Did I abuse Disguise Self?

[Cicciograna]

Okay, last session I did something with Disguise Self, and I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter.

So, the spell description says that the it can make the caster "look different", including the weapon he's carrying. Long story short, we entered a guarded morgue and I stole two swords (formerly :smallamused:) belonging to two corpses, and I strapped them to my belt: to get out, then, I casted Disguise Self and disguised myself as...myself, without the swords.

Would this fly?

[SpikeFightwicky]

The spell's limits only state height and body type, stating "the rest is up to you". I'd definitely allow this! As long as no one touches the area where you have the swords on your person, I don't see any issues.

Sounds like a an awesome use to me :smallsmile:

[Chronos]

One might argue that you could turn them into daggers or something, but not make them vanish entirely. I don't think I would argue that way, but one might.

And of course, there are the usual risks that come with illusion spells of someone discovering the truth.

Beyond that, though, looks fine to me.

[darknite]

I would of allowed you to disguise the swords as something where you were storing them, they couldn't just be invisible, though part of them could be for length/size considerations. YMMV

[Cicciograna]

Yeah, the "disguising them as some other kind of weapon" part was the objection I expected - and the reason I felt I abused the spell, because I made them vanish altogether. Oh well, at least the theft was actually minor, and done just for the sake of it.

Thanks for your opinion, guys.

[MoiMagnus]

I would reject it if your weapons are draw, and accept it if your weapons are in their scabbard or in any "near your body" position.

This spell is not designed to allow you to strike with an invisible sword, and I interpret it as part as "You can't change your body type, so you must adopt a form that has the same basic arrangement of limbs.", which essentially state that you cannot add yourself a third arm, or remove yourself an arm.

You could say "but a sword is not the same as an arm", but as I would never accept people adding/removing a metallic arm (under the pretext it is not a flesh arm), swords as "appendices" cannot be hidden or added for me, while swords as "clothing" can be hidden or added.

Note that I have absolutely no problems with you hiding your sword as a staff/cane. Or even just hiding it as long as it remain reasonably near to your body, i.e in the volume I will give to your character if you say "I disguise myself into someone as tall and big as possible with the spell".

[SpikeFightwicky]

I would reject it if your weapons are draw, and accept it if your weapons are in their scabbard or in any "near your body" position.

This spell is not designed to allow you to strike with an invisible sword, and I interpret it as part as "You can't change your body type, so you must adopt a form that has the same basic arrangement of limbs.", which essentially state that you cannot add yourself a third arm, or remove yourself an arm.

You could say "but a sword is not the same as an arm", but as I would never accept people adding/removing a metallic arm (under the pretext it is not a flesh arm), swords as "appendices" cannot be hidden or added for me, while swords as "clothing" can be hidden or added.

Note that I have absolutely no problems with you hiding your sword as a staff/cane. Or even just hiding it as long as it remain reasonably near to your body, i.e in the volume I will give to your character if you say "I disguise myself into someone as tall and big as possible with the spell".

That sounds like a good (best) interpretation. I assumed the swords were stowed, but yeah... drawn I'd say they'd have to be disguised as well.

[Man_Over_Game]

Here's the full text:

"
You make yourself—including your clothing, armor, weapons, and other belongings on your person—look different until the spell ends or until you use your action to dismiss it. You can seem 1 foot shorter or taller and can appear thin, fat, or in between. You can’t change your body type, so you must adopt a form that has the same basic arrangement of limbs. Otherwise, the extent of the illusion is up to you.

The changes wrought by this spell fail to hold up to physical inspection. For example, if you use this spell to add a hat to your outfit, objects pass through the hat, and anyone w ho touches it would feel nothing or would feel your head and hair. If you use this spell to appear thinner than you are, the hand of someone who reaches out to touch you would bump into you while it was seemingly still in midair.

To discern that you are disguised, a creature can use its action to inspect your appearance and must succeed on an Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC.
"

I bolded the more important parts.

So it's capable of making illusionary objects, and it's capable of making things invisible through illusions. I don't see why it couldn't make an object invisible.

I agree with Moi Magnus that some restrictions need to be in place to ensure it's not a combat-effective spell. This is less about the narrative of the spell and more of a balance concern (as it's a level 1 spell that lasts an hour with no Concentration).

A good example might be having the Disguise effect weaken the further it gets from the source. That is, objects you hold must be moved slowly, otherwise the illusion loses its effect, preventing someone from making an attack with an invisible Disguise Self weapon.

[Beleriphon]

A good example might be having the Disguise effect weaken the further it gets from the source. That is, objects you hold must be moved slowly, otherwise the illusion loses its effect, preventing someone from making an attack with an invisible Disguise Self weapon.

I read it more that the character is using the spell to say appear that their fully armed and armoured self is actually wearing formal attire to the Evil Duke's fancy dress ball. Which would mean the weapons are invisible, or at least appear like something else hanging from a belt, maybe the length of a friction belt. Never mind what a stowed shield slung across the back might look like.

I honestly think this use of the spell is fine, but as soon as the weapons aren't stowed, magic stops since they are no longer "clothing".

[Man_Over_Game]

Never mind what a stowed shield slung across the back might look like.

It can make you one foot shorter, or it can make you look thinner. I'd say that the shield is just invisible. You might have to round out your shoulder mass to ensure that nobody bumps into you, though. Making you look big and scary is enough of a reason for people to keep their distance.

[tieren]

I would say its what the spell is designed to do.

You want to lose the guards chasing you so you disguise your heavily armed and armored self to look like a street beggar and squat by the road.

Shouldn't be any different when you choose the beggar should look like you.

There is no mechanical effect for attacking with an invisible weapon (no modifiers, no adv/disadv) so I don't see a problem with it one way or another.

[Man_Over_Game]

I would say its what the spell is designed to do.

You want to lose the guards chasing you so you disguise your heavily armed and armored self to look like a street beggar and squat by the road.

Shouldn't be any different when you choose the beggar should look like you.

There is no mechanical effect for attacking with an invisible weapon (no modifiers, no adv/disadv) so I don't see a problem with it one way or another.

Circumstantial Advantage and all that. If attacking from an invisible weapon isn't something the DM deems is worthy of earning circumstantial advantage, then I'd probably not bother trying to make circumstances work in my favor for the entirety of a campaign.

There's a sort of break, between balance and narrative. Balance-wise, I (the DM) wouldn't LIKE granting someone Advantage for it, but I'd probably HAVE to. Otherwise, it sets a precedence that I'll only grant you Advantage when I think you're losing or when I take pity on you. When I think you've "earned it" from a mechanical standpoint, not a narrative one.

"It doesn't matter that you came up with a cool idea, I'm not letting you benefit from it." That's not what circumstantial Advantage should be.

Rather, I think an inherent weakness, a REASON it can't be a circumstantial Advantage, built into the spell itself. That way, you don't have to choose between Balance and Narrative. The problem isn't that it's not creative or sensible, but that the spell is just too convenient to allow a repeatable combat benefit.

So fix the spell.

[crayzz]

As a DM I might have made you make a DC 10 (maybe DC 8 or 5) sleight of hand to keep from bumping the swords into anyone/anything by accident; failure triggers the investigation check from otherwise unsuspecting NPCs.

But the actual use of the spell is fine. You could disguise yourself as wearing swords, so disguising yourself as not wearing them seems perfectly reasonable.

Is your DM complaining?

[Cicciograna]

The swords were not used (my character is not even proficient), I left them in the scabbard attached to my belt: I cast the spell just to smuggle them out of the morgue. My only issue was that I made them DISAPPEAR, rather than changing them into something inconspicuous, but it seems to me that, after all, this is entirely in the purview of the spell.


Is your DM complaining?
Quite the contrary, he praised my creativity. I was wondering just for my own sense of law-abiding as a player.

[Segev]

The swords were not used (my character is not even proficient), I left them in the scabbard attached to my belt: I cast the spell just to smuggle them out of the morgue. My only issue was that I made them DISAPPEAR, rather than changing them into something inconspicuous, but it seems to me that, after all, this is entirely in the purview of the spell.


Quite the contrary, he praised my creativity. I was wondering just for my own sense of law-abiding as a player.

Nah, you're fine. There's little difference between changing what it appears you're wearing and what it appears you're...wearing. And you were wearing the swords.

You could technically disguise a weapon held in your hand as a bouquet of flowers. You could make it look like you're wearing a long coat, and the swords wouldn't reveal it. Making them disappear is no different than making it look like you're barefoot or that you're not wearing armor.

[JackPhoenix]

Circumstantial Advantage and all that. If attacking from an invisible weapon isn't something the DM deems is worthy of earning circumstantial advantage, then I'd probably not bother trying to make circumstances work in my favor for the entirety of a campaign.

There's a sort of break, between balance and narrative. Balance-wise, I (the DM) wouldn't LIKE granting someone Advantage for it, but I'd probably HAVE to. Otherwise, it sets a precedence that I'll only grant you Advantage when I think you're losing or when I take pity on you. When I think you've "earned it" from a mechanical standpoint, not a narrative one.

"It doesn't matter that you came up with a cool idea, I'm not letting you benefit from it." That's not what circumstantial Advantage should be.

Rather, I think an inherent weakness, a REASON it can't be a circumstantial Advantage, built into the spell itself. That way, you don't have to choose between Balance and Narrative. The problem isn't that it's not creative or sensible, but that the spell is just too convenient to allow a repeatable combat benefit.

So fix the spell.

It doesn't warrant advantage. Your enemy can't see the weapon, true, but you can't either, which makes effective use of it harder for you too. And advantage and disadvantage negate each other.

[Man_Over_Game]

It doesn't warrant advantage. Your enemy can't see the weapon, true, but you can't either, which makes effective use of it harder for you too. And advantage and disadvantage negate each other.

What I'm referring to is the rule that states "The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result."

You, knowing that you're wielding a 2.5 ft. sword in your hand, and the enemy thinking you're wielding nothing, would be enough of a basis for me to grant a player Advantage.

Similarly, if a Rogue used Sleight of Hand to hide a dagger, and attacked someone who was not expecting it, Advantage might be suitable there, too.


Personally, I'm not the kind of DM that allows you to shoot a bow out of its normal Range (Disadvantage), using Fog Cloud on the target to shoot better (grants both sides Advantage and Disadvantage, meaning you now attack normally due to having both Adv. and Disadv. despite shooting at long range at a target you can't see)

There can be circumstances that sway in the benefit of one person over another, especially if its from the same source.

[Gallowglass]

I can see the argument right now.

Player: "Okay I cast disguise self and disguise myself as myself without the swords"

DM: "You can't just make the swords invisible."

Player: "Why not?"

DM: "That's not what the spell is for."

Player: "Sigh. Okay I cast disguise self and disguise myself as someone who looks exactly like me except with a mustache and no swords"

DM: "Okay."

Or better yet.

DM: "No that's just not how it works!"

*several back and forth later*

Player: "Okay, so the guy who looks kind of like me but is wearing a chef's hat, an apron, large clunky boots and holding two long loaves of french bread walks out of the door and past the guards."

[Bloodcloud]

It's definitely legal, per the spell.

I'd say, however, that a sword in a scabbard on the belt protrude quite a lot. You run the real risk of someone running into it, especially in a crowd, and I might roll on that depending of circumstances. Strapped to your back would be more subtle, or covered as an umbrella or cane.

Wielding anything bigger than a dagger would, to me, violate the "same basic arrangement of limbs." and make the weapon visible, unless you disguise it as a baguette or ladle or watever, which might or might not depending on circumstance be worth one successfull attack with advantage.

[Segev]

It's definitely legal, per the spell.

I'd say, however, that a sword in a scabbard on the belt protrude quite a lot. You run the real risk of someone running into it, especially in a crowd, and I might roll on that depending of circumstances. Strapped to your back would be more subtle, or covered as an umbrella or cane.

Wielding anything bigger than a dagger would, to me, violate the "same basic arrangement of limbs." and make the weapon visible, unless you disguise it as a baguette or ladle or watever, which might or might not depending on circumstance be worth one successfull attack with advantage.

And now I'm picturing an obvious adventurer wearing a chef's hat, very french cartoony mustache a foot to either side of his face, and a pair of baguettes strapped to his hip where swords would be.

[1Pirate]

It's definitely legal, per the spell.

I'd say, however, that a sword in a scabbard on the belt protrude quite a lot. You run the real risk of someone running into it, especially in a crowd, and I might roll on that depending of circumstances.
I can see the ensuing deception checks now...

"Citizen, did I just feel you poke me with an invisible sword?"

"No...I, uh, um, I'm just always happy to see a member of the Watch out looking after the people."

[Man_Over_Game]

I can see the ensuing deception checks now...

"Citizen, did I just feel you poke me with an invisible sword?"

"No...I, uh, um, I'm just always happy to see a member of the Watch out looking after the people."

No Shame version:

"No sir. It's definitely not invisible".

[Tallytrev813]

Here's the full text:

"
You make yourself—including your clothing, armor, weapons, and other belongings on your person—look different until the spell ends or until you use your action to dismiss it. You can seem 1 foot shorter or taller and can appear thin, fat, or in between. You can’t change your body type, so you must adopt a form that has the same basic arrangement of limbs. Otherwise, the extent of the illusion is up to you.

The changes wrought by this spell fail to hold up to physical inspection. For example, if you use this spell to add a hat to your outfit, objects pass through the hat, and anyone w ho touches it would feel nothing or would feel your head and hair. If you use this spell to appear thinner than you are, the hand of someone who reaches out to touch you would bump into you while it was seemingly still in midair.

To discern that you are disguised, a creature can use its action to inspect your appearance and must succeed on an Intelligence (Investigation) check against your spell save DC.
"

I bolded the more important parts.

So it's capable of making illusionary objects, and it's capable of making things invisible through illusions. I don't see why it couldn't make an object invisible.

I agree with Moi Magnus that some restrictions need to be in place to ensure it's not a combat-effective spell. This is less about the narrative of the spell and more of a balance concern (as it's a level 1 spell that lasts an hour with no Concentration).

A good example might be having the Disguise effect weaken the further it gets from the source. That is, objects you hold must be moved slowly, otherwise the illusion loses its effect, preventing someone from making an attack with an invisible Disguise Self weapon.

If it were me, i'd apply the same logic as most apply to other illusions. Being...

You can create an illusion of a Rock where there is no rock.
You can not create the illusion that there is a hole in the ground where there isnt a hole.

By the same token, you can use disguise self to make a hat
you cannot use it to fully disappear a sword.

My ruling would be, you have to make the sword appear to be something else, perhaps you hold the sword and make it appear to be a walking stick, or perhaps, as mentioned, it appears as a dagger on your waist, or a pouch (rather than a sword).

[Tanarii]

The more important question here is if you've stared at yourself in the mirror long enough at some point, in order to successfully be able to make a Disguise Self of yourself.

[FabulousFizban]

if you have to ask...

[Man_Over_Game]

If it were me, i'd apply the same logic as most apply to other illusions. Being...

You can create an illusion of a Rock where there is no rock.
You can not create the illusion that there is a hole in the ground where there isnt a hole.

By the same token, you can use disguise self to make a hat
you cannot use it to fully disappear a sword.

My ruling would be, you have to make the sword appear to be something else, perhaps you hold the sword and make it appear to be a walking stick, or perhaps, as mentioned, it appears as a dagger on your waist, or a pouch (rather than a sword).

But the spell is clearly able to make you appear thinner or shorter than how you actually are. It's capable of making portions invisible.

Why is converting a sword into a dagger different than just making the sword disappear? Weird illusory reality physics?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that every illusion spell is capable of making things invisible or making holes in the ground, I'm saying that Disguise Self states it's capable of already doing that.

[Gallowglass]

If it were me, i'd apply the same logic as most apply to other illusions. Being...

You can create an illusion of a Rock where there is no rock.
You can not create the illusion that there is a hole in the ground where there isnt a hole.



I'm just curious what basis you are using for not being able to create an illusion of a hole in the ground? That's a new one to me. Is that based on some written rule or just a personal/table tradition?

In my games, both DMed and played, I've certainly been able to create illusions of holes. or overlaying a bridge to look like its fallen or a gap in a wall where there wasn't one.

[Tallytrev813]

I'm just curious what basis you are using for not being able to create an illusion of a hole in the ground? That's a new one to me. Is that based on some written rule or just a personal/table tradition?

In my games, both DMed and played, I've certainly been able to create illusions of holes. or overlaying a bridge to look like its fallen or a gap in a wall where there wasn't one.

Apparently it's a controversy, and the result tends to be "you cant make a hole in the ground"

I was recently asking, because i wanted to roll an Illusion Wizard due to the literally unmeasurable power of Illusory Reality.

One idea i noted was, to Silent Image a 15 ft hole in the ground under charging Orcs, then make it real - dropping them into a hole. Then - ending the spell (Or casting a new illusion of dirt) and burying them alive.

Consensus was you cant make an illusion of a hole, or you cant make an illusion of nothing where there was something - if im remembering correctly.

[Tallytrev813]

But the spell is clearly able to make you appear thinner or shorter than how you actually are. It's capable of making portions invisible.

Why is converting a sword into a dagger different than just making the sword disappear? Weird illusory reality physics?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that every illusion spell is capable of making things invisible or making holes in the ground, I'm saying that Disguise Self states it's capable of already doing that.

Correct. It can make you appear thinner, but not invisible. Just like it can make the sword appear thinner, but not invisible.

Now, this is just how I read it, but the way it reads to me is as such:

You can make yourself, your armor, your clothing, etc look DIFFERENT (meaning it has to have an appearance, just a different one. Or, in other words, you can make it appear different, but you cannot remove it's property of having an appearance all together).

I think this is why they added stipulations to the size changes. It's not invisibility, its a disguise, and those properties of the magic apply to everything you're using it on. You can make the appearance of a fake hat where there wasnt one, but you cannot REMOVE ALL TOGETHER the appearance of a real hat.

[Gallowglass]

Apparently it's a controversy, and the result tends to be "you cant make a hole in the ground"

I was recently asking, because i wanted to roll an Illusion Wizard due to the literally unmeasurable power of Illusory Reality.

One idea i noted was, to Silent Image a 15 ft hole in the ground under charging Orcs, then make it real - dropping them into a hole. Then - ending the spell (Or casting a new illusion of dirt) and burying them alive.

Consensus was you cant make an illusion of a hole, or you cant make an illusion of nothing where there was something - if im remembering correctly.


Well no. You can't make a hole that people would actually fall INTO with a silent image. But you can certainly make an image of the hole hoping that the orcs pull up short and stop their charge under the fear that they would fall in. But if they didn't stop, they would just roll over it and automatically succeed in disbelieving it after the first one failed to fall in.

Consensus among whom? Controversy where?

[Renduaz]

The RAW verdict rests entirely upon a single element in the spell's phrasing, which nobody seems to have addressed so far - the definition of the word "looks".

"You make yourself-including your clothing, armor, weapons, and other belongings on your person-look different"

Can something be stated to 'look invisible'? If so, then you can make your weapons invisible at any stage, in our of of combat, even though once it's felt physically then it will be known, but still not seen. No further rulings necessary. If the answer however is that something can't 'look invisible', then you can't make anything invisible. Let's review the definitions of 'to look' and 'looks':

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/look

>"to direct your eyes in order to see"

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Looks

>"look ( noun ) - Appearance or aspect: a look of great age."

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/appearance

>"1. the act or fact of appearing, as to the eye or mind or before the public:, 2. the state, condition, manner, or style in which a person or object appears; outward look or aspect:"

So we're getting a lot of confusing redundancies and synonyms, but generally I'd argue from the definitions that an invisible phenomena, object or person cannot be said to 'look' a certain way, and is in fact the very opposite of something which can be looked upon, ergo it would constitute an oxymoron to state that you make something look differently by making it invisible. You can turn invisible, become invisible, you can state that something is invisible, but the wording of disguise self specifically doesn't work.

Say, if someone stepped out of a changing room with a different dress and asked "How do I look", there would be an an affirmative answer to that based on visual feedback. If someone did so and they were invisible, the appropriate answer would be "You don't." - You don't look ( like anything ). Or "I can't see anything" which is tantamount to saying former. And that wouldn't really fit any of the definitions we have of seeing something with your eyes, or appearing in one's eye or mind, rather the opposite - being unapparent.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/invisible

>"not visible; not perceptible by the eye: invisible fluid.
withdrawn from or out of sight; hidden: an invisible seam.
not perceptible or discernible by the mind: invisible differences.
not ordinarily found in financial statements or reflected in statistics or a listing:"

Final RAW verdict is therefore - you cannot use disguise self to make yourself, clothing, armor, weapons, and other belongings on your person invisible. In-visible is the same as un-apparent ( visually ) which would be the same as 'un-lookable' if that was a word. And as far as I know, spell such as Invisibility, Wall of Force, etc. never use the phrasing "to look invisible" in their descriptions, but let me know if you find something that does. By definition Disguise Self cannot turn anything invisible.

[Segev]

The RAW verdict rests entirely upon a single element in the spell's phrasing, which nobody seems to have addressed so far - the definition of the word "looks".

"You make yourself-including your clothing, armor, weapons, and other belongings on your person-look different"

Can something be stated to 'look invisible'? If so, then you can make your weapons invisible at any stage, in our of of combat, even though once it's felt physically then it will be known, but still not seen. No further rulings necessary. If the answer however is that something can't 'look invisible', then you can't make anything invisible. Let's review the definitions of 'to look' and 'looks':

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/look

>"to direct your eyes in order to see"

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Looks

>"look ( noun ) - Appearance or aspect: a look of great age."

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/appearance

>"1. the act or fact of appearing, as to the eye or mind or before the public:, 2. the state, condition, manner, or style in which a person or object appears; outward look or aspect:"

So we're getting a lot of confusing redundancies and synonyms, but generally I'd argue from the definitions that an invisible phenomena, object or person cannot be said to 'look' a certain way, and is in fact the very opposite of something which can be looked upon, ergo it would constitute an oxymoron to state that you make something look differently by making it invisible. You can turn invisible, become invisible, you can state that something is invisible, but the wording of disguise self specifically doesn't work.

Say, if someone stepped out of a changing room with a different dress and asked "How do I look", there would be an an affirmative answer to that based on visual feedback. If someone did so and they were invisible, the appropriate answer would be "You don't." - You don't look ( like anything ). Or "I can't see anything" which is tantamount to saying former. And that wouldn't really fit any of the definitions we have of seeing something with your eyes, or appearing in one's eye or mind, rather the opposite - being unapparent.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/invisible

>"not visible; not perceptible by the eye: invisible fluid.
withdrawn from or out of sight; hidden: an invisible seam.
not perceptible or discernible by the mind: invisible differences.
not ordinarily found in financial statements or reflected in statistics or a listing:"

Final RAW verdict is therefore - you cannot use disguise self to make yourself, clothing, armor, weapons, and other belongings on your person invisible. In-visible is the same as un-apparent ( visually ) which would be the same as 'un-lookable' if that was a word. And as far as I know, spell such as Invisibility, Wall of Force, etc. never use the phrasing "to look invisible" in their descriptions, but let me know if you find something that does. By definition Disguise Self cannot turn anything invisible.
By this logic, disguise self cannot make you appear unarmored. It cannot make you appear to be wearing only swim trunks while actually wearing ninja garb. It cannot make you appear to be wearing plain, simple peasant wear when you’re wearing a gaudy multi-part outfit dropping with jewelry, and, in fact, cannot make one bit of jewelry appear not to be there.

This is a huge limitation on the spell that would seem to be needed in the description.

[Renduaz]

By this logic, disguise self cannot make you appear unarmored. It cannot make you appear to be wearing only swim trunks while actually wearing ninja garb. It cannot make you appear to be wearing plain, simple peasant wear when you’re wearing a gaudy multi-part outfit dropping with jewelry, and, in fact, cannot make one bit of jewelry appear not to be there.

This is a huge limitation on the spell that would seem to be needed in the description.


I would say that you can appear 'unarmored', but you'd look much thicker/bigger as the illusion would be covering up your armor with a skin illusion. You can also do all the rest with similar stipulations, as long as the illusion extends to cover all the necessary physical objects - basically the equivalent of hiding a circle in MS-paint by painting a slightly bigger circle over it. Now, I've been thinking whether that interpretation might be incompatible with the part in the spell which states that, for instance, you can make yourself seem thinner or 1 foot shorter, which implies making portions of your body invisible. However, note that it is a separate part from the first part about making a list of things look differently, and uses the word 'seem' which is more malleable - "To be judged as; Give the impression of being something" and directly refers to what others are going to assume, rather than making a certain thing look a different way.

So I maintain this logic, especially since it fits all the English definitions. 'Invisible' is contradictory to how we would define an object 'looking like', after all, they are literal antonyms. It will indeed result in limitations that most people don't take into account when off-handedly employing the spell, but it does satisfy strict RAW. If I allow players to perform some of the illusory feats you describe, then I would just think of it as a highly popular house ruling or 'rule of cool', but when it comes to rules lawyering, the definitions are clear.

[Chronos]

To see the problem with holes, instead of thinking of a hole in the ground, imagine a hole in a wall. If you look through the hole, what do you see? If you see what's really there, then Minor Illusion becomes a great spying spell, because it lets you look through 5' thick walls. If you see an illusion of what the caster thinks is on the other side, then you've hugely expanded the spell's area of effect, because there's no limit to how big "the other side" can be.

Or, to think about it another way, you can make an illusion of a hole, but you can't see it, because there's opaque ground in front of it blocking your view of the illusion.

And just don't ask what happens when you make an illusion of a mirror, because as soon as you ask that question, there's no answer at all that doesn't break something.

[Man_Over_Game]

To see the problem with holes, instead of thinking of a hole in the ground, imagine a hole in a wall. If you look through the hole, what do you see? If you see what's really there, then Minor Illusion becomes a great spying spell, because it lets you look through 5' thick walls. If you see an illusion of what the caster thinks is on the other side, then you've hugely expanded the spell's area of effect, because there's no limit to how big "the other side" can be.

Or, to think about it another way, you can make an illusion of a hole, but you can't see it, because there's opaque ground in front of it blocking your view of the illusion.

And just don't ask what happens when you make an illusion of a mirror, because as soon as you ask that question, there's no answer at all that doesn't break something.

I think we should steer away from the whole "Can Illusions Make Holes" debate. The last time it happened, it was about 10 pages of derailing the thread with the same arguments.

No.

We know your position. We know it's complicated. We're sure you think it's right, and we're sure we understand your side.

But we're stubborn, we're passionate nerds, and we're on the internet, so nobody's words are going to change anything on the topic. So please don't think that your words are going to inspire change or inspire the other side to give up. Nobody wins in this fight, except the people who don't fight.

[Renduaz]

To see the problem with holes, instead of thinking of a hole in the ground, imagine a hole in a wall. If you look through the hole, what do you see? If you see what's really there, then Minor Illusion becomes a great spying spell, because it lets you look through 5' thick walls. If you see an illusion of what the caster thinks is on the other side, then you've hugely expanded the spell's area of effect, because there's no limit to how big "the other side" can be.

Or, to think about it another way, you can make an illusion of a hole, but you can't see it, because there's opaque ground in front of it blocking your view of the illusion.

And just don't ask what happens when you make an illusion of a mirror, because as soon as you ask that question, there's no answer at all that doesn't break something.


I think we should steer away from the whole "Can Illusions Make Holes" debate. The last time it happened, it was about 10 pages of derailing the thread with the same arguments.

I can't imagine why there would be 10 pages of arguments on the matter when we can use real-life comparisons to settle it rather easily. A 'hole' describes a segment of space where one is not able to discern matter visually, even though they might know for example that air is present, so it doesn't really describe an object, therefore Minor Illusion can't create it. What Minor Illusion can make is a circular image plastered on a wall of an object with whatever patterns the casters decides upon, which would include 'what the caster thinks is on the other side'.

There is no 'other side' here, only 5-foot cube of visuals. But I think what you're referring to is someone using perspective to fool someone's brain into thinking that he's looking at something farther away than it truly is, like an ocean or open fields through a narrow gap. That doesn't expand the spell's area of effect though, it's just using perspective techniques as any artist would on a paper. When playing a video game, or better yet in this analogy, a VR game and witnessing something that looks like it's 'miles' ahead, the pixels are completely confined to the space of your monitor or headset regardless. Same with perspectives in minor illusion.

[Man_Over_Game]

I can't imagine why there would be 10 pages of arguments on the matter when we can use real-life comparisons to settle it rather easily. A 'hole' describes a segment of space where one is not able to discern matter visually, even though they might know for example that air is present, so it doesn't really describe an object, therefore Minor Illusion can't create it. What Minor Illusion can make is a circular image plastered on a wall of an object with whatever patterns the casters decides upon, which would include 'what the caster thinks is on the other side'.

There is no 'other side' here, only 5-foot cube of visuals. But I think what you're referring to is someone using perspective to fool someone's brain into thinking that he's looking at something farther away than it truly is, like an ocean or open fields through a narrow gap. That doesn't expand the spell's area of effect though, it's just using perspective techniques as any artist would on a paper. When playing a video game, or better yet in this analogy, a VR game and witnessing something that looks like it's 'miles' ahead, the pixels are completely confined to the space of your monitor or headset regardless. Same with perspectives in minor illusion.

And so it begins...

[Tanarii]

I think we should steer away from the whole "Can Illusions Make Holes" debate. The last time it happened, it was about 10 pages of derailing the thread with the same arguments.

No.

We know your position. We know it's complicated. We're sure you think it's right, and we're sure we understand your side.

But we're stubborn, we're passionate nerds, and we're on the internet, so nobody's words are going to change anything on the topic. So please don't think that your words are going to inspire change or inspire the other side to give up. Nobody wins in this fight, except the people who don't fight.
Dont you know the first law of thread derailment: once it has begun, only the mods can prevent it. And then only by locking. :)

[Segev]

On whether illusions can create holes: Generally irrelevant. What's relevant here is that disguise self can expressly make you appear thinner than you are, with a called-out description of somebody poking you in the tummy and feeling something stop him while he appears to be poking thin air. Therefore, we know that, regardless of what is believed about any other spell, disguise self can explicitly create the illusion of absence. i.e. invisibility and/or holes.

Yes, this means that you could make yourself look like Jesus Christ post-Resurrection, with holes through your palms and feet. (Regardless of what anybody believes IRL about that faith, we all know what that figure would look like.)

You can also make yourself appear to be a zombie, with flesh rotting off your face and exposing teeth beneath, and exposed bones where muscles are sloughing off.


I would say that you can appear 'unarmored', but you'd look much thicker/bigger as the illusion would be covering up your armor with a skin illusion. You can also do all the rest with similar stipulations, as long as the illusion extends to cover all the necessary physical objects - basically the equivalent of hiding a circle in MS-paint by painting a slightly bigger circle over it. Now, I've been thinking whether that interpretation might be incompatible with the part in the spell which states that, for instance, you can make yourself seem thinner or 1 foot shorter, which implies making portions of your body invisible. However, note that it is a separate part from the first part about making a list of things look differently, and uses the word 'seem' which is more malleable - "To be judged as; Give the impression of being something" and directly refers to what others are going to assume, rather than making a certain thing look a different way.

So I maintain this logic, especially since it fits all the English definitions. 'Invisible' is contradictory to how we would define an object 'looking like', after all, they are literal antonyms. It will indeed result in limitations that most people don't take into account when off-handedly employing the spell, but it does satisfy strict RAW. If I allow players to perform some of the illusory feats you describe, then I would just think of it as a highly popular house ruling or 'rule of cool', but when it comes to rules lawyering, the definitions are clear.

You can change your outfit entirely. You do not need to make an illusion of skin covering it; it can expressly make you appear THINNER than you are. Disguise self can hide any aspect of your outfit you want it to, as part of making you look like you're wearing something else.

[Renduaz]

On whether illusions can create holes: Generally irrelevant. What's relevant here is that disguise self can expressly make you appear thinner than you are, with a called-out description of somebody poking you in the tummy and feeling something stop him while he appears to be poking thin air. Therefore, we know that, regardless of what is believed about any other spell, disguise self can explicitly create the illusion of absence. i.e. invisibility and/or holes.

Yes, this means that you could make yourself look like Jesus Christ post-Resurrection, with holes through your palms and feet. (Regardless of what anybody believes IRL about that faith, we all know what that figure would look like.)

You can also make yourself appear to be a zombie, with flesh rotting off your face and exposing teeth beneath, and exposed bones where muscles are sloughing off.



You can change your outfit entirely. You do not need to make an illusion of skin covering it; it can expressly make you appear THINNER than you are. Disguise self can hide any aspect of your outfit you want it to, as part of making you look like you're wearing something else.

I don't know what you mean by 'change your outfit entirely', but I know the spell says you can make your clothing look different - yes, by creating an illusion covering or overlapping with said clothing as camouflage, much like wearing a jacket over your shirt. The only example given about outfits is that of an adding hat illusion in an empty space, not making any physical matter disappear as part of the first paragraph about making things look differently.

I already explained to you my reasoning regarding the thinner segment, before you even brought it up. It's a completely separate stipulation from the first, let me quote the spell description once again:

"You make yourself-including your clothing, armor, weapons, and other belongings on your person-look different until the spell ends or until you u se your action to dismiss it." - ( PERIOD. End of sentence. )

"You can seem 1 foot shorter or taller and can appear thin, fat, or in between."

Disguise self can make parts of you, physically, invisible because the word 'seem' is used ( As I discussed earlier ), underlined by the given examples which are physical examples. The part of the spell description which states that you can make your clothing, armor, weapons and other belongings LOOK differently cannot make them invisible by definition. It does say 'yourself' too, but that's just option 1 for your physical self, looking different. Option 2 is making yourself seem 1 thinner or shorter and so on.

By the way, under this logic there's nothing stopping you from making your physical, naked self completely invisible, as in an invisibility spell, and not just jesus christ post resurrection. You know what the only way in which it wouldn't be true is? Realizing that the second paragraph is a separate sentence which dictates the extent of invisibility to being 1 foot shoorter or taller, thin or fat, or inbetween, with body holes not being included in that defined extent. Any other attempt to justify by RAW why you think that Disguise Self can make segments of your flesh disappear, but not say - 99% of your flesh save for your nose or a milimeter of your fingertip disappear, or 100% of your flesh disappear is going to be completely arbitrary and doomed to fail. But if the second paragraph is acknowledged as a separate parameter, then everything makes sense.

[Segev]

I don't know what you mean by 'change your outfit entirely', but I know the spell says you can make your clothing look different - yes, by creating an illusion covering or overlapping with said clothing as camouflage, much like wearing a jacket over your shirt. The only example given about outfits is that of an adding hat illusion in an empty space, not making any physical matter disappear as part of the first paragraph about making things look differently.

I already explained to you my reasoning regarding the thinner segment, before you even brought it up. It's a completely separate stipulation from the first, let me quote the spell description once again:

"You make yourself-including your clothing, armor, weapons, and other belongings on your person-look different until the spell ends or until you u se your action to dismiss it." - ( PERIOD. End of sentence. )

"You can seem 1 foot shorter or taller and can appear thin, fat, or in between."

Disguise self can make parts of you, physically, invisible because the word 'seem' is used ( As I discussed earlier ), underline by the given examples which are physical example. The part of the spell description which states that you can make your clothing, armor, weapons and other belongings LOOK differently cannot make them invisible by definition. It does say 'yourself' too, but that's just option 1 for your physical self, looking different. Option 2 is making yourself seem 1 thinner or shorter and so on.

By the way, under this logic there's nothing stopping you from making your physical, naked self completely invisible, as in an invisibility spell, and not just jesus christ post resurrection. You know what the only way in which it wouldn't be true is? Realizing that the second paragraph is a separate sentence which dictates the extent of invisibility to being 1 foot shoorter or taller, thin or fat, or inbetween, with body holes not being included in that defined extent.

So... if I'm fat, and wearing a shirt, I can make myself look thinner and my shirt look like a different shirt, but my (illusory) shirt still must cover my paunch, because I can't make the shirt itself appear to hang down in the space where my stomach is and lie flat against my illusory sixpack?

I have that illusory sixpack, but it's only visible to somebody who lifts my inexplicably-distended shirt and looks through the invisible layers of fat to the illusion, because I can't make the actual shirt that's covering my paunch disappear?

[Gallowglass]

The RAW verdict rests entirely upon a single element in the spell's phrasing, which nobody seems to have addressed so far - the definition of the word "looks".


Hey wait a minute...

...are you Bill Clinton?

//most likely everyone on this forum is too young to get this joke//

[Segev]

Hey wait a minute...

...are you Bill Clinton?

//most likely everyone on this forum is too young to get this joke//

I'm not! :smallcool:

Disguise self would go a long way towards justifying a potentially-mistaken claim that one did not have sex with that woman, too.

[Renduaz]

So... if I'm fat, and wearing a shirt, I can make myself look thinner and my shirt look like a different shirt, but my (illusory) shirt still must cover my paunch, because I can't make the shirt itself appear to hang down in the space where my stomach is and lie flat against my illusory sixpack?

I have that illusory sixpack, but it's only visible to somebody who lifts my inexplicably-distended shirt and looks through the invisible layers of fat to the illusion, because I can't make the actual shirt that's covering my paunch disappear?


As stated before, according to rules lawyering and relying on the linguistic definitions, that would be exactly how the spell functions, even if it isn't RAI and not popularly employed that way, and any DM might just choose to allow otherwise due to rule of cool and the popular usage. But if all we cared about is robotically interpreting the description, that is how it would work. But as said, if the semantically flawed alternative is taken to it's logical extreme, wherein 100% transparency, I.E invisbility is accepted as a completely valid 'look', then there's absolutely no reason to say that turning yourself into a swiss cheese is possible, but 99.9%, or 100% for that matter body/cloth invisibility won't be, effectively turning Disguise Self into a budget Invisibility spell at level 1 which does the job just as well, without concentration, and that obviously isn't RAI. So DM's who prevent that are also just house ruling as they see fit.

Under strict RAW, the answer to this question would be yes, but DM's will most often not apply consistent RAW parameters to Disguise Self, but rather 'rule of cool' offhand judgements.

[Segev]

As stated before, according to rules lawyering and relying on the linguistic definitions, that would be exactly how the spell functions, even if it isn't RAI and not popularly employed that way, and any DM might just choose to allow otherwise due to rule of cool and the popular usage. But if all we cared about is robotically interpreting the description, that is how it would work. But as said, if the semantically flawed alternative is taken to it's logical extreme, wherein 100% transparency, I.E invisbility is accepted as a completely valid 'look', then there's absolutely no reason to say that turning yourself into a swiss cheese is possible, but 99.9%, or 100% for that matter body/cloth invisibility won't be, effectively turning Disguise Self into a budget Invisibility spell at level 1 which does the job just as well, without concentration, and that obviously isn't RAI. So DM's who prevent that are also just house ruling as they see fit.

Under strict RAW, the answer to this question would be yes, but DM's will most often not apply consistent RAW parameters to Disguise Self, but rather 'rule of cool' offhand judgements.

I think you're falling prey to a fallacy of rules lawyering, because you're choosing to interpret it this way when there is an equally valid interpretation under the RAW that doesn't have this problem. The way language works, sentences can elaborate on each other. A period need not mean "everything after this is unrelated." In fact, this very paragraph I'm writing right now has sentences which build on previous ones. The spell describes what it does and gives examples. The example the spell gives of patting a fat belly over an illusion of a skinny one having the hand of the one touching the belly appear to stop in mid-air would not work by the interpretation you're giving it, but does work by the alternative interpretation that it can, in fact, change your entire outfit to match the appearance-shift you're causing.

Appearing shorter or thinner does, in fact, move your clothing - or the illusion thereof - to accommodate, including bringing it into "invisible" space and rendering it invisible or apparently moved. Being 1 foot shorter while wearing a hat makes you appear one foot shorter with that hat on your apparent head; it does not make you appear one foot shorter with a hat hovering one foot over your apparent head.

It is a fallacy to pick between valid potential interpretations of text and insist on the one that produces results that are dysfunctional to apparent intent, when one or more alternate interpretations fail to have such problems.

[Renduaz]

I think you're falling prey to a fallacy of rules lawyering, because you're choosing to interpret it this way when there is an equally valid interpretation under the RAW that doesn't have this problem. The way language works, sentences can elaborate on each other. A period need not mean "everything after this is unrelated." In fact, this very paragraph I'm writing right now has sentences which build on previous ones. The spell describes what it does and gives examples. The example the spell gives of patting a fat belly over an illusion of a skinny one having the hand of the one touching the belly appear to stop in mid-air would not work by the interpretation you're giving it, but does work by the alternative interpretation that it can, in fact, change your entire outfit to match the appearance-shift you're causing.

Appearing shorter or thinner does, in fact, move your clothing - or the illusion thereof - to accommodate, including bringing it into "invisible" space and rendering it invisible or apparently moved. Being 1 foot shorter while wearing a hat makes you appear one foot shorter with that hat on your apparent head; it does not make you appear one foot shorter with a hat hovering one foot over your apparent head.

It is a fallacy to pick between valid potential interpretations of text and insist on the one that produces results that are dysfunctional to apparent intent, when one or more alternate interpretations fail to have such problems.

But that's just the thing though, there isn't an equally valid interpretation, and that leaves us with the other one exclusively. As explored in my initial post, to say that something 'looks invisible' is oxymoronic - semantically paradoxical. Interpreting a sentence in a way that leads to paradoxes and inconsistencies is the opposite of a valid interpretation. The only way of reconciling it is to presume that the author must've erred when they typed "look", and even though they intended the facilitation of invisibility, they just weren't paying close attention to the semantics. Which is certainly possible, but it isn't Rules as Written - because it's challenging the wording and conjecturing a RAI, even if that conjecture is actually true and the author wanted the RAI to be different all along, having simply chosen bad wording.

So if I accepted the relation as you portray it, I'm following an interpretation that leads to a paradox, which logically invalidates it. The other interpretation on the other hand, in which the paragraphs are separate, gives us a semantically solid overview under which 'look' doesn't cover invisibility. It's all about the definition of 'look'.

As for the fat belly, again, it does work by the interpretation I give it, which I've just explained in the last post.... - the sentence "You can seem" allows you to pull off invisibility, and it only covers physical body aspects. The sentence "look differently" does not, and covers objects. You can either make yourself ( Your body ) look differently ( no invisibility ) per paragraph 1, or seem a certain way ( Limited invisibility restricted to given examples ) as per paragraph 2.

Appearing shorter or thinner does not 'in fact' change anything about your clothing, nothing in the spell says so. ( Edit ) - As for the hat, since being 1 foot shorter is one of the narrow parameters in which you could render a portion of your upper body invisible, creating the illusion of the hat say, through the middle of your invisible neck is not a problem, because the object illusion doesn't have to be in an occupied space. As I said, that's how it would work via RAW, but most DM's ( You as well probably ) don't apply consistent RAW. Let me ask you again - can I use disguise self to make myself invisible per your interpretation? You never addressed that part, because that's one hell of a dysfunction to apparent intent.

[jayem]

Appearing shorter or thinner does, in fact, move your clothing - or the illusion thereof - to accommodate, including bringing it into "invisible" space and rendering it invisible or apparently moved. Being 1 foot shorter while wearing a hat makes you appear one foot shorter with that hat on your apparent head; it does not make you appear one foot shorter with a hat hovering one foot over your apparent head.

Actors already have some ability to appear shorter/etc..., while of course neither (significantly) changing shape or making themselves (magically) invisible. I wouldn't be totally surprised if (given the right set-up) you couldn't get away with ridiculous levels in real life*.

There could be some magical (and working) equivalent of slimming vertical stripes, which would be easier than actually faking a true invisible patch. In that case a Someone.Elses.Problem field might just need some excuse for something like a sword that true illusion would handle differently.

*The story about Maralyn being able to turn on being recognisable or not possibly is a trivial example.
**In this case the viewer would presumably see the hat directly on top of the clearly 5 foot tall man and level with the hat of the six foot neighbour but not see the problem.
___
Regardless had it been forbidden, there'd have been a way round. I'm not sure which is more fun.

[Lupine]

I agree with Moi Magnus that some restrictions need to be in place to ensure it's not a combat-effective spell. This is less about the narrative of the spell and more of a balance concern (as it's a level 1 spell that lasts an hour with no Concentration).

A good example might be having the Disguise effect weaken the further it gets from the source. That is, objects you hold must be moved slowly, otherwise the illusion loses its effect, preventing someone from making an attack with an invisible Disguise Self weapon.

I think that this worry isn't really a worry. (I know, I'm making the mistake of arguing with the great, omnipotent MOG)

For me, I would simply rule that making an attack ends the spell, unless you spend another spell slot. This creates the ability for a relatively low level party to come against an assassin who strikes people using invisible weapons, and appears not to have weapons at all.

A use such as this is effectively a way to use invisibility without actually disappearing. I would want to minimize restrictions on clever player ideas.

Mechanically, it isn't really all that broken. It is similar to watered down version of invisibility mixed with a beefed up version of minor illusion. Which is exactly what a 1st level spell should do.

Its not all that broken, is a clever spell use, and not all that broken. Why not allow it with a few limitations, such as requiring a recast to remain hidden, thus forcing everyone who can see it to make the check against the illusion?

[Tallytrev813]

Well no. You can't make a hole that people would actually fall INTO with a silent image. But you can certainly make an image of the hole hoping that the orcs pull up short and stop their charge under the fear that they would fall in. But if they didn't stop, they would just roll over it and automatically succeed in disbelieving it after the first one failed to fall in.

Consensus among whom? Controversy where?

Illusion Wizards get a class skill at level 14 that allows them to make their illusions real called Illusory Reality, So if you can make an image of a hole in the ground, they DO fall into it, because Illusion Wizards make it real.

Illusory Reality - 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. 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.

[Renduaz]

I think that this worry isn't really a worry. (I know, I'm making the mistake of arguing with the great, omnipotent MOG)

For me, I would simply rule that making an attack ends the spell, unless you spend another spell slot. This creates the ability for a relatively low level party to come against an assassin who strikes people using invisible weapons, and appears not to have weapons at all.

A use such as this is effectively a way to use invisibility without actually disappearing. I would want to minimize restrictions on clever player ideas.

Mechanically, it isn't really all that broken. It is similar to watered down version of invisibility mixed with a beefed up version of minor illusion. Which is exactly what a 1st level spell should do.

Its not all that broken, is a clever spell use, and not all that broken. Why not allow it with a few limitations, such as requiring a recast to remain hidden, thus forcing everyone who can see it to make the check against the illusion?

Invisibility without concentration is 100% broken, seeing as how concentration pretty much functions as the biggest c**kblock in all of 5E spellcasting. I'm sure it isn't immediately apparent to many players and DM's what the implications of removing concentration from something are, but to hardcore theory-crafters and munchkins, it's highly apparent. I also wouldn't really classify uses that don't actually work by RAW as clever, really. But to be honest, even if it did, I can hardly see what's so clever about it. If someone thinks that "Well, I disguise myself to be invisible" counts as 'clever' then they have probably not spent a great deal of time looking at some of the combos and theorycrafting that people invented in the very forum we are in.

[Tallytrev813]

On whether illusions can create holes: Generally irrelevant. What's relevant here is that disguise self can expressly make you appear thinner than you are, with a called-out description of somebody poking you in the tummy and feeling something stop him while he appears to be poking thin air. Therefore, we know that, regardless of what is believed about any other spell, disguise self can explicitly create the illusion of absence. i.e. invisibility and/or holes.



So, Disguise self says you can APPEAR THINNER, not APPEAR ABSENT. It cant make you invisible. The general idea is, it can alter the appearance of something, but not remove the fact that it has an appearance.

This is pretty strongly implied by the parameters the spell explicitly states "You can appear this much shorter, or this much thinner", it specifies that. Appearing invisible would make a 6 ft man appear the full 6 feet shorter, which the RAW specify against.

That same property, i feel, should apply to everything about the spell, i.e. if you have a sword on your waist, it can make that sword appear like a snake, or like a dagger, or like a pouch, or like anything, but it cant make it disappear.

Someone mentioned "Well then if you're wearing armor it cant make that armor disappear" - well, it can make the armor appear like regular cloths, or like your skin.

[Tallytrev813]

I think you're falling prey to a fallacy of rules lawyering, because you're choosing to interpret it this way when there is an equally valid interpretation under the RAW that doesn't have this problem. The way language works, sentences can elaborate on each other. A period need not mean "everything after this is unrelated." In fact, this very paragraph I'm writing right now has sentences which build on previous ones. The spell describes what it does and gives examples. The example the spell gives of patting a fat belly over an illusion of a skinny one having the hand of the one touching the belly appear to stop in mid-air would not work by the interpretation you're giving it, but does work by the alternative interpretation that it can, in fact, change your entire outfit to match the appearance-shift you're causing.

Appearing shorter or thinner does, in fact, move your clothing - or the illusion thereof - to accommodate, including bringing it into "invisible" space and rendering it invisible or apparently moved. Being 1 foot shorter while wearing a hat makes you appear one foot shorter with that hat on your apparent head; it does not make you appear one foot shorter with a hat hovering one foot over your apparent head.

It is a fallacy to pick between valid potential interpretations of text and insist on the one that produces results that are dysfunctional to apparent intent, when one or more alternate interpretations fail to have such problems.

I think that you're focusing too much on the spell making a portion of something invisible. That doesnt mean it can make something disappear, it makes it appear differently. Yes, portions of space will appear empty where the item actually is, it doesnt follow - based on that function - that it can turn things invisible.

You're trying to overreach with a small function of the spell and apply it in a much bigger sense.

[Chronos]

OK, here's a thought: Suppose the party is in a ranged battle. Both sides have some low walls available that they can duck behind, and neither wants to cross the space in between (or maybe they're unable, due to a moat or something). You can hide completely behind your wall, and have total cover, but then you can't go on the offense, either. And if you poke your head up over the wall to cast a spell, then the enemy can use readied actions to hit you.

But now you cast Disguise Self on yourself, to make yourself appear a foot shorter. Can you now poke your real head up above the wall to cast spells at the enemy, without them seeing you do so?

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not trying to set up a gotcha here. I'm really not sure how that situation should be ruled.

[Segev]

So, Disguise self says you can APPEAR THINNER, not APPEAR ABSENT. It cant make you invisible. The general idea is, it can alter the appearance of something, but not remove the fact that it has an appearance.

This is pretty strongly implied by the parameters the spell explicitly states "You can appear this much shorter, or this much thinner", it specifies that. Appearing invisible would make a 6 ft man appear the full 6 feet shorter, which the RAW specify against.

That same property, i feel, should apply to everything about the spell, i.e. if you have a sword on your waist, it can make that sword appear like a snake, or like a dagger, or like a pouch, or like anything, but it cant make it disappear.

Someone mentioned "Well then if you're wearing armor it cant make that armor disappear" - well, it can make the armor appear like regular cloths, or like your skin.It goes on to expressly describe the effects of appearing thinner, which includes making parts of your actual form turn invisible. As long as you remain within the limits of how much the spell can disguise your shape, you can make anything you want to vanish, vanish, as part of looking like something else. I mean, I could work with a DM who ruled that, no, you can't make the swords actually disappear; you have to have something on your belt, there. But I will not say that ruling that the swords can disappear is outside the bounds of the rules as written.


I think that you're focusing too much on the spell making a portion of something invisible. That doesnt mean it can make something disappear, it makes it appear differently. Yes, portions of space will appear empty where the item actually is, it doesnt follow - based on that function - that it can turn things invisible.

You're trying to overreach with a small function of the spell and apply it in a much bigger sense.Specifically, that which you can make appear differently is "you." The context of the spell makes it very clear that this includes anything on your person as part of what makes you look like you do. Making swords disappear is little different than making your protruding gut or a foot of your head vanish. They're all a part of "your appearance." The spell essentially replaces "you" with somebody who looks as different from you as you want, within certain bounds (same general arrangement of limbs, within a foot of height, etc.).


OK, here's a thought: Suppose the party is in a ranged battle. Both sides have some low walls available that they can duck behind, and neither wants to cross the space in between (or maybe they're unable, due to a moat or something). You can hide completely behind your wall, and have total cover, but then you can't go on the offense, either. And if you poke your head up over the wall to cast a spell, then the enemy can use readied actions to hit you.

But now you cast Disguise Self on yourself, to make yourself appear a foot shorter. Can you now poke your real head up above the wall to cast spells at the enemy, without them seeing you do so?

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not trying to set up a gotcha here. I'm really not sure how that situation should be ruled.

You appear a foot shorter. If you're standing behind a wall that is less than a foot shorter than you are, they can't see the illusion of you standing behind it, even if your eyes are over the top. That's still going to make actualy firing anything other than a crossbow fairly difficult, due to the angles involved, but with a shortbow you could probably arch it over the wall from thre and have only your weapon and arms appear over the top as you hold them over your head to do so.

[Gallowglass]

So, Disguise self says you can APPEAR THINNER, not APPEAR ABSENT. It cant make you invisible. The general idea is, it can alter the appearance of something, but not remove the fact that it has an appearance.

This is pretty strongly implied by the parameters the spell explicitly states "You can appear this much shorter, or this much thinner", it specifies that. Appearing invisible would make a 6 ft man appear the full 6 feet shorter, which the RAW specify against.

That same property, i feel, should apply to everything about the spell, i.e. if you have a sword on your waist, it can make that sword appear like a snake, or like a dagger, or like a pouch, or like anything, but it cant make it disappear.

Someone mentioned "Well then if you're wearing armor it cant make that armor disappear" - well, it can make the armor appear like regular cloths, or like your skin.


The point that you aren't getting here is that you are disguising your entire self in one go, not each discreet portion of yourself. You are a 200 lb 6' figure wearing clothing, with two swords strapped to your waist and a backpack on. Why would you be able to make 80 lbs of flab disappear to look thinner, but not 10 lbs of sword tied to your belt disappear?

Its ridiculous to think that you have to go through each wearable and piece of equipment and decide what its going to look like. "I'm going to disguise myself to look like one of the pasha's courtesans to sneak into his harem to assassinate him." "Okay, so you take off all your armor and equipment." "What? No, I just use the spell for what its meant for to disguise myself."

If you argue that you can make "armor" look like the diaphanous silks of the pasha's courtesan, then the swords can easily look like two money pouches or two long tassels hanging off your belt which is SO INTRINSICALLY SIMILAR to just saying "I look like myself without two swords" its NOT WORTH DELVING INTO THE MINUTIAE.


Furthermore, you, yourself go on to say "you can make your armor look like your skin." Well, come on! How is THAT different than making the swords invisible? Its okay to make armor invisible but not swords?