Invoke Duplicity and the SCAGtrips

[BarneyBent]

The Trickery Cleric’s Channel Divinity is Invoke Duplicity, which creates an illusory duplicate of the player’s character.



As an action, you create a perfect illusion of yourself that lasts for 1 minute, or until you lose your concentration (as if you were concentrating on a spell). The illusion appears in an unoccupied space that you can see within 30 feet of you. As a bonus action on your turn, you can move the illusion up to 30 feet to a space you can see, but it must remain within 120 feet of you.
For the duration, you can cast spells as though you were in the illusion’s space, but you must use your own senses.


How do you interpret the bolded when it comes to the cantrips Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade? Can you cast them from the Illusory Duplicate’s position?

My first instinct was no - your illusory duplicate cannot make melee attacks, therefore it would cast the spell but the spell would fail. However, the wording is not that your duplicate casts the spell - it’s that YOU cast the spell as if you were IN THE DUPLICATE’S POSITION.

On that basis, given that making the melee attack is part of casting the spell, one could argue that you make the melee attack as if you were in the duplicate’s position.

For reference, the text for Booming Blade is as follows:


As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails.

Given that as a general rule you use one action to do one thing, and that thing in this instance is take the Cast a Spell action, I interpret this to mean the attack is a part of the Cast a Spell action used to cast this spell, and therefore qualifies under the “cast spells as though you were in the illusion’s space” wording.

This is supported further by official Sage Advice, e.g. https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-april-2016

Relevant text:


Introduced in the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide, the green-flame blade and booming blade spells pose a number of questions, because they each do something unusual: require you to make a melee attack with a weapon as part of the spell’s casting....

... Like other spells, these cantrips require the Cast a Spell action, not the Attack action


Is this a valid interpretation? Why or why not? Would you allow it at your table?

[Greywander]

It seems to check out.

Honestly, this sounds like a really clever exploit of the rules... which is exactly what I'd expect from a Trickery cleric. So sure, I'd allow it.

Before any naysayers jump in, I'll point out a few restrictions:

This uses up your Channel Divinity, so it can't be spammed.
It only lasts for one minute.
The duplicate has to stay within 120 feet of you.
It requires concentration (not sure if it uses up your concentration slot, or if you just have to make CON saves as if you were concentrating).

That, and you're giving up having advantage on your attacks by having the illusion next to an enemy you are in melee with.

[JackPhoenix]

The melee attack is part of the spell, but it is also a requirement you must fulfil to be able to cast the spell successfuly. If you're unable to make the melee attack, the spell will fail. The description is clear about that. You're unable to make the required attack if you don't have a weapon (the spell specifically demands it, so no Booming Kick), or if the intended target is out of your reach (similarily, with Spell Sniper, the spell's range may be 10', but you can't attack target 10' away if you only have weapon with 5' reach). What action it uses is irrelevant.

[BarneyBent]

The melee attack is part of the spell, but it is also a requirement you must fulfil to be able to cast the spell successfuly. If you're unable to make the melee attack, the spell will fail. The description is clear about that. You're unable to make the required attack if you don't have a weapon (the spell specifically demands it, so no Booming Kick), or if the intended target is out of your reach (similarily, with Spell Sniper, the spell's range may be 10', but you can't attack target 10' away if you only have weapon with 5' reach). What action it uses is irrelevant.

All of that is true. The argument is that you can make the attack, because the attack is part of casting the spell, and for the purposes of casting the spell, you are in the duplicate’s position. Therefore, for the purposes of making the attack, you are in the duplicate’s position, and your reach is determined as such.

By comparison, if Invoke Duplicity said something along the lines of “you cast the spell through the duplicate”, “your duplicate can cast your spells”, or even “you can use your duplicate’s position to determine the range of your spells”, that wouldn’t work. But the feature explicitly says that for the purposes of casting spells (which as I’ve cited includes making an attack action) you can do so as if you were in the duplicate’s space.

[tieren]

I'd allow it, mechanically it's not that different than having the duplicate use some other short range cantrip ( shocking grasp or word of radiance).

[BarneyBent]

I'd allow it, mechanically it's not that different than having the duplicate use some other short range cantrip ( shocking grasp or word of radiance).

Except when you put it on a Paladin or Rogue multiclass. A 2 level dip gives you SCAGtrips at up to 120ft range with potential smites or sneak attacks added.

I have an idea for a Trickery Cleric 2/Assassin X that invokes Duplicity at range to get a surprise round, then lays in with a Booming Blade for massive single target damage at almost no risk. Could work in some Sorcerer for quickened or twinned metamagic to get more out of those surprise rounds too.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Except when you put it on a Paladin or Rogue multiclass. A 2 level dip gives you SCAGtrips at up to 120ft range with potential smites or sneak attacks added.

I have an idea for a Trickery Cleric 2/Assassin X that invokes Duplicity at range to get a surprise round, then lays in with a Booming Blade for massive single target damage at almost no risk. Could work in some Sorcerer for quickened or twinned metamagic to get more out of those surprise rounds too.

If they pay 2(or 3 for metamagic or 5 for both) levels and a short rest resource on it and a spell slot(paladin) I think it is balanced.

In my opinion the rogue and the paladin have better stuff to wast levels on.

The cleric also have better things to use his levels on.

I will allow it. It is powerful but not gamebreaking.

[JackPhoenix]

All of that is true. The argument is that you can make the attack, because the attack is part of casting the spell, and for the purposes of casting the spell, you are in the duplicate’s position. Therefore, for the purposes of making the attack, you are in the duplicate’s position, and your reach is determined as such.

By comparison, if Invoke Duplicity said something along the lines of “you cast the spell through the duplicate”, “your duplicate can cast your spells”, or even “you can use your duplicate’s position to determine the range of your spells”, that wouldn’t work. But the feature explicitly says that for the purposes of casting spells (which as I’ve cited includes making an attack action) you can do so as if you were in the duplicate’s space.

You're in the duplicate's position for the purpose of casting the spell. That much is true. You *aren't* in the duplicate's position for the purpose of making melee weapon attacks, and the duplicate is incapable of holding a weapon in any case. Unless the target is in your reach, you're unable to make melee attack with a weapon against the creature in the spell's range, and thus the spell is cast from the duplicate's position, but fails, because the duplicate can't fulfil one of the requirements of casting that spell.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

You're in the duplicate's position for the purpose of casting the spell. That much is true. You *aren't* in the duplicate's position for the purpose of making melee weapon attacks, and the duplicate is incapable of holding a weapon in any case. Unless the target is in your reach, you're unable to make melee attack with a weapon against the creature in the spell's range, and thus the spell is cast from the duplicate's position, but fails, because the duplicate can't fulfil one of the requirements of casting that spell.


For the duration, you can cast spells as though you were in the illusion’s space, but you must use your own senses.

So we are casting from the duplicate space


As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell’s range, otherwise the spell fails.

The attack is a part of the action used to cast the spell.



Cast a Spell
Spellcasters such as wizards and clerics, as well as many monsters, have access to spells and can use them to great effect in combat. Each spell has a casting time, which specifies whether the caster must use an action, a reaction, minutes, or even hours to cast the spell. Casting a spell is, therefore, not necessarily an action. Most spells do have a casting time of 1 action, so a spellcaster often uses his or her action in combat to cast such a spell. See chapter 10 for the rules on spellcasting.


If the spell have a casting time of an action we use the cast a spell action.

Both BB and GFB have casting time of an action.
Both say that the attack is part of the action used to cast the spell, in this case it is the cast a spell action.

I will rule that the the action is being used from the duplicate space so the attack should be considered to come from his space.

I wish 5e had better terms in the rules.

[JackPhoenix]

If the spell have a casting time of an action we use the cast a spell action.

Both BB and GFB have casting time of an action.
Both say that the attack is part of the action used to cast the spell, in this case it is the cast a spell action.

Which is completely irrelevant. What kind of action you're using doesn't matter. What matters is that to make a melee attack with a weapon, the target must be in the reach of that weapon. The duplicate allows you to cast spells as if you were in its place, however, it does not allow you to make weapon attacks as if you were in its place. And both spells are very clear that the spell will fail if you can't make melee attack with a weapon against the target.


I will rule that the the action is being used from the duplicate space so the attack should be considered to come from his space.

And that's fair. It's your ruling, a after all.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Which is completely irrelevant. What kind of action you're using doesn't matter. What matters is that to make a melee attack with a weapon, the target must be in the reach of that weapon. The duplicate allows you to cast spells as if you were in its place, however, it does not allow you to make weapon attacks as if you were in its place. And both spells are very clear that the spell will fail if you can't make melee attack with a weapon against the target.



And that's fair. It's your ruling, a after all.

My argument was that the attack is part of the spell casting which mean it will also trigger from the duplicate space.
Which make it in the reach of the weapon.
You can read it that way and I just showed how I read it that way.

[TheUser]

I'm with JackPheonix on this one;
The spell -requires- you to make the attack as part of the cast. If you can't make the attack Booming Blade doesn't work.




As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell’s range, otherwise the spell fails.



At best I would allow the magical elements of this damage but not the physical portion from the weapon; but likely not at all.

[Laserlight]

My inclination on a ruling:

You cast spells as if you were in the illusion's place. The method of resolving whether you hit or not is "roll a melee attack" rather than "roll a spell attack" or "target rolls a saving throw", but that's part of the spell. So you can do it.

However, since you're not actually using a weapon, you get no smite, no sneak attack, no weapon damage, just the SCAGtrip effects.

[RSP]

I’d allow it, though would clearly be a DM decision whichever way you go.

I liken whether allowing this to Quickening GFB and B.B.: does the spell grant the ability to make a melee weapon attack, or does one have to already have that ability?

If the spell grants the ability to make the melee weapon attack, then those cantrips should be usable with Invoke Duplicity or Quicken.

If the spell doesn’t grant the melee weapon attack and the character needs to be able to make the melee weapon attack on their own, then I’d imagine those cantrips wouldn’t work with either Invoke Duplicity or Quicken (unless the Sorc has another means of making a BA melee attack, such as that granted by a Scimitar of Speed).

Though, again, I’d allow it.

[Man_Over_Game]

All of that is true. The argument is that you can make the attack, because the attack is part of casting the spell, and for the purposes of casting the spell, you are in the duplicate’s position. Therefore, for the purposes of making the attack, you are in the duplicate’s position, and your reach is determined as such.

By comparison, if Invoke Duplicity said something along the lines of “you cast the spell through the duplicate”, “your duplicate can cast your spells”, or even “you can use your duplicate’s position to determine the range of your spells”, that wouldn’t work. But the feature explicitly says that for the purposes of casting spells (which as I’ve cited includes making an attack action) you can do so as if you were in the duplicate’s space.

The thing that's being missed is that 5e's rules can't account for every possible oddball ruling. Sometimes, you have to use common sense.

In this example, how does the illusion deal damage with a weapon? How are you dealing damage with a melee weapon from the illusion's space? The illusion doesn't seem to be capable of making illusory objects solid, so it's reasonable to assume that it's incapable of making that attack, which also means that it's incapable of casting that spell on your behalf.

Now, I would allow someone to use a Reach weapon to cast the spell on someone who's 10 feet away from you but 5 feet away from your illusion, but something along what you're describing would need a really good narrative reason and a really high Charisma check.

[Tallytrev813]

The Trickery Cleric’s Channel Divinity is Invoke Duplicity, which creates an illusory duplicate of the player’s character.



How do you interpret the bolded when it comes to the cantrips Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade? Can you cast them from the Illusory Duplicate’s position?

My first instinct was no - your illusory duplicate cannot make melee attacks, therefore it would cast the spell but the spell would fail. However, the wording is not that your duplicate casts the spell - it’s that YOU cast the spell as if you were IN THE DUPLICATE’S POSITION.

On that basis, given that making the melee attack is part of casting the spell, one could argue that you make the melee attack as if you were in the duplicate’s position.

For reference, the text for Booming Blade is as follows:



Given that as a general rule you use one action to do one thing, and that thing in this instance is take the Cast a Spell action, I interpret this to mean the attack is a part of the Cast a Spell action used to cast this spell, and therefore qualifies under the “cast spells as though you were in the illusion’s space” wording.

This is supported further by official Sage Advice, e.g. https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-april-2016

Relevant text:



Is this a valid interpretation? Why or why not? Would you allow it at your table?

If you ask me, RAW indicates Booming Blade spell should fail, here's why:

As an action, you create a perfect illusion of yourself that lasts for 1 minute, or until you lose your concentration (as if you were concentrating on a spell). The illusion appears in an unoccupied space that you can see within 30 feet of you. As a bonus action on your turn, you can move the illusion up to 30 feet to a space you can see, but it must remain within 120 feet of you.
For the duration, you can cast spells as though you were in the illusion’s space, but you must use your own senses.

Part 1: You may CAST SPELLS (not make weapon attacks) as though you were in the illusions space.

Booming Blade - As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails.

Part 2: You must make a melee weapon attack against 1 creature within THE SPELLS range (not within melee range) otherwise the spell fails.



SO, my Interpretation (and what do i know, im just some guy...) is this

1. You may cast a spell through the illusion, not make a weapon attack.
2. The enemy is within range to cast the booming blade spell.
3. Casting the spell requires you to make a melee weapon attack.
4. You're not within melee weapon attack range.
5. Melee weapon attack auto misses, because you arent within melee range.

This reads, to me, as an auto-miss. Think about it like this, If im standing next to an enemy, and i use booming blade, then im within range to cast the spell - but if i roll a 2 and miss with the weapon attack then the spell does nothing. This scenario is no different. You're within range, via your surrogate spell caster, to cast the booming blade spell - so you swing and auto-miss.

Maybe the best way to convey what i mean is this,

Booming Blade spell simply sheaths your weapon with thunder damage. So being in range to cast the spell (Sheathing in thunder) does not mean you hit them. You're illusion allowing you to cast the spell simply allows you to sheath your weapon with thunder, but the spell then requires you to make a weapon attack. Nothing about your illusion allows you to make a weapon attack from it, so your illusion being close enough allows you to cast the spell, but you're essentially sheathing your actual physical weapon in thunder and swinging at empty space.

So, you make a melee weapon attack and roll a 2 - and you take a swing from your actual space that WOULD miss the enemy anyway, but misses because you're not near him...OR...you make a melee weapon attack and roll a 20, taking a swing that WOULD have crit the enemy, but they arent in your reach, so you make a great swing that doesnt connect with anything

[BarneyBent]

You're in the duplicate's position for the purpose of casting the spell. That much is true. You *aren't* in the duplicate's position for the purpose of making melee weapon attacks, and the duplicate is incapable of holding a weapon in any case. Unless the target is in your reach, you're unable to make melee attack with a weapon against the creature in the spell's range, and thus the spell is cast from the duplicate's position, but fails, because the duplicate can't fulfil one of the requirements of casting that spell.

You’re not really engaging with the argument here. The argument is that the melee attack is, in this very unusual instance, part of casting the spell. Therefore, you can make the melee attack as though you were in the duplicate’s space, meaning your reach is determined accordingly and you can successfully make the attack. You haven’t said why this isn’t the case, you have just said it isn’t.

That the duplicate can’t wield a weapon is irrelevant - the duplicate can’t cast spells either.

You can rule your way, sure. I’m personally undecided. But it’s an edge case that to me, based on RAW, leans towards it being allowed.


The thing that's being missed is that 5e's rules can't account for every possible oddball ruling. Sometimes, you have to use common sense.

In this example, how does the illusion deal damage with a weapon? How are you dealing damage with a melee weapon from the illusion's space? The illusion doesn't seem to be capable of making illusory objects solid, so it's reasonable to assume that it's incapable of making that attack, which also means that it's incapable of casting that spell on your behalf.

Now, I would allow someone to use a Reach weapon to cast the spell on someone who's 10 feet away from you but 5 feet away from your illusion, but something along what you're describing would need a really good narrative reason and a really high Charisma check.

Oh I totally agree it’s up the the DM, no question. Part of this is that it’s just fun to spot and discuss interesting edge cases.

I would ask you though - the duplicate can’t wield component pouches or foci, yet you can still cast spells from its position. The duplicate can’t “touch” things yet you can still cast spells that require touching your target. So clearly, narratively, there is something weird going on (MAGIC!) in which you are able to semi-occupy that space for the purposes of casting the spell. The duplicate isn’t something that transfers your will, it’s something that acts as a sort of location marker that you can temporarily jump into at the moment of attack. This isn’t spell delivery, like a familiar, it’s being in two places at the same time.

Otherwise, how can you cast Shocking Grasp, for example?

[BarneyBent]

If you ask me, RAW indicates Booming Blade spell should fail, here's why:

As an action, you create a perfect illusion of yourself that lasts for 1 minute, or until you lose your concentration (as if you were concentrating on a spell). The illusion appears in an unoccupied space that you can see within 30 feet of you. As a bonus action on your turn, you can move the illusion up to 30 feet to a space you can see, but it must remain within 120 feet of you.
For the duration, you can cast spells as though you were in the illusion’s space, but you must use your own senses.

Part 1: You may CAST SPELLS (not make weapon attacks) as though you were in the illusions space.

Booming Blade - As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails.

Part 2: You must make a melee weapon attack against 1 creature within THE SPELLS range (not within melee range) otherwise the spell fails.



SO, my Interpretation (and what do i know, im just some guy...) is this

1. You may cast a spell through the illusion, not make a weapon attack.
2. The enemy is within range to cast the booming blade spell.
3. Casting the spell requires you to make a melee weapon attack.
4. You're not within melee weapon attack range.
5. Melee weapon attack auto misses, because you arent within melee range.

This reads, to me, as an auto-miss. Think about it like this, If im standing next to an enemy, and i use booming blade, then im within range to cast the spell - but if i roll a 2 and miss with the weapon attack then the spell does nothing. This scenario is no different. You're within range, via your surrogate spell caster, to cast the booming blade spell - so you swing and auto-miss.

Maybe the best way to convey what i mean is this,

Booming Blade spell simply sheaths your weapon with thunder damage. So being in range to cast the spell (Sheathing in thunder) does not mean you hit them. You're illusion allowing you to cast the spell simply allows you to sheath your weapon with thunder, but the spell then requires you to make a weapon attack. Nothing about your illusion allows you to make a weapon attack from it, so your illusion being close enough allows you to cast the spell, but you're essentially sheathing your actual physical weapon in thunder and swinging at empty space.

So, you make a melee weapon attack and roll a 2 - and you take a swing from your actual space that WOULD miss the enemy anyway, but misses because you're not near him...OR...you make a melee weapon attack and roll a 20, taking a swing that WOULD have crit the enemy, but they arent in your reach, so you make a great swing that doesnt connect with anything

Yes, that interpretation was my default one before I looked closer at the text.

The complication is that the attack is, explicitly, a part of casting the spell. Which means that when you cast a spell from the duplicate’s position, you are... “in” the duplicate’s position when you make the weapon attack.

[Tallytrev813]

You’re not really engaging with the argument here. The argument is that the melee attack is, in this very unusual instance, part of casting the spell. Therefore, you can make the melee attack as though you were in the duplicate’s space, meaning your reach is determined accordingly and you can successfully make the attack. You haven’t said why this isn’t the case, you have just said it isn’t.



Here's where i think you've missed an important concept.

I can be in England, put on VR, and throw a boomerang as though im in Australia - doesnt mean im going to hit a kangaroo.

The text states you may cast a spell as though you were in the illusions space. Great.
The spell states you make a melee weapon attack. It doesnt state that the melee weapon attack's effect generates wherever the spell was cast - the effect of the melee weapon attack generates where the physical weapon is.

Essentially, whats happening is, you're allowed to sheath your weapon with thunder and swing your weapon because thats what the spell does. You can cast the spell because your illusion is within 5 ft of the bad guy. But you're still swinging your weapon where your actual physical self is standing.

[Tallytrev813]

Yes, that interpretation was my default one before I looked closer at the text.

The complication is that the attack is, explicitly, a part of casting the spell. Which means that when you cast a spell from the duplicate’s position, you are... “in” the duplicate’s position when you make the weapon attack.

Yes, but the spell doesnt state you swing the weapon from where the spell is cast.

Example:

Imagine a spell that makes your shield emit a small aura that does holy damage, but you can only cast the spell within 5 ft of an enemy.

Now, imagine you cast the spell through your illusion. That enemy shouldnt take holy damage from the aura, because the spell enchants your physical shield, which is farther away.

[Man_Over_Game]

Oh I totally agree it’s up the the DM, no question. Part of this is that it’s just fun to spot and discuss interesting edge cases.

I would ask you though - the duplicate can’t wield component pouches or foci, yet you can still cast spells from its position. The duplicate can’t “touch” things yet you can still cast spells that require touching your target. So clearly, narratively, there is something weird going on (MAGIC!) in which you are able to semi-occupy that space for the purposes of casting the spell. The duplicate isn’t something that transfers your will, it’s something that acts as a sort of location marker that you can temporarily jump into at the moment of attack. This isn’t spell delivery, like a familiar, it’s being in two places at the same time.

Otherwise, how can you cast Shocking Grasp, for example?

That, to me, is the same reason that a Sorcerer can use Distant Spell to cast something like Shocking Grasp from a distance. Magic isn't physical, not in the way that we think of it. Just because Bones of the Earth deals Bludgeoning Damage doesn't mean that it's not magical Bludgeoning damage. Magic's weird and metaphysical.

I do like the idea of being able to swap places with your illusion (and, in fact, I might even allow it at my own table!) but I don't see any evidence of that being how it's supposed to be used. Generally, if something requires you to look at it just the right way, it's probably safest to assume you're wrong.

[Nagog]

You're in the duplicate's position for the purpose of casting the spell. That much is true. You *aren't* in the duplicate's position for the purpose of making melee weapon attacks, and the duplicate is incapable of holding a weapon in any case. Unless the target is in your reach, you're unable to make melee attack with a weapon against the creature in the spell's range, and thus the spell is cast from the duplicate's position, but fails, because the duplicate can't fulfil one of the requirements of casting that spell.


The thing that's being missed is that 5e's rules can't account for every possible oddball ruling. Sometimes, you have to use common sense.

In this example, how does the illusion deal damage with a weapon? How are you dealing damage with a melee weapon from the illusion's space? The illusion doesn't seem to be capable of making illusory objects solid, so it's reasonable to assume that it's incapable of making that attack, which also means that it's incapable of casting that spell on your behalf.

Now, I would allow someone to use a Reach weapon to cast the spell on someone who's 10 feet away from you but 5 feet away from your illusion, but something along what you're describing would need a really good narrative reason and a really high Charisma check.

I'd rule either MOG's definition (perhaps combine it with ranged weapons like crossbows and such), or have the duplicate casting the spell only deal the spell's damage, with no weapon damage added to it. RAW speaking, the duplicate would be moving to attack with a weapon that isn't actually there, so the weapon would pass harmlessly through the target, but the fire/thunder damage would still hit.

[Tallytrev813]

RAW speaking, the duplicate would be moving to attack with a weapon that isn't actually there, so the weapon would pass harmlessly through the target, but the fire/thunder damage would still hit.

I'd actually disagree with this. RAW speaking, the spell doesnt enchant the illusion of your weapon. The fire/thunder damage would be generated by the weapon the spell enchants, which doesnt ever come close to the enemy.

[Friv]

Yes, that interpretation was my default one before I looked closer at the text.

The complication is that the attack is, explicitly, a part of casting the spell. Which means that when you cast a spell from the duplicate’s position, you are... “in” the duplicate’s position when you make the weapon attack.

I see why you got that, but the attack is not, in fact, part of casting the spell. It's, and I quote, "part of the action used to cast the spell". As another example, if you cast Booming Blade and someone cast Counterspell, would you rule that the attack also got somehow counterspelled and didn't happen?

This wouldn't just apply to Trickery, incidentally. If a Sorcerer uses Distant Spell to double the range of Booming Blade, they still need a way to make a melee attack 10 feet away to double the range of Booming Blade.

[bobofwestgate]

The Trickery Cleric’s Channel Divinity is Invoke Duplicity, which creates an illusory duplicate of the player’s character.



How do you interpret the bolded when it comes to the cantrips Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade? Can you cast them from the Illusory Duplicate’s position?

My first instinct was no - your illusory duplicate cannot make melee attacks, therefore it would cast the spell but the spell would fail. However, the wording is not that your duplicate casts the spell - it’s that YOU cast the spell as if you were IN THE DUPLICATE’S POSITION.

On that basis, given that making the melee attack is part of casting the spell, one could argue that you make the melee attack as if you were in the duplicate’s position.

For reference, the text for Booming Blade is as follows:



Given that as a general rule you use one action to do one thing, and that thing in this instance is take the Cast a Spell action, I interpret this to mean the attack is a part of the Cast a Spell action used to cast this spell, and therefore qualifies under the “cast spells as though you were in the illusion’s space” wording.

This is supported further by official Sage Advice, e.g. https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-april-2016

Relevant text:



Is this a valid interpretation? Why or why not? Would you allow it at your table?

So what are you rolling for damage? Not your weapon damage. The illusion has no substance. It can't inflict physical damage. It's not wielding your mace. I could possible argue that the illusion can inflict the thunder damage of the booming blade itself, but it is still an illusion and you wouldn't inflict the physical damage of striking the creature. Which if you are just accounting for the damage attached to the spell itself, that makes it pretty underwhelming compared to other cleric cantrips.

[BarneyBent]

Here's where i think you've missed an important concept.

I can be in England, put on VR, and throw a boomerang as though im in Australia - doesnt mean im going to hit a kangaroo.

The text states you may cast a spell as though you were in the illusions space. Great.
The spell states you make a melee weapon attack. It doesnt state that the melee weapon attack's effect generates wherever the spell was cast - the effect of the melee weapon attack generates where the physical weapon is.

Essentially, whats happening is, you're allowed to sheath your weapon with thunder and swing your weapon because thats what the spell does. You can cast the spell because your illusion is within 5 ft of the bad guy. But you're still swinging your weapon where your actual physical self is standing.

That’s not what’s happening at all. The SCAGtrips are specifically called out as being different to, for example, the Smite spells in this respect. You are applying an understanding a logic based on those spells to the SCAGtrips which don’t work that way.

It has been made clear by both the official text and the designers that the attack is part of the spell, the spell is not a rider on the attack. This is why you need Spell Sniper to use it with a reach weapon (and the converse, a reach weapon to use it with the 10ft range of Spell Sniper).

You are separating the attack from the spell in a way the game designers have made clear is not the intent.

[BarneyBent]

I see why you got that, but the attack is not, in fact, part of casting the spell. It's, and I quote, "part of the action used to cast the spell". As another example, if you cast Booming Blade and someone cast Counterspell, would you rule that the attack also got somehow counterspelled and didn't happen?

By RAW, yes, counterspell would operate that way. From memory the game designers confirmed as much though I think JC said he would allow the attack to continue. Not RAW though.

In any case, the attack is part of the spell. It’s confirmed in sage advice (which I quoted), and in any case, it’s one action per action. You can’t take two actions with the one action, ergo, the weapon attack being part of the action used to cast the spell is part of the Cast a Spell action. The only reason it’s worded that way is so it also includes things like Booming Blade as a reaction (e.g. readied action, Warcaster AoO).



This wouldn't just apply to Trickery, incidentally. If a Sorcerer uses Distant Spell to double the range of Booming Blade, they still need a way to make a melee attack 10 feet away to double the range of Booming Blade.

And here’s the big difference that I think people aren’t quite getting. Invoke Duplicity doesn’t expand the range of your spells, or give them a second range. It doesn’t mention “range” at all.

It allows you to cast a spell as though you were in the duplicate’s space. Making a weapon attack is part of casting the spell. Therefore, you make the weapon attack as though you were in the duplicate’s space.

Whether you justify it narratively this way or not, the effect is as if you were momentarily transported to the duplicate’s space through magic.

[BarneyBent]

That, to me, is the same reason that a Sorcerer can use Distant Spell to cast something like Shocking Grasp from a distance. Magic isn't physical, not in the way that we think of it. Just because Bones of the Earth deals Bludgeoning Damage doesn't mean that it's not magical Bludgeoning damage. Magic's weird and metaphysical.

I do like the idea of being able to swap places with your illusion (and, in fact, I might even allow it at my own table!) but I don't see any evidence of that being how it's supposed to be used. Generally, if something requires you to look at it just the right way, it's probably safest to assume you're wrong.

I mean to be clear, I don’t think you literally swap places with the illusion - just that you sort of (metaphysically, even!) share the space while casting the spell. You said yourself, Magic is weird!

I guess what I find strange is we’re collectively willing to hand-wave all sorts of strange rules that narratively make little sense, but making a weapon attack from a different position than the one you’re in? Absolutely not, that makes no sense!

[pdegan2814]

As part of the casting of the spell, you have to make a melee weapon attack against a creature within the spell's range. So under most circumstances, that means within 5' of the Duplicate. Except the Duplicate can't make melee weapon attacks, it's an illusion. So the only way it would work is if the creature being attacked as 5' from both you AND your Duplicate. Which kind of makes casting the spell from your Duplicate pointless.

[BarneyBent]

As part of the casting of the spell, you have to make a melee weapon attack against a creature within the spell's range. So under most circumstances, that means within 5' of the Duplicate. Except the Duplicate can't make melee weapon attacks, it's an illusion. So the only way it would work is if the creature being attacked as 5' from both you AND your Duplicate. Which kind of makes casting the spell from your Duplicate pointless.

Duplicate can’t cast spells either. You are casting from the duplicate’s position, and the weapon attack is part of casting the spell. Duplicate does nothing but mark the point you’re attacking from, RAW.

[Man_Over_Game]

I mean to be clear, I don’t think you literally swap places with the illusion - just that you sort of (metaphysically, even!) share the space while casting the spell. You said yourself, Magic is weird!

I guess what I find strange is we’re collectively willing to hand-wave all sorts of strange rules that narratively make little sense, but making a weapon attack from a different position than the one you’re in? Absolutely not, that makes no sense!

I'd be cool with it if there was a little more consistency with it. Either make it so that the illusion can act as you can, or don't. Make it so the illusion has the same items as you, or don't.

I personally hate the fact that DnD's magic is extremely inconsistent, and I loath to see anything add to that problem.

But that's more of a homebrew solution than anything.

[Nagog]

I'd actually disagree with this. RAW speaking, the spell doesnt enchant the illusion of your weapon. The fire/thunder damage would be generated by the weapon the spell enchants, which doesn't ever come close to the enemy.

Booming blade does not enchant your weapon. It essentially uses your weapon to place a ring of thunder energy around the enemy, so if they attempt to move through that ring they take damage. Green Flame Blade also does not enchant your weapon, but creates a blast of fire that attacks a secondary target.

It also says the attack would resolve as normal, which for an illusion, would be the illusory weapon passing through the target harmlessly.

[Man_Over_Game]

Booming blade does not enchant your weapon. It essentially uses your weapon to place a ring of thunder energy around the enemy, so if they attempt to move through that ring they take damage. Green Flame Blade also does not enchant your weapon, but creates a blast of fire that attacks a secondary target.

It also says the attack would resolve as normal, which for an illusion, would be the illusory weapon passing through the target harmlessly.

Here's the thing about that kind of interpretation:

"As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects, and it becomes sheathed in booming energy..."

You'd have to make up rules for an illusion (which you aren't seeing through, you have to use your own senses for the spellcasting) to attack with a weapon that isn't there. Do you add your proficiency bonus for attacking with a make-believe weapon? Does an illusory weapon have traits, like Finesse? Since you had to have made a Melee Attack, could you have used it with other abilities that use the term Melee Attack (like Divine Smite)?

You go down the rabbit hole far enough and things stop making sense.

[Nagog]

Here's the thing about that kind of interpretation:

"As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects, and it becomes sheathed in booming energy..."

You'd have to make up rules for an illusion (which you aren't seeing through, you have to use your own senses for the spellcasting) to attack with a weapon that isn't there. Do you add your proficiency bonus for attacking with a make-believe weapon? Does an illusory weapon have traits, like Finesse? Since you had to have made a Melee Attack, could you have used it with other abilities that use the term Melee Attack (like Divine Smite)?

You go down the rabbit hole far enough and things stop making sense.

I'd imagine the hole would end with using the same stats as listed with the physical weapon you are holding as your duplicate is an exact copy of you so it wouldn't have any illusory equipment you don't have a real version of; and it deals the spell's effect but no initial damage. A Smite isn't technically a spell, so it wouldn't be able to be cast from the duplicate.

[Tanarii]

Chiming in as another voice saying it doesn't work unless you are in melee range of the target. It'd be a way to make the attack with a Reach weapon against a target in 6-10ft range without Spell Sniper, but not at longer ranges.

[Snowbluff]

Chiming in as another voice saying it doesn't work unless you are in melee range of the target. It'd be a way to make the attack with a Reach weapon against a target in 6-10ft range without Spell Sniper, but not at longer ranges.
This. The duplicate doesn't have weapons, but you do. Heck, if you could melee attack from 20 feet away and the duplicate was 5 feet away it would work.

[Xetheral]

As another example, if you cast Booming Blade and someone cast Counterspell, would you rule that the attack also got somehow counterspelled and didn't happen?

Absolutely. The ability to make a weapon attack as part of the 'Cast a Spell' action is an effect of the spell. If the spell is counterspelled, you don't get to make the attack.

I'm normally all for considering the simulation aspects of D&D to resolve ambiguities in the rules, but I don't see how the language leaves any room for ambiguity here. Invoke Duplicity says "you can cast spells as though you were in the illusion's space". Booming Blade is a spell, ergo you can cast it as if you were in the illusion's space. Resolution is simple: the spell has exactly the same effects on the target that it would have if you were in the illusion's space when you took the 'Cast a Spell' action.

It doesn't matter what the properties of the illusion are, or whether it has a weapon, or anything else, because the only thing relevant about the illusion is its location relative to the target.

[BarneyBent]

This. The duplicate doesn't have weapons, but you do. Heck, if you could melee attack from 20 feet away and the duplicate was 5 feet away it would work.

Why does the duplicate not having a weapon matter? It’s not casting the spell, you are. You just get to use their position for it.

It’s weird and counter-intuitive, but the illusion isn’t making the attack, you are. You’re just doing it “as though you were in the duplicate’s position”, I.e. you make the attack as though you were 5ft away.

[JackPhoenix]

Why does the duplicate not having a weapon matter? It’s not casting the spell, you are. You just get to use their position for it.

It’s weird and counter-intuitive, but the illusion isn’t making the attack, you are. You’re just doing it “as though you were in the duplicate’s position”, I.e. you make the attack as though you were 5ft away.

No. You can cast spells as though you were in the duplicate's position. You can't make weapon attacks as though you were in the duplicate's position. And as both BB and GFB helpfuly note, if you can't make the melee attack with a weapon, the spell will fail.

[Tanarii]

No. You can cast spells as though you were in the duplicate's position. You can't make weapon attacks as though you were in the duplicate's position. And as both BB and GFB helpfuly note, if you can't make the melee attack with a weapon, the spell will fail.
Yup. That's my understanding of it as well. Successfully casting the spell results in you being able to make a melee attack as normal. How you make that attack works as normal unless something specifically modifies the way you make melee attacks. Invoke Duplicity does not, it only affects the way you cast spells.

It's the same reason that you cannot normally cast a Spell Sniper version of Booming Blade, making the range 10ft, and then attack a target 6-10ft away with a non-reach weapon. They spell having an increased range, or in this case originating from a different spot, doesn't change how you make a melee attack.

[BarneyBent]

No. You can cast spells as though you were in the duplicate's position. You can't make weapon attacks as though you were in the duplicate's position. And as both BB and GFB helpfuly note, if you can't make the melee attack with a weapon, the spell will fail.

Making the weapon attack is part of casting the spell though. This isn’t like a smite spell where if you don’t make an attack you’ll eventually lose it. Casting the spell doesn’t give you the chance to make an attack (like for example Quick Quiver, Magic Stone it Flame Blade does). Making the attack is part and parcel of the spell, therefore if you can cast the spell using the duplicate’s position, you make the attack that is a part of casting that spell from the duplicate’s position also.

Note that this works from a RAW perspective only because you are casting from the duplicate’s position. If the duplicate delivered the spell it would be different. If the duplicate modified the range of the spell it would be different. But it doesn’t. It gives you the ability to use the duplicate’s space when casting the spell, and has been confirmed by the game designers, making the attack is part of casting the spell, therefore you make the attack from the duplicate’s space.

Counter-intuitive? Yes. Narratively non-sensical? Arguably. But it doesn’t fall victim to the same problem as Spell Sniper SCAGtrips because you aren’t increasing the range beyond your weapon’s reach - you are changing the reference point for the whole spell, including the melee attack that is a part of it.

[JackPhoenix]

Making the weapon attack is part of casting the spell though. This isn’t like a smite spell where if you don’t make an attack you’ll eventually lose it. Casting the spell doesn’t give you the chance to make an attack (like for example Quick Quiver, Magic Stone it Flame Blade does). Making the attack is part and parcel of the spell, therefore if you can cast the spell using the duplicate’s position, you make the attack that is a part of casting that spell from the duplicate’s position also.

Yes, making the weapon attack is part of casting the spell... the fact the spell fails if you're unable to do so makes that clear. That doesn't mean you get to do something Invoke Duplicate doesn't allow you to do, though. It means that if you're unable to make the attack... because the target isn't in *your* reach, no matter where the spell originates from (unless, of course it is both within 5' of the duplicate and within your reach, but that's besides the point)... the spell will fail.


Note that this works from a RAW perspective only because you are casting from the duplicate’s position.

It doesn't. Yes, you're casting from the duplicate's position. You're still not making melee weapon attack from the duplicate's position, even if it's part of the spell. The duplicate may mimic swinging a weapon around, but as it doesn't actually have a weapon, and it's unable to make weapon attacks, you're unable to make melee attack with a weapon against a target within the spell's range (which is a requirement to cast the spell successfully) from the duplicate's position. The spell will fail in such case, as its description explicitly say.


It gives you the ability to use the duplicate’s space when casting the spell, and has been confirmed by the game designers, making the attack is part of casting the spell, therefore you make the attack from the duplicate’s space.

No, you don't. The spell's range is 5' around the duplicate, as if you've cast the spells from the duplicate's position. That much is true. But the melee weapon attack you must make to cast the spell successfully *can't* originate from the duplicate's position, because the duplicate doesn't have a weapon (which is one of the requirements) and can't make melee weapon attacks (which is the other requirement).


Counter-intuitive? Yes. Narratively non-sensical? Arguably.

Not according to RAW? Also yes.


But it doesn’t fall victim to the same problem as Spell Sniper SCAGtrips because you aren’t increasing the range beyond your weapon’s reach - you are changing the reference point for the whole spell, including the melee attack that is a part of it.

Not true. Or rather, partially true: you're changing the reference point for valid target of the spell to within 5' of the duplicate instead of within 5' of you. You *aren't* changing the rules for making melee weapon attacks or what Invoke Duplicate allows you to do: the target of melee weapon attack must be within your reach, and Invoke Duplicate doesn't allow you to make weapon attacks as if you were in its place.

[Maelynn]

Looking at the literal spell description:


As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails.

Nowhere does it say it's part of the spell itself. It's part of the action. As in, it serves as an exception to the normal rule that you cannot perform 2 actions during 1 round (barring abilities like Action Surge, ofc). So all the arguments regarding 'part of the spell' are invalid as the spell description says nothing of the sort.


It has been made clear by both the official text and the designers that the attack is part of the spell, the spell is not a rider on the attack. This is why you need Spell Sniper to use it with a reach weapon (and the converse, a reach weapon to use it with the 10ft range of Spell Sniper).

You are separating the attack from the spell in a way the game designers have made clear is not the intent.

I'd like some sort of source regarding these game designers you speak of.

[BarneyBent]

Looking at the literal spell description:



Nowhere does it say it's part of the spell itself. It's part of the action. As in, it serves as an exception to the normal rule that you cannot perform 2 actions during 1 round (barring abilities like Action Surge, ofc). So all the arguments regarding 'part of the spell' are invalid as the spell description says nothing of the sort.

I'd like some sort of source regarding these game designers you speak of.

It’s in the first post. Official Sage Advice makes clear that the attack is part of casting the spell using the Cast A Spell action.

[Maelynn]

It’s in the first post. Official Sage Advice makes clear that the attack is part of casting the spell using the Cast A Spell action.

Ah thanks, I overlooked the link.

Reading that part, it merely explains why you can't use the cantrip as part of an action that allows you to make a weapon attack, since it's a spell. So it uses the Cast a Spell Action as opposed to the Attack Action. This still doesn't negate the rest of my post - it's still a separate action, it just doesn't require an Action on its own. The melee attack is something you need to do in order to get the effects of the spell, it's not part of the actual spell itself.

[BarneyBent]

Yes, making the weapon attack is part of casting the spell... the fact the spell fails if you're unable to do so makes that clear. That doesn't mean you get to do something Invoke Duplicate doesn't allow you to do, though. It means that if you're unable to make the attack... because the target isn't in *your* reach, no matter where the spell originates from (unless, of course it is both within 5' of the duplicate and within your reach, but that's besides the point)... the spell will fail.

That’s just it though. Invoke Duplicity doesn’t say that the range becomes 5ft around the duplicate. It says that for the purposes of casting the spell, you can do so as if you were in the duplicate’s space. And if you were in the duplicate’s space, the target will also be in your reach.

That’s the crux of the argument, and the point you have failed to address this whole thread. Unlike Distant metamagic or Spell Sniper, you aren’t modifying the range of the spell, you are modifying your position, and that affects both range AND reach.




It doesn't. Yes, you're casting from the duplicate's position. You're still not making melee weapon attack from the duplicate's position, even if it's part of the spell. The duplicate may mimic swinging a weapon around, but as it doesn't actually have a weapon, and it's unable to make weapon attacks, you're unable to make melee attack with a weapon against a target within the spell's range (which is a requirement to cast the spell successfully) from the duplicate's position. The spell will fail in such case, as its description explicitly say.

Duplicate doesn’t have to do anything. It can stand perfectly still, stand on its head, do an interpretive dance, whatever. You use it’s space as the point that you cast the spell from. While casting the spell, you are for all intents and purposes IN THAT SPACE. And therefore, when you make the weapon attack which is explicitly a part of that spell, you are for all intents and purposes still in that space.




No, you don't. The spell's range is 5' around the duplicate, as if you've cast the spells from the duplicate's position. That much is true. But the melee weapon attack you must make to cast the spell successfully *can't* originate from the duplicate's position, because the duplicate doesn't have a weapon (which is one of the requirements) and can't make melee weapon attacks (which is the other requirement).

Duplicate isn’t casting the spell. Whether it has a weapon or not, whether it is capable of making attacks, is completely irrelevant. It also can’t cast spells. It isn’t casting the spell, it isn’t making the attack. You are, as if you were in its space. The fact you keep mentioning that the duplicate can’t attack makes it clear you don’t understand the most important element of this argument.



Not true. Or rather, partially true: you're changing the reference point for valid target of the spell to within 5' of the duplicate instead of within 5' of you. You *aren't* changing the rules for making melee weapon attacks or what Invoke Duplicate allows you to do: the target of melee weapon attack must be within your reach, and Invoke Duplicate doesn't allow you to make weapon attacks as if you were in its place.

That is not what Invoke Duplicity says. It says “you can cast spells as though you were in the duplicate’s space”. You are the one deviating from RAW here. It says nothing about modifying the range of the spell. It modifies your position for the purposes of casting the spell.

You are free to interpret the rules as such. But it is a difference, and an important one.

[Chronos]

The magic originates from where your duplicate is. The attack originates from where your weapon is. Trying to cast it against a non-adjacent enemy through your duplicate would have the same effect as trying to cast a Spell Sniper Booming Blade against an enemy 10' away with a non-reach weapon. Ordinarily, this would mean that there'd be no point to casting it through your duplicate, since the target still needs to be within weapon range of you. There are two situations I can think of where it might matter:

1: As others have mentioned, if you're using a reach weapon, you could be within 10' of the target while your duplicate is within 5', and cast the spell.

2: With Green Flame Blade specifically, the secondary target could be in a position visible to your duplicate, but not to you.

[Xetheral]

It doesn't. Yes, you're casting from the duplicate's position. You're still not making melee weapon attack from the duplicate's position, even if it's part of the spell. The duplicate may mimic swinging a weapon around, but as it doesn't actually have a weapon, and it's unable to make weapon attacks, you're unable to make melee attack with a weapon against a target within the spell's range (which is a requirement to cast the spell successfully) from the duplicate's position. The spell will fail in such case, as its description explicitly say.

(Emphasis added.) I'm not following the bolded part. If you're (A) casting the spell as though you were in the illusion's space, and (B) you make a melee attack with a weapon as part of casting the spell, then it appears to me to be logically trivial to conclude that (C) you make the melee attack as though you were in the illusion's space. On a hit, the target takes damage exactly as if you were in the illusion's space, and on a miss, the spell fails exactly as if you were in the illusion's space.

You offer support for the bolded claim, but I don't see how that support is relevant. First of all, it's not even clear that the duplicate can mimic swinging a sword--the wording of Invoke Duplicity is notoriously vague and different DMs interpret the properties of the illusion differently. But that doesn't matter, because the ability to cast a spell as though the cleric were in the illusion's space isn't a property of the illusion--it's an explicit mechanical benefit granted to the cleric when they used Invoke Duplicity. The only relevant property of the illusion is what space it is currently in.

To summarize, I think the analysis of the interaction of Invoke Duplicity and Booming Blade is exceedingly straightforward. If the cleric could successfully cast the spell if the cleric were in the illusion's space (including making any attacks required as part of the spell), then the Invoke Duplicity ability explicitly lets them do so.


The magic originates from where your duplicate is. The attack originates from where your weapon is. Trying to cast it against a non-adjacent enemy through your duplicate would have the same effect as trying to cast a Spell Sniper Booming Blade against an enemy 10' away with a non-reach weapon. Ordinarily, this would mean that there'd be no point to casting it through your duplicate, since the target still needs to be within weapon range of you. There are two situations I can think of where it might matter:

1: As others have mentioned, if you're using a reach weapon, you could be within 10' of the target while your duplicate is within 5', and cast the spell.

2: With Green Flame Blade specifically, the secondary target could be in a position visible to your duplicate, but not to you.

(Emphasis added.) I can't agree with the bolded section. Invoke Duplicity doesn't say that the magic originates where the illusion is. Instead it states that the caster casts the spell as though they were in the illusion's space. Those are two very different things.

[JackPhoenix]

That’s just it though. Invoke Duplicity doesn’t say that the range becomes 5ft around the duplicate. It says that for the purposes of casting the spell, you can do so as if you were in the duplicate’s space. And if you were in the duplicate’s space, the target will also be in your reach.

That’s the crux of the argument, and the point you have failed to address this whole thread. Unlike Distant metamagic or Spell Sniper, you aren’t modifying the range of the spell, you are modifying your position, and that affects both range AND reach.

I've never denied you cast the spells as if you were in the duplicate's space. In fact, I've said that very thing multiple times. But you aren't actually in your duplicate's space, Invoke Duplicity doesn't say you can make melee weapon attacks as if you were in the duplicate's space. Invoke Duplicate does *NOT* affect your reach in any way. That's based on your actual physical position and the weapon you're holding. You've failed to understand that fact from the start.


Duplicate doesn’t have to do anything. It can stand perfectly still, stand on its head, do an interpretive dance, whatever. You use it’s space as the point that you cast the spell from. While casting the spell, you are for all intents and purposes IN THAT SPACE. And therefore, when you make the weapon attack which is explicitly a part of that spell, you are for all intents and purposes still in that space.

No. You're in that space ONLY for the purpose of casting spells. You aren't in that space for the purpose of making melee weapon attacks, or doing anything else. That includes using your own senses.


Duplicate isn’t casting the spell. Whether it has a weapon or not, whether it is capable of making attacks, is completely irrelevant. It also can’t cast spells. It isn’t casting the spell, it isn’t making the attack. You are, as if you were in its space. The fact you keep mentioning that the duplicate can’t attack makes it clear you don’t understand the most important element of this argument.

I keep mentioning it because you keep bringing it up. You can't make weapon attacks as if you were in the duplicate's space. See how I say the same things multiple times just replying to this post, not counting all the previous replies? That's because you can't understand RAW and constantly give Invoke Duplicity functions it does not have.


That is not what Invoke Duplicity says. It says “you can cast spells as though you were in the duplicate’s space”. You are the one deviating from RAW here. It says nothing about modifying the range of the spell. It modifies your position for the purposes of casting the spell.

I never denied that, and never deviated from the RAW. However, claiming that Invoke Duplicity says "you can make weapon attacks as though you were in the duplicate's space" is patently false.


You are free to interpret the rules as such. But it is a difference, and an important one.

There's a difference, but the difference is what Invoke Duplicate allows you to do, and what what you claim it it allows you to do. It's not a matter of interpretation. Invoke Duplicity allows you to cast spells as if you were in the duplicate's space. It does not, in any way, allow you to make weapon attacks as if you were in the duplicate's space. It doesn't matter what action you use for that weapon attack, or what grants you them. Just like you can't cast spells that require you to see the target through the duplicate if you can't see them from your real position, you can't cast spells that require you to make melee weapon attacks from the duplicate's position if you can't make the weapon attack from your real position.


2: With Green Flame Blade specifically, the secondary target could be in a position visible to your duplicate, but not to you.

It can't. Invoke Duplicity specifically uses your senses, not the duplicate's.

[Tanarii]

Invoke Duplicity doesn't say that the magic originates where the illusion is. Instead it states that the caster casts the spell as though they were in the illusion's space. Those are two very different things.Invoke Duplicity says you cast the spell as if they were in the illusions space. Not that you can make melee attacks as if you were in the illusions space. Those are two different things.

And, this is the important part, the melee attack in an SCAG Cantrip is not part of casting the spell. It's done as part of the same action, but again, those are two different things.

[Rukelnikov]

5e, as is usually reminded by its devs, its a game of exceptions.

Invoke Duplicity creates an exception for spellcasting, allowing you to use the illusions position instead of your own when you cast a spell.

This allows you to cast GFB or BB with an enemy within 5 feet of the illusion, even if you are farther away.

The spell invokes a melee attack.

Invooke Duplicity creates no exceptions for melee attacks, thus those use the usual rules.

Ergo, you use your regular reach.

If this is enough to attack the creature targeted by the spell, it takes effect, if this isn't enough to target the creature in question, the spell fails as per its own description.

[Xetheral]

Invoke Duplicity says you cast the spell as if they were in the illusions space. Not that you can make melee attacks as if you were in the illusions space. Those are two different things.

And, this is the important part, the melee attack in an SCAG Cantrip is not part of casting the spell. It's done as part of the same action, but again, those are two different things.

And one of the effects of casting Booming Blade is to make a melee attack with a weapon. You're right that Invoke Duplicity doesn't in general let you make melee attacks with weapons, but that doesn't seem relevant to a melee attack that is an effect of casting a particular spell.

To your second point, normally you can't make a melee attack with a weapon when you take the 'Cast a Spell' action. Why can you in this case? Because the text of Booming Blade permits (and requires) you to. Since the attack is both a consequence of casting the spell and a requirement for casting it successfully, how can you say it's not part of casting the spell? (Note that JackPhoenix agreed that the melee attack is part of casting the spell.)

[GooeyChewie]

And, this is the important part, the melee attack in an SCAG Cantrip is not part of casting the spell.

“As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails.”

I think that’s the crux of the debate. Does “as part of the action used to cast this spell” mean that the melee attack is part of the spell or a separate thing that happens at the same time? I tend to read that it is part of the spell, but I can also see where you’re coming from in saying it isn’t part of the spell.

If I’m the DM, I would say go for it. Not just because I read the melee attack as being part of the spell, but also because it’s cool. Very super tricky for the Trickery Domain!

[Tanarii]

If I’m the DM, I would say go for it. Not just because I read the melee attack as being part of the spell, but also because it’s cool. Very super tricky for the Trickery Domain!
Oh for sure, if I had SCAG cantrips available IMC and a trickery cleric wanted to do this, I'd probably allow it too. I just don't think the text permits it by a strict reading.

[JackPhoenix]

And one of the effects of casting Booming Blade is to make a melee attack with a weapon. You're right that Invoke Duplicity doesn't in general let you make melee attacks with weapons, but that doesn't seem relevant to a melee attack that is an effect of casting a particular spell.

And you make melee attacks with weapons from your position, using your reach. Invoke Duplicity doesn't change that.


To your second point, normally you can't make a melee attack with a weapon when you take the 'Cast a Spell' action. Why can you in this case? Because the text of Booming Blade permits (and requires) you to. Since the attack is both a consequence of casting the spell and a requirement for casting it successfully, how can you say it's not part of casting the spell? (Note that JackPhoenix agreed that the melee attack is part of casting the spell.)

It is. And it also is clear that there are situations where you can't make the attack against the target of the spell, even if you're able to cast the spell. The spells takes that into account. This is one of such situations. Another examples would be if you don't have weapon and cast the spell with arcane focus, or if the target is in the spell's range, but beyond your reach (which is the same problem present here, even if the cause may be different).

[Tallytrev813]

That’s not what’s happening at all. The SCAGtrips are specifically called out as being different to, for example, the Smite spells in this respect. You are applying an understanding a logic based on those spells to the SCAGtrips which don’t work that way.

It has been made clear by both the official text and the designers that the attack is part of the spell, the spell is not a rider on the attack. This is why you need Spell Sniper to use it with a reach weapon (and the converse, a reach weapon to use it with the 10ft range of Spell Sniper).

You are separating the attack from the spell in a way the game designers have made clear is not the intent.

Maybe im misunderstanding, but my point is not that the weapon attack is separate from the spell, it's that it doesnt say you make a weapon attack from where the spell is cast. Eligibility to cast the spell is met by your illusion being 5ft from the target.

The spell is tied to the Melee Weapon attack, you still make a melee weapon attack, you just make it against someone thats out of your reach. The spell text doesnt say, "Make a Melee weapon attack from where you cast the spell"

You still cast the spell, you still make a melee weapon attack, they're still tied together. The spell is successful, but all of the subsequent effects are "On a hit, the target suffers..."

Well, you dont hit if you're out of range.

[Tallytrev813]

“As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails.”

I think that’s the crux of the debate. Does “as part of the action used to cast this spell” mean that the melee attack is part of the spell or a separate thing that happens at the same time? I tend to read that it is part of the spell, but I can also see where you’re coming from in saying it isn’t part of the spell.

If I’m the DM, I would say go for it. Not just because I read the melee attack as being part of the spell, but also because it’s cool. Very super tricky for the Trickery Domain!

I actually think there's another layer to this everyone is missing.

His illusion being 5 ft from the enemy puts them in range to cast the spell. The spells effect, and the weapon attack, don't necessarily trigger where the spell is cast in this case. They're tied, and happen together, where the physical weapon is - or at least that's how I'm reading it.

[tieren]

... Heck, if you could melee attack from 20 feet away and the duplicate was 5 feet away it would work.

I love this interpretation, believe it to be RAW and am adopting it for my own use. Now I want a trickery cleric with a whip and SCAG cantrips.

To be clear this works because:
1. You are casting as if you were in the duplicate's space, so the spell range is 5' from the duplicate.
2. You are making a melee attack with a weapon from even farther away, but the magic part is happening within range of the casting. I love it.

A booming whipcrack controlling the battlefield (potentially delivering poison dmg from the class ability as well) would be neat, and anyone familiar with the effect may feel reinforced the duplicate is the real entity since illusions can't attack (or conversely may assume the thunder energy surrounding them is itself some sort of illusion and go ahead and move through it).

[patchyman]

Note that this works from a RAW perspective only because you are casting from the duplicate’s position. If the duplicate delivered the spell it would be different. If the duplicate modified the range of the spell it would be different. But it doesn’t. It gives you the ability to use the duplicate’s space when casting the spell, and has been confirmed by the game designers, making the attack is part of casting the spell, therefore you make the attack from the duplicate’s space.

I disagree for the same reasons others have stated. The spell says “as part of the action to cast this spell you *must* make a melee attack. “ It doesn’t say “as part of the spell you make a melee attack”. If you can’t make a melee attack, the spell fails.

The nearest analogy I can think of is a Sorcerer that is tied up using Subtle to cast the spell. The spell still fails because they are unable to make a melee attack.

Also, the spell clearly says that the melee attack is part of the action to cast the spell, not that it is part of the spell.

[GooeyChewie]

And you make melee attacks with weapons from your position, using your reach. Invoke Duplicity doesn't change that.



It is. And it also is clear that there are situations where you can't make the attack against the target of the spell, even if you're able to cast the spell. The spells takes that into account. This is one of such situations. Another examples would be if you don't have weapon and cast the spell with arcane focus, or if the target is in the spell's range, but beyond your reach (which is the same problem present here, even if the cause may be different).

This argument I don’t get. If Invoke Duplicity allows you to cast spells as though you are in the spot where you have the illusion, and making the melee attack is part of the spell, then why is that one specific part of the spell not affected by Invoke Duplicity?

The whole point (okay, part of the point) of casting spells from the position of the illusion is that you can measure distances from your illusion instead of yourself. Got an enemy 160 feet away from you but only 120 away from your illusion? For the purposes of casting Guiding Bolt that enemy is 120 feet away. Got an enemy 15 feet away from you but only 5 away from your illusion? For the purposes of casting Booming Blade that enemy is 5 feet away. And if the melee attack is part of the spell (which I think is debatable and will leave up to individual DMs), that means they are 5 feet away from you for the purposes of that attack.


The spell text doesnt say, "Make a Melee weapon attack from where you cast the spell"

Of course not. You make the melee attack from your current location. Invoke Duplicity just allows you to change the definition of “your current location” to match that of your illusion.


I actually think there's another layer to this everyone is missing.

His illusion being 5 ft from the enemy puts them in range to cast the spell. The spells effect, and the weapon attack, don't necessarily trigger where the spell is cast in this case. They're tied, and happen together, where the physical weapon is - or at least that's how I'm reading it.

I re-read Booming Blade to make sure. The sheath envelopes the target, not the weapon, regardless of the location of the target.

[Tallytrev813]

I re-read Booming Blade to make sure. The sheath envelopes the target, not the weapon, regardless of the location of the target.

Ah, you're right. I wasn't rereading it when i wrote that initially. But, to be fair, it says to sheaths the target *On a hit* from a melee weapon attack.

[Tanarii]

Of course not. You make the melee attack from your current location. Invoke Duplicity just allows you to change the definition of “your current location” to match that of your illusion.
That's the error being made in clearly stated terms.

Invoke Duplicity doesn't change the definition of your current location to match the illusion. It only does it for casting spells. And melee attacks, including the melee attack done as part of the action for Booming Blade, are not casting spells.

[BarneyBent]

That's the error being made in clearly stated terms.

Invoke Duplicity doesn't change the definition of your current location to match the illusion. It only does it for casting spells. And melee attacks, including the melee attack done as part of the action for Booming Blade, are not casting spells.

See this is the core of the disagreement, and I’m glad to see some people are finally stating it.

I disagree that in this instance, the melee attack is not part of casting the spell. My evidence is in the OP, but to reiterate, the game designers specifically say (emphasis mine):


Introduced in the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide, the green-flame blade and booming blade spells pose a number of questions, because they each do something unusual: require you to make a melee attack with a weapon as part of the spell’s casting.

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-april-2016

Notice that it doesn’t say “make a melee attack or else the spell fails” or “use a free action to make a melee attack” or anything else that implicitly or explicitly separates it from the casting of the spell.

These cantrips are an exception to the general rule that melee attacks are separate from spellcasting. They are explicitly included not as a new attack you can make after casting the spell (like Magic Stone, Quick Quiver, etc) but as an integral part of casting the spell itself.

That’s why melee attacks when made while casting Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade ARE (part of) casting spells, and are therefore affected by Invoke Duplicity.

[Maelynn]

Notice that it doesn’t say “make a melee attack or else the spell fails” or “use a free action to make a melee attack” or anything else that implicitly or explicitly separates it from the casting of the spell.

It goes against the spell's own description. Also, that line is merely the introductory paragraph and not the actual explanation - that follows in the second paragraph, starting with 'first'.

The spell's very description states it's part of the action during which you cast the spell.

The literal (and quite clear) description of the spell > an introductory line in SA that's written outside of the actual explanation of the rules.

[BarneyBent]

It goes against the spell's own description. Also, that line is merely the introductory paragraph and not the actual explanation - that follows in the second paragraph, starting with 'first'.

The spell's very description states it's part of the action during which you cast the spell.

The literal (and quite clear) description of the spell > an introductory line in SA that's written outside of the actual explanation of the rules.

Except the spell description doesn’t imply they’re separate. The Cast A Spell action is the action you use. As part of that action, you make a melee attack. It is entirely consistent. There is room for ambiguity which the Sage Advice (official, not Twitter version) clarifies.

Wording that would make it separate would be something like “After casting this spell, you must use the same action to make a melee attack”. But that’s not what it says. It says “using the same action”, and Sage Advice specifies that means it’s part of the spell’s casting.

To be clear, an action isn’t just a bucket you can stuff things like “Attack” or “Cast a Spell” actions into. They ARE the action, and you have the ability to take them if the requirements are met. A weapon attack is not an extra action you get to fit into “your action” alongside Cast a Spell. Casting the spell is the action that you take, and the melee attack is part of it. Therefore, the melee attack is part of the spell’s casting.

[Maelynn]

My, you keep twisting stuff just so it fits with your view.


Except the spell description doesn’t imply they’re separate.

The spell description literally does.


But that’s not what it says. It says “using the same action”


and Sage Advice specifies that means it’s part of the spell’s casting.

No it doesn't. And no, it doesn't - see my previous post.

Again, the literal spell description states "as part of the action used to cast this spell". It doesn't say "as part of the spell", so it isn't part of the spell. It's part of the action during which you cast the spell. Major difference.

[BarneyBent]

My, you keep twisting stuff just so it fits with your view.



The spell description literally does.





No it doesn't. And no, it doesn't - see my previous post.

Again, the literal spell description states "as part of the action used to cast this spell". It doesn't say "as part of the spell", so it isn't part of the spell. It's part of the action during which you cast the spell. Major difference.

Casting the spell IS the action! That’s how actions work! Therefore, “as part of the action used to cast the spell” literally means “as part of casting the spell”. They aren’t different.

You don’t have an action that you can stuff actions into. Your action is the Cast A Spell action and the melee attack is a part of that action. That’s how actions work. The purpose of wording it as such is so it’s clear that the melee attack isn’t a separate action (like the smite spells for example).

[Tanarii]

Again, the literal spell description states "as part of the action used to cast this spell". It doesn't say "as part of the spell", so it isn't part of the spell. It's part of the action during which you cast the spell. Major difference.
Exactly. Two things are happening. Casting a spell, and a melee attack. One takes an action, and the other occurs as part of the same action.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

In the first page I quoted the parts of the PHB that talks about the cast a spell action.

From my reading what you do as part of casting a spell action is casting a spell and all the parts of this action is the casting of the spell.

If the attack is part of the casting a spell action how could it not be a part of the spell?

[BarneyBent]

Exactly. Two things are happening. Casting a spell, and a melee attack. One takes an action, and the other occurs as part of the same action.

But that’s not how actions work. SCAGtrips have a casting time of one action. When you take your action, you choose to cast the spell. You don’t get to do more stuff on that, the action that you use to make the attack is the same action you see in “Casting time: 1 action”.

Yes, narratively it feels like the attack is separate to casting the spell. And you can choose to houserule that in order to resolve the narrative silliness of making a melee attack essentially at range. But by the rules, “part of the action” means part of the casting of the spell, the rules are quite clear in this regard, and Sage Advice has reconfirmed his.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Exactly. Two things are happening. Casting a spell, and a melee attack. One takes an action, and the other occurs as part of the same action.


But that’s not how actions work. SCAGtrips have a casting time of one action. When you take your action, you choose to cast the spell. You don’t get to do more stuff on that, the action that you use to make the attack is the same action you see in “Casting time: 1 action”.

Yes, narratively it feels like the attack is separate to casting the spell. And you can choose to houserule that in order to resolve the narrative silliness of making a melee attack essentially at range. But by the rules, “part of the action” means part of the casting of the spell, the rules are quite clear in this regard, and Sage Advice has reconfirmed his.

I think both of you sayed the same stuff.

[Tanarii]

From my reading what you do as part of casting a spell action is casting a spell and all the parts of this action is the casting of the spell.

Not so. A melee attack is its own thing, and has its own rules. The spell just makes a call to the "melee attack" function as part of the same action that executes "Cast a spell" function. But it is not part of casting the spell, just part of the same action that executes it. Since Invoke Duplicity does not modify melee attacks, only casting spells, it does not modify the melee attack function that the spell makes a call to.

[BarneyBent]

I think both of you sayed the same stuff.

Sort of yeah. Which is why I don’t get how the melee attack can be part of the same action as casting the spell, and yet separate... casting the spell takes the whole action. Therefore, the melee attack is part of casting the spell.

[BarneyBent]

Not so. A melee attack is its own thing, and has its own rules. The spell just makes a call to the "melee attack" function as part of the same action that executes "Cast a spell" function. But it is not part of casting the spell, just part of the same action that executes it. Since Invoke Duplicity does not modify melee attacks, only casting spells, it does not modify the melee attack function that the spell makes a call to.

By that logic, you can’t use Invoke Duplicity to modify spell attacks. Spell attacks are distinct from casting spells. Most spell attacks are a part of casting a spell. Some are not (e.g. Magic Stone spell vs the spell attacks it allows, Sun Soul Monk radiant bolt attacks, etc).

Booming Blade requires a melee weapon attack in much the same way that Shocking Grasp requires a melee spell attack - both are a part of the Cast A Spell action, neither are “separate” in any meaningful sense.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Not so. A melee attack is its own thing, and has its own rules. The spell just makes a call to the "melee attack" function as part of the same action that executes "Cast a spell" function. But it is not part of casting the spell, just part of the same action that executes it. Since Invoke Duplicity does not modify melee attacks, only casting spells, it does not modify the melee attack function that the spell makes a call to.
But isn't the action that execute it is the "casting a spell" action?
Isn't "casting a spell" action part of casting spells(only 1 action spells from the PHB)?

If the melee attack part of "casting a spell" action, isn't it part of casting the spell?
Just to make it clear, I am taking RAW, not RAI.

Sort of yeah. Which is why I don’t get how the melee attack can be part of the same action as casting the spell, and yet separate... casting the spell takes the whole action. Therefore, the melee attack is part of casting the spell.

It is wired to see the same argument use to support two different approaches.

I have fun trying to understand how each of your approaches(Sorry, I can't understand how to write it, English is hard).

[lperkins2]

If you want to nerf the ability to near uselessness, it says *you* occupy the illusion's space, but says nothing about your gear. That would solve the debate, as no M spells would function.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

If you want to nerf the ability to near uselessness, it says *you* occupy the illusion's space, but says nothing about your gear. That would solve the debate, as no M spells would function.

But you cast the spell, not the duplicate.
It doesn't matter what the duplicate do, can do or looks like.

[BarneyBent]

But isn't the action that execute it is the "casting a spell" action?
Isn't "casting a spell" action part of casting spells(only 1 action spells from the PHB)?

If the melee attack part of "casting a spell" action, isn't it part of casting the spell?
Just to make it clear, I am taking RAW, not RAI.


It is wired to see the same argument use to support two different approaches.

I have fun trying to understand how each of your approaches(Sorry, I can't understand how to write it, English is hard).

I think the difference comes from a misunderstanding of how actions work.

It’s tempting to think of an action as a resource that you exchange for casting a spell. In that context, it’s easy to think that you cast the spell, and by expending that resource to cast the spell, you then get to make a melee attack as a separate, free thing you get for having spent that resource.

But that’s not actually how it works. You are allowed to take an action. That action can be to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action. That is the action, start to finish. Within that action of casting the spell, you do whatever the spell description says, which in the case of the SCAGtrips includes making a melee attack with a weapon.

If the attack was separate from casting the spell, then it would be worded something like “you must immediately make an attack with a melee weapon. You can do so without using an action”. But “action” has a specific meaning in 5e, and the SCAGtrip takes up all of it, which means that when they say the weapon attack is part of the action used to cast the spell, they mean it’s part of the “Cast a Spell” action. And it doesn’t get much clearer than that.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I think the difference comes from a misunderstanding of how actions work.

It’s tempting to think of an action as a resource that you exchange for casting a spell. In that context, it’s easy to think that you cast the spell, and by expending that resource to cast the spell, you then get to make a melee attack as a separate, free thing you get for having spent that resource.

But that’s not actually how it works. You are allowed to take an action. That action can be to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action. That is the action, start to finish. Within that action of casting the spell, you do whatever the spell description says, which in the case of the SCAGtrips includes making a melee attack with a weapon.

If the attack was separate from casting the spell, then it would be worded something like “you must immediately make an attack with a melee weapon. You can do so without using an action”. But “action” has a specific meaning in 5e, and the SCAGtrip takes up all of it, which means that when they say the weapon attack is part of the action used to cast the spell, they mean it’s part of the “Cast a Spell” action. And it doesn’t get much clearer than that.

I agree, that was my argument in page 1.

I want to know how Tanarii saw. It is far more interesting to see how someone that got the opposite outcome from the same source got it then how someone that got the same outcome as you.

[Chronos]

There might be some confusion about the "must" in "you must make an attack". Some people seem to be interpreting it to mean "once you cast the spell, there is no possible situation where you don't make the attack". I think the correct interpretation is "if you cast the spell but then don't make the attack (for whatever reason), the spell fails".

In other words, you could cast Booming Blade and then just choose not to make the attack, causing the spell to fail. Why you would do this, I have no idea, but you could.

[tieren]

I think of it as a condition precedent. It may help you to consider that the prerequisite to getting the spell effect sin't just making a melee attack but hitting with one. If you miss the spell effect doesn't go off.

So the spell requires you not to just make a melee attack (I can envision a scenario where you could make an illusory melee attack but not be able to hit because your weapon is 20 feet away) but to hit with one, which you can't unless you are actually in melee range.

I do like it for getting around the spell sniper needed to use reach weapons though.. If the target is within 5 feet of the duplicate and within reach melee weapon range of you it should work.

[Nagog]

Reading that part, it merely explains why you can't use the cantrip as part of an action that allows you to make a weapon attack, since it's a spell. So it uses the Cast a Spell Action as opposed to the Attack Action. This still doesn't negate the rest of my post - it's still a separate action, it just doesn't require an Action on its own. The melee attack is something you need to do in order to get the effects of the spell, it's not part of the actual spell itself.

"As part of the action used to cast this spell" does not differentiate either way. I believe the part you're looking for is "you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range" for clarification. The defining thing of this is that nowhere in any rule book have I seen a rule saying a weapon can't be incorporeal or illusory, and deal no damage. The duplicate is a copy of you, so as long as you have a weapon your duplicate can pull their illusory copy of it out and swing with it. You would roll to hit with the illusory weapon, the weapon deals no damage, and the spell's effect is applied. Done and done.

[lperkins2]

But you cast the spell, not the duplicate.
It doesn't matter what the duplicate do, can do or looks like.

I think you missed my point. It doesn't say you cast a spell as though you were in both places (physical and virtual), it says you cast a spell as though you were in the illusion's location (your virtual location). If you rule that your gear is still only in your physical location, then all material components are out of reach and any M spells fail.


"As part of the action used to cast this spell" does not differentiate either way. I believe the part you're looking for is "you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range" for clarification. The defining thing of this is that nowhere in any rule book have I seen a rule saying a weapon can't be incorporeal or illusory, and deal no damage. The duplicate is a copy of you, so as long as you have a weapon your duplicate can pull their illusory copy of it out and swing with it. You would roll to hit with the illusory weapon, the weapon deals no damage, and the spell's effect is applied. Done and done.

This doesn't work. The illusion doesn't do anything, it doesn't even cast the spell. If you can't do it, it can't be done. Note that this is separate from the question of using an illusion as an improvised weapon, which might be reasonable.

All that said, I think it is important to note that the material component for BB is 'a weapon'. If we assume you can access your material components while using this feature, that implies that your material components accompany you to your virtual position while casting the spell. If your weapon accompanied you to your virtual location, I see no reason you couldn't use it at that virtual location when the spell says to. Essentially, the general rule for SM spells is the somatic component is 'manipulating the material component', which means having a hand on the material component. BB replaces that general rule with the specific rule 'make a melee attack with the material component'.

Seems to me that if you let other SM spells work from the illusions space, this one is no different. Then again, I'm one of those DMs who require 2 hands free for Burning Hands because it specifies touching thumbs and extending fingers in its description.

[CNagy]

RAW it works. Strictly as read, and adhering to the fact that specific rules trump general rules, the melee attack in booming blade part of the cast a spell action. It is not separate, nothing anywhere argues that you use an attack action or even an unnamed action. The text literally tells you which action the melee attack is part of, and because it is a specific ruling it overrules any general rules about how you make melee attacks.

Invoke Duplicity also has specific rules, in this case altering your character's relationship to its physical location and the available origin points of your spells. It doesn't matter that a melee attack somehow snuck into the Cast a Spell action, Invoke Duplicity's rules say you can cast it as if you were in the duplicate's place. Since making the melee attack is part of the spell that you are casting as if you were in the duplicate's position, the melee attack is also made as if you were in that position. This may seem nonsensical, but sometimes that's what you get when several specific rules interact.

On a less strictly RAW note, we are talking about a priest of a Trickery God but a bit of spacial chicanery is out of bounds?

[Chronos]

But being able to cast Booming Blade does not guarantee you the ability to make the attack. We know this, because the spell description explicitly tells us that if you can't make the attack, the spell fails.

[CNagy]

But being able to cast Booming Blade does not guarantee you the ability to make the attack. We know this, because the spell description explicitly tells us that if you can't make the attack, the spell fails.

But what has led you to decide that you can't make the attack? The only factor preventing you from making the melee attack successfully (your position relative to the target) has been specifically overruled, because position limits for the entire spell have been waived in that regard.

[Snowbluff]

If you want to nerf the ability to near uselessness, it says *you* occupy the illusion's space, but says nothing about your gear. That would solve the debate, as no M spells would function.

Well on top of no Concentration spells working, this is like a drop in the bucket on how nearly useless it already is.


"As part of the action used to cast this spell" does not differentiate either way. I believe the part you're looking for is "you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range" for clarification. The defining thing of this is that nowhere in any rule book have I seen a rule saying a weapon can't be incorporeal or illusory, and deal no damage. The duplicate is a copy of you, so as long as you have a weapon your duplicate can pull their illusory copy of it out and swing with it. You would roll to hit with the illusory weapon, the weapon deals no damage, and the spell's effect is applied. Done and done.

This is like saying you make an image of a sword with minor illusion and hold onto where it's handle would be, you now can make attacks of opportunity with said sword.

[Nagog]

Well on top of no Concentration spells working, this is like a drop in the bucket on how nearly useless it already is.



This is like saying you make an image of a sword with minor illusion and hold onto where it's handle would be, you now can make attacks of opportunity with said sword.

I mean you probably could, but the sword is still an illusion so it wouldn't deal damage. Just like you could threaten somebody with such a sword. Sure it isn't real and won't actually do any damage, but the appearance of it is there.

[Snowbluff]

I mean you probably could, but the sword is still an illusion so it wouldn't deal damage. Just like you could threaten somebody with such a sword. Sure it isn't real and won't actually do any damage, but the appearance of it is there.
You wouldn't qualify for the action.

[Tallytrev813]

This really isnt hard, people are trying to twist the words to make it read a certain way.

Just because the Melee attack is part of the ACTION used to cast the spell, doesn't mean the melee and the spell are one and the same.

Example: My hand is part of ME. My face is part of ME. My hand is NOT part of my face. Just because i can reach the roof with my hand, does NOT mean i can reach the roof with my face. The fact that they're both part of ME doesn't mean they occupy or effect the same space.



Similarly, just because you may cast the spell as part of your action in the illusions space, it doesn't mean the melee weapon attack is triggered from that same space. They're both part of the same action, but that doesn't entail the melee attack triggering where the spell is cast.

The spell is your "hand", the melee attack is your "face" the action is "you". They're both part of you, but just because your hand is able to reach the enemy via this exception, does not entail that your face can reach the enemy.

[BarneyBent]

But being able to cast Booming Blade does not guarantee you the ability to make the attack. We know this, because the spell description explicitly tells us that if you can't make the attack, the spell fails.

Doesn’t need to guarantee you, because you can make the attack. The attack is a part of casting the spell (which is why the spell fails if you can’t do it). Therefore, when you are using the duplicate’s space to cast the spell, that includes making the attack.

That’s why it’s different to something like Spell Sniper or Distant Spell. They modify the range of the spell, not your position for the purposes of casting it (and therefore making the attack).

[BarneyBent]

This really isnt hard, people are trying to twist the words to make it read a certain way.

Just because the Melee attack is part of the ACTION used to cast the spell, doesn't mean the melee and the spell are one and the same.

Example: My hand is part of ME. My face is part of ME. My hand is NOT part of my face. Just because i can reach the roof with my hand, does NOT mean i can reach the roof with my face. The fact that they're both part of ME doesn't mean they occupy or effect the same space.



Similarly, just because you may cast the spell as part of your action in the illusions space, it doesn't mean the melee weapon attack is triggered from that same space. They're both part of the same action, but that doesn't entail the melee attack triggering where the spell is cast.

The spell is your "hand", the melee attack is your "face" the action is "you". They're both part of you, but just because your hand is able to reach the enemy via this exception, does not entail that your face can reach the enemy.

Nope! That’s not how actions work. It’s tempting to think that way, but the action is casting the spell.

Want evidence? The casting time is “1 action”. To use your analogy, the hand is you, you are the hand.

When you cast a spell, you take the Cast A Spell action. That is your action. You get no others unless you Action Surge it have Haste or something similar. When you make the melee attack, it is part of that Cast A Spell action that is also the full casting time of the spell in question. An action isn’t a pocket of time you get to spend doing things in combat. It is a set of things you can choose one of which to do. Casting a Spell is one of those. Using that action to also make a weapon attack simply means that the weapon attack is part of the spell’s casting.

You are the one twisting RAW because of a misunderstanding of how actions work and what they mean. And it’s a fair misunderstanding, because it’s counterintuitive, especially when we’re used to thinking in terms of spending resources. But your action isn’t something you spend, it’s something you choose to do.

[Tallytrev813]

Nope! That’s not how actions work. It’s tempting to think that way, but the action is casting the spell.

Want evidence? The casting time is “1 action”. To use your analogy, the hand is you, you are the hand.

When you cast a spell, you take the Cast A Spell action. That is your action. You get no others unless you Action Surge it have Haste or something similar. When you make the melee attack, it is part of that Cast A Spell action that is also the full casting time of the spell in question. An action isn’t a pocket of time you get to spend doing things in combat. It is a set of things you can choose one of which to do. Casting a Spell is one of those. Using that action to also make a weapon attack simply means that the weapon attack is part of the spell’s casting.

You are the one twisting RAW because of a misunderstanding of how actions work and what they mean. And it’s a fair misunderstanding, because it’s counterintuitive, especially when we’re used to thinking in terms of spending resources. But your action isn’t something you spend, it’s something you choose to do.

"Using that action to also make a weapon attack simply means that the weapon attack is part of the spell’s casting."

That part i just dont think makes sense - at least to me.

An action doesnt have to be time-based or something you spend to have 2 parts.

Lets say i kick a soccer ball as an "action"
Lets say my coach tells me im not waving my arms enough when i kick the soccer ball, and it'll be a better kick if i wave my arms.

Waving my arms can be part of the action of "kicking a soccer ball" without having anything to do with my foot contacting the soccer ball.


If your interpretation were true, why wouldn't the text read "As part of casting the spell"? The text specifically reads as part of the action.

Having said that, none of that text matters. It doesn't say make the weapon attack from where the spell is cast. It just says, make a weapon attack.

You're trying to blur the lines between the Melee weapon attack and the Cast a spell text to obscure it enough to justify the idea that if the spell is cast from point X, then the melee weapon attack takes place at point X also.

That's a very hefty jump that none of the text supports, and is a much bigger reach than you're giving it credit for.

[Xetheral]

That's the error being made in clearly stated terms.

Invoke Duplicity doesn't change the definition of your current location to match the illusion. It only does it for casting spells. And melee attacks, including the melee attack done as part of the action for Booming Blade, are not casting spells.

I entirely agree that, in the usual case, a melee weapon attack is not part of casting a spell. However, this is not a usual case. Consider:

Normally it is impossible to make a melee weapon attack as part of a Cast a Spell action. Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade both exceptionally permit that to happen. To date, they are the only published material that does so. Ergo, in logical terms, casting one of those two spells is a necessary condition for making a melee weapon attack as part of the Cast a Spell action.

On the other hand, both spells require the caster to make a melee weapon attack as part of the Cast a Spell action, or else the spell fails. Ergo, in logical terms, making a melee weapon attack as part of the Cast a Spell action is a necessary condition for casting those spells.

Since casting either Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade is a necessary condition for making a melee weapon attack as part of a Cast a Spell action, and making a melee weapon attack is a necessary condition for casting either spell, we have a biconditional:

((casting GFB) OR (casting BB)) <-> (making a melee attack as part of a Cast a Spell action)

In colloquial terms, you can't cast BB or GFB without making a melee attack as part of a Cast a Spell action, and you can't make a melee attack as part of a Cast a Spell action without casting BB or GFM.

And yet you're arguing that making a melee attack as part of a Cast a Spell action isn't a part of casting BB or GFB despite their mutual dependency. Can you see why I'm confused?

To use an analogy, to me your position sounds like acknowledging that you can't Use a Wand of Fireballs without expending a charge from the wand. And acknowledging that you can't expend a charge from a Wand of Fireballs without Using the wand. But then claiming that expending a charge from the wand is not part of Using a Wand of Fireballs.

[BarneyBent]

"Using that action to also make a weapon attack simply means that the weapon attack is part of the spell’s casting."

That part i just dont think makes sense - at least to me.

An action doesnt have to be time-based or something you spend to have 2 parts.

Lets say i kick a soccer ball as an "action"
Lets say my coach tells me im not waving my arms enough when i kick the soccer ball, and it'll be a better kick if i wave my arms.

Waving my arms can be part of the action of "kicking a soccer ball" without having anything to do with my foot contacting the soccer ball.


If your interpretation were true, why wouldn't the text read "As part of casting the spell"? The text specifically reads as part of the action.

Having said that, none of that text matters. It doesn't say make the weapon attack from where the spell is cast. It just says, make a weapon attack.

You're trying to blur the lines between the Melee weapon attack and the Cast a spell text to obscure it enough to justify the idea that if the spell is cast from point X, then the melee weapon attack takes place at point X also.

That's a very hefty jump that none of the text supports, and is a much bigger reach than you're giving it credit for.

No, see this is more akin to your soccer coach saying “when you kick the ball, shift your foot position so that when you strike it, you impart some curve on it”. It’s part of the kick action. Just as the attack is a part of the Cast A Spell action. It is that simple.

To continue on your analogy, kicking the ball is the action, waving your hands is not part of kicking the ball, therefore it is not part of the kicking the ball action. It is a separate action. It might be a free action, it might be a bonus action, it might be a reaction, doesn’t matter. It would not be “part of the action used to kick the ball” because the action used to kick the ball IS kicking the ball.

If you want to continue with the waving of hands equaling the weapon attack, the best way to think of it is like this - you have one action you can choose to take, which is to kick the ball with your hands down (let’s call that “Shocking Grasp”). You have another action you can choose to take, which is kicking the ball while waving your hands. Let’s call that Booming Blade. That you can choose to wave your hands with or without kicking the ball does not change the fact that kicking the ball with your hands up is considered, in this strange world with strange rules, it’s own discrete action. So when the description of this action says “using the same action you use to kick the ball”, it means that waving your hands in the air is a part of kicking the ball (specifically, “Kicking The Ball With Your Hands WavingIn The Air”, aka Booming Blade).

From the PHB page 192, Actions In Combat:


When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise. Many monsters have action options of their own in their stat blocks.

Notice that the wording is “taking actions” from a list of possibilities. When the wording says “with the same action”, it means the action that you chose to take, not a slot that you own and expended so you could cast a spell.

Now, not all spells have a casting time of 1 action. For those that do, casting the spell is the action you take. If there is something additional as part of that action you take, that means that additional thing is part of casting the spell, NOT that it is separate from casting the spell, and that casting the spell has become less than 1 action (to make room for the other action) all of a sudden

You are using an intuitive understanding of the rules which in most cases is close enough so as not to matter, and that’s understandable. It was the position I started in before I read the rules closer. But the fact is, the way actions work is that casting the spell is the action. So when the spell says “as part of the action used to cast the spell”, that wording is intended to make it absolutely clear that the attack is not part of a different action (e.g. the Attack action, or a free action).

To summarise: you don’t spend your action on casting a spell (if that was the case, your interpretation would possibly be correct - you would still have “room” in “your action” to add a melee attack after casting the spell, just like waving your hands as you kick the ball, though you still run into the problem of the casting time being one full action).

Instead, you don’t “spend your action” on anything. You choose an action to take. So when the wording says “the action used to cast the spell”, they mean the Cast A Spell action. The weapon attack is therefore part of the Cast A Spell action, and therefore part of the spell’s casting. This interpretation is subsequently confirmed by official Sage Advice.

Now, you can rule that that’s silly. That’s fine. I sort of agree. I also think it’s silly casting Shocking Grasp through Invoke Duplicity - the spell explicitly says you touch the target, how do you do that at range?

But once you understand that you don’t use your action to do things, but that you choose an action to take, the wording makes more sense, and the official Sage Advice that explicitly describes the weapon attack as part of the spell’s casting also makes sense.

[BarneyBent]

I entirely agree that, in the usual case, a melee weapon attack is not part of casting a spell. However, this is not a usual case. Consider:

Normally it is impossible to make a melee weapon attack as part of a Cast a Spell action. Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade both exceptionally permit that to happen. To date, they are the only published material that does so. Ergo, in logical terms, casting one of those two spells is a necessary condition for making a melee weapon attack as part of the Cast a Spell action.

On the other hand, both spells require the caster to make a melee weapon attack as part of the Cast a Spell action, or else the spell fails. Ergo, in logical terms, making a melee weapon attack as part of the Cast a Spell action is a necessary condition for casting those spells.

Since casting either Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade is a necessary condition for making a melee weapon attack as part of a Cast a Spell action, and making a melee weapon attack is a necessary condition for casting either spell, we have a biconditional:

((casting GFB) OR (casting BB)) <-> (making a melee attack as part of a Cast a Spell action)

In colloquial terms, you can't cast BB or GFB without making a melee attack as part of a Cast a Spell action, and you can't make a melee attack as part of a Cast a Spell action without casting BB or GFM.

And yet you're arguing that making a melee attack as part of a Cast a Spell action isn't a part of casting BB or GFB despite their mutual dependency. Can you see why I'm confused?

To use an analogy, to me your position sounds like acknowledging that you can't Use a Wand of Fireballs without expending a charge from the wand. And acknowledging that you can't expend a charge from a Wand of Fireballs without Using the wand. But then claiming that expending a charge from the wand is not part of Using a Wand of Fireballs.

God dammit that last paragraph is a better and more succinct explanation than anything I’ve come up with this entire thread. Thank you.

[Xetheral]

God dammit that last paragraph is a better and more succinct explanation than anything I’ve come up with this entire thread. Thank you.

If it makes you feel better, that was like my fifth try at finding a suitable analogy. In this type of debate where both sides use nearly-identical arguments to support diametrically-opposed conclusions I find it can be really tricky to find the right words to talk about the differences. Maybe the analogy will help.

[patchyman]

From my reading what you do as part of casting a spell action is casting a spell and all the parts of this action is the casting of the spell.

If the attack is part of the casting a spell action how could it not be a part of the spell?

Not to open another can of hornets here, but the same way that if you cast the Suggestion spell subtly, you still have to vocalize the suggestion, since Subtle doesn’t make you telepathic.

[BarneyBent]

Not to open another can of hornets here, but the same way that if you cast the Suggestion spell subtly, you still have to vocalize the suggestion, since Subtle doesn’t make you telepathic.

I’m away from books atm but I would think that depends on whether you rule the verbal component IS the utterance, or whether the verbal component is in addition to the utterance.

If the verbal component is the utterance then you’ve got a good argument that yes, your suggestion has been communicated without verbalisation. Which honestly makes just as much sense as delivering Shocking Grasp at 30ft via Distant metamagic. Metamagic makes a lot of the fluff weird.

[Chronos]

Spell Sniper changes the range of the spell. But it does not change the range of the weapon you use with the spell. In exactly the same way, Invoke Duplicity changes your position for purposes of casting the spell. But it does not change your position for purposes of making attacks with your weapon.

The spell descriptions for GFB and BB recognize that there will be some situations where you are able to cast the spell, but not able to attack, and so the spell does nothing. Invoke Duplicity is one of those situations.

Or to take a completely different sort of argument: If you rule that it does work, how? What is actually hitting the target? Are they getting hit by the illusion of a sword in the illusion's illusory hands? How does that do real damage? Are they getting hit by the real sword in your hands, far away from the illusion? How is that real sword getting there? Yes, yes, of course, it's getting there "by magic", but that doesn't answer the question: Is it magically teleporting there? Magically flying through the air? And what's providing the magic to make this happen? Teleporting objects (or making them fly) isn't something that either Booming Blade nor Invoke Duplicity can do.

[tieren]

Or to take a completely different sort of argument: If you rule that it does work, how? What is actually hitting the target? Are they getting hit by the illusion of a sword in the illusion's illusory hands? How does that do real damage? Are they getting hit by the real sword in your hands, far away from the illusion? How is that real sword getting there? Yes, yes, of course, it's getting there "by magic", but that doesn't answer the question: Is it magically teleporting there? Magically flying through the air? And what's providing the magic to make this happen? Teleporting objects (or making them fly) isn't something that either Booming Blade nor Invoke Duplicity can do.

I don't think anyone is arguing the weapon damage would apply, just that swinging the illusionary weapon would be sufficient to complete the casting of the cantrip and do the thunder/fire damage.

[Maelynn]

just that swinging the illusionary weapon would be sufficient

Swinging a weapon isn't an attack - it's not an attack unless you roll a d20 for it (PHB p194). The weapon is physically out of range, so it can't attack. The illusion is merely an image and can't attack. And Invoke Duplicity doesn't state that you're allowed to make weapon attack rolls as if in the illusion's space, so it doesn't grant you the roll that way either.

You can't roll a d20. So you don't make an attack. So the spell fails.

Edit: furthermore, the spells states 'on a hit', so you don't only need to attack, you need to hit. An illusion is incorporeal, so it can't hit physically.

[GooeyChewie]

The spell descriptions for GFB and BB recognize that there will be some situations where you are able to cast the spell, but not able to attack, and so the spell does nothing. Invoke Duplicity is one of those situations.
I would rephrase that first sentence to say that the spell descriptions for GFB and BB recognize that there will be some situations in which you could meet the range, V and M requirements but cannot meet the melee attack requirement, and in those cases the spell fails just as it would if you could not meet another requirements. The fact that such situations exist does not mean that Invoke Duplicity is necessarily one of those situations. If the melee attack is part of the spell (and I believe it is, because I think “is part of the same action as the spell but is not part of the spell” is too fine a line to draw), then you get to make that attack as though you are in the Invoke Duplicity illusion’s location. If nothing else prevents you from making the attack, and the target would be in reach based on ID’s location, then you can make the attack.


Yes, yes, of course, it's getting there "by magic", but that doesn't answer the question:
Yes, it does. Magic is how Guiding Bolt can hit targets 240 feet away from me (but only 120 feet away from my illusion). Magic is how my illusion can heal somebody with Healing Touch even when I can’t touch them. Magic is how spells with M components can be cast over there while the materials are over here by me. Magic is how spells with S components can be cast over there even when my illusion has no mass in its waving arms. The whole point of this portion of Invoke Duplicity is that it allows the illusion to do things illusions can’t logically do.

Edit: Thought of one more. Magic is how I can cast spells with V components when I am in an area affected by Silence and my illusion is not.



I don't think anyone is arguing the weapon damage would apply, just that swinging the illusionary weapon would be sufficient to complete the casting of the cantrip and do the thunder/fire damage.
I am. Either the melee attack is part of the spell and you get to perform it as normal as though you (verbal and material weapon components and all) are in the illusion’s location, or it isn’t part of the spell and the whole thing fails.


And Invoke Duplicity doesn't state that you're allowed to make weapon attack rolls as if in the illusion's space, so it doesn't grant you the roll that way either.
Invoke Duplicity doesn’t list out all the different possibilities within spells. It covers everything within a spell with the specific exception of using your senses. Just because a spell does something that no other spells do doesn’t mean Invoke Duplicity doesn’t let you do it.

[Maelynn]

Invoke Duplicity doesn’t list out all the different possibilities within spells. It covers everything within a spell with the specific exception of using your senses. Just because a spell does something that no other spells do doesn’t mean Invoke Duplicity doesn’t let you do it.

So tell me... how does one make a weapon attack without using their senses?

[BloodSnake'sCha]

So tell me... how does one make a weapon attack without using their senses?

It can be argue that you can't do a thing without using your senses.

You can do it just how you can swing your hand with a sword when your eyes closed ears blocked,your nervs on your skin damaged, your nose block and your moth closed.

You will have hard time to do it but you will.
And I think that seeing the target I cast a spell on from the far side of the room is using my senses.

[Chronos]

Quoth tieren:

I don't think anyone is arguing the weapon damage would apply, just that swinging the illusionary weapon would be sufficient to complete the casting of the cantrip and do the thunder/fire damage.
Do what thunder/fire damage, to whom? That damage is applied to the creature who is hit by the weapon. If there's nobody hit by the weapon, then there's no thunder/fire damage.


Quoth GooeyChewie:

Yes, it does. Magic is how Guiding Bolt can hit targets 240 feet away from me (but only 120 feet away from my illusion). Magic is how my illusion can heal somebody with Healing Touch even when I can’t touch them. Magic is how spells with M components can be cast over there while the materials are over here by me. Magic is how spells with S components can be cast over there even when my illusion has no mass in its waving arms. The whole point of this portion of Invoke Duplicity is that it allows the illusion to do things illusions can’t logically do.
Your Guiding Bolt hits by moving 120' from the illusion's location to the target's location. Your material components work by being in your hands. Your spell with verbal components works by those components being spoken by your illusion. Again, I ask, how does the magic work with the sword?

[GooeyChewie]

So tell me... how does one make a weapon attack without using their senses?
Invoke Duplicity does not eliminate your senses. Your senses are just the one thing it calls out as being measured from your original space instead of the illusion’s space. If you can see the target, roll the attack as normal. If not, disadvantage.


Your Guiding Bolt hits by moving 120' from the illusion's location to the target's location. Your material components work by being in your hands. Your spell with verbal components works by those components being spoken by your illusion. Again, I ask, how does the magic work with the sword?

According to your own words, “Your material components work by being in your hands.” For GFB and BB, the weapon IS listed as the material component. Just like any other material component, Invoke Duplicity allows the sword to work as though you are in the illusion’s space. It’s no different than casting, say Warding Bond from your illusion’s space. For the purposes of the spell, the platinum rings are in that space and you can cast the spell with your ring and the one your friend is wearing.

In other words, magic.

[Maelynn]

Your senses are just the one thing it calls out as being measured from your original space instead of the illusion’s space. If you can see the target, roll the attack as normal. If not, disadvantage.

So you're saying that the weapon attack needs to be measured from your original space, because you need to see the target. The fact that you mention getting a disadvantage only enforces the notion that senses are a necessary aspect for a weapon attack. Well, there we are then. A weapon attack relies on senses. The need for senses dictates using your original space as opposed to the illusion. Your original space is out of melee range. Spell fails.

[GooeyChewie]

So you're saying that the weapon attack needs to be measured from your original space, because you need to see the target. The fact that you mention getting a disadvantage only enforces the notion that senses are a necessary aspect for a weapon attack. Well, there we are then. A weapon attack relies on senses. The need for senses dictates using your original space as opposed to the illusion. Your original space is out of melee range. Spell fails.

No, I did not say the weapon attack needs to be measured from your original space. Just like any other attack as part of a spell, the attack can be measured from the illusion’s space. And just like any other spell, only the determination of whether you can see ( or hear/smell/taste/feel if those matter) the target cares about your original space.

For example, Sacred Flame targets a creature I can see within 60 feet. If I cast through my illusion with ID, I still have to be able to see the creature from my space, but I can measure the 60 feet from my illusion’s space. The need to see the target doesn’t mean I have to measure from my space for that spell, so why would it mean I have to measure from my space for any other spell?

[Tanarii]

Your spell with verbal components works by those components being spoken by your illusion.
Does it? Of the top of my head and without parsing the rules language, I'd think the V, S, and M components are all at the caster.

[BarneyBent]

Spell Sniper changes the range of the spell. But it does not change the range of the weapon you use with the spell. In exactly the same way, Invoke Duplicity changes your position for purposes of casting the spell. But it does not change your position for purposes of making attacks with your weapon.

Spell Sniper explicitly changes the range of the spell. Invoke Duplicity changes your position for the purposes of casting the spell. They are not exactly the same, they are substantially different.

The range is one part of a spell’s casting only. Invoke Duplicity doesn’t actually change anything about the spell - only where you are considered to be as you cast it. And casting it involves making a melee attack.

To contrast the two, imagine an enemy is 10 ft away. If you use Spell Sniper, you have increased the range FROM YOUR CURRENT POSITION of valid targets for the spell, but you can’t hit them in that extra range with the melee attack from your current position (unless you have a reach) so the spell fails. Your current position hasn’t moved for the purposes of the spell, you’ve just changed a specific part of the spell (the range of possible targets).

By contrast, Invoke Duplicity is more akin to temporarily transporting 5ft forward and casting the spell. The melee attack is an explicit part of casting the spell (confirmed in Sage Advice and in accordance with how actions work), therefore you are also that 5ft forward for the melee attack. Just as you would be when you reach out and touch somebody to deliver Shocking Grasp or Guidance.



The spell descriptions for GFB and BB recognize that there will be some situations where you are able to cast the spell, but not able to attack, and so the spell does nothing. Invoke Duplicity is one of those situations.

Actually, “the spell fails”, that doesn’t mean you successfully cast it and it went to waste - it means you failed to cast it. Compare spell failure in the PHB in relation to extended casting times:


When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so (see “Concentration” below). If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don’t expend a spell slot.

“The spell fails” clearly means “you failed to cast the spell”, not “you cast the spell but it was wasted”.

In any case, the melee attack is part of the Cast A Spell action and so clearly is also modified by Invoke Duplicity, but even if this was more ambiguous, the wording “the spell failed” clearly indicates the weapon attack is a part of the spell’s casting and NOT something you get to do after casting the spell, further strengthening the case that Invoke Duplicity affects it.



Or to take a completely different sort of argument: If you rule that it does work, how? What is actually hitting the target? Are they getting hit by the illusion of a sword in the illusion's illusory hands? How does that do real damage? Are they getting hit by the real sword in your hands, far away from the illusion? How is that real sword getting there? Yes, yes, of course, it's getting there "by magic", but that doesn't answer the question: Is it magically teleporting there? Magically flying through the air? And what's providing the magic to make this happen? Teleporting objects (or making them fly) isn't something that either Booming Blade nor Invoke Duplicity can do.

How does Shocking Grasp work? You explicitly reach out and grab the target. The illusion can’t do that.

Remember, Invoke Duplicity doesn’t mean the duplicate delivers the spell. You cast the spell AS IF YOU WERE IN THE DUPLICATE’S SPACE. This is very specific and unusual wording that differs from, for example, how Familiars deliver spells, how Distant metamagic changes touch spells, etc.

You are, for all intents and purposes, in the duplicate’s space. How that works is fluff, but any fluff you choose to resolve Shocking Grasp can equally apply to Booming Blade. The duplicate is no more capable of touching things than swinging a sword, and it is entirely irrelevant anyway because the whole point is the duplicate does nothing. It can stand stock still, stand on its head, do jumping jacks, whatever, while you cast and deliver the spell, whatever it may be.

[BarneyBent]

I don't think anyone is arguing the weapon damage would apply, just that swinging the illusionary weapon would be sufficient to complete the casting of the cantrip and do the thunder/fire damage.

RAW, I am arguing this. Realistically a DM could argue otherwise and that would be fine. But the illusion doesn’t swing the sword or do anything at all. You just use its position. You swing the sword, you cast the spell, you do all of those, and through the magic of the Trickster God you worship, they all get to affect a target within 5ft of your duplicate instead of you.

How that works is fluff, but it’s absolutely in accordance with RAW because of the specific wording of Invoke Duplicity and the fact that the weapon attack is part of casting the spell.

[BarneyBent]

Your spell with verbal components works by those components being spoken by your illusion.

Your duplicate does no such thing. You say the words, you hold the material components, you make the somatic gestures. You do all of these things “as though you were in the duplicate’s space”. That includes making the melee attack, because that’s explicitly, unambiguously a part of casting the spell.

[RSP]

The illusion is merely an image and can't attack.


This isn’t necessarily true. Invoke Duplicity states it creates “a perfect illusion”. Unfortunately, that’s all we have to go on, but “perfect” is a very strong word in terms of describing something.

A perfect illusion should be one without flaw: no way to detect that it’s an illusion, including through touching it. There are other illusion spells that have substance (Mirage Arcana) and can attack (Shadow Blade and Illusory Dragon both come to mind), therefore, it’s reasonable that a “perfect” illusion wouldn’t be a lesser illusion.

This would mean that the illusion could very well attack, and hit, with an illusory sword.

[Xetheral]

Or to take a completely different sort of argument: If you rule that it does work, how? What is actually hitting the target? Are they getting hit by the illusion of a sword in the illusion's illusory hands? How does that do real damage? Are they getting hit by the real sword in your hands, far away from the illusion? How is that real sword getting there? Yes, yes, of course, it's getting there "by magic", but that doesn't answer the question: Is it magically teleporting there? Magically flying through the air? And what's providing the magic to make this happen? Teleporting objects (or making them fly) isn't something that either Booming Blade nor Invoke Duplicity can do.

(Emphasis added.) I agree with the bolded proposition. The attack is made at the caster's current location with an actual weapon, and, due to Invoke Duplicity, affects the target "as though" the caster was instead at the location of the duplicate. The weapon does not need to teleport or otherwise move--the cause and the effect are simply not co-located in space.

In the game world, it would look a lot like the visual depiction of the fight between Gandalf and Saruman in Fellowship of the Ring: when each wizard swings their staff, and the other wizard is affected by the blow even though the wizards are out of reach from each other. The major difference is that in D&D, there's also an illusory duplicate (who may or may not appear to be doing anything, depending on the specific table's interpretation of Invoke Duplicity).

[JackPhoenix]

(Emphasis added.) I agree with the bolded proposition. The attack is made at the caster's current location with an actual weapon, and, due to Invoke Duplicity, affects the target "as though" the caster was instead at the location of the duplicate. The weapon does not need to teleport or otherwise move--the cause and the effect are simply not co-located in space.

In the game world, it would look a lot like the visual depiction of the fight between Gandalf and Saruman in Fellowship of the Ring: when each wizard swings their staff, and the other wizard is affected by the blow even though the wizards are out of reach from each other. The major difference is that in D&D, there's also an illusory duplicate (who may or may not appear to be doing anything, depending on the specific table's interpretation of Invoke Duplicity).

The attack is made at the caster's location with actual weapon, and Invoke Duplicity does nothing, because it only affects spells, not weapon attacks. If the target isn't in the weapon's reach, the cantrip will fail, per its description.

In the game world, it would look like the caster swinging their weapon at empty air, looking like a fool in the process. Gandalf and Saruman used telekinesis to throw each other around, the staves served as foci, their weren't hitting each other with them from 20' away.

[Maelynn]

The illusion is merely an image and can't attack.

This isn’t necessarily true. Invoke Duplicity states it creates “a perfect illusion”. Unfortunately, that’s all we have to go on, but “perfect” is a very strong word in terms of describing something.

A perfect illusion should be one without flaw: no way to detect that it’s an illusion, including through touching it. There are other illusion spells that have substance (Mirage Arcana) and can attack (Shadow Blade and Illusory Dragon both come to mind), therefore, it’s reasonable that a “perfect” illusion wouldn’t be a lesser illusion.

This would mean that the illusion could very well attack, and hit, with an illusory sword.

This is definitely not RAW, but just an attempt to twist the definition of an illusion. An illusion is not corporeal. PHB p203 explains that illusions are images/sounds/memories that deceive the senses, but are still phantoms. They cannot affect the world because everything passes through it. Thinking that 'perfect' means it becomes corporeal is an absurd interpretation, because nowhere does it say that it does. Check the 14th level ability of the Illusion Wizard - it allows them to make 1 illusion real enough to interact with, but it still can't damage or harm anyone. That's the only illusion that can gain some form of corporealness, and only because the ability explicitly states that it can.

Even if, for the sake of argument, we could state that you moving your weapon allows the illusion to move theirs, it still wouldn't hit. And hitting the target is a crucial part of the BB/GFB spells. It can't hit, so the spell fails.

[RSP]

This is definitely not RAW, but just an attempt to twist the definition of an illusion. An illusion is not corporeal. PHB p203 explains that illusions are images/sounds/memories that deceive the senses, but are still phantoms. They cannot affect the world because everything passes through it. Thinking that 'perfect' means it becomes corporeal is an absurd interpretation, because nowhere does it say that it does. Check the 14th level ability of the Illusion Wizard - it allows them to make 1 illusion real enough to interact with, but it still can't damage or harm anyone. That's the only illusion that can gain some form of corporealness, and only because the ability explicitly states that it can.


RAW, Invoke Duplicity is “a perfect illusion.” That’s the definition we get. Saying that’s not RAW, is incorrect.

Saying interpretations of that “is definitely not RAW”, is also incorrect, if those interpretations do not otherwise violate RAW.

Mirage Arcana allows for solids to effectively become liquids, liquids become solids, illusory structures to have substance, etc. So we can safely say illusions are capable of such.

Illusory Dragon states “The illusion lasts for the spell’s duration and occupies its space, as if it were a creature.” So we can safely say an illusion can occupy a space, just like creatures can, meaning it can’t be passed through by enemies, but could be shoved.

Further, the Illusory Dragon can create real fire, cold, acid, poison, lightning: “At any point during its movement, you can cause it to exhale a blast of energy in a 60-foot cone originating from its space. When you create the dragon, choose a damage type: acid, cold, fire, lightning, necrotic, or poison. Each creature in the cone must make an Intelligence saving throw, taking '7d6 damage of the chosen damage type on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.”

Note: not psychic damage, but real damage from the chosen energy type; so real fire, real acid, whatever.

Shadow Blade creates a real weapon. Note, this weapon can be used to parry and block other weapons, such as with the Defensive Duelist Feat. So the illusion is solid. Also, it’s a weapon that can make attacks and cause damage.

So if illusions are capable of having mass, occupying space, being weapons, making attacks, causing damage; why wouldn’t “a perfect illusion” be capable of such?

Put another way, any illusion incapable of doing what other illusions can clearly do would be, by definition, imperfect.

So, you’re stating Invoke Duplicity is creating an imperfect illusion, but the RAW clearly states Invoke Duplicity creates “a perfect illusion.” So, in this sense, you’re actually the one that would be going against RAW.

[BarneyBent]

The attack is made at the caster's location with actual weapon, and Invoke Duplicity does nothing, because it only affects spells, not weapon attacks. If the target isn't in the weapon's reach, the cantrip will fail, per its description.

In the game world, it would look like the caster swinging their weapon at empty air, looking like a fool in the process. Gandalf and Saruman used telekinesis to throw each other around, the staves served as foci, their weren't hitting each other with them from 20' away.

The weapon attack is part of the spell. Therefore, Invoke Duplicity affects it. It is really that simple.

[JackPhoenix]

The weapon attack is part of the spell. Therefore, Invoke Duplicity affects it. It is really that simple.

Indeed, it's simple. Invoke Duplicity allows you to make weapon attack against a target within 5' of the duplicate, rather than within 5' of yourself, as part of the action used to cast the spell. However, if that target is outside the reach of the weapon, which is located at your actual position, you can't make the attack, and the spell will fail.

[BarneyBent]

Indeed, it's simple. Invoke Duplicity allows you to make weapon attack against a target within 5' of the duplicate, rather than within 5' of yourself, as part of the action used to cast the spell. However, if that target is outside the reach of the weapon, which is located at your actual position, you can't make the attack, and the spell will fail.

Your reach is determined by your position. And for the purposes of casting the spell, which includes making the melee attack, your position is the duplicate’s. Therefore, your reach is 5ft from the duplicate’s position.

[Tanarii]

The weapon attack is part of the spell.Reread the spell. This is explicitly a false statement, per the text of the spell. It's a requirement of the spell, which fails without it. It's part of the same action as casting the spell. It is not part of the spell.

This is an important fact, upon which a lot of understanding what the two SCAG cantrips do and do not do rests, how they generally work and interact with the rules. Not just the scenario brought up in this thread.

[Chronos]

Shocking Grasp is fine. The normal effect of that spell is that it creates electrical energy at your hand, which you then transfer to the target by hitting it with your hand. Cast it through a duplicate, and it works the same way: It creates electrical energy at the duplicate's illusion of a hand, which you then transfer to the target by hitting it with the duplicate's illusion of a hand. The spell does what it ordinarily does; it just does it in a different place.

But Green Flame Blade can't do what it normally does. Normally, it creates fire around a weapon, and then transfers that fire to a target by using that weapon to poke holes into the target, or smashing the target's skull, or whatever the weapon ordinarily does. The duplicate could still create fire at the location of the illusion of its weapon, but it can't deliver it, because its illusion of a weapon is not capable of poking holes or smashing bones.

[Maelynn]

RAW, Invoke Duplicity is “a perfect illusion.” That’s the definition we get. Saying that’s not RAW, is incorrect.

Saying interpretations of that “is definitely not RAW”, is also incorrect, if those interpretations do not otherwise violate RAW.

Mirage Arcana allows for solids to effectively become liquids, liquids become solids, illusory structures to have substance, etc. So we can safely say illusions are capable of such.

Illusory Dragon states “The illusion lasts for the spell’s duration and occupies its space, as if it were a creature.” So we can safely say an illusion can occupy a space, just like creatures can, meaning it can’t be passed through by enemies, but could be shoved.

Further, the Illusory Dragon can create real fire, cold, acid, poison, lightning: “At any point during its movement, you can cause it to exhale a blast of energy in a 60-foot cone originating from its space. When you create the dragon, choose a damage type: acid, cold, fire, lightning, necrotic, or poison. Each creature in the cone must make an Intelligence saving throw, taking '7d6 damage of the chosen damage type on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.”

Note: not psychic damage, but real damage from the chosen energy type; so real fire, real acid, whatever.

Shadow Blade creates a real weapon. Note, this weapon can be used to parry and block other weapons, such as with the Defensive Duelist Feat. So the illusion is solid. Also, it’s a weapon that can make attacks and cause damage.

So if illusions are capable of having mass, occupying space, being weapons, making attacks, causing damage; why wouldn’t “a perfect illusion” be capable of such?

Put another way, any illusion incapable of doing what other illusions can clearly do would be, by definition, imperfect.

So, you’re stating Invoke Duplicity is creating an imperfect illusion, but the RAW clearly states Invoke Duplicity creates “a perfect illusion.” So, in this sense, you’re actually the one that would be going against RAW.

Oh my, you're not even twisting the interpretation of RAW, you're now even twisting my words. This is becoming a chain of stubborn arguments with an increased use of fallacies, and I'm getting tired of them.

I never said the words a 'perfect illusion' aren't RAW. That is literally what it says in the ability's description. Don't put words in my mouth. It's your interpretation of 'perfect' and the making up of things that an illusion can or can't do by default what I commented on. A normal illusion is purely sensory. That means that it only affects the senses, but it not corporeal in any way that it can become solid enough to interact with something, such as being able to hit a target with an illusory weapon. It's still just an illusion.

Mirage Arcane does indeed state that the illusion has certain properties that allow it to affect creatures. You know why? Because it says so in the spell's description.

Illusory Dragon does indeed state that the illusion has certain properties that allow it to affect creatures. You know why? Because it says so in the spell's description.

Invoke Duplicity doesn't allow an illusion becoming anything more than a perfectly executed sensory effect, because the description doesn't say so. And using the fallacy 'well, it doesn't say it doesn't, either' is not only childish reasoning but also not the way D&D rules work. In the absence of rules for a specific situation, you refer to the basic ones in place: I refer back to page 203 in the PHB to learn what the basic nature of illusion spells is. Anything deviating from that ought to be in the description, the same way it's done with Mirage Arcane and Illusory Dragon.

[RSP]

Oh my, you're not even twisting the interpretation of RAW, you're now even twisting my words. This is becoming a chain of stubborn arguments with an increased use of fallacies, and I'm getting tired of them.

I never said the words a 'perfect illusion' aren't RAW. That is literally what it says in the ability's description. Don't put words in my mouth. It's your interpretation of 'perfect' and the making up of things that an illusion can or can't do by default what I commented on. A normal illusion is purely sensory. That means that it only affects the senses, but it not corporeal in any way that it can become solid enough to interact with something, such as being able to hit a target with an illusory weapon. It's still just an illusion.

If illusions aren’t capable of being corporeal in any way, how does Illusory Dragon actually take up space as a creature? How does the illusion created by Mirage Arcana actually change the land?



Mirage Arcane does indeed state that the illusion has certain properties that allow it to affect creatures. You know why? Because it says so in the spell's description.

And Invoke Duplicity states it’s “a perfect illusion.” You’ve decided to interpret that as “not as good as other illusions.” To me, that doesn’t jive with what perfect means. In my opinion, you’re interpretation is actually a violation of RAW, because a “something” can’t be better than a “perfect something”.



Illusory Dragon does indeed state that the illusion has certain properties that allow it to affect creatures. You know why? Because it says so in the spell's description.

Again, if an illusion is capable of doing X, then a perfect illusion should be capable of doing X. Otherwise, it’s less than a perfect illusion.



Invoke Duplicity doesn't allow an illusion becoming anything more than a perfectly executed sensory effect, because the description doesn't say so.

Again, incorrect. The description says it’s a perfect illusion, which means, by definition, it’s at least as good as non-perfect illusions.



And using the fallacy 'well, it doesn't say it doesn't, either' is not only childish reasoning but also not the way D&D rules work.

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying it states it’s perfect, which has a meaning that you’ve decided to ignore.



In the absence of rules for a specific situation, you refer to the basic ones in place: I refer back to page 203 in the PHB to learn what the basic nature of illusion spells is. Anything deviating from that ought to be in the description, the same way it's done with Mirage Arcane and Illusory Dragon.

We have the rules.

You’ve decided the illusion created by Mirage Arcana is better than a perfect illusion, which is something that doesn’t exist.

You’ve decided the illusion created by Illusory Dragon is better than a perfect illusion, which doesn’t exist.

You’ve decided to ignore what “perfect” means, which is well within your right; just don’t call ignoring the rules as being RAW.

RAW states it’s a perfect illusion: applying less than that to the ability is to ignore the RAW.

[TheUser]

Lol I leave this thread for a few days and it devolves into what "a perfect illusion" means. BTW it means you can't use investigate to determine it's an illusion.

Guys, for all intents and purposes, illusions don't manifest tactile or physical resistance unless explicitly stated.

There's a legal maxim for rules interpretation that we can use. Essentially, when something is explicitly described as part of a rule, it is excluded from other rules unless specified.

This means that if a spell or description chooses to make mention of things like "the creature is aware they have been charmed when the effect wears off" or "The illusion includes audible, visual, tactile, and olfactory elements..."(Mirage Arcane) then instances where this is -not- present would mean that it doesn't include these qualities.

A "perfect" illusion does not beget tactile functions, nor does it beget the ability to make weapon attacks. It is an expression of the indiscernable nature of the illusion; you can't tell it's fake from looking at it.

Since Invoke Duplicity does not allow you to use the illusion to make weapon attacks the requirements of booming blade and GFB are not met and the spell fails. You can still technically cast it; the casting just fails because you don't meet the requirements thay the spell lays out.

[JackPhoenix]

Again, if an illusion is capable of doing X, then a perfect illusion should be capable of doing X. Otherwise, it’s less than a perfect illusion.

Then Invoke Duplicity isn't a perfect illusion, because it can't do things other illusions can, namely, act on its own. Or at all. All it can do is to stand in place and serve as a distraction. It can't attack or take any action, it can't prevent someone from moving through it, as it doesn't actually occupy its space.


Again, incorrect. The description says it’s a perfect illusion, which means, by definition, it’s at least as good as non-perfect illusions.

Where's that definition? Not anywhere in the rules. It could mean it simply can't be recognized as illusion even on detailed examination, though obviously it would be discernible through things it can't do.


That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying it states it’s perfect, which has a meaning that you’ve decided to ignore.

So, where's "perfect" defined in the rules? After all, as you say...


We have the rules.

.... despite those rules being absent from the books.

[RSP]

Then Invoke Duplicity isn't a perfect illusion, because it can't do things other illusions can, namely, act on its own. Or at all. All it can do is to stand in place and serve as a distraction. It can't attack or take any action, it can't prevent someone from moving through it, as it doesn't actually occupy its space.

And yet, the RAW does indeed state it creates “a perfect illusion.” So whereas JackPhoenix may rule it creates something else, the RAW states it creates a perfect illusion.



Where's that definition? Not anywhere in the rules. It could mean it simply can't be recognized as illusion even on detailed examination, though obviously it would be discernible through things it can't do.

If you want Google’s dictionary definition, here it is:

“having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.”

So, literally, Invoke Duplicity creates a good an illusion as can possibly be made. Therefore, It cannot be that Illusory Dragon creates a better, more realistic illusion.



So, where's "perfect" defined in the rules? After all, as you say...

I’m assuming you understand common English and that words have meaning. If this is an incorrect assumption on my part, I can go into greater detail; but, basically, if not given a specific game definition, the words in the RAW retain their common dictionary definition.

In this case, since the RAW does not give “perfect” a definition exclusive to the rules of 5e, it uses the common dictionary definition of “perfect.” I’ve already quoted this definition above for you.




.... despite those rules being absent from the books.

They are, indeed, contained in said rules, as I’ve quoted a number of times already, though, as I’ve said, feel free to ignore the RAW (just realize what you’re playing then is not RAW).

[RSP]

BTW it means you can't use investigate to determine it's an illusion.

And yet, that’s not a definition for perfect that is stated anywhere; whereas my posts cite actual definitions of “perfect.”

I’m not questioning how you should play it; but to state the RAW says “perfect” means “you can’t use investigate to determine its an illusion,” is not based on fact.

[TheUser]

And yet, that’s not a definition for perfect that is stated anywhere; whereas my posts cite actual definitions of “perfect.”

I’m not questioning how you should play it; but to state the RAW says “perfect” means “you can’t use investigate to determine its an illusion,” is not based on fact.

The difference being that the way you have interpreted the use of the word "perfect" does not fit with the rules surrounding the feature and mine does.

The part where it says that the illusion can't be maintained beyond 120ft of the cleric would seem to indicate it has limitations and is therefore no longer perfect in its capabilities...

And yet the feature explicitly denotes the illusion can cast spells despite using the word "perfect" but doesn't state it can attack....and doesn't describe an investigation check to discern it as an illusion.

It's almost like the word "perfect" is distinctly arbitrary in this sense but thanks to other illusion spells with clear limitations we can see what the word "perfect" means under this context. Normally, illusions have imperfections which can be spotted with a high enough investigation check.

I understand that evaluating context isn't always this forum's strong suit but let's flex those brain muscles a bit more shall we?

[RSP]

The difference being that the way you have interpreted the use of the word "perfect" does not fit with the rules surrounding the feature and mine does.

No. The difference is my “interpretation” is based on the meaning of the word, whereas your “interpretation” has nothing to do with the meaning of the word.

Making up your own meanings for words to try and change what the RAW says, is not really a thing.



The part where it says that the illusion can't be maintained beyond 120ft of the cleric would seem to indicate it has limitations and is therefore no longer perfect in its capabilities...

It would mean it’s an ability that allows you to create a perfect illusion within 120’ of the Cleric.



And yet the feature explicitly denotes the illusion can cast spells despite using the word "perfect" but doesn't state it can attack....and doesn't describe an investigation check to discern it as an illusion.

And yet the feature explicitly denotes the illusion is perfect.



It's almost like the word "perfect" is distinctly arbitrary in this sense but thanks to other illusion spells with clear limitations we can see what the word "perfect" means under this context. Normally, illusions have imperfections which can be spotted with a high enough investigation check.

It’s like the word “perfect” is distinctly not arbitrary in this sense, but, in fact, has a definition with a purpose. Normally, illusions have imperfections in how real they seem; whereas this has none, including how real the objects it’s appearing to hold feel when they hit something.



I understand that evaluating context isn't always this forum's strong suit but let's flex those brain muscles a bit more shall we?

I understanding reading a word and applying it’s definition isnt always this forum’s strong suit, but let’s flex those brain muscles a bit more, shall we?

Or, just make up definitions for whatever words go against what you want the RAW to say, that way everything you want the RAW to say, is RAW! Well done!!! Please create a thread telling us all the words you’ve decided to re-define, and how the new RAW reads.

[JackPhoenix]

And yet, the RAW does indeed state it creates “a perfect illusion.” So whereas JackPhoenix may rule it creates something else, the RAW states it creates a perfect illusion.

Sure. And the rules make it abundantly clear that their definition of "perfect illusion" is different from your definition.


If you want Google’s dictionary definition, here it is:

“having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.”

So, literally, Invoke Duplicity creates a good an illusion as can possibly be made. Therefore, It cannot be that Illusory Dragon creates a better, more realistic illusion.

Why not? Illusory Dragon simply has different "required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics" than Invoke Duplicity, despite both being illusions. They have different purposes, and thus different ways to be "good as it is possible to be" at fulfilling those purposes. Perfect racing car would be very different from perfect cargo truck, even though both are vehicles.


I’m assuming you understand common English and that words have meaning. If this is an incorrect assumption on my part, I can go into greater detail; but, basically, if not given a specific game definition, the words in the RAW retain their common dictionary definition.

I, however, have been given reasons to doubt your own understanding, considering your failure to realize how the definition you've quoted undermines your own argument. But considering you're contradicting yourself in the next two quotes....


In this case, since the RAW does not give “perfect” a definition exclusive to the rules of 5e, it uses the common dictionary definition of “perfect.” I’ve already quoted this definition above for you.

They are, indeed, contained in said rules, as I’ve quoted a number of times already, though, as I’ve said, feel free to ignore the RAW (just realize what you’re playing then is not RAW).

They literally aren't. Given your need to use google's definition of "perfect" due to absence of RAW definition, there's no RAW to ignore.

[TheUser]

So what part the definition of perfect allows a "perfect illusion" to make attacks?


Furthermore, if the full capabilities are so clearly indicative of the definition of "perfect" why go through the trouble of ascribing spells as being castable from the illusion's location?


P.S. my interpretation of the use of word "perfect" fits perfectly in this context because the illusion lacks "imperfections" which other illusions discernable with investigation checks would have.

[RSP]

Sure. And the rules make it abundantly clear that their definition of "perfect illusion" is different from your definition.

Please cite where this is stated in the rules.



Why not? Illusory Dragon simply has different "required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics" than Invoke Duplicity, despite both being illusions. They have different purposes, and thus different ways to be "good as it is possible to be" at fulfilling those purposes. Perfect racing car would be very different from perfect cargo truck, even though both are vehicles.

I think you’ve misunderstood. The two spells indeed have different qualities and elements, however, I’m not comparing them in that way.

We’re discussing illusions as a whole. Invoke Duplicity creates “a perfect illusion”, therefore it’s as good as is possible an illusion, which means there cannot possibly be better illusions in 5e, than the illusion created by ID. Therefore, we must find out how good an illusion can be to know the floor of what a perfect illusion would be.



I, however, have been given reasons to doubt your own understanding, considering your failure to realize how the definition you've quoted undermines your own argument. But considering you're contradicting yourself in the next two quotes....

They literally aren't. Given your need to use google's definition of "perfect" due to absence of RAW definition, there's no RAW to ignore.

I think you’re having trouble understanding how English is used in the rules of 5e. Every word written maintains its English definition unless specifically given a different meaning in the rules of 5e.

So, as “perfect” is not given any special definition within the 5e rules, it retains its English definition when used. Therefore, when you see “perfect” used in the rules of 5e, such as in the description of the Invoke Duplicity ability, you can go off the definition found in a reliable dictionary.

Contrary to your belief, this in no way “invalidates” the facts in what I’ve posted (quite the opposite in fact), so I think you’ll need to go in to greater detail on why you think this has occurred, in order for me to help figure out where you erred.

[BarneyBent]

Reread the spell. This is explicitly a false statement, per the text of the spell. It's a requirement of the spell, which fails without it. It's part of the same action as casting the spell. It is not part of the spell.

This is an important fact, upon which a lot of understanding what the two SCAG cantrips do and do not do rests, how they generally work and interact with the rules. Not just the scenario brought up in this thread.

I have read the spell, and I have addressed this.

Firstly, spell failure in the PHB (I’ve quoted it earlier in the thread) refers to a spell failing to be cast - not a spell being cast and then being not used. If making the melee attack is required to successfully cast the spell, then how can you say it’s not part of casting the spell?

Secondly, when you cast a spell with an action, what you are doing is choosing to take the Cast A Spell action to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action. That’s how actions and spellcasting works. You don’t have an action that you spend casting the spell, your action IS THE ACTION OF CASTING THE SPELL.

Therefore, when the spell description says “as part of the action you used to cast the spell”, it means as part of the Cast A Spell action. That “1 action” casting time incorporates the melee attack. That wording explicitly INCLUDES the attack in the casting of the spell.

I get that it’s confusing, but it makes sense when you stop thinking of actions as a subset of your turn you get to spend doing things, and more as a list of things you can do on your turn.

And to confirm that this is indeed the intended interpretation, the official Sage Advice I quoted makes it crystal clear.

In summary - your action is the Cast A Spell action. That action explicitly includes the melee attack. Therefore, the melee attack is explicitly part of the Cast A Spell action. If you fail to make a melee attack, you fail to cast the spell. Therefore, by any reasonable logic, the melee attack is part of casting the spell.

Separately, the ongoing discussion of the definition of a perfect illusion is a complete and utter distraction, it’s entirely irrelevant to the topic. The only thing you use the duplicate for is its position. Your duplicate could be substituted with a flag you telekinetically place in spot. It could be a dog, a coin, a statue, anything. The duplicate does nothing. You just get to use its space while you cast the spell.

[JackPhoenix]

Please cite where this is stated in the rules.

Wait, you expect the rules to say where they differ from your personal and faulty interpretation?


I think you’ve misunderstood. The two spells indeed have different qualities and elements, however, I’m not comparing them in that way.

We’re discussing illusions as a whole. Invoke Duplicity creates “a perfect illusion”, therefore it’s as good as is possible an illusion, which means there cannot possibly be better illusions in 5e, than the illusion created by ID. Therefore, we must find out how good an illusion can be to know the floor of what a perfect illusion would be.

No, we're discussing one specific ability. We already know there are illusions with different purposes that do different things better than Invoke Duplicity: Simulacrum is an illusion that creates a copy of a creature, making it similar to Invoke Duplicity, but unlike it, it can act on its own, including attacking, casting spells, and it's actual creature with all that implies. Invoke Duplicity can do none of those things, which means it's either not "perfect illusion", as there are illusions that can do better in some respects, "perfect illusion" in ID's description refers to it being perfect illusion for its specific purpose, or, as you seem to think, ID being described as "perfect illusion" means it should be able to do things that aren't explicitly mentioned in its description. Guess which option fits RAW and is actually reasonable given the rest of the rules, and which is not.


I think you’re having trouble understanding how English is used in the rules of 5e. Every word written maintains its English definition unless specifically given a different meaning in the rules of 5e.

So, as “perfect” is not given any special definition within the 5e rules, it retains its English definition when used. Therefore, when you see “perfect” used in the rules of 5e, such as in the description of the Invoke Duplicity ability, you can go off the definition found in a reliable dictionary.

Ah, so basically, taking words out of context to support your arguments, while ignoring the remain. {Scrubbed}


Contrary to your belief, this in no way “invalidates” the facts in what I’ve posted (quite the opposite in fact), so I think you’ll need to go in to greater detail on why you think this has occurred, in order for me to help figure out where you erred.

{Scrubbed}

[RSP]

So what part the definition of perfect allows a "perfect illusion" to make attacks?

I don’t know that they can. Earlier I responded to a statement saying “The illusion is merely an image and can't attack,” by saying the statement wasn’t necessarily true. Unfortunately, the RAW doesn’t inform us on what abilities a perfect illusion has; we just know it’s floor by understanding what other illusions are capable of. RAW, I think it’s safe to say a perfect illusion would unerringly fool all five senses, so it would have to have some kind of substance (look at Illusory Dragon) to be able to fool anything it physically contacts.

At first glance, I’d probably say generally only creatures can make attacks, and an illusion of a creature is not a creature. A Simulacrum can Attack, though, so there’s that.

A Simulacrum is also specifically stated as being an “illusion”, and also stated as being a “creature”, so it may be exceptional in that it’s the “creature” aspect that allows it to have its own actions, not the illusion aspect.

Though, again, looking at existing illusions only tells us the floor of what a perfect illusion can do.



Furthermore, if the full capabilities are so clearly indicative of the definition of "perfect" why go through the trouble of ascribing spells as being castable from the illusion's location?


I don’t think you’re understanding what I’ve written. Illusions, generally speaking, cannot cast spells or take independent action (or Actions). Simulacrum, however, is stated as an illusion, but again, it could be uniquely considered as both a creature and an illusion which may exempt it from consideration as to what something solely an illusion can do.



P.S. my interpretation of the use of word "perfect" fits perfectly in this context because the illusion lacks "imperfections" which other illusions discernable with investigation checks would have.

No, it doesn’t. Illusions in 5e don’t default to being decernable via Investigation checks, RAW. It’s only illusions that specifically state that, that fall into that category.

Mislead, for example, doesn’t have that clause in its description, therefore, you’d have to have a DM houserule it in to have it work that way. Likewise, you can’t disbelieve Illusions created by Weird, Illusory Script, Mirror Image, Phantasmal Killer, Mirage Arcana and Simulacrum, going by RAW. Each of those spells state they create an illusion of some kind, yet don’t have the Investigation clause.

So your “interpretation” is faulty in that said statement isn’t needed at all because the default on illusions, in 5e RAW, is that you cannot notice them with an Investigation check. The only way an Investigation check can determine if something is an illusion is if the description of the ability or spell specifically states it, RAW. (note: your “interpretation” is also faulty in that its not the definition of “perfect”, but I’ve already covered that.)

Or are you proposing that an Investigation check counters all the above listed spells? That would certainly diminish the value of most of those spells.

[RSP]

Wait, you expect the rules to say where they differ from your personal and faulty interpretation?

Nope. I simply asked you to cite where “the rules make it abundantly clear that their definition of "perfect illusion" is different from your definition.”

In all fairness, though, I knew when I wrote the request that such citation was impossible, as, the RAW no where states what you think it does.



No, we're discussing one specific ability.

I guess you’re not really following the discussion: we are indeed speaking of illusions in general, in order to find out, as best we can, what a perfect illusion would entail. Hence why you mentioned Simulacrum, though apparently you’re not going to admit this is what we’re discussing for some reason.



Simulacrum is an illusion that creates a copy of a creature, making it similar to Invoke Duplicity, but unlike it, it can act on its own, including attacking, casting spells, and it's actual creature with all that implies.

False: Simulacrum actually states it creates a creature:

“You shape an illusory duplicate of one beast or humanoid that is within range for the entire casting time of the spell. The duplicate is a creature, partially real and formed from ice or snow, and it can take actions and otherwise be affected as a normal creature.”

As it is both an illusion and a creature, it’s unknown which of its abilities are from it being an illusion.

As you disregarded that Simulacrum is both a creature and an illusion, the rest of your analysis in regard to it and Invoke Duplicity is faulty, and moot for what we’re discussing.



Ah, so basically, taking words out of context to support your arguments, while ignoring the remain. Thanks for the reminder...[QUOTE]

Not sure what you think was taken out of context. Or what “ignoring the remain” means.

[QUOTE=JackPhoenix;24043802]
{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

You’re talking to someone who, among other things, knows the definition of the word “perfect.”