Illusory Reality and its parent illusion

[Segev]

Isaiah the Illusionist casts major image and makes it out to be a giant tub of water 15 feet deep, underneath his ally who is falling from another 50 feet up. Since he actually wants the water to soften his friend's landing, he uses Illusory Reality to make the illusory water, contained by the illusory tub's walls, real.

Does the illusory water continue to be contained by the illusory tub? Or does it become more real than the tub and thus flow out of the tub's confines the way real water would?

While he could probably do other things to achieve the same end, later on 18th-level Isaiah has chosen to conjure a silent image of a lantern (as it's one of his Spell Masteries) and to use Illusory Reality to make the flame within shed genuine light. Does the flame keep burning as part of the illusory lantern, or does it go out immediately, suddenly requiring fuel?

Isaiah is using project image to guide a good friend through the snowy wastes of Fridgedoom. In solidarity, he's wearing a winter coat. His friend's coat gets torn, soaked, or otherwise ruined. Isaiah uses Illusory Reality to make his own projected image's coat real with the intent to loan it to his friend until his friend can get a fire started. Does the coat fall through Isaiah's illusory projection, or can Isaiah take it off to hand to his friend?

[Whyrocknodie]

Bridging perception of illusion and reality, the water stays in the tub. The flame burns in the illusory lantern. The projected image casually hands over the coat.

I guess you could argue that it does something disappointing instead, given suitable motivation. But let's face it, it'd be dull.

[Segev]

...and of course, now I think of something more along the lines that sparked this thread, which example vanished from my head when I was writing them out.

I mention that, because I don't want this to seem like a "gotcha," when it's more, "Here's another example."

Does this mean that an illusory giant holding a large spoon could heft a character on said spoon up to a ledge, even though only the spoon is made into Illusory Reality?

This one's new, but on similar lines: Could an illusory Pegasus with tack and bridle and saddle have the saddle made real, and then a real person mount the saddle and fly around on the Pegasus?

I forget, and am AFB right now, but can Illusory Reality make magic items? e.g. flying carpets? If so, do they retain their magical behaviors (barring doing damage)?

[ZenBear]

...and of course, now I think of something more along the lines that sparked this thread, which example vanished from my head when I was writing them out.

I mention that, because I don't want this to seem like a "gotcha," when it's more, "Here's another example."

Does this mean that an illusory giant holding a large spoon could heft a character on said spoon up to a ledge, even though only the spoon is made into Illusory Reality?

This one's new, but on similar lines: Could an illusory Pegasus with tack and bridle and saddle have the saddle made real, and then a real person mount the saddle and fly around on the Pegasus?

I forget, and am AFB right now, but can Illusory Reality make magic items? e.g. flying carpets? If so, do they retain their magical behaviors (barring doing damage)?

Can't speak to the final question (instinct says no) but for the previous few I have a question of my own: why is he only making the spoon real? If the illusion is a giant holding a spoon, why don't the giant and the spoon become real together? Same with the Pegasus and its tack n bridle. Why are you using Illusory Reality piecemeal on your illusions?

[Tanarii]

Can't speak to the final question (instinct says no) but for the previous few I have a question of my own: why is he only making the spoon real? If the illusion is a giant holding a spoon, why don't the giant and the spoon become real together? Same with the Pegasus and its tack n bridle. Why are you using Illusory Reality piecemeal on your illusions?
Because that's how Illusionary Reality works. " ... when you cast an illusion spell of 1st level or higher, you can choose one inanimate, nonmagical object that is part of the illusion and make that object real."

Which incidentally also answers the question about magic items.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Can't speak to the final question (instinct says no) but for the previous few I have a question of my own: why is he only making the spoon real? If the illusion is a giant holding a spoon, why don't the giant and the spoon become real together? Same with the Pegasus and its tack n bridle. Why are you using Illusory Reality piecemeal on your illusions?

PHB 118:
"When you cast an illusion spell o f 1st level or higher, you can choose one inanimate, non-magical object that is part of the illusion and make that object real. You can do this on your turn as a bonus action while the spell is ongoing. The object remains real for 1 minute. For example, you can create an illusion of a bridge over a chasm and then make it real long enough for your allies to cross. The object can’t deal damage or otherwise directly harm anyone."

You can't make the giant real as he is both animate and different from the giant spoon. But I would rule that you could make the spoon float with Illusory Reality and Malleable Illusions.

I think the biggest question the OP raised is the water in the tub. Are they two distinct objects or one "tub of water"? It seems like two at first glance, but certainly a bridge has many many distinct parts in most cases. You could do a big pile or snow though to have basically the same effect, so I think I'd allow it.

For the lantern, just make an illusory lantern then make the lantern itself real then light the lantern. Any DM saying that the lantern is made up of separate "objects" is not a DM I'd want to play with (look at the bridge example).

For the pegasus, etc. I'd say no. They can't carry the saddle. But there are easier ways to achieve that goal anyway since you're already burning a spell slot. Just cast fly for instance and your target isn't constrained to the area of the illusion spell and you've only used one action.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Does the coat fall through Isaiah's illusory projection, or can Isaiah take it off to hand to his friend?

Does it matter? The coat is still there and his friend can just pick it up and put it on. Or Isaiah can hand it to him if that's how you want to rule. Neither option matters in this case (though the latter option is potentially game breaking I'm sure).

[Segev]

The "giant with a spoon" example has more heft to it (pun unintended).

The point being, if you use Illusory Reality, can the affected object still interact with the illusion, despite the rest of the illusion not being solid to anything else?

Or does using Illusory Reality on an object not self-supporting cause it to fall to the ground?

[sophontteks]

You are giving it substance, but its not real. Its still an illusion. In many of these examples you are actually breaking what the illusion spell can do. The water can not fall because the spell effects a 15 foot cube. Same with the spoon.

Magic does not follow the laws of reality. Its a force all around us and illusionists can manipulate that force so well that their illusions impact reality, but they are not subject to reality.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

You are giving it substance, but its not real. Its still an illusion. In many of these examples you are actually breaking what the illusion spell can do. The water can not fall because the spell effects a 15 foot cube. Same with the spoon.

Magic does not follow the laws of reality. Its a force all around us and illusionists can manipulate that force so well that their illusions impact reality, but they are not subject to reality.

I refer you to what we've already quoted...twice...

"you can choose one inanimate, non-magical object that is part of the illusion and make that object real."

Edit: Also, Illusory Reality is DESIGNED to break what the illusion spell can do by nature of making part of an illusion real. So that's not a great argument on which to base your ruling.

[ZenBear]

I admit I didn't bother looking at the feature description before posting. Seems pretty clear then that the bridle would fall through the Pegasus, the coat would fall through the projection, and the spoon would fall to the ground IMO. The bucket of water I would allow as water is inanimate, and the idea of a bowl of water is a fairly unified concept. It's pure DM discretion here, so don't try to lawyer your way into abusing the ability or you'll just piss people off. Fun question though, very meta.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I admit I didn't bother looking at the feature description before posting. Seems pretty clear then that the bridle would fall through the Pegasus, the coat would fall through the projection, and the spoon would fall to the ground IMO. The bucket of water I would allow as water is inanimate, and the idea of a bowl of water is a fairly unified concept. It's pure DM discretion here, so don't try to lawyer your way into abusing the ability or you'll just piss people off. Fun question though, very meta.

Yeah, it's a great question. As someone who plays an Illusion Wizard and tends to rule liberally with illusion magic in other games, I think there's no getting around this. But it still provides great uses.

Example: Make a 10,000 lbs. rock or wood beam or something right above an enemy and it drops. It doesn't do damage, but I'd rule that they're pinned under it for the minute that the illusion is real.

[Whyrocknodie]

That giant can definitely hold his spoon!

Now, inevitably the next part is some kind of illusory massive force like the God of Punching or something. You make an inanimate knuckleduster on Punchor's fist into a real object and your opponents are punched into oblivion for thirty thousand damage per second by something they can't hurt because it's an illusion...

...avoiding the poverty of having to make something dull in order to avoid abuse is key here. Fortunately, there's a DM who can say 'nope'.

[sophontteks]

I refer you to what we've already quoted...twice...

"you can choose one inanimate, non-magical object that is part of the illusion and make that object real."

Edit: Also, Illusory Reality is DESIGNED to break what the illusion spell can do by nature of making part of an illusion real. So that's not a great argument on which to base your ruling.
But its not real. Its magic. I'm considering what magic does and how it interacts with the world. An illusionist is manipulating the weave around them so that it interferes with the senses, and I see a great illusionist as being able to take it a step further so that the weave actually has substance on a part of the illusion.

[Xetheral]

The bridge example given in the book has the same problem... because it's (originally) an illusion, it isn't actually attached to the sides of the chasm. So when you make the bridge real, does it immediately collapse since it isn't properly anchored? Since it's an explicit example in the book, we can assume it doesn't. But it's hard to infer where the limits are:

What if the original illusion of the bridge didn't appear to be properly anchored? Does that matter? What if the illusion was of a bridge that can't support its own weight? (e.g. insufficient cross-bracing, or made of a material with an insufficient strength to weight ratio) Related: does the illusionist require an Engineering degree to design a bridge that can survive being made real? What if the illusion was of a bridge that doesn't support its own weight (e.g. was floating in mid-air across the chasm) How much of a load can the bridge bear?
Caveat: not all bridge designs would require anchoring, so a strict interpretation of the limits of the spell could still be compatible with the bridge example in the book, but only if you assume that example was limited to (e.g.) rigid spans resting on top of the chasm edges (such as an illusion of a box-girder longer than the chasm is wide) or molded friction-fit bridges that perfectly snap into place with the edges of the chasm.

[Tanarii]

Of course illusionists need an engineering degree. Probably biology degrees to. You don't expect artists to make the most believable illusions do you? :smallamused:

[Segev]

The ability does specify that the object be non-magical. So anything that floats apparently under its own power is probably right out. But, at the same time, I don’t think that requiring the bridge to be designed by an engineer to stand once made real is in line with expectations for the power, either.

[Xetheral]

The ability does specify that the object be non-magical. So anything that floats apparently under its own power is probably right out. But, at the same time, I don’t think that requiring the bridge to be designed by an engineer to stand once made real is in line with expectations for the power, either.

I don't either. But if badly-designed real bridges can stand against gravity, that has implications for the other questions being asked in this thread.

[Segev]

I don't either. But if badly-designed real bridges can stand against gravity, that has implications for the other questions being asked in this thread.

Indeed. Of course, like much of magic, perhaps it fills in the blanks where the illusionist was unspecific. "I want a bridge over this troubled water," he says to himself as he conjures it, and a bridge appears that has the basic appearance he pictured - rope bridge, wooden arch, suspension bridge, stone arch, glorified dock-like construction, whatever - but any details he didn't specifically picture, including needed supports and the like that he didn't specifically NOT picture as being there, may just "show up."

On the other hand, perhaps not, and that's what the Spell DC is: it's the skill of the illusionist as an illusionist. So maybe the answer to "should he have to be an engineer?" is actually, "No, because he's a good enough Wizard to know what he's doing in creating illusions of convincingly self-supporting bridges."

[Xetheral]

Indeed. Of course, like much of magic, perhaps it fills in the blanks where the illusionist was unspecific. "I want a bridge over this troubled water," he says to himself as he conjures it, and a bridge appears that has the basic appearance he pictured - rope bridge, wooden arch, suspension bridge, stone arch, glorified dock-like construction, whatever - but any details he didn't specifically picture, including needed supports and the like that he didn't specifically NOT picture as being there, may just "show up."

On the other hand, perhaps not, and that's what the Spell DC is: it's the skill of the illusionist as an illusionist. So maybe the answer to "should he have to be an engineer?" is actually, "No, because he's a good enough Wizard to know what he's doing in creating illusions of convincingly self-supporting bridges."

Very good point.

That still leaves the issue, however, that "convincingly self-supporting" suggests (for most bridge types) the appearance of being anchored. When made real, the bridge isn't actually anchored (that would require doing damage to the chasm walls, which is forbidden by the ability), so there remains a question of whether or not an unanchored bridge (of a style that requires anchoring) immediately collapses upon being made real.

[Segev]

Very good point.

That still leaves the issue, however, that "convincingly self-supporting" suggests (for most bridge types) the appearance of being anchored. When made real, the bridge isn't actually anchored (that would require doing damage to the chasm walls, which is forbidden by the ability), so there remains a question of whether or not an unanchored bridge (of a style that requires anchoring) immediately collapses upon being made real.

Perhaps the anchoring is made real without causing damage, and the illusory damage/anchoring goes away at the same time as the rest of the illusion?

[Xetheral]

Perhaps the anchoring is made real without causing damage, and the illusory damage/anchoring goes away at the same time as the rest of the illusion?

Hmm. That could work. I'm a little worried about the precedent that sets, but after thinking about it I'm not coming up with any terribly problematic examples.

The worst I've thought up so far would be an illusory peephole (the kind with glass that extend through modern doors) that when made real penetrates through the door to not fall down, but doesn't penetrate through the door to permit someone to see through. It's little weird, but not really problematic.

[Coretex]

I love this question, and Segev's various discussions on Illusions have been some of my favourite parts of this forum.
However, The first question of creating a tub of water to stop a fall is flawed... in that the water will feel like rock when falling anyway. :smallbiggrin:

More seriously: I think once made real with Illusory reality an object must react to the world as if it was never an illusion. (there is a huge flaw in this, more on that later)
We run into a lot of problems if you think of an image made permanent with a 6th level slot... say a chain.
It can't be moved except by the illusionist using an action.
So... you chain someone up, and illusory reality makes it real. If we assume that it is still an illusion it is essentially an indestructible immovable rod, even if you make the chain out of cotton candy. If you can still move it as though it was an illusion it is an uncontestable unbreakable Telekinesis.

Making it real means it is subject to the same physics as everything else.
It does stop Some creativity in terms of flying on illusions etc, but it also allows other stuff like floating an illusory (20ft cube) hill over some enemies and dropping it onto them, using your next action and Malleable Illusions to recreate the hill from the "bird" on top and then drop it again (and again as needed).

We do have to suspend some disbelief and allow the image to stand up under it's own weight (especially in the case of a bridge) seeing as they are resourceless abilities. A wizard would very quickly learn what kind of bridge-made-real cannot stand up to the stress of holding itself up. Perhaps the bridge fits snugly into crevices of the rock on either side. Or perhaps it simply rests on top of either edge.

And now the problem... After a minute the object ceases to be real. The description on Illusory Reality doesn't describe in any more detail what happens next, "The object remains real for 1 minute." But one imagines it means that the object goes back to being an illusion. If that is the case than it most certainly IS an illusion all of the time. It has to still be constrained by the rules of the spell. It cannot move more than 120 ft away under its own power? And there is an interesting question to be asked about how does interacts with disbelieving illusions.

Personally I would prefer for the once Illusion then Real object to simply cease to exist. It means you can do more interesting things and doesn't come with all of the baggage mentioned above.

[Segev]

It seems pretty obvious to me that it goes back to being illusory, not ceases to exist, once the minute is up (provided the parent spell isn't done with by then).

I totally agree that the object can be interacted with as if it were a normal, real object that had always been real. The "cotton candy chain" breaks trivially, just as the "cotton candy bush" would if created by mirage arcane. The iron chain is heavy and can be moved or even broken with sufficient force. It being solely alterable (but still physically there) by the illusionist's will would make it far less "an object made real" than what the flavor would seem to suggest.

My question was on whether it continues to interact with the rest of the illusion as if the rest of the illusion were still as real relative to it as before Illusory Reality was invoked.

One more example: Can an illusion of a knight offering up his sword to another creature have the sword made real by Illusory Reality (so the creature can accept it from the illusory knight) without the sword falling through the knight's hands, revealing the deception?

(Yeah, I know, the creature could try to poke the knight and thus reveal the deception anyway. But it's possible to play out the deception one way, and impossible the other.)

Heck, can an illusory knight's armor be made real, and he still wear it, or does it collapse around and through him when made real? This has implications for the knight picking up and using items in the real world. of course, an unseen servant can already do that, so...probably not game-breaking in and of itself.

Edit:
I love this question, and Segev's various discussions on Illusions have been some of my favourite parts of this forum.
Also, thanks! I'm glad somebody enjoys this topic as much as I do. The rules for illusions - particularly the Illusionist special features - are really intriguing in this edition.

[Coretex]

It seems pretty obvious to me that it goes back to being illusory, not ceases to exist, once the minute is up (provided the parent spell isn't done with by then).

I totally agree that the object can be interacted with as if it were a normal, real object that had always been real. The "cotton candy chain" breaks trivially, just as the "cotton candy bush" would if created by mirage arcane. The iron chain is heavy and can be moved or even broken with sufficient force.

But that's kind of the problem really. If it goes back to being an illusion afterwards then surely it is still technically an illusion (can it be dispelled?) and thus has to follow the rules of the spell always. And how can an illusion be moved by someone other than the illusionist via mental command? What happens if the illusion of paper was burned after it became real. Does the illusion of paper return after a minute or does the ash in the air become illusory. Otherwise you end up with a bridge fallen down a chasm that becomes an illusion again, but is now outside of the range of the spell. Also, what happens if the illusion was ended (as you alluded to)? Does the object made real disappear when the spell ends?

(Tangential, but I had this funny image of "magicking" armour around someone (and then making it real), sending them into battle before it turns back and you manipulate the illusion into a giant "kill me" arrow)


It being solely alterable (but still physically there) by the illusionist's will would make it far less "an object made real" than what the flavor would seem to suggest.

My question was on whether it continues to interact with the rest of the illusion as if the rest of the illusion were still as real relative to it as before Illusory Reality was invoked.

I think the word "Real" here is where I get stuck. If it instead said "hard" or "tangible" it might play out very much like you imagine in the OP with an illusory giant holding a now physical spoon. But a real spoon can't float on an illusory hand. Also, the last line of the feature is that "the object can't deal damage or otherwise directly harm anyone", but there are an incredible number of implications for using now real illusions for high damage dealing. My aforementioned hill-drop example, Hallucinatory Terrain as oil and set it on fire for the world's biggest grease spell.

It was at this point that I re-read the very FIRST line in the feature: "you have learned the secret of weaving shadow magic into your illusions to give them a semi-reality"

I think this combined with the final line suggests that it definitely IS still an illusion, in fact it suggests to me that it is just making the illusion "hard" as I thought before. In my mind that means it would stay attached to the main illusion, however it also means that the cotton candy chain holds as though it was adamantium. (there really isn't a mechanical advantage here. If the material mattered you could just make everything with adamantium, it is more of a "belies expectations" situation).




Also, thanks! I'm glad somebody enjoys this topic as much as I do. The rules for illusions - particularly the Illusionist special features - are really intriguing in this edition.

They really are. I am pretty sure I finally made an account to pitch in on one of the illusion topics. (Either mirrors or shadows, I can't remember). It is one of those topics that has angles and implications that make me wish I was having the conversation face to face for maximum discussion.


P.S. Surely this has come up in more than a few campaigns. How have people ruled this?

[DrowPiratRobrts]

...and make that object real."




But its not real. Its magic.

I've isolated the part of the ability I want you to focus on, because based on your response I don't think there's an interpretation issue. It seems like you just don't want Illusory Reality to do what it explicitly says.

Or do you have a different definition of the word real from the one below?

Real: /ˈrē(ə)l/ adjective
1. actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
"Julius Caesar was a real person"
synonyms: actual, nonfictional, factual, real-life
2. (of a substance or thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine.
"the earring was presumably real gold"
synonyms: genuine, authentic, bona fide