Silent image at will - abuse?

[Snivlem]

Hi. My group is new to 5e, but we've played d&d and pathfinder for well over a decade. In our new 5e campaign I made a warlock, and when I reached 2nd level after the first session I picked up the misty visions invocation (silent image at will) mainly because I like having options that offers creativity and I didn't want to be stuck with EB and 2 spells for the rest of my career (we very rarely reach 11th level + in our campaigns).

During an encounter the last session I had the idea to conjure the illusion of a thick fog blocking vision around me. Essentially this allowed me (and the rogue-player) to stand in the fog and attack the enemy with advantage from range while the enemy would have disadvantage on us in addition to having to guess our location. We see them, they can't see us. To not make this tactic completely broken, we ruled that anyone who physically interacts with the illusion will see through it even if that isn't completely clear in the wording of the spell (the wording doesn't account for the possibility that you can create an illusion of something that your hand would pass through if it was real), so the tactc won't work if someone engages us in close combat, but still I am a little worried by the power level of this tactic and the fact that this is an ability I have at will; and is just one of an endless possible uses of this invocation.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the rules that suggest this tactic isn't allowed, and we've even already interpreted the rules in a way that slightly devalues its power. Still I am a little worried that this use is a little abusive. I see a lot of mention of how powerfull the devils sight/darkness combo is, but for my character this feels almost on the same powerlevel (there is the close combat drawback and use an action to get a save - but who will disbelieve a wizard casting fog cloud? - but I'm able to extend the advantage to other characters with me) and doesn't expel one of my spell slots. The way I see it, there's very little stopping me from using this tactic pretty much every combat where I can start at range, except, perhaps, any limitations I put on myself. While I think I was a sort of creative idea when I came up with it, it won't be the 100th time I use it.


I would like to hear other peoples thoughts on this. Surely I am not the first one to have this idea, and yet I don't see misty visions rated as sky blue in the guides I've read) Is there anything in the rules that stops me from doing what I've suggested? Do you find the tactic abusive or won't it be as good in the long run (due to the limitations) as it seems to me now?

Pardon and grammar/spelling errors. English isn't my first language, and the spell check here seems to be set on my native language.

Edit: A few posters are replying that me and my allies shouldn't be allowed to see through the fog either, I'm adding this edit to avoid confusion to point out that the spell is very clear that you can see through the illusion if you know what it is, so this objection is invalid.

[follacchioso]

I would say that the first enemy to interact with the fog would get a save throw to understand that it is an illusion. After all, a "physical interactions with the illusion" would automatically reveal that it is not real; in this case, a benevolent master could give you the advantage of a saving throw, because it is fog.
The first enemy to succeed a saving throw will understand that it is an illusion, and likely communicate it with the others.

[PeteNutButter]

The reason darkness devils sight combo works is from the devils sight.

Nothing at all says you can see through your own illusion. So you are effectively casting a small fog cloud at will. If you are both in it, no one should have advantage or disadvantage on anything since both you and your target will be completely obscured from each other. It's a wash unless someone has true sight or blind sight etc. If your foe is outside it you'll have disadvantage to attack him but he will have a wash to attack you as his disadvantage to hit a concealed target is negated by you being effectively blinded.

It blocks line of sight requiring spells and cancels advantage/disadvantage and prevents AOs. That's about it.

Edit: My mistake, it totally says you can see through it if you discern it to be fake. I guess I'd argue that physical interaction could include ranged attacks as fog would still be whisped around by an arrow or some such.

[Snivlem]

Follacchioso: Yeah, like I said we ruled that they would see though it automaticly if they interfact with in, and in fact this was my suggestion to keep the tactic somewhat in check. What you point out is an obvious limitation, but at least the previous session noone even came close, cause they would rather attck the close combat guys standing next to them that werent surrounded by fog than run into the fog.

Pete: "If a creature discerns the illusions for what it is, the creature can see through the image". I know what it is and have told my friends.

[ad_hoc]

1. It will take your action to make it look like fog. Otherwise it is just grey matter hanging in the air without moving. That will look weird.

2. As soon as someone fires an arrow through it everyone will see it to be an illusion because "physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion." There is no check involved, it just happens.

[Citan]

1. It will take your action to make it look like fog. Otherwise it is just grey matter hanging in the air without moving. That will look weird.

2. As soon as someone fires an arrow through it everyone will see it to be an illusion because "physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion." There is no check involved, it just happens.
1. You are totally inventing this.
PHB quote: "You create the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon that is no larger than a 15-foot cube". {...} "The image is purely visual".
It's "fog" as soon as you cast it, no further action required.

2. Very far-stretched ruling: since fog is basically wet air, it would mean that the creature launching the arrow was close enough and perceptive enough to notice that the arrow did not misplace the mist around its trajectory. Provided it would in the first place (not sure about this honestly). Because otherwise, arrows also pass through fog in reality in the first place so there is no reason for a creature to doubt it.
While technically RAW could be interpreted as you say, IMO considering the wording of the whole spell the RAI is that it's a direct or very close interaction to be made (like a creature waving/pushing his arm against the illusion of a wall). In the case of a fog, a creature coming close and just sticking his hand (or whatever is similar for it XD) would probably be enough to realize it's a fake because the limb would not feel the humidity a fog should have.

[imanidiot]

From Silent Image:

"Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it. A creature that uses its action to examine the image can determine that it is an illusion with a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC. If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image."

A monster can use an action to potentially negate the entire effect. Also, I don't see why you and the rogue would be able to attack with advantage from the fog. It blocks your vision too. The spell doesn't allow you to exclude targets from the effect.

It's a neat trick but not abuse.

[Dalebert]

If they're inside the fog cloud, they're physically interacting with the illusion and thus it becomes transparent to them. Depending on how the DM interprets the spell, as soon as they shoot arrows out of it, the onlookers would see physical interaction with the cloud (the arrows) and thus they would realize too. They'd possibly just get the one attack at adv.

[RSP]

I've always interpreted the "physical interaction" bit of illusions as only applying to characters, that is, if an enemy physically interacts with the illusion they can notice it's false.

To just say "if anything interacts with this Illusion then everything knows it's false" is a pretty good way to make illusions useless as most interact physically with the ground or a wall, and a lot of time illusions are used to hide something within them (like the caster). As the caster is interacting with the illusion from inside the illusion, everyone would always know it's an illusion, if ruling this way.

[imanidiot]

If they're inside the fog cloud, they're physically interacting with the illusion and thus it becomes transparent to them. Depending on how the DM interprets the spell, as soon as they shoot arrows out of it, the onlookers would see physical interaction with the cloud (the arrows) and thus they would realize too. They'd possibly just get the one attack at adv.

I have no problem with this interpretation. You shouldn't expect more than one round of advantage from a cantrip. If any DM allowed it as written by the OP I would take the Silent Image invocation on a Sorcerer/Warlock and spam it in every combat.

[ad_hoc]

I've always interpreted the "physical interaction" bit of illusions as only applying to characters, that is, if an enemy physically interacts with the illusion they can notice it's false.

To just say "if anything interacts with this Illusion then everything knows it's false" is a pretty good way to make illusions useless as most interact physically with the ground or a wall, and a lot of time illusions are used to hide something within them (like the caster). As the caster is interacting with the illusion from inside the illusion, everyone would always know it's an illusion, if ruling this way.

Illusions are great, they're just not good mid-combat shelters.

Try casting illusions out of combat. A lot can be accomplished.

[Malifice]

Why are arrows coming out of fog providing advantage anyway?

Fog is just light obscurement. Firing from light obscurement doesnt provide advantage to the shooter.

[Jerrykhor]

Misty Visions is not rated sky blue because its not Darkness/Devils Sight combo. You're running it as though they are the same, but you're doing it wrong. Have you ever been in a thick fog? Depends on the density of course, but generally you can't see in or out of it. Thick fog would block vision of both you and your enemy. So why do you think that you can see them but they can't see you?

[Coidzor]

Misty Visions is not rated sky blue because its not Darkness/Devils Sight combo. You're running it as though they are the same, but you're doing it wrong. Have you ever been in a thick fog? Depends on the density of course, but generally you can't see in or out of it. Thick fog would block vision of both you and your enemy. So why do you think that you can see them but they can't see you?

The caster sees through their own illusions, which would mean that they can see their enemies and their enemies cannot see them.

If they come up with a pre-arranged signal with the rest of the party, they can work out that the obfuscation is illusory and also see through it, ideally before the enemy is able to work this out, and thus gain a round or two of tactical advantage.

[Snivlem]

Thanks for the replies so far.

There seems to be two main objections to the tactic as I described it:

1: Me and my allies won't be allowed to see through the fog either: The spell is very clear you can see through the illusion if you know what it is. I thought this was well known enough, but I'll add it to the OP to avoid confusion.

2: Any sort of physical interaction from anyone should dispell the illusion from everyone, and shooting and arrow through something (or hiding within it) is a physical interaction.

I don't think this is clear either RAW or RAI. RAW - the spell doesn't simply say that physical interatction reveals it to be an illusion, it sais "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it" so the description (RAW) doesn't take into account that you can create an illusion of something that things actually can pass through. RAI it seems pretty clear that what reveals is to be an illusion, is doing something or seeing something that reveals it to be an illusion. An arrow passing though the fog won't reveal that (perhaps a smart and persceptive character could notice something is wrong though if light conditions are good). My DM ruled that touching/moving into the illusion will reveal it for what it is (And then they can tell their friend), but an arrow coming through it won't. I think this is a reasonable interpretation per RAI and RAW, but if this ends up being a problem, I will suggest the arrow-thing for him as well and see what he thinks.

Anyway even if this isn't allowed I disagree illusions aren't good for combat. Even if this isn't allowed, I could certainly - for instance - create an illusion of a stone wall to mimic a wall of stone spell and run in and out of cover from it to attack, providing total concealment for me on the enemies turn untill someones either tries to shoot an arrow through the stone wall (for some reason) or runs around it, also allowing the rogue to hide for his sneak attack, create monsters to scare or distract etc.


A sidenote on making the fog look as believable fog. The DM ruled that the image allow for some movement when it is created to make it look realistic, so it won't be completely frozen until you spend an action. What requires an action is to move it around or specificly direct it. I think this is also a reasonable ruling, but even if it had been ruled otherwise, I shouldn't matter much for this illusion (but much more if you make an illusion of any kind of creature), because motionless fog still looks like fog and certainly obscures visions as much as any other fog.

Imanidiot: We are talking about the 1st level spell, not the cantrip.

Malifice: Look up the spell fog cloud. Also consider I get to choose myself what the illusion looks like.

[Jerrykhor]

The caster sees through their own illusions, which would mean that they can see their enemies and their enemies cannot see them.


No they don't, what makes you think that? You see the same thing everyone else sees, the only difference is you know that its an illusion instead of the real thing.

[Snivlem]

No they don't, what makes you think that? You see the same thing everyone else sees, the only difference is you know that its an illusion instead of the real thing.

Read the spell, please, Jerry, most notably the last line. Or if you don't have the books with you, at least read the thread.

[RSP]

Illusions are great, they're just not good mid-combat shelters.

Try casting illusions out of combat. A lot can be accomplished.

I do, and I'm not sure why you're assuming otherwise.

The interpretation doesn't just ruin illusions for combat. Unless an illusion is floating in the air, it's physically interacting with something (the ground or the wall for instance). Depending on your interpretation of how air works in D&D, that could be a factor as well, or at least a blowing wind could.

I doubt you'd get much accomplished, in or out of combat, with an illusion if wind or making it move showed it to be an illusion.

[Contrast]

I do, and I'm not sure why you're assuming otherwise.

The interpretation doesn't just ruin illusions for combat. Unless an illusion is floating in the air, it's physically interacting with something (the ground or the wall for instance). Depending on your interpretation of how air works in D&D, that could be a factor as well, or at least a blowing wind could.

I doubt you'd get much accomplished, in or out of combat, with an illusion if wind or making it move showed it to be an illusion.

This depends though. You create an illusion of a box. Someone casts gust at it. Nothing happens. Cool, no reason to assume illusion.

Now lets imagine you made an illusion of a weather vane. Someone casts gust at it. Nothing happens. Huh thats weird - hang on a minute, its an illusion!

In this case you're specifically trying to mimic something which would be effected by the wind so obviously wind has the potential to reveal it.


On getting advantage on your attacks - the errata clarified that you are 'effectively blinded when you try to see something' obscured by a heavily obscured area. I would argue this means they'd have disadvantage to attack you but, as they're not actually blinded, you don't get advantage to attack them. This does mean there's a mechanical difference between fighting in the dark and fighting blinded but that makes sense to me anyway so *shrugs*

It does, of course, make taking the hide action easier but you still need to spend the action to do so.

In this case you've spent your action to make your ranged combatants slightly hard to hit but its undone by anyone approaching you or interacting significantly with the cloud and then shouting to their allies. Seems reasonable but not overpowered.

Darkness/Devils Sight wins out because a shout doesn't dispel it and because Devils Sight is useful in its own right in a lot of situations.

[RSP]

This depends though.

Not really. A Fighter unsuccessfully trying to bash down a locked door may not move the door, but they sure did physically interact with it. The same goes for the wind: it might not have been strong enough to move the box, but it did push at it.

Now take for example creating an illusion of someone. Every time it takes a step it's interacting with the ground. If the physical interaction clause relates to anything interacting with the illusion, then the illusion is shown for false as soon as it moves and it's foot "hits" the ground.

Or for that matter an illusion of a wall to conceal an opening. If it's a permanent illusion, likely someone (probably the creator of the illusion) has moved through it at some time. Since they've walked through it, that is, physically interacted with it, is it now revealed to everyone to be an illusion?

[Contrast]

Not really. A Fighter unsuccessfully trying to bash down a locked door may not move the door, but they sure did physically interact with it. The same goes for the wind: it might not have been strong enough to move the box, but it did push at it.

Now take for example creating an illusion of someone. Every time it takes a step it's interacting with the ground. If the physical interaction clause relates to anything interacting with the illusion, then the illusion is shown for false as soon as it moves and it's foot "hits" the ground.

Or for that matter an illusion of a wall to conceal an opening. If it's a permanent illusion, likely someone (probably the creator of the illusion) has moved through it at some time. Since they've walked through it, that is, physically interacted with it, is it now revealed to everyone to be an illusion?

Noticing such discrepancies is normally what the an investigation check allows. However some circumstances are sufficient to allow immediate detection (i.e. passing your hand through a wooden table). In this case you have chosen to make an illusion of something which is highly reactive to wind. In much the same way that creating an illusion of a campfire underwater is asking for trouble, creating an illusion of fog while its windy is problematic.

I'm not suggesting it will be automatically detected all the time. I'm saying if you try this trick in the middle of a hurricane, expect people to catch on immediately when it doesn't blow away.

[ad_hoc]

I don't think this is clear either RAW or RAI. RAW

There is an easy way to tell. If your interpretation of a rule breaks the game, it's not the right interpretation.

It's as easy as that.

[tieren]

There are many long and contentious threads about what illusions can and can not do (make a mirror that shows reflections, make an illusion of a pit trap on a flat floor, objects that cast shadows, etc...).

Ultimately, the final answer is always "ask your DM", and its why illusion based strategies aren't rated higher in many guides, the power is too dependent on interpretation.

I like your trick, I would allow it. (Similarly you could make a black dome that looks just like a darkness spell). Other DMs may not.

Some will say any interaction makes it flicker or go translucent for everyone, so ranged attacks coming out of it or into it would negate the benefit. Some DM's would allow enemies a chance to kick a pebble through it as a free object interaction before deciding to attack or not.

As it stands RAW illusions are either incredibly powerful or near useless.

edit: also note that a 15 foot cube is a tiny fog cloud (normal fog cloud is 20 foot radius (ie 40 feet across).

[Dalebert]

I find the biggest problem with illusions is that they take your action to move. That means most of them will just be standing around and not being very convincing if they're anything other than an inanimate object.

It's nice they have programmed illusions but what's missing is an illusion that's just smart enough to be commanded with a bonus action thought kind of like an Unseen Servant. I think it would be up there in level with a programmed illusion.

[tieren]

I find the biggest problem with illusions is that they take your action to move. That means most of them will just be standing around and not being very convincing if they're anything other than an inanimate object.

It's nice they have programmed illusions but what's missing is an illusion that's just smart enough to be commanded with a bonus action thought kind of like an Unseen Servant. I think it would be up there in level with a programmed illusion.

I agree that would be a useful spell to customize on the fly.

However I believe it is another point of interpretation whether the image appears inanimate unless you spend your turn changing it.

For example, silent image and major image both let you create the illusion of a creature (silent pure visual; major including sounds and smells as appropriate) and have the same language about using your action to move it to a different space and having it move naturally in the process (appear to be walking not just sliding a statue).

However neither says what they can do if you don't use your action. Particularly with Major image one would presume it can be making sounds (maybe a sleeping owlbear). I further believe a natural conclusion is it would appear to be a real creature and not a statue of one, maybe a lion licking its paws, etc...and you would only need to use another action to make it get up and move to another space.

I'm not necessarily arguing which interpretation is correct, just pointing out that interpretation and what your DM thinks these spells do is key.

[Dalebert]

I definitely allow an illusion of a creature to behave naturally as it generally would while just occupying a space. I assume it blinks, maybe even occasionally yawns. Nothing major but just enough to be as convincing as the caster's DC would imply. Sadly, this isn't clear from the description.

[Trampaige]

I have no problem with this interpretation. You shouldn't expect more than one round of advantage from a cantrip. If any DM allowed it as written by the OP I would take the Silent Image invocation on a Sorcerer/Warlock and spam it in every combat.

Also, this isn't a cantrip. It's a 1st level spell, which the warlock is sacrificing a very precious invocation slot for.

[tieren]

Also, this isn't a cantrip. It's a 1st level spell, which the warlock is sacrificing a very precious invocation slot for.

While true, there is also probably a reason spells like this become invocations with 'cast at will not using a slot' and not spells like magic missile or something more combat practical.

[RSP]

Noticing such discrepancies is normally what the an investigation check allows. However some circumstances are sufficient to allow immediate detection (i.e. passing your hand through a wooden table). In this case you have chosen to make an illusion of something which is highly reactive to wind. In much the same way that creating an illusion of a campfire underwater is asking for trouble, creating an illusion of fog while its windy is problematic.

I'm not suggesting it will be automatically detected all the time. I'm saying if you try this trick in the middle of a hurricane, expect people to catch on immediately when it doesn't blow away.

No issue with using the Investigation check.

My statement was in response to the interpretation that any physical interaction with an illusion makes the illusion noticeable to everyone (like the case of the caster Hiding within a boulder or crate: some say this makes the illusion noticeable to all).

[Contrast]

No issue with using the Investigation check.

My statement was in response to the interpretation that any physical interaction with an illusion makes the illusion noticeable to everyone (like the case of the caster Hiding within a boulder or crate: some say this makes the illusion noticeable to all).

Ah apologies - per:


I've always interpreted the "physical interaction" bit of illusions as only applying to characters, that is, if an enemy physically interacts with the illusion they can notice it's false.

I was just making the point that there are lots of ways for someone to tell an illusion is an illusion without directly interacting with it themselves (without necessarily having to take a test). In the most obvious case, they watch their friend pass their hand through a seemingly wooden table. If I'm famililar with magic and cast Gust of Wind to clear away your 'Fog Cloud' and the cloud doesn't noticably react (other than continuing to swirl in a typically fog cloudy fashion), as a DM I would treat it as if they'd tried to touch a wooden table and their hand had passed through it.

Someone else point out above that recreating the darkness spell works even better but as a DM I'd probably put the kibosh on that as I'm not sure darkness counts as a visible phenomena and besides, letting a level 1 spell be a level 2 spell isn't kosher (particularly as there wouldn't really be a way to interact with an area of darkness such that you could figure out it was an 'illusion').

[RSP]

I was just making the point that there are lots of ways for someone to tell an illusion is an illusion without directly interacting with it themselves (without necessarily having to take a test). In the most obvious case, they watch their friend pass their hand through a seemingly wooden table. If I'm famililar with magic and cast Gust of Wind to clear away your 'Fog Cloud' and the cloud doesn't noticably react (other than continuing to swirl in a typically fog cloudy fashion), as a DM I would treat it as if they'd tried to touch a wooden table and their hand had passed through it.

Someone else point out above that recreating the darkness spell works even better but as a DM I'd probably put the kibosh on that as I'm not sure darkness counts as a visible phenomena and besides, letting a level 1 spell be a level 2 spell isn't kosher (particularly as there wouldn't really be a way to interact with an area of darkness such that you could figure out it was an 'illusion').

Yeah I was pointing out that the auto notice to me, was based on something like a character's hand going through the illusion. I'd probably be okay with weapons as well depending on what it is (fog is a bit trickier than say an arrow going through a stone wall).

I was just arguing against the "if the caster is inside the fog, then they are interacting with the illusion and, therefore, everyone now knows the fog is an illusion" stance.