but I think this bit is illusion, and I've got a question for you:
If there's just one image that is all of the things you see at every angle all melded together, but all of that is invisible unless you are standing at the right angle, then that ought to work conceptually, right? I'm not asking if this is something the spell says that you can do, I'm just posing it as an idea. There's not a mechanical problem with that, right?

This is not even close to the same thing.I'm not going to argue that the statue vs the mirror are the same things, but I do want to know if you put any thought into why Segev thinks that they are comparable. Do you have any idea how to actually explain what the difference is and why it matters?

I don't think this presents any problems to my position. I think an illusion must be one or the other. It is either there, in the room, or it is in the mind of a creature, but not both. To my mind, the litmus test is whether multiple people can see the same illusion. If they can, that's because it is objectively there in the room. If they can't then it is in the mind of one person.

It directly contradicts what you said.
You: "Illusions are not in the minds of creatures."
PHB: "illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature."

As for what you think, that's nice and all, but most of the people here are arguing about what's written in the book. The book doesn't actually specify with a lot of illusions, so we don't even know for sure if it's necessarily got to be one or the other.

Absolutely. This is the 2e concept of a phantasm. It exists in the mind of the observer and cannot be detected by others.I'm not so sure that the 2e version carried all of the elements I described. Did any part of my description, other than "it is in the creature's mind," factor into you classifying it as a phantasm?

I'm much more concerned about when somebody is looking at a boring green cube, sees where it is positioned, how large it is, some markings on the surface, but then insists that this is a plate with a banana on it. There's nothing there. There's a boring green cube in their head, but once it gets to "is this a banana?" something else happens.

That might be some phantasms, but I really doubt it is phantasms in general.

Sabeta

2017-04-10, 08:03 PM

Er, no. You're making a circular argument here. "It does this, but not that, because that's how the magic works. I know that's how the magic works, because it does this, but not that." You'd need the spell actually saying, "It does this, but not that," to claim "that's how the magic works."

Er, no. The spell actually says, things pass through it. Ergo, Light passes through it. Hence, it does not produce a shadow. Thus, a mirror is impossible. This is supported by Sage Advice, so there's really no room for negotiation here. Pardon me while I skip past much of the rest of your post, as it was all built upon the assumption that light interacts with Illusions.

Interesting idea. I wouldn't rule it out as possible.

So you agree that motion is impossible then? I'll assume that's a typo based on the follow on paragraph. The reason I assert that Minor Illusion does not allow for motion, is specifically because other Illusions specifically reference the fact that they can. If all Illusions could move, there would be no reason to mention it. There would be no reason for Malleable Illusion to exist at that. While I'm at it, an "Image" would include color by default.

It's entirely exasperating that you assume that a spell which calls out that it creates a sensory effect solely in the mind of a single observer obviously is no different than an effect which says nothing about creating false sensory impressions that only exist in observers' minds. Does creation "obviously" work just like phantasmal force, too? The objects exist only in observers' minds, and their belief in them is so strong that they telekinetically affect themselves and their environment? It's "hilarious" that you'd think otherwise, just because creation never mentions that.

You have grossly misunderstood my post here. I'm not asserting that Minor Illusion and Phantasmal Force must operate on identical principles. I'm saying it's far more likely for two spells of the same school to behave similarly in function than it is for some entirely new law of physics to be introduced that allows for "weak photonic force-fields that only light interacts with and nothing else". There are a number of feasible explanations out there for why an object can not exist at all, but still be perceivable in a world like D&D. "Super weak force fields that only allow light to interract with them but not other weak forces like gravity" is not a viable explanation. The fact that you're actually defending that statement just shows how little you're paying attention to this thread.

If you're admitting to it, sure.I think, however, you're more just unwilling to try to explore logic other than that which supports your position. As evidence, I point out that I've taken every premise offered and examined it to the most logical conclusion I can to illustrate why I think those other than the one I support either don't fit within the RAW or lead to paradoxical or silly outcomes...or (in the case of "it's magic, so it doesn't need to interact with light") why it doesn't preclude reflections or shadows.

Right back at you. Actually, this one is hilarious too, because in one breath you accuse me of being unwilling to explore logic which doesn't support my position, and in the next explain how you "examined" every premise offered and still arrived at a logical conclusion that supports your own. Do you think that I'm just reading past you, ignoring everything you say, and then just smashing my face on the keyboard? I've been reading what you write, and you have yet to present anything at all to disagree with my initial claim. I have RAW and Sage Advice, you have nothing but "silly little paradoxes".

The spell works as I've stated; backed by RAW and SA. Whatever steps you need to take to rationalize the silly paradox of an object being both unreal and visible is yours to take. Just stop pretending that you can change the rules because "otherwise there'd be a paradox" and still call it RAW.

TLDR: My first paragraph completely defeats this wall of text. I expanded on areas that I felt needed additional clarity.

I would comment on Zorku's wall, but **** that's a lot of words so I'm just not going to parse it. Chances are I've already answered his crap several times in this thread and he's just rehashing the same thing like Segev.

Zorku

2017-04-11, 08:57 AM

Er, no. The spell actually says, things pass through it. Ergo, Light passes through it. Hence, it does not produce a shadow. Thus, a mirror is impossible. This is supported by Sage Advice, so there's really no room for negotiation here. Pardon me while I skip past much of the rest of your post, as it was all built upon the assumption that light interacts with Illusions.What is your justification for calling light a "thing"?

So you agree that motion is impossible then? I'll assume that's a typo based on the follow on paragraph. The reason I assert that Minor Illusion does not allow for motion, is specifically because other Illusions specifically reference the fact that they can. If all Illusions could move, there would be no reason to mention it. There would be no reason for Malleable Illusion to exist at that. While I'm at it, an "Image" would include color by default.How can you tell that apart from other illusions mentioning the fact that their area of effect can move?

You have grossly misunderstood my post here. I'm not asserting that Minor Illusion and Phantasmal Force must operate on identical principles. I'm saying it's far more likely for two spells of the same school to behave similarly in function than it is for some entirely new law of physics to be introduced that allows for "weak photonic force-fields that only light interacts with and nothing else". There are a number of feasible explanations out there for why an object can not exist at all, but still be perceivable in a world like D&D. "Super weak force fields that only allow light to interract with them but not other weak forces like gravity" is not a viable explanation. The fact that you're actually defending that statement just shows how little you're paying attention to this thread.That doesn't require anything new. Phantoms are already in the game in other places, so same thing here.

Right back at you. Actually, this one is hilarious too, because in one breath you accuse me of being unwilling to explore logic which doesn't support my position, and in the next explain how you "examined" every premise offered and still arrived at a logical conclusion that supports your own.Have you considered actually grabbing onto the scope of options he has considered and then deconstructing the assumptions that any of that is built upon, and showing how much wider the scope can be if you change some of those assumptions? In this case it seems like that would be much more useful than mocking him.

Do you think that I'm just reading past you, ignoring everything you say, and then just smashing my face on the keyboard? I've been reading what you write, and you have yet to present anything at all to disagree with my initial claim. I have RAW and Sage Advice, you have nothing but "silly little paradoxes".He's got RAW and Sage Advice, so I doubt he will accept this claim.

The spell works as I've stated; backed by RAW and SA. Whatever steps you need to take to rationalize the silly paradox of an object being both unreal and visible is yours to take. Just stop pretending that you can change the rules because "otherwise there'd be a paradox" and still call it RAW.What's stronger than showing contradiction?

I would comment on Zorku's wall, but **** that's a lot of words so I'm just not going to parse it. Chances are I've already answered his crap several times in this thread and he's just rehashing the same thing like Segev.Well **** you too. Or I guess as a fitting imitation of you, "Hahaha, you really expect to be taken seriously like that!?"

On a more civil note, perhaps you could just skip the parts that are addressed to other people? There's a much more manageable body of text with your name over the quotes.

Sabeta

2017-04-11, 09:15 AM

What is your justification for calling light a "thing"?

The fact that it exists, interacts with other objects, has mass, and is subject to other forces such as gravity. All things that Minor Illusion doesn't have or can't produce. You know, because it's not real. It's an Illusion, there's nothing actually there.

He's got RAW and Sage Advice, so I doubt he will accept this claim.

Oh? Which Sage Advice does he have, the one that says Illusions don't cast shadows because light passes through them, or the one that says you can't make mirrors?

If this post is anything to go by, you are indeed just repeating yourself in those walls of text. Maybe if you guys could actually bring forward information that challenges my claim there'd be something to talk about, but as is you just keep question how I know light is a thing when this might be the fifth time I've explained it.

Zorku

2017-04-11, 09:52 AM

The fact that it exists, interacts with other objects, has mass, and is subject to other forces such as gravity. All things that Minor Illusion doesn't have or can't produce. You know, because it's not real. It's an Illusion, there's nothing actually there. So far as I can tell light isn't any of those things in D&D, but rather a quality that other objects have. The torch that is lighting up the room is a thing, but the light is just a quality that the torch imparts on 'things.'

Do you have any way to tell that this is not the correct way to describe light within the game? You don't appear to have anything that specifically endorses alternatives, and I would argue that treating light like photons is bringing entinrely too much modern science into the game.

Oh? Which Sage Advice does he have, the one that says Illusions don't cast shadows because light passes through them, or the one that says you can't make mirrors?Those are the only pieces of sage advice that exist? Well drat, guess you've brought ruin down upon me.

How about the sage advice that talks about how you can't use one with the shadows to teleport to an illusion?

If this post is anything to go by, you are indeed just repeating yourself in those walls of text. Maybe if you guys could actually bring forward information that challenges my claim there'd be something to talk about, but as is you just keep question how I know light is a thing when this might be the fifth time I've explained it.Ok, I'll shortcut this for you: I reject your explanation, and find it severely lacking. If you wish to make a convincing case you need to stop trying to use that premise.

Dr.Samurai

2017-04-11, 09:59 AM

Strictly speaking it does describe the limits of that movement: the illusion has to fit in a 5ft cube.

The text isn't actually so clear about what kind of movement is allowed, but silent image seems to recognize that there is a distinction between movement of the area of effect and animation of the phantom image within it, so there's room to interpret.
I don't agree that this is "strictly speaking". It never references movement.

You seemed to have crossed over to denying that possibility, but it's good to see that you're not actually defending such a position. Thanks for clearing that up.
Your questions coming up make me think we're crossing wires somewhere here. I'll try to clear the rest up as well.

So the larger picture of what you're saying is "all of these things are stupid/too complicated, and it's better if we go with the narrowest definition of what has been provided"?
I think if you're trying to justify using a cantrip in ways that I don't think it was intended to be used, then your justification for doing so should be more than "it doesn't say I can't".

In the end, there isn't really a problem if you allow moving clock hands. And if your DM allows mirrors that work, that isn't really a problem either. I came here looking for the way it works, and I haven't been satisfied, and I suspect I won't be.

I've got the same response to a couple of elements in succession, and I'm stuffing them inside of a spoiler in hopes that you'll be able to respond to all of them in one go. It's an "I don't understand" situation, so if there's some major difference feel free to break these up like normal, but I -think- they're going to get the same answer.

"A wizard can make an illusion with a reflection on it" (A) and "A wizard can place a reflection upon their illusions" (B) seem to be the same statement to me. You said A just a minute ago, and you seem to be saying that B isn't possible now, but I don't "get it."

So the highlights and glares are put there by a wizard. A reflection is put there by the wizard.

What's different when I say the second phrase? "A wizard did it" seems to be our explanation in both cases, and I'm not getting why a wizard can do one but not the other.
I'm having trouble figuring out what difference you're seeing here. Or rather, what I said that makes you think I see a difference there.

I have been saying that illusions cannot have reflections based on ambient lighting. But the wizard can make an illusion with reflections, to the best of his ability. I think this would be part of the "image". He could make an illusion of a mirror with a reflection in it, for sure. But that reflection is not going to move. And it isn't an actual reflection. It's an image the wizard put there.

I'm really not sure how else to explain this. The glares, reflections, etc. are all part of the image the wizard has crafted as an illusion. None of them are the result of natural lighting.

Because a wizard had to put it there, and it's pretty hard to capture every single detail in a room full of furniture. We haven't established that Segev doesn't think a wizard put it there. You seem to feel like that's a natural conclusion to some question you posited in his direction
I'm confused. As far as I can tell Segev has been arguing that illusions interact with light like a normal object. So an illusion of a mirror will make mirror reflections. In this case, a wizard doesn't have to put any reflections or glare anywhere. The light bounces of the shiny frame of the mirror, it fails to hit a shadowy portion of the stand, it bounces off the glass and gives a mirror reflection. What have I missed that requires the wizard to place reflections anywhere? The whole point, I thought, was that natural light is doing this.

but as far as I can tell he's only been saying that the absence of anything that could ever pass as a reflection negates the possibility of illusions deceiving a player, and ruins gameplay balance by bypassing the actual investigation check.
That's his assertion that is completely unsupported by the game. I understand his reasoning, but it amounts, to me, as someone simply crossing their arms and saying "Well then now it won't work at all!" when that simply isn't the case.

I don't think DMs have been running games where NPCs auto-detect your Minor Illusion, and I don't think all DMs allow mirrors to be made with Minor Illusion. So... clearly it isn't one or the other.

Based on changes to the lighting in the room (for cases where the spell or a class feature allows changes,) the wizard adds or removes reflections from their illusion.
Aside from matters of this being too complex, do you have any other problem with this?
I have no problem with this, granting the caveat you mentioned that the spell or feature allows changes in the first place.

It's not a matter of judging or not, it's a matter of selecting the worst interpretation with the greatest attention placed on ancillary flaws. I'm saying that your criticism isn't appropriate for the underlying concept, but rather the rash and somewhat contorted version of it that you've found easiest to combat.
I'm not combating that though. I've been arguing Segev's points, not his intentions. I mean... good on you for policing the thread, but my comment was mostly irrelevant.

"The spell becomes more versatile" How much more versatile? In what way does this threaten game balance?
I don't know that it threatens game balance. And I don't know "how much more" versatile.

If you think that's something to disagree with then you've missed the point. Did you at some point in this thread, say that "Segev is trying to make the spell too powerful"?
No, I didn't. I said "more powerful". And I've clarified, more than once, that I don't think going with Segev's interpretation would be overpowered.

(and if you say no then I'll eventually dig through the thread and pull up where you said that.)
I shiver with anticipation.

Has Segev said that illusions are powerless if you're correct? Also yes. Axiom 2 is in place. You're saying 'too stronk,' he's saying 'useless garbage.'
I am saying "explain how you do this". Power level is largely irrelevant, even if I have made reference to it.

Let's recap here a bit...

I don't think light bounces off the illusion. I think this is supported by the fact that the description of illusion magic says explicitly the illusion is not real and doesn't exist, so nothing is there for the light to bounce off of. Further, Mearls, when asked about mirror reflections, does not even consider light bouncing off the mirror, but rather goes straight to it being too much to handle. This suggests that this is something the wizard or spell actively has to do to keep up the illusion, not passively reflect light like a normal object. Further, Crawford stated that illusions do not cast shadows, which is in line with light not bouncing off illusions.

I think that when you craft an image, part of that includes shadowing and glares and reflections, because that is how we see virtually everything. So I would say that a wizard is expert enough in his spellcasting to mimic objects with his illusions to such a degree that even if they are not reacting to ambient lighting, it still warrants physical interaction with the illusion to notice it isn't real, or examining it with an action. How often NPCs will want to examine your illusions is up to your DM and probably up to the wizard and what exactly he's trying to do with the illusion.

There's probably more I'm forgetting but this is it for now.

@Sabeta: I though photons didn't have mass, hence why they move at the speed they do (speed of light).

Sabeta

2017-04-11, 12:16 PM

@Sabeta: I though photons didn't have mass, hence why they move at the speed they do (speed of light).

Kind of, we're talking two different kinds of mass here. Energy is Mass, which is why Light is affected by Gravity. It however does not contain mass in weight form, which is why it moves at the maximum speed relativity allows for in a vacuum.

I am not an expert in particle physics, so sorry if that explanation is kind of shoddy.

@Zorku: Doesn't being unable to teleport to shadows produced by Minor Illusion further prove my point that the illusion isn't real? Not sure what you're aiming for there, but sure I'll take an even stronger and more consistent argument, thanks.

As to your own argument that "the rules don't say light is a photon therefore it's not"...Just wow. Yeah, I think I'm done with you know. You're here unwilling to believe that light is actually made of light...Just wow.

tieren

2017-04-11, 12:30 PM

As to your own argument that "the rules don't say light is a photon therefore it's not"...Just wow. Yeah, I think I'm done with you know. You're here unwilling to believe that light is actually made of light...Just wow.

I think you mistook the argument.

We are talking about a fictional world that contains lots of things that don't exist in our world (gods, devils, ghosts, magic, etc...) and some cosmology and science just doesn't apply.

Depending on your setting you might not be in an infinite expanding universe, you might be in a crystal sphere, etc...

It would require an official rule for a phenomenon in our world to manifest in the same way in the game world. There is nothing wrong with saying light in the imaginary fantasy game isn't identical to our understanding of light in the real world.

I don't know of any core books or UA that say light (in the game) is affected by gravity. If you want to argue it is you are the one who needs to provide proof of such a claim.

Our characters are in a world where the stars aren't necessarily stars, they really could be holes in the floor of a higher plane or something.

Zorku

2017-04-11, 01:17 PM

I don't agree that this is "strictly speaking". It never references movement.
I can rephrase it in a more palatable form: An illusion that stays within the 5ft cube area of effect isn't doing anything that D&D 5e considers to be "movement."

I think if you're trying to justify using a cantrip in ways that I don't think it was intended to be used, then your justification for doing so should be more than "it doesn't say I can't".I don't think that how you feel the spell is supposed to work counts for anything, much less burdens me with the need to justify why I use the cantrip like that.

In the end, there isn't really a problem if you allow moving clock hands. And if your DM allows mirrors that work, that isn't really a problem either. I came here looking for the way it works, and I haven't been satisfied, and I suspect I won't be.Oh, I think we can pin that down with reasonable certainty. What the DM did was almost certainly one of two things:

A: That cube with Looney Toons style perspective drawings on each face, combined with an error of not understanding angles and perspective. "Looks good from the North, South, East and West, so I guess it works from all directions." Anybody that understands how strange this would look if viewed at some diagonal angle will see why it shouldn't work, but your DM didn't. Mistakes happen sometimes.
B: Creating negative space. The DM let it act like an invisibility spell without concentration, and there is a great deal of potential for abuse here. Hopefully it doesn't become a problem, and if it does, hopefully the DM understands that they can take back a bad ruling.

Ghostblind is a reasonably method for hiding at a long distance (not so much when close up,) but it should be obvious that neither player nor DM was thinking of that. Unless maybe if they are big game hunters, but there's no reason to assume that.

More broadly accepted use of minor illusion would require a potentially suspicious object, or for the character to move over next to a wall or other obstruction.

I'm having trouble figuring out what difference you're seeing here. Or rather, what I said that makes you think I see a difference there.

I have been saying that illusions cannot have reflections based on ambient lighting. But the wizard can make an illusion with reflections, to the best of his ability. I think this would be part of the "image". He could make an illusion of a mirror with a reflection in it, for sure. But that reflection is not going to move. And it isn't an actual reflection. It's an image the wizard put there.

I'm really not sure how else to explain this. The glares, reflections, etc. are all part of the image the wizard has crafted as an illusion. None of them are the result of natural lighting.That all sounds clear enough that I think I'm picturing the same thing, but do we have any official means of determining what the best of a wizard's ability is, or is that purely judgement calls by whoever is DM at the time?

-Actually, that's probably pedantic and not useful for the conversation, so here's something way more on point:
How did you determine that Segev doesn't also mean this kind of reflection?

I'm confused. As far as I can tell Segev has been arguing that illusions interact with light like a normal object. So an illusion of a mirror will make mirror reflections. In this case, a wizard doesn't have to put any reflections or glare anywhere. The light bounces of the shiny frame of the mirror, it fails to hit a shadowy portion of the stand, it bounces off the glass and gives a mirror reflection. What have I missed that requires the wizard to place reflections anywhere? The whole point, I thought, was that natural light is doing this.I've seen him say that things that don't look like that would stick out like a sore thumb, but I don't know where he's ever specified that these features aren't things that the wizard had to 'do.'

Of course, these threads get terribly long, so we could dig back to a post I missed, or for a much more reasonable level of effort: ask him.

That's his assertion that is completely unsupported by the game. I understand his reasoning, but it amounts, to me, as someone simply crossing their arms and saying "Well then now it won't work at all!" when that simply isn't the case.
Wait, so are you saying "If a wizard makes an illusion of a mirror, but does not put any reflection on the mirror, creatures will not automatically know this is fake"?

I'm not combating that though. I've been arguing Segev's points, not his intentions. I mean... good on you for policing the thread, but my comment was mostly irrelevant.I don't have any authority. All I can do is point out what's going on, and then if people realize what they're doing but want to keep doing it anyway then I've done what I could. I think that most of the people here don't want to behave in certain ways, so i point out when they seem to be doing so.

As for Segev's points, without any consideration of the intention I don't see how you can recognize what the point actually is.

I don't know that it threatens game balance. And I don't know "how much more" versatile.But you do think that mirrors were not intended. There is specific intent against this sort of thing... but for no reason? Is there something I'm missing here?

No, I didn't. I said "more powerful". And I've clarified, more than once, that I don't think going with Segev's interpretation would be overpowered.This is not meaningfully different from what I said. I see the semantic difference, but it doesn't seem to change my point. You think that the power of the spell is shifting in one direction if we "add" these elements but Segev thinks the power stays right where it is at. Segev thinks the power drops to... basically drawing on a chalk board, if you omit these elements, but you think it's still useful for things like the classic hiding in a barrel.

That's what has been going on in this thread, and there's no (intellectually honest) room for denying that.

I shiver with anticipation.
Your previous quote serves as example enough of the claim that you made.

Let's recap here a bit...

I don't think light bounces off the illusion. I think this is supported by the fact that the description of illusion magic says explicitly the illusion is not real and doesn't exist, so nothing is there for the light to bounce off of. Further, Mearls, when asked about mirror reflections, does not even consider light bouncing off the mirror, but rather goes straight to it being too much to handle. This suggests that this is something the wizard or spell actively has to do to keep up the illusion, not passively reflect light like a normal object. Further, Crawford stated that illusions do not cast shadows, which is in line with light not bouncing off illusions.
Do we know that light bounces at all in D&D?
Did we establish that anybody is talking about passive updates to an illusion?
Did we establish if Crawford was talking about real shadows or illusory shadows that a wizard put there?

And round and round we go. Did I miss something in the recap up to this point?

I think that when you craft an image, part of that includes shadowing and glares and reflections, because that is how we see virtually everything. So I would say that a wizard is expert enough in his spellcasting to mimic objects with his illusions to such a degree that even if they are not reacting to ambient lighting, it still warrants physical interaction with the illusion to notice it isn't real, or examining it with an action. How often NPCs will want to examine your illusions is up to your DM and probably up to the wizard and what exactly he's trying to do with the illusion. I am still aware that this is how you think of the "phantom image" type illusions, especially after all the effort I went through to try and establish that you are thinking about these spells in a manner like this.

Aside from a very minor quibble with how you seem to be equating physical interaction with an object and an investigation check, I don't have any objections to you running your games like that, and this is basically what I recommend to anyone that asks how minor illusion and silent image work.

I am convinced that this model has a very close relationship to the RAI, but that the rules intentionally do not exclude other interpretations.

Kind of, we're talking two different kinds of mass here. Energy is Mass, which is why Light is affected by Gravity. It however does not contain mass in weight form, which is why it moves at the maximum speed relativity allows for in a vacuum.I think you're bastardizing physics terms here. Energy has got a few properties related to mass, but "affecting gravity" isn't suitable reason to classify it as mass.

I am not an expert in particle physics, so sorry if that explanation is kind of shoddy.k

@Zorku: Doesn't being unable to teleport to shadows produced by Minor Illusion further prove my point that the illusion isn't real? Not sure what you're aiming for there, but sure I'll take an even stronger and more consistent argument, thanks.If your point is "illusions are not real," I do not see why we are in conflict here. Of course they are not real, any everything I've said comports with that.

As to your own argument that "the rules don't say light is a photon therefore it's not"...Just wow. Yeah, I think I'm done with you know. You're here unwilling to believe that light is actually made of light...Just wow.It's a game, not a simulation. If you line up enough peasants who all ready an action to hand an item to the peasant in front of them then you can move objects faster than the speed of light, because these rules aren't meant to handle modern physics. Moreover you've got a world that's made up of a whole bunch of planes that all leach through some kind of cosmic barrier, where "elements" refer to earth air fire water, and you can actually heal people by touching them.

Light is Pelor's thing (or whatever god(s), depending on your pantheon,) and his divine will has a lot to do with how it behaves.

I'm sorry, but the behavior of light just isn't the kind of classical mechanics stuff that ancient peoples knew about so I'm not going to assume that these stories themed to those eras necessarily treat light like that. Terribly offensive I'm sure, but if you think you've got any kind of high ground in this conversation you're wrong.

Honestly I'm kind of disgusted to find out that you're a real life straw vulcan.

Segev

2017-04-11, 02:08 PM

DMG has got some description of objects as 'inanimate discrete things' so I think the pile of logs is in, but as best as I can tell the minor illusion cantrip is trying to limit you to the kind of things that you could carry, even if you had to be a giant to lift it- so boulders yes, puffs of smoke no.Decent delineation rule. I think smoke, fog, and other things which you don't generally get to lean against, push around, carry, or manipulate without magic or a great deal of mechanical assistance qualify more as "phenomena," which are explicitly allowed by silent image and higher level illusions that share its wording. Leaving "objects" to be, as you say, things you could "pick up and carry" (or at least lean upon).

Whether "water" qualifies is an open question, but since "footprints" are a specific example, I'd say "puddle of water" or "glass of water" probably works. But without the example, it'd be very fuzzy.

I might as well pry into how far you [Segev] think the cantrip can go though... so,
Let's say that you're in a room and there's a decent sized mirror on the wall. If you wanted to create an illusory duplicate of that mirror, that shows the same reflection as the real mirror, could you? Like if I go stand in front of the real one and start applying a disguise, somebody standing in front of the illusory mirror would have the same view that I do, instead of seeing themselves like in a normal mirror.

Because these phantom images don't actually interact with light, I don't see a good reason why this can't be done.Accepting the premise that it doesn't interact with light (which is not how I think it works, but which I can work with and is acceptably within the RAW), it still wouldn't work because the image of the duplicate of that mirror isn't a scrying device. It doesn't "know" what's reflected in that other mirror. It's an image of a mirror. Part of being an image of a mirror means it does what a real mirror would do, at least visually, in its environment.

Therefore, you'd see in it the reflection you'd expect to if you were standing in front of a real duplicate of that other mirror: i.e. yourself, usually, unless you're at a funny angle. You would not see what's reflected in that other mirror any more than you would if somebody made a replica of that other mirror for real.

The root of my position is that the illusion is an image of an object, and that as such the visual appearance of it is the same as if there were a real object there. With, perhaps, flaws related to whatever the Investigation DC to see through it is, but those flaws must be minute enough that you actually need to take time to check it out AND succeed on a reasonably high Investigation check to notice them even when looking. A "mirror" that bore a static image would be eye-catching even for those not deliberately making Investigation checks. A table that was brightly lit in a pitch-dark room would likewise be eye-catching. While an illusionist can be foolish and make something eye-catching, the nature of the illusion shouldn't cause it to become so without (a) interaction from somebody else or (b) the illusionist making an actively foolish choice (rather than a reasonable choice that has the environment change around it).

Drawing from that root, then, an illusory image of a mirror will - whether due to interacting with light or merely magically seeming to respond to it appropriately - show reflections, cast shadows, bear texture-based shadows as appropriate to ambient lighting, and grow brighter or dimmer as ambient light changes. An illusory image of a shiny suit of armor will have the shine-points and glints move as light sources do, and will have its silvery warped shadings that are actually reflections move as things move near it. An illusory image of a wall covering an alcove will appear lit at the same level as the real walls with which it's merged, even as lighting changes.

None of this requires the mage to consciously control it; it's the nature of the magical image to look like the object it's supposed to, and part of that is failing to remain at the wrong illumination level as the illumination changes around it.

The text isn't actually so clear about what kind of movement is allowed, but silent image seems to recognize that there is a distinction between movement of the area of effect and animation of the phantom image within it, so there's room to interpret.I agree. The higher-level spells specify that you can take control of the illusion and move it and its AoE around.

Minor illusion doesn't specify that you can move its AoE, and doesn't allow for you to take control...but nothing says the image has to be static. A clock or an hourglass with moving parts seems fine to me. A plant (or, if you're going to claim plants aren't objects, a very convincing fake plant) with leaves that waft gently also is fine (though I wouldn't let it change with the ambient wind, the mage could set a general motion for it at time of casting). I see nothing in minor illusion which prohibits these options. Nor even which hints at such a prohibition.

"A wizard can make an illusion with a reflection on it" (A) and "A wizard can place a reflection upon their illusions" (B) seem to be the same statement to me.I disagree. (A) suggests that the image actually bears a real reflection. (B) suggests that the 'reflection' is actually just a painting on the illusion. It's the difference between a real mirror and a painting that is dressed up to look like a mirror, to use two real objects as examples.

"A wizard did it" seems to be our explanation in both cases, and I'm not getting why a wizard can do one but not the other.[/spoiler]This is largely my response to those who say the image doesn't interact with light but is magically visible anyway. If a wizard did it makes it visible, than a wizard doing it makes its visible nature cast shadows, bear reflections, and generally have texture and shading and even brightness appropriate to the ambient light. A white sphere illusion in torchlight will appear rather orange, while it will appear bright white in the sun, and even look blueish under dim moonlight.

[QUOTE=Zorku;21902089]
Alright, good to establish that. If I can pin down what the model is in Segev's head then maybe we can figure out how to stop talking past each other.
I think I outlined it already in this post, but in direct reply:

The model I, personally, work from is that the illusory image of the object is a magical construct - an illusion - that interacts only with visible light, but does so exactly as the object really would if it were really there. The flaws in the illusion that can be detected by an Investigate check are a combination of chance happenstance physical interactions (e.g. a leaf happens to fall through it - a lucky roll) and the illusionist's failure to accurately represent the object (does that section of wall have its texture misaligned with the sections to either side of it?).

I will accept others' models where it can't interact with light, but contend that the same magic which makes this image visible despite no interaction with light also makes it have appropriate shading and illumination wrt the ambient light and light sources, and also cast shadows and bear reflections appropriately. I further contend that - Sage Advice aside (which adds text that isn't present in the spell) - claiming it is visible in color but doesn't bear reflections or cast shadows is adding arbitrary limitations, because those things are not in the list of prohibited aspects of an image in the spell.

Because a wizard had to put it there, and it's pretty hard to capture every single detail in a room full of furniture. We haven't established that Segev doesn't think a wizard put it there. You seem to feel like that's a natural conclusion to some question you posited in his direction, but as far as I can tell he's only been saying that the absence of anything that could ever pass as a reflection negates the possibility of illusions deceiving a player, and ruins gameplay balance by bypassing the actual investigation check.Honestly, I would expect the reflection in the illusory mirror to have that vase. The minor illusion can't make things invisible. If the wizard wanted a "mirror" that somehow didn't reflect the vase, he'd have to make it a painting that looked like it was reflecting the room, with all the inherent perspective and angle flaws that yields. This might not be enough to say, "That's an illusion," but it would certainly draw the eye and cause people to say, "Oh, that's not a mirror; that's a painting designed to look like a mirror."

Based on changes to the lighting in the room (for cases where the spell or a class feature allows changes,) the wizard adds or removes reflections from their illusion.
Aside from matters of this being too complex, do you have any other problem with this?The wizard doesn't get that kind of control over minor illusion once cast. Well, not without Malleable Illusions. But he doesn't need it; the image of the object naturally does this as part of being a 3D image of the object.

Create the image of the hourglass, and the image naturally bears the faint glass-like reflections and lighting, and naturally counts its sand down (whether actually moving it or just being a constant image of sand perpetually falling is up to the creator as far as I'm concerned; you could probably argue one way or the other is required, but I don't care enough to forbid either). But the mage, having cast the illusory image, can't change any of that without recasting it or using Malleable Illusions.

When you physically interact with an illusion or succeed an investigation check vs the caster's spell save DC it becomes faint to you.
Now, picture two creatures that can see the same illusion. One of them succeeds on an investigation check and doesn't share this information with the other creature in any way (the key thing here is that the other creature does not know the illusion is fake.) Is a different amount of light passing through the illusion now, and if so why doesn't the other creature see this? Can you even conceive a mechanism for making sense of this, if it's really just about how strongly the illusion interacts with light?Under my preferred model, yes. In fact, if, say, the illusion is of a wall over a window through which sunlight would otherwise directly stream, the character who knows it's an illusion sees a sunlit room, while the one who does not sees a lightless one (assuming no other light sources).

Does this make sense by physics? No, but hey, magic.

Now, with the "it's visible, but doesn't interact with light" case, this is one of the few places the effects differ. Since light is passing through unhindered, both characters would see this room lit by the sun. The one who can't tell the wall is, perhaps, confused by the lack of light source, however. He still sees the illusory wall as being lit just as much as the wall to either side of it with which it's merged. If the flaws that draw him to investigate include a silhouette of a doorway lit up on the floor, it's his Investigation which tells him that the wall, not the silhouette on the floor, is the illusion. Possibly by detecting inconsistencies in where the illusory wall merges with the real wall. Or possibly from other sources, like wind blowing lightly in through the doorway, or what-have-you. If he fails his Investigation check (and doesn't poke the wall), he can't tell what's going on. Though he probably does suspect an illusion is somewhere.

Imagine that the reflective face of a mirror is a 2D bitmap or a television screen, for the purpose of analogy. As the observer moves, the 2D image on the "screen" of a real mirror changes.I get that's the model you're going for; I disagree that it's what is going on. Nothing in the spell suggests this is true nor necessary. Though, perhaps, it is POSSIBLE if the mage so desires, it is not required by any text in the spell.

This is not even close to the same thing.How not? You're asserting that the real mirror is "reacting" to the position of observers by showing different things to two observers in different places. How is it not also "reacting" by not showing the same thing to somebody standing in front of it that it does to somebody standing behind it?

How is a statue not "reacting" by failing to show its face to somebody standing behind it, when somebody standing in front of it sees its face?

A reflection is no different; it's just "different" based on the angle at which people perceive the object bearing it. Just like the statue is "different" based on the angle at which somebody observes it.

Er, no. The spell actually says, things pass through it. Ergo, Light passes through it. Hence, it does not produce a shadow. Thus, a mirror is impossible. This is supported by Sage Advice, so there's really no room for negotiation here. Pardon me while I skip past much of the rest of your post, as it was all built upon the assumption that light interacts with Illusions.Irrelevant to what I was replying to. I begin to think your dismissive attitude is impairing your reading comprehension.

The circular logic is your assertion that it doesn't bear reflections, cast shadows, nor allow for non-static images because "the magic works that way," followed by your justification for the magic working that way being that the spell doesn't allow for reflections, shadows, or non-static images.

I can use the exact same argument to support it bearing reflections, casting shadows, and allowing for non-static images. The spell allows those things because the magic works that way, you see. I know it works that way because the spell allows those things.

See how both are equally logical, and equally supported? That's because they're both circular. They rely on the conclusion to support the premise, and thus make themselves true by disconnected tautology.

The reason I assert that Minor Illusion does not allow for motion, is specifically because other Illusions specifically reference the fact that they can. If all Illusions could move, there would be no reason to mention it. There would be no reason for Malleable Illusion to exist at that. While I'm at it, an "Image" would include color by default.As Zorku noted, the language in those other spells specifies that you can move the AoE around and is detailing that the caster can control the motion.

What the minor illusion cannot do is move out of its AoE nor be controlled by the caster after its creation. Unlike it's sound-only form which expressly can be controlled by the caster (unless I'm misremembering).

You have grossly misunderstood my post here. I'm not asserting that Minor Illusion and Phantasmal Force must operate on identical principles. I'm saying it's far more likely for two spells of the same school to behave similarly in function than it is for some entirely new law of physics to be introduced that allows for "weak photonic force-fields that only light interacts with and nothing else". There are a number of feasible explanations out there for why an object can not exist at all, but still be perceivable in a world like D&D. "Super weak force fields that only allow light to interract with them but not other weak forces like gravity" is not a viable explanation. The fact that you're actually defending that statement just shows how little you're paying attention to this thread.You'll note that I have never posited "weak photonic force fields," though I suppose you could characterize my model as such.

I have, however, spoken repeatedly to the alternate model of something which lets light pass through it freely and yet which is visible "because magic." I have shown that any allowance for magic to make such a thing visible can equally allow for it to cast visible shadows and bear visible reflections without interacting with light. I have further asserted - and as yet nobody has managed to quote text countering this assertion - that the spell does not support in its text any reason to include some visual properties but exclude others, with the exception that the illusion explicitly cannot create light.

The spell works as I've stated; backed by RAW and SA. Whatever steps you need to take to rationalize the silly paradox of an object being both unreal and visible is yours to take. Just stop pretending that you can change the rules because "otherwise there'd be a paradox" and still call it RAW.Backed, perhaps, by SA, though not by RAW. SA adds text not present in the spell.

TLDR: My first paragraph completely defeats this wall of text. I expanded on areas that I felt needed additional clarity.False. Your first paragraph demonstrates failure of reading comprehension, since your reply assumes I said something I didn't. As I clarified for you in my reply to your first paragraph, though if you continue to demonstrate the dismissive arrogance you've shown so far, I don't expect you to bother reading nor understanding the reply. I do hope to be proven wrong in that expectation.

Chances are I've already answered his crap several times in this thread and he's just rehashing the same thing like Segev.

"I reject going back to read those other threads because they're obviously full of Segev being wrong, but I certainly don't have to respond to Zorku in this thread because surely, even though I mocked Segev for claiming to have covered all this in prior threads, I MUST have covered everything Zorku could have said in this reply. I am, after all, right, and they're wrong, so clearly they can't possibly make points that I haven't already defeated. But shame on Segev for having tried to reference to his prior arguments and expected to be taken seriously. I, however, must be taken seriously when I just ASSUME I've addressed Zorku's points. There's no double standard; I can do this because I'm right, but Segev can't because he's wrong. See how that's different?"

Sabeta

2017-04-11, 03:19 PM

Snip

I'll answer the rest at another time, but for now. I wasn't a part of the other threads you were in, and never implied you were wrong in them. I was simply offended that you think I would take you seriously after you dismissed my argument with "just go Google it or something. I'm probably right somewhere'.

Zorku on the other hand has been consistently repeating his points or inventing new ways for his points to still be valid after I cut one down. As evidenced here:

Ok, I'll shortcut this for you: I reject your explanation, and find it severely lacking. If you wish to make a convincing case you need to stop trying to use that premise.

@Zorku: E=Mc2 disagrees with you. Just because Pelor controls light doesn't mean it isn't still photons, it just means magic and gods also exist in the world. Just because the rules are breakable doesn't mean the RAW for Minor Illusion is different from what has been presented. Which fallacy is that one? Strawman? You're certainly not arguing that light passes through the illusion anymore.

Segev

2017-04-11, 03:34 PM

I'll answer the rest at another time, but for now. I wasn't a part of the other threads you were in, and never implied you were wrong in them. I was simply offended that you think I would take you seriously after you dismissed my argument with "just go Google it or something. I'm probably right somewhere'.

Zorku on the other hand has been consistently repeating his points or inventing new ways for his points to still be valid after I cut one down.

Sabeta, I didn't say "go google it or something." I said that I'd addressed your arguments repeatedly past the point of being exhausted. That remains true. I have now addressed them directly. Again. Derailing this thread, as I knew it would and tried to avert by pointing you to the other ones so you could see the same arguments you're getting here.

That you expect me to take you seriously when you can't even be bothered to respond to Zorku's arguments in this very thread on the basis that you're sure you covered them somewhere else, after dismissing me for saying there are pages and pages of my arguments in other threads...it just seems awfully hypocritical.

Really, I have seen your arguments before. I've said nothing new in this thread to you. I've said a couple of new things to BurgerBeast and Zorku, though, so there's some advancement of conversation there. It's largely because of that advancement I've replied to your queries as well, because I was restating some basic points anyway.

The core problem with your argument is that at best you've got SA saying "no shadows." That doesn't equate to "RAW and SA saying no shadows, static images, and no reflections." I, frankly, have limited respect for SA when it adds text to spells, because it's been inconsistent in its re-interpretations of spells at other times and in other discussions. It may be a good metric of RAI, but even that's shaky because I find some of the rulings to seem awfully pulled out of places where the sun doesn't shine in terms of how you'd get there from the text as printed in the spells. I won't deny that you have SA saying "no shadows." But that isn't the RAW.

You're free to rule that way, of course. But I don't find it convincingly settling the issue, certainly not at the breadth of claim you (and others sharing your view) are making.

Zorku

2017-04-11, 04:04 PM

Accepting the premise that it doesn't interact with light (which is not how I think it works, but which I can work with and is acceptably within the RAW), it still wouldn't work because the image of the duplicate of that mirror isn't a scrying device. It doesn't "know" what's reflected in that other mirror. It's an image of a mirror. Part of being an image of a mirror means it does what a real mirror would do, at least visually, in its environment.So "mirror" is sort of like a checkbox for that quality, and it's just there or it's not. It's actually useful for seeing around corners and such, and some external property of the universe makes all of this 'function'?

The root of my position is that the illusion is an image of an object, and that as such the visual appearance of it is the same as if there were a real object there. With, perhaps, flaws related to whatever the Investigation DC to see through it is, but those flaws must be minute enough that you actually need to take time to check it out AND succeed on a reasonably high Investigation check to notice them even when looking. A "mirror" that bore a static image would be eye-catching even for those not deliberately making Investigation checks. A table that was brightly lit in a pitch-dark room would likewise be eye-catching. While an illusionist can be foolish and make something eye-catching, the nature of the illusion shouldn't cause it to become so without (a) interaction from somebody else or (b) the illusionist making an actively foolish choice (rather than a reasonable choice that has the environment change around it). How small of a detail can a very intelligent investigator pick out in about 6 seconds?

Do you think that somebody that was forced to do the flat 2d image with a little movement, could come up with something that was "sort of convincing"? Like it wouldn't stand out in a passive sort of way unless you already knew the trick?

I disagree. (A) suggests that the image actually bears a real reflection. (B) suggests that the 'reflection' is actually just a painting on the illusion. It's the difference between a real mirror and a painting that is dressed up to look like a mirror, to use two real objects as examples.I did not intend for B to carry any implication of being a flat painting, or at least, I meant for it to be more open than that. To me the two statements were basically "this magical image has a shiny surface that bears a reflection" and "this magical image has a shiny surface that bears a magical reflection."

I think I outlined it already in this post, but in direct reply:

The model I, personally, work from is that the illusory image of the object is a magical construct - an illusion - that interacts only with visible light, but does so exactly as the object really would if it were really there. The flaws in the illusion that can be detected by an Investigate check are a combination of chance happenstance physical interactions (e.g. a leaf happens to fall through it - a lucky roll) and the illusionist's failure to accurately represent the object (does that section of wall have its texture misaligned with the sections to either side of it?).

I will accept others' models where it can't interact with light, but contend that the same magic which makes this image visible despite no interaction with light also makes it have appropriate shading and illumination wrt the ambient light and light sources, and also cast shadows and bear reflections appropriately. I further contend that - Sage Advice aside (which adds text that isn't present in the spell) - claiming it is visible in color but doesn't bear reflections or cast shadows is adding arbitrary limitations, because those things are not in the list of prohibited aspects of an image in the spell.
For clarity, are you claiming that this is the only valid way of reading the RAW spell, or are you claiming that it is merely one valid way?

Honestly, I would expect the reflection in the illusory mirror to have that vase. The minor illusion can't make things invisible. If the wizard wanted a "mirror" that somehow didn't reflect the vase, he'd have to make it a painting that looked like it was reflecting the room, with all the inherent perspective and angle flaws that yields. This might not be enough to say, "That's an illusion," but it would certainly draw the eye and cause people to say, "Oh, that's not a mirror; that's a painting designed to look like a mirror."Aside from complexity, is there a reason that you think a wizard cannot produce the 'paintings' people would see at all angles, and block all of them except the one that someone should see at that angle? Basically, can the wizard make a 3d painting on a flat surface?

Now, with the "it's visible, but doesn't interact with light" case, this is one of the few places the effects differ. Since light is passing through unhindered, both characters would see this room lit by the sun. The one who can't tell the wall is, perhaps, confused by the lack of light source, however. He still sees the illusory wall as being lit just as much as the wall to either side of it with which it's merged. If the flaws that draw him to investigate include a silhouette of a doorway lit up on the floor, it's his Investigation which tells him that the wall, not the silhouette on the floor, is the illusion. Possibly by detecting inconsistencies in where the illusory wall merges with the real wall. Or possibly from other sources, like wind blowing lightly in through the doorway, or what-have-you. If he fails his Investigation check (and doesn't poke the wall), he can't tell what's going on. Though he probably does suspect an illusion is somewhere.Is there a problem with that outcome?

"I reject going back to read those other threads because they're obviously full of Segev being wrong, but I certainly don't have to respond to Zorku in this thread because surely, even though I mocked Segev for claiming to have covered all this in prior threads, I MUST have covered everything Zorku could have said in this reply."She seemed impatient in general, but I still can't wrap my head around how she failed the consistency roll on that check.

@Zorku: E=Mc2 disagrees with you. Just because Pelor controls light doesn't mean it isn't still photons, it just means magic and gods also exist in the world. Just because the rules are breakable doesn't mean the RAW for Minor Illusion is different from what has been presented. Which fallacy is that one? Strawman? You're certainly not arguing that light passes through the illusion anymore.
You seem to want to slap me with moving the goal post and some faulty analogies.

e=MC2 also disagrees with the peasant cannon, but we don't have enough simulationist rules for everyone to agree on exactly when and how that falls apart.

Sabeta

2017-04-11, 04:10 PM

I'm saying: Raw says things pass through them. SA says no shadows. Those two together prove light passes through them. Then Mearl's implies it as well via his response that a mirror would require too many constant updates to it's appearance (showing that it's not an actual reflection but something a wizard has created as a part of the reflection)

I'm sorry you don't like Sage Advice for some reason. I've yet to see one that disagrees with my natural interpretation of the rules, so I have no clue why you'd consider them inconsistent or untrustworthy.

If you were actually capable of proving either my interpretation of the RAW or the SA wrong we'd have a platform for better discussion, but so far you haven't presented a single idea that accomplishes that. At least you finally addressed my points instead of trying to invent a scenario where they fail.

Zorku

2017-04-11, 04:12 PM

I'm saying: Raw says things pass through them. SA says no shadows. Those two together prove light passes through them. Hasty generalization.

Dr.Samurai

2017-04-11, 04:17 PM

I can rephrase it in a more palatable form: An illusion that stays within the 5ft cube area of effect isn't doing anything that D&D 5e considers to be "movement."
Ah, ok. Thank you, that is a much stronger sentence.

I don't think I'd agree, though I get where you're coming from. I think Mearls' response here (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/05/can-improved-minor-illusion-create-an-illusion-of-a-ticking-clock-with-moving-hands/) (finally looked it up), to the Improved Minor Illusion question suggests that the spell doesn't have an image with moving parts in mind.

When asked to clarify that Minor Illusion can indeed make a clock with moving hands, Mearls doesn't say "Yes, it can". He says he would allow a minor detail like that to keep players on their toes. I think if the spell was meant to allow moving parts, within the 5ft square boundary, his answer would have been more definitive. That said, I'm not sure why we're arguing this point except for the fact that a real time illusion would have moving reflections. Is that the point?

(I don't feel strongly about this point to be honest. Even Mearls response to the mirror reflections actually sort of implies that illusions can have moving parts. He says the reflections would be too much, too dynamic. That suggests to me that some amount of movement is possible according to him.)

I don't think that how you feel the spell is supposed to work counts for anything, much less burdens me with the need to justify why I use the cantrip like that.
An interesting response for an active participant in this conversation. Don't worry about how I feel the spell is supposed to work then. Read the PHB, read the developer tweets, and understand it for yourself. Minor Illusion cannot make working mirrors.

That all sounds clear enough that I think I'm picturing the same thing, but do we have any official means of determining what the best of a wizard's ability is, or is that purely judgement calls by whoever is DM at the time?

-Actually, that's probably pedantic and not useful for the conversation, so here's something way more on point:
How did you determine that Segev doesn't also mean this kind of reflection?
I determined that by reading Segev's posts. He believes light reflects off of the illusions. He provided counter-arguments to my claim that an image of a mirror can't produce a mirror reflection. He says the illusion shifts appearance under changing light conditions.

I've seen him say that things that don't look like that would stick out like a sore thumb, but I don't know where he's ever specified that these features aren't things that the wizard had to 'do.'

Of course, these threads get terribly long, so we could dig back to a post I missed, or for a much more reasonable level of effort: ask him.
Segev, I don't want to misrepresent you or put words in your mouth here in case I've been misunderstanding your point but... is your stance not that the image bears the properties of an actual mirror, and reflects light just like an actual mirror?

Wait, so are you saying "If a wizard makes an illusion of a mirror, but does not put any reflection on the mirror, creatures will not automatically know this is fake"?
Yeah, sure. Why would they know it was fake without touching it or beating the DC? There are mirrors that can kill you, mirrors that can trap your soul, let you walk into another plane of existence or let you peer into another time and place. Why would the lack of reflection let you auto-pass or even bypass a saving throw?

This is before we even get to the point of "You aren't entitled to make working mirrors because they might otherwise be unbelievable."

But you do think that mirrors were not intended. There is specific intent against this sort of thing... but for no reason? Is there something I'm missing here?
I think you can make an illusion of a mirror, but not a working illusory mirror. The reason is that you're making something that isn't real. I don't think the intent is to make a working object of any kind. I don't think looking like something means you have its properties, even properties based on vision. I'm not specifically targeting mirrors from the start. I'm seeing a claim of how the spell can be used, and disagreeing it can be used that way.

This is not meaningfully different from what I said. I see the semantic difference, but it doesn't seem to change my point. You think that the power of the spell is shifting in one direction if we "add" these elements but Segev thinks the power stays right where it is at. Segev thinks the power drops to... basically drawing on a chalk board, if you omit these elements, but you think it's still useful for things like the classic hiding in a barrel.

That's what has been going on in this thread, and there's no (intellectually honest) room for denying that.
You have one line and it seems to be distracting you. So look, I'll take it back. I really am not interested in the power level of this usage of the cantrip. I enjoy finding creative ways to use cantrips and other low level resources. It's fun. It's the intent here. I really don't think the spell is intended to create working mirrors.

Your previous quote serves as example enough of the claim that you made.
And various other quotes serve to show the opposite. No problem.

Do we know that light bounces at all in D&D?
Did we establish that anybody is talking about passive updates to an illusion?
Did we establish if Crawford was talking about real shadows or illusory shadows that a wizard put there?

And round and round we go. Did I miss something in the recap up to this point?
I don't know how much of the thread you've read, but when someone says "If light passes right through the illusion, it would be invisible" they are assuming that light bounces off of things in the game. I am simply building off the same premises as the pro-mirror side.

We established that people are talking about passive updates to illusions through changes in the lighting condition. You seem to have missed much of that conversation I think. I don't believe I'm arguing phantom points here. People were claiming that light bounces off of illusions and therefore can make real working mirrors and shift in appearance as lighting changes.

Crawford was asked if you could jump through the shadow "cast" by an illusion. He said the illusion is simply of an object. No sensory effects. When asked to clarify if you can make an illusion and make its shadow a part of it, he repeated himself and said it is up to the DM. It would seem weird that Crawford wouldn't simply say "Yes" if illusions cast shadows.

Aside from a very minor quibble with how you seem to be equating physical interaction with an object and an investigation check, I don't have any objections to you running your games like that, and this is basically what I recommend to anyone that asks how minor illusion and silent image work.
Sorry, what quibble? You can either physically interact with it and it is auto-revealed, or you can spend an action examining it to make a save. Am I misunderstanding how it works?

Zorku

2017-04-11, 05:33 PM

Ah, ok. Thank you, that is a much stronger sentence.

I don't think I'd agree, though I get where you're coming from. I think Mearls' response here (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/05/can-improved-minor-illusion-create-an-illusion-of-a-ticking-clock-with-moving-hands/) (finally looked it up), to the Improved Minor Illusion question suggests that the spell doesn't have an image with moving parts in mind.

When asked to clarify that Minor Illusion can indeed make a clock with moving hands, Mearls doesn't say "Yes, it can". He says he would allow a minor detail like that to keep players on their toes. I think if the spell was meant to allow moving parts, within the 5ft square boundary, his answer would have been more definitive. That said, I'm not sure why we're arguing this point except for the fact that a real time illusion would have moving reflections. Is that the point?
The formatting on that site is kind of weird, and seems misleading.

The way it shows up on twitter is as follows:

can an illusionist wizard with Improved Minor Illusion create an illusion of a ticking clock with moving hands?
yes

Definitive answer.

so objects created by Minor Illusion can have moving components?
i'd allow a minor detail like that, just to keep people on their toes

Weird qualification.

As for why we're arguing this, that's basically because of how many times I heard minor illusion referred to as "static." That's an interpretation of the rules, and there's a meaningful difference between interpretations and what's actually written, but in these discussions people tend to forget that, and we all start talking past each other if we aren't clear about what we are referring to.

An interesting response for an active participant in this conversation. Don't worry about how I feel the spell is supposed to work then. Read the PHB, read the developer tweets, and understand it for yourself. Minor Illusion cannot make working mirrors.RAW: reflections maybe count as "other sensory effects." RAI: Whatever it is that the wizard makes, you don't know it is an illusion unless you use an action to investigate it or actually walk up to it and touch it. RA(the-devs-envisioned-them): The wizard is projecting this phantom image and has to program in adjustments or use their action to adjust on the fly, but even then human(oid)s have their limits.
I feel like minor illusion can feed nonsensical visual information to creatures but it doesn't impact any of the above categories.

I determined that by reading Segev's posts. He believes light reflects off of the illusions. He provided counter-arguments to my claim that an image of a mirror can't produce a mirror reflection. He says the illusion shifts appearance under changing light conditions.I maintain that there wasn't enough information (at least in the posts I had seen,) to determine that he didn't mean that in the kind of magical way that stems from the wizard creating the illusion in the first place, though his last post seems to put me at odds with him, so your intuition worked out this time.

Yeah, sure. Why would they know it was fake without touching it or beating the DC? There are mirrors that can kill you, mirrors that can trap your soul, let you walk into another plane of existence or let you peer into another time and place. Why would the lack of reflection let you auto-pass or even bypass a saving throw?
So we're back at "well they know it's not a normal mirror, but they don't know if it is an illusion of a bogle for the fotch."

When you succeed at an investigation check does that actually represent a thing that happens in a more real-world sort of granularity, or it that purely some gamism thing that has no real world correlate? Do you just see through illusions as soon as you feel strongly that it is an illusion?

The point of illusions is to deceive, and the wizard did not make an illusion of the bogle for the glotch, so I don't see why an illusionary mirror looks like a bogle for the glotch, or makes anyone think it is a bogle for the glotch. Moreover, I don't see how this isn't a statement of "you cannot make an illusion of a mirror." It's not actually an image of a mirror at that point, but something else.

I think you can make an illusion of a mirror, but not a working illusory mirror. The reason is that you're making something that isn't real. I don't think the intent is to make a working object of any kind. I don't think looking like something means you have its properties, even properties based on vision. I'm not specifically targeting mirrors from the start. I'm seeing a claim of how the spell can be used, and disagreeing it can be used that way. I don't find "surface lighting" to be the same thing as "function," and "function" seems to only be a label that we place upon things after the fact. Intuitively I should be able to make an illusion of a ruler, but it's not real and because I can't make things that function I cannot make a ruler.

And various other quotes serve to show the opposite. No problem.They don't, and I fear that you've lost track of what any of this line of quotes referred to.

I don't know how much of the thread you've read, but when someone says "If light passes right through the illusion, it would be invisible" they are assuming that light bounces off of things in the game. I am simply building off the same premises as the pro-mirror side.If I count as being on the prop mirror side, then no, you're building off of someone else's premises.

We established that people are talking about passive updates to illusions through changes in the lighting condition. You seem to have missed much of that conversation I think. I don't believe I'm arguing phantom points here. People were claiming that light bounces off of illusions and therefore can make real working mirrors and shift in appearance as lighting changes.The most recent "it's magic" answer that I got on that topic has left me feeling... disillusioned.

Crawford was asked if you could jump through the shadow "cast" by an illusion. He said the illusion is simply of an object. No sensory effects. When asked to clarify if you can make an illusion and make its shadow a part of it, he repeated himself and said it is up to the DM. It would seem weird that Crawford wouldn't simply say "Yes" if illusions cast shadows.He said it's up to the DM.
Actually, let's unpack this:
Did Crawford say "It is up to the DM if shadows count as other sensory effects"?

Sorry, what quibble? You can either physically interact with it and it is auto-revealed, or you can spend an action examining it to make a save. Am I misunderstanding how it works?When you state it like that it is fine. Previously you seemed to be saying that "when you investigate an illusion you necessarily walk up to it and put your hand through it." I recognized that this was probably not your intent, and pointed it out as such.

Sabeta

2017-04-11, 06:09 PM

I was at work during most of my earlier posts today, so I apologize for the hastiness of my replies. As promised, I've answered the rest of this in greater detail.

I don't think that how you feel the spell is supposed to work counts for anything, much less burdens me with the need to justify why I use the cantrip like that.
I disagree with this statement. If you're going to say the spell can do things it can't do, it falls to you to prove why it can.

I'm sorry, but the behavior of light just isn't the kind of classical mechanics stuff that ancient peoples knew about so I'm not going to assume that these stories themed to those eras necessarily treat light like that. Terribly offensive I'm sure, but if you think you've got any kind of high ground in this conversation you're wrong.

Honestly I'm kind of disgusted to find out that you're a real life straw vulcan.

So because medieval fantasy wizards don't understand the finer points on particle physics it just doesn't exist in this world? That's some real stretching you're doing, and it's hard for me to entertain the notion, but I'll try. If light is somehow this entity that is not physical yet real then how does it do anything...at all? Your excuse is now "Pelor says it does, so it does." In that case, what's to stop Pelor from saying "Yeah no my light doesn't interact with something that isn't real because unreal things can't be interacted with." I don't know, I'm having a hard time making heads or tales of this. The rules make no allowance for exactly how light exists in the realms, only how its produced and who governs it, as well as some rules for the lack thereof. (as in, can you or can't you see).

I'm not sure why you're calling my a Straw Vulcan though. I think you're trying to insult me? Hard to tell.

Decent delineation rule. I think smoke, fog, and other things which you don't generally get to lean against, push around, carry, or manipulate without magic or a great deal of mechanical assistance qualify more as "phenomena,"...
Just to add and agree with this. Fog is considered an atmospheric effect, not an object. No 5 foot cubes of smoke either. At least according to Sage Advice, which you seem to hate so maybe you'll start lobbying against this now.

The circular logic is your assertion that it doesn't bear reflections, cast shadows, nor allow for non-static images because "the magic works that way," followed by your justification for the magic working that way being that the spell doesn't allow for reflections, shadows, or non-static images.

I can use the exact same argument to support it bearing reflections, casting shadows, and allowing for non-static images. The spell allows those things because the magic works that way, you see. I know it works that way because the spell allows those things.

See how both are equally logical, and equally supported? That's because they're both circular. They rely on the conclusion to support the premise, and thus make themselves true by disconnected tautology.
Again, that's not all the case. You're adding circular logic to try and prove a point. I'm saying that that light passes through it because the spell description itself says that things will pass through it. I'm saying that my assertion that light will pass through it backed up by the Sage Advice saying it won't cast a shadow. That's not adding text to the spell where none existed, that's you ignoring the fact that things will pass through the spell because it disagrees with your logic that light bounces off it.

As Zorku noted, the language in those other spells specifies that you can move the AoE around and is detailing that the caster can control the motion.

What the minor illusion cannot do is move out of its AoE nor be controlled by the caster after its creation. Unlike it's sound-only form which expressly can be controlled by the caster (unless I'm misremembering).
I'm willing to concede this one. I'll call it my own personal ruling, as the examples given (Stool and Footprint) are both non-moving non-living physical objects. If you want to rule differently, that's acceptable. I don't think we can call it either RAW or RAI.

You'll note that I have never posited "weak photonic force fields," though I suppose you could characterize my model as such.

You know, normally when I play the reading comprehension card it's to try and get a rise out of someone. Getting people mad is an easy way to make them say something stupid which defeats their own argument. This however, is a 100% bonafide case of you not reading my post. My criticism of super weak force-fields which only light interacts with and nothing else in the known universe was a response to Dalebert. Not once did I say your model was based on force fields.

I have, however, spoken repeatedly to the alternate model of something which lets light pass through it freely and yet which is visible "because magic." I have shown that any allowance for magic to make such a thing visible can equally allow for it to cast visible shadows and bear visible reflections without interacting with light. I have further asserted - and as yet nobody has managed to quote text countering this assertion - that the spell does not support in its text any reason to include some visual properties but exclude others, with the exception that the illusion explicitly cannot create light.

Actually I may have indeed misread some things about your earlier posts. I wasn't aware you actually had tried to accommodate a model where light passes through the Illusion. I apologize for much of my earlier vitriol (including any leftover dregs in this post that I haven't pruned out) now that I see this.

So lets assume a model where light passes through the object because it's unreal. I know you've said it's not the one you prefer, but let's just pretend we agree here for the sake of this argument.
The "magic" that allows this spell to be perceivable, yet unreal, by your logic should also allow for shadows and reflections to be a part of that image. The shadow cast by the object is equally unreal, and the reflections created by the image are equally unreal. I think I'm tracking now, if I'm still misrepresenting your argument please clarify as such before we move any further.

Under these assumptions, I'm still going to reference the Sage Advice. That the spell doesn't cast a shadow, and that a functional mirror doesn't work, and try to rationlize them within your defintions.

As for Shadows: I'm going to say that it's one of two meanings.
A) It doesn't cast a "Real" shadow, but that an Illusory Shadow is still fine. (This is still in-line with the idea that you can't shadow step into it, because it's not a real shadow)
B) That it's not fine, because Shadows are qualified as an Atmospheric Effect like Fog Cloud (At the point you allow the Illusion to cast Illusory shadows, why not just make a block of pure shadow)

I'd say both are valid interpretations. I'm on point B, but I can accept A if say my own DM wanted that interpretation.

As for Reflections.

Sage Advice says there would bee too much going on to allow a working Mirror. The problem, is it doesn't specify why. Let's explore some options to see if we can't at least find a RAI answer.
A) Light reflected off a real person won't interact with the Illusory Mirror, preventing its function.
B) Images are always static or can only be simply programmed. The Mirror doesn't work because it would require too many updates on behalf of the Wizard.
C) Somehow, a reflection qualifies as a sensory effect or atmospheric condition.

I believe that A is true, and that by extension B is also true. Since the real world doesn't interact with the Illusion it falls on the Wizard to make it work, and the Sage Advice says that degree of motion is too complex for the nature of the spell. That is to say, if a Wizard creates a mirror at a corner, does he see what's down the other hallway? I can't imagine he would, since that would require the mirror to have a property of real reflectiveness rather than an Illusory one. If you can disprove A or B, I'll concede. I included C only for posterity, but even I won't make a case for it.

"I reject going back to read those other threads because they're obviously full of Segev being wrong, but I certainly don't have to respond to Zorku in this thread because surely, even though I mocked Segev for claiming to have covered all this in prior threads, I MUST have covered everything Zorku could have said in this reply. I am, after all, right, and they're wrong, so clearly they can't possibly make points that I haven't already defeated. But shame on Segev for having tried to reference to his prior arguments and expected to be taken seriously. I, however, must be taken seriously when I just ASSUME I've addressed Zorku's points. There's no double standard; I can do this because I'm right, but Segev can't because he's wrong. See how that's different?"

I'm not assuming anyone is right or wrong, just so you know. I'm making my points, and you're making yours. (If I've said differently before, I apologize) I don't agree with the points you've made thus far, and I assume you feel the same about mine. If I earnestly believed I was absolutely right, I wouldn't bother having this discussion. I would just walk away content to knowing the truth and then let the fools squabble among themselves. I will note that I'm growing increasingly closer to that point since my arguments still remain air tight despite every attempt otherwise.

She seemed impatient in general, but I still can't wrap my head around how she failed the consistency roll on that check.
Thank you both for realizing that it's not fun when people completely ignore your argument. Maybe you'll be less prone to it in the future.

You seem to want to slap me with moving the goal post and some faulty analogies.
See below, and above, but when you're entire argument doesn't even reference Minor Illusion anymore, yeah I'd call that moving the goal post. Like, we're not even on the field anymore. You're trying to change the qualities of light or prove why the game itself doesn't allow for physics implications and it falls apart on both ends without even approaching Minor Illusion.

e=MC2 also disagrees with the peasant cannon, but we don't have enough simulationist rules for everyone to agree on exactly when and how that falls apart.

I ignored it previously, but since you've now made it the crux of an argument I'll address this.

A uses an action to pass a rock to B
B uses his previously readied reaction of "When A tries to pass me a rock, I take it and pass it to C" to pass it to C.
C uses his previously readied reaction of "When B tries to pass me a rock, I take it and pass it to D" to pass it to D.

So the rock travels at a consistent rate of 5 feet/6 seconds. Hardly world shattering. Not sure where you even get the idea that it travels at light speed, but even then turns are purely an abstraction of combat that doesn't really apply to our current argument. Hence, Strawman.

Dr.Samurai

2017-04-12, 08:10 AM

The formatting on that site is kind of weird, and seems misleading.

The way it shows up on twitter is as follows:

can an illusionist wizard with Improved Minor Illusion create an illusion of a ticking clock with moving hands?
yes

Definitive answer.

so objects created by Minor Illusion can have moving components?
i'd allow a minor detail like that, just to keep people on their toes

Weird qualification.
The first question is asking about creating two effects together at the same time. The answer to that (yes) implies that you can make moving components, even though the spell doesn't say that. So a clarification is needed and, when asked, is given in the form of "Id allow it for reasons not based on the spell itself".

As for why we're arguing this, that's basically because of how many times I heard minor illusion referred to as "static." That's an interpretation of the rules, and there's a meaningful difference between interpretations and what's actually written, but in these discussions people tend to forget that, and we all start talking past each other if we aren't clear about what we are referring to.
If I'm remembering the pathway correctly (and with my memory there is no reason to believe I am), I think it's about a wizard making images move within the mirror to create the illusion of a working mirror. But again, I'm not sure.

RAW: reflections maybe count as "other sensory effects." RAI: Whatever it is that the wizard makes, you don't know it is an illusion unless you use an action to investigate it or actually walk up to it and touch it. RA(the-devs-envisioned-them): The wizard is projecting this phantom image and has to program in adjustments or use their action to adjust on the fly, but even then human(oid)s have their limits.
I feel like minor illusion can feed nonsensical visual information to creatures but it doesn't impact any of the above categories.
I think your RAI is also RAW, and when people start suggesting that light *must* bounce off illusions (which they have) then RAW also is "illusions are not real and don't exist".

So we're back at "well they know it's not a normal mirror, but they don't know if it is an illusion of a bogle for the fotch."

When you succeed at an investigation check does that actually represent a thing that happens in a more real-world sort of granularity, or it that purely some gamism thing that has no real world correlate? Do you just see through illusions as soon as you feel strongly that it is an illusion?

The point of illusions is to deceive, and the wizard did not make an illusion of the bogle for the glotch, so I don't see why an illusionary mirror looks like a bogle for the glotch, or makes anyone think it is a bogle for the glotch. Moreover, I don't see how this isn't a statement of "you cannot make an illusion of a mirror." It's not actually an image of a mirror at that point, but something else.
I concede that you're probably far more clever than I am Zorku, so I have no idea what you're getting at here except for your second and third sentences.

I enjoy granularity in my games, so I would try to describe the scenario as best I could to give the character a reason to realize they are seeing an illusion. But in the end, it is a game. If you're given a reason to examine it and you make the Save, you realize it is an illusion. In the case of Segev's mirror that reflects light like a normal object, I have no idea why you would realize it is an illusion without touching it. In that case, you probably wouldn't even get the opportunity to examine it. Why would you, without metagaming? As far as you can tell, it looks and functions *precisely* like a real mirror. You have no reason to examine it.

I don't find "surface lighting" to be the same thing as "function," and "function" seems to only be a label that we place upon things after the fact. Intuitively I should be able to make an illusion of a ruler, but it's not real and because I can't make things that function I cannot make a ruler.
I agree with you that surface lighting is not the same as function. I have been arguing that point. People think that because a mirror looks like a mirror, it therefore functions like a mirror. That the reflective properties of an object exist simply in how it looks. I agree this is not the case.

If I count as being on the prop mirror side, then no, you're building off of someone else's premises.
I've no idea what you think on this issue, but I'm building precisely off the premises that I explained. Zorku, we can go back through this thread and reread the entire thing. I'm not arguing about bouncing photons because I decided to bring it up for no reason. I would have never even conceived of this argument had it not been brought up by someone else.

He said it's up to the DM.
Actually, let's unpack this:
Did Crawford say "It is up to the DM if shadows count as other sensory effects"?
Read it (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/02/15/can-a-monk-of-the-shadow-use-the-shadow-cast-by-an-object-created-with-minor-illusion-cantrip/) for yourself and tell me what you glean from it, as I already explained my interpretation in the post you're quoting.

Segev

2017-04-12, 12:00 PM

I'll preface this with two apologies, which may or may not be for mutually exclusive situations, as I'm unsure how long this post will run.

1) Sorry if it's lengthy and hard to follow; I am trying to respond to salient points that seem directed at the areas I'm discussing or at my own position/posts.

2) Sorry if I miss anything, or seem to cut off important bits. I am trying to be as brief as possible to avoid what I'm apologizing for in point (1). ^^;

So "mirror" is sort of like a checkbox for that quality, and it's just there or it's not. It's actually useful for seeing around corners and such, and some external property of the universe makes all of this 'function'?Less "checkbox," and more "this is how the object of which I'm creating an image looks." A suit of metal armor has shiny bits. A rough-textured wall has micro-shadows detailing the texture. A sphere has shading (which is oft used in 2D representations of spheres to give the illusion of depth to what is really a circle). A glass has transparency with minor reflections revealing its presence. Water has a distortive effect on what you see through it.

It's not that there's a checkbox. It's that the image looks like the object. If you don't successfully make an Investigation check, you can't tell it's an illusion and not the object the caster said it was when he made it when you're in the room examining it (barring, of course, poking it). That underlined portion is important: a caster who makes "a painting that looks like a mirror from a particular angle" wouldn't require you to succeed an Investigation check to notice it's not a mirror, but a painting. You could figure out it's a painting even if you couldn't tell it was an illusion. So it's important what object the caster is making an image of, not just what it looks like.

But it's really that simple: the image looks like the object. To all visual observations (barring the ones detectable by that Investigation check's success), it behaves as a real example of the object would. Thus, illusory mirrors bear reflections, because if it were a real mirror, it would bear a reflection. Illusory swords glint light where the real sword would. Illusory tables look under dim lighting as real ones would, and under bright lighting as real ones would.

How small of a detail can a very intelligent investigator pick out in about 6 seconds?A valid question, but I think the better point is that "this mirror shows only a static image" is something that even a relatively stupid human being would notice if he deliberately examined the mirror. A simple "hand-wave" test would show that a) he's not in the 'reflection' or b) that, if he is, his 'reflection' isn't moving (or is moving in some set pattern that isn't mirroring his hand-wave, or whatever).

Do you think that somebody that was forced to do the flat 2d image with a little movement, could come up with something that was "sort of convincing"? Like it wouldn't stand out in a passive sort of way unless you already knew the trick?It is conceivable that somebody not paying attention would fail to notice, but it is also conceivable that it would catch the eye of somebody observant who wasn't paying attention. Since the spell doesn't allow for Perception checks to passively notice the flaws, but requires active Investigation, anything which reasonably could catch the eye - even if not guaranteed to - shouldn't be considered a "legal" flaw in the illusion.

Again, note, that there's a difference between "a flaw in the illusion" and "the illusion being of something that is pretending to be something else." An illusion of a painting pretending to be a mirror can allow people to notice the object is a painting, not a mirror, by rules other than the Investigation check to notice it's an illusion. An illusion of a taxidermic lion can cause people to think "aaah a lion!" for a moment or two before they notice it's not moving, but noticing that it's not really a lion doesn't mean they notice that the taxidermic statue of a lion is illusory. If the illusionist makes an illusory mirror, though, he's not making an illusory painting that looks like a mirror. Those are two distinct objects, and the illusionist is allowed to make either.

For clarity, are you claiming that this is the only valid way of reading the RAW spell, or are you claiming that it is merely one valid way?I'm claiming that those are the only two valid ways I can think of to read the RAW, as anything else seems to require adding text that isn't there, or leads to inconsistencies which (again) require additional, non-present text to be assumed to be "intended" to resolve.

Regardless of whether the image interacts with light (in the sense of light being obstructed or bouncing off of it) or not, the spell says it makes an image of an object. Not an image of something that kind-of resembles the object. Not an image of a cardboard cutout painted to look like the object. Not an image of some other object that could fool people into thinking it's the object the caster intended. It creates an image of an object. And thus, for visual purposes, the image cannot be examined and found to be some other object masquerading as the object the illusionist intended. It can be examined and found to be illusory! But it can't be examined and found to be some other object that mostly resembles the intended object. (Unless the caster made it that other object with the intent that it mostly resemble some 'intended' object that he nevertheless chose not to make an image of.) (Sorry if that last sentence is confusing. I don't know how to clarify it more.)

Aside from complexity, is there a reason that you think a wizard cannot produce the 'paintings' people would see at all angles, and block all of them except the one that someone should see at that angle? Basically, can the wizard make a 3d painting on a flat surface?The complexity issue is sufficient, based on the same argument for why I wouldn't allow somebody's fighter to "invent" gunpowder by using his player's real-world knowledge of the ingredients, and having the PC go out and gather and mix them. Yes, in theory, we can use some very modern techniques for directional-imagery that go into glasses-less 3D TV and into the higher-quality "3D" stickers we have today (as opposed to when I was a kid, when they were abysmally bad and really showed both images at most angles)...but no, your medieval-esq wizard doesn't know how to do that.

In theory, the spell might be able to make such an object. In practice, I'm not letting your wizard know how to do it any more than I'm letting that fighter know how to make gunpowder, or that bard know how to make antibiotics.

Is there a problem with that outcome?I have no problem with either outcome. The outcome from my preferred model is that you could have somebody who failed a save be blinded by being in the dark while somebody who made it seeing a clearly-lit room; the outcome to which Zorku's quote refers is that somebody failing the save would be baffled as to where the light's coming from. Either is fine. If all else fails, we can fall back to "it's magic," here, and I don't have a problem with it. The magic is, at least, behaving consistently.

e=MC2 also disagrees with the peasant cannon, but we don't have enough simulationist rules for everyone to agree on exactly when and how that falls apart.The peasant rail cannon fails because it dies on the same sword it raises: if you're using the rules which allow the projectile to reach those insane speeds, then those same rules fail to impart any momentum behind that speed and so it stops as soon as the last peasant releases it at the far end.

That said, the peasant instant-messaging service is valid.

Just to add and agree with this. Fog is considered an atmospheric effect, not an object. No 5 foot cubes of smoke either. At least according to Sage Advice, which you seem to hate so maybe you'll start lobbying against this now.I am inclined to disregard Sage Advice where it conflicts with the RAW in the book, or invents extra text and rules that aren't there. That doesn't mean that I will automatically reject and oppose anything Sage Advice says. I'll even accept it as a hint towards RAI, where it doesn't require me to question the writers' ability to use English to parse what's in the book as the RAI being proposed. But again, this doesn't mean that I will change my position just because SA happens to agree with it, either.

If somebody used a Magic 8 Ball to answer questions about the rules, I would not trust their answers. But that doesn't mean I'd say they were wrong when the Magic 8 Ball told them to agree with me.

Put another way: just because the clock is broken and always pointing at 3 o'clock doesn't mean that it's never 3 o'clock. Just that using that broken clock to tell if it's 3 o'clock is useless.

You know, normally when I play the reading comprehension card it's to try and get a rise out of someone. Getting people mad is an easy way to make them say something stupid which defeats their own argument. This however, is a 100% bonafide case of you not reading my post. My criticism of super weak force-fields which only light interacts with and nothing else in the known universe was a response to Dalebert. Not once did I say your model was based on force fields. Apologies; I was responding after having read it, but then opened the long, long series of quotes in a response field, and I lost the quotes to which you were responding. I would have skipped that part, but I thought it was still in the section responding to stuff I'd said.

Actually I may have indeed misread some things about your earlier posts. I wasn't aware you actually had tried to accommodate a model where light passes through the Illusion. I apologize for much of my earlier vitriol (including any leftover dregs in this post that I haven't pruned out) now that I see this.Apology accepted. I've omitted a response to something you said that I think relates to this. My own apologies if you still wanted a reply to it.

So lets assume a model where light passes through the object because it's unreal. I know you've said it's not the one you prefer, but let's just pretend we agree here for the sake of this argument.I can accept that for sake of argument.

The "magic" that allows this spell to be perceivable, yet unreal, by your logic should also allow for shadows and reflections to be a part of that image. The shadow cast by the object is equally unreal, and the reflections created by the image are equally unreal. I think I'm tracking now, if I'm still misrepresenting your argument please clarify as such before we move any further.Correct. I should note that, despite their unreality, they still look like the real shadow and real reflections would. Just as the unreal object's unreal coat of red paint looks like a real object's real coat of red paint would look.

Under these assumptions, I'm still going to reference the Sage Advice. That the spell doesn't cast a shadow, and that a functional mirror doesn't work, and try to rationlize them within your defintions.Sure. Though I have limited respect for SA, I will be happy to engage with an attempt to see if it fits within the above assumption and the spell as written without adding additional text not in evidence.

As for Shadows: I'm going to say that it's one of two meanings.
A) It doesn't cast a "Real" shadow, but that an Illusory Shadow is still fine. (This is still in-line with the idea that you can't shadow step into it, because it's not a real shadow)I have issues with that, but it's outside the context of this particular debate.

B) That it's not fine, because Shadows are qualified as an Atmospheric Effect like Fog Cloud (At the point you allow the Illusion to cast Illusory shadows, why not just make a block of pure shadow)I disagree with this one, because there's a decided difference between "this is an illusion of a shadow" and "this is an illusion of a thing that casts a shadow." Saying they're equivalent is like saying that "a red-painted fence" and "the color red in mid-air" are the same. But I'd allow the former and not the latter with minor illusion.

Sage Advice says there would bee too much going on to allow a working Mirror. The problem, is it doesn't specify why. Let's explore some options to see if we can't at least find a RAI answer.
A) Light reflected off a real person won't interact with the Illusory Mirror, preventing its function.
B) Images are always static or can only be simply programmed. The Mirror doesn't work because it would require too many updates on behalf of the Wizard.
C) Somehow, a reflection qualifies as a sensory effect or atmospheric condition.

I believe that A is true, and that by extension B is also true. Since the real world doesn't interact with the Illusion it falls on the Wizard to make it work, and the Sage Advice says that degree of motion is too complex for the nature of the spell. That is to say, if a Wizard creates a mirror at a corner, does he see what's down the other hallway? I can't imagine he would, since that would require the mirror to have a property of real reflectiveness rather than an Illusory one. If you can disprove A or B, I'll concede. I included C only for posterity, but even I won't make a case for it.

Quoting this as a block to respond to it as a block.

The problem with (A) is that we're already working under the assumption that the illusion is visible despite not interacting with light. Whatever makes the illusory red wagon show up as "red" therefore doesn't require the illusion to block/absorb non-red light and reflect red light. Similarly, the visual property of the mirror that causes it to reflect the real person posing in front of it must not require the mirror to perfectly reflect the light.

The reflection itself is illusory, but looks just like it should, for the same reason that the red wagon's red sides are illusory, but look like they should.

I would also contend that a mirror doesn't stop working in the dark. A dwarf looking in a mirror in a pitch black room still sees himself reflected in it, for the same reason that he sees anything else despite there being no light. This works especially well when dealing with a mythic idea that light has little to do with why things are visible, and thus you can have illusions that don't interact with light yet are nonetheless there.

Thus, a mirror in the dark and an illusory mirror both show accurate reflections to those who can see them. Heck, an illusory mirror in the dark would show an accurate reflection to those with darkvision.

The problem with (B) is that it adds text to the spell. Nothing in the spell requires a "static" image. Nothing in the spell says that the object has a faux light source that is the cause of its apparent illumination, and that this is unchanging no matter what other light sources exist or move around it. A reflection is no more "complex" than having the shading on a ball change as you walk around it carrying the sole light source in the room. It's just part of being the object. Or, in this case, being the illusion of the object.

And I agree that (C) is unconvincing, because a reflection is no more or less part of the visual of an object than its color or the shading that reveals texture and 3D qualities. It certainly is not an "other" sensory stimulus; it's visual. And it's not a phenomenon because it's part of the object's visual appearance.

I think SA is assuming (B), personally, but again, it's adding text not in evidence to achieve that.

I'm not assuming anyone is right or wrong, just so you know. I'm making my points, and you're making yours. (If I've said differently before, I apologize) I don't agree with the points you've made thus far, and I assume you feel the same about mine. If I earnestly believed I was absolutely right, I wouldn't bother having this discussion. I would just walk away content to knowing the truth and then let the fools squabble among themselves. I will note that I'm growing increasingly closer to that point since my arguments still remain air tight despite every attempt otherwise.The "funny" thing is that I would say the same about my arguments.

I ignored it previously, but since you've now made it the crux of an argument I'll address this.

A uses an action to pass a rock to B
B uses his previously readied reaction of "When A tries to pass me a rock, I take it and pass it to C" to pass it to C.
C uses his previously readied reaction of "When B tries to pass me a rock, I take it and pass it to D" to pass it to D.

So the rock travels at a consistent rate of 5 feet/6 seconds. Hardly world shattering. Not sure where you even get the idea that it travels at light speed, but even then turns are purely an abstraction of combat that doesn't really apply to our current argument. Hence, Strawman.Actually, because those readied actions all take place in a single round, if you have A pass the rock to B, B pass the rock to C, and C pass the rock to D, the rock has gone 20 feet in six seconds.

If you have it pass through 1056 peasants, it's gone one mile in 6 seconds.

The real issue is that, when Z - or whoever the last peasant in the line is - uses his readied action to release the rock, it lands next to him with little to no momentum, because the rules that caused it to traverse that distance were not the Newtonian physics that would impart momentum for moving that fast. Consistent application of the rules thwarts the railgun.

Now, make that "rock" instead a "message scroll," and you can pass messages arbitrary distances as long as you have enough peasants to cover it, all in six seconds.

Zorku

2017-04-12, 02:40 PM

I was at work during most of my earlier posts today, so I apologize for the hastiness of my replies. As promised, I've answered the rest of this in greater detail.I appreciate it.

I disagree with this statement. If you're going to say the spell can do things it can't do, it falls to you to prove why it can.
That's the same thing that I just said.
Bullet points for clarity:

Minor Illusion can't have real reflections
I'm not convinced that it can't. Please prove it.
I'm not convinced that it can. Please prove that it can't.

The 2nd step in the chain is where I think that I am. The 3rd step is improperly placing a burden of proof upon the 2nd step.

So because medieval fantasy wizards don't understand the finer points on particle physics it just doesn't exist in this world?It may exist or it may not. At the very least, our modern understanding of light is not the only option here. There seems to be room for an argument that, based on the prevalence of gaze attacks in the game, sight seems to operate on a "thing comes out of my eye to 'touch' stuff in order for me to see it" model, as opposed to the receiving camera type model that we are all familiar with in this world. I think that actually arguing that sort of thing would lead to a long and unproductive tangent, but I do not need that model to be true; I have simply presented it as part of an explanation on how there are other possibilities here, especially ones that are present in ancient thought and fantasy style narratives.

That's some real stretching you're doing, and it's hard for me to entertain the notion, but I'll try. If light is somehow this entity that is not physical yet real then how does it do anything...at all? Your excuse is now "Pelor says it does, so it does." In that case, what's to stop Pelor from saying "Yeah no my light doesn't interact with something that isn't real because unreal things can't be interacted with." I don't know, I'm having a hard time making heads or tales of this. The rules make no allowance for exactly how light exists in the realms, only how its produced and who governs it, as well as some rules for the lack thereof. (as in, can you or can't you see). What you are presenting as a problem, seems to bear great resemblance to exactly the kinds of things that I've seen lots of DMs do in their games.

If we go with the naive ancient notion then there are no particles, and so far as anyone can tell you are able to divide substances in half an infinite number of times without reaching any fundamentally smallest unit. The substance of the world looks much like a ball of clay, except that some things are hard, some things are flexible, and so on, based on what combination of elemental air/earth/water/fire they came from. So far as I can tell D&D doesn't fully subscribe to such a model any more than we need to speak of balancing humors when casting healing spells (though that can be a fun character gimmick,) but in such a world, light is just some peculiar manifestation of elemental fire, that a substance has or lacks. Some things serve as a source of that element, and this characteristic of being "lit" comes and goes instantaneously. It is probably possible for people in that world to eventually discover finer details about how this light characteristic works, but unless the people writing this bring it up, it is no more defined than whatever they have already said, within the scope of the story that they are telling.

And for just a little ore clarity: I'm not saying that anyone is breaking the rules of the game if their light behaves in accord with modern particle physics, I'm just not committing to this as an assumption of the game. These things come from narratives, and narratives just aren't built from the bottom up like that.

I'm not sure why you're calling my a Straw Vulcan though. I think you're trying to insult me? Hard to tell.The only part to take insult from is my feeling of disgust. To make this into something that you can actually interface with: As someone that values rationality, you seem very much to be overly committed to a faulty version of rationality.

Delving into the philosophy of that is probably best left to PMs, but it sounds like neither of us quite have enough time to spare for that.

Again, that's not all the case. You're adding circular logic to try and prove a point. I'm saying that that light passes through it because the spell description itself says that things will pass through it. I'm saying that my assertion that light will pass through it backed up by the Sage Advice saying it won't cast a shadow. That's not adding text to the spell where none existed, that's you ignoring the fact that things will pass through the spell because it disagrees with your logic that light bounces off it.He would have been better justified in claiming that you were begging the question, and the shock you displayed when I challenged that assumption seems to support this.

I'm not assuming anyone is right or wrong, just so you know.
"Chances are I've already answered his crap several times in this thread and he's just rehashing the same thing like Segev."

...

I don't know where to begin with this, and chances are that this would lead into some quibble about whether "right and wrong" is the same as "I've already answered his crap." If you want to understand why anyone says that you are assuming folks are wrong, I trust you've got the mental faculties to put it together.

Thank you both for realizing that it's not fun when people completely ignore your argument. Maybe you'll be less prone to it in the future.When I took the direct structure of your argument and posited a negation you damn near stormed out of the thread. Am I supposed to read "completely ignore your argument" as "didn't accept every single premise, the logic in between, and adopt my conclusion"!? If that's how you got the impression that I'm not following what you're saying I genuinely cannot take you seriously anymore.

See below, and above, but when you're entire argument doesn't even reference Minor Illusion anymore, yeah I'd call that moving the goal post. Like, we're not even on the field anymore. You're trying to change the qualities of light or prove why the game itself doesn't allow for physics implications and it falls apart on both ends without even approaching Minor Illusion.Forum threads go on tangents. You started talking about particle physics and I told you that you shouldn't do that. The cite myself:
I'm not convinced that it can't. Please prove it.

Just because I'm offering you structure that's we've now thoroughly established as things you hadn't thought about, doesn't automatically mean I'm making the kind of strong claims you keep attributing to me. I'm negating you by example. The only thing more purely logical (as in, paying attention to the argument you presented,) is pointing out the use of invalid logical syllogisms, and I've done that a few times too.

I ignored it previously, but since you've now made it the crux of an argument I'll address this.

A uses an action to pass a rock to B
B uses his previously readied reaction of "When A tries to pass me a rock, I take it and pass it to C" to pass it to C.
C uses his previously readied reaction of "When B tries to pass me a rock, I take it and pass it to D" to pass it to D.

So the rock travels at a consistent rate of 5 feet/6 seconds. Hardly world shattering. Not sure where you even get the idea that it travels at light speed, but even then turns are purely an abstraction of combat that doesn't really apply to our current argument. Hence, Strawman.In your example the rock moves from A to D before the turn has ended. Readied actions take place outside of initiative so everybody in the chain is able to act within the same 6 seconds.

Initiative: A 15, B 3, C 21, D 14.
Round 1:
C does nothing.
A does nothing.
D readies action to hand item forward.
B readies action to hand item forward.
Round 2:
C readies action to hand item forward.
A hands rock to B.
B's readied action moves rock to C.
C's readied action moves rock do D.
D drops rock in empty space in front of self.

I seem to have caught you ignoring my argument, but aside from that, if you want to make this illegal and make the rock move at a stead rate, then receiving the rock needs to eat an action from both the person handing it forward and the person that now has the rock in their hands. If that's how it works then none of the readied actions made sense in the first place and I was begging the question by even phrasing the situation this way.

As usual this is supposed to serve as an example of ways that the game doesn't simulate physics, so if you want to reject it that's fine, but I will maintain that it's a bad idea to drag too much physics into the basic rules, and we can move onto something like the fall damage rules if you wish to keep insisting that we can definitely assume that the basic rules hold up when we bring in modern particle physics.

tieren

2017-04-12, 03:26 PM

In your example the rock moves from A to D before the turn has ended. Readied actions take place outside of initiative so everybody in the chain is able to act within the same 6 seconds.

Initiative: A 15, B 3, C 21, D 14.
Round 1:
C does nothing.
A does nothing.
D readies action to hand item forward.
B readies action to hand item forward.
Round 2:
C readies action to hand item forward.
A hands rock to B.
B's readied action moves rock to C.
C's readied action moves rock do D.
D drops rock in empty space in front of self.

I seem to have caught you ignoring my argument, but aside from that, if you want to make this illegal and make the rock move at a stead rate, then receiving the rock needs to eat an action from both the person handing it forward and the person that now has the rock in their hands. If that's how it works then none of the readied actions made sense in the first place and I was begging the question by even phrasing the situation this way.

As usual this is supposed to serve as an example of ways that the game doesn't simulate physics, so if you want to reject it that's fine, but I will maintain that it's a bad idea to drag too much physics into the basic rules, and we can move onto something like the fall damage rules if you wish to keep insisting that we can definitely assume that the basic rules hold up when we bring in modern particle physics.

Just for fun instead of a rock pass a torch forward and try to figure out what happens when the light source is moving faster than the speed of light.

Segev

2017-04-12, 03:34 PM

Just for fun instead of a rock pass a torch forward and try to figure out what happens when the light source is moving faster than the speed of light.

By the rules invoked for the rapid movement, the light illuminates whatever is near the torch, wherever the torch is in the progression. Nothing special.

Zorku

2017-04-12, 05:33 PM

I think your RAI is also RAW, and when people start suggesting that light *must* bounce off illusions (which they have) then RAW also is "illusions are not real and don't exist".RAW doesn't same a damn thing about the wizard having to fabricate the image, it's just "you create the image of an object." The only thing RAW does to even hint at this is the "no other sensory effects" phrase, but at this point I don't think it's a bold claim to state that people think that means a lot of really different things. RAW never says anything about complexity, but we get there by extrapolating and poking at the devs.

I concede that you're probably far more clever than I am Zorku, so I have no idea what you're getting at here except for your second and third sentences.I used a gibberish term as a placeholder for "other magical world things that look sort of like a mirror but have blatant flaws that give away that they are not really mirrors."

Lets say a bftg is a mirror that has had its reflection stolen, and curses those who touch it. In order to keep our sentences simple, we will act like this is the only non-illusion that ever looks like that (the structure of what I'm saying only requires a placeholder for me to reference, but we're trying to keep this simple and straightforward.) Now, a wizard creates an illusion, and if you were describing it you would say "it looks like a mirror except that it doesn't have a reflection." This is an illusion of a btfg. Even if you try to create an illusion of a mirror, you end up with an illusion of a btfg. There is no such thing as an illusion of a mirror without a reflection, because mirrors without reflections are btfgs.

I don't think this is a super-clever argument, and I fully expect you to reject some part of it, but I won't know what part you reject until you tell me.

I enjoy granularity in my games, so I would try to describe the scenario as best I could to give the character a reason to realize they are seeing an illusion. But in the end, it is a game. If you're given a reason to examine it and you make the Save, you realize it is an illusion. In the case of Segev's mirror that reflects light like a normal object, I have no idea why you would realize it is an illusion without touching it. In that case, you probably wouldn't even get the opportunity to examine it. Why would you, without metagaming? As far as you can tell, it looks and functions *precisely* like a real mirror. You have no reason to examine it.Circumstantial reasons are still available. If you know that you're in some magical place then there are reasons to suspect everything. A hidden passage looks just like the rest of the wall, unless you find something wrong with it. You're more likely to expect hidden passages in the mansion of the crazy warlock than you are in your own backyard (though there are ways of making that narrative work too.) The old "pull out this book to open a door" thing looks just like a real bookshelf, but that doesn't (always) stop people from finding it.

I can't tell you what kinds of things Segev thinks actually happen when somebody succeeds on their investigation check, but if I had to go with the "wizard automatically creates exactly the object they want, that has totally normal light interactions," then getting close to the mirror and breathing on it heavily to try and create a foggy spot, seeing the mirror stay still while the rest of the room shakes, or just having detect magic up should pretty well strain the believable-ness of the mirror.

If "I don't believe that is a mirror anymore" isn't enough and we have to worry about disproving bftgs before you can see through the illusion, then I don't understand what successful investigation checks are like for any properties we allow illusions to have.

I agree with you that surface lighting is not the same as function. I have been arguing that point. People think that because a mirror looks like a mirror, it therefore functions like a mirror. That the reflective properties of an object exist simply in how it looks. I agree this is not the case. It sounds like we do not agree then. I am considering a reflection to be a specific case of surface lighting. Do you think that reflections are not a case of surface lighting?

Read it (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/02/15/can-a-monk-of-the-shadow-use-the-shadow-cast-by-an-object-created-with-minor-illusion-cantrip/) for yourself and tell me what you glean from it, as I already explained my interpretation in the post you're quoting.
What I glean from it is that it is up to the DM if shadows are "other sensory effects," and that if shadows are allowed as part of an illusion then they are not real enough for OwtS.

I cannot tell if you have gleaned the same thing from this sage advice, and have asked you if we gleaned the same thing. Directing me to your earlier post does not make me any more certain if we have gleaned the same thing.

Segev

2017-04-12, 06:24 PM

As I mentioned before, the flaws in the illusion that reveal it to be an illusion to those who succeed on the Investigation check can be any number of things, but they'll generally not be "oh, that looks like some other object than what it's pretending to be." Discovering that that "mirror" is really a bftg (which my brain has now decided is an acronym for "Broad Flat Tall Glass") doesn't reveal it to be an illusion; after all, bftgs are a thing (in Zorku's hypothetical setting we're using for this example, at least). Discovering that that wax sculpture of a guard holding out a spear is a wax sculpture and not really a soldier doesn't reveal that it's an illusory wax sculpture.

The flaws that reveal an illusion can be things such as:

A random object - perhaps a leaf - happening to overlap with it or fall through it (coincidence, possibly an indication that you rolled high rather than had a high level of skill, and got lucky)
The illusion of a wall covering an alcove doesn't have its texture match up at the edges where it merges with the real walls to either side.
The leaves on that artificial plant, though they're moving, are not moving correctly with the wind.
That mirror hanging on the wall is actually a little embedded in it, or
that mirror hanging on the wall is actually a little too far away from it, or
that mirror hanging on the wall doesn't have a discolored patch behind it where the wall smudges are interrupted by its presence.
That barrel doesn't have any scuff marks in the dust on the floor near it, and no dust piled up slightly around its edges.
That mirror didn't shake when the rest of the room did.
That glass of water didn't ripple when the T-Rex walked past it.

Various things like that, where the item doesn't quite fit in its environment correctly, or doesn't react correctly to the environment's physical effects, or events not influencing it properly (because they involve physical interaction that isn't solely light/vision-based).

BurgerBeast

2017-04-12, 07:35 PM

I just want to clarify that I also reject any explanation that brings photons into it. There is no basis to bring real-world physics into this, not least because real world physics eliminates magic as a possibility to start with.

With an actual mirror when you move the mirror doesn't change (except for the bit that reflect you, but I'm talking about everything else.) You just step into a space that was already getting a different image, and that's got very little to do with the mirror changing.

So, you seem to also be using the mental paint brush idea (confirm/deny?)...

Precisely. I think illusions are mental paintbrush (if 2D) and mental sculpture (if 3D).

...but if this stuff isn't really light, you should be able to make something that sends different fake-light in different directions.

I reject the idea that illusions project light. If they did, you could use minor illusion to create the illusion of a 5'x5' ball of flame, and it ought to project light beyond the 5'x5' space of the illusion. If you want the illusion to "project light" you must create the illusion of illumination, which is then part of the illusion and limited to the area of the illusion.

You can and probably still should reject this on grounds of it being too complex, but in the landscape of ideas this notion exists and doesn't require any updating or prediction of movement from the wizard.

Yes, this notion exists. I don't think illusions can do it.

Just for kicks, if an illusionist can make a part of their illusion that looks different at different angles, and complexity isn't a problem, do you think there's still a problem here?

Yes, very much so. This allows to to effectively cast multiple illusions with one casting. Making an illusion that looks like a box form the north, a statue form the east, a sword form the west, and an anvil from the south, does not strike me as the intended function of the spell. Why not 360 different things: 1 image per degree of observation.

Why does it have to mimic blinks? People don't actually notice drastic changes that happen while they blink. That's the basis of a ton of stage magic.

It doesn't. I chose blinks by way of example, and as you mention it was poorly chosen. How about this: whenever a person in the room looks directly into the mirror and raises his right hand, the 2D image on the surface of the mirror has to appear to show the same person raising his left hand.

It's kind of hard to keep track of when you're talking about real mirrors or illusory mirrors, with the way that quotes get clipped, but I think this bit is illusion, and I've got a question for you:
If there's just one image that is all of the things you see at every angle all melded together, but all of that is invisible unless you are standing at the right angle, then that ought to work conceptually, right? I'm not asking if this is something the spell says that you can do, I'm just posing it as an idea. There's not a mechanical problem with that, right?

There's not a mechanical problem with the idea that it can exist. There is a believability problem with the idea that a human brain can produce it and maintain it. It has to respond appropriately to an environment that neither it nor its caster can keep track of, from a near infinite number of perspectives, instantaneously.

I'm not going to argue that the statue vs the mirror are the same things, but I do want to know if you put any thought into why Segev thinks that they are comparable. Do you have any idea how to actually explain what the difference is and why it matters?

I haven't, really. The response was complicated by multiple points of contention. He said:

Or would you refuse to allow an illusion of a statue of a Halfling to appear differently to somebody standing behind it than somebody standing in front of it? Would it have to present the same facing to all observers, from all angles?

I would insist that the halfling appear differently to somebody standing behind it than someone standing in front of it. I would insist that it present a different facing to all observers. In my view, the illusion is objectively there. You see the illusion from the angle you look from. If, as you circled it, it turned to continue facing you as you went, you'd discover rather quickly that it was an illusion.

It directly contradicts what you said.
You: "Illusions are not in the minds of creatures."
PHB: "illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature."

Well, that quote is taken directly out of context. The PHB says:

Some illusions create phantom images that any creature can see, but the most insidious illusions plant an image directly in the mind o f a creature.

So... no. There is no contradiction there at all.

As for what you think, that's nice and all, but most of the people here are arguing about what's written in the book. The book doesn't actually specify with a lot of illusions, so we don't even know for sure if it's necessarily got to be one or the other.

What a strange thing to say for someone who just edited the text in a way that changed its context. The context is clearly opposite to what you implied.

I'm not so sure that the 2e version carried all of the elements I described. Did any part of my description, other than "it is in the creature's mind," factor into you classifying it as a phantasm?

No. It's either there or it's not. If it's there, it's not in your mind. If it's in your mind, it's not there. This might be semantic, but I think my intended meaning is clear enough.

I'm much more concerned about when somebody is looking at a boring green cube, sees where it is positioned, how large it is, some markings on the surface, but then insists that this is a plate with a banana on it. There's nothing there. There's a boring green cube in their head, but once it gets to "is this a banana?" something else happens.

That might be some phantasms, but I really doubt it is phantasms in general.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, here.

Segev

2017-04-13, 11:02 AM

The sidebar you quote actually suggests that minor illusion does NOT exist solely in the mind of the viewer.

It names two states for illusions:

1) Some illusions create images anybody can see
2) The most insidious illusions create images only in the mind of the observer

While technically, you can read that denotation to say that any illusion can exist solely in the mind of however many observers it has, if you read it in standard conversational English, it says that an illusion that anybody can see does not exist solely in the mind of the observer. It's an actual illusory image, out there, visible (or audible or whatever sense it's fooling) to everybody.

Further, I think, BurgerBeast, you're making a gross error when you rely on the ability of a human mind to maintain the illusion's every detail in real time. These are not psionic powers, and they are not efforts of pure will. Minor illusion doesn't even require Concentration to maintain. Neither does the permanent duration version of major image.

These are magically created illusions. The most correct thing anybody has agreed on, I think, in this and other threads, is that spells do what they say they do. So we have to look at what the spell says it does, first. We're free to invent "how" it does that. But if the "how" we invent means it doesn't do what it says it does, we've come up with a "how" that isn't that spell's method. Less severely, if we come up with a "how" that invents new limitations that aren't listed in the spell description, we should question that "how." It is, after all, a house rule, since the spell doesn't say HOW it does it, only WHAT it does.

So far, "I don't think illusions can do more than be paintings and sculptures" is not supported by the spell text. Heck, it still begs the question of how it reacts to environmental lighting and light sources: are all shadings "painted on" such that it looks equally bright in all lighting levels, and seems to be illuminated from the same direction no matter the source? A painting and a sculpture don't behave that way.

It is because I take the spell literally when it says it creates an image of an object that I state that this illusory object looks in all ways like the object the spellcaster specified. I reject arbitrary restrictons that limit what illusory objects can be created, and which make the spell create things that look "weird" just because somebody turned on or off the lights since it was cast. An illusory wall covering a hallway would light up as a torch passed it and grow dim and dark as the light recedes. Its flaws would be in its pattern compared to the rest of the wall, the fact that breezes can be felt from it (if applicable), maybe in the lack of dust piled up in its corner with the floor where it is with the real walls; that kind of thing. Not in it behaving like something that isn't a wall, visually, when visual-only stimuli interact with it.

Nothing in the spell prohibits reflections, and a mirror bears reflections. Mirrors are objects; they can legally be created by the spell. A mage making a minor illusion of a mirror gets the image of the object, "a mirror," and it looks and acts to all visual inspection that involves no other physical contact (remote or personal) like a mirror.

Zorku

2017-04-13, 12:45 PM

It is conceivable that somebody not paying attention would fail to notice, but it is also conceivable that it would catch the eye of somebody observant who wasn't paying attention. Since the spell doesn't allow for Perception checks to passively notice the flaws, but requires active Investigation, anything which reasonably could catch the eye - even if not guaranteed to - shouldn't be considered a "legal" flaw in the illusion.I don't know that the devs really put that kind of thought into the difference between perception and investigation...

Aside from this I've got a pretty good idea what you think illusions need to be like, but I won't support most of the claims you're making. You're bringing in a lot of baggage about how you think the world works, and possibly taking some of the flaws that people describe too literally. I'm probably most happy saying that at an spell save DC of 12 illusions have pretty much got the flaws exactly as described, but that as the primary spell ability and proficiency climb, and illusionist finds ways to downplay those flaws, asymptotically approaching the line of a perfect replica.

This approach has a few drawbacks, as I can't decide if illusionists can use their illusions for tool purposes this way (*the mind's eye paintbrush thing that I advocate answers that, but is likewise bringing in lots of baggage about how the world is supposed to work.)

I just want to clarify that I also reject any explanation that brings photons into it. There is no basis to bring real-world physics into this, not least because real world physics eliminates magic as a possibility to start with.Strictly speaking that's not true. You can add forces and particles on top of real world physics without breaking anything.

I reject the idea that illusions project light. If they did, you could use minor illusion to create the illusion of a 5'x5' ball of flame, and it ought to project light beyond the 5'x5' space of the illusion. If you want the illusion to "project light" you must create the illusion of illumination, which is then part of the illusion and limited to the area of the illusion.I didn't say they project light. "Fake-light" basically refers to whatever it is that happens when you "see" an illusion.

Yes, very much so. This allows to to effectively cast multiple illusions with one casting. Making an illusion that looks like a box form the north, a statue form the east, a sword form the west, and an anvil from the south, does not strike me as the intended function of the spell. Why not 360 different things: 1 image per degree of observation.Well it already does that. If you make an illusion of a sword then at 1 degree you've got the sword as viewed from 1 degree, at 2 degrees you've got the sword as viewed from 2 degrees, at 3 degrees you've got the sword as viewed from 3 degrees, etc.

As for things being different from different angles, you've probably seen some modern art that does that. Doing it on a broader scale when you top out at demigod levels of skill seems within reason. If it's sculpture then it can absolutely do that (though I've no idea what the reaction should be like at intermediate angles.)

Doing this purely with "fake-light" allows for an unreasonably vast array of options, but we were ignoring complexity as an issue so of course overly complex results are going to happen in this hypothetical scenario.

It doesn't. I chose blinks by way of example, and as you mention it was poorly chosen. How about this: whenever a person in the room looks directly into the mirror and raises his right hand, the 2D image on the surface of the mirror has to appear to show the same person raising his left hand.I think it's a mistake to call that someone's left hand, even though the metric that we usually use for this seems to fall apart when we face mirror surfaces at eye level.

Pedantic gripes aside, I'm happy to say that it's too complex/requires too perfect prediction, for an illusionist to reliably have their illusory mirror hold up when somebody goes checking the reflection against their own spontaneous movements. What I will not say, is that this is necessarily RAW.

you'd discover rather quickly that it was an illusion.
This phrase has been rather central to the argument. I don't think that a lot of the people involved here see it as a problem if you can discover rather quickly that something is an illusion. I don't personally desire to weave universal flaws into illusion magic that always give it away in the same way, but there seem to be a fair number of people that don't think that is a problem.

Well, that quote is taken directly out of context. The PHB says:
-
What a strange thing to say for someone who just edited the text in a way that changed its context. The context is clearly opposite to what you implied.
"Illusions are not in the minds of creatures."
"illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature."

I do not find this to be out of context, though I understand how my presentation could easily be taken too far.

So: "the most insidious illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature."
This still refutes your claim that illusions are not in the minds of creatures. Please take back the statement or adjust it to have a more limited scope.

If you still think that I'm doing something strange to the context, then you are going to have to explicitly state what the context is and why that does not agree with my usage.

No. It's either there or it's not. If it's there, it's not in your mind. If it's in your mind, it's not there. This might be semantic, but I think my intended meaning is clear enough.This looks like motivated reasoning. The line of text we've got is clearly leading us through several options, but there's nothing there to indicate that they have set phantom image and phantasm as the binary which necessarily describes all illusion spells. Where in the word did you read that context into the passage?

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, here.Ok, imagine that I create a *thing*. If you take a picture of this thing, like with a camera, then you can see that there is a small gray cube with a red dot on one face. If you look with your eyes, you don't see that small gray cube, you see a banana. Pretty much any way you measure or otherwise observe this thing you get "gray cube with red dot," except when you look at it with your eyes.

Ok, got a decent grasp of that idea? (The "what happens" way more than "why it works that way.")

So a few posts back I described this kind of idea. You said "yeah, that's exactly what a phantasm is."
We already established that you only mean the "in a creature's mind" detail, so I'm just walking through this to try and clarify what already happened.

Segev

2017-04-13, 04:05 PM

I don't know that the devs really put that kind of thought into the difference between perception and investigation...Um... if they didn't, then 5e is even worse than I thought it was. I mean, "I happen to notice something in passing because it caught my eye" vs. "I am carefully examining this thing" is pretty much the definition of the difference between the two. Well, no, I take that back. "I noticed something as I was looking around," is technically Perception. Passive Perception is what I first described. Still, the distinction is whether you're specifically examining something or generally looking for something (passively or actively observing).

I still contend that any inherent flaw to an illusion that is the sort of thing that COULD be detected by somebody NOT deliberately studying the illusion is something that would allow the illusion to be seen through with a Perception check. Since the rules do not permit that, I further contend that any flaw which one could reasonably expect an observant person who is not specifically studying the illusion to notice cannot be what minor illusion has as its "giveaways" that reveal it as an illusion to an Investigate check.

Aside from this I've got a pretty good idea what you think illusions need to be like, but I won't support most of the claims you're making. You're bringing in a lot of baggage about how you think the world works, and possibly taking some of the flaws that people describe too literally.I don't think so. At most, I'm taking them at their word, because frankly, a mirror failing to reflect is eye-catching. You'll have to justify this claim about me bringing in "baggage" and taking things "too literally," or I'm going to call nonsense on it. Because this kind of claim could be used to dismiss arguments that the fly spell lets you actually leave the ground, rather than merely lets you ignore obstacles as if you'd left the ground. Because otherwise you're "taking it too literally" and "bringing in baggage" about "how the world works." *pushes nerd-gasses up nose*

I'm probably most happy saying that at an spell save DC of 12 illusions have pretty much got the flaws exactly as described, but that as the primary spell ability and proficiency climb, and illusionist finds ways to downplay those flaws, asymptotically approaching the line of a perfect replica.Sorry, but you're still ignoring that no amount of Perception should be able to notice the flaws, so they can't be of the sort that somebody not deliberately studying it could find.

This approach has a few drawbacks, as I can't decide if illusionists can use their illusions for tool purposes this way (*the mind's eye paintbrush thing that I advocate answers that, but is likewise bringing in lots of baggage about how the world is supposed to work.)The "minds eye paintbrush" is unsupported by the rules, and begs the question as to what prevents phenomena since you can "paint" static fog. The spells limits and permissions belie such an approach.

Well it already does that. If you make an illusion of a sword then at 1 degree you've got the sword as viewed from 1 degree, at 2 degrees you've got the sword as viewed from 2 degrees, at 3 degrees you've got the sword as viewed from 3 degrees, etc.No, there's a real difference, here. A real sword, or a sculpture of a sword, looks different at all angles, yes, but it's quite impossible to make a sculpture of an object that looks like a banana from one angle, a dragon from 1 degree removed, a bobble-head doll from one more degree removed, etc.

You're making, per minor illusion, an image of an object. Not a bunch of solid-angle slices of different 2D paintings.

As for things being different from different angles, you've probably seen some modern art that does that. Doing it on a broader scale when you top out at demigod levels of skill seems within reason. If it's sculpture then it can absolutely do that (though I've no idea what the reaction should be like at intermediate angles.)Please consider that we're discussing a cantrip that anybody - literally anybody - can have at level 1, for the price of a class choice or a feat.

And again, for the same reason that I don't think you should allow the Chemistry major at your table to dictate specific actions which happen to be gathering precisely the materials he needs, then mixing them precisely as he needs to, to make gunpowder, you shouldn't be dragging real-world modern concepts in and letting your PC, no matter how clever, independently "discover" precise modern methods which took many shoulders of many giants standing on many more shoulders of still more giants to get to the point where YOU understand it even conceptually.

This phrase has been rather central to the argument. I don't think that a lot of the people involved here see it as a problem if you can discover rather quickly that something is an illusion. I don't personally desire to weave universal flaws into illusion magic that always give it away in the same way, but there seem to be a fair number of people that don't think that is a problem.The issue I have isn't "discover quickly." It's "discover without doing what the spell's text says you have to."

So: "the most insidious illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature."Not sure the point you're trying to make here. (No, honestly; I don't know whether you're arguing one way or the other, as there is too much back-and-forth with unquoted prior context.) But I will say this to clarify my own position:

Minor illusion, silent image, and their ilk are not in the category of "most insidious illusions" which "plant an image directly in the mind of a creature." The spells which do that out-and-out say so: fear, phantasmal force, phantasmal killer, and others like those which outright state that they place the illusion in the mind(s) of the target(s).

This still refutes your claim that illusions are not in the minds of creatures. Please take back the statement or adjust it to have a more limited scope.All it does is say that some illusions are. It would refute a claim that NO illusions are in the minds of creatures. It does not refute a claim that minor illusion is not in the minds of creatures. For it to refute that claim, it would have to state that all illusions ARE in the minds of creatures. It does not do that; in fact, it does the opposite: it says that some are and some are not.

Ok, imagine that I create a *thing*. If you take a picture of this thing, like with a camera, then you can see that there is a small gray cube with a red dot on one face. If you look with your eyes, you don't see that small gray cube, you see a banana. Pretty much any way you measure or otherwise observe this thing you get "gray cube with red dot," except when you look at it with your eyes.

Ok, got a decent grasp of that idea? (The "what happens" way more than "why it works that way.")

So a few posts back I described this kind of idea. You said "yeah, that's exactly what a phantasm is."
We already established that you only mean the "in a creature's mind" detail, so I'm just walking through this to try and clarify what already happened.I know this isn't directed at me, but this definitely is not what a phantasm is (assuming "phantasm" means "the kind of illusion that is projected in the observer's mind, e.g. phantasmal force). A phantasm doesn't have a "thing" you can use a camera to take a picture of. Those who are not targeted by the spell don't see anything at all. They do not see a "thing" that is different than what the target (who has the illusion in his mind) sees; they don't see anything. Because, to them, there's nothing there.

I still snicker at the idea of an illusionist using Illusory Reality on a phantasmal force only he can see in order to have, say, a ladder that only he can see or climb or in any way interact with, as a side note.

Sabeta

2017-04-13, 04:43 PM

I see as being entirely mental either way.

1) Illusions cast out in space affect the minds of all who can see that space.
2) Illusions of a more insidious nature, plant it directly in a targets mind.

The distinction exists in case you want to make only person (or perhaps select persons) see an Illusion but nobody else, in order to sell someone as crazy.I'd have to double check the spells in question, but I believe those ones also require a save before the effect goes through, as in once it "sticks" that person believes in the Illusion whole-hardheartedly and doesn't have the ability to "inspect" it. (As his own mind may go as far as making him believe in a tactile response to an Illusion that only he can see)

In other words, the only distinction between the two is that one has a different tactical application than the other.

@Segev: Wouldn't mismatched tiling be spottable with a Perception check too, though? Perception tells what things are and how they look. Investigation tells you WHY they're that way. Perception is spotting mismatched tiles in your illusion, or the lighting being slightly off, or not having a shadow. Investigation tells you that it's an Illusion.

Anyway, even if we assume photons don't exist, and that eyes; which are specifically built to recieve photons so that they can trigger chemical reactions which send neurological information to the brain so that you can process and understand an image, function on an entirely different set of principles then that still doesn't really change anything. The quality of reflection exists because light radiated from something bounces off the mirrored service almost perfectly. I still stand by the statement that Light must therefore be capable of physically interacting with the object in order for it have the quality of reflections, and the fact that it doesn't produce shadows tells me that it's not a physical thing. A non-functional mirror is fine, and like I stated earlier it could be interestingly used to fool someone into thinking they've become a vampire, but the way I see it (and the way Mearls sees it) the reflection would have to "painted on" and require multiple updates that the wizard nor the nature of the cantrip would allow for.

I stayed out of the bit on Lighting before because I wasn't quite sure how it connected at all to the discussion. In my opinion, it's as straightforward as the rest of it.
The image is created in whatever form the Wizard deems it need be. Let's assume he picks out normal colors and shading for if the room were lit.
The room; however is Dark.
* A Human walks into the room, and sees nothing. He can't see the Illusion, because he can't see.
* A Dwarf walks into the room, and sees a Black and White Illusion. He can make it out because he has Darkvision.
* The Human suddenly remembers he has a torch and lights it. Both of them now see the Illusion in full color.

Does the image update to realistically match the flicker of the flame?
* No.

Why doesn't that immediately give away the Illusion?
*Because Illusions are mental, they confuse the senses.

However, I would probably give PCs a hint if their perception is decent. As in "That barrel in the room looks kind of odd to you."

I get where Segev is coming from better now than I did before though. The properties of creating a near perfect Illusion in any measure, such as having shading and shiny surfaces, should in theory allow that property to extend to shadows and mirrors. At least, that's how I've interpreted him so far. I still disagree, but I can understand how one would arrive at that conclusion now. I would argue that the shiny spots on polished wood don't have reflection either.

Zorku on the hand, I've got nothing man. I can't even tell what you're trying to argue anymore, you've run so far off the field I just can't keep up.

Segev

2017-04-13, 05:19 PM

I see as being entirely mental either way.

1) Illusions cast out in space affect the minds of all who can see that space.
2) Illusions of a more insidious nature, plant it directly in a targets mind.
There is no support for (1). It is entirely your invention, and is not supported in the text. In fact, the text strongly implies otherwise because it spells out (2) explicitly in contrast to illusions "that anyone can see."

In other words, the only distinction between the two is that one has a different tactical application than the other.Not according to the rules. Adding text to the rules is required to make it so.

Wouldn't mismatched tiling be spottable with a Perception check too, though?You have a point. I was falling into the trap of "high perception DC == can't make the perception check" here. So that one's out for revealing it as an illusion. Might still happen, if the caster is sloppy, but there's no reason to assume it would normally.

Perception tells what things are and how they look. Investigation tells you WHY they're that way. Perception is spotting mismatched tiles in your illusion, or the lighting being slightly off, or not having a shadow. Investigation tells you that it's an Illusion.This is a cute distinction, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you actually look past the semantics and ask, "okay, how does that work?" How is Investigation telling you "it's an illusion?" Remember that it has to work without poking it, because poking it automatically reveals its nature, and Investigation could theoretically be used by somebody incapable of poking it.

Investigation tells you details and how to interpret them. It gives you stuff you couldn't get without studying it closely. Perception might draw your eye to the item to study, but it cannot tell you it's an illusion. Since the spell doesn't give a Perception DC to "notice there's something wrong" or any similar language, however, we cannot assume that there are limits not listed in the spell which would give such hints.

An illusory campfire ... well, fails because "fire" is a phenomenon. But let's go with a silent image of a camp fire for this purpose. The fact that it isn't crackling and doesn't smell of burning and doesn't radiate heat all might merit Perception checks to notice, or might be immediately obvious, or might be too inobvious to notice, depending on circumstances. Those limits, however, are spelled out in the spell itself. Any limits not spelled out in the spell as to what the illusion can do make no sense to add in, other than as a house rule.

Anyway, even if we assume photons don't exist, and that eyes; which are specifically built to recieve photons so that they can trigger chemical reactions which send neurological information to the brain so that you can process and understand an image, function on an entirely different set of principles then that still doesn't really change anything. The quality of reflection exists because light radiated from something bounces off the mirrored service almost perfectly.Why? How does this follow? If you can see without light-ray-tracing, if photons aren't how light works, if light is not bouncing off of a thing and hitting your eyes in order to make you see it, how does it follow that reflections still require light to bounce off of a thing then off of the reflection-bearing-object and then hit your eyes?

That is essentially insisting that, even though we have orbital satelites, and even though we know from various calculations that the simplest model says the planet is a spinning sphere, you insist that the Earth must be flat, and that nothing can possibly change that.

The rest of that paragraph falls apart without that claim, so I won't bother quoting and responding to it. Justify that claim, please. It makes no sense. Why must reflections work by real-world physics rather than some mythical property of the nature of the object?

And, even if they did work that way, why must an illusory object which doesn't require light to bounce off of it to have color, shading, texture, etc. all be visible require light bouncing off of it to bear a reflection? Again, your claim makes no sense.

You're assuming without stating so that the illusion must be something the caster is constantly imagining up and maintaining, rather than what the spell actually says: that it's an image of an object.

I stayed out of the bit on Lighting before because I wasn't quite sure how it connected at all to the discussion. In my opinion, it's as straightforward as the rest of it.
The image is created in whatever form the Wizard deems it need be. Let's assume he picks out normal colors and shading for if the room were lit.
The room; however is Dark.
* A Human walks into the room, and sees nothing. He can't see the Illusion, because he can't see.
* A Dwarf walks into the room, and sees a Black and White Illusion. He can make it out because he has Darkvision.
* The Human suddenly remembers he has a torch and lights it. Both of them now see the Illusion in full color.So far, so good; this works with the spell's stated function of creating an image of an object.

Does the image update to realistically match the flicker of the flame?
* No.You're making a bad assumption when you assume the illusion must "update" to "match" the flame; the illusion is of an object. Objects don't "update" to "match" light sources. They're illuminated by light sources and show up as they show up. The illusory object behaves the same. If you use my model, it's straight-forward. If you use the "it's magic, so light doesn't have to bounce off of it for it to be visible" model, then whatever magic makes it visible makes it visible as it would be under the proper light.

I mean, just take this in increments to see how silly this is: the dwarf and the human are in the room. The dwarf sees the black and white object; the human sees nothing. The human puffs on his cigarette, just enough to make his own hands near the tip of it briefly, faintly visible. Both still see the same thing regarding the illusory object. The human's cigarette goes out, so he lights a candle to re-light it. He's too far away for the object to be in the candle's radius. So both still see the same thing.

Now, the human slowly moves towards the object. Eventually, the object is just the slightest bit within the candle's radius. You're now saying that, for some reason, this object springs from black-and-white to "lit like daylight" to the dwarf, and from "totally not visible" to "lit like daylight" for the human, while the rest of the room remains dimly lit by the candle?

The sensible and consistent ruling would be that the dwarf sees it in living color as if lit in daylight no matter the lighting conditions, as does the human. You have a SLIGHT argument that the human is blind by the rules and sees nothing in the dark, but that the illusory object is "lit like daylight" when it gets the barest hint of illumination, enough to not be totally obscured from the human anymore.

Either way, it's silly. And is hardly the simplest and most straight-forward way to read the spell.

Why doesn't that immediately give away the Illusion?
*Because Illusions are mental, they confuse the senses.There is no text to support this assertion. It is an invention you and others have made which is not supported by the rules, and even is strongly hinted against by the very passage people keep quoting to support it.

I get where Segev is coming from better now than I did before though. The properties of creating a near perfect Illusion in any measure, such as having shading and shiny surfaces, should in theory allow that property to extend to shadows and mirrors. At least, that's how I've interpreted him so far. I still disagree, but I can understand how one would arrive at that conclusion now. I would argue that the shiny spots on polished wood don't have reflection either.What you say you understand of my position sounds like my position, to me, yes.

Obviously, I disagree with your disagreement. :smallwink: But at least you are grasping the model as I believe the spell to outline it.

Zorku

2017-04-13, 05:57 PM

Um... if they didn't, then 5e is even worse than I thought it was. I mean, "I happen to notice something in passing because it caught my eye" vs. "I am carefully examining this thing" is pretty much the definition of the difference between the two. Well, no, I take that back. "I noticed something as I was looking around," is technically Perception. Passive Perception is what I first described. Still, the distinction is whether you're specifically examining something or generally looking for something (passively or actively observing).
I'd like you to do a little exercise with me. Take the little simulation of the world you've got an place it to the side. Now, picture a space where we don't really simulate all those senses, but just sort of fake it in a "close enough" way. Like, imagine that you're writing a book and a character walks into the room and you just say that there's a mirror there. You can't really tell if this mirror has got scratches in the glass, and there's no 3d model showing exactly where it is in the room. None of those things exist until you write them down. "They walk up close to the mirror and see that it's made out of gold, but they know that the only gold in this place is their own staff. The illusionary mirror becomes faint to them." None of these details existed before they were written.

Ok, enough of that. I think that for the developers the starting point was something like that, and then game design efforts shifted the focus around. It might not have started like that in this edition, and historically we know quite a bit about what kind of game design elements came into play at what time, but basically no games with improvisational elements ever began with the kind of rules lawyer nitpicking that we think about almost constantly.

I still contend that any inherent flaw to an illusion that is the sort of thing that COULD be detected by somebody NOT deliberately studying the illusion is something that would allow the illusion to be seen through with a Perception check. Since the rules do not permit that, I further contend that any flaw which one could reasonably expect an observant person who is not specifically studying the illusion to notice cannot be what minor illusion has as its "giveaways" that reveal it as an illusion to an Investigate check.I think that anything that is not physical interaction must necessarily be possible for someone to catch with perception instead of investigation, because chance and local environment can always produce situations similar to what you would intentionally cause during investigation.

If those situations are universally present in a fairly standard room or open field with any lighting from dim to bright, then we have started to talk about the game in a way that I don't think anybody actually does, and would only do out of spite or near-idiocy. It is possible that the rules as written are actually that bad, but if that is the case then everyone is ignoring them anyway.

I don't think so. At most, I'm taking them at their word, because frankly, a mirror failing to reflect is eye-catching. You'll have to justify this claim about me bringing in "baggage" and taking things "too literally," or I'm going to call nonsense on it. Because this kind of claim could be used to dismiss arguments that the fly spell lets you actually leave the ground, rather than merely lets you ignore obstacles as if you'd left the ground. Because otherwise you're "taking it too literally" and "bringing in baggage" about "how the world works." *pushes nerd-gasses up nose*
Unless "ignore obstacles" is so broad that it means you can touch light fixtures at the top of a 40ft tall room, then I don't think you can argue that about the Fly spell. Likewise that argument makes no sense in terms of fall damage when concentration is broken.

You seem to operate in a space where the eye is a literal camera, without the brain fabricating any of the details of what you are seeing, and rather than simply having some possible explanation for what actually happens when skill checks are rolled, you seem to need all explanations laid out before dice are ever rolled.

Sorry, but you're still ignoring that no amount of Perception should be able to notice the flaws, so they can't be of the sort that somebody not deliberately studying it could find.I'm just going to note how strange it is for you to accuse me of "still ignoring" a position in this argument which you have only just introduced in the same post. I would much prefer that you just delete a paragraph when you feel that you have answered it elsewhere (with the actual question mark punctuation overriding this somewhat. It might be best to transpose those questions back up before the text that answers them.)

The "minds eye paintbrush" is unsupported by the rules, and begs the question as to what prevents phenomena since you can "paint" static fog. The spells limits and permissions belie such an approach.Correction, the mind's eye paintbrush is unsupported by RAW, which is an admission that I made in the exact text you quoted. Also, that's not what the term begging the question means. Ex: "Were you breaking the rules when you painted that fog with minor illusion?" This sentence begs the question "did you paint fog with minor illusion?" Begging the question is a way of smuggling in a question with an implied answer.

In this case you seem to be saying that the paintbrush metaphor logically leads to an issue of "why can't I paint fog?" but right in the text of the spell we are told that this spell is only for creating objects. If we take a little more of the RAI (as best as I can discern it from dev tweets,) then complexity is an issue. To stick with the metaphor, you can't paint fog because you need an air brush to do that.

No, there's a real difference, here. A real sword, or a sculpture of a sword, looks different at all angles, yes, but it's quite impossible to make a sculpture of an object that looks like a banana from one angle, a dragon from 1 degree removed, a bobble-head doll from one more degree removed, etc.If you give me an infinitely large space (or infinitely fine resolution,) then I could do that with little dots on metal sticks, irl. It would be rather a lot like 3d picross, except that I would have to construct the puzzle with 360 configurations that all need to overlap.

360 overlapping configurations would be incredibly tedious to work out, but if we ignore complexity as an issue (which was one of my stipulations,) it is totally doable.

You're making, per minor illusion, an image of an object. Not a bunch of solid-angle slices of different 2D paintings.Yeah, one object. This illusion is of an art display.

You can object to it on the basis of this kind of art being anachronistic, or the aforementioned complexity trouble, but mechanically it's well within RAW.

Please consider that we're discussing a cantrip that anybody - literally anybody - can have at level 1, for the price of a class choice or a feat.You are still forgetting that I already acknowledged the complexity issues.

And again, for the same reason that I don't think you should allow the Chemistry major at your table to dictate specific actions which happen to be gathering precisely the materials he needs, then mixing them precisely as he needs to, to make gunpowder, you shouldn't be dragging real-world modern concepts in and letting your PC, no matter how clever, independently "discover" precise modern methods which took many shoulders of many giants standing on many more shoulders of still more giants to get to the point where YOU understand it even conceptually.This does seem to support Sabeta's concerns with chopping up an entire post for line by line analysis. I was only talking about this in terms of the premises that burger had presented.

Minor illusion, silent image, and their ilk are not in the category of "most insidious illusions" which "plant an image directly in the mind of a creature." The spells which do that out-and-out say so: fear, phantasmal force, phantasmal killer, and others like those which outright state that they place the illusion in the mind(s) of the target(s).Is indirectly planting an image in the minds of creatures an option?

(And yeah, this kind of topic would be way easier with inline replies like on Reddit or summat.)

t would refute a claim that NO illusions are in the minds of creatures. It does not refute a claim that minor illusion is not in the minds of creatures.This is exactly what I was talking about. Burger's claim about illusions not being in the minds of creatures has never included the term "minor illusion." He has stated that "illusions are not in the minds of creatures."

It's quite silly that it takes this much effort to clear up such a minor point.

I know this isn't directed at me, but this definitely is not what a phantasm is (assuming "phantasm" means "the kind of illusion that is projected in the observer's mind, e.g. phantasmal force). A phantasm doesn't have a "thing" you can use a camera to take a picture of. Those who are not targeted by the spell don't see anything at all. They do not see a "thing" that is different than what the target (who has the illusion in his mind) sees; they don't see anything. Because, to them, there's nothing there.That might be why I pressed burger, not believing him when he affirmed that 'this is exactly what a phantasm is.'

Segev

2017-04-13, 06:23 PM

I'd like you to do a little exercise with me. Take the little simulation of the world you've got an place it to the side. Now, picture a space where we don't really simulate all those senses, but just sort of fake it in a "close enough" way. Like, imagine that you're writing a book and a character walks into the room and you just say that there's a mirror there. You can't really tell if this mirror has got scratches in the glass, and there's no 3d model showing exactly where it is in the room. None of those things exist until you write them down. "They walk up close to the mirror and see that it's made out of gold, but they know that the only gold in this place is their own staff. The illusionary mirror becomes faint to them." None of these details existed before they were written.

Ok, enough of that. I think that for the developers the starting point was something like that, and then game design efforts shifted the focus around. It might not have started like that in this edition, and historically we know quite a bit about what kind of game design elements came into play at what time, but basically no games with improvisational elements ever began with the kind of rules lawyer nitpicking that we think about almost constantly.

I think that anything that is not physical interaction must necessarily be possible for someone to catch with perception instead of investigation, because chance and local environment can always produce situations similar to what you would intentionally cause during investigation.

If those situations are universally present in a fairly standard room or open field with any lighting from dim to bright, then we have started to talk about the game in a way that I don't think anybody actually does, and would only do out of spite or near-idiocy. It is possible that the rules as written are actually that bad, but if that is the case then everyone is ignoring them anyway.That, though, is an example of terrible writing and worse DMing. It's exactly the kind of approach that leads to a loving description of the room, and then lets the players walk in and informs them that the 30 ft. dragon that the DM never described until now attacks them.

If your position rests on the notion that the world is so surreally unreal that this kind of thing is expected to work for the reasons suggested by your post, I have to reject your notion of this game entirely. If your notion of this game, as presented here, is what was intended, then the designers did a terrible job describing it as such, because this approaches levels of absurdism I expect more from Toon than D&D.

As with most absolute statements, I did open myself up to the trivial counterexample, so I'll grant you that regarding Perception "never" applying.

I did think of a better way to frame a rule for it, though: I think the flaws need to be something to do with the inherent - printed - limitations of the spell. Not to do with limitations invented by adding text to justify a preconception of what it can't do.

Unless "ignore obstacles" is so broad that it means you can touch light fixtures at the top of a 40ft tall room, then I don't think you can argue that about the Fly spell. Likewise that argument makes no sense in terms of fall damage when concentration is broken.Sure. Distance up is just an obstacle. It's just a game construct. The spell doesn't really allow you to fly. Just to do things as if you could.

You seem to operate in a space where the eye is a literal camera, without the brain fabricating any of the details of what you are seeing, and rather than simply having some possible explanation for what actually happens when skill checks are rolled, you seem to need all explanations laid out before dice are ever rolled.Oh, I'm fine with post-hoc justification of what dice rolls mean. I don't really see where you're getting this from.

What I'm saying is that the object's image needs to look like the object. Not like a stage prop pretending to be the object. Not like a painting of the object. Not like some sort of magic eye illusion of the object that only works if you squint at it upside-down on Tuesdays. Certainly not like a log with a piece of paper taped to it labeling it with the name of the object that somehow magically fools anybody who can't (or doesn't) make an Investigation check into believing it's what it claims to be.

It looks like the object. All these extra limitations on what it can't do, as an image, are just that: extra. They don't appear in the spell. They are not implied by the spell. They exist only because of preconceived notions that are not evidenced in the rules as to what illusions "obviously" can't do.

I'm just going to note how strange it is for you to accuse me of "still ignoring" a position in this argument which you have only just introduced in the same post. I would much prefer that you just delete a paragraph when you feel that you have answered it elsewhere (with the actual question mark punctuation overriding this somewhat. It might be best to transpose those questions back up before the text that answers them.)That's fair. My apologies.

Correction, the mind's eye paintbrush is unsupported by RAW, which is an admission that I made in the exact text you quoted. Also, that's not what the term begging the question means. Ex: "Were you breaking the rules when you painted that fog with minor illusion?" This sentence begs the question "did you paint fog with minor illusion?" Begging the question is a way of smuggling in a question with an implied answer.It doesn't beg the question, but I see how you're parsing it. What I meant was: if illusions are just painting with your mind's eye, then the limitation against creating a phenomenon, like fog, makes no sense. This limitation is nonsensical because there's nothing about fog-as-painted-with-the-mind's-eye that is a different visualization or magical process than a-ball-that-is-painted-with-the-mind's-eye.

Clearly, there is a significant distinction between "object" and "phenomenon," which means that the mind's eye explanation is flawed.

If you give me an infinitely large space (or infinitely fine resolution,) then I could do that with little dots on metal sticks, irl. It would be rather a lot like 3d picross, except that I would have to construct the puzzle with 360 configurations that all need to overlap.

360 overlapping configurations would be incredibly tedious to work out, but if we ignore complexity as an issue (which was one of my stipulations,) it is totally doable.

Yeah, one object. This illusion is of an art display.

You can object to it on the basis of this kind of art being anachronistic, or the aforementioned complexity trouble, but mechanically it's well within RAW.Okay, but your art display is an art display, not convincing images of the object(s) it's an art display...displaying.

You are still forgetting that I already acknowledged the complexity issues.Very well. Though I think it less complexity and more character knowledge. Regardless, if I'm to accept the premise without question, we're not really debating the spell anymore, but rather a spell defined by your premises. May as well say, "If we just accept Segev's preferred model..." as if that were useful to ensure we don't counter the model in any way.

Is indirectly planting an image in the minds of creatures an option?Only in the same way that showing somebody a real ball implants in their mind the image of a ball. But I believe you know this is splitting hairs in an unhelpful fashion.

This is exactly what I was talking about. Burger's claim about illusions not being in the minds of creatures has never included the term "minor illusion." He has stated that "illusions are not in the minds of creatures."

It's quite silly that it takes this much effort to clear up such a minor point.

That might be why I pressed burger, not believing him when he affirmed that 'this is exactly what a phantasm is.'
Okay.

ThePolarBear

2017-04-13, 09:15 PM

Nothing funny to see here.

Sorry for the late answer. I've also still not caught up with the rest of the posts.

What I'm not getting is how you ever get from point A to point B. If you're in a world where maybe some shadowless shapechanger might have turned into a barrel, or it might be an illusion, and you wave your torch around and confirm that there's no shadow, then aren't you still stuck with "maybe it's an illusion, or maybe it's a shape changer"? Maybe "I feel like it's an illusion," happens sometimes and not others, but what's that got to do with knowing it's an illusion?

I suspect that what you really mean here is something along the lines of "the DM decides if you pick up some more specific details that you can know in this world, even if we don't describe what they are," but that's really different from what you've actually written, and as per above a suspicion doesn't get me to knowledge.... so, is that what you mean?

Since "i'm not going to try to rationalize things that are clearly not into my (or anyone's) knowledge" was part of the first post i made in this thread, i was giving that answer as a basis for everything else. The answer was always that, and i read it into "how mechanically are you going to handle it".

I'm not going to try and create excuses on "you noticed that...and as such you realized that was an illusion because of that.". There's no way i can give a logical answer. You roll (or it is decided that's an automatic failure/success by the DM) Investigation. If you succeed, you realize the nature of what you are "looking" at.

On "how can you not see that the item has no shadows" i already replied. In the case that was discussed, for me it's automatic. And it's just a possible clue that let's someone roll for investigation, and there i apply my "no wasted actions" policy.

DMG has got some description of objects as 'inanimate discrete things' so I think the pile of logs is in, but as best as I can tell the minor illusion cantrip is trying to limit you to the kind of things that you could carry, even if you had to be a giant to lift it- so boulders yes, puffs of smoke no.

For me, a mirror in the distance that has a rather static image on it, and seems to jitter when you move around, would probably be convincing enough for anyone that's not taking a moment to study what they see in the reflection, and this seems like the kind of thing that's RAI. Actually using an illusory mirror as a tool for seeing things, doesn't fit any model of illusion magic that I actually wish to implement. If you can conjure up a flat image that actually has the kind of depth that you get with a mirror then to me you ought to be able to conjure up a mirror showing that same space from the same angle at an entirely different position, and if we take the frame off of that and instead slap a doorway around it then there's a paper thin line left between being able to create phantom pits and holes through walls.

Pretty much what i would do. Again, within the limits of all the different spells.

Not quite. "The illusion also ends if you dismiss it as an action or cast this spell again."

True. Derp.

The way quotes work here makes this messy, but if I'm recalling the wording correctly, you seem to be declaring that illusions are real.

Yes. Not Objects or creatures or environmental effects, not real in that sense. Real magical effects. Existing. Measurable. Interactable even if not in ways that someone, looking at them, would think of initially. I'm not meaning that the "impossible" onject that is possibly nothing is actually real.
BUT, if it isn't real, if it "can't" exist, it's not an object for me. And you can't create illusions of "non"objects.

If the case of the minor illusion crayon wall your only sense that can experience it is sight, and sort of touch if you count not experiencing it in the apparent location as being among what your senses are telling you.

It's possible that we're falling into one of the many pitfalls of talking about what's possible that I warned you about, but without some clarification of what we're even talking about anymore I think that this particular line of questions is turning into weird semantics without any real substance.

Well, for once it wasn't stated as "Minor Illusion" iirc.

Then, if it's not a "possible" object, something that CAN exist in any way shape or form or created anywhere, then for me it's not an object. And you can't create an illusion of it.

If it's possible, then the fact that it's strange is not an indication that's an illusion. No matter how "credible" it is. An unmelting ice cream inside the plane of fire is "impossible". Yet there it might be. No matter how strange or out of place it is, the knowledge of a character is limited to his experiences. It might not believe it, and roll (again, caveats on autofail/success) accordingly. If there's not an "attempt" at realizing what the object-illusion is or to interact in some way/shape/form and the illusion is not broken otherwise, the illusion will hold. Any strange/presumed impossible behaviour is just a way for the character to realize that there's something fishy going on.

While I'm alright with that reasoning more broadly, I don't think that these kinds of metaphysical questions even have answers when the DM "says so." It seems like if we start with "you don't know that it's not a real thing made by magic you don't know about," then it's cheating to flip over to "you know that it's a real thing made by magic." The foundations of logic don't really seem like good play-space for the DM to have to make rulings in.

So... does it screw up your position if I move the DM fiat back to the front, where the DM says if you know (or rather that at least some people in the world know,) that this is or isn't something magic can do, before we get to the question of "how do you know that"?

No, because character knowledge is still something that's DM fiat. And again, unless DM says so, a character is not omniscient. So he can still be wrong.
Then again, cast detect magic, school illusion, something is up?

And still, how does character knowledge matter? It matters only if it's something that can or cannot have been done. If it's something that cannot have been done, then there's a problem: I could not do an illusion of that thing since it cannot exist. Yet it exists. So it must exist, somewhere, and i can make illusions out of it?

Simple logic that's based on rules, and not on "how does a spell works" in a way that i cannot begin to fathom, because illusions do not exists in this world (for all i know).

In short, if it's an illusion it's an illusion of SOMETHING. That something has to be a possible existance, otherwise the illusion wouldn't have the possibility to exist in the first place as the spell requires some parameters to work with.

This also ends up as an answer to how i see your "platonic" interpretation, i guess.

BurgerBeast

2017-04-13, 09:18 PM

[edit: since writing this post I've realized that I have been using the word "functional" where I should be using the word "interactive." It is my opinion that an illusion created by the spell minor illusion cannot be interactive (I think this is the distinction made in saying it must be an object), and that one can only create an illusion that behaves like a real mirror if the illusion is interactive.]

The sidebar you quote actually suggests that minor illusion does NOT exist solely in the mind of the viewer.

It names two states for illusions:

1) Some illusions create images anybody can see
2) The most insidious illusions create images only in the mind of the observer

While technically, you can read that denotation to say that any illusion can exist solely in the mind of however many observers it has, if you read it in standard conversational English, it says that an illusion that anybody can see does not exist solely in the mind of the observer. It's an actual illusory image, out there, visible (or audible or whatever sense it's fooling) to everybody.

I'm not sure if this is addressed at me, but, if it is... yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. I agree with you, here.

Further, I think, BurgerBeast, you're making a gross error when you rely on the ability of a human mind to maintain the illusion's every detail in real time. These are not psionic powers, and they are not efforts of pure will. Minor illusion doesn't even require Concentration to maintain. Neither does the permanent duration version of major image.

You're misunderstanding me. I am saying that all of the information that goes into the illusion must be put there at the moment of casting, which is why it can't be maintained in real time. which is why you can't make an illusion of a mirror.

These are magically created illusions. The most correct thing anybody has agreed on, I think, in this and other threads, is that spells do what they say they do. So we have to look at what the spell says it does, first. We're free to invent "how" it does that. But if the "how" we invent means it doesn't do what it says it does, we've come up with a "how" that isn't that spell's method. Less severely, if we come up with a "how" that invents new limitations that aren't listed in the spell description, we should question that "how." It is, after all, a house rule, since the spell doesn't say HOW it does it, only WHAT it does.

100% agree. The spell is instantaneous. The ability to change it over time would require that it was maintained over time. It is not. Therefore, all information that is required for the spell to work is supplied at the time of casting.

So far, "I don't think illusions can do more than be paintings and sculptures" is not supported by the spell text.

That's not what I'm saying. This thread about minor illusion. I am saying that minor illusion is not in the mind of the observer. I am saying the illusion is objectively there, in space, for any and all to see. I am using the metaphor that it is a painting or a sculpture to explain that I think it's there. Nothing more. I do not think it is literally a painting or a sculpture.

Heck, it still begs the question of how it reacts to environmental lighting and light sources: are all shadings "painted on" such that it looks equally bright in all lighting levels, and seems to be illuminated from the same direction no matter the source? A painting and a sculpture don't behave that way.

See above. I am undecided on the issue of how it reacts to shading and illumination, and I accept that this may vary from spell to spell.

It is because I take the spell literally when it says it creates an image of an object that I state that this illusory object looks in all ways like the object the spellcaster specified.

I also make this claim.

I reject arbitrary restrictons that limit what illusory objects can be created, and which make the spell create things that look "weird" just because somebody turned on or off the lights since it was cast.

I would typically reject this, too, were it not for Sage Advice that clarified it.

An illusory wall covering a hallway would light up as a torch passed it and grow dim and dark as the light recedes.

I don't know the answer to this, but this is adding more to the spell than what it says.

Its flaws would be in its pattern compared to the rest of the wall, the fact that breezes can be felt from it (if applicable), maybe in the lack of dust piled up in its corner with the floor where it is with the real walls; that kind of thing. Not in it behaving like something that isn't a wall, visually, when visual-only stimuli interact with it.

Maybe. This is all you, though. Not the spell text.

Nothing in the spell prohibits reflections, and a mirror bears reflections. Mirrors are objects; they can legally be created by the spell. A mage making a minor illusion of a mirror gets the image of the object, "a mirror," and it looks and acts to all visual inspection that involves no other physical contact (remote or personal) like a mirror.

I'm not rejecting that you can make a mirror. I'm rejecting that you can make a functional mirror because it requires function beyond that of the spell. There is no plausible way for the spell to change after it is cast, unless it is preprogrammed, and then it can't respond differently to different stimuli.

For example, imagine that this spell existed in a modern RPG. Would the wizard be able to make a television that showed a TV program? I would argue yes, so long as the television program ran it's course without responding.

If, however, someone picked up a T.V. remote and started trying to use it on the illusion of the T.V., I would argue that the T.V. could not respond by appearing to switch channels. If it could, then who would be providing the new images and new sound? Certainly not the caster if he is not actively concentrating on making changes to the illusion. And how would the illusion know which button was pressed on the remote?

So, again, I'm not rejecting that you can make an illusion of a T.V. - I'm rejecting that you can make an illusion of a functional T.V.

Strictly speaking that's not true. You can add forces and particles on top of real world physics without breaking anything.

I agree. I don't think this contradicts what I said in any way.

I didn't say they project light. "Fake-light" basically refers to whatever it is that happens when you "see" an illusion.

I don't believe this is a necessary view. It goes to explanations that are not required. And I'm not sure what you mean. But the illusion exists in a 5'x5' space. It can't "extend" or "reach" beyond that.

Well it already does that. If you make an illusion of a sword then at 1 degree you've got the sword as viewed from 1 degree, at 2 degrees you've got the sword as viewed from 2 degrees, at 3 degrees you've got the sword as viewed from 3 degrees, etc.

No, that's not what I mean. If you think of the illusion as objectively "there," like a sculpture, then it's objectively there. I understand what you are saying completely, but it's not what I mean, and I don't think the spell is intended to work that way. Otherwise, as I said, you would be able to create the illusion of more than one "object." I think your example of the sword at 360 angles in still one "object," while 360 different statues are 360 different "objects."

As for things being different from different angles, you've probably seen some modern art that does that. Doing it on a broader scale when you top out at demigod levels of skill seems within reason. If it's sculpture then it can absolutely do that (though I've no idea what the reaction should be like at intermediate angles.)

Doing this purely with "fake-light" allows for an unreasonably vast array of options, but we were ignoring complexity as an issue so of course overly complex results are going to happen in this hypothetical scenario.

I fully understand what you're saying , but I wouldn't have any time for it at my table. Pick an object. Done. Next.

I think it's a mistake to call that someone's left hand, even though the metric that we usually use for this seems to fall apart when we face mirror surfaces at eye level.

It really doesn't. Insofar as we're calling the image of a person a person, he has a right and left hand. You're correct though to notice that it's an inverted image of the real person's right hand. I'm not about to point out that it's not actually a hand, though. We need to call it something.

Pedantic gripes aside, I'm happy to say that it's too complex/requires too perfect prediction, for an illusionist to reliably have their illusory mirror hold up when somebody goes checking the reflection against their own spontaneous movements. What I will not say, is that this is necessarily RAW.

It just goes way beyond the reasonable capability of a spell that is cast instantaneously. How can it change 30 seconds after it is cast, in response to its environment, from multiple angles?

This phrase has been rather central to the argument. I don't think that a lot of the people involved here see it as a problem if you can discover rather quickly that something is an illusion. I don't personally desire to weave universal flaws into illusion magic that always give it away in the same way, but there seem to be a fair number of people that don't think that is a problem.

But the reason it is obviously an illusion, in this case, is because it fails to function as a mirror.

"Illusions are not in the minds of creatures."
"illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature."

I do not find this to be out of context, though I understand how my presentation could easily be taken too far.

So: "the most insidious illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature."
This still refutes your claim that illusions are not in the minds of creatures. Please take back the statement or adjust it to have a more limited scope.

If I have a more limited scope? We're talking about one spell: minor illusion, since that is what the thread is about. So I did not limit the scope. Minor illusion is not in the mind of the observer. It is objectively there. This has been my stance all along.

If you still think that I'm doing something strange to the context, then you are going to have to explicitly state what the context is and why that does not agree with my usage.

I have to explicitly state that I am talking about the spell Minor Illusion in a thread that is titled: Re: Help me understand this Minor Illusion "Inviisibility" trick!?

No, I do not.

This looks like motivated reasoning. The line of text we've got is clearly leading us through several options, but there's nothing there to indicate that they have set phantom image and phantasm as the binary which necessarily describes all illusion spells. Where in the word did you read that context into the passage?

I didn't. I don't know what you're talking about.

Ok, imagine that I create a *thing*. If you take a picture of this thing, like with a camera, then you can see that there is a small gray cube with a red dot on one face. If you look with your eyes, you don't see that small gray cube, you see a banana. Pretty much any way you measure or otherwise observe this thing you get "gray cube with red dot," except when you look at it with your eyes.

Ok, got a decent grasp of that idea? (The "what happens" way more than "why it works that way.")

No. I don't know what you're talking about, here, at all. Why would I see a banana if it is a grey cube with a red dot?

So a few posts back I described this kind of idea. You said "yeah, that's exactly what a phantasm is."

No, I did not.

I said a phantasm is an illusion that appears in the mind of a person.

I said I didn't know what you were talking about when you brought up the banana thing.

Although I think I might be starting to understand your point, here. A phantasm, would not necessarily behave in the same way that an illusion that is "there" [edit: behaves. It would usually be a haunting feeling or image that pursues and stalks the PC. There might not even be the suspicion that it is visible to others, but it wouldn't matter because it would be so haunting that it wouldn't matter.]

We already established that you only mean the "in a creature's mind" detail, so I'm just walking through this to try and clarify what already happened.

I'm totally lost, here. Sorry.

@Segev: Note that my position does not discount the idea that mirrors [edit: illusions] can interact with mirrors entirely. For example, it doesn't discount the idea that you can see an illusion by looking at it's reflection in a mirror. What it discounts is that an illusion itself can function as a mirror.

Vogonjeltz

2017-04-14, 07:47 AM

This sounds an awful lot like, "Darn, this argument is too sound for me to refute. Better pretend it doesn't say anything at all."

I was referencing his first line "No. It's pointless to explain. It's magic!" Although, to be fair, it pretty well described the rest of the argumentation that had no chain of logic to it.

You can make an image of a mirror. No one is disputing that. But the reflective properties of the mirror aren't there.

Would you argue that you can make an illusion of photochromic lenses and they would change color when exposed to sunlight, and become clear again in the dark?

But..but..but...but then people would realize they weren't real photochromic lenses!!! Why won't someone think of the children!?

What is your justification for calling light a "thing"?

The fact that it exists, interacts with other objects, has mass, and is subject to other forces such as gravity. All things that Minor Illusion doesn't have or can't produce. You know, because it's not real. It's an Illusion, there's nothing actually there.

Yes, but did you define a thing sufficiently?

You seem to want to slap me with moving the goal post and some faulty analogies.

e=MC2 also disagrees with the peasant cannon, but we don't have enough simulationist rules for everyone to agree on exactly when and how that falls apart.

Peasant Cannon requires combat to be possible between two characters who aren't within sight range, which is a rules violation, ergo that's where it falls apart.

Segev

2017-04-14, 11:09 AM

I'm not sure if this is addressed at me, but, if it is... yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. I agree with you, here.Okay. So at least you and I agree that minor illusion (and silent image, major image, programmed illusion, etc.) are in the "it's actually a spell effect that exists in space that people can see" category. There really is "something" there, even if it's just a visual illusion. (I restate this for completeness; please don't feel obligated to reply to this part unless it either helps you make a point or I've misstated your position and you need to correct me.)

You're misunderstanding me. I am saying that all of the information that goes into the illusion must be put there at the moment of casting, which is why it can't be maintained in real time. which is why you can't make an illusion of a mirror.

The spell is instantaneous. The ability to change it over time would require that it was maintained over time. It is not. Therefore, all information that is required for the spell to work is supplied at the time of casting.I've kind-of lumped these together, and underlined the parts I agree with, and bolded the parts where I think you're making a fundamentally flawed logical leap.

The argument, as you seem to be presenting it, is:

1) The illusion must have all the information supplied at the moment it's cast.
2)
3) It cannot have a reflection because the information about what is reflected in it wasn't put there; this isn't programmed illusion.

Note that I left (2) blank. This is because you have an implicit point you're assuming but not supporting, and it is this point that I'm disputing.

That point, properly identified, is: Reflections (and, if I take the part later where you say I'm adding things to the spell, shading and brightness due to illumination) are things that require the illusion to "update" to alter them. In other words, you have an implicit assumption that the illusion is a statically-painted matte picture of the object, that has 3D effects to let you see it at different angles, but with all shading, illumination, shine, etc. painted on as a fixed thing.

Without that point, (3) does not follow from (1).

Because I agree with you on point (1). However, I am looking at the spell, where it says it creates an image of an object.

It doesn't require "updating" for a white sphere standing in the middle of a room illuminated by a large skylight through which the sun shines to appear to have the shading that allows us to perceive it as 3D (which it is) move as the angle of the sunlight shifts.
It doesn't require "updating" the sphere to have it have a shadow creep up its side as the sun sets behind the western wall of this room, nor to have an outline of the window in the western wall plastered on it as the sun shines through that, until it grows dimmer and grayer as the sun finally sets beyond the horizon.
It doesn't require "updating" the sphere to have it be bluish in the moonlight, nor to have the moon's illumination as the moon moves across the sky change the shading on the sphere.
When clouds cover the night sky and plunge the room into darkness, it doesn't take "updating" the sphere to have it fade to gray and then black as the rest of the room does.
The dwarf and elf observing the sphere don't require it to be "updating" itself to see it in black-and-white, per Darkvision.
It doesn't require "updating" the sphere to have it appear briefly, in stark relief, when lighting flashes and the sphere is temporarily illuminated.
It doesn't require "updating" the sphere when Suzy, the dwarf and elf's adopted human daughter, afraid of the storm, lights a candle, and the candle paints the sphere in one small circle with a yellow-orange light, causing it to appear less white and more yellowish.
It doesn't require "updating" the sphere when Suzy's elven dad uses colored dancing lights to entertain her, and they cause the sphere to have different colors dance across its surface.

None of those things require "updating" the very real sphere that is in that strangely placed room. The sphere's information hasn't changed. It's a white sphere. Different lighting conditions cause it to be shaded differently, cause different shadows to fall across it, and even cause it to appear different colors as the light itself contains only certain colors with which to illuminate it.

An image of that object - that sphere - would likewise not be "updating" under any of those conditions. Everything stated in that list would be true of the image of that sphere, because that image does have its every aspect encoded at the moment of casting.

Make that sphere, instead of opaque and white, clear glass, and the very real sphere would let you see distorted images through it. Does that require updating? If you make an illusory image of a glass windowpane in an otherwise-unblocked window, can you look through that illusory glass and see what's on the other side? Or would that require "updating" the illusion?

Make that very real sphere out of pure silver, and it will bear real but distorted reflections. This, too, does not require "updating." It's just the property of the sphere's appearance. Like having the sun passing overhead and through the western window changes the illumination and patterns of shadows and shading on the white sphere, things moving around the silver sphere change the patterns of reflections on it. The sphere isn't changing. Just the lighting and the way things around it interact with the lighting.

The illusions we're discussing, these images of objects, are images of objects, not paintings of objects rendered in 3D. They don't need to "update" or "change" to bear reflections. The objects would bear reflections as part of their visual appearance, and the property of reflection is no different than the property of shading or showing up as the color of light that falls upon it or fading to black-and-white as light fades under darkvision.

That's not what I'm saying. This thread about minor illusion. I am saying that minor illusion is not in the mind of the observer. I am saying the illusion is objectively there, in space, for any and all to see. I am using the metaphor that it is a painting or a sculpture to explain that I think it's there. Nothing more. I do not think it is literally a painting or a sculpture.Okay. The trouble is, you're implicitly treating it like a 3D matte painting that can only have a fixed faux shading or shine to it. Or, perhaps, you're drawing an extremely arbitrary distinction between shading and illumination and reflections, suggesting that it's still a matte 3D painting with painted-on "reflections" but that the rest of the shading and illumination is allowable, which makes even less sense to me since that's inconsistent.

I also make this claim.Yes, but you fail to back it up. The claim that it makes an image of an object requires that it...make an image of the object. Adding arbitrary restrictions that amount to imagining it as a matte 3D painting with faux reflections (and with real or faux shading - to be consistent with the faux reflections, it should be faux shading and even faux illumination levels that do NOT change no matter how dark or bright the environmental lighting is) is not taking the spell at its words.

I would typically reject this, too, were it not for Sage Advice that clarified it.It's not a clarification, it's a change to the rules. I will agree they said it, but I have limited respect for it. It starts to become Vogonjeltz's preferred means of having arbitrary lists of what it can and cannot do, which we must go back and consult Sage Advice for every detail. Frankly, I don't think they thought about their answer very much.

I don't know the answer to this, but this is adding more to the spell than what it says.No, it isn't.

The spell says it makes an image of an object. Okay. That object is "a wall." If it were a real wall, walking by it with a torch would have the torch light illuminate the wall in a particular way. Since my illusion is an image of such a wall, barring something in the spell saying otherwise, that image should be illuminated by that torch in that same particular way as somebody walks by with it.

I am adding nothing to the text. I am extrapolating, yes, but that extrapolation is NECESSARY for the spell's statement that it creates an image of an object, combined with the spell's LACK of language indicating that it doesn't behave like that object in these visual fashions. Note: the spell explicitly states that it can't create light, so that is one way in which an image of an object created by the spell doesn't behave like the object. It's called out because if it weren't, the spell could create light.

The spell says it makes an image of an object. It is not "adding something" to the spell to say that the image...looks like the object. Nothing in the spell says "only under certain conditions" or "only under the lighting conditions in which you create it" or anything of the sort.

Maybe. This is all you, though. Not the spell text.Eh, this is me trying to come up with examples of what sorts of flaws might be detected by Investigation. So no, it's not spell text; it's me trying to come up with examples. I didn't do a great job.

I'm not rejecting that you can make a mirror. I'm rejecting that you can make a functional interactive mirror because it requires function beyond that of the spell.Fixed the term for you as you indicated in the part I edited out at the beginning of your post, as I wish to respond to that term.

Mirrors don't interact with stuff reflected in them. They're just there. That's just how they look, under specific lighting conditions with specific arrangements of items in their environment. Just like a blank white wall illuminated by a projector looks like it has a picture on it, possibly a moving one. That wall is not interacting with the projector. It's just being illuminated in a particular way. Neither is the blank white wall interacting with anything when somebody lights a fire 20 feet from it and somebody else starts making shadow-puppets on the wall.

This is the fundamental point of disagreement: You claim reflections are interaction. I claim they are not. While I do see why you make that claim without thinking too hard about it, I do not see how you can seriously examine it and retain belief in it. The only way to claim it's "interaction" is to ascribe motive power to the mirror, or to claim that simply existing in line of sight of something is "interaction." I reject that definition; interaction requires some measure of action, not merely being acted upon. And when you get to "casting shadows on something," you're almost to the point of mocking the definition of "being acted upon." It's technically true, but it's about the least acted-upon something can get while still being within line of sight.

There is no plausible way for the spell to change after it is cast, unless it is preprogrammed, and then it can't respond differently to different stimuli.You'll note that I agree with this, but that the disagreement lies, as I state above, in the definition of "change." I dispute the notion that a white wall is changing when lights are turned on or turned off, when somebody uses a flashlight on it, when somebody makes shadow puppets in that flashlight, or when somebody uses a projector to give a slide show on it. For exactly the same reason, I dispute that a mirror is changing when the lights are turned on or off in the bathroom, or when somebody walks past it, or when somebody uses it to comb their hair and check to see if they missed a spot shaving.

For example, imagine that this spell existed in a modern RPG. Would the wizard be able to make a television that showed a TV program? I would argue yes, so long as the television program ran it's course without responding.I would actually say "no," because of complexity issues. That's getting into programmed illusion territory. The most I'd allow would be something like an hour glass emptying or a clock ticking around its hands and swinging its pendulum.

TVs actually require interaction to show their programs; they receive constant input to update their CRT targeting or their LCD/LED illumination patterns.

I'd allow an illusion of a plain white wall to serve as a projection screen for a projector, though, and you could play a movie through that projector if you liked. That requires no interaction from the illusory wall.

So, again, I'm not rejecting that you can make an illusion of a T.V. - I'm rejecting that you can make an illusion of a functional T.V.I'll agree with this. you could make an illusion of a TV that was turned off (which couldn't be turned on; trying to use a button on the TV itself would even reveal the illusion's falsehood via the poke test). You might even be able to make an illusion of a TV that's got a picture on it...but since it can't make light, the picture would be pretty obviously fake.

That TV's glass front, however, would bear reflections just fine, just like any real TV's glass front would. Not great ones, but you'd see hints of the light source from the right angle, and you could, if you really looked, see (possibly distorted, especially on a CRT) images of yourself peering into it. Because that's just how glass looks when it's got darkness behind it.

@Segev: Note that my position does not discount the idea that mirrors [edit: illusions] can interact with mirrors entirely. For example, it doesn't discount the idea that you can see an illusion by looking at it's reflection in a mirror. What it discounts is that an illusion itself can function as a mirror.Sure. I never thought it did. Though I could make argument that a consistent treatment of some of the models I've seen would require that the illusion fail to appear in real mirrors, by virtue of the real mirror being outside the AoE.

Personally, I think the image of the object can have effects that extend out of the AoE, if for no other reason than it can be SEEN by anybody in line of sight. Thus, of course it can be seen in mirrors.

I also think that, since it's an image of the object, and not a matte painting (3D though it may be) of the object, it actually looks like the object.

Finally, the fundamental disagreement seems to be that you believe looking different under different lighting conditions is "interaction." That it requires the illusory object to change to show a reflection that's changing. Taken to its logical conclusion, the illusory object must have a constant illumination level, independent of the environment, with fixed shading that can't change based on the light sources present, etc. etc. This means, amongst other things, that an illusion of a brightly lit object would appear brightly lit and totally visible even in a pitch dark room, even to somebody without Darkvision.

Add in that it requires adding stipulations to differentiate it from the object of which it's an image - specifying unchanging illumination and inability to appear differently no matter how light, shadow, or anything else changes around it - and I find this to be the version that adds text to the spell AND makes the spell less than useful.

On the other hand, it means that one could use silent images to create an illusion of a brightly lit room when it's actually pitch dark.......

BurgerBeast

2017-04-14, 12:25 PM

That point, properly identified, is: Reflections (and, if I take the part later where you say I'm adding things to the spell, shading and brightness due to illumination) are things that require the illusion to "update" to alter them. In other words, you have an implicit assumption that the illusion is a statically-painted matte picture of the object, that has 3D effects to let you see it at different angles, but with all shading, illumination, shine, etc. painted on as a fixed thing.

Without that point, (3) does not follow from (1).

Yes. This is my point.

(list of examples that don't require updating, in your view)

None of those things require "updating" the very real sphere that is in that strangely placed room. The sphere's information hasn't changed. It's a white sphere. Different lighting conditions cause it to be shaded differently, cause different shadows to fall across it, and even cause it to appear different colors as the light itself contains only certain colors with which to illuminate it.

In my view all of those things require updating. But this doesn't strike me as a big problem, for two reasons:

1. Given the duration of minor illusion, whatever lighting effects are added at the time of "painting" are not likely to change significantly unless the illusion is interacted with (bad grammar, sorry)
2. To my mind, the amount of attention required by a character to notice these details is sufficient for me, as DM, to require that the character spends a round making the determining that what he is seeing is an illusion

As a separate point I'd like to point out that my restrictions do not require the image to be matte. It is possible to use colour to "paint something that appears shiny, glinting, or to have a sheen.

I think this more or less covers it. I've elaborated in a few spots below where I think it would be helpful.

Make that sphere, instead of opaque and white, clear glass, and the very real sphere would let you see distorted images through it. Does that require updating? If you make an illusory image of a glass windowpane in an otherwise-unblocked window, can you look through that illusory glass and see what's on the other side? Or would that require "updating" the illusion?

In my view, there are two ways to create an illusion of a window:

1. Fill in the window pane with the details that are seen. So you'd have to paint a fixed picture of a scene, and add sheen marks to give the appearance of glass.
2. Do not paint the window pane at all. Just paint sheen marks in space where you wish for the window to appear. So, all the observer is actually seeing is sheen marks in mid air, but can still see the real world behind them because there's no illusion to block his view.

The illusions we're discussing, these images of objects, are images of objects, not paintings of objects rendered in 3D. They don't need to "update" or "change" to bear reflections. The objects would bear reflections as part of their visual appearance, and the property of reflection is no different than the property of shading or showing up as the color of light that falls upon it or fading to black-and-white as light fades under darkvision.

I'm not sure how to deal with perceptual differences, but that's a whole different can of worms. If a wizard makes an illusion of a red ball, does a colour-blind dog see it as red? Or a blue green colour-blind person can distinguish between illusory blue and green? I'm not really interested in going there.

Okay. The trouble is, you're implicitly treating it like a 3D matte painting that can only have a fixed faux shading or shine to it.

This isn't a problem for me. I hope this makes sense. I think I've said enough to clarify my view. I'm happy to come back to anything I've missed.

But it's not implicit, it's arrived at through reasoning. In the interest of making my thinking transparent, this is a part of the framework of my thinking:

1. Regardless of what illusion a wizard creates, the illusion itself is not aware of what it is.
2. Therefore, if a wizard creates an illusion of a ball, the ball doesn't know if it is matte, glossy, metallic, reflective, etc.
3. Since each of these options requires a different behaviour set in response to lighting, how can the wizard create each of the four distinctive effects with the same spell?
4. This seems to mean that there must be a set of default "programs" he can choose from, as a computer programmer would choose for the object - the problem is that then the illusion has to take on the ability to respond to other things (lighting effects, for example)
5. So it seems to me that the default has to be that every illusion reacts to light in exactly the same way.

To bring in another example: could you create an illusion that looks like a box, but when you shine light on it, it looks like a ball?

My answer is no. This requires the illusion to change from one image to another.

This isn't different, in my view, from changing from a grey or black ball to a white ball when light is shone on it. The illusion doesn't know what images it is switching between. In both cases it is just an illusion that is programmed to change in response to light.

I see no reason why the illusion can ever change.

[edit: I should add that, on the face of it, I also conceive of illusions as being able to grow bright or dim as the room does... but I can't reconcile this logically. This is why I think it is unhelpful to try to think of light and darkness in a modern way. Although I haven't encountered it yet, there may be ways to explain light and darkness that allow for this functionality]

Segev

2017-04-14, 02:16 PM

In my view all of those things require updating. But this doesn't strike me as a big problem, for two reasons:

1. Given the duration of minor illusion, whatever lighting effects are added at the time of "painting" are not likely to change significantly unless the illusion is interacted with (bad grammar, sorry)
2. To my mind, the amount of attention required by a character to notice these details is sufficient for me, as DM, to require that the character spends a round making the determining that what he is seeing is an illusionStill poses a problem, because major image can be permanent, and has the same language regarding the visual aspects of the illusion.

Regardless, the duration shouldn't be a determining factor of whether something is "allowed." The fact remains that, under your interpretation, an illusory barrel is easily detected by anybody walking past it with a torch. Heaven forbid they use a stronger light source.

For consistency, by the by, you still wind up having to make this thing at a specified illumination level, allowing you to make a "brightly lit" barrel that, when the lights go out, remains 100% visible and brightly lit. Albeit with artificial shading painted on, since it can't have real shading.

As a separate point I'd like to point out that my restrictions do not require the image to be matte. It is possible to use colour to "paint something that appears shiny, glinting, or to have a sheen."Matte" doesn't mean it can't be painted to look like it's glossy. It means that it can't really BE glossy. A super-high-quality picture of a highly-polished glass sculpture is still matte, even if it has the illusion of being shiny.

Since nothing in minor illusion requires it to be matte, requiring that it can only have "artificial" shine and (by extension) artificial shading is adding restrictive text to the spell.

In my view, there are two ways to create an illusion of a window:

1. Fill in the window pane with the details that are seen. So you'd have to paint a fixed picture of a scene, and add sheen marks to give the appearance of glass.
2. Do not paint the window pane at all. Just paint sheen marks in space where you wish for the window to appear. So, all the observer is actually seeing is sheen marks in mid air, but can still see the real world behind them because there's no illusion to block his view.Since "sheen marks in mid air" are phenomena, not objects, you're essentially saying that minor illusion can't make illusions of windows, despite the windows being objects.

Sure, you can fall back to point 1, but then you're still not making windows. You're making paintings that kind-of look like windows. These are two distinct objects, and you STILL are saying that, despite the text not supporting it, you cannot make an image of the object "window."

I'm not sure how to deal with perceptual differences, but that's a whole different can of worms. If a wizard makes an illusion of a red ball, does a colour-blind dog see it as red? Or a blue green colour-blind person can distinguish between illusory blue and green? I'm not really interested in going there.You should be. Your definition requires that the answers to these be "yes." Because otherwise these illusions are "reacting" to the observer to change colors for individual observers!

In the interest of making my thinking transparent, this is a part of the framework of my thinking:

1. Regardless of what illusion a wizard creates, the illusion itself is not aware of what it is.Accurate. I would point out that this is true if the wizard casts creation, as well. It is also true of the sword that that blacksmith made. None of these things are aware of what they are. They are not aware at all.

2. Therefore, if a wizard creates an illusion of a ball, the ball doesn't know if it is matte, glossy, metallic, reflective, etc.Sure. Neither does a real ball know if it is matte, glossy, metallic, reflective, etc.

3. Since each of these options requires a different behaviour set in response to lighting, how can the wizard create each of the four distinctive effects with the same spell?He doesn't need to, any more than the blacksmith needed to create each of the four distinctive effects with the same sword. The sword is what it is. The image of the sword is also what it is: an image of the sword. It is not a 3D painting of a sword in mid-air. The spell doesn't say it does that, nor spell out limitations which would suggest that. The spell says it makes an image of an object. So that's what it does, and the image of the object behaves, visually, the way the object would. (With exceptions for things like not being tangible or necessarily affected by gravity.)

4. This seems to mean that there must be a set of default "programs" he can choose from, as a computer programmer would choose for the object - the problem is that then the illusion has to take on the ability to respond to other things (lighting effects, for example)If you were right in point 3, this would be true. But point 3 is in dispute. It requires CHANGING the spell text to reflect what YOU picture as "HOW" the spell is working, rather than defining your "HOW" to match WHAT the spell says happens. Thus, you are operating not just from an interpretation of the spell's RAW, but from house rules of it.

5. So it seems to me that the default has to be that every illusion reacts to light in exactly the same way.Technically, this is true, in the sense that every object reacts to light in exactly the same way. But I don't think I'm taking form this conclusive line what you mean me to, and while I think I know what you do mean, it is dealt with by the refutation of line 3.

To bring in another example: could you create an illusion that looks like a box, but when you shine light on it, it looks like a ball?Of course not. Nothing in my model would suggest that.

When you create an illusion that looks like a white ball in a brightly lit room, then douse all the lights, does it still look like a brightly lit ball?

This isn't different, in my view, from changing from a grey or black ball to a white ball when light is shone on it. The illusion doesn't know what images it is switching between. In both cases it is just an illusion that is programmed to change in response to light.It doesn't need to. A real, physical white ball doesn't "know" what images, colors, shadings, or what-have-you that it's switching between, either. It's just a ball. The light shines on it as light shines on a ball. Or fails to, as light fails to when obstructed or its source is (re)moved.

I see no reason why the illusion can ever change.Nor do I. As I said before, the fundamental disagreement we're having is over what it means "to change." I am contending it maeks an image of an object. Which is what the spell says it does.

You overtly agree, then go on to redefine what the spell is doing to creating arbitrary colors painted into thin air at specific brightnesses and hues that stick there regardless of actual lighting conditions. You even describe making "a window" by not actually making the image of an object that is a window, but by painting the phenomenon of the glints and distortions in mid-air where you think they would be on a window. Which is actually outside the power of the spell. But there's no REASON why the spell would make that arbitrary distinction between one way of painting random streaks of color into the air and another where the streaks just happen to resemble an object to sufficient degree.

[edit: I should add that, on the face of it, I also conceive of illusions as being able to grow bright or dim as the room does... but I can't reconcile this logically. This is why I think it is unhelpful to try to think of light and darkness in a modern way. Although I haven't encountered it yet, there may be ways to explain light and darkness that allow for this functionality]
It doesn't take thinking of light and darkness in the modern way. It only takes thinking of it as the rules specify in the game, and as people instinctively understand it.

The fact that you can't reconcile it logically with your model should hint to you that the model you're using is not a proper one for what the spell says it does.

Again, and I know I'm beating a dead horse here, the spell creates an image of an object. Taken at face value, adding and subtracting nothing from the text, this means that there is a thing that looks like - and, visually, behaves in its environment like - the object. Please note that "behaves" doesn't really require any action on the image's part, any more than it would of a real object that it is an image of.

The moment you bring up "programmed changes," you're injecting your assumption and then using that assumption to say that the object I use as my model can't do it.

Yes, if I accept your premise of "painting with arbitrary colors of fixed brightness that look the same regardless of any lighting conditions in the air," you're right. But I reject that premise, and we've established that it leads to logical inconsistencies with what YOU picture, as well.

My model rejects the very notion that it takes multiple different illusory "looks" for that image of a white ball to look just the way a real white ball in the next room to the north does under the same lighting conditions. It doesn't have to "know" what it is, any more than the real white ball does. It just IS what it is: an image of the object - white ball. Whatever appearance the real white ball would have in this environment is what the image has in this environment.

Because that's what the spell says it does: it makes an image of an object. (It doesn't say it paints colors in the air.)

Zorku

2017-04-14, 03:18 PM

That, though, is an example of terrible writing and worse DMing. It's exactly the kind of approach that leads to a loving description of the room, and then lets the players walk in and informs them that the 30 ft. dragon that the DM never described until now attacks them.

If your position rests on the notion that the world is so surreally unreal that this kind of thing is expected to work for the reasons suggested by your post, I have to reject your notion of this game entirely. If your notion of this game, as presented here, is what was intended, then the designers did a terrible job describing it as such, because this approaches levels of absurdism I expect more from Toon than D&D.

As with most absolute statements, I did open myself up to the trivial counterexample, so I'll grant you that regarding Perception "never" applying.

I did think of a better way to frame a rule for it, though: I think the flaws need to be something to do with the inherent - printed - limitations of the spell. Not to do with limitations invented by adding text to justify a preconception of what it can't do.This should be a bit infuriating to you, but I'm reasonably confident that the dev response to your "a 30ft dragon that wasn't in my description eats you" problem is "we didn't write this for idiots."

Oh, I'm fine with post-hoc justification of what dice rolls mean. I don't really see where you're getting this from.

What I'm saying is that the object's image needs to look like the object. Not like a stage prop pretending to be the object. Not like a painting of the object. Not like some sort of magic eye illusion of the object that only works if you squint at it upside-down on Tuesdays. Certainly not like a log with a piece of paper taped to it labeling it with the name of the object that somehow magically fools anybody who can't (or doesn't) make an Investigation check into believing it's what it claims to be.

It looks like the object. All these extra limitations on what it can't do, as an image, are just that: extra. They don't appear in the spell. They are not implied by the spell. They exist only because of preconceived notions that are not evidenced in the rules as to what illusions "obviously" can't do.
You get that I was being facetious about how I was using the extra sensory effects in the other thread, right? It's not clear what that line actually means, so it's much like we're in a quantum state of all of these things being in the written rules and none of them being in the written rules.

That's fair. My apologies.I'll also apologize for driving the point home with color text further down my reply.

It doesn't beg the question, but I see how you're parsing it. What I meant was: if illusions are just painting with your mind's eye, then the limitation against creating a phenomenon, like fog, makes no sense. This limitation is nonsensical because there's nothing about fog-as-painted-with-the-mind's-eye that is a different visualization or magical process than a-ball-that-is-painted-with-the-mind's-eye.

Clearly, there is a significant distinction between "object" and "phenomenon," which means that the mind's eye explanation is flawed.It's the difference between having a brush with horse hairs that hold the ink and an air brush that sprays a thin layer where you want it. There's a reason I haven't truncated my explanations all the way down to "mind's eye," like you just did.

But the spell doesn't have to explain how phenomena are different when they've simply declared that this spell produces objects. It's weird to expect both a declaration like "you can create an object" as well as the explanation of why you can't create things that are not objects. I don't actually think that the phenomena distinction is all that important though. Silent image includes that word as a kind of catch all (unless any of us can come up with some image that is not object, creature, or phenomenon?) in order to give rather free reign to this first level spell, and we've still got detection based on investigation checks that are exactly as hard to pass as with minor illusion, despite apparently having all the bells and whistles that other people want to classify as phenomenon. Major image has odors and temperature and "seems completely real" but it's still the same difficulty investigation check (except maybe now it's metagaming to even want to investigate?)

I'm losing confidence that the investigation check isn't purely passed via "this thing feels like illusion magic."

Okay, but your art display is an art display, not convincing images of the object(s) it's an art display...displaying.Something that seemed to be a different item every time you changed your vantage point by 1 degree also wouldn't be a convincing image... or am I missing something?

Very well. Though I think it less complexity and more character knowledge. Regardless, if I'm to accept the premise without question, we're not really debating the spell anymore, but rather a spell defined by your premises. May as well say, "If we just accept Segev's preferred model..." as if that were useful to ensure we don't counter the model in any way.Not exactly. I've changed one premise to see how that changes the results that people expect. If I expect it to change what people expect in a particular way, and they confirm that it changes it in that way, then we have established that those results are based on this particular element (and to some extent, if they hadn't really thought about what is dependent upon what then I've nudged them into thinking the connection is here.) I seem very much to have established that the various limits that people place on these spells have quite a lot to do with how complex they think it would be to picture such a thing in your mind's eye. I hadn't actually thought to ask this question of you, because of your "If he makes an image of a mirror then it's exactly like a mirror except that your hand goes through it" stance. Based on that I would have predicted that you would allow someone to conjure up an illusion of a desk mirror even if they had never seen one, but rather only heard or read about such things (or perhaps some sort of middle ground where they had just never looked very closely at a mirror.) The language here wasn't precise enough that I can definitely say that you think the caster has to be familiar with what they are creating an illusion of, but we seem to be pointed in that direction, and if that is the case then it introduces a whole lot of questions about what kinds of objects someone can make illusions of.

Only in the same way that showing somebody a real ball implants in their mind the image of a ball. But I believe you know this is splitting hairs in an unhelpful fashion.Yeah, I recognized that interpretation as I was writing it but felt that rewriting to exclude it wouldn't be productive.

So, on what grounds do you reject other means of indirect image-in-mind illusions? Is it just that the PHB doesn't seem to give us any options like that, or is it completely off the table for any official material to ever give us such options?

Segev

2017-04-14, 03:48 PM

This should be a bit infuriating to you, but I'm reasonably confident that the dev response to your "a 30ft dragon that wasn't in my description eats you" problem is "we didn't write this for idiots."I'd expect a similar reply to the notion that the world is cardboard cutouts that characters don't notice the flaws in until the DM describes them. The idea that there's no difference to a PC between a cardboard cutout labeled "treasure chest" and an actual treasure chest until the DM says so, and that the PC is literally incapable of noticing the difference in passing without actively investigating it and seeing the details "fill in" with the DM's description - which, as stupid as this hopefully seems to you as a model for the world, is exactly what you seemed to be describing to me - is ludicrous.

You get that I was being facetious about how I was using the extra sensory effects in the other thread, right? It's not clear what that line actually means, so it's much like we're in a quantum state of all of these things being in the written rules and none of them being in the written rules.I don't think it's that unclear. In context, it's everything that is not sound, light generation, or a visible aspect of the object. In particular, it most obviously and unambiguously means touch, taste, and smell. Really, I think that's ALL it means, because frankly, there's no much else that isn't already covered by things that it either explicitly can do (be an image of an object) or cannot do that is covered elsewhere (make sound or light).

It's the difference between having a brush with horse hairs that hold the ink and an air brush that sprays a thin layer where you want it. There's a reason I haven't truncated my explanations all the way down to "mind's eye," like you just did.The difference is irrelevant for the point I was making. These issues only arise with this "put colors arbitrarily in the air so they look like something" model, and this model makes the "object only" limitation seems weird and arbitrary, while opening questions about brightness and shading as light sources change around it. Further, it introduces by its model limitations not listed in the spell, and it is, itself, not directly suggested BY the spell's description.

But the spell doesn't have to explain how phenomena are different when they've simply declared that this spell produces objects.Exactly. If the spell said it did what you're describing and "painted" in the air, it would have to make some distinctions. But that's not what it says. It says it makes images of objects.

It's weird to expect both a declaration like "you can create an object" as well as the explanation of why you can't create things that are not objects. I don't actually think that the phenomena distinction is all that important though. Silent image includes that word as a kind of catch all (unless any of us can come up with some image that is not object, creature, or phenomenon?) in order to give rather free reign to this first level spell, and we've still got detection based on investigation checks that are exactly as hard to pass as with minor illusion, despite apparently having all the bells and whistles that other people want to classify as phenomenon. Major image has odors and temperature and "seems completely real" but it's still the same difficulty investigation check (except maybe now it's metagaming to even want to investigate?)

I'm losing confidence that the investigation check isn't purely passed via "this thing feels like illusion magic."Maybe. Personally, I think it's still got to do with seeing ways the illusion fails to behave like a non-illusion could. But in the end, you might be right, especially when we get down to mirage arcane, which has literally every sense included to the point that you can actually treat difficult terrain that it makes look like open terrain like it's open terrain, suggesting you can MOVE THROUGH REAL THINGS THAT LOOK LIKE THEY ARE NOT THERE. And yet, mirage arcane still offers the Investigation check, and even tells us that success makes it translucent but still treats tactile illusion as "real enough" for people to interact with it.

Something that seemed to be a different item every time you changed your vantage point by 1 degree also wouldn't be a convincing image... or am I missing something?Possibly. I don't really know what point you're trying to make with this example at this point; sorry.

Not exactly. I've changed one premise to see how that changes the results that people expect. If I expect it to change what people expect in a particular way, and they confirm that it changes it in that way, then we have established that those results are based on this particular element (and to some extent, if they hadn't really thought about what is dependent upon what then I've nudged them into thinking the connection is here.) I seem very much to have established that the various limits that people place on these spells have quite a lot to do with how complex they think it would be to picture such a thing in your mind's eye. I hadn't actually thought to ask this question of you, because of your "If he makes an image of a mirror then it's exactly like a mirror except that your hand goes through it" stance. Based on that I would have predicted that you would allow someone to conjure up an illusion of a desk mirror even if they had never seen one, but rather only heard or read about such things (or perhaps some sort of middle ground where they had just never looked very closely at a mirror.) The language here wasn't precise enough that I can definitely say that you think the caster has to be familiar with what they are creating an illusion of, but we seem to be pointed in that direction, and if that is the case then it introduces a whole lot of questions about what kinds of objects someone can make illusions of.
Here I risk, by word choice, making you go "ah-hah!" but it's the best I can do. The mage makes an illusion of an object. It appears as he thinks it should. It looks like he means it to, like he pictures it.

Now, that sounds like "he's painting with his mind's eye," I'm sure, but the distinction here is that he's making what he's picturing appear as an object. Even if he pictures a brightly lit white ball, if he makes the illusion of that object sitting next to the camp fire in a night-time camp, it will appear lit by firelight from one side and any moon- or starlight from above and just plain dark where the deep shadows of night obscure other light sources. i.e. how a real white ball would look in that environment. The mage actually has no control over this; he can't make his ball appear brightly lit, because that's not part of the illusion. The illusion is of the object he pictured: a white ball. And that's how a white ball looks in that lighting.

If he really has the complex artistic skill to picture a ball that is cleverly colored so that it appears to be lit a particular way, THEN he CAN choose to make his object "a ball with colors arranged just so," but even then, he's actively countering existing lighting and creating false shading in purpose, and if the existing lighting changes, it might make his clever coloration optical illusions become overtly revealed. Just like he could use a force-perspective "window" into a 5-ft. cube to make the optical illusion of a longer hallway, but the illusion itself would be of that diorama occupying that 5-ft. cube.

If he wants to make an illusion of the beloved teddy bear he had as a kid, it will look like he remembers it. It may draw deeply from his memories for details he'd forget where he describing it to an artist to paint, but it couldn't include details he didn't know of or truly didn't remember.

If he's never heard of a "car" before, he can't make an image of one. He can make an image of an object he thinks of as "a car," though. But when he makes an image of an object, it is an image of the object he envisioned. It isn't an image of a sculpture painted with colors to achieve the shading and reflections he pictured. If his object is, say, a glass sphere, that's what the image is. It isn't a wooden sphere painted to look like glass from some angles. It isn't a set of arbitrary streaks in the air artfully arranged to suggest "glass sphere." It's a glass sphere, and you can look through it and see the distorted images of what's on the other side that you could with a real glass sphere. Even if he doesn't know how or why glass behaves that way.

Yeah, I recognized that interpretation as I was writing it but felt that rewriting to exclude it wouldn't be productive.

So, on what grounds do you reject other means of indirect image-in-mind illusions? Is it just that the PHB doesn't seem to give us any options like that, or is it completely off the table for any official material to ever give us such options?
You'd honestly have to give me examples, because I'm not sure what you mean if we exclude that interpretation.

I mean, are you getting at "Don't think about pink elephants" and how now you're picturing at least one pink elephant? Because that sounds more like suggestion than an illusion. And even then, that could be argued to be directly doing it.

What is "indirectly" putting an image in somebody's mind?

BurgerBeast

2017-04-14, 05:14 PM

@Segev: you are continually interpreting what I say to mean something that it does not, and approaching the problem with assumptions that are different than mine.

A real object interacts with light because it is real. An illusion is not and therefore does not.

If an illusionist chooses to make an illusion of a sword suspended in mid-air, do you argue that the illusion should fall? Because that's what real swords do when in mid air and subjected to gravity. But the illusion doesn't know it is a sword (which should fall) or a will-o-wisp (which should not). So the illusion just does what is "told" to do by the wizard.

But a floating sword is a dead give-away! Yeah, maybe, so don't cast it in mid-air, then.

But an illuminated statue is s dark room is a dead give-away! Yeah, maybe, so don't cast it in a dark room, then.

An illusion is created as it is created, and that's it. Illusionary objects do not react to physical phenomena unless the are "told" to do so. If they did, they wouldn't be illusions - they'd be creations.

[edit: I think it's clear that we disagree on what an image is, and on what an image of an object is, so unless we can reconcile that, we both appear to be nutso to the other.]

Segev

2017-04-14, 06:47 PM

@Segev: you are continually interpreting what I say to mean something that it does not, and approaching the problem with assumptions that are different than mine.As I said in at least my last two responses, yes to the second part. No to the first, I think; please explain what you're saying that I'm interpreting wrong, and how to interpret it properly.

But yes, we are using different assumptions. That's the problem. Your assumptions are not evidenced in the rules; they come from your own conception of how things work. My assumptions are based on reading what the spell says, and then devising a model that fits. That's why there are at least two models I agree work, though I prefer one.

A real object interacts with light because it is real. An illusion is not and therefore does not.Nothing in the rules says that an illusion of an object does not interact with light. Even if it doesn't, however, nothing in the rules says that the image of an object doesn't look like the object would in the same lighting conditions.

If an illusionist chooses to make an illusion of a sword suspended in mid-air, do you argue that the illusion should fall? Because that's what real swords do when in mid air and subjected to gravity. But the illusion doesn't know it is a sword (which should fall) or a will-o-wisp (which should not). So the illusion just does what is "told" to do by the wizard.Indeed not. That would require something other than visual properties to be present - namely, weight. Just as the illusory umbrella doesn't keep the rain off of you, despite that being something you can see a real umbrella do, because the spell calls out that sensory effects other than it being an image don't happen.

But being an image of the object means that it looks like the object would look if the object were in that position and place.

But a floating sword is a dead give-away! Yeah, maybe, so don't cast it in mid-air, then.Indeed! Note that there's a difference between creating your image in an unbelievable manner and stating that certain objects are always unbelievable. The spell doesn't say either. But it does say it makes images of objects, and adding restrictions that make entire kinds of objects automatically unbelievable is adding text to the spell that diminishes its utility.

But an illuminated statue is s dark room is a dead give-away! Yeah, maybe, so don't cast it in a dark room, then.Oh, no, that's irrelevant. If you subscribe to your model, that's what you get. In fact, you can use silent images to fill a dark room with lit objects and make it look brightly lit, causing real things to be nearly invisible in it. Nasty trick. Not what I would have expected the spells to do, but with your interpretation...it works.

An illusion is created as it is created, and that's it.I don't know why you think you're making a point when you say this. I agree. The point of disagreement is that you're insisting that the image isn't of an object, but is instead a very specificly-illuminated painting done in mid-air.

Illusionary objects do not react to physical phenomena unless the are "told" to do so.I never said they did. Our hypothetical white sphere in its weird room with a skylight isn't "reacting to physical phenomena." It's just sitting there. Looking like a sphere looks under those lighting conditions.

If they did, they wouldn't be illusions - they'd be creations.Mildly tongue-in-cheek response: Creation is an illusion spell.

Regardless, just because the image of the object looks like the object doesn't make it non-illusory. It just makes it so that it, you know, looks like the object. Rather than looking like some artist's best effort at painting a wooden sculpture of the object.

[edit: I think it's clear that we disagree on what an image is, and on what an image of an object is, so unless we can reconcile that, we both appear to be nutso to the other.]You don't appear nutso to me. I get where the disagreement is. But I do think the fact that your conception

requires adding text to the spell to define weaknesses and limitations that aren't there,
puts the model you have in mind ahead of what the spell says and insists the spell MUST mean to say what your model entails, and
leads you to conclusions that you yourself said you couldn't logically reconcile with how you envision the spell working,

...I think your model is demonstrably poor. Sorry.

My model is consistent all the way through, doesn't lead to the spell failing to behave in ways I expect it to, fits with what the spell says it does without having to insist it "must" have meant to have limits it doesn't say it has, and still doesn't lead to anything "overpowered" that you can do with it. These are the primary reasons I find my model to be superior.

BurgerBeast

2017-04-14, 07:07 PM

BurgerBeast

2017-04-14, 07:39 PM

But yes, we are using different assumptions. That's the problem. Your assumptions are not evidenced in the rules; they come from your own conception of how things work.

They really don't. But you don't seem to understand my model at all, which is my you keep inventing situations it doesn't entail.

Nothing in the rules says that an illusion of an object does not interact with light. Even if it doesn't, however, nothing in the rules says that the image of an object doesn't look like the object would in the same lighting conditions.

I'm not saying it either.

But being an image of the object means that it looks like the object would look if the object were in that position and place.

Agreed.

Indeed! Note that there's a difference between creating your image in an unbelievable manner and stating that certain objects are always unbelievable. The spell doesn't say either. But it does say it makes images of objects, and adding restrictions that make entire kinds of objects automatically unbelievable is adding text to the spell that diminishes its utility.

Again, not what I'm suggesting.

Oh, no, that's irrelevant. If you subscribe to your model, that's what you get. In fact, you can use silent images to fill a dark room with lit objects and make it look brightly lit, causing real things to be nearly invisible in it. Nasty trick. Not what I would have expected the spells to do, but with your interpretation...it works.

None of this is true.

I don't know why you think you're making a point when you say this. I agree. The point of disagreement is that you're insisting that the image isn't of an object, but is instead a very specificly-illuminated painting done in mid-air.

The fact that you're saying this means you're not getting what I'm saying.

I never said they did. Our hypothetical white sphere in its weird room with a skylight isn't "reacting to physical phenomena." It's just sitting there. Looking like a sphere looks under those lighting conditions.

As far as I can tell, it is. Why is it's appearance changing?

Regardless, just because the image of the object looks like the object doesn't make it non-illusory. It just makes it so that it, you know, looks like the object. Rather than looking like some artist's best effort at painting a wooden sculpture of the object.

My version doesn't, either.

You don't appear nutso to me. I get where the disagreement is.

I disagree.

...I think your model is demonstrably poor. Sorry.

I'd say it's demonstrably not my model, either.

My model is consistent all the way through, doesn't lead to the spell failing to behave in ways I expect it to, fits with what the spell says it does without having to insist it "must" have meant to have limits it doesn't say it has, and still doesn't lead to anything "overpowered" that you can do with it. These are the primary reasons I find my model to be superior.

Well, I find it inferior. I disagree with you.

Segev

2017-04-15, 02:50 PM

@Segev: instead of creating my arguments for me, please just ask and I can explain them. You do not have a clear grasp of where I'm starting from (regardless of whose fault that is), so you repeatedly give examples of where "my logic" leads, but my logic does not lead there.

I'm not particularly interested in refuting arguments against invented arguments (that aren't mine).

When you say weight is a physical property, for example, what do you mean? Because there is a name for that physical property as far as I know. It's called mass. I order to be a physical thing, you have to be composed of matter and thereby have mass. This is why you appear to have weight (which is not technically a property of you, but a force between you and other masses). If you do not have mass, then you are not physical, and therefore you do not have weight but you also can't interact with light.

To my understanding an illusion is not made of matter. Hence, no weight and no interaction with light.

Given that your next post doesn't do more than repeatedly say "nope, not what I meant," but lacks any clarification, please explain your model to me, since you don't think I understand it. I think I do, but I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, since you seem to think my analysis of it reveals to you that I do not. And, after all, I am not living in your head, so you should know better than I what your model is.

And regardless of whether the illusion interacts with light, the spell says it's an image of the object. That means that it must look as the object would. It does not mean that it must behave - falling, bouncing, being pushed, breaking under pressure, exploding, freezing, whatever - as the object would, but that it must look as an object of which it's an image would.

Since you say I have misrepresented/misunderstood your model, I will not state what it is not in order to differentiate from what I think your model is.

But do you understand mine? That it's an image of the object, and that people witnessing it see it as they would see a real version of the object of which it's an image if that object were exactly where the image is? Do you understand why this requires 0 interaction nor reaction from the image in order to have it look different in the same way the real object would as light sources move and change? Do you understand why a reflection requires absolutely no "editing" of the image in order to be there, any more than an image of a mirror reflected in another mirror requires no "editing" to have the image of the mirror bear, in turn, its own reflection?

Laurefindel

2017-04-15, 03:10 PM

BurgerBeast

2017-04-15, 03:29 PM

All these pages of long posts convinced me to play illusions exactly as if the real object was there, except that it cannot be touched.

This means an illusion cast in the dark will be dark, then appear lit when someone turns on the light.
This means an illusion will reflect light in a realistic way if the source of light changes direction.
This means an illusion will cast shadows.
This means the illusionary miror will reflect images.

Why? Because I want to preserve my sanity :)

I agree with you. I would play it this way. I think most everyone would.

Given that your next post doesn't do more than repeatedly say "nope, not what I meant," but lacks any clarification, please explain your model to me, since you don't think I understand it. I think I do, but I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, since you seem to think my analysis of it reveals to you that I do not. And, after all, I am not living in your head, so you should know better than I what your model is.

And regardless of whether the illusion interacts with light, the spell says it's an image of the object. That means that it must look as the object would. It does not mean that it must behave - falling, bouncing, being pushed, breaking under pressure, exploding, freezing, whatever - as the object would, but that it must look as an object of which it's an image would.

This is where the discussion would have to start. And it could go in multiple directions from here.

To start with, I would say that I don't understand how you can claim that it is not subject to its environment in any way, except for lighting effects. What makes light an exception? It seems to me that light interacts with real things, and illusions are not real things.

But do you understand mine? That it's an image of the object, and that people witnessing it see it as they would see a real version of the object of which it's an image if that object were exactly where the image is?

I think I understand you. I think I would agree with you in almost every case of lighting effects but I would still deny the mirror, though, so there's some place in this context that we also disagree, and I'm not sure where that is or why that is.

Do you understand why this requires 0 interaction nor reaction from the image in order to have it look different in the same way the real object would as light sources move and change? Do you understand why a reflection requires absolutely no "editing" of the image in order to be there, any more than an image of a mirror reflected in another mirror requires no "editing" to have the image of the mirror bear, in turn, its own reflection?

No, this would still be a point of contention for me, I think. Rather than jump ahead and argue over conclusions, though, I'd rather get down to the nitty gritty and start in the same place, working toward our conclusion together. As you hopefully know, I respect the way you think.

Segev

2017-04-15, 04:04 PM

BurgerBeast

2017-04-16, 02:22 AM

That's exactly the model I prefer. And is how I would run it. And is in line with the RAW.

I'm not sure that it's exactly the same because no comment was made about mirrors (or was it?).

I don't necessarily think it is RAW, so I would play it as a houserule, but I'm not certain if this. Based on the JC quote, I think it is decidedly not RAI. My dispute with you is over what I take to be the RAW model, because I think it is coherent and I'd like to switch to it. Regardless of this, in both cases I reject the idea that an illusion of a working mirror can be created.

(There is also a way to model it such that light passes through it but magic makes it look the same way that is equally within the RAW, but that's not the model I prefer.)

I'm not sure. I'd have to hear it and I'm not sure it will enter the discussion.

Fair enough. But I think you might have misread something in Laurefindel's post, because the model outlined there is the one I subscribe to, and you say you agree and then start refuting things that model explicitly allows per Laurefindel's post.

I might've, but I don't think so. I think we just both think we're reading the rules in the most straightforward manner possible, but coming to different conclusions.

If nothing else, though, Laurefindel outlined exactly the model I espouse.

I would say that he outlined the exact model I very recently espoused. We'd have trouble there over the mirror question (unless Laurefindel commented on this and I've forgotten).

I only changed my model in response to the light interaction question and JC's comments, and I think it holds up fairly well to scrutiny (better than I expected, at least to my scrutiny) and to the RAW.

I will say that my knowledge of the RAW is not very good but I will try to remedy that.

Laurefindel

2017-04-16, 12:06 PM

BurgerBeast

2017-04-16, 12:44 PM

I tend to rule illusions for simplicity and consistency, that is, exactly as if the real object was there. I'm aware it 'creates' three problematic situations, but I'm willing to accept them for the sake of simplicity and consistency.

It means illusionary mirrors DO reflect images.

It means illusionary magnifiers DO concentrate light, and illusionary prisms DO refract light.

It means illusionary walls DO block light coming from the other side.

All this because I cannot come with a decent explanation as to why illusions cannot do the above YET cast shadows and react to light sources realistically. If I was playing a sci-for game, I might go the opposite way and have illusions be static outputs of light in terms of luminosity, colour and texture, but in a fantasy setting, I prefer forgetting about how light works and how our eyes percieve our world around us and let it 'be magic'.

Cool.

@Segev: So, yeah I do it differently in the three cases noted. Other than that, our models are functionally the same in my opinion (I think you disagree, here, because I think your position is that these three exceptions are sufficient to make illusions obviously unbelievable, and therefore to fail in their function).

Edit: and further, that the function is prescribed by RAW, so if I insist on my interpretation, I end up violating RAW, eventually.

(The similarities here to the Mirror Image thread are apparent. I hope you have no illusions that I am not aware of that.)

Laurefindel

2017-04-16, 12:49 PM

As a stage technician with experience in magician's acts, I also want to say this about mirror tricks.

You can create some AMAZING illusions, but most are very dependent on perspective and controlled lighting environments. We literally spend hours precisely hanging and focusing lights prior to a show and eliminating lateral light sources. Most tricks only work from a relatively narrow angle of vision: front side seats often either see the trick or miss the effect al together, forcing the magician to move rather far upstage to narrow that angle of vision. Most importantly, most of these tricks require that the viewer stays put. Get off your seat and start walking about the theatre and you are likely to notice the trick. If the viewer is attentive, some element of misdirection also needs to happen or the viewer will notice the "glitch".

All that to say, allowing illusionary mirrors to reflect light doesn't recreate cheap fail-proof invisibility effects. Frankly, you're better off casting an illusionary crate or barrel around you...

BurgerBeast

2017-04-16, 12:59 PM

As a stage technician with experience in magician's acts, I also want to say this about mirror tricks.

You can create some AMAZING illusions, but most are very dependent on perspective and controlled lighting environments. We literally spend hours precisely hanging and focusing lights prior to a show and eliminating lateral light sources. Most tricks only work from a relatively narrow angle of vision: front side seats often either see the trick or miss the effect al together, forcing the magician to move rather far upstage to narrow that angle of vision. Most importantly, most of these tricks require that the viewer stays put. Get off your seat and start walking about the theatre and you are likely to notice the trick. If the viewer is attentive, some element of misdirection also needs to happen or the viewer will notice the "glitch".

This is cool to know. Thanks for sharing this.

All that to say, allowing illusionary mirrors to reflect light doesn't recreate cheap fail-proof invisibility effects. Frankly, you're better off casting an illusionary crate or barrel around you...

Agreed. I've never been concerned about it being game breaking (but I could understand why some might say it would lead to rapid technological developments in the field of optics - I just don't care and find it easy enough to explain away). I just don't think it makes sense within my framework of understanding.

Laurefindel

2017-04-16, 01:19 PM

Agreed. I've never been concerned about it being game breaking (but I could understand why some might say it would lead to rapid technological developments in the field of optics - I just don't care and find it easy enough to explain away). I just don't think it makes sense within my framework of understanding.

Yeah, the only part that really bugs me about my interpretation is the lens/prism part. A player could use a cantrip to recreate the effects of a magnifier or a spy glass. Precise glassware and lens works were expensive to produce back then, especially on a large scale.

It hasn't come up to be an issue yet, but I can see it potentially becoming one...

Segev

2017-04-16, 02:31 PM

BurgerBeast

2017-04-16, 04:00 PM

I'd draw the line at allowing lens-work to make fire-starters, on the basis that the spell doesn't let you generate heat (which falls under "other sensory effects"), but beyond that, the only limit I'd put on illusory optics is the same as what I'd put on a character "inventing" gunpowder because his player knows how it's made.

But a curved mirror can also be used to focus light rays. And, it's not the mirror or the lens that does the heating. The light does the heating. The heat comes from the light.

A real lens cannot generate heat. It just bends light. It only bends light because light is bent as it travels through the matter that makes up the lens. The difference between the lens and an illusory lens is that the illusory lens isn't there, so light will not pass through it and therefore will not bend.

So, if an illusory lens can bend light, you have some explaining to do. If the bent light, after being focussed, cannot generate heat, then what is going on?

And BurgerBeast, I'm sorry, but the reason I say your model isn't what you're claiming is because, without those effects, it isn't an image of the object.

You say "without those effects, it isn't an image of the object."

I say "without those effects, it is an image of the object."

At this point, we're not presenting arguments. We're just disagreeing.

It is, at best, a sculpture painted to mostly resemble the object.

When you say things like this, it makes it even clearer that we're not talking about the same things. In my view, a sculpture of a sword would be more convincing than an illusion. It would be made of material, so of course it would be more convincing. A magically created sculpture of a sword would probably function as a sword. It would more-or-less be a sword.

Seriously, "It's just like the real object, except totally intangible, inaudible, and massless/weightless, but is visible and has light act as if it were really there" is my preferred model, and must have reflections unless the spell explicitly excludes them. The spell didn't, so it's adding text to the spell to say reflections aren't part of it.

Well, as I've said, I'm with you until you say "has light act as if it were really there." So it's intangible, except to light. And it's massless, except to light. And it's not there, except it's there to light.

Why light? The illusion acts as if nothing is there, except light. How do you justify this one exception?

We're not arguing over heat. If an illusory ice cube doesn't melt, you don't cry foul.

We're not arguing about rain. If an illusory umbrella doesn't appear wet in the rain, you don't cry foul.

We're not arguing about physical damage. If an illusory wall has rocks thrown at it, but doesn't develop dents or holes, you don't cry foul.

But in all of these cases, an illusionist could improve the illusion to make it more believable. Ice cube? Make it melt. Umbrella, colour it as if it's red and make illusory raindrops bead on it and run down it. Illusory wall? Make it develop dents even as the real rocks pass through it.

Illusory sword? Create illusory sheen and an illusory shadow.

The only difference between these examples and yours is that you have arbitrarily decided that illusions are solid objects with respect to light only. Why? Because that's how you see them as being. This is not consistent, in my opinion. The illusion is either solid or it is not. It should not be solid in some cases but not in others.

This is my point. The illusion cannot interact with light. A real sword can, because a real sword is there. Light can travel through it (refract) or bounce off of it (reflect).

If the illusion is not materially there, then light cannot touch it.

Zorku

2017-04-17, 01:44 PM

I'd expect a similar reply to the notion that the world is cardboard cutouts that characters don't notice the flaws in until the DM describes them. The idea that there's no difference to a PC between a cardboard cutout labeled "treasure chest" and an actual treasure chest until the DM says so, and that the PC is literally incapable of noticing the difference in passing without actively investigating it and seeing the details "fill in" with the DM's description - which, as stupid as this hopefully seems to you as a model for the world, is exactly what you seemed to be describing to me - is ludicrous.Again, "don't be an idiot."

More detailed? This stuff is literally cardboard cutouts (at some tables,) dude. The DM describes these things to the best of their ability, hopefully just running passive perception so that the game doesn't bog down with people asking if they see traps every single time they go round a corner or take a few steps down a hallway, but whatever you get is what you get.

"I roll 23 on investigate."
"Ok, you notice that the rambunctious crowd is actually a bunch of stationary cardboard cutouts."
"Wouldn't I have noticed that with my passive perception?"
"No, because magic."
"But Billy still as detect magic up."
"Oh, I guess you're right. You guys all noticed that everything in this room was covered in magic from the get go and probably saw through it before the investigation check. My bad."

I don't think it's that unclear. In context, it's everything that is not sound, light generation, or a visible aspect of the object. In particular, it most obviously and unambiguously means touch, taste, and smell. Really, I think that's ALL it means, because frankly, there's no much else that isn't already covered by things that it either explicitly can do (be an image of an object) or cannot do that is covered elsewhere (make sound or light).That's an interpretation, and it makes enough sense that I posited it, but it's not the only interpretation. I'm disinclined to agree with the other predominant interpretation after the kind of "argument" we suffered through in the other thread, but that guy's inability to articulate himself isn't actually a strong mark against that interpretation.

To even address the other interpretation you've got to, at least temporarily, discard a lot of conclusions you've arrived at while thinking that the developers were simply stating that minor illusion doesn't do things like create a foul odor. When we take the premise that (on a table by table basis,) minor illusion cannot produce a (phantom) shadow, yet still requires investigation checks rather than perception checks, this is a pretty big upset from what you or I had taken perception and investigation to be, but it's not so drastic as to be impossible, and it's worth considering how the system would work and perform under such an assumption.

You do not seem to have thoroughly formulated such a model, and I haven't quite gotten there myself, but the degree of agreement I seem to get when I express this alternate model to detractors of reflections in minor illusions seems indication enough that I've more or less hit on the kind of model they have been operating under, and so far as I can tell, it's not internally inconsistent.

The difference is irrelevant for the point I was making. These issues only arise with this "put colors arbitrarily in the air so they look like something" model, and this model makes the "object only" limitation seems weird and arbitrary, while opening questions about brightness and shading as light sources change around it. Further, it introduces by its model limitations not listed in the spell, and it is, itself, not directly suggested BY the spell's description.

Exactly. If the spell said it did what you're describing and "painted" in the air, it would have to make some distinctions. But that's not what it says. It says it makes images of objects.It's just as arbitrary to limit the length of wall that wall of stone creates, the volume of water controlled by control water, or the total hp worth of creatures affected by sleep.

Usually spells use a little bit more flowery language to make us feel like we intuitively understand something about how magic works in these worlds... but a spell doesn't have to do that for every little detail of its form or function. In this particular spell they have done very little of that, likely due to the weird conceptual space that cantrips occupy. They didn't have to rewrite anything so much as attempt to create a new weaker tier of spells that are conceptually like the level 1 spells they most resemble. They don't flawlessly fit into a system that was made with an assumption of the floor being higher than this, so when you look at minor illusion you can see how they chopped up silent image (and then tossed in the sounds bit because bad silent images and minor sounds didn't justify taking up two known cantrips during playtests,) and when you look at friends you can see how they chopped up charm person. What we got in the end is still pretty good, but it's written more to define the limitations of what it can do than to be a living component of this elaborate system of magic, and beyond that, it's written like an asterisk that implores you to fill in the details yourself.

Beyond that, I don't think anybody has dug up an in book definition for phenomena yet, so (assuming there isn't one,) it's not even all that clear when something stops qualifying as an object. You've got your own common sense for that, but common sense is all blurry lines and differs wildly between people, so we're right back at square one, staring down that asterisk.

Possibly. I don't really know what point you're trying to make with this example at this point; sorry.Your criticism of my "what works if we ignore complexity issues" hypothetical seemed irrelevant, and out of the bounds of the model you've been espousing. How convincing the image is should matter quite a lot more to the folks that think that these things are automatically believed until an investigation check changes the mental state, but where you think that the investigation check is about finding ways that the illusion misbehaves, the very premise I set up should basically automatically provoke an investigation check, probably with advantage for the sheer weirdness of its behavior. I had never intended the 3d art installment to be a practical illusion, so much as a check on what the limitations are and exactly why they apply.

The hypothetical has served that purpose with the person that I originally proposed it to, though I still don't really have a plan for the unexpected information it provided me about your model.

snip
"ah-hah!"
snip
I could go off on a dozen small tangents about the exact details you've included in this, but the only question I really care about is as follows:

Where did you get the impression that the illusionist has to picture the object they wish to create? The spell doesn't say anything about doing that, and I can't find any related text that talks about such things. You've complained about the paintbrush of the mind's eye line of questioning I've been posing at the other side for awhile, on the grounds that the text doesn't give us any reason to think that things work that way, as well as on the grounds that limitations on it seeming arbitrary, but those same complaints seem equally applicable to your idea that this magic requires someone to imagine the object that they are creating a phantom image of.

If they need to think of a white ball and then it appears in the world with relevant lighting, is it not arbitrary that the spell said this had to be an object? They could just as easily think of a puff of smoke and go to create a phantom image, yet by the text of the spell they are disallowed. They can conjure up a wall made of crayon lines but they can't make the same lines out of fog, and the book has never said a damn thing about how familiar you have to be with what you select for your spell, nor any of the ramifications of casting this spell of objects that you are not at all familiar with, yet somehow you eagerly spout of the same kind of arbitrary rulings on the matter that we gave Vogonjeltz so much trouble for.

And why? Because the alternative seems silly to you, in a way that threatens the integrity of the model in your head.

What you've got is fine for your own games, but it's no more RAW than the mental paint brush, and the very structure of how you've been arguing this is an argument from ignorance. Illusions must work this way because you can see no other way that they would work, but when anyone else tries to point this fallacy out to you, you reject the examples they provide as if shooting down alternatives provides support for your own model. I'm afraid that this has been a huge mistake, so instead of offering more confusing examples, I will offer a statement: I am not convinced that the way you have described illusions is the only way that they can 'work.'

You'd honestly have to give me examples, because I'm not sure what you mean if we exclude that interpretation.

I mean, are you getting at "Don't think about pink elephants" and how now you're picturing at least one pink elephant? Because that sounds more like suggestion than an illusion. And even then, that could be argued to be directly doing it.

What is "indirectly" putting an image in somebody's mind?It could be a lot of things. You seem to have proposed that illusions must be either "a phantom image in the real world," or "directly in the mind of a creature." If you stand by that statement, I wish to know how you have ruled out all alternatives. How you have established this to be a true dichotomy within the conceptual space of this game. The text we have quoted does not come in a form that rules out alternatives, so where else are you getting this?

Segev

2017-04-17, 07:02 PM

But a curved mirror can also be used to focus light rays. And, it's not the mirror or the lens that does the heating. The light does the heating. The heat comes from the light.

A real lens cannot generate heat. It just bends light. It only bends light because light is bent as it travels through the matter that makes up the lens. The difference between the lens and an illusory lens is that the illusory lens isn't there, so light will not pass through it and therefore will not bend.

So, if an illusory lens can bend light, you have some explaining to do. If the bent light, after being focussed, cannot generate heat, then what is going on?Is the heat an effect being caused by the spell? Then the spell is generating heat. Which it isn't allowed to do. Just as the spell isn't allowed to generate light, despite light being a visual property of, say "a rock with light cast on it."

You say "without those effects, it isn't an image of the object."

I say "without those effects, it is an image of the object."

At this point, we're not presenting arguments. We're just disagreeing.I've given my reasons for these positions. I don't feel that repeating them is getting anywhere, sadly. But...

When you say things like this, it makes it even clearer that we're not talking about the same things. In my view, a sculpture of a sword would be more convincing than an illusion. It would be made of material, so of course it would be more convincing. A magically created sculpture of a sword would probably function as a sword. It would more-or-less be a sword.You're... well, I'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt, because you could conceivably have derived that denotation from what I said, despite what seems perfectly obvious context to me.

Let me rephrase it more clearly: What you're describing is not an image of an object; it is an image of a painted sculpture of the object.

Does that clarify? I'm not saying you've made something solid that is a sculpture. I'm saying you're making an image of a sculpture, rather than an image of the object it's a sculpture of.

The image of a mirror bears reflections, because mirrors do that. The image of the sculpture of the mirror painted to look like a mirror doesn't bear reflections, because you're using matte paint in your assumptions.

Well, as I've said, I'm with you until you say "has light act as if it were really there." So it's intangible, except to light. And it's massless, except to light. And it's not there, except it's there to light.You're getting hung up on a somewhat irrelevant detail. I've outlined that I can accept a model that doesn't interact with light, either. However, when we go to that model, we must answer the question, "Why is it visible?" with "Because it's a magical illusion." All aspects of "why does it appear as it does?" are answered the same way. Because it still must, per the spell, be an image of an object, it still must, in all visual ways, look like the object, with the exception of things passing through it (though we apparently can't see light passing through it, or we could see stuff that's behind it).

Why light? The illusion acts as if nothing is there, except light. How do you justify this one exception?

We're not arguing over heat. If an illusory ice cube doesn't melt, you don't cry foul.

We're not arguing about rain. If an illusory umbrella doesn't appear wet in the rain, you don't cry foul.

We're not arguing about physical damage. If an illusory wall has rocks thrown at it, but doesn't develop dents or holes, you don't cry foul.Because those are not "visual properties" of the object. An ice cube that doesn't melt is still an ice cube, even if it magically is ice at 1 billion degrees. An image of an ice cube remains an image of an ice cube, and since ambient heat can't affect it, it stays what it is. An image of an umbrella doesn't block rain and an image of a wall doesn't block a stone because those are not aspects of how they LOOK. You may be able to see such interactions, but not only are they not related to the object looking like itself, but they're explicitly forbidden by the discussion of things going through the image and automatically revealing it.

In fact, the "light goes through it" argument is one that, if read literally, would mean that all illusions under any level of illumination other than "none" would be instantly, automatically revealed as light passes through it and reveals it. Clearly, that is not the intent of the spell, and thus reading it to include light in the same category as a stone thrown through it is a bad reading.

The only difference between these examples and yours is that you have arbitrarily decided that illusions are solid objects with respect to light only. Why? Because that's how you see them as being. This is not consistent, in my opinion. The illusion is either solid or it is not. It should not be solid in some cases but not in others.I haven't arbitrarily decided it. I have read the spell. It says it's an image of an object. I actually never said it was "solid" wrt light. I said that it's THERE wrt light. I have also, repeatedly in the past AND NOW IN THIS POST, outlined how that's not essential to things working, because you can have it just be an image of an object that light never bounces off of and still have it look like an image of an object "because magic." But if you do that, then it bears reflections "because magic," just like it has color "because magic" and it has shading "because magic" and you can't see through it despite the light from all objects beyond it passing right through it "because magic."

I have no problem with that model; it just isn't my preferred one. But it still bears reflections because it still is an image of an object, because magic.

This is my point. The illusion cannot interact with light. A real sword can, because a real sword is there. Light can travel through it (refract) or bounce off of it (reflect).

If the illusion is not materially there, then light cannot touch it.I don't see where a thing must be materially there for light to touch it. Shadows and ghosts aren't materially there, but light still "touches" them. Vampires are materially there, but they cast no reflections (and, depending on the mythos, no shadows either), so arguably light does NOT touch them. Perytons cast shadows that bear no resemblance to their true silhouette.

Magic is involved.

Regardless, the "light passes through it because it can't interact with anything" argument runs afoul of "when things pass through it, it is revealed." That would, if read literally and taken consistently, mean that having any light at all fall on it auto-reveals it to be an illusion.

Where did you get the impression that the illusionist has to picture the object they wish to create? The spell doesn't say anything about doing that, and I can't find any related text that talks about such things.They have to at least know what it is they're making an image of. I'm rather operating on a Platonic concept of objects being things one conceives of as a whole. You can picture "a ball" to have whatever look you like, but you're picturing "a ball." If you choose to picture "a wooden ball painted silver," it's a different object than "a glass ball" or "a silver ball."

And if you try to make an image of something you can't picture, because you don't know what it is, you fail. For the same reason you can't make a floarb if you don't know what a floarb is. If somebody instructs you on it, until you know what one looks like, you can make an image of it. You can even embellish for specific effect.

No, if you don't know what anything shiny looks like, if you don't know what a mirror with its reflection looks like, you can't make one. You probably would wind up with the image of an object that has a painting on it that is being argued for by others. But that's because you don't know what the object is. You've no idea that something can be "reflective." Maybe you picture a sideways pool of water, and get that.

It all boils down to the spell creating an image of an object. Not an image of a sculpture of an object. The limitation that the caster must know of the object...maybe that's a house rule. Technically, it doesn't say the caster can't make images of objects he knows nothing of. I seriously doubt any DM would let yo uget away with that reasoning, but *shrug*

Laurefindel

2017-04-17, 07:41 PM

Shadows and ghosts aren't materially there, but light still "touches" them. Vampires are materially there, but they cast no reflections (and, depending on the mythos, no shadows either), so arguably light does NOT touch them. Perytons cast shadows that bear no resemblance to their true silhouette.

Magic is involved

This is good to be reminded.

Christian

2017-04-17, 09:12 PM

I'm not sure where everyone is getting these odd ideas about light being a 'thing', and that we see things when light bounces off them into our eyes, and that shadows are made when a light source is partially blocked by an object, and stuff. Very strange ... But then, I've only been on this iteration of the Prime Material plane for a short time, ever since Lathander evicted me from the Realms for some childish reason or other. "Meddling in the domain of the gods" or some nonsense like that.

I studied phenomena of light and darkness for many decades in my secluded tower north of Neverwinter, and the truth is much simpler. "Illumination" is a property of an area of space, which is provided in varying degrees by things like the Sun, the moons, torches, lanterns, and light spells. When a space is illuminated, it is possible for those with working eyes to see things in that space without darkvision. "Shadow" is a property that an area of space has when it is subject to insufficient sources of illumination, "darkness" is a property of an area that has none (or virtually none). "A shadow" is a thing that many (but not all) physical objects have, and which is very vague and difficult to see unless the area the object is in is well illuminated. In that case, the area occupied by the object's shadow is in shadow--somewhat confusing terminology, in both English and the Common Tongue. (The elves have much better words for this.)

An illusion of an object, such as that created by the Minor Illusion cantrip, can be seen in an illuminated area (or with darkvision) because that is the nature of its magic--to be something that is seen. In darkness, a creature without darkvision can see nothing, so it cannot see the illusion. In shadow, it can see things, including the illusion, only poorly. This is the ideal environment for the illusionist, for any tell-tale imperfections in his glamer will be much harder for the squinting searcher to detect. In particular, the fact that the illusion has no shadow (not being an object) will be concealed by the difficulty of seeing the shadows of any objects in such an area. Even so, the lack of a shadow in even in a brightly-illuminated area does not prove an object to be illusionary; I have encountered numerous objects whose shadows had been removed by wizards and sorcerers, usually for nefarious purposes. An adventuring party of my acquaintance found a chest with no less than a hundred shadows of various objects and even people when they looted the lair of a powerful necromancer after sending him to his grave (for the third, but sadly not the last, time). I shudder to think what plans he had for them, and no less at the fates of the poor souls whose shadows had been forever stripped away.

Mirrors are interesting objects as well. It is an interesting property of still water, polished metal, and certain configurations of glass and crystal that they are prone to display images of various degrees of quality, clarity, and sharpness. Spellcasters have developed this property to a high degree of precision to use these materials in spells like Scrying, but I was always most interested in how even a mundane craftsman can, with sufficient skill and labor and the right raw materials, create a mirror that shows with remarkable fidelity the present scene as it appears from the point of view of the mirror's face, but somehow reversed along the axis perpendicular to its surface. No magic seems to be involved in either the creation or the operation of these artifacts, a fact with is so commonplace that the depth of the mystery of their operation somewhat boggles the mind. I felt I was on track of a major discovery in this arena when Lathander's avatar appeared before me, babbling in incoherent fury, and banished me forever to this fascinating but magic-free plane of existence. I can but assure you that Minor Illusions of mirrors, as Messrs. Mearls and Crawford are somehow aware, do not have this remarkable ability.

I hope this was helpful. I had several tomes of detailed notes, but they were no doubt consigned to the flames once I was evicted from my home.

Laurefindel

2017-04-17, 09:21 PM

(some good stuff).

Hehe, good post. This may well convince me to reconsider...

Saeviomage

2017-04-18, 12:44 AM

Hehe, good post. This may well convince me to reconsider...

Except your game will end up getting bogged down because your players now have to ask if everything has a shadow, instead of just assuming that it has one like normal. And it still IS a pretty good indicator of an illusion or something else nefarious.

So you've now got illusions that are easy to spot if they're well illuminated, plus players asking whether trees have shadows to relax in.

Well, plus the theory doesn't at all address why illusions of things that are supposed to be shiny are not easy to spot, when it's well known that shiny things have reflections.

In short: it's dressing up a bunch of already failed arguments in some flowery prose, and you somehow ascribe that more weight...

BurgerBeast

2017-04-18, 01:29 AM

At this point, I'm frustrated with my inability to convey my thinking to you. This is what I wrote. I'm content to leave it be.

I'd prefer to have a resolution, but I'm tired, and I think this could be resolved in a 30 minute conversation. The medium is not ideal. I think I understand your view. I think it's fine. I don't think it's best way to strike both the RAW and the RAI, but I'm not communicating my points very clearly.

Is the heat an effect being caused by the spell? Then the spell is generating heat. Which it isn't allowed to do. Just as the spell isn't allowed to generate light, despite light being a visual property of, say "a rock with light cast on it."

This is the problem. The heat is not an effect being caused by the spell. The heat is being caused by the sun (or the light source). The heat is the light. If you say an illusory lens can work (w.r.t. light), then the lens can bend the light, which is bending the heat. You can't have it do one without the other. If you say no, this is an example of the spell creating heat... well then a working lens is an example of a spell creating light. You can't have it both ways.

Let me rephrase it more clearly: What you're describing is not an image of an object; it is an image of a painted sculpture of the object.

I have no idea how you think these are different. I'm not talking about an actual painted sculpture. I'm talking about a perfect replica.

If one magician makes an illusion of a sword, and the other makes an illusion of a replica of a sword that looks identical, then what's the difference? Whatever tangible differences there were (in the real objects) are no longer differences (in the illusions).

Does that clarify? I'm not saying you've made something solid that is a sculpture. I'm saying you're making an image of a sculpture, rather than an image of the object it's a sculpture of.

I understand what you're saying but I cannot see how that can make any difference. It's a magically created image of a perfect sculpture. It looks identical.

The image of a mirror bears reflections, because mirrors do that.

The image of the sculpture of the mirror painted to look like a mirror doesn't bear reflections, because you're using matte paint in your assumptions.

I think this is the issue. I think we imagine this differently. The problem is that even if you could use "glossy paint," you could never achieve a metallic sheen without actually reflecting light. I would say that the illusion is capable of being much more convincing in my mind than it must be in yours, because this doesn't present a problem for me.

You're getting hung up on a somewhat irrelevant detail. I've outlined that I can accept a model that doesn't interact with light, either. However, when we go to that model, we must answer the question, "Why is it visible?" with "Because it's a magical illusion." All aspects of "why does it appear as it does?" are answered the same way. Because it still must, per the spell, be an image of an object, it still must, in all visual ways, look like the object, with the exception of things passing through it (though we apparently can't see light passing through it, or we could see stuff that's behind it).

So, for me, the only reason it's visible is because it is magically in that space. Its a magical hologram, more or less. It can look shiny, bright, matte, or whatever, but these effects do not rely on real light production (or reflection) in the same way that a photograph or painting doesn't. I assume that everything passes through it.

We obviously disagree over what it means to look like the object in all ways. See, for me a sword can look like the real sword in all ways, without reacting to the light. The sword itself, in the case of minor illusion, cannot move, so the reflections, sheen, and shadows upon it will not move in any way. There's no possibility of the illusion failing to be convincing. Unless the lighting changes. But that makes sense to me, seems relatively unlikely to me, and wizards can take simple precautions since they know this.

Because those are not "visual properties" of the object.

The shading and glinting of a sword are not visual properties of the sword, either. They change. Consider any shadow on the pommel or glint on the blade. Move the sword and they move, grow, shrink, disappear and appear. Take the sword out of the room and it may not glint in the same way ever again. These are not properties of the sword.

In fact, the "light goes through it" argument is one that, if read literally, would mean that all illusions under any level of illumination other than "none" would be instantly, automatically revealed as light passes through it and reveals it. Clearly, that is not the intent of the spell, and thus reading it to include light in the same category as a stone thrown through it is a bad reading.

No, the light doesn't "pass through it" in the sense that it makes contact. It passes through it in the sense that it is not there. So the sense in which light passes through an illusory lens is different than the sense in which it passes through a real one.

I haven't arbitrarily decided it. I have read the spell. It says it's an image of an object. I actually never said it was "solid" wrt light. I said that it's THERE wrt light.

But what does it mean to be there? This is the key. It's either there or it's there. If it's there, then it's there, period. If it's there, then it's there, period.

I don't see how you can switch between these. I understand that you thin there is justification to be found in the spell description. I don't agree.

I have also, repeatedly in the past AND NOW IN THIS POST, outlined how that's not essential to things working, because you can have it just be an image of an object that light never bounces off of and still have it look like an image of an object "because magic." But if you do that, then it bears reflections "because magic," just like it has color "because magic" and it has shading "because magic" and you can't see through it despite the light from all objects beyond it passing right through it "because magic."

But then all of those "because magics" must have some internal consistency. The internal consistency that is used must, as much as possible, come form the RAW of the spell. And the RAW of the spell do not state that it is reflective. But they do state that it is an image.

(Obviously, we must disagree on what an image is, so this is probably a big part of the problem.)

I have no problem with that model; it just isn't my preferred one. But it still bears reflections because it still is an image of an object, because magic.

I disagree. The model I am putting forward does not give off reflections "because magic." It does;t give them off at all. If a wizard wished for his illusion to look like it reflects, he must create the reflection as part of the illusion (which would not be a real reflection - it would just look like one, as a photograph of the sea, for example).

I don't see where a thing must be materially there for light to touch it.

Well, what is the light touching?

Shadows and ghosts aren't materially there, but light still "touches" them. Vampires are materially there, but they cast no reflections (and, depending on the mythos, no shadows either), so arguably light does NOT touch them. Perytons cast shadows that bear no resemblance to their true silhouette.

Magic is involved.

Yes, so in each of these cases, we apply real-world physics unless magic is involved. And if magic is involved, we don't make it up. We apply it as it is written.

(I'm not accusing you of not doing this. I'm just saying that I'm also doing it to the best of my ability. Somewhere in the definition of image is where we are having problems, I think.)

Regardless, the "light passes through it because it can't interact with anything" argument runs afoul of "when things pass through it, it is revealed." That would, if read literally and taken consistently, mean that having any light at all fall on it auto-reveals it to be an illusion.

See above for my distinction between passing through a lens and passing though the illusion of a lens. One is a material interaction. The other is no interaction at all.

(artistic rendition of alternative metaphysics)

I've said from the start that bringing real-world physics isn't necessary. But, when conversations get into concepts that are important to the discussion, it makes the most sense to use familiar terms to address those concepts.

Segev

2017-04-18, 10:28 AM

Christian, it saddens me to hear that Messers. Mearl and Crawford, as authors of the spell description we have here on this particular prime plane, failed to describe it accurately, then. They clearly stated that it makes an image of an object. The object has a visual property of "a shadow," as you have quite clearly stated, which is made visible under certain illumination conditions. If the image lacks this property, then it is not an image of that object, but of some other, similar object. Likewise, a mirror (and other items you mention) bears a reflection totally mundanely. Any item which does not bear that visual property cannot properly be said to be an image of the object.

It might be a painting of the object. Or a sculpture painted to look like it. Or even termed a "likeness" of the object. It may be an image of a likeness, sculpture, or painting of the object. But it is not an image of the object.

BurgerBeast, you're saying you don't see the distinction between an image of an object and an image of a painted sculpture of an object. You bring up a sword vs. a replica of the sword. The thing is, a "replica" of a sword is going to be made of the same or similar materials. That replica of a sword is almost certainly going to bear the same kinds of reflections the real one would (if any). Otherwise, it's not a replica...it's a model. Alternatively, it's a bad replica.

I suppose you could argue that minor illusion (and, indeed, all of the illusion spells) never say that they make images that aren't BAD. But that goes back to begging a question as to just how bad they're required to be. Why are reflections excluded, but not color, texture, or shading? All the spell really says it absolutely has is three dimensions (by specifying that it fits into a 5 ft. cube). How do we know it isn't just a 5 ft. cube with a few icons scribbled on its sides that magically fools people into thinking it's something real by messing with their minds?

I reject that notion because it seems to fly in the face of a rich and believable world, and is not required by the spell description. I similarly reject arbitrary limitations not specified in the spell. It says it makes an image of an object. Not an image of a painting, sculpture, waxwork, relief carving, or prose description of an object. (I mean, it can do that, too; those are all objects, themselves. But it's not limited to those.) An image of a sword looks like the sword would if the sword were really there, in that position. Maybe it isn't BEHAVING the way the sword would, since it won't fall off a table if shaken, nor drop out of the air if conjured to hang there, nor will it stop anybody from walking through it, nor will it cut anybody. But in terms of how it looks in its environment as long as nothing tries to interact with it in ways other than visually, it looks like the object. Because that's what the spell says: it's an image of an object.

Dr.Samurai

2017-04-18, 11:02 AM

Likewise, a mirror (and other items you mention) bears a reflection totally mundanely. Any item which does not bear that visual property cannot properly be said to be an image of the object.
I'm mostly checking out of this mirror discussion, since I don't think I can add anything new or meaningful to the discussion at this point. I just wanted to point out that this is the part I feel I trip up on, and haven't really understood the explanation on.

Why are reflections excluded, but not color, texture, or shading?
Then I read this and I'm like "hmm... that makes some sense..."

So clearly I'm confused.

I would like to go back, if I may, for a moment, and ask if people ever used the blind or screen method like the PC in my game did, or was it always mirrors?

Laurefindel

2017-04-18, 11:43 AM

I would like to go back, if I may, for a moment, and ask if people ever used the blind or screen method like the PC in my game did, or was it always mirrors?

I never did that, nor would I find it very advantageous to use an illusion to create a (mostly) 2d image, unless it was braced against another 2d structure. I could imagine, for example, creating an illusion to camouflage a door, covering it with a (mostly) 2d image resembling the rest of the wall or a hanging tapestry, but I don't think the 'painted matte' technique would work very well in the middle or a room (or even in the corner), or at least, it would only work well from a certain perspective and for a static viewer.

It's a technique I've seen used once or twice in theatre to make characters appear and disappear on stage. If you were sitting in the right seat, the effect was kind of neat but it wouldn't fool anyone. Our eyes are pretty good with depth perception, and if your perspective is moving its even easier to notice.

Segev

2017-04-18, 12:42 PM

I would like to go back, if I may, for a moment, and ask if people ever used the blind or screen method like the PC in my game did, or was it always mirrors?

A blind or screen would be hard to do against a flat surface. But against something with sufficient roughness, you could potentially extend the "bumps."

Making a screen that looked different from all angles such that it resembled something not being there, though, would probably be beyond the scope of this spell's illusory capabilities.

What you definitely can do is make an object big enough to hide inside, though. The trick there is making it convincingly part of the "background" environment that nobody looks twice at it.

Fixer

2017-04-18, 01:21 PM

Illusions are not affecting physical objects; they do not interact with light in any fashion; they are not real nor are they creating anything real. Illusions are mental constructs created in the individual who sees them. Per the SRD:

Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, to miss things that are there, to hear phantom noises, or to remember things that never happened. Some illusions create phantom images that any creature can see, but the most insidious illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature.

Thus, illusions cast shadows only in the mind of the person who views it, because they expect to see a shadow. Barring other senses telling them that the object is not real, their mind will create whatever is necessary to believe it to be real.

Creating an illusion of a barrier between the target and the observer will only be as believable as the barrier's presence would be. Creating an illusion of a bookcase in a dungeon hallway will be out of sorts. Creating an illusion of a small tree in a desert would be out of sorts. Creating an illusion of a bump on a wall (or a cube on a wall, whatever) would only be out of sorts if the observer had already walked down that hall before and remembered there was no bump there previously, and there is one now.

Segev

2017-04-18, 01:40 PM

Fixer, you're misreading the quote you put in there by ignoring the key phrase: "Some illusions create phantom images anybody can see."

It is juxtaposed with a "but" that goes on to talk about more insidious illusions that exist only in the minds of the observer.

This means that illusions which are images that actually are there to be seen exist. Minor illusion, silent image, etc. are in that category.

Zorku

2017-04-18, 01:45 PM

This one is inside a haversack.

Sorry for the late answer. I've also still not caught up with the rest of the posts.Eh, the thread has bloated so much I can only reply to one person per day so, *shrug*

Since "i'm not going to try to rationalize things that are clearly not into my (or anyone's) knowledge" was part of the first post i made in this thread, i was giving that answer as a basis for everything else. The answer was always that, and i read it into "how mechanically are you going to handle it".

I'm not going to try and create excuses on "you noticed that...and as such you realized that was an illusion because of that.". There's no way i can give a logical answer. You roll (or it is decided that's an automatic failure/success by the DM) Investigation. If you succeed, you realize the nature of what you are "looking" at.

On "how can you not see that the item has no shadows" i already replied. In the case that was discussed, for me it's automatic. And it's just a possible clue that let's someone roll for investigation, and there i apply my "no wasted actions" policy.

When the question is "do you see anything that's wrong" then I understand a failed check to mean that no, you didn't see any flaws in the illusion. When the question becomes "Although this thing doesn't have a shadow, do you realize it's an illusion, or do you think it may be a bftg?" I'm lost on what actually happens, on what distinguishes success from failure. The first option breaks apart if you're looking for the absence of a shadow, the second option seems to be broken all of the time in all cases.

Now, we do have the option of declaring that there is no real world correlate, and you just see through the illusion or do not because "game mechanics," but I kind of poisoned that well with my original description, and nobody seems to want to drink from it. So far as i can tell you seem to be sorting yourself into this category at this point, but without actually saying any of it out loud.

Am I mistaken there? If so, is there a clear and concise way to set your position apart from that?

Yes. Not Objects or creatures or environmental effects, not real in that sense. Real magical effects. Existing. Measurable. Interactable even if not in ways that someone, looking at them, would think of initially. I'm not meaning that the "impossible" onject that is possibly nothing is actually real.
BUT, if it isn't real, if it "can't" exist, it's not an object for me. And you can't create illusions of "non"objects.Do you understand why most people would probably classify everything that minor illusion "actually creates" as phenomena, if not some category even further removed from "object"?

No, because character knowledge is still something that's DM fiat. And again, unless DM says so, a character is not omniscient. So he can still be wrong.
Then again, cast detect magic, school illusion, something is up?
For clarity, I'm not saying that that's a character knowledge thing. "So I've realized that this mirror has no reflection. That might mean it is an illusion or it might mean an infinite number of other things. How do I narrow the scope from here?" DM: "Huh? You know this one is an illusion."
That example doesn't really answer this question about what it means to know something. Apparently they do know, but we have no comprehension of how they know, and the character probably has no comprehension of how they know either. The DM can declare that you stumble across a married bachelor, but that doesn't mean there's a coherent idea within the declaration.

snip
I could not do an illusion of that thing since it cannot exist.
snip
Is there any citation for that, or is this just supposed to naturally fall out of whatever sense of "possible" that we're using? (I'm still not sure what you mean when you say "it is possible." There are a couple of implied meanings at this point, but I've got no idea how to select the correct one, or even determine if you're being consistent enough that there is exactly one correct definition in this context.)

In short, if it's an illusion it's an illusion of SOMETHING. That something has to be a possible existance, otherwise the illusion wouldn't have the possibility to exist in the first place as the spell requires some parameters to work with.I do not see why. Deception of the senses is much more straightforward if it operates within such familiar realms, but it doesn't seem like that is strictly necessary.

This also ends up as an answer to how i see your "platonic" interpretation, i guess.I have absolutely no idea how this addresses that issue.

I agree. I don't think this contradicts what I said in any way.You do not see a contradiction between
"real world physics eliminates magic as a possibility to start with"
And
"You could have extra rules on top of real world physics, such as magic"
?

I don't believe this is a necessary view. It goes to explanations that are not required. And I'm not sure what you mean. But the illusion exists in a 5'x5' space. It can't "extend" or "reach" beyond that.Yeah, so the "fake-light" has to do whatever it does in a 5x5 cube.

Since there seems to be some confusion, when I say "fake-light" I'm using that as a category. If you think that eyes work like superman's laser vision and they shoot something out that smacks into an object, and anything remotely similar happens when they "see" an illusion, then that's what false light is. If you think light works like normal, in that something has got to enter your eye for you to "see" anything, and an illusion doesn't exactly create photons of light but does shoot a thing into your eye that's similar enough to work then that's "fake-light." If you think that light works like normal and needs to enter your eye, that illusions do absolutely nothing remotely like entering your eye, and that instead of any of that illusions broadcast an idea into your brain that totally bypasses the whole eyeball part of the equation, then that's also "fake-light."

It's a placeholder, it's an asterisk. I don't know what you picture or how detailed it is, but whatever that thing is, that's "fake-light."

In this particular instance, we seemed to be operating with something similar to real light, where "the part where you see the sword" is only aimed at you when you're standing to the West of it, and then the same thing again but with 360 degrees of different options. You seemed to be posing that last thing as a challenge to the concept, but when we ignore complexity as an issue I don't see how it's a problem. When we bring complexity back in, like in actual play, then an illusionist doesn't make 4 different illusions with apparent depth just because that's a lot of crap to try and make all at once with such a low level spell.

No, that's not what I mean. If you think of the illusion as objectively "there," like a sculpture, then it's objectively there. I understand what you are saying completely, but it's not what I mean, and I don't think the spell is intended to work that way. Otherwise, as I said, you would be able to create the illusion of more than one "object." I think your example of the sword at 360 angles in still one "object," while 360 different statues are 360 different "objects."
360 different statues with 1 degree of information each seems to be exactly as complex as 1 statue with 360 degrees of information.
Let's say this world actually has an object that appears to be a sword when viewed from the rear and appears to be a basket when viewed from the front.
If you cast the spell with that object in mind then it's ONE object but it's got this unusual appearance. You only need about half of an actual basket's details and about half of a sword's details when you cast it. You're familiar with this object because it already exists in this world, and that's just the way it works.

In that kind of scenario I can't think of any reason you can't cast that illusion. In normal situations you can say that this is too unfamiliar of a concept or that it's really mentally awkward to envision only half of a sword without wasting time envisioning the other half, but those are in world reasons for denying it, not spell mechanic reasons (aside from the assumption that you need to picture what you make illusions of.)

It just goes way beyond the reasonable capability of a spell that is cast instantaneously. How can it change 30 seconds after it is cast, in response to its environment, from multiple angles?You're asking me HOW? I've been answering that question for ages.
How can a minor illusion change 30 seconds after it is cast? Under your assumptions it can't. The wizard has to do crazy mental math to make that happen, and it doesn't really make sense without concentration or some kind of action economy expenditure.

But guess what? Other people can assume different things. Under Segev's assumptions the wizard barely even had to think about what a mirror is like, and then 30 seconds down the road when you need the reflection to update because people are walking around? Oh hey, people moved so the image you seem to see in the mirror moved right along with them and all of this happens even if the wizard died 10 seconds ago, because it has nothing to do with the wizard at this point. Under a set of assumptions I haven't even really shared (because people can't seem to handle the fact that different people bring different assumptions to the table, and that it's fine to contemplate how different assumptions might work,) the mirror updates when you move because you expect it to. Under still different assumptions the mirror updates when you move in a kind of crappy way that's visually convincing but doesn't actually provide accurate information about what you see because the illusion strains itself to be believable until you do too good of a job examining it.

Which assumptions are right? Not applicable.

But the reason it is obviously an illusion, in this case, is because it fails to function as a mirror.I just got done explaining my preference to not use that kind of explanation. Here's the text again: "I don't personally desire to weave universal flaws into illusion magic that always give it away in the same way" and then after that I explain that not everyone shares that preference. Here's that text again, "but there seem to be a fair number of people that don't think that is a problem."

What you wrote... does not appear to be a response to this.

If I have a more limited scope? We're talking about one spell: minor illusion, since that is what the thread is about. So I did not limit the scope. Minor illusion is not in the mind of the observer. It is objectively there. This has been my stance all along.Thank you for limiting that scope. Now you're correct, unlike back when you were making blanket statements about all illusions.

So pull back the camera a bit. Remember like 3 exchanges back when you said that (all) illusions are not in the minds of creatures? Think about my first reply to that. Do you think I understood that you didn't actually mean all illusions? Do you think that I was simply telling you that if you mean "minor illusion," then you need to actually write out "minor illusion" instead of just "illusions"?

This was much harder than it needed to be, and I don't know why.

I have to explicitly state that I am talking about the spell Minor Illusion in a thread that is titled: Re: Help me understand this Minor Illusion "Inviisibility" trick!?

No, I do not.No, you can also implicitly state it. If you had said "these illusions are not in the minds of a creature," then that would have been fine.

I didn't. I don't know what you're talking about.If you did not read that context into it, then logically we can have illusions that are both physically there & in the mind of a creature, at the same time. We can also have illusions that are none of the above.

You seem to have taken a stance against those kinds of options. If I am correct in my understanding of your stance, I still wish to know how you determined that illusions must "be there" or "in a creature's mind" and only ever be one of those two options.

No. I don't know what you're talking about, here, at all. Why would I see a banana if it is a grey cube with a red dot?Because illusions confuse your senses, and because I said that's how this thing works. When you take a photo: Grey cube with a red dot. When you use your eyes and somebody asks you what you see: you say banana. That's just the facts of this hypothetical, and it doesn't matter how we explain WHY that happens.

I've given you the scenario, asked if that's the definition of a phantasm, and you seem to get that it is not. As such, I don't really need any further clarification, but if there's something you still wish to know about this portion of the conversation I invite you to ask.

No, I did not.
"Where if you asked them "does it have a reflection" they would say yes, even without any actual experiences of seeing things reflected in that mirror?"
"Absolutely. This is the 2e concept of a phantasm."

You see that bit where I specified that they don't experience a thing, but they say they do? "Gray cube with a red dot : banana" is explicitly and example of this sort. You seem to have told me yes, without actually catching the details of our exchange. This has also taken longer than it should have.

Vogonjeltz

2017-04-18, 06:45 PM

Except your game will end up getting bogged down because your players now have to ask if everything has a shadow, instead of just assuming that it has one like normal. And it still IS a pretty good indicator of an illusion or something else nefarious.

So you've now got illusions that are easy to spot if they're well illuminated, plus players asking whether trees have shadows to relax in.

Well, plus the theory doesn't at all address why illusions of things that are supposed to be shiny are not easy to spot, when it's well known that shiny things have reflections.

In short: it's dressing up a bunch of already failed arguments in some flowery prose, and you somehow ascribe that more weight...

Wouldn't it be faster for them to skip that question and just touch everything to confirm it's not an illusion?

Like, in the Tomb of Horrors, there are several illusions that wouldn't cast a shadow anyway, being Walls (and also in areas of total darkness without a light source).

This is the problem. The heat is not an effect being caused by the spell. The heat is being caused by the sun (or the light source). The heat is the light. If you say an illusory lens can work (w.r.t. light), then the lens can bend the light, which is bending the heat. You can't have it do one without the other. If you say no, this is an example of the spell creating heat... well then a working lens is an example of a spell creating light. You can't have it both ways.

There's no rational basis for any form of reflection. Things pass through the image, they can't touch it at all. Yes, you can see the image, but that's not a function of any form of physics, it's literally because of magic. Segev's entire argument that that should also excuse reflection because, magic, falls down flat because of the prohibition against things touching it.

It ever was thus.

Then I read this and I'm like "hmm... that makes some sense..."

So clearly I'm confused.

Segev's mistake is always assuming there's a real object. It's not real, stop pretending it has the qualities of a real object, it doesn't.

The image doesn't have color from reflecting actual light. It can't reflect light. Light, like all other things, passes through it.

When you make the mistake, as Segev does, of assuming any part of an image must be real, that's when you go down the rabbit hole of thinking what is fundamentally a deception of the viewers senses should be able to do all sorts of things it's entirely incapable of doing.

Minor Illusion makes an image of an object, despite Segev's evidence free assertions it still doesn't conjure an object .

There are no shadows, no reflections, no light emissions or alterations of any kind shape or form, that's expressly forbidden by the spell text (any....other...sensory...effect).

Zorku

2017-04-19, 02:36 PM

But it's not implicit, it's arrived at through reasoning. In the interest of making my thinking transparent, this is a part of the framework of my thinking:

1. Regardless of what illusion a wizard creates, the illusion itself is not aware of what it is.
2. Therefore, if a wizard creates an illusion of a ball, the ball doesn't know if it is matte, glossy, metallic, reflective, etc.
3. Since each of these options requires a different behaviour set in response to lighting, how can the wizard create each of the four distinctive effects with the same spell?
4. This seems to mean that there must be a set of default "programs" he can choose from, as a computer programmer would choose for the object - the problem is that then the illusion has to take on the ability to respond to other things (lighting effects, for example)
5. So it seems to me that the default has to be that every illusion reacts to light in exactly the same way.

1. Objects in general are not aware of what they are.
3. Easily, if you assume that lighting updates are purely based on texture and light sources.
4. You're getting WAY away from the text of the spell here, and #4 is all around a huge leap.
5. The way you wrote this one is the exact opposite of what #4 implied.

To bring in another example: could you create an illusion that looks like a box, but when you shine light on it, it looks like a ball?Is there an actual object like that in the world? If not, are there objects that are pretty close? If not, is it possible to actually create such an object?

One of the logical steps you seem to be using without having stated it, is roughly "if it breaks game balance it is illegal," along with a presumably reasonable understanding of what game balance is.

"Matte" doesn't mean it can't be painted to look like it's glossy. It means that it can't really BE glossy. A super-high-quality picture of a highly-polished glass sculpture is still matte, even if it has the illusion of being shiny.

Since nothing in minor illusion requires it to be matte, requiring that it can only have "artificial" shine and (by extension) artificial shading is adding restrictive text to the spell.I'm including this as something of a re-tweet. I rather like how this analogy fits your model, but also applies rather strongly to the models other people seem to be using.

To my understanding an illusion is not made of matter. Hence, no weight and no interaction with light.You appear to have countered your own argument about the sword illusion needing to fall under Segev's rules, and by using using logic that is not his too boot. Fairly ironic in light of the complains I omitted from this quotation.

All these pages of long posts convinced me to play illusions exactly as if the real object was there, except that it cannot be touched.

This means an illusion cast in the dark will be dark, then appear lit when someone turns on the light.
This means an illusion will reflect light in a realistic way if the source of light changes direction.
This means an illusion will cast shadows.
This means the illusionary miror will reflect images.

Why? Because I want to preserve my sanity :)
Doing it that way certainly does work much more smoothly for those of us with a strong bias towards spacial perception rulings.
I'm mostly including this for the next quote though:

I agree with you. I would play it this way. I think most everyone would.

When you say that most people have illusions act as Laurefindel does, do you include the dissenting voices in this very thread???

Or is this another time when you've said "yes, that's exactly right" to a whole bag of concepts when you really only mean one very specific concept?

I'm not sure that it's exactly the same because no comment was made about mirrors (or was it?).

O_O

"This means the illusionary miror will reflect images."

How much more clearly could someone have written that?

As a stage technician with experience in magician's acts, I also want to say this about mirror tricks.

You can create some AMAZING illusions, but most are very dependent on perspective and controlled lighting environments. We literally spend hours precisely hanging and focusing lights prior to a show and eliminating lateral light sources. Most tricks only work from a relatively narrow angle of vision: front side seats often either see the trick or miss the effect al together, forcing the magician to move rather far upstage to narrow that angle of vision. Most importantly, most of these tricks require that the viewer stays put. Get off your seat and start walking about the theatre and you are likely to notice the trick. If the viewer is attentive, some element of misdirection also needs to happen or the viewer will notice the "glitch".

All that to say, allowing illusionary mirrors to reflect light doesn't recreate cheap fail-proof invisibility effects. Frankly, you're better off casting an illusionary crate or barrel around you...
Flip your perspective on its head though. To the audience it seems like whatever it is that you've done simply... works. They know nothing of the limitations, and when they tell it as a story the leave all of those details out (t'would be silly to include details you don't know...) so if you botch it for the front row and somebody getting up to go to the bathroom sees something off they probably never find out that it didn't work for everyone in attendance and even if somebody says that "it looked weird" they have no idea what factors actually gave the trick away. Even today there are probably a few people in the crowd that think it was actually done with magical spells (the number depending on just how pessimistic I am about humanity on any given day...)

Now picture some of those people trying to write a book about what you did, lacking any research into how this worked except their own experience. How far off do you suppose their writing is from the description of what minor illusion does?

They have to at least know what it is they're making an image of. I'm rather operating on a Platonic concept of objects being things one conceives of as a whole. You can picture "a ball" to have whatever look you like, but you're picturing "a ball." If you choose to picture "a wooden ball painted silver," it's a different object than "a glass ball" or "a silver ball."

And if you try to make an image of something you can't picture, because you don't know what it is, you fail. For the same reason you can't make a floarb if you don't know what a floarb is. If somebody instructs you on it, until you know what one looks like, you can make an image of it. You can even embellish for specific effect.

No, if you don't know what anything shiny looks like, if you don't know what a mirror with its reflection looks like, you can't make one. You probably would wind up with the image of an object that has a painting on it that is being argued for by others. But that's because you don't know what the object is. You've no idea that something can be "reflective." Maybe you picture a sideways pool of water, and get that.

It all boils down to the spell creating an image of an object. Not an image of a sculpture of an object. The limitation that the caster must know of the object...maybe that's a house rule. Technically, it doesn't say the caster can't make images of objects he knows nothing of. I seriously doubt any DM would let yo uget away with that reasoning, but *shrug*
But those Platonic concepts, by virtue of their name, exist apart from the conception, so in a universal sense they are valid objects for the spell. Where does the book talk about how the wizard pictures an object before the spell's effects happen?

It makes a lot of sense to me to picture some object before casting an illusion of it, but only if you're doing all that mind's paintbrush stuff to make it happen. If these things just behave like objects then that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the wizard picturing it, and worse, if these things only have their properties because a wizard pictured them then we CAN have that mirror that reflects a different location than where it is positioned, by virtue of the wizard having an idiotic/genius understanding of the properties of the mirror he is creating. If I find the idiot and tell him about this mirror where I raise my hand and the image of me inside it raises their hand until he gets the idea of this piece of furniture that shows this image of me in real time and then he creates that on some wall I didn't expect, it doesn't violate any of the properties of the object he was envisioning. It's not a mirror by my definition, so maybe he has inadvertently thrown that label onto a flatscreen TV or some even stranger object that exists within the conceptual kind of Hilbert space we're looking at when we talk platonic objects.

As the gears in my head frantically turn to try and prevent this I can come up with a lot of arbitrary excuses for why it behaves like the kind of mirror that I thought I was describing to him, but if that's the case then we can do worse things that break the game more, like capturing some goblin and asking them "is your boss a mean enough creature that they'll torture you in ways that are worse than anything we can do to you?" and based off of innocuous questions like that the wizard can cast an illusion that shows us exactly who this goblin's boss is... and probably hundreds of other even more extreme kinds of munchkin abuse. This seems to mandate an arbitrary "works when I want it to, fails when I don't want it to work" kind of rule that I can't abide by.

I have no idea how you think these are different. I'm not talking about an actual painted sculpture. I'm talking about a perfect replica.A replica, as in, a painted sculpture? (Your next lines confirm that you think there is no difference when these things are both illusions, so I will continue with that.)

To Segev, instead of the sword and replica sword merging into one category within the realm of illusory objects, he sees the loss of one of those two categories. If an illusion of a sword and an illusion of a replica of a sword are identical then both are simply illusions of sword-replicas, and we are left unable to make an illusion of a sword... or vice versa.

We obviously disagree over what it means to look like the object in all ways. See, for me a sword can look like the real sword in all ways, without reacting to the light. The sword itself, in the case of minor illusion, cannot move, so the reflections, sheen, and shadows upon it will not move in any way. There's no possibility of the illusion failing to be convincing. Unless the lighting changes. But that makes sense to me, seems relatively unlikely to me, and wizards can take simple precautions since they know this.Quick mental exercise: There is never a moment when the lighting is not changing. Does this make the spell useless? Does this allow me to cheat and not actually make an investigation roll to detemine if something is an illusion? Does my character not have to be convinced that this illusion seems normal if I fail an investigation check?

And the RAW of the spell do not state that it is reflective.You're overstepping your bounds there. The RAW of the spell is that it's up to the DM if reflections are "other sensory effects."

I disagree. The model I am putting forward does not give off reflections "because magic." It does;t give them off at all. If a wizard wished for his illusion to look like it reflects, he must create the reflection as part of the illusion (which would not be a real reflection - it would just look like one, as a photograph of the sea, for example).Another quick mental exercise: Let's just state that the reflection is a property of the image. Now illusions have reflections, right?

Well, what is the light touching?An immaterial 'thing.'

I reject that notion because it seems to fly in the face of a rich and believable worldAs written this is a non-issue. Your intent is probably more along the lines of "fly in the face of a world where the mind and senses are robust, without built in, almost magical, defects." In stuff like the Cthulhu mythos the mind is a lot more fragile, so the cube with scribbles on the faces that make you experience something totally seem-less makes much more sense. That particular world isn't going through the same narrative revival right this instant, but how rich and believable a world is mostly just depends on consistency and captivating writing that covers a broad subject matter.

As for the images being BAD, that seems to be exactly what the investigation check is about. We're just quibbling over exactly how bad a DC 18 minor illusion actually is, which brings us full circle to that damn thread from like six months ago.

I'm mostly checking out of this mirror discussion, since I don't think I can add anything new or meaningful to the discussion at this point. I just wanted to point out that this is the part I feel I trip up on, and haven't really understood the explanation on.

Then I read this and I'm like "hmm... that makes some sense..."

So clearly I'm confused.We're talking about things that have real appearances but aren't real, and that confuse the senses. Any time that's not real world tricks with precise mechanics that's going to have weird and probably fuzzy reasons it works one way and not another (although everyone that takes a hard stance in these posts seems to disagree with that, albeit in all different directions...)

I would like to go back, if I may, for a moment, and ask if people ever used the blind or screen method like the PC in my game did, or was it always mirrors?I've done illusory walls just a few feet away from actual walls, or where actual walls would go. Very early on I encountered these explanations that you can't create subtract elements in a space via the basic illusion spells, so I've never tried anything like ghostblinds out in the middle of an open space. At closest I've created some dense foliage like what you could normally hide in, but I generally don't want 3/4ths cover when I could have full cover for the same price, so I tend to create a large rock or the remains of an old tree or things like that that make sense in different environments.

Once in awhile I'll cast illusory walls and things in combat just to force a creature to move up to it or around it, but within the confines of the game, if I want to be invisible while out in the open I use invisibility. I can reflavor that to be a bunch of ghost blinds if that's the sort of thing my character would do, and the DM likes that kind of fluff, but I mostly don't because I mostly want invisibility if I'm trying to be mobile.

Yes, you can see the image, but that's not a function of any form of physics, it's literally because of magic.
Ugh. FFS man. Fine.

"You can see a reflection in the illusory mirror, but that's not a function of any form of physics, it's literally because of magic."
I don't want to have any further discussion of what sensory effects are with you, so standing alone, does the above sentence work?

The image doesn't have color from reflecting actual light. It can't reflect light. Light, like all other things, passes through it.I will direct you to Christian's most recent post.

Asmotherion

2017-04-19, 03:38 PM

Segev

2017-04-19, 04:24 PM

I think, Zorku, the issue we're having over "picture the object and it appears" is one of differentiation on what one is allowed to picture.

Consider it thusly: Unless you are a trained artist, what you picture when you envision a portrait of a ballerina in mid-leap towards the viewer and what you'd wind up drawing (or painting, or whatever) would be very different. Most people - even trained artists, but especially those who claim they can't draw - will be imminently frustrated by their inability to translate the mental construct of "a ballerina mid-leap from the front" into a set of lines, shades, and colors on a canvas. Even removing the 2D/3D perspective issues and going for sculpture, most people handed a bar of soap and all the tools they could possibly ask for would be annoyed at the coarse, unrealistic quality of their sculpture compared to what they envisioned.

While you might say, in D&D, this is just a matter of skill, I contend that this is a case where what that difference between mental vision and artistic skill is the important thing to consider. That is, what that skill is: the understanding of how individual visual components come together to form an image. Everybody who is functional in a way we recognize as human can picture objects with far more clarity in their mind than most of them could depict with art supplies. Lacking the skill to translate mental image to specific lines, shapes, perspectives, they instead envision the object as a whole, often without realizing they mentally insert and delete angles and perspectives and motions that aren't possible nor necessary to the 2D depiction (or even the 3D sculpture).

Nevertheless, minor illusion doesn't call for an Intelligence(Craft:Painting) or (Craft:Sculpture) roll. Its convincingness is predicated on the caster's skill/power as a mage.

So while I referenced the concept of platonic objects, what I really was getting at is that mental construct of the object. This is what the illusionist "pictures" and the spell plucks as a whole concept from his mind to translate into reality. It has details, flourishes, color choices, etc. as he envisioned, but it is an image of the whole object as he pictured it, not a painting he skillfully (or not-so-skillfully) rendered out of magical colors he carefully placed to create the impression of the object he intended.

If you picture the mirror on your bathroom wall right now, you certainly have a realistic conception of it. If an image of it were to appear on the wall of your office, you could probably (assuming it has salient features at all) tell that it is, in fact, the mirror on your bathroom wall that is imaged there. Whether it has every minute detail might be part of that Investigation DC, but it has enough to be recognizable compared to other mirrors (assuming that these mirrors would be distinguishable in reality).

However, it isn't a painting of that mirror. If it were, it would be only as good not as you picture it, but as your skill at bringing colors together to emulate a mirror (including whatever static faux reflection you paint into it) allows. The spell, however, says it makes an image of a mirror. That specific mirror, since that's the object you thought of to create with this spell.

If you pictured a different mirror, or pictured an imaginary mirror you thought up, it would show up, too, as realistic an object as your spellcasting allows, and you'd recognize it as the mirror you were thinking of. Even though you might lack the skill as a sculptor or painter to recreate it, even with it right in front of you, in an artistic medium.

These illusions work on concepts, not "paintings," but the concepts can have specific details as the caster envisions them.

Zorku

2017-04-20, 01:15 PM

Most people just forget to take those things into consideration... Wile it is a perfectly eligible use of Silent Image, the 5 foot cube does not cut it. It will look as an extenssion of the wall, not a natural part of it, and should someone notic, it gives a reason for investigation.

What really works would be to create a 5-foot cube-filling item and hide inside it. Since the Illusion is intangible, you can pass through it, and chose an item that blends in well with the environment, such as, for example, a Boulder on a mountain, a cupboard in a house, or a barel in a winerry... Practically anything that can blend in with the environment without raising suspicion and giving the oportunity to someone to investigate it; By RAW, only if someone wants to investigate the specific item in question (using an action) he/she can save against the spell, so just don't provide a reason for your illusion to get investigated. You then just need to crouch (or not, if a gnome/halfing), and hide (using an action to do so, unless you're a rogue, thus a bonus action) inside the illusion.

Wile Minor Illusion is an extreamly versalite and amazing cantrip, people tend to go to extreamities, and try to abuse it. You can use it in loads of situations, but always within reason, and any sane DM won't allow for too crazy stuff.A number of people would probably jump down your throat for saying that silent image can pull this off... except that this has been a long thread and most of us are fatigued at this point.

The criticism that I will give, is that the thread was "how could this work?" You've come in to say that it can't, and then alluded to silent image being able to do this without actually explaining how or why (I presume it's just a matter of how much space you have to play with, rather than creating totally different sorts of illusions, but you really haven't given me enough to go off of,) and dismissed the entire thread without really showing that you've got any idea what conversation we are having.

I think, Zorku, the issue we're having over "picture the object and it appears" is one of differentiation on what one is allowed to picture.Well no. Limits on what somebody is allowed to picture lead to some of the absurdities I pointed out, but "the issue we're having" is that the spell doesn't say anything about having to picture an object.

Consider it thusly: Unless you are a trained artist, what you picture when you envision a portrait of a ballerina in mid-leap towards the viewer and what you'd wind up drawing (or painting, or whatever) would be very different. Most people - even trained artists, but especially those who claim they can't draw - will be imminently frustrated by their inability to translate the mental construct of "a ballerina mid-leap from the front" into a set of lines, shades, and colors on a canvas. Even removing the 2D/3D perspective issues and going for sculpture, most people handed a bar of soap and all the tools they could possibly ask for would be annoyed at the coarse, unrealistic quality of their sculpture compared to what they envisioned.Just as an aside, within the last five or so years I've become acutely aware that there's just not much detail there when I "picture a ballerina." The best way that I can describe it would be that I've figured out that I can mentally zoom in and just look at what's actually there, and it seems to be roughly comparable to the coarse and unrealistic art that I produce when I try to transcribe this. Ideally I've just found a way to deal with my mental imagery where the illusory sense of it being realistic falls away, but maybe something went wrong in my head and things are much more muted and dull than what I used to imaging.

I can still well enough model the way that other people feel like they've got a fully detailed ballerina in their mind's eye though, so we can continue as if my experience doesn't call that premise into question.

While you might say, in D&D, this is just a matter of skill, I contend that this is a case where what that difference between mental vision and artistic skill is the important thing to consider. That is, what that skill is: the understanding of how individual visual components come together to form an image. Everybody who is functional in a way we recognize as human can picture objects with far more clarity in their mind than most of them could depict with art supplies. Lacking the skill to translate mental image to specific lines, shapes, perspectives, they instead envision the object as a whole, often without realizing they mentally insert and delete angles and perspectives and motions that aren't possible nor necessary to the 2D depiction (or even the 3D sculpture).This seems to be what the mental paint brush model already says. The paintbrush is an analogy, not an actual description. When I've suggested to other people that they are operating on a model somewhat like this it has never come with some assumption that the wizard sits down for three hours mentally moving some figment of their imagination back and forth to create lines or fill in space. If you prefer we could say that they've got a mental camera that takes a perfect snapshot of whatever "object" they visualize and then via magic, projects that into the world as one of these phantom images, but that's still an analogy and you've got to try and see past it because film is 2d and we there's no angle where someone can walk in front of the projection, and... the point isn't to mechanically describe how the illusion happens; the book has already given us all of the RAW mechanics we get (basically none,) and the Sage Advice has cast a faint and blurry shadow that we can use to reconstruct the way that the developers thought about this while they were writing and playtesting it.

So, conceptually, I still think that this whole concept of picturing the object belongs to the mental paintbrush camp, and find it weird that it features in your model.

Nevertheless, minor illusion doesn't call for an Intelligence(Craft:Painting) or (Craft:Sculpture) roll. Its convincingness is predicated on the caster's skill/power as a mage.The game doesn't have crafting skills, so this physical medium art stuff should probably be performance checks, with some leeway to use skills like deception if you're going for false perspective or investigation if you've actually got the easel set up in front of what you wish to paint. Because painting is only adventure-relevant when you take the mental paintbrush analogy too literally, there's not really any one thing in our toolkit that it maps to, barring DM rulings that you'd probably try to get out of the way during character creation.

So while I referenced the concept of platonic objects, what I really was getting at is that mental construct of the object.Yeesh, that's almost the polar opposite dude.

This is what the illusionist "pictures" and the spell plucks as a whole concept from his mind to translate into reality. It has details, flourishes, color choices, etc. as he envisioned, but it is an image of the whole object as he pictured it, not a painting he skillfully (or not-so-skillfully) rendered out of magical colors he carefully placed to create the impression of the object he intended.I just want to be clear in stating that I understand what you are describing. What I don't understand, is the justification for it.

If you picture the mirror on your bathroom wall right now, you certainly have a realistic conception of it. If an image of it were to appear on the wall of your office, you could probably (assuming it has salient features at all) tell that it is, in fact, the mirror on your bathroom wall that is imaged there. Whether it has every minute detail might be part of that Investigation DC, but it has enough to be recognizable compared to other mirrors (assuming that these mirrors would be distinguishable in reality). I pictured a large reflective rectangle with the wall behind it inverted on the surface, shifted my mental self (mostly moved a shoulder, and now that I think about it I'm some kind of gray silhouette in this mental picture,) and noticed that I wasn't in the image at all, drew my reflection into my mental image, remembered that my bathroom has the mirror on a medicine cabinet, and then drew in the 2 gaps in the reflective surface between the 3 panels that swing open to reveal my allergy medication and various stomach ailment treatments. As I started to draw in the pill bottles I wiped the mental image clean because I realized I had gone off topic, and now I've got the 3 mirror panels but without myself or my reflection. The whole process is fairly similar to the architect girl in inception manipulating the world around her, except that I started with a blank slate.

I don't know exactly how much other people can keep up with themselves doing this, or if they can even realize that the first few moments didn't include a reflection of themselves vs asking if there's a reflection of themselves and then saying yes before they've even mentally checked (and the coughing fits I was having last night that kept me from getting any deep sleep might be radically altering how fast different circuits in my brain work in relation to each other.)

So, as you read this sentence, I want you to picture your bathroom mirror. A relative or room mate is walking past it to place some new soap in the shower, and there is a stain on the wall. Do you have any sense of those elements popping in and out of your mental image while you add elements to the scene? Does the reflection of all of this in the mental mirror feel real? Was it all there right from the start, even though it stands to reason that you started picturing the bathroom mirror approximately two seconds before the stain on the wall?

These illusions work on concepts, not "paintings," but the concepts can have specific details as the caster envisions them.And I spent quite a bit of my last post going over the problems that fall out of working with concepts. So, again, if I run into an idiot wizard that has no concept of a mirror, and I explain it to poorly, in a way that gives them a concept that is much more like a flat screen television, and they try to make an illusion of that in a way I wouldn't have expected, what happens? There are very obvious problems if we get a flat screen television, and there are very obvious problems if we get a mirror based on my understanding of mirrors. When you talk about working with concepts instead of paintings, is there some other category that I'm missing? Is there some way to get the kind of garbage results you expect from an idiot that knows almost nothing about mirrors without being arbitrary about this, even though the concept he ends up with is effectively a flat screen tv?

Segev

2017-04-20, 01:59 PM

The trouble is that you're still trying to paint the specific details, rather than just describe the object. "Zorku's mirror is a three-paneled mirror with golden-gilded wood frames around each panel, hinged together. As a mirror, it bears reflections of whatever's in front of it," may not be the most precise (or accurate, as you didn't mention the framing so I made something up because I wanted to include it) image, but it works.

You don't have to identify every line and stroke, every carved angle. You just need to have your mental conception of the object, which can be described with or without words to yourself.

The spell creates an image of an object. It doesn't empower the wizard to paint arbitrary colors in the air. Thus, "an object" must be something the caster conceives.

Describing in detail what the specific reflections you want me to envision on my bathroom mirror are is pointless, because while I do picture the mirror bearing reflections, I am not projecting a snapshot of the mirror at a point in time, or even over time, as the minor illusion. I am casting a spell that creates an image of the object. (Actually, my bathroom mirror wouldn't fit into the 5x5x5 cube we have limits of, but that's beside the point.) The image of the object appears as it would look were the actual object where I cause it to appear. If I actually misconceive of how it looks, deliberately or otherwise, I get the wrong object, but I don't have to have every detail consciously in mind, nor do I have to know exactly how to place them in perspective. What I do need is to know the object. Its image appears as well as I know it or can picture it.

Again, picturing it isn't painting with arbitrary colors. Picturing it isn't about picturing exactly what reflects off of it where, or exactly what shade it will have in that lighting in that alcove where I'm going to put it.

If I conceive of the object "a red ball," and cast minor illusion to place an image of it in a dimly-lit alcove, I don't get an image of a brightly lit, flat-colored, no-shading red ball. I get an image of a red ball of uniform red color as it would appear in that shadowy alcove, with darker maroon and even near-black shadows and shading at various points, depending on the lighting. Because I'm conceiving of the object, not of specific ways to "paint" it to fit in to its environment.

Zorku

2017-04-20, 05:39 PM

The trouble is that you're still trying to paint the specific details, rather than just describe the object. "Zorku's mirror is a three-paneled mirror with golden-gilded wood frames around each panel, hinged together. As a mirror, it bears reflections of whatever's in front of it," may not be the most precise (or accurate, as you didn't mention the framing so I made something up because I wanted to include it) image, but it works.

You don't have to identify every line and stroke, every carved angle. You just need to have your mental conception of the object, which can be described with or without words to yourself.I may not have mental conceptions then. What happens when I "picture a ballerina" is apparently very different from when you try the same thing.

The spell creates an image of an object. It doesn't empower the wizard to paint arbitrary colors in the air. Thus, "an object" must be something the caster conceives.Colored wax sculpture of the outline of a cube.

Describing in detail what the specific reflections you want me to envision on my bathroom mirror are is pointless, because while I do picture the mirror bearing reflections, I am not projecting a snapshot of the mirror at a point in time, or even over time, as the minor illusion. I am casting a spell that creates an image of the object. (Actually, my bathroom mirror wouldn't fit into the 5x5x5 cube we have limits of, but that's beside the point.) The image of the object appears as it would look were the actual object where I cause it to appear. If I actually misconceive of how it looks, deliberately or otherwise, I get the wrong object, but I don't have to have every detail consciously in mind, nor do I have to know exactly how to place them in perspective. What I do need is to know the object. Its image appears as well as I know it or can picture it.I had already warned you that the comparison was not mechanistic. This objection has nothing to do with the substance of what I presented to you.

As the latter topic: Therefore my idiot wizard friend can make minor illusions of flat screen televisions. Is this correct?

Again, picturing it isn't painting with arbitrary colors. Picturing it isn't about picturing exactly what reflects off of it where, or exactly what shade it will have in that lighting in that alcove where I'm going to put it.During the first few moments of picturing my bathroom mirror I would have had a wrong object that was a rectangular mirror that does not reflect me. Is this correct?

If I conceive of the object "a red ball," and cast minor illusion to place an image of it in a dimly-lit alcove, I don't get an image of a brightly lit, flat-colored, no-shading red ball. I get an image of a red ball of uniform red color as it would appear in that shadowy alcove, with darker maroon and even near-black shadows and shading at various points, depending on the lighting. Because I'm conceiving of the object, not of specific ways to "paint" it to fit in to its environment.What part of what I have been saying makes you think that I do not understand this idea of putting the red ball into place and the ambient lighting of the area playing nicely with it to make this illusion seamless with the environment (if only in terms of lighting)?

BurgerBeast

2017-04-21, 12:30 AM

@Segev: you seem to be attaching a lot of meaning to the term "an image of an object" that I do not.

In terms of the illusion, I do not think the illusionist mentally paints it, either. I think he just imagines it and it appears. I fail to see how this is relevant, though.

Silent image is restricted to objects or sounds. If you create an object, it doesn't have the ability to change. For me, that's the end of it.

I don't know how you describe the changes that occur on the face of a television that is showing a program, but this is change. The T.V. that you see is changing. An illusion of a TV cast by silent image can't do this. This change is the exact same kind of change that an illusion of a mirror would have to do in order to "function as a mirror."

In order for any illusion to appear to function in any way (move, change colour, reflect, twinkle, anything), it has to change. What the observer sees has to change. When an observer looks at a real mirror, the mirror that the observer sees changes. You can argue that the mirror doesn't change in terms of physical properties, but the thing that is looked at changes. The picture seen in the mirror changes. Illusions can't do that unless the spell description says so.

In my view, the caster cannot change the illusion once it is cast. If he could, there ought not to be a limit to the changes that can be made (expire those described by the spell). I happen to imagine that a changing illusion "refreshes" but I'm not sure that's of any consequence.

@Zorku: I don't know how something that has no matter can have texture.

Vogonjeltz

2017-04-21, 07:47 AM

Ugh. FFS man. Fine.

"You can see a reflection in the illusory mirror, but that's not a function of any form of physics, it's literally because of magic."
I don't want to have any further discussion of what sensory effects are with you, so standing alone, does the above sentence work?

I will direct you to Christian's most recent post.

Of course not. Reflections aren't objects. Having a reflection expressly violates the terms and conditions of the image.

Christian's view on what a shadow constitutes isn't correct, but thanks anyway.

Segev

2017-04-21, 09:29 AM

Colored wax sculpture of the outline of a cube.A valid object. I'm...not sure what you're trying to say with this.

I had already warned you that the comparison was not mechanistic. This objection has nothing to do with the substance of what I presented to you.Then I don't think I understand your point.

As the latter topic: Therefore my idiot wizard friend can make minor illusions of flat screen televisions. Is this correct?Let me approach this from another angle.

Let's assume we're playing a D&D 5e game set in what is, despite the presence of magic, the recognizably modern western world. "A flat-screen TV" is definitely an object.

A wizard casting minor illusion could definitely create such an object. He might even be able to create it "on." However, as he lacks the input mechanisms to feed it an image, the best he could do is have it with a frozen image or, maybe, a "screen saver" of a very simplistic sort. (I'm open to debate as to what qualifies, here.) But he couldn't give it a program to display. Because there's no way to input it.

"A flat screen TV" doesn't, by simply being placed in a room with no way to pick up a signal, show TV shows. Since minor illusion doesn't provide input means to it, you can't get it to. (And that's leaving aside any complexity arguments, or, as I've been terming it, "activities such as making gunpowder by describing the precise actions necessary to do so.")

So a wizard who wanted a flat screen TV with a displayed image probably has to conceive of the object not as a flat screen TV, but as a model of one with a faux display painted on.

During the first few moments of picturing my bathroom mirror I would have had a wrong object that was a rectangular mirror that does not reflect me. Is this correct?No. If you picture a "glass-covered painting of the room behind me that doesn't include me," by the time you finish casting the spell, that's what you get. But note that this is what you'd have to be conceiving of. If you're conceiving of "a mirror," you'll get that object. It will be a fully-detailed version of whatever you conceived of it to look like, even if your conception was "rough." Within whatever limits there are for the Investigation DC, at least. But it will include a reflective surface, because that's what mirrors have.

What part of what I have been saying makes you think that I do not understand this idea of putting the red ball into place and the ambient lighting of the area playing nicely with it to make this illusion seamless with the environment (if only in terms of lighting)?The part where you keep insisting that a reflection requires the image to "update" or "react" to the environment more than that illusion of a ball. (If you're not claiming that, then I'm not sure where your objection to reflections stems from.)

@Segev: you seem to be attaching a lot of meaning to the term "an image of an object" that I do not.

In terms of the illusion, I do not think the illusionist mentally paints it, either. I think he just imagines it and it appears. I fail to see how this is relevant, though.

Silent image is restricted to objects or sounds. If you create an object, it doesn't have the ability to change. For me, that's the end of it.It doesn't require the ability to change to bear a reflection.

It merely requires that it be an image of an object that would do so. This requires no change in the image. It only requires that it behave visually like the object would: sit there and show up in its environment the way the object would if the object were in that exact position.

I don't know how you describe the changes that occur on the face of a television that is showing a program, but this is change. The T.V. that you see is changing. An illusion of a TV cast by silent image can't do this. This change is the exact same kind of change that an illusion of a mirror would have to do in order to "function as a mirror."Where did you see me saying that minor illusion can make a TV that is exhibiting a changing display (beyond - ARGUABLY - maybe a screen saver type deal. Even that I'm iffy on).

Do you honestly think that a (real) TV is doing the same thing that a (real) mirror is doing? Really?

In order for any illusion to appear to function in any way (move, change colour, reflect, twinkle, anything), it has to change.No, it doesn't. Witness the image of a red ball under a green light, which should appear black or dun. When put under a white light, it should appear red, except for where shading makes it grow darker (which also provides most of our visual cues that it is, in fact, a sphere). If that were a real read ball, you wouldn't say the ball is changing. The image need not change, either, then, for it to appear under all those lighting conditions as the real ball would.

What the observer sees has to change.True. But that doesn't require the object to change. Neither does it require an image of an object to change.

When an observer looks at a real mirror, the mirror that the observer sees changes.No, it doesn't.

You can argue that the mirror doesn't change in terms of physical properties, but the thing that is looked at changes.No, the thing that is looked at doesn't change. Unless they're not looking at the mirror. Which they're not; they're looking at the reflection.

Would you say that a shadow puppet play has the viewers watching the screen, or the shadows? Is the screen changing? No, it is not.

The picture seen in the mirror changes. Illusions can't do that unless the spell description says so.There is no picture in the mirror. That is the fundamental error you're making. The mirror bears a reflection. A reflection is NOT a picture; it is a visual property of how shiny things look. You're essentially saying that images of objects cannot be shiny. Which is nowhere in the spell description.

In my view, the caster cannot change the illusion once it is cast. If he could, there ought not to be a limit to the changes that can be made (expire those described by the spell). I happen to imagine that a changing illusion "refreshes" but I'm not sure that's of any consequence.I agree. The problem is not with me thinking the image can change and you thinking it cannot. The problem is that you're assuming that a red ball in a dark room must look equally black when the light turns on, lest the ball be "changing."

If you don't believe that...then you're inconsistent when you claim that a reflection changing represents the mirror changing.

@Zorku: I don't know how something that has no matter can have texture.So... you can't make an image of a rough stone wall? Of sandpaper? Of a fur rug?

Of course not. Reflections aren't objects. Having a reflection expressly violates the terms and conditions of the image.Reflections are visual properties of objects. They are part of the image of an object that bears them. There is no violation unless you add text that isn't present in the spell to invent it.

Zorku

2017-04-21, 09:37 AM

@Zorku: I don't know how something that has no matter can have texture.Even if you don't recognize it you probably do. And little bump on the surface of something normally casts a tiny little shadow, and any little indent is more brightly lit on the portion that is perpendicular relative to the light source. You've probably played at least a couple of videogames or watched a few movies with digital elements that use a technique called "bump mapping," which is a way to make those mass-less shapes interact with the photon-less lighting of that digital space to create the same textures that you see in our world where things have mass and light is wave-particles.

Of course not. Reflections aren't objects. Having a reflection expressly violates the terms and conditions of the image.

Christian's view on what a shadow constitutes isn't correct, but thanks anyway.
Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I dismiss your claims.

Laurefindel

2017-04-21, 10:30 AM

Christian's view on what a shadow constitutes isn't correct, but thanks anyway.

but according to which paradigm? For us to be able to perceive (see) an object without it emitting or reflecting light is incorrect. An intangible image reflecting light is incorrect. An intangible image blocking light (casting shadows) is incorrect. The whole light/illusion/darkvision interaction is incorrect.

The only 'correct' way to interpret illusions is to describe it as a non-punctual, static (for lower level illusions anyway) and continuous output of light (i.e. it's a colored, shaped and textured source of light)

So Christian's view on shadows is, to paraphrase a famous Jedi, correct 'from a certain point of view'. If we can align all these certain point of views in a coherent and consistent manner, then we have an acceptable conception/interpretation of illusions.

Asmotherion

2017-04-21, 05:34 PM

A number of people would probably jump down your throat for saying that silent image can pull this off... except that this has been a long thread and most of us are fatigued at this point.

The criticism that I will give, is that the thread was "how could this work?" You've come in to say that it can't, and then alluded to silent image being able to do this without actually explaining how or why (I presume it's just a matter of how much space you have to play with, rather than creating totally different sorts of illusions, but you really haven't given me enough to go off of,) and dismissed the entire thread without really showing that you've got any idea what conversation we are having.

Well no. Limits on what somebody is allowed to picture lead to some of the absurdities I pointed out, but "the issue we're having" is that the spell doesn't say anything about having to picture an object.

Just as an aside, within the last five or so years I've become acutely aware that there's just not much detail there when I "picture a ballerina." The best way that I can describe it would be that I've figured out that I can mentally zoom in and just look at what's actually there, and it seems to be roughly comparable to the coarse and unrealistic art that I produce when I try to transcribe this. Ideally I've just found a way to deal with my mental imagery where the illusory sense of it being realistic falls away, but maybe something went wrong in my head and things are much more muted and dull than what I used to imaging.

I can still well enough model the way that other people feel like they've got a fully detailed ballerina in their mind's eye though, so we can continue as if my experience doesn't call that premise into question.

This seems to be what the mental paint brush model already says. The paintbrush is an analogy, not an actual description. When I've suggested to other people that they are operating on a model somewhat like this it has never come with some assumption that the wizard sits down for three hours mentally moving some figment of their imagination back and forth to create lines or fill in space. If you prefer we could say that they've got a mental camera that takes a perfect snapshot of whatever "object" they visualize and then via magic, projects that into the world as one of these phantom images, but that's still an analogy and you've got to try and see past it because film is 2d and we there's no angle where someone can walk in front of the projection, and... the point isn't to mechanically describe how the illusion happens; the book has already given us all of the RAW mechanics we get (basically none,) and the Sage Advice has cast a faint and blurry shadow that we can use to reconstruct the way that the developers thought about this while they were writing and playtesting it.

So, conceptually, I still think that this whole concept of picturing the object belongs to the mental paintbrush camp, and find it weird that it features in your model.

The game doesn't have crafting skills, so this physical medium art stuff should probably be performance checks, with some leeway to use skills like deception if you're going for false perspective or investigation if you've actually got the easel set up in front of what you wish to paint. Because painting is only adventure-relevant when you take the mental paintbrush analogy too literally, there's not really any one thing in our toolkit that it maps to, barring DM rulings that you'd probably try to get out of the way during character creation.

Yeesh, that's almost the polar opposite dude.

I just want to be clear in stating that I understand what you are describing. What I don't understand, is the justification for it.

I pictured a large reflective rectangle with the wall behind it inverted on the surface, shifted my mental self (mostly moved a shoulder, and now that I think about it I'm some kind of gray silhouette in this mental picture,) and noticed that I wasn't in the image at all, drew my reflection into my mental image, remembered that my bathroom has the mirror on a medicine cabinet, and then drew in the 2 gaps in the reflective surface between the 3 panels that swing open to reveal my allergy medication and various stomach ailment treatments. As I started to draw in the pill bottles I wiped the mental image clean because I realized I had gone off topic, and now I've got the 3 mirror panels but without myself or my reflection. The whole process is fairly similar to the architect girl in inception manipulating the world around her, except that I started with a blank slate.

I don't know exactly how much other people can keep up with themselves doing this, or if they can even realize that the first few moments didn't include a reflection of themselves vs asking if there's a reflection of themselves and then saying yes before they've even mentally checked (and the coughing fits I was having last night that kept me from getting any deep sleep might be radically altering how fast different circuits in my brain work in relation to each other.)

So, as you read this sentence, I want you to picture your bathroom mirror. A relative or room mate is walking past it to place some new soap in the shower, and there is a stain on the wall. Do you have any sense of those elements popping in and out of your mental image while you add elements to the scene? Does the reflection of all of this in the mental mirror feel real? Was it all there right from the start, even though it stands to reason that you started picturing the bathroom mirror approximately two seconds before the stain on the wall?

And I spent quite a bit of my last post going over the problems that fall out of working with concepts. So, again, if I run into an idiot wizard that has no concept of a mirror, and I explain it to poorly, in a way that gives them a concept that is much more like a flat screen television, and they try to make an illusion of that in a way I wouldn't have expected, what happens? There are very obvious problems if we get a flat screen television, and there are very obvious problems if we get a mirror based on my understanding of mirrors. When you talk about working with concepts instead of paintings, is there some other category that I'm missing? Is there some way to get the kind of garbage results you expect from an idiot that knows almost nothing about mirrors without being arbitrary about this, even though the concept he ends up with is effectively a flat screen tv?

excuse me? did you really read my post? I explain that, wile it would be impractical/impossible to do so with a wall, it is possible to pull this off by being creative and making something with the right dimensions and that fits in the surounding, such as a Cupboard. This is an 100% RAW use of the spell.

Then, the spell itself, says things can pass through it, so you can pass through, and end your movement inside your illusion.

I never said it's impossible someone will investigate, especially if they are very fammiliar with the place. I just say it makes it less probable, as long as you make something realistic and that blends in with the surounding. I never suggested camouflage, I am just suggesting an alternative use to enable "virtual invisibility" as in concealment, not "invisibility as the spell", witch is obviously something you can't pull off at all angles, just from one particular angle.

Minor illusion creates "The (3-d) image of an object". Invisibility is not an object. A Camouflage canvas is an object, but it works from a particular view point, and you can still see it's outline. Now, if I make the image of a wall, at the same colour as the wall behind me, what I really have is an other wall in front of the other wall. A 5-foot cube wall, that is more suspicious than benefical in this situation.

It would look like this:http://j.people.com.cn/mediafile/201403/27/F201403270824164581515254.jpg
and not really fool anyone, but instead be cool enough to look at, thus giving reason for investigation.

Were exactly did I go overboard to offend you so much as to receve this passive-agressive post as a reply?

Vogonjeltz

2017-04-21, 07:11 PM

Reflections are visual properties of objects. They are part of the image of an object that bears them. There is no violation unless you add text that isn't present in the spell to invent it.

Reflections depict things other than the object, so what you're saying can't possibly be true.

Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I dismiss your claims

You've correctly assessed what I did. You claimed a reflection is an object without evidence, and it was dismissed.

but according to which paradigm? For us to be able to perceive (see) an object without it emitting or reflecting light is incorrect. An intangible image reflecting light is incorrect. An intangible image blocking light (casting shadows) is incorrect. The whole light/illusion/darkvision interaction is incorrect.

The only 'correct' way to interpret illusions is to describe it as a non-punctual, static (for lower level illusions anyway) and continuous output of light (i.e. it's a colored, shaped and textured source of light)

So Christian's view on shadows is, to paraphrase a famous Jedi, correct 'from a certain point of view'. If we can align all these certain point of views in a coherent and consistent manner, then we have an acceptable conception/interpretation of illusions.

He stated that a shadow is a property of an object. Shadows are properties of light interacting with objects, not the objects themselves. They do not exist wherever an object exists, but instead where light interplays with objects.

No real object to interact with light = no shadow. Shadows are literally impossible if whatever we're talking about can't interact with things. And, of course, minor illusion images are clearly stated as being prohibited from interacting with anything at all: Things pass through it.

It's outright foolish to suggest that something dependent on interaction can exist when that interaction is impossible.

BurgerBeast

2017-04-22, 01:48 PM

I feel like most of the discussion is happening two or three steps beyond the actual point of disagreement.

If I stand in front of a real mirror, and I move, then what I see changes. This is not because the real mirror changes. This is because the environment around the mirror is changing, and the mirror is a physical object capable of interacting with that environment.

If I stand in front of an illusion of a mirror, and I move, and what I see changes, then there is a problem. The illusion is not a physical object nor is it capable of interacting with its environment. The only way for the illusion of the mirror to change is if the illusion changes.

The illusion can't change.

It doesn't require the ability to change to bear a reflection.

That isn't part of the claim.

In order to bear a reflection, an object must be real. An illusion is not real.

It merely requires that it be an image of an object that would do so.

No, this is not true in any context. Creating an image of something that has a property does not bestow upon the image that same property.

This requires no change in the image. It only requires that it behave visually like the object would: sit there and show up in its environment the way the object would if the object were in that exact position.

You've obviously locked yourself into this position, so I'm not sure that you will ever be reasoned or persuaded out of it. Why can't I paint an image of a working mirror? (Or if I can, then specifically how and why?)

Where did you see me saying that minor illusion can make a TV that is exhibiting a changing display (beyond - ARGUABLY - maybe a screen saver type deal. Even that I'm iffy on).

Well, an image of a mirror is undeniably more complex. In both cases, the visual image would have to change. In the case of the TV it could be pre-programmed. In the case of the mirror, it cannot.

Do you honestly think that a (real) TV is doing the same thing that a (real) mirror is doing? Really?

No. Nor have I said it. But I can play this rhetorical game, too:

Do you honestly think that an image of a mirror is the same thing as a real mirror? Really?

No, it doesn't. Witness the image of a red ball under a green light, which should appear black or dun. When put under a white light, it should appear red, except for where shading makes it grow darker (which also provides most of our visual cues that it is, in fact, a sphere). If that were a real read ball, you wouldn't say the ball is changing. The image need not change, either, then, for it to appear under all those lighting conditions as the real ball would.

That's because the image you are picturing is a material thing. A photograph is a real thing. It is made of matter. It interacts with light. An insubstantial image cannot, and therefore will not.

It appears to me that you are having difficulty imagining an "image" that is truly insubstantial. You cannot separate the idea of "being an image" from "having substance."

True. But that doesn't require the object to change. Neither does it require an image of an object to change.

It does require the image of the object to change. That's precisely what's happening. All we can see is an image. When the image we see (on our retina, if you like) of the red ball turning green, we use our brains to attribute this change to the environment and not the ball itself. We interpret the change as a change in the environment but not a change to the ball itself. This happens in response to the image of the real ball changing. The image of the real ball changed. The image created by Minor Illusion cannot.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does, but this is semantic. I am not arguing that the mirror itself has changed. I am arguing that in one moment, I saw my hand in the mirror. In the next, my hand was not there. The image formed on my retina has changed. We interpret this as a change to the environment, not a change to the mirror, but the interpretation is triggered by the change in the visual appearance of the mirror.

No, the thing that is looked at doesn't change. Unless they're not looking at the mirror. Which they're not; they're looking at the reflection.

This is a semantic game. I think you know what I am trying to say.

Would you say that a shadow puppet play has the viewers watching the screen, or the shadows? Is the screen changing? No, it is not.

Yes. The screen is changing. Again, this is semantics at this point. Nobody is ever claiming that the molecular structure of the material of the screen is changing. What is seen when looking at the screen is changing, though.

This screen could not be made as an illusion, in my view. If you want the observer to think there are puppets behind it, you must create the illusion of the puppet shadows moving on screen.

There is no picture in the mirror. That is the fundamental error you're making. The mirror bears a reflection. A reflection is NOT a picture; it is a visual property of how shiny things look. You're essentially saying that images of objects cannot be shiny. Which is nowhere in the spell description.

It is not a visual property of how shiny things look. If it was, it would not change. It is a property of the environment, reflected in the mirror, made possible by the real, physical composition of the real mirror.

I agree. The problem is not with me thinking the image can change and you thinking it cannot. The problem is that you're assuming that a red ball in a dark room must look equally black when the light turns on, lest the ball be "changing."

If you don't believe that...then you're inconsistent when you claim that a reflection changing represents the mirror changing.

That's correct. A real ball does not change at all when the lights change. Only it's appearance changes, in response to the environment. A real ball is capable of responding to its environment because it is a real part of that environment.

An illusory ball, on the other hand, is not a real thing, and not a real part of its environment, and therefore not capable of responding to changes to the environment. Thus, it's colour can't change.

So... you can't make an image of a rough stone wall? Of sandpaper? Of a fur rug?

You can, but they are not rough stone nor fur. They just appear to be.

Reflections are visual properties of objects.

No, they are not. Reflections are properties of the environment, which is why when you move a mirror into a different environment, i shows a different reflection.

Also, the ability to reflect is an ability of real, material objects. It cannot be a property of an illusion of an object.

They are part of the image of an object that bears them. There is no violation unless you add text that isn't present in the spell to invent it.

And I would say that you've more or less invented a definition of image to suit your needs that is not contained in the text.

Even if you don't recognize it you probably do. And little bump on the surface of something normally casts a tiny little shadow, and any little indent is more brightly lit on the portion that is perpendicular relative to the light source. You've probably played at least a couple of videogames or watched a few movies with digital elements that use a technique called "bump mapping," which is a way to make those mass-less shapes interact with the photon-less lighting of that digital space to create the same textures that you see in our world where things have mass and light is wave-particles.

These are not real textures, because real textures require material. A little bump on the surface of an illusion cannot cast a tiny shadow unless the caster creates that "shadow" as part of the illusion. So, yes, I know exactly what you mean. You're describing the illusion of texture - not texture.

Laurefindel

2017-04-22, 02:55 PM

BurgerBeast

2017-04-22, 04:16 PM

BurgerBeast, one of the issues we have in this thread is that without the property of reflection, we wouldn't be able to see the illusion whatsoever according to real-world physics (TM). Light must be reflected back to our eyes, otherwise we cannot see. If we can see the light reflecting off the illusion (basic optics), what's preventing an illusionary mirroring surface to reflect clear images?

Similarly, the illusion must be opaque to a certain degree otherwise we'd see what's behind the illusion and it would appear translucent. If it can block sight to what's behind the illusion, then its opaque, and therefore can cast a shadow.

All I'm trying to say is that an illusion, as described in D&D, simply cannot exist (and cannot be explained) according to real-world physics (TM) unless we treat it as an hologram, with all its implications and limitations. Magic HAS to be involved to a certain degree, and we (as in all the posters of this tread) don't agree on what magic DOES allow to be done.

This problem is not unique to illusions.

The concern from my side is that, just because you can't make sense of the illusion using real world physics does not mean that you can't make sense of the illusion. There are some guidelines that are given. They are clear. We can work within these guidelines and come up with an internally consistent and logical (if not "realistic") way for the soell(s) to work.

It seems to me that all we are disagreeing about is what an image (of this sort) is.

I can accept that Magic can make an opaque 3D image appear, objectively, in an environment, without interacting with light in any way. Others apparently can't.

Laurefindel

2017-04-22, 05:11 PM

This problem is not unique to illusions.

The concern from my side is that, just because you can't make sense of the illusion using real world physics does not mean that you can't make sense of the illusion. There are some guidelines that are given. They are clear. We can work within these guidelines and come up with an internally consistent and logical (if not "realistic") way for the spell(s) to work.

I agree with that 100%

I just think not many of us (other than Christian) included a "this is how magic makes it different" description in our posts (instead of "this is how light works in the real-world")

BurgerBeast

2017-04-23, 12:55 AM

Yeah, so how about you, then?

Can you imagine/understand/accept the idea of an image that is purely magical in the sense that it is not there at all, but it is opaque and thereby appears to be there, but it is not in fact there, so despite the fact that light ignores it, it still appears (magically) as opaque?

Segev

2017-04-23, 04:49 PM

Reflections depict things other than the object, so what you're saying can't possibly be true.So, then, you are claiming that an image of a red ball is 100% visible, with no shading or anything else, even in pitch darkness? It must look red in the dark, even to darkvision?

Or are you claiming that there is something special about "a reflection" that is somehow different from "a red light shining on a white surface?"

The problem, Vogonjeltz, is that you're assuming the reflection is "depicting" anything. It isn't. It's just what color, shade, and brightness the object that bears it appears to have from a given angle under given lighting conditions. You assert that it's doing things that it isn't, and then use that assertion to justify an arbitrary exclusion that is not in the spell, while pretending that you're not being arbitrary.

You've correctly assessed what I did. You claimed a reflection is an object without evidence, and it was dismissed.Nobody made such a claim. Unfortunately, I suspect that even if you quote what you think was such a claim, it will baffle the rest of us, because you've repeatedly demonstrated that you can quote a sentence saying that "Water is wet" and claim that, right there in black-and-white, it says that juice is therefore inherently dry. No amount of discussion will help, either, as your repeated assertions are that "Water is wet" says that juice is inherently dry right there in the text with no inference nor arbitrary distinctions.

He stated that a shadow is a property of an object. Shadows are properties of light interacting with objects, not the objects themselves. They do not exist wherever an object exists, but instead where light interplays with objects.They are visual properties of the object. You keep conveniently leaving out that word. I suspect because you know it invalidates the arguments you're trying to make.

No real object to interact with light = no shadow. Shadows are literally impossible if whatever we're talking about can't interact with things. And, of course, minor illusion images are clearly stated as being prohibited from interacting with anything at all: Things pass through it.By this logic, no real object ot interact with light = nothing you can see. Seeing it is literally impossible if whatever we're talking about can't interact with things. And, of course, minor illusion images are clearly stated as being prohibited from interacting with anything at all: Things pass through it.

Including, if we take your claims and apply them consistently, sight. Therefore, since it can't interact with light or your eyes, you can't see it.

It's outright foolish to suggest that something dependent on interaction can exist when that interaction is impossible.Which tells us that you either are drawing arbitrary distinctions where you ignore this stricture, or you're consistently applying it to mean that it is impossible to see the image created by minor illusion, as seeing it would require interaction with your eyesight. Which, as a thing, passes right through it.

If I stand in front of a real mirror, and I move, then what I see changes. This is not because the real mirror changes. This is because the environment around the mirror is changing, and the mirror is a physical object capable of interacting with that environment.

If I stand in front of an illusion of a mirror, and I move, and what I see changes, then there is a problem.Why? I know you give a sentence meaning to explain why just after this, but I want to stop here, because this is the fundamental claim you're making with which I disagree.

If you stand in front of an illusion of, say, a miniaturized Statue of Liberty, and you move to stand behind her, what you see changes. But, crediting you with more intellectual honesty than I do Vogonjeltz, I don't think you'd assert that this was a problem.

If you stand in front of her, and you move to her left by 45 degrees, what you see changes, too.

If you stand in front of her, between her and a light source, and you move, what you see likewise changes as parts of her that were dim become brightly lit, and parts of her that were brightly lit become dim.

If you stand in front of her with lights of different colors on behind you, and you move, parts of her will change apparent shade because the lights shadowed and revealed wrt her will change.

Okay, on to your explanation for why it's a problem:

The illusion is not a physical object nor is it capable of interacting with its environment. The only way for the illusion of the mirror to change is if the illusion changes.The illusion isn't changing, any more than the real object that is a mirror is changing. It isn't "interacting" with its environment. It's just sitting there. The real mirror isn't interacting, either. No more than a real white ball is "interacting" just by sitting there as the sun passes by overhead.

The illusion can't change.I note for the record that you just made this claim.

It doesn't require the ability to change to bear a reflection.

That isn't part of the claim.Do you see why I find this counter to the quote it's countering to be...questionable...given the claim I just noted you made above? Please reconcile it for me, because it seems to me that you're contradicting yourself.

In order to bear a reflection, an object must be real.Please show me where this rule exists. I'm serious. I fail to see how this statement is any more factual than, "In order to have color, an object must be real," or, "In order to be visible, an object must be real," or, "In order to exist in a 5 ft. cube, an object must be real."

I am all but 100% certain you're not asserting any of those statements are true. What makes them false but the one you asserted true?

No, this is not true in any context. Creating an image of something that has a property does not bestow upon the image that same property.Again, how do you justify "reflection" as a quality it cannot bear, but "color" as one that it can? Or even "blocks sight?" I mean, are we sure that you CAN hide behind a 5 ft. x 5 ft. x 5 ft. image of a box? How do we know that people can't see you through it, and yet somehow still believe that it's a real box if they can't (or won't try to) make the Investigation check?

You've obviously locked yourself into this position, so I'm not sure that you will ever be reasoned or persuaded out of it.I am trying very hard to patiently and clearly outline why I hold this position. Actually attack the points I'm making. I have given the conditions required to falsify my beliefs. Demonstrate that what you're asserting cannot equally be applied to other visual properties of the object, that you're not just making up arbitrary distinctions that, "um, reflections are...just...different...you know?" and I'll at least start to come around on it.

I am not adhering to this out of some perverse desire to be able to make mirrors with minor illusion. I honestly can do so with prestidigitation and other effects if I really want to. Heck, I could play a Conjurer instead of an Illusionist and make REAL ones (sure, they glow, but who cares?) that unquestionably work. I am rooted in this position because so far nobody has managed to address the logical chain that makes me find it valid. At best, they've done what you're doing and made assertions of facts not in evidence. And then there's Vogonjeltz, who...well, I have lost respect for his so-called "argumentation" long ago in this subforum. I only even reply to him so he doesn't accidentally make people think he has a point.

Why can't I paint an image of a working mirror? (Or if I can, then specifically how and why?)Well, you can, if you can get sufficiently reflective silver paint.

Show me where the spell tells us that it cannot achieve a particular sheen, gloss, reflection, color, or visual quality, the way a mundane painter is limited by the paint colors he can acquire, and you might have a point, here. But consider: if you do not have blue paint, because you cannot get it due to the technology required and rarity of the dyes, can you paint a blue ball? Would you, if you lived in a time and place where this was a common or universal limitation assert that you could never make a silent image of a blue-eyed princess that had properly blue eyes, just because you're incapable of making a painting which does?

Where did you see me saying that minor illusion can make a TV that is exhibiting a changing display (beyond - ARGUABLY - maybe a screen saver type deal. Even that I'm iffy on).
Well, an image of a mirror is undeniably more complex.I deny it vehemently. A mirror is far, far less complex in function than a television. A simple pool of water under the right conditions behaves like one, just by being WATER. A sufficiently-polished dagger, sword, or suit of armor can serve as a crude one. Show me how you almost "accidentally" create a TV.

In both cases, the visual image would have to change.As would the visual image of a plain white ball as the sun passed overhead and through different windows. As would the visual image of a plain white wall with a fire burning 20 feet away from it. Especially if somebody made shadow-puppets on said wall.

In the case of the TV it could be pre-programmed. In the case of the mirror, it cannot.In the case of the TV, it must be receiving signals to order its change. The television's screen is ACTUALLY CHANGING when it's the real object. In most cases, it's also creating light, but you could conceivably make an LCD screen that never emitted light; in such a case, the TV screen is still actively changing color by selectively moving colored crystals to the forefront or away.

Thus, the real object television is actively changing its display. It is a rapid slide show.

The mirror, like the plain white wall, is not changing itself in any way. It's just sitting there. Its surface is not altered. It's visible parts are not shifting. It is emitting no light.

You may as well claim that the big white screen teachers used to pull down in front of the chalk board at schools across the country before shining a projector on it were changing. They weren't; they're always just plain, white screens, with different patterns of light playing across them.

Do you honestly think that a (real) TV is doing the same thing that a (real) mirror is doing? Really?
No. Nor have I said it....um...
In both cases, the visual image would have to change.

But I can play this rhetorical game, too:

Do you honestly think that an image of a mirror is the same thing as a real mirror? Really?No. I think the image of a mirror looks the way a real mirror does. Now, you can find examples of images of mirrors which don't bear reflections. They're but a google image search away. But I can find examples of images of flowers which don't bear color. Does this mean that all minor illusions are black-and-white only?

That's because the image you are picturing is a material thing. A photograph is a real thing. It is made of matter. It interacts with light. An insubstantial image cannot, and therefore will not.As I've repeatedly said, it doesn't technically have to interact with light. Since you're asserting the model where it's visible despite not interacting with light, you're using "because magic" to justify it. I am fine with this; the spell is magic, after all. But by the same token, the spell says it makes an image of the object. If it can be visible "because magic," then it can bear reflections "because magic." Just as it bears color "because magic" under this model. Just as it obstructs vision "because magic" under this model.

It appears to me that you are having difficulty imagining an "image" that is truly insubstantial. You cannot separate the idea of "being an image" from "having substance."It appears to me that you're failing to comprehend what I'm saying, then, because "substantial" doesn't enter into my arguments at all. It seems to me that you're having difficulty divorcing your conception of an "image" from preconceptions that are not present in the spell, and are simply asserting they MUST be there because you imagine so.

It does require the image of the object to change. That's precisely what's happening. All we can see is an image. When the image we see (on our retina, if you like) of the red ball turning green, we use our brains to attribute this change to the environment and not the ball itself. We interpret the change as a change in the environment but not a change to the ball itself. This happens in response to the image of the real ball changing. The image of the real ball changed. The image created by Minor Illusion cannot.Okay, so you ARE asserting that, if I make a minor illusion of a white ball, it will have no shading and it will appear as a brightly lit white ball under any, all, and even NO lighting conditions. Is that correct?

Oh, also, you're again putting lie to this claim:

It doesn't require the ability to change to bear a reflection.

That isn't part of the claim.As in the quote right before I repeated this one, you clearly state:
It does require the image of the object to change.

Yes, it does, but this is semantic. I am not arguing that the mirror itself has changed. I am arguing that in one moment, I saw my hand in the mirror. In the next, my hand was not there. The image formed on my retina has changed. We interpret this as a change to the environment, not a change to the mirror, but the interpretation is triggered by the change in the visual appearance of the mirror.So...you ARE arguing that, if you have that 5-ft.-tall minor illusion of the Statue of Liberty, and you walk around behind it, you MUST see the same thing you saw - the same image on your retina - as when you were standing in front of it? You won't, for example, see the back of the statue instead of the front, then? Because apparently that requires the image to change.

This is a semantic game. I think you know what I am trying to say.I do know what you're trying to say. I'm trying to demonstrate why you're not applying what you're saying consistently, and/or why what you're saying doesn't actually make sense. You have it in your head that an "image" must be a photograph in matte colors painted in 3D in the air, and must have certain limitations that you are imagining based on this mental model. You then ascribe these limits to the spell, because you want them to be there. But since that's not what the spell says, you keep dancing around admitting that's what you're imagining, and when it's pointed out, you deny it...but then go back to using limitations drawn from that model to define limits to what the spell can do. All without actually drawing on the spell text to support it.

Yes. The screen is changing. Again, this is semantics at this point. Nobody is ever claiming that the molecular structure of the material of the screen is changing. What is seen when looking at the screen is changing, though.

This screen could not be made as an illusion, in my view. If you want the observer to think there are puppets behind it, you must create the illusion of the puppet shadows moving on screen.So, then, the white illusory ball looks pure white under green light, and the red illusory ball is plainly visible as bright red even when no light is present.

I still am waiting for you to support this with the spell's text, but that is the end result of the logic you're using to claim that a white screen can't bear shadows that change based on things passing between it and the light illuminating it, or mirrors being unable to bear reflections.

It is not a visual property of how shiny things look. If it was, it would not change. It is a property of the environment, reflected in the mirror, made possible by the real, physical composition of the real mirror.Visual properties are inherently impacted by the environment. If they're not, you get...oh, wait:

That's correct. A real ball does not change at all when the lights change. Only it's appearance changes, in response to the environment. A real ball is capable of responding to its environment because it is a real part of that environment.

An illusory ball, on the other hand, is not a real thing, and not a real part of its environment, and therefore not capable of responding to changes to the environment. Thus, it's colour can't change.So, yes. You do stand by the claim that the illusory red ball is plainly visible in pitch darkness as bright red, and would have no shading that wasn't painted on it.

Please show me this limitation in the spell description. It seems pretty important to point out.

You can, but they are not rough stone nor fur. They just appear to be.So... now you're also imposing a limitation that all illusory surfaces must be smooth, and can only have painted-on shading to try to make them look like they have 3D texture?

I...can't beleive you really mean that. I assume you just aren't thinking through the implication of what you just said. Please correct me if I'm wrong. :smalleek:

No, they are not. Reflections are properties of the environment, which is why when you move a mirror into a different environment, i shows a different reflection."The ability to see the object" is a property of the environment. Move it behind a screen, or turn out the lights, and you can't see the object. So now we also know that not only is the red ball brightly lit and visible in the dark, but that we can see it even if somebody puts a big real crate around it. Because that's a property of the environment, and we know that those can't affect how the illusion looks.

Also, the ability to reflect is an ability of real, material objects. It cannot be a property of an illusion of an object.The ability to be "blue" is an ability of real, material objects. It cannot be a property of an illusion of an object.

The ability to be seen is an ability of real, material objects. It cannot be a property of an illusion of an object.

The ability to obscure line of sight is an ability of real, material objects. It cannot be a property of an illusion of an object.

They are part of the image of an object that bears them. There is no violation unless you add text that isn't present in the spell to invent it. And I would say that you've more or less invented a definition of image to suit your needs that is not contained in the text.Er, no. I've taken "image" to mean "it looks like the object does." Barring further limitations imposed by other constraints (such as the restriction on generating light) in the spell text, that's what it does. Therefore, it is you who are inventing a definition of "image" with restrictions you believe it should have and ascribing it to the spell without support in the spell's text.

These are not real textures, because real textures require material. A little bump on the surface of an illusion cannot cast a tiny shadow unless the caster creates that "shadow" as part of the illusion. So, yes, I know exactly what you mean. You're describing the illusion of texture - not texture.Okay. So illusory bumps on the illusory surface, without the caster carefully placing each little bump-shadow, are transparent? Or at least look like that brand-new material that has been invented which actually does absorb so much light that you can't see variations in the surface it's painted on?

Again, you're inventing a lot of limitations that aren't present in the spell. I know why you're doing it: you have a mental image of a matte sculpture of the object as the definition of an "image." But that model is unsupported by the text of the spell.

Yeah, so how about you, then?

Can you imagine/understand/accept the idea of an image that is purely magical in the sense that it is not there at all, but it is opaque and thereby appears to be there, but it is not in fact there, so despite the fact that light ignores it, it still appears (magically) as opaque?
Absolutely. It's the "because magic" model I keep allowing is the other way to follow the RAW of the spell. But under that model, can YOU imagine/understand/accept the idea of an image that is purely magical in the sense that it is not there at all, but it is opaque and thereby appears to be there, looking just like the object it appears to be would if it was really there, but it is not in fact there, so despite the fact that light ignores it, it still appears (magically) as opaque, shaded, lit, colored, textured, reflective, etc.?

Because that is what the spell text supports: an image of an object. Not a matte 3D painting of an object that is equally brightly lit no matter what the actual lighting conditions are.

BurgerBeast

2017-04-23, 07:49 PM

* I haven't had time to proofread this. Sorry. (It's been edited, now.)

So, this is getting away from us really quickly. If we really want to make progress we will need to slow it down and focus on the real issues of disagreement that are most fundamental.

The best way I have to explain this is to use a sort of computer programming example (I am not a computer programmer, so this analogy may have problems, but the broad strokes, I hope, will serve to illustrate what I mean).

In the old days of computer programming, it was hard to create in-game mirrors. This is because they had to program the mirror-function into the mirror object itself. As a result, creating a mirror was difficult. The mirror had to be a complex object that had its own code. If the player-controlled character could never enter the field of the mirror’s reflection, then it was easier, because you could more or less just draw a room on the opposite side of the mirror and have the mirror be transparent, impenetrable glass. But if you wanter wanted the player-controlled character [edit: to be able to be viewable in the mirror], it would be harder. And if you had moving elements in the environment, or enemy mobs, or NPCs, it would be even harder. To me, this is the sort of position I am advocating. A mirror of this type is degrees more complex than a box or other object.

But in more modern programming, you can instead build an environment. Into this environment, you do not need to program the entire function of a mirror into the mirror itself. You can just assign a property, such as “mirror reflectiveness” to the object, and the coded environmental lighting effects can more or less virtually reflect witin within that environment. To me, this is the sort of position you are advocating. The problem I have with this is that, the illusion is not a real part of the environment, and so it cannot have a property like this that is capable of interacting in this way.

Why? I know you give a sentence meaning to explain why just after this, but I want to stop here, because this is the fundamental claim you're making with which I disagree.

Because the caster has to create this illusion. And the information required, by the illusion, to change in this way cannot be provided to the illusion.

If you stand in front of an illusion of, say, a miniaturized Statue of Liberty, and you move to stand behind her, what you see changes. But, crediting you with more intellectual honesty than I do Vogonjeltz, I don't think you'd assert that this was a problem.

No, this is not what I mean at all. What I am saying is that, in this case, the illusion is not changing. In this case, the illusion is 3D, and from whatever angle you look at it, it will always look the same [edit: from that angle]. This is not the same as for a mirror. A mirror has to not only look different from different angles, but the image upon its face has to change in response to the environment. It has pre-programmed behaviours that respond to its environment.

If you stand in front of her, and you move to her left by 45 degrees, what you see changes, too.

Yes, but not in the same way.

Alos Also, nothing that you see as you move is not something everything that you see as you move is something that could have been supplied at the time of casting, in the form of a 3D rendition of the object. All of the textures, colours, etc, do not move on the object, relative to the object.

Not so for a mirror.

If you stand in front of her, between her and a light source, and you move, what you see likewise changes as parts of her that were dim become brightly lit, and parts of her that were brightly lit become dim.

I disagree with this. However, I think this distinction is more subtle than most of us are making it out to be. Certaintly Certainly, something that could reasonably take roughly 3 seconds of inspection to notice.

If you stand in front of her with lights of different colors on behind you, and you move, parts of her will change apparent shade because the lights shadowed and revealed wrt her will change.

For the real statue, yes. For the illusion, no. But again, I think this is more subtle than people realize. Certaintly Certainly something that could reasonably take roughly 3 seconds of inspection to notice.

Okay, on to your explanation for why it's a problem:
The illusion isn't changing, any more than the real object that is a mirror is changing. It isn't "interacting" with its environment. It's just sitting there. The real mirror isn't interacting, either. No more than a real white ball is "interacting" just by sitting there as the sun passes by overhead.

But this is more.

The real white ball and the real mirror are interacting to the exact same degree – that is correct. But this is interacting, and the illusions cannot do this.

I note for the record that you just made this claim.

Do you see why I find this counter to the quote it's countering to be...questionable...given the claim I just noted you made above? Please reconcile it for me, because it seems to me that you're contradicting yourself.

I can only guess it’s because you’re conflating the difference between a real mirror and a real ball with the difference between an image of a mirror and a mirror an image of a ball.

Please show me where this rule exists. I'm serious. I fail to see how this statement is any more factual than, "In order to have color, an object must be real," or, "In order to be visible, an object must be real," or, "In order to exist in a 5 ft. cube, an object must be real."

Okay, so I withdraw this claim. The problem is the word “real.” I will restate it:

In order for an object to bear a reflection, it must be made of matter.

I am all but 100% certain you're not asserting any of those statements are true. What makes them false but the one you asserted true?

Illusions are not made of matter. They are explained by JC to not interact with light (which follows from not being made of matter). But illusions can have colour and exist in space. This is part of how the’re they're defined. They are perhaps unique in this way, but there you have it.

Again, how do you justify "reflection" as a quality it cannot bear, but "color" as one that it can?

Think of it in terms of the creation process. Why can you create a block that is red, green, blue, or yellow, but not a block that is the colour of the face of whoever looks at it?

My answer is: because the caster can objectively define the colours red, green, blue, and yellow at the time of casting. But the caster cannot bestow upon his creation the ability to detect the colour of the face of whomever looks upon it, nor the ability to change precisely when the faces change.

Reflection is not a quality in the same way, because reflection requires an object. Red is just red. Reflection is meaningless, unless there is an object to reflect.

Or even "blocks sight?" I mean, are we sure that you CAN hide behind a 5 ft. x 5 ft. x 5 ft. image of a box? How do we know that people can't see you through it, and yet somehow still believe that it's a real box if they can't (or won't try to) make the Investigation check?

This is a rabbit hole that’s unnecessary, I think.

I am trying very hard to patiently and clearly outline why I hold this position. Actually attack the points I'm making. I have given the conditions required to falsify my beliefs. Demonstrate that what you're asserting cannot equally be applied to other visual properties of the object, that you're not just making up arbitrary distinctions that, "um, reflections are...just...different...you know?" and I'll at least start to come around on it.

I am not adhering to this out of some perverse desire to be able to make mirrors with minor illusion. I honestly can do so with prestidigitation and other effects if I really want to. Heck, I could play a Conjurer instead of an Illusionist and make REAL ones (sure, they glow, but who cares?) that unquestionably work. I am rooted in this position because so far nobody has managed to address the logical chain that makes me find it valid. At best, they've done what you're doing and made assertions of facts not in evidence. And then there's Vogonjeltz, who...well, I have lost respect for his so-called "argumentation" long ago in this subforum. I only even reply to him so he doesn't accidentally make people think he has a point.

I don’t think you’re do doing it out of stubbornness or anything like that. As I said before, I think you’d understand my view if we had a 30-minute conversation.

Well, you can, if you can get sufficiently reflective silver paint.

Show me where the spell tells us that it cannot achieve a particular sheen, gloss, reflection, color, or visual quality, the way a mundane painter is limited by the paint colors he can acquire, and you might have a point, here. But consider: if you do not have blue paint, because you cannot get it due to the technology required and rarity of the dyes, can you paint a blue ball? Would you, if you lived in a time and place where this was a common or universal limitation assert that you could never make a silent image of a blue-eyed princess that had properly blue eyes, just because you're incapable of making a painting which does?

Another rabbit hole.

I deny it vehemently. A mirror is far, far less complex in function than a television. A simple pool of water under the right conditions behaves like one, just by being WATER. A sufficiently-polished dagger, sword, or suit of armor can serve as a crude one. Show me how you almost "accidentally" create a TV.

You are denying something different than what I said.

I do not claim that a television is less complex than a mirror.

I claim that an illusion of a television is less complex than an illusion of a mirror (unless, perhaps, the illusion of the television can respond to a remote or to button pressing).

As would the visual image of a plain white ball as the sun passed overhead and through different windows. As would the visual image of a plain white wall with a fire burning 20 feet away from it. Especially if somebody made shadow-puppets on said wall.

Yes. And I am saying that an illusion of said wall cannot do this, but the real wall can.

In the case of the TV, it must be receiving signals to order its change. The television's screen is ACTUALLY CHANGING when it's the real object. In most cases, it's also creating light, but you could conceivably make an LCD screen that never emitted light; in such a case, the TV screen is still actively changing color by selectively moving colored crystals to the forefront or away.

Thus, the real object television is actively changing its display. It is a rapid slide show.

Yes.

The mirror, like the plain white wall, is not changing itself in any way. It's just sitting there. Its surface is not altered. It's visible parts are not shifting. It is emitting no light.

That’s correct for the real mirror. Now think about trying to create an illusion of a mirror. It cannot just sit there and accomplish what a real mirror accomplishes, because it cannot reflect light. As a result, the caster has to create the impression that it can. How? If there is no way to convey environmental information to the mirror, then there is no way to convey that information to the magic of the illusion.

You may as well claim that the big white screen teachers used to pull down in front of the chalk board at schools across the country before shining a projector on it were changing. They weren't; they're always just plain, white screens, with different patterns of light playing across them.

Yes. So, if you wanted to create an illusion of the screen, you could, but then could not “hold” a projection. It would just appear white.

If you wanted to create the illusion of the projected movie, you’d have to create the illusion of the movie, and run the rapid slide show.

If you wanted to create a mirror-sizes reflected mirror-sized reflective surface insrtead of a white screen, you’d have to run a rapid slide show – but of what? Well, the slides would have to be prefect “pictures of the room,” but there is no way to anticipate what those pictures will be, and no way for the illusion to choose them by itself. So the rapid slideshow is required to be made up of slides that can’t even be imagined at the point of casting.

No. I think the image of a mirror looks the way a real mirror does. Now, you can find examples of images of mirrors which don't bear reflections. They're but a google image search away. But I can find examples of images of flowers which don't bear color. Does this mean that all minor illusions are black-and-white only?

I guess, from my point of view, the caster more or less has to provide a mentally conceived graphical net of the object, and provide the coloured textures (the 2D bitmaps) that will form its skin.

You can provide colours, patterns that appear to be glossy, matte, textured, etc. but you can’t turn those 2D bitmaps into slideshows. So true sheen is not possible, but it is illusory enough to be convincing. The problem with creating an illusion of mirror that functions convincingly is that the 2D bitmaps would have to not only change, but change in unpredictable ways [edit: meaning: impossible to predict at the time of casting].

As I've repeatedly said, it doesn't technically have to interact with light. Since you're asserting the model where it's visible despite not interacting with light, you're using "because magic" to justify it. I am fine with this; the spell is magic, after all. But by the same token, the spell says it makes an image of the object. If it can be visible "because magic," then it can bear reflections "because magic." Just as it bears color "because magic" under this model. Just as it obstructs vision "because magic" under this model.

So, this is the gorund ground upon which I think my argument wins out. Bearing colour and bearing reflections are conceptually very different, especially from the framework of trying to create them. I have tried to explain this above.

It appears to me that you're failing to comprehend what I'm saying, then, because "substantial" doesn't enter into my arguments at all. It seems to me that you're having difficulty divorcing your conception of an "image" from preconceptions that are not present in the spell, and are simply asserting they MUST be there because you imagine so.

In fairness, you’v you've never defined what you mean by image.

Okay, so you ARE asserting that, if I make a minor illusion of a white ball, it will have no shading and it will appear as a brightly lit white ball under any, all, and even NO lighting conditions. Is that correct?

Yes.

Oh, also, you're again putting lie to this claim:
As in the quote right before I repeated this one, you clearly state:

No. One claim is about an object. The other is about the image of an object.

So...you ARE arguing that, if you have that 5-ft.-tall minor illusion of the Statue of Liberty, and you walk around behind it, you MUST see the same thing you saw - the same image on your retina - as when you were standing in front of it? You won't, for example, see the back of the statue instead of the front, then? Because apparently that requires the image to change.

You will see the side, back, or whatever other oblique-angled view you ought to see. That’s because it is 3D image which is objectively there in that space. It doesn’t change. Your position changes. Each and every face of the object was created at the time of casting, and is coloured appropriately to appear shaded to fit the natural lighting.

But if you shine a light on it, these predetermined colours can’t change.

I do know what you're trying to say. I'm trying to demonstrate why you're not applying what you're saying consistently, and/or why what you're saying doesn't actually make sense. You have it in your head that an "image" must be a photograph in matte colors painted in 3D in the air, and must have certain limitations that you are imagining based on this mental model.

While this is more-or-less true, I’m not sure that you imagine that in the same way I do.

You then ascribe these limits to the spell, because you want them to be there.

Not because I want them to be there, but because of the limits on how they can possible possibly be achieved. These are spells which must follow some form of logic.

But since that's not what the spell says, you keep dancing around admitting that's what you're imagining, and when it's pointed out, you deny it...but then go back to using limitations drawn from that model to define limits to what the spell can do. All without actually drawing on the spell text to support it.

Again. This is why we need to back up the conversation. You are making assumptions about my meaning, and then telling me what my conclusions ought to be. When I say, no, those were not my assumptions, you think I then “danced” out of my original claim. I did not.

So, then, the white illusory ball looks pure white under green light, and the red illusory ball is plainly visible as bright red even when no light is present.

Yes.

I still am waiting for you to support this with the spell's text, but that is the end result of the logic you're using to claim that a white screen can't bear shadows that change based on things passing between it and the light illuminating it, or mirrors being unable to bear reflections.

Visual properties are inherently impacted by the environment. If they're not, you get...oh, wait:

So, yes. You do stand by the claim that the illusory red ball is plainly visible in pitch darkness as bright red, and would have no shading that wasn't painted on it.

Please show me this limitation in the spell description. It seems pretty important to point out.

It’s not in the spell description. It’s in the JC quote.

So... now you're also imposing a limitation that all illusory surfaces must be smooth, and can only have painted-on shading to try to make them look like they have 3D texture?

I...can't beleive you really mean that. I assume you just aren't thinking through the implication of what you just said. Please correct me if I'm wrong. :smalleek:

No, this doesn’t follow from what I said.

"The ability to see the object" is a property of the environment. Move it behind a screen, or turn out the lights, and you can't see the object. So now we also know that not only is the red ball brightly lit and visible in the dark, but that we can see it even if somebody puts a big real crate around it. Because that's a property of the environment, and we know that those can't affect how the illusion looks.

The ability to see an object is an interaction of the properties of the object, the subject, and the environment.

The ability to be "blue" is an ability of real, material objects. It cannot be a property of an illusion of an object.

The ability to be seen is an ability of real, material objects. It cannot be a property of an illusion of an object.

The ability to obscure line of sight is an ability of real, material objects. It cannot be a property of an illusion of an object.

These are different sorts of properties, which is what we ought to be talking about.

Er, no. I've taken "image" to mean "it looks like the object does." Barring further limitations imposed by other constraints (such as the restriction on generating light) in the spell text, that's what it does. Therefore, it is you who are inventing a definition of "image" with restrictions you believe it should have and ascribing it to the spell without support in the spell's text.

I accept that it “looks like the object does.” But we also have the claim from JC to contend with – that the illusion cannot interact with light. This is not my restriction. But I see that it can work.

Okay. So illusory bumps on the illusory surface, without the caster carefully placing each little bump-shadow, are transparent? Or at least look like that brand-new material that has been invented which actually does absorb so much light that you can't see variations in the surface it's painted on?

No, this doesn’t follow. They look as the surface would look if it were illumiated from all sides. Opaque but shadowless.

Again, you're inventing a lot of limitations that aren't present in the spell. I know why you're doing it: you have a mental image of a matte sculpture of the object as the definition of an "image." But that model is unsupported by the text of the spell.

Again, this is all coming from the JC information. Not from me. I’m just looking at how it can work. And it appears to work pretty well.

Absolutely. It's the "because magic" model I keep allowing is the other way to follow the RAW of the spell. But under that model, can YOU imagine/understand/accept the idea of an image that is purely magical in the sense that it is not there at all, but it is opaque and thereby appears to be there, looking just like the object it appears to be would if it was really there, but it is not in fact there, so despite the fact that light ignores it, it still appears (magically) as opaque, shaded, lit, colored, textured, reflective, etc.?

I don’t think so. I mean, I can imagine it, but I don’t think that I am imagining it in the way that you are, and I think my way still has problems associated with it. For example, the extent of the illusion is a 5’x5’x5’ cube, so even if it could relfect real ligh reflect real light, I find it hard to imagine that it can extert this effect (receiving or transmitting) beyond the 5’x5’x5’ limitation.

Because that is what the spell text supports: an image of an object. Not a matte 3D painting of an object that is equally brightly lit no matter what the actual lighting conditions are.

You keep loading the language in this way, as if a matte 3D painting is what I mean. There is functionally no difference in appearance, no matter how much you load the language.

If you actually want to discuss this with the intent of getting closer to understanding one another, I suggest we look closer at the statue example, and restrict our post lengths.

Zorku

2017-04-24, 11:19 AM

excuse me? did you really read my post? I explain that, wile it would be impractical/impossible to do so with a wall, it is possible to pull this off by being creative and making something with the right dimensions and that fits in the surounding, such as a Cupboard. This is an 100% RAW use of the spell.
I didn't chop your first post up into line-by-line, but apparently you need that.
So, "Wile it is a perfectly eligible use of Silent Image, the 5 foot cube does not cut it." What about silent image allows you to create "empty space," when minor illusion cannot, and by what mechanism do you propose it does this?

I get that you're talking about that a bit in the rest of this post, but I wanted to make it clear that I wasn't asking about how somebody can crouch inside of their own illusion.

I never suggested camouflage,If this is the case, then what did you mean when you said "it is a perfectly eligible use of Silent Image"? What is the IT in that sentence?

I am just suggesting an alternative use to enable "virtual invisibility" as in concealment, not "invisibility as the spell", witch is obviously something you can't pull off at all angles, just from one particular angle.Got any way to judicate how far you can deviate from that angle? If it only works from the one square then that's such a weirdly specific application that I can't come up with any time you'd want to use it in an actual game.

Minor illusion creates "The (3-d) image of an object". Invisibility is not an object. A Camouflage canvas is an object, but it works from a particular view point, and you can still see it's outline. Now, if I make the image of a wall, at the same colour as the wall behind me, what I really have is an other wall in front of the other wall. A 5-foot cube wall, that is more suspicious than benefical in this situation.How about camouflage canvas that shows the wall behind you in lighting conditions where you know the other guy wouldn't be able to see the individual bricks that make up the wall? You still expect weird parallax there, but how about an entire friggin diorama that's got distorted models of the wall and floor and some furniture that looks like it belongs so that the whole thing appears deeper than it actually is? Is the diorama still just one object? Does it fail for some other reason (prior to an investigation check)? We're eight pages in already and you're talking about this like nobody had established a position back on page 2.

It would look like this:http://j.people.com.cn/mediafile/201403/27/F201403270824164581515254.jpg
and not really fool anyone, but instead be cool enough to look at, thus giving reason for investigation. What's cool about that other than how it looks like it defies gravity?

Were exactly did I go overboard to offend you so much as to receve this passive-agressive post as a reply?
A: By wasting my time. What portion of this thread did you actually read? If your answer is anything to the tune of "more than the first post" it almost certainly does not include anything from the page that you posted on.
B: I don't really understand how being actively confrontational can come across as passive aggressive. I do come from a very passive aggressive population though, so if you feel like that was actually the correct classification of my behavior I'd be happy to have that explained to me.

Reflections depict things other than the object, so what you're saying can't possibly be true.No they don't, reflections ARE the object. Unless you're saying that conjuring up the Mona Lisa is also an invalid illusion due to it depicting a vaguely smiling woman when it's actually a painting.

I don't want to just sit here calling you an idiot, but do you listen to yourself before you post these things?[/quote]

You've correctly assessed what I did. You claimed a reflection is an object without evidence, and it was dismissed.Good. You seem to understand the concept finally. Now let's go back to square one. Do you still claim that "other sensory effects" means reflections and shadows and hands on a clock moving and visual texture and all those other arbitrary rulings you tossed out in the last thread?

He stated that a shadow is a property of an object. Shadows are properties of light interacting with objects, not the objects themselves. They do not exist wherever an object exists, but instead where light interplays with objects.

No real object to interact with light = no shadow. Shadows are literally impossible if whatever we're talking about can't interact with things. And, of course, minor illusion images are clearly stated as being prohibited from interacting with anything at all: Things pass through it.

It's outright foolish to suggest that something dependent on interaction can exist when that interaction is impossible.You're fractally wrong. I reject your premises and your larger claim here.

Here, I'll break it down for you:
Shadows are properties of light interacting with objects
I reject this claim.
They ... exist ... where light interplays with objects
I accept this, but reject that it is the only option.
something dependent on interaction (can't) exist when that interaction is impossible.
In the case of illusions, I reject this entirely. That's the gorram point of illusions.

If I stand in front of an illusion of a mirror, and I move, and what I see changes, then there is a problem. The illusion is not a physical object nor is it capable of interacting with its environment. The only way for the illusion of the mirror to change is if the illusion changes.

So when you say that illusions cannot interact with anything, I end up with another problem. Being seen seems to be some kind of interaction, with the eye. We've already established that you don't think these things exist in the minds of creatures, so I won't go over the things you call phantasms or the weirder things any further, but if it's entirely outside of the mind, then that seems to entail some kind of interaction.

So, are you saying that these illusions are not in the mind (or at least, not in the mind in any way that the computer screen I'm actually looking at right now isn't in my mind,) but that you somehow see them without any kind of environmental interaction? If so, what does that even mean?

These are not real textures, because real textures require material. A little bump on the surface of an illusion cannot cast a tiny shadow unless the caster creates that "shadow" as part of the illusion. So, yes, I know exactly what you mean. You're describing the illusion of texture - not texture.
You've managed to sail right past the point.

I'm going to loosely define 3 concepts here to try and get us communicating more clearly:

Any time you're talking about an illusion we can declare that it is not real. Doing so is a tautology (except in the case of that damn illusionist ability that muddies these waters, but I'll ignore that for simplicity,) so it is true by nature of identity, but it ends right where it began, so it serves no purpose in a logical proof.

Tactile texture is exactly the sensations you experience when touching something that is not perfectly smooth (or maybe "smooth" counts as a texture, but again, simplicity.) Our illusory images obviously lack any kind of tactile texture because your hand goes through them just as easily as it goes through a hologram.

Visual texture results from the same surface-shape that gives normal, real objects tactile texture. Light moves in straight lines (rays) so any oblique angles, relative to a light source, will have a visual texture that's got strong bright spots and strong dark spots, based on the texture. If you've ever taken a drawing course that deals with realism then you're familiar with the very basic highlights and shadows situation that you can see in this image

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ke7pv5j4RW0/UUQdtuh35BI/AAAAAAAASn4/Yo2IW5wHKLc/s1600/Light+and+shadow+on+a+sphere+form+modeling+highlig ht.jpg

Visual texture is exactly the same thing, but rough surfaces cause this to pattern to happen more locally.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.digitaltutors.com/dtv_/bison_courses/1153/assets/1153-render_1040.jpg

When you tell me that there's no texture there, what I do that that balloon is turn it into the white ball from the first image (except, orange with yellow stripes.) All of those little lines down the middle are only visible because they create a visual texture. There is a dumber alternative that I've tried to rule out, but our communication has never been clear enough for me to be sure. When you say that there's no texture you might mean that there are no highlights at all, and that an illusion of this balloon would appear to have the exact orange that we see down the middle of the balloon, like this

http://i.imgur.com/3qYNrGY.pngThere is no texture of any kind to that image (where I only mean the balloon,) but I cannot justify asking for an investigation check for something so out-of-place. I've tried rationalizing that maybe it is in the mind or any number of things like that, but the words you use seem to keep saying that we must have this terrible mspaint effect image (minus the wobbly lines that come from drawing with a mouse.)

My understanding of the differences between the 3 ways I describe the balloon are all "texture" things, and I don't understand what else you could be talking about taking away when you say that there can be no texture.

Yeah, so how about you, then?

Can you imagine/understand/accept the idea of an image that is purely magical in the sense that it is not there at all, but it is opaque and thereby appears to be there, but it is not in fact there, so despite the fact that light ignores it, it still appears (magically) as opaque?
Yup.

Can you image/understand/accept the idea of an image of a mirror that is purely magical in the sense that it is not there at all, but is reflective, and thereby appears to be there, but it is not in fact there, so despite the fact that light ignores it, it still appears (magically) as reflective?

In the old days of computer programming, it was hard to create in-game mirrors. This is because they had to program the mirror-function into the mirror object itself. As a result, creating a mirror was difficult. The mirror had to be a complex object that had its own code. If the player-controlled character could never enter the field of the mirror’s reflection, then it was easier, because you could more or less just draw a room on the opposite side of the mirror and have the mirror be transparent, impenetrable glass. But if you wanter wanted the player-controlled character [edit: to be able to be viewable in the mirror], it would be harder. And if you had moving elements in the environment, or enemy mobs, or NPCs, it would be even harder. To me, this is the sort of position I am advocating. A mirror of this type is degrees more complex than a box or other object.

If you're going to reference computer modeling we should actually break down what the assumptions of such a system are.

Objects in this kind of 3d space are defined by their shape. We have equations that tell us if any triangular face (polygon) is front or back, relative to the camera, and we actively tell the computer not to draw those polygons.
We map a "texture" onto this shape. That texture is a flat image, ideally a flat square of the material that we want our object to be made of.
We 'render' lighting upon this object by tracing lines from a light source in a way that is distinct from the equations that we use to occlude all of the polygons on the back side of an object. We then increase or decrease the brightness (highlights & shadows) to give more depth to this world.

In that kind of model you don't "see" things by nature of light hitting them and then bouncing off to enter the camera. You simply see everything, but it is all colored black if there is no light, and thus you don't have enough contrast to distinguish between objects. What you don't see, is anything behind opaque objects (except in cases where the engine doesn't quite draw polygons connecting to each other correctly, and then you see some stuff through the gaps, since the engine is rendering every polygon that faces you, or large polygons vanish while you can still see some portion of them because the engine only references the center point to determine if it is facing into the camera, and so on.)

So, you've got this math for the angles that something should be for you to see it, and you've got a lot of data that tells you what things are physically in front of what other things, and that's the entire basis for how you see things in basic 3d. If there is zero lighting calculation then a skilled artist probably still draws shadows onto a lot of the wall textures and so forth, because objects have visual texture like that, but this doesn't hold up to you having a torch or a flashlight or anything like that. There's no equations for lighting there so you can't ever move the light sources.

More modern stuff does have dynamic lighting, whether that's minecraft's super basic "the tile that contains a torch is brightness 15, then the next tile out in all 6 directions is 14, then the next tile out is 13, etc" (After a long while they realized that using gradients for the lighting looked way the **** better, so you also need a bit of data to tell you where the light source is, and some edge case handling for when two light sources are equidistant,) or stuff like the crazy lighting and shading options that the Gearbox team is working on for their next Borderlands game (Seriously, go look up the video. You can see people through a tarp because of the shadow they cast on it while the wind ripples the surface.)

But if you're still using polygon math to decide if a camera "sees" any particular surface, then it's this entire package of other processing demands to figure out what's going on with light. If instead, you start with light, and you only see things by nature of light leaving some source and then bouncing any number of times before it enters your eye, then all of these lighting concerns are part of the same equation that you use to see them in the first place, which leads to very different assumptions about how hard it is to produce a mirror.

Segev

2017-04-24, 12:54 PM

I'm going to attempt to reply without quotes, and to whole concepts. There are some key points, though, that reveal to me that I exactly understand the model you propose...and I still stand by the claim that this model is not actually supported in the spell text.

(You go to JC's quotes for some support, but I'm really not interested in JC's quotes except as one possible DM's house rule's, because he's ruled quite inconsistently between spells in the past. So I find him unpersuasive. The impression I get is that he doesn't actually analyze the questions, but just gives a from-the-hip call on how he's rule it in a specific moment at his game table. Which is fine, but isn't really useful to an in-depth discussion of what can and can't be done, because it would require that we have JC there to answer all the questions rather than form a logical construct we can all use as a basis.)

Twice, BurgerBeast, you reference computer programming. Once directly, and once by discussing the illusion precisely in terms of graphical objects and bitmap nets.

That is exactly what I thought your mental model of the spell was, based on the limits you are ascribing to it.

Yes, a graphical "object" in a computer simulation can't have a reflection any more than it can be shiny. It is a 2D painting that can rapidly alter faster than the human eye's refresh rate in order to keep up with rotation of the 3D object relative to the 2D window through which we're viewing it. To be pedantic, that 5-ft-tall image of the Statue of Liberty is, in fact, rapidly altering the pixels that make up the image of it you're seeing as you rotate it in space (or move around it in VR, as the VR headset is still showing you only two 2D images that shift as you move).

Now, less pedantically, I know you're not literally claiming that we only see the image through a computer screen or VR goggles. You're conceptualizing the object the way we mentally "envision" its existence "behind" the screen, and conceiving that you're walking around it really projected into the real world. So, to you, there's really a bunch of static pixels hovering in the air, that mesh-mapping of colors and faux shading, etc. And thus, it's just like there's a sculpture made out of those pixels. And, like an LCD without backlighting, it's only lit up by the surrounding light. ...or it's magically emitting non-light that still works like light, because magic, for purposes of seeing it, anyway.

None of which I have an inherent problem with as a model for how visual illusions might work.

It just doesn't happen to be supported by the rules of 5e, as they are written.

But I am firmly convinced that I do understand the model you're using. I just think it's not the right model. It makes perfect sense that you'd come into this with that mental model; it fits with what you know of artificial images generated by arbitrary means in the modern world. That's why I have little difficulty imagining your model.

What was more mental work for me was really examining its implications, such as the (to me) horribly unrealistic behavior it would exhibit as you turn out the lights.

The point you seem to be getting hung up on is two-fold:

1) You keep talking about how difficult it is to program a mirror in computer graphics, and how the reflection property requires specialized programming even with modern object models, and
2) You keep insisting that this must be what an illusory mirror would have to do to bear a reflection because you claim only real things can bear reflections.

Point (2) is the one that I want to question most severely. On what do you base this claim? Why do you insist it is so?

I would like you to examine your assumption - or justify your premise - that only real/material things can bear reflections. I see no reason why, when discussing magic, this must be true.

Fixer

2017-04-24, 02:40 PM

These arguments would be rendered moot if you stop thinking in terms of illusions as 'physical' objects.

When the spell is cast, the spell creates a magical 'area in space' that affects anyone who observes it (sense appropriate). To the observer, they see what the illusionist intends and the observer's mind fills in the gaps just as our minds fill in the gaps when we see something unclearly.

Shadow illusions are given more than just this 'area in space' but also are physically present to the degree their spells allow.

To this end, if the observer has never seen themselves in a reflection (unlikely but possible), they wouldn't see a reflection in a mirror, but they wouldn't think it was unusual either, because they've never seen a reflection anyway.

This gets around the whole objects and reflections and similar physics-based arguments and allows the players and GM to get back to the game.

Zorku

2017-04-24, 02:45 PM

Segev

2017-04-24, 03:22 PM

Cybren

2017-04-24, 03:35 PM

It still baffles me that there is so much fear/anti-desire/dislike/whatever for the notion that an image of a mirror might bear a reflection that people are trying desperately to invent a justification for it not doing so. (See, I can ascribe belittling motives to others, as well, if I want to!)

This whole argument started when someone claimed you can use minor illusion to make complex optical devices

Segev

2017-04-24, 03:56 PM

This whole argument started when someone claimed you can use minor illusion to make complex optical devices
While I wouldn't allow that for the same reason I wouldn't allow a player who happens to know the precise actions necessary for him to go out into the wilderness and cook up a black powder bomb to have his PC in a game I was running take those exact specific actions and "just happen" to make an explosive that I wouldn't have otherwise allowed in D&D...

...spells and powers other than minor illusion could do the same thing if the DM were allowing precisely-described alignments of optical elements to be defined by the player. The most obvious being the Conjurer's low-level feature. Heck, with 5e's removal of the "attempting to use it as a tool breaks it" rule from prestidigitation's conjured gewgaws, that would do it, too.

So while I appreciate the explanation for why people might be trying to be clever and nip high-powered optics in the bud by banning reflections, it doesn't make it less of a house rule, nor does it make the "illusions can't bear reflections" position any better supported by the RAW.

Laurefindel

2017-04-24, 04:36 PM

Well there's optics and then there's magic. It's hard to tell where optics end and where magic begins, and vice versa.

Personally, I prefer to go the "full optics road" like I described before, or the "what is this optics you're talking about" way used by Christian (I'm starting to believe the latter is actually the way to go).

"full optics" pretends the object is there with all logical conclusions (it reflects light like any object, casts a shadow etc). It does lead to the re-creation of complex optical mechanisms, which isn't RAW but a consequential houserule just to keep it simple (and go to full logical length)

"no optics" simply goes off the premise that an illusion is a magic meant to be seen but that otherwise does not interfere with its environment. The less optical terms you bring, the happier you'll be.

Personally, I'm uncomfortable when it's somewhere in between, unless the possibilities (and limits) of magic are clearly defined, but I find RAW on the matter rather lacking

Zorku

2017-04-24, 04:57 PM

The spell does specify that it creates an image of an object in a particular location contained within a 5 ft.-to-an-edge cube. The "it's just this thing in your head" model doesn't live up to the spell description.

It still baffles me that there is so much fear/anti-desire/dislike/whatever for the notion that an image of a mirror might bear a reflection that people are trying desperately to invent a justification for it not doing so. (See, I can ascribe belittling motives to others, as well, if I want to!)
Well to me it seems intuitively wrong to have an illusion of a lens bending light to create a bright spot like you can burn ants with, and if I come from a direction like that then it seems obvious that actually doing anything with light requires a physical interaction of some sort. I don't want light to bounce off of an illusory mirror any more than I want it to bend through an illusory lens; light should ignore the illusion, like any other physical interaction.

In order to get around this I have to actually tell myself that "what light does, does not count as physical interaction," and thus I can bypass that line of logic. This step isn't really useful on its own though, because now I don't really know what light interactions DO count as, and on a good day it's really awkward to try and talk about what light interactions DO count as, especially when you never directly said that light does not count as physical interactions with illusions. It's really weird to try and construct the right questions, and since you've been watching my interaction with BurgerBeast you should be able to see the kind of trouble this all runs into if the other person just started with some other assumption and never had to take the same route of redefinition to bypass the intuitive line of logic. All of this kind of communication is really hard and involves an inordinate amount of yelling.

In the now, I've been positing the idea that,

Light IS a physical interaction, whether that's bouncing off of an object to create colors (via subtraction of wavelengths,) or entering into your eye so that you can see things.
Illusions do not interact with light in that way, but they behave as if they did. Because magic.
No, seriously. It works because magic. Don't even bother with questions of how it works. The answer to those questions is magic, and the answer is not anything other than magic.

This isn't so much a stance that I wish to defend, but one that I wish to fail to defend. It is fairly weak, but it's on par with a certain subset of the arguments that people have been making, and the only way that it will actually fall apart is if someone can present an unstated premise and show contradiction. It absolutely does contradict a lot of the premises that other people are leaving unstated in their arguments that conclude with "because magic," but it's such a weird process to set assumptions like that to the side that it's probably going to take quite awhile before anybody that has posed one of those arguments can challenge this.

As for my definition of an "image of an object:" it's a thing which looks like the object looks. Barring restrictions, it looks in all ways like the object would if the object were at that specific spot in the environment.I've got a weird sort-of-defeater for this. The minor illusion has to fit within a 5ft cube. If we include these environmental interactions in that then it can be illuminated similarly to other surfaces within the 5ft cube, and a mirror can reflect appropriately, but only out to the bounds of that cube. Any "information" outside of that cube would require a physical interaction to influence the appearance of the phantom image, or when spell text or class features allow, a wizard needs to actively mediate that transfer of information.

This is internally consistent, and explains the increase in power of our phantom image illusions purely by virtue of their area of effect, and is perfectly RAW. The only issue is that it requires a definition for physical interaction that you almost certainly do not subscribe to. For everyone else, there is enough information about the light within that 5ft cube to easily determine the same kind of artistic shading that people so eagerly assume into the spell, but not enough to create a very good mirror. Silent image creates a slightly more useful mirror for a higher spell slot, major image possibly creates a perfect mirror via different text, and then mirage arcane works better still in both of those ways.

Specific restrictions we're given are that other material objects pass through it (so nothing will appear to "bounce off" if thrown at it, dropped on it, etc.), it can't create light, and it's also explicitly banned from sensory effects other than visual. It also has unspecified flaws which are bounded in obviousness by the DC of the Investigation check one must take explicit action studying it in order to make to discover its falsehood.That's getting too far away from the physical interaction language, and the DC check based flaws relies on assumptions about how skill checks work. In some settings you might simply investigate to see if it 'smells' like there is illusion magic here, with better illusionists doing a better job of masking the arcane odor that their illusions give off.