Let's discuss Minor Illusion.

[Segev]

Not to try to retread old ground; you can find many lengthy arguments over some specifics like whether the image is a real, light-reflecting thing or is a projection that has the same brightness or is a textured and bump-mapped matte thing or... any number of things. That's not what I want to discuss here, though.

This discussion is around just how much motion you can get from it, and how much leeway "an object" really gets you. Let's start by specifying that it can only be an object. I believe we all agree on this (and those who don't can go look at the spell (http://5e.d20srd.org/srd/spells/minorIllusion.htm) to see it in the text), but there's some question surrounding just what that object can do/be doing.

I think everyone would be fine with a gnome illusionist using minor illusion to make a statue of himself. Life-like in coloration and apparent textures, or an obvious stone (and stone-gray) carving - either should be fine. But, if he does the life-like version, just how life-like are we talking? Can it be, essentially, that the "object" is a "corpse" that happens to be standing? Or does it HAVE to be some sort of underlying wooden, plastic, metal, stone, or cloth sculpture that is meticulously "painted?"

It also says "an object." Could it be a statue wearing clothes, or would the clothes have to be part of the statue to count? Does "a painted wooden carving" work, or is "paint" a separate object?

Personally, I would expect that clothing would not count because objects generally don't wear clothes; creatures do, and thus silent image can make clothing and other objects carried by the creature it's imaging up, but minor illusion likely can't. Then again, I wouldn't balk too hard at somebody making a display manniquin that is wearing an outfit. Partially because claiming the outfit is part of the manniquin is ... not a hard stretch to make.

If our gnome illusionist wanted to put his (obviously) stone statue on a stone pedestal that was as tall as the statue, it is easily one object if the statue's feet are attached to the pedestal by virtue of the statue and pedestal being carved from the same original stone. If he wanted to put it on a wooden table, one might object that that's two separate objects...but one wouldn't object that a table is five objects just because the legs weren't carved of a piece along with the platform. So does making the statue "glued" or "nailed" to the table make them one object? There's little difference, after all, between the two when it's just an image and the attachment can happen at points not visible. And untestable when you can't actually handle the image to move it around and try to pull pieces apart.

What about the object's obedience to the laws of physics? Are images of objects required to act like objects? Are they even able to? If our gnome makes the "corpse of himself" that is so fresh it still looks alive, does it collapse because it's unable to support itself without muscular action (being dead and all)? Or does it stand there because that's how he set it up? What if he makes an image of a sword balanced on its point? Does it fall over, or stand on-point, motionless? Can he make the image of the sword hover in the air?

I suspect that most people visualize images - even of inanimate objects - staying more or less in place (especially if the illusionist doesn't want them doing anything else). The corpse-object (assuming the DM let you get away with that) stays in whatever pose the gnome put it. The sword hovers or balances on point. The corpse's hair doesn't blow in the breeze...or does it?

That brings us to the big question to examine: can the image of an object move? I'll start by saying that it can't leave the initial 5 ft. cube it was cast in; other spells specify that their images can, and minor illusion does not. But what about within its space? And, if any, just how much?

If you've got the "corpse" image, can its hair move in a phantom breeze, or in the real breeze to the best of the illusionist's imagination? Can a shrub's leaves jostle and shake (either, again, in the wind, or as if there's a creature inside)?

Can an image of a book's pages turn, revealing new pages, or must the illusionist re-cast the spell to make new pages visible? Can the illusionist rotate a 3D model of a tower he and his friends are using to plan an assault? Can he cause sections of the tower to separate to let them look inside, or at different floors? If he creates an image of a ball, can he have that image appear in the air and then drop to the ground? If he's creating that image of a statue of himself, can he have the statue appear to rise up out of the ground, or must it simply pop into being right where it's going to be for the duration of the spell?

Heck, how much control does he have over its method of appearance? Can it fade into existence over a couple of seconds? Can it appear to come into being as if light were washing over it to reveal it from shadow? Could it shake off dust as it shivers into being from the wall behind it, or appear in a cloud of dust as if exploding into being (so long as said cloud of dust didn't remain for even the duration of the turn it was created on)? How much cosmetic control does the illusionist have?

If he makes an illusion of a toy carriage, can it drive around in circles to delight little kids? Can the wheels turn? The doors be made to open? If the toy carriage has attached toy horses with articulated joints, can those be made to move? Or could a toy horse on its own have articulated joints that move? What about a toy soldier? Or an image of a cloth-knit doll? Can the doll's limbs bend realistically? Could it be made to wave?

Is a goblet of wine a valid image of an object at all? If so, can the wine ripple fluidly? Could the goblet be caused to spill, and the wine pour out? Could the goblet be created "spilled" and the wine splash out at moment of creation, to spread for however long such fluids spread? Can a glass of water shatter?

Obvously, you'd need Illusionist level two for this, but if you had it, could you make an illusion of a bell and have it shake while making the illusory sound of it ringing? Or are you restricted to a static, stationary bell and the ringing sound hopefully drawing people's attention to it rather than them noticing it didn't move?

How much drama is the image allowed? How much movement and change? Obviously, it can't turn from one object into another without recasting the spell, but can it morph and move as an object might, albeit potentially under invisible forces?

[Demonslayer666]

I have always pictured an image as static, not an animated gif.

[Pex]

The DMs I play with allow you to use the spell to create a small image of a person or creature as a means of description, like a police sketch artist. It's small, fits in the palm of your hand, but it's a "creature". You could just as easily have a painting of the creature if one must be technical that it must be an object, and I'm not really arguing against that context, but the harmless intent is there. It's meant as communication, not trickery.

[Segev]

The DMs I play with allow you to use the spell to create a small image of a person or creature as a means of description, like a police sketch artist. It's small, fits in the palm of your hand, but it's a "creature". You could just as easily have a painting of the creature if one must be technical that it must be an object, and I'm not really arguing against that context, but the harmless intent is there. It's meant as communication, not trickery.

That small, I think you can do it with prestidigitation (http://5e.d20srd.org/srd/spells/prestidigitation.htm), too.


You create a nonmagical trinket or an illusory image that can fit in your hand and that lasts until the end of your next turn.

[JoeJ]

I'd say a minor illusion of a fully dressed statue on a table is still one object because you can't separate it; it's just one illusion that doesn't come apart. The spell description doesn't forbid minor movement like you describe, but it doesn't specifically support it either. I'd allow it as a cool special effect as long as the player doesn't go crazy - a flickering (but still silent and cold) fire is fine, a wizard casting a spell is too much.

I'll also note that a lot of spells - including this one - will give you problems if you over-think them.

[EggKookoo]

If I use minor illusion to make a clock, is it running? Does the pendulum swing?

What if I make one of an hourglass? Does the sand fall?

Does a candle count as an object? Does the flame flicker?

I would argue yes to all three, since there's nothing in minor illusion's text that says the object can't move, but there are other restrictions, and it would have been a simple addition to include it. I also tend to agree with the limit that whatever motion you impart must stay within the initial 5-foot cube.

Regarding other things, like: does an illusory flame light up real objects near it? This is a larger issue with illusions in general. I see magical illusions in D&D as being partly mental. There's a purely optical effect -- a kind of weak, semi-transparent hologram-y thing. But then part of the magic is that the viewer's mind is affected, and they see a lot of the fuller environmental effects. But it's a form of hallucination and isn't necessarily delivering real-world information to the viewer's brain in a mechanically-significant way. When the illusion is perceived to be such, this extra mind-only effect disappears, and the illusion reverts to its flat, faint, semi-transparent form.

So for example, if you're in a dark room (not pitch black but dark enough to provide obscurement), a creature 20 feet away is hard to see and you have disadvantage on an attack roll against it. If you were to light up a real torch, you could see the creature clearly and that penalty goes away. If someone lights up an illusory torch (and you don't know it's an illusion), you suddenly see the creature BUT NOT REALLY. You still have disadvantage on your attack roll because you only kind of sort of think you see it. Your eyes are lying to you, but in a weird way that is hard to detect. Once you perceive the torch to be an illusion, you no longer see the creature lit up by its emitted light. Mechanically nothing changes.

Yeah, this is riddled with special-case holes but it's the beginning of an approach that can be used to help determine what happens with illusions. Which themselves are a mess. Sometimes you just have to go with what works at the time.

[col_impact]

How many objects is "muddy footprints"? At least two, right?

[Segev]

If I use minor illusion to make a clock, is it running? Does the pendulum swing?

What if I make one of an hourglass? Does the sand fall?

Does a candle count as an object? Does the flame flicker?

I would argue yes to all three, since there's nothing in minor illusion's text that says the object can't move, but there are other restrictions, and it would have been a simple addition to include it. I also tend to agree with the limit that whatever motion you impart must stay within the initial 5-foot cube.I'd personally be inclined to agree, though I might require an Intelligence check of some sort to get timing right on a clock or an hourglass. ...well, maybe not an hourglass; a minute of sand falling won't make much difference there. But a minute-glass would need an Int check to get the timing right. (Admittedly, "when it disappears" is a good time measure!)


Regarding other things, like: does an illusory flame light up real objects near it? This is a larger issue with illusions in general. I see magical illusions in D&D as being partly mental. There's a purely optical effect -- a kind of weak, semi-transparent hologram-y thing. But then part of the magic is that the viewer's mind is affected, and they see a lot of the fuller environmental effects. But it's a form of hallucination and isn't necessarily delivering real-world information to the viewer's brain in a mechanically-significant way. When the illusion is perceived to be such, this extra mind-only effect disappears, and the illusion reverts to its flat, faint, semi-transparent form.

So for example, if you're in a dark room (not pitch black but dark enough to provide obscurement), a creature 20 feet away is hard to see and you have disadvantage on an attack roll against it. If you were to light up a real torch, you could see the creature clearly and that penalty goes away. If someone lights up an illusory torch (and you don't know it's an illusion), you suddenly see the creature BUT NOT REALLY. You still have disadvantage on your attack roll because you only kind of sort of think you see it. Your eyes are lying to you, but in a weird way that is hard to detect. Once you perceive the torch to be an illusion, you no longer see the creature lit up by its emitted light. Mechanically nothing changes.

Yeah, this is riddled with special-case holes but it's the beginning of an approach that can be used to help determine what happens with illusions. Which themselves are a mess. Sometimes you just have to go with what works at the time.
Since pretty much all the spells that aren't expressly generating light (and I think all of those are Conjuration rather than Illusion) explicitly call out that they can't create light, I wouldn't even let the illusion fake-light-up the real creature. It might, depending on the spell, be able to create the illusion of a lit-up creature, but that's probably not going to match the real creature very well.

Minor illusion, I'd argue, being stuck as one object, could have the illusory light illuminate other parts of its own object. I'd even allow shadows to flicker as much as (and in proper time and position with) the flame, if appropriate.


But, that's semi-stationary "motion," overall. How do people feel about dramatic motion (wihtin the 5 foot space)? Not "a wizard casting a spell" (that'd obviously be a creature, and stretching any of the "but it's an objet that looks like a creature" things is pushing it too far, I think), but "the statue of the gnome rises up out of the ground," perhaps?

Could you have the motion happen at any point in the duration? Can you move a book around, turn its pages, etc., or make the image of the gnome statue appear in a later round?

[col_impact]

Ahem . . . Read the spell description again. How many objects is "muddy footprints"?

[Man_Over_Game]

I have always pictured an image as static, not an animated gif.


How many objects is "muddy footprints"? At least two, right?

That's kinda how I read it.

"Choose a 5x5 foot cube. Make a static image of one kind of thing of your choosing in that cube".

So you could have a bunch of hangman's nooses, or a pile of nails on the floor. It's debatable if you could do something like a broken window with shards of glass nearby, but I'd let it happen.

[EggKookoo]

I'd personally be inclined to agree, though I might require an Intelligence check of some sort to get timing right on a clock or an hourglass. ...well, maybe not an hourglass; a minute of sand falling won't make much difference there. But a minute-glass would need an Int check to get the timing right. (Admittedly, "when it disappears" is a good time measure!)

I'm all for that kind of thing. Stationary clock? Sure, just cast the spell. You want it to move with some level of precision? Either some kind of check to see if you get it right, or just advantage on checks made to perceive that it's an illusion. Either of which is well within conventional DM power to impose.

This gets into the larger problem of how an illusionist manages to even create these visual masterpieces in the first place. Does he get to say "make a beautiful woman?" Or does he have to specify every minor detail of her beauty? What if he has lousy fashion? Or non-standard tastes in beauty? How much does the spell just kind of get what the caster intended?


Since pretty much all the spells that aren't expressly generating light (and I think all of those are Conjuration rather than Illusion) explicitly call out that they can't create light, I wouldn't even let the illusion fake-light-up the real creature. It might, depending on the spell, be able to create the illusion of a lit-up creature, but that's probably not going to match the real creature very well.

Minor illusion, I'd argue, being stuck as one object, could have the illusory light illuminate other parts of its own object. I'd even allow shadows to flicker as much as (and in proper time and position with) the flame, if appropriate.

The issue with illusions not casting some kind of light on real-world surroundings (and the reverse) is that would immediately give away an illusion's true nature. Things only look the way they do because of the ambient lighting and so forth. A spoon on a table is pretty much nothing but a reflection of the table and the rest of the room. It sounds like I might be overthinking this but I promise you my players will attack it with that level of detail. Maybe it doesn't help that I play with a lot of art school nerds who are into how lighting works.


But, that's semi-stationary "motion," overall. How do people feel about dramatic motion (wihtin the 5 foot space)? Not "a wizard casting a spell" (that'd obviously be a creature, and stretching any of the "but it's an objet that looks like a creature" things is pushing it too far, I think), but "the statue of the gnome rises up out of the ground," perhaps?

Could you have the motion happen at any point in the duration? Can you move a book around, turn its pages, etc., or make the image of the gnome statue appear in a later round?

For the sake of minor image, I would say any kind of motion within the 5-foot cube is okay, but probably something the caster would need to set up at casting time. That is, some kind of repeating, looping effect (even if not a perfect repetition). So, a candle flickering in the breeze, or a clock pendulum swinging back and forth. But making the illusion do unique, incidental things is probably either beyond the power of the spell, or would essentially require a re-casting. I guess I would have to figure that out if it comes up.

[col_impact]

That's kinda how I read it.

"Choose a 5x5 foot cube. Make a static image of one kind of thing of your choosing in that cube".

So you could have a bunch of hangman's nooses, or a pile of nails on the floor. It's debatable if you could do something like a broken window with shards of glass nearby, but I'd let it happen.

So I have a statue of a centaur? How many objects?

So I have the same statue only this time it's presented as a man riding a horse, how many object?

How many objects is an Ettin, a pair of Siamese Twins, a single contiguous statue of lovers in an embrace?

How many objects is a single statue painted to look like 2 gnomes standing side by side?

https://www.ebay.com/p/2255477341

[Man_Over_Game]

The issue with illusions not casting some kind of light on real-world surroundings (and the reverse) is that would immediately give away an illusion's true nature. Things only look the way they do because of the ambient lighting and so forth. A spoon on a table is pretty much nothing but a reflection of the table and the rest of the room. It sounds like I might be overthinking this but I promise you my players will attack it with that level of detail. Maybe it doesn't help that I play with a lot of art school nerds who are into how lighting works.

I mean, isn't that what the contested Investigation check is representing? Someone looking for anything that comes off as odd?


So I have a statue of a centaur? How many objects?

So I have the same statue only this time it's presented as a man riding a horse, how many object?

How many objects is an Ettin, a pair of Siamese Twins, a single contiguous statue of lovers in an embrace?

Let's be real, here. These are the same guys that described "Doors" and "Windows" to be singular objects.

On another note, though: If you choose to make something weak, you are making the choice that it's better for your players to do something else.

I like Minor Illusion to be used to solve problems, so in my games, you affect a 5x5 cube. Objects inside have to be identical or directly related in nature (Can't have a door without doorknobs). Anything you create is basically just a static hologram (or it'd otherwise be as good as Silent Image).

Considering an illusionary object acts exactly the same as illusionary objects, or people, or whatever, I don't think there's supposed to be a deeper meaning into the word "Object" in the spell's description. Most of the other illusion spells don't care what you make. Sure, they mention "Phenomenon" and "Creature", but that's because those are distinctly different than "a solid, static thing".

[col_impact]

I mean, isn't that what the contested Investigation check is representing? Someone looking for anything that comes off as odd?



Let's be real, here. These are the same guys that described "Doors" and "Windows" to be singular objects.

On another note, though: If you choose to make something weak, you are making the choice that it's better for your players to do something else.

I like Minor Illusion to be used to solve problems, so in my games, you affect a 5x5 cube. Objects inside have to be identical or directly related in nature (Can't have a door without doorknobs). Anything you create is basically just a static hologram (or it'd otherwise be as good as Silent Image).

Considering an illusionary object acts exactly the same as illusionary objects, or people, or whatever, I don't think there's supposed to be a deeper meaning into the word "Object" in the spell's description. Most of the other illusion spells don't care what you make.

As an artist, I could easily make a single statue look like 4 gnomes.

So I am a 2nd level illusionist and I cast Minor Illusion to make a single statue presented as 2 gnomes making out. I then also generate a sound of them kissing and giggling. I then cast Shape Water to make it have ice statue substance (counters blindsight). I then cast Druidcraft to even make it smell like gnomes smell. I then cast Shape Water again to make opaque red water and animate their lips and tongues.

[Segev]

Ahem . . . Read the spell description again. How many objects is "muddy footprints"?Just one, if the actual image is of the splotch of mud, and it just happens to have footprints in it.


This gets into the larger problem of how an illusionist manages to even create these visual masterpieces in the first place. Does he get to say "make a beautiful woman?" Or does he have to specify every minor detail of her beauty? What if he has lousy fashion? Or non-standard tastes in beauty? How much does the spell just kind of get what the caster intended?Personally, I would assume that it's a bit of a mix. The illusionist has to have some idea of what he wants to see/hear, but not quite to the level of precise skill as a realist painter. It'd certainly help if he could - while fooling people with your illusions may just be set by your spell save DC, getting accurate representations of specific things, or catering to somebody's ideal of beauty, or otherwise doing "fine detail work" probably would call for an Intelligence check of its own, possibly backed by a Craft or a proficiency in some sort of appropriate artisan's tools.

One could argue, however, that the fact that the spell DC is int-based means that you're already accounting for the caster's artistic craftsmanship, and that's why the Investigation DC is set where it is.


The issue with illusions not casting some kind of light on real-world surroundings (and the reverse) is that would immediately give away an illusion's true nature. Things only look the way they do because of the ambient lighting and so forth. A spoon on a table is pretty much nothing but a reflection of the table and the rest of the room. It sounds like I might be overthinking this but I promise you my players will attack it with that level of detail. Maybe it doesn't help that I play with a lot of art school nerds who are into how lighting works.For me - and the extremely lengthy arguments I've had in other threads on this subject mean I have to be very careful to say "for me," because others will disagree - an image is a "real thing" that exists in the space it's created in, and it has all the visual properties of the real thing (to the extent of the magic and the caster's talents). Therefore, while it can't shed light on real things, it can reflect real light. It has to, for you to see it. The image of a spoon has the reflective properties of a real spoon; that's why you see a spoon when you look at it.

Likewise, I would rule, you can't see an image of a table in a dark room unless you have darkvision. In which case you see the table in black and white as if it were really a table and not just an image. Light a torch or a lamp or a candle, and the image of the table illuminates just like any other real object would. It casts shadows, even, like a real object would. (This does lead to some issues with people who've realized its illusory nature and see it as "faint." You have to answer the question about whether they can see light that would otherwise be blocked by it. Personally, I would say they can. The shadow, no matter how dark, also is illusory and faint. There arises further question about the shadow extending beyond the five foot region, but I just shrug and say it works anyway. That is definitely me ruling, though, and something you'd have to work out with your DM.)


For the sake of minor image, I would say any kind of motion within the 5-foot cube is okay, but probably something the caster would need to set up at casting time. That is, some kind of repeating, looping effect (even if not a perfect repetition). So, a candle flickering in the breeze, or a clock pendulum swinging back and forth. But making the illusion do unique, incidental things is probably either beyond the power of the spell, or would essentially require a re-casting. I guess I would have to figure that out if it comes up.

Seems reasonable to me. Also something that would make Malleable Illusions somewhat useful with minor illusion, where normally you'd recast it, you can instead just manipulate it with an action. Likely less jarring or likely to have a "frame-skip."

[Man_Over_Game]

As an artist, I could easily make a single statue look like 4 gnomes.

Sure, but you have an artist's mind. What's the best way of incorporating that mindset into rules for someone who's trying to pretend to think like an artist?

Removing those limitations helps them and doesn't hurt you. Heck, as far as I can tell, I'm just listening to one of the two interpretations that the book gives us. Who's to say which is wrong?

[Segev]

Sure, but you have an artist's mind. What's the best way of incorporating that mindset into rules for someone who's trying to pretend to think like an artist?

Removing those limitations helps them and doesn't hurt you. Heck, as far as I can tell, I'm just listening to one of the two interpretations that the book gives us. Who's to say which is wrong?

Honestly? The only drawback to making distinct objects into one object is the need to hvae them physically connected. It might be what lets somebody see through it on their Investigation check. Nothing even mechanical, here.

Heck, your muddy footprints illusion could even appear to have decided separations! The full splotch of mud is actually partially submerged into the tile floor, so it looks like somebody tracked mud in when the image is actually of a splotch of mud somebody walked through, but most of the splotch is hidden in the ground.

Of course, this only matters if the DM is being a stickler.

[col_impact]

Sure, but you have an artist's mind. What's the best way of incorporating that mindset into rules for someone who's trying to pretend to think like an artist?

Removing those limitations helps them and doesn't hurt you. Heck, as far as I can tell, I'm just listening to one of the two interpretations that the book gives us. Who's to say which is wrong?

Tell them they have one 5x5 glob of clay that cab wittled down and paintec however you like as long as its contiguous.

So four gnomes standing on a floor is one contiguous blob painted.

[col_impact]

Honestly? The only drawback to making distinct objects into one object is the need to hvae them physically connected. It might be what lets somebody see through it on their Investigation check. Nothing even mechanical, here.

Heck, your muddy footprints illusion could even appear to have decided separations! The full splotch of mud is actually partially submerged into the tile floor, so it looks like somebody tracked mud in when the image is actually of a splotch of mud somebody walked through, but most of the splotch is hidden in the ground.

Of course, this only matters if the DM is being a stickler.

Good point. That is actually exactly what you often do in visual effects.

I hide my Silent Images undeground when I don't want them to be seen.

So one contiguous statue of four gnomes standing on the floor, offset in Z to make them appear as 4 statues standing on the actual floor.

[Man_Over_Game]

Honestly? The only drawback to making distinct objects into one object is the need to hvae them physically connected. It might be what lets somebody see through it on their Investigation check. Nothing even mechanical, here.

Heck, your muddy footprints illusion could even appear to have decided separations! The full splotch of mud is actually partially submerged into the tile floor, so it looks like somebody tracked mud in when the image is actually of a splotch of mud somebody walked through, but most of the splotch is hidden in the ground.

Of course, this only matters if the DM is being a stickler.

But it doesn't say that, does it? Those are mechanics of the illusion that we decided, from trying to reverse-engineer the interpretations of a made-up illusion spell.

Yes, it's possible. However, the spell doesn't have much evidence saying that's how it needs to, or could, be done. Should a player realistically have to jump through that kind of hurdle to make the given example of footsteps?

It's the kind of thing that some player would come up with, as a clever way to tantrum into getting what they want. "I just teleported a rock 200 feet above the monster, so it clearly deals 200 feet worth of fall damage". "I just connected my four pikes with a barely-perceivable piece of string, so clearly they're still a single object".

[Segev]

But it doesn't say that, does it? Those are mechanics of the illusion that we decided, from trying to reverse-engineer the interpretations of a made-up illusion spell.

Yes, it's possible. However, the spell doesn't have much evidence saying that's how it needs to, or could, be done. Should a player realistically have to jump through that kind of hurdle to make the given example of footsteps?

It's the kind of thing that some player would come up with, as a clever way to tantrum into getting what they want. "I just teleported a rock 200 feet above the monster, so it clearly deals 200 feet worth of fall damage". "I just connected my four pikes with a barely-perceivable piece of string, so clearly they're still a single object".

I suspect that most players and DMs who aren't into this kind of reverse-engineering won't stop to think about it, and a not-insignificant fraction will even be in the group that misses that minor illusion can't make images of creatures and phenomena, and will just assume it's silent image but confined to a 5-foot cube.

I mean, you're not wrong? But we're explicitly digging into the spell and what it can and cannot do, so a certain amount of reverse-engineering to see what can be done is inevitable.



One of the things I've always thought about doing with an illusionist (or even just a wizard) is using minor illusion and keen mind to keep my spellbook just as an illusory object I conjure at need. Sure, I have a "real" one back home, and that's the one I spend money adding spells to (when I don't have to add them on the fly on the road), but I use the fact that I have seen every page within the last month to recreate the book from memory with minor illusion so I can prepare from that.

Failing that, at the very least, one could make an illusory notebook to take illusory notes in, and use Keen Mind to keep perfect recall as long as they're reviewed once a month.

It's more fun if you can cause the image to flip through its pages, but you could get by with just recasting it every time you want a new page.

[col_impact]

But it doesn't say that, does it? Those are mechanics of the illusion that we decided, from trying to reverse-engineer the interpretations of a made-up illusion spell.

Yes, it's possible. However, the spell doesn't have much evidence saying that's how it needs to, or could, be done. Should a player realistically have to jump through that kind of hurdle to make the given example of footsteps?

It's the kind of thing that some player would come up with, as a clever way to tantrum into getting what they want. "I just teleported a rock 200 feet above the monster, so it clearly deals 200 feet worth of fall damage". "I just connected my four pikes with a barely-perceivable piece of string, so clearly they're still a single object".

So Silent Image of a boulder 30 feet above a coyote's head cast by a 14th level illusionist. How much damage?

[col_impact]

I suspect that most players and DMs who aren't into this kind of reverse-engineering won't stop to think about it, and a not-insignificant fraction will even be in the group that misses that minor illusion can't make images of creatures and phenomena, and will just assume it's silent image but confined to a 5-foot cube.

I mean, you're not wrong? But we're explicitly digging into the spell and what it can and cannot do, so a certain amount of reverse-engineering to see what can be done is inevitable.



One of the things I've always thought about doing with an illusionist (or even just a wizard) is using minor illusion and keen mind to keep my spellbook just as an illusory object I conjure at need. Sure, I have a "real" one back home, and that's the one I spend money adding spells to (when I don't have to add them on the fly on the road), but I use the fact that I have seen every page within the last month to recreate the book from memory with minor illusion so I can prepare from that.

Failing that, at the very least, one could make an illusory notebook to take illusory notes in, and use Keen Mind to keep perfect recall as long as they're reviewed once a month.

It's more fun if you can cause the image to flip through its pages, but you could get by with just recasting it every time you want a new page.

You could use shape water with keen mind to similar effect.

[Man_Over_Game]

So Silent Image of a boulder 30 feet above a coyote's head cast by a 14th level illusionist. How much damage?

Illusory Reality:

"The object can't deal damage or otherwise directly harm anyone".

I could reasonably interpret that as:

"You cannot make objects that might hurt someone"
"Objects you create cannot hurt someone"

The second one makes the most sense, since Improvised Weapons are a thing. There's no limitation as to what kinds of objects are allowed to deal damage.

From there, I could decide:

The object is incapable of dealing damage (if it would deal damage, it instead deals 0).
The object ceases to gain this feature if it would deal damage


The second one would make the most sense, again. I read it as more of a limitation of the feature, rather than an effect it has on the object. You cannot make a sword that magically deals 0 damage when you hit someone with it and still have it be a real sword.

So the boulder falls, is a real boulder, hits the coyote, coyote feels a tap of a boulder as an illusionary one passes over him. 0 damage dealt. Illusionary boulder continues to act like you programmed it to, likely rolling off of the coyote and anything else in its path (since it can't crush anything but is moving based on its assumed physics).

The difference between the confusion on this vs. Minor Image is the fact that each of these are pretty short steps of analysis stemming from a clearly defined rule, with each question being well defined and heavily related.

I wouldn't know where to start to do the same kind of breakdown with Minor Illusion and all the possible interpretations. So I just take the one most sensible to me, and for how I'd like my players to play.

[Segev]

So Silent Image of a boulder 30 feet above a coyote's head cast by a 14th level illusionist. How much damage?Man_Over_Game covered this well, but to reitterate: 0. It can't do damage.


You could use shape water with keen mind to similar effect.Good point. Raises the question of how precise you can be with the color-alterations of water. Does it have to be uniform across the whole controlled bit of fluid, or can you do precise and distinct changes to various portions? The former means that "coloring in" an image would require many rounds of work, one action per segment to be colored. The latter means you can sort-of do minor illusion inside a blob of water.

[Lord Torath]

Regarding real light from illusions, I allow any illusion spell to generate light equal to the most powerful light-generating spell of the same level.

I also go with the idea that illusions are things that you see entirely with your eyes, while phantasms are things that you see only in your mind.

[Segev]

Regarding real light from illusions, I allow any illusion spell to generate light equal to the most powerful light-generating spell of the same level.

I also go with the idea that illusions are things that you see entirely with your eyes, while phantasms are things that you see only in your mind.

If a Major Image can generate as much light as Daylight, why prepare Daylight over Major Image?

[Xetheral]

For those who like to consider how spells work in (excessive) detail, here's an idiosyncratic, internally-consistent interperetation that explains how illusions work with regards to lighting and reflections. This is in no way based on the rules, but also, in my opinion, does not contradict any of the rules.

Under this interpretarion, illusions do not in any way produce, reflect, absorb, or absorb/reemit light. A physical object with these properties would necessarily be fully transparent--and thus invisible--but illusions don't need to follow the same rules. Instead, I suggest that illusions "paint" photons passing through the space they occupy to look like photons that would have been produced, reflected, or reemited on the same vector had the illusion been real. The "paint" can survive later specular (i.e. mirror-like) reflection of the photon, but cannot survive partial reflection or being absorbed/reemitted. The "paint" changes the apparent frequency of the photon if it is still present when the photon is observed.

Consequences of this interpretation include:

Illusions, unlike opaque objects, are illuminated from behind. They will thus be harder to detect as illusions in areas with non-directional, diffuse lighting. In areas with uneven lighting they will work best when located close to a wall or other larger object that can reflect the uneven ambient lighting back through the illusion to be "painted". Illusions will be hard to see in low-light conditions against a far-off or dark backdrop. The best way to investigate an illusion without touching it is to bring a point light source near the illusion and look for inconsistencies in how the point light source appears to illuminate the illusion. These inconsistencies are caused by the need for the light from the point source to first reflect off the backdrop and back through the illusion. Depending on the distance between the illusion and the backdrop, the angle of illumination may be noticably wrong. Illusions are visible in mirrors (thanks to the ability of the "paint" to survive specular reflection). Illusions of a mirror do not create live reflections, but the caster could make the illusion show a fake image as if it were reflecting an object or scene (even to the extent of making the appearance of the image dependent on viewing angle, like a real mirror). Alternatively, the caster could make the illusion display an object or scene as if it were an image on a screen (albeit limited to using ambient lighting as the backlight). In both cases the image shown would be constant. An illusion of an opaque shade blocking a light source would prevent observers from seeing the light source, but the illusion itself would be lit by the blocked light source, and the blocked light source would normally contribute to ambient lighting. This might be virtually unnoticeable (e.g. blocking one torch among hundreds) or extremely blatant (e.g. blocking the only light source in the room). An illusion of a translucent object blocking a light source could change the apparent color of the light source itself, but would not change the color in which the blocked light source contributes to the ambient lighting. (Again, this could be subtle or obvious depending on what other light sources are around.)
If you want to adopt this interpretation at your table, I suggest interpreting investigation of the illusion as looking for lighting discrepancies. Close-range investigation in conditions of uneven lighting can get advantage, while distant investigation in conditions of even lighting can get disadvantage. If the caster uses a blatant illusion (e.g. trying to block the only light source) it may be obvious to every observer that the blocking object is an illusion, but I recommend still requiring successful investigation (or direct interaction) if the observers want to be able to see the original photons under the "paint".

[Man_Over_Game]

...

I have no idea what you're saying, but it definitely sounds impressive! Reasonable, even!

----------

If it's worth anything, there are some mentions of illusions being a substance from the Shadowfell. How previous editions treated effects like the level 14 Wizard feature, or other illusion spells that impacted the real world, was by weaving a bit of Shadowfell energy into your illusion. Shadowstuff was both illusory AND real, so weaving it into illusory objects made them solid. Heck, you could make illusory monsters that were solid no matter how much you didn't believe in them.

I mention this because it's easier to accept new physics from a completely bizarre world from our own than it is to accept new physics from a world that's relatable.

We cannot accept that a falling boulder deals no damage to us, unless we're on a plane where earth has no weight. We might be looking a little bit too hard at illusions and how they fit into our world, rather than trying to see how they fit in a world like Faerun.

[Segev]

I, personally, dislike Xetheral's model, but I respect him for having come up with it.

My own model is simpler: the images act, to light, like the real thing would. The Investigation check is looking for incongruities either in the artistry of the illusionist, or in how the image interacts with the environment. Sure, obvious poking of a spear through a wall reveals its falsehood to all who see it, but the guy making the Investigation DC notices that there's a pebble that's half-in the wall, revealing it to be insubstantial. Or he notices the ogre stepping on the ground is no-clipping slightly through it. Or that the otyugh lacks the appropriate odor. Or that the roaring fire whose heat can be felt from here doesn't seem to be wilting - let alone catching on fire - the flower next to it.

As to light-producing illusions, they don't. They create what looks like light, and what bounces off of other illusory objects (possibly only that are part of the same illusion) like light, but which will not illuminate anything real.

Again, this is how I rule it, not any specific way the rules spell it out. Like Xetheral, I believe it is, however, consistent with the RAW.

[EggKookoo]

Personally, I would assume that it's a bit of a mix. The illusionist has to have some idea of what he wants to see/hear, but not quite to the level of precise skill as a realist painter. It'd certainly help if he could - while fooling people with your illusions may just be set by your spell save DC, getting accurate representations of specific things, or catering to somebody's ideal of beauty, or otherwise doing "fine detail work" probably would call for an Intelligence check of its own, possibly backed by a Craft or a proficiency in some sort of appropriate artisan's tools.

Sure, and say, if you have a model or reference to work from, maybe some kind of penalty to the check to see past the illusion. Disadvantage on the check might be too much, but maybe you get to add some kind of bonus to the DC.

Still, if we assume the spell performs some kind of assist, that might account for weird limitations like "no creatures, just objects." The spell isn't a straightforward process but almost has some kind of intent or pseudo-awareness, and won't make certain things even if you could describe it. That speaks to the idea that spells aren't just super-advanced science but fragments of some deeper, very weird arcane tableau of lost knowledge. Which fits with the mythical nature of D&D and helps explain why magic missile hits targets the way it does. But unfortunately I, and more importantly my players, like a bit more realism out of it, in terms of predictability. Spells feel best for us when we can conceptualize their most basic mechanisms. That you can't make an illusion of a creature but you can of an object because the rules define creature and object separately -- well, it's not impossible to accept that but it's not the "fun" we're looking for.


One could argue, however, that the fact that the spell DC is int-based means that you're already accounting for the caster's artistic craftsmanship, and that's why the Investigation DC is set where it is.

Agreed in principle even if I'm not sure I'd say Intelligence is a good metric of artistic skill. Unfortunately, I'm not sure which ability score would fit that.


For me - and the extremely lengthy arguments I've had in other threads on this subject mean I have to be very careful to say "for me," because others will disagree - an image is a "real thing" that exists in the space it's created in, and it has all the visual properties of the real thing (to the extent of the magic and the caster's talents). Therefore, while it can't shed light on real things, it can reflect real light. It has to, for you to see it. The image of a spoon has the reflective properties of a real spoon; that's why you see a spoon when you look at it.

But we also have to consider that once you know an illusion is an illusion, it changes appearance. And it only changes appearance for you, not globally.

Tom and Bob stand before a door. Behind the door is an orc, waiting for them. The door is an illusion, so neither Tom nor Bob sees the orc. Until something prompts Tom to think the door might be an illusion. He makes his check and succeeds, so the door becomes "faint" (which I assume means semi-transparent, and might explicitly mean that for some spells). So now Tom sees the orc, but Bob still doesn't.

So while the door may be a real thing that exists in the space its created in, it apparently isn't inseparable from the visual properties of the real thing (opacity). The illusory door can remain once you know it's an illusion, but some of the properties disappear. That's why I tend to view illusions as part-movie-holograms, part-hallucinations, which I think folds more into what you're saying next here...


Likewise, I would rule, you can't see an image of a table in a dark room unless you have darkvision. In which case you see the table in black and white as if it were really a table and not just an image. Light a torch or a lamp or a candle, and the image of the table illuminates just like any other real object would. It casts shadows, even, like a real object would. (This does lead to some issues with people who've realized its illusory nature and see it as "faint." You have to answer the question about whether they can see light that would otherwise be blocked by it. Personally, I would say they can. The shadow, no matter how dark, also is illusory and faint. There arises further question about the shadow extending beyond the five foot region, but I just shrug and say it works anyway. That is definitely me ruling, though, and something you'd have to work out with your DM.)

So looking at the illusion as part hologram (in a Hollywood sense) and part magic-induced hallucination. The hologram is weak; the hallucination gives it "reality." Once you know it's an illusion, the hallucination part fades. What I like about this is it neatly takes care of all those questions about candles shedding like or mirrors reflecting things. The don't at the hologram level, and those effects at the hallucination level are only in the observers' minds. Given the imprecise nature of human (and humanoid?) perception and perceptive memory, you can even get away with saying it's not completely clear where the shadows end, or have them move when you look at them, or any other quirk (which could also be the kind of clue that prompts an Intelligence check).

In any event, I agree about "For me." I'm not trying to convince you I'm right. Just trying to explain why it appeals to me. If it appeals to you, great, glad I could provide a new view. If it's not your thing, great, I don't need it to be.


If you want to adopt this interpretation at your table, I suggest interpreting investigation of the illusion as looking for lighting discrepancies.

Agreed, which is basically how I explain it.

There's an old House MD episode where a disease would mess with a person's visual cortex. Their eyes worked fine, and even the visual cortex worked, it was information going from the cortex out to the brain. It would degrade gradually, and people slowly went blind without realizing it (until it was too late). We fill in the blanks all the time, and as the disease progressed, people just fell more and more into their routines. They could sort of see another person walking down the hallway and move to avoid them, but if you later asked what color shirt the person was wearing they wouldn't know. Or rather they would blurt out a color as their memory scrambled to give them something. No idea if it was based on a real disease but neurology is weird enough that I could believe it.

[col_impact]

Illusory Reality:

"The object can't deal damage or otherwise directly harm anyone".

I could reasonably interpret that as:

"You cannot make objects that might hurt someone"
"Objects you create cannot hurt someone"

The second one makes the most sense, since Improvised Weapons are a thing. There's no limitation as to what kinds of objects are allowed to deal damage.

From there, I could decide:

The object is incapable of dealing damage (if it would deal damage, it instead deals 0).
The object ceases to gain this feature if it would deal damage


The second one would make the most sense, again. I read it as more of a limitation of the feature, rather than an effect it has on the object. You cannot make a sword that magically deals 0 damage when you hit someone with it and still have it be a real sword.

So the boulder falls, is a real boulder, hits the coyote, coyote feels a tap of a boulder as an illusionary one passes over him. 0 damage dealt. Illusionary boulder continues to act like you programmed it to, likely rolling off of the coyote and anything else in its path (since it can't crush anything but is moving based on its assumed physics).

The difference between the confusion on this vs. Minor Image is the fact that each of these are pretty short steps of analysis stemming from a clearly defined rule, with each question being well defined and heavily related.

I wouldn't know where to start to do the same kind of breakdown with Minor Illusion and all the possible interpretations. So I just take the one most sensible to me, and for how I'd like my players to play.

When I suspend a boulder with illusory reality, I am not directly harming the coyote. Gravity is what harms the coyote. I would be INDIRECTLY harming the coyote via gravity.

The rule says no damage though. Are exhaustion levels considered damage? Could you make an airtight adamantium prison and asphyxiate someone using exhaustion levels? Would it stop applying exhaustion levels when the next level is death?

[Segev]

Yeah, locking someone inside an illusion object that they intersect is nasty. It’s up to the DM what counts as “damage,” here, and, really, I know few DMs that would let you get away with Han Soloing someone in Carbonite with no save using a first level spell.

By the rules? It is probably doable. Just don’t expect it to fly at many tables.

If you manage to get a heavy real rock over someone’s head and are suspending it only with an illusory reality object, sure, you can drop the real rock. But if the rock is only real thanks to illusory reality, it won’t damage anything when it falls because it can’t.

[col_impact]

Yeah, locking someone inside an illusion object that they intersect is nasty. It’s up to the DM what counts as “damage,” here, and, really, I know few DMs that would let you get away with Han Soloing someone in Carbonite with no save using a first level spell.

By the rules? It is probably doable. Just don’t expect it to fly at many tables.

If you manage to get a heavy real rock over someone’s head and are suspending it only with an illusory reality object, sure, you can drop the real rock. But if the rock is only real thanks to illusory reality, it won’t damage anything when it falls because it can’t.

So Bag of Holding (500 lbs of water), Shape Water to freeze a 5×5 block of ice. Silent Image plus Illusory Reality to suspend said block of ice with ACME carved in it.

[EggKookoo]

When I suspend a boulder with illusory reality, I am not directly harming the coyote. Gravity is what harms the coyote. I would be INDIRECTLY harming the coyote via gravity.

Well, no. Gravity is making the boulder fall. The boulder's impact with they coyote is the source of the damage.

Like they say, it ain't the falling that hurts ya. It's the stopping!

[col_impact]

Well, no. Gravity is making the boulder fall. The boulder's impact with they coyote is the source of the damage.

Like they say, it ain't the falling that hurts ya. It's the stopping!

Ok, remove gravity from the situation. What happens? Does the boulder cause damage?

[EggKookoo]

Ok, remove gravity from the situation. What happens? Does the boulder cause damage?

What would make it fall, then? A non-moving boulder doesn't hurt...

Wait! What if the coyote ran into the boulder? Would the impact hurt?

[col_impact]

What would make it fall, then? A non-moving boulder doesn't hurt...

Wait! What if the coyote ran into the boulder? Would the impact hurt?

The coyote running would then be the cause of the injury.

In the aforementioned case, gravity is the cause of the injury.

If you fall and hurt yourself, is the cause of the injury "falling" or "ground"?

[Segev]

What would make it fall, then? A non-moving boulder doesn't hurt...

Wait! What if the coyote ran into the boulder? Would the impact hurt?

DM’s call. My ruling would be that it does, on the grounds that if the damage would be done by choosing a different solid object equally available to slam him into, it isn’t really the illusory realitied rock doing it anymore.

That said, I’d have to rethink it if he was running through it because he thought it was illusory.

Though is still probably let it work for genre convention reasons. I mean, it’s a coyote who thinks he’s running into a thing that isn’t there!

[col_impact]

DM’s call. My ruling would be that it does, on the grounds that if the damage would be done by choosing a different solid object equally available to slam him into, it isn’t really the illusory realitied rock doing it anymore.

That said, I’d have to rethink it if he was running through it because he thought it was illusory.

Though is still probably let it work for genre convention reasons. I mean, it’s a coyote who thinks he’s running into a thing that isn’t there!

You could run full tilt through a silent image. Cast Suggestion to give them a suggestion that they could do the same if they ran full tilt. They saw you do it so its a reasonable suggestion. Refresh the silent image with illusory reality to make it solid.

That coyote is seeing stars. Beep, beep!

[Keravath]

If I use minor illusion to make a clock, is it running? Does the pendulum swing?

What if I make one of an hourglass? Does the sand fall?

Does a candle count as an object? Does the flame flicker?

I would argue yes to all three, since there's nothing in minor illusion's text that says the object can't move, but there are other restrictions, and it would have been a simple addition to include it. I also tend to agree with the limit that whatever motion you impart must stay within the initial 5-foot cube.

Regarding other things, like: does an illusory flame light up real objects near it? This is a larger issue with illusions in general. I see magical illusions in D&D as being partly mental. There's a purely optical effect -- a kind of weak, semi-transparent hologram-y thing. But then part of the magic is that the viewer's mind is affected, and they see a lot of the fuller environmental effects. But it's a form of hallucination and isn't necessarily delivering real-world information to the viewer's brain in a mechanically-significant way. When the illusion is perceived to be such, this extra mind-only effect disappears, and the illusion reverts to its flat, faint, semi-transparent form.

So for example, if you're in a dark room (not pitch black but dark enough to provide obscurement), a creature 20 feet away is hard to see and you have disadvantage on an attack roll against it. If you were to light up a real torch, you could see the creature clearly and that penalty goes away. If someone lights up an illusory torch (and you don't know it's an illusion), you suddenly see the creature BUT NOT REALLY. You still have disadvantage on your attack roll because you only kind of sort of think you see it. Your eyes are lying to you, but in a weird way that is hard to detect. Once you perceive the torch to be an illusion, you no longer see the creature lit up by its emitted light. Mechanically nothing changes.

Yeah, this is riddled with special-case holes but it's the beginning of an approach that can be used to help determine what happens with illusions. Which themselves are a mess. Sometimes you just have to go with what works at the time.

The spell itself is very clear about light sources - it can NOT be used for that.

"The image can't create sound, light, smell, or any other sensory effect."

[col_impact]

The spell itself is very clear about light sources - it can NOT be used for that.

"The image can't create sound, light, smell, or any other sensory effect."

You can fake light by layering brighter version of a desk over the real desk. Just google up Baked Global Illumination to see how its done commonly in games. Any illusionist played by a visual effects artist would know how to do it.

[EggKookoo]

The spell itself is very clear about light sources - it can NOT be used for that.

"The image can't create sound, light, smell, or any other sensory effect."

So an illusion of a candle is automatically detected as an illusion since it doesn't light up the nearby surface it's on? The problem is, so many elements that go into how something looks depend on how that thing reacts (and reflects) the light around it. If an illusion can't reflect light, or simulate it by emitting light, it'll look mighty darn fake.

[col_impact]

So an illusion of a candle is automatically detected as an illusion since it doesn't light up the nearby surface it's on? The problem is, so many elements that go into how something looks depend on how that thing reacts (and reflects) the light around it. If an illusion can't reflect light, or simulate it by emitting light, it'll look mighty darn fake.

No, a candle can be simulated by using pure yellow as a color for the flame. You can suspend pure yellow particles around the flame to simulate glow. Have the top of the candle fake brightened to fake translucence of the light through the candle, and laying a brighter color version of the ground material. Cast shadows can be faked by layering a darkened version of the colored material. Etc.

Reflections can be faked as well. Have your familiar look from the position of the "mirror". Snapshot and project that image onto the "mirror". That is an old Renderman trick. Worked in all of Pixar's movie up until Cars.

[EggKookoo]

Reflections can be faked as well. Have your familiar look from the position of the "mirror". Snapshot and project that image onto the "mirror". That is an old Renderman trick. Worked in all of Pixar's movie up until Cars.

That only works in movies and games. If you tried that on an object in front of you, it'd look painted on. Mirror reflections are 3D.

[Man_Over_Game]

One thing that's rather interesting is that Catapult deals damage to both it's target and the ammunition.

Knowing that, it'd make sense that both gravity AND the boulder are responsible for the damage being dealt.

The difference between a boulder and a bridge, in regards to what is or isn't "directly harm", is that the bridge causes you to fall, not to hit the ground.

You do not say "the bridge deals 9d10 damage".

Unless we're talking about a Dwarf Fortress bridge, in which case you'll need a lot more dice. Atom Smashers are no joke.

[col_impact]

That only works in movies and games. If you tried that on an object in front of you, it'd look painted on. Mirror reflections are 3D.

I have actually done this exact thing in real life for real life props. It passes for real until you examine it and notice the lack of parralax in the reflection, etc.

[BurgerBeast]

How many objects is "muddy footprints"? At least two, right?

Or it’s one muddy patch with several foot-shaped indentations. A footprint is not an object, it’s the empty space created by the lack of an object.

Edit: I do see your point though. I initially read the description as the creation of multiple misprints on top of a real stone (for example) floor. Someone else put me onto the other interpretation. Yours still seems right, based on the wording.

[EggKookoo]

I have actually done this exact thing in real life for real life props. It passes for real until you examine it and notice the lack of parralax in the reflection, etc.

I'm not going to call you a liar. I'm just going to say I'm pretty sure I would be able to tell an image painted on a flat surface isn't a reflection. I mean, assuming there aren't other lighting tricks going on in an attempt to mask it, or that the painting isn't somehow animated to present the angle my eyes expect to see. Mirror reflections have three-dimensional depth.

Granted, altering itself to make it appear three-dimensional is certainly something a flat magical image could do. As I said earlier and have said in other threads about it, I interpret illusions to work that way in the game. Their depth, lighting interaction, and general sense of being embedded in reality are secondary mental/perception effects, which are what get dispelled when you realize it's an illusion.

[col_impact]

I'm not going to call you a liar. I'm just going to say I'm pretty sure I would be able to tell an image painted on a flat surface isn't a reflection. I mean, assuming there aren't other lighting tricks going on in an attempt to mask it, or that the painting isn't somehow animated to present the angle my eyes expect to see. Mirror reflections have three-dimensional depth.

Granted, altering itself to make it appear three-dimensional is certainly something a flat magical image could do. As I said earlier and have said in other threads about it, I interpret illusions to work that way in the game. Their depth, lighting interaction, and general sense of being embedded in reality are secondary mental/perception effects, which are what get dispelled when you realize it's an illusion.

Go on youtube and search "Amazing T. Rex Illusion". Let me know your thoughts.

[EggKookoo]

Go on youtube and search "Amazing T. Rex Illusion". Let me know your thoughts.

Ok, so that's not what I visualized from our discussion. That's an old haunter trick, and they do it in places like Haunted Mansion as well. But it's not a flat surface, it's a series of flat surfaces arranged at angles. I was imagining you claiming you could take a single flat surface and somehow color it in a way to create a depth that would fool binocular vision regardless of the viewing angle. That really can't be done in any convincing sense.

Getting back to my original issue about illusions picking up ambient lighting, my point is that things look the way they do largely because of the lighting around them. I mean, look at this chair:

https://images.crateandbarrel.com/is/image/Crate/PatonWindsorChairSHS19_3D_1x1/

Let's look at that near leg. The highlights on either side aren't "on" the chair. The light rays are hitting the leg from the sides and bouncing into the camera (or your eyes if you were there). Sure, you can fake that with the illusion to some degree, but the problem is that two people standing a few feet apart will see slightly different highlights, based on the angle. If you "paint" those highlights onto the chair, which angle do you pick? If you say the magic is good enough that it can show each viewer the appropriate highlights, then that's basically the same thing as saying the illusion can reflect light. Even if strictly speaking the light is being emitted rather than reflected, what does it matter in the end?

It's not a problem is the illusion is some distance away and all viewers are seeing it from nearly the same angle. Then you can base the highlights and whatnot off that angle and it will look mostly right. Adding in the distance, and it'd become pretty tricky to tell if something's off. But the illusion of, say, a wood-and-metal box placed on a table in a room that is lit in a conventional sense, where people can walk around the table and view the box from different angles -- well, if that illusion can't present the proper reflection angles as each person does this, and only to the appropriate person, it's going to become obvious very quickly that something's wrong.

Also, even with the T. Rex example, lighting is key. That illusion works in person but only at a certain distance, and if you don't set up the lighting in the room very carefully, it'll give itself way as soon as you move.

[Chronos]

Yes, Minor Illusion has some significant limitations (it ought to; after all, it's only a 0th-level spell). And yes, those limitations will make illusions of some sorts of objects unconvincing. The solution to this problem is to not try to make those objects with Minor Illusion (at least, not if your goal is for them to be convincing).

And yes, for any non-quasi-real illusion, things like glints of light won't be quite right on them. But this isn't actually a problem, either. We know that illusions are not actually perfectly indistinguishable from the things they represent, because a skillful or lucky investigation can reveal that they are illusions. Maybe that's how the successful investigation check works: The investigator notices that the object isn't illuminated in quite the right way.

[Segev]

Yes, Minor Illusion has some significant limitations (it ought to; after all, it's only a 0th-level spell). And yes, those limitations will make illusions of some sorts of objects unconvincing. The solution to this problem is to not try to make those objects with Minor Illusion (at least, not if your goal is for them to be convincing).

And yes, for any non-quasi-real illusion, things like glints of light won't be quite right on them. But this isn't actually a problem, either. We know that illusions are not actually perfectly indistinguishable from the things they represent, because a skillful or lucky investigation can reveal that they are illusions. Maybe that's how the successful investigation check works: The investigator notices that the object isn't illuminated in quite the right way.

Minor Illusion spells out what it takes to recognize its unreality. Making up more limitations so it can do less than it says it can without automatically giving the game away is making up new rules, not treating a cantrip like a 0-level Spell. Even cantrips do what they say they do.

That said. I didn’t create this thread to rehash old arguments (and the exact nature of the image is quite old). I only say that much to point out the RAW on how images are detected as illusory.

What I’m more interested in this thread is how much motion and how much dramatic control the caster has. Can an image appear in a puff of smoke? Emerge from a wall behind it? The floor beneath it? Appear and then fall to the ground? Can an image of a ball bounce in place?

[RSP]

No, a candle can be simulated by using pure yellow as a color for the flame. You can suspend pure yellow particles around the flame to simulate glow. Have the top of the candle fake brightened to fake translucence of the light through the candle, and laying a brighter color version of the ground material. Cast shadows can be faked by layering a darkened version of the colored material. Etc.


Not with Minor Illusion it can’t. If you also did Silent Image you could probably get away with faking the light via layering (as it is a “visible phenomenon”), so MI the candle, SI the light layering.

However, it’s still going to be difficult to see in dim light, impossible to see in darkness. So this still only works in bright light conditions.

[JoeJ]

I interpret Minor Illusion, and visual illusions in general, as sophisticated optical illusions. They're kind of in the same category as a mirage, the image in a mirror, a 3D movie, or a real world (not Star Trek) hologram. It doesn't need, or take up, any actual space; it merely appears to. Among other things, that's why I don't have a problem with somebody creating an illusion of a pit or an alcove. It doesn't have to actually pierce the surface since it's merely an optical illusion.

[Tanarii]

I allow things with intrinsic movement, like blood dripping off the edge of a table or a pot boiling. Luckily I've never run into a player who took that and tried to ask a bajillion questions to see how they could stretch it. :smallamused:

More often my problem has been with players that want to make creatures, phenomena. My problem with forum goers is suggestions of making solid objects Invisibility (e.g. pits or windows), or 3D tricks with 2D objects that work from any angle (again pits or windows), etc

[col_impact]

Check this out. Some examples in there of faux lighting, reflection.

https://www.hongkiat.com/blog/absolutely-stunning-3d-street-art-paintings/

As long as you go with glossy reflections and not mirror reflections you are good. Dirty up that mirror with grime.

Avoid sourcy lighting. Shadows are great at covering up weak areas of the illusion.

[EggKookoo]

Check this out. Some examples in there of faux lighting, reflection.

https://www.hongkiat.com/blog/absolutely-stunning-3d-street-art-paintings/

As long as you go with glossy reflections and not mirror reflections you are good. Dirty up that mirror with grime.

Avoid sourcy lighting. Shadows are great at covering up weak areas of the illusion.

Right, so if the magic can create this effect from any angle you happen to look at it from, and make it appear correct to multiple people simultaneously looking at it from different angles (which I rule it can at my table), this is basically how you make the illusion of a hole in the floor. It doesn't project the illusion into the floor, it just fools your eyes to make it look that way.

The problem with these paintings is that they only work from one angle, and really only from a distance. Your eyes are not fooled into perceiving depth as you get closer, and straying from the initial angle wipes out the optical effect entirely.

Still, though, we're left with the problem of the lit candle. You hold your hand up about 6 inches from an illusory lit candle. Does the side of your hand near the candle light up? By RAW, no, since illusions can't emit light. But I would say you see the illusion of your hand lighting up. Mechanically, no light is emitted. If the "light" would normally provide some benefit, this illusory light doesn't. Yes, that gets confusing but I think that dissonance is part of the thing that helps give away an illusion's true nature.

[col_impact]

Right, so if the magic can create this effect from any angle you happen to look at it from, and make it appear correct to multiple people simultaneously looking at it from different angles (which I rule it can at my table), this is basically how you make the illusion of a hole in the floor. It doesn't project the illusion into the floor, it just fools your eyes to make it look that way.

The problem with these paintings is that they only work from one angle, and really only from a distance. Your eyes are not fooled into perceiving depth as you get closer, and straying from the initial angle wipes out the optical effect entirely.

Still, though, we're left with the problem of the lit candle. You hold your hand up about 6 inches from an illusory lit candle. Does the side of your hand near the candle light up? By RAW, no, since illusions can't emit light. But I would say you see the illusion of your hand lighting up. Mechanically, no light is emitted. If the "light" would normally provide some benefit, this illusory light doesn't. Yes, that gets confusing but I think that dissonance is part of the thing that helps give away an illusion's true nature.

Continual Flames cast on pebbles are handy to have.

[Segev]

Personally, I would not let illusory light illuminate your real hand. The illusion is of the object (say, “a candle”), not of your hand. If you have the candle and table “combo object,” however, the whole illusory thing will look lit and beshadowed appropriately for the illusory candlelight.

[patchyman]

I would argue yes to all three, since there's nothing in minor illusion's text that says the object can't move, but there are other restrictions, and it would have been a simple addition to include it. I also tend to agree with the limit that whatever motion you impart must stay within the initial 5-foot cube.

Silent Image specifies that you *can* make it move. Since Minor Illusion is silent on whether you can make it move, I tend to interpret it that Minor Illusion cannot move.

[EggKookoo]

Silent Image specifies that you *can* make it move. Since Minor Illusion is silent on whether you can make it move, I tend to interpret it that Minor Illusion cannot move.

I'll check the text when I get a moment, but IIRC silent image says you can move the whole thing. As in you can make an illusion within an X by X box (15 feet?) and you can move that box around anywhere in range of the spell (60 feet? 90?). And then it says you can animate the illusion to make it look natural, like someone walking, and you slide the box around, and it looks like the person is walking across the ground.

That's not exactly implying (to my reading) that you cannot make your immobile minor illusion move whatsoever. Just that you can't move the 5-foot cube once you put it down.

[Lord Torath]

If a Major Image can generate as much light as Daylight, why prepare Daylight over Major Image?Does Daylight do anything other than just produce light? Say, have a negative effect on undead? If so, that'd be a reason to take it. I'd assume that the dedicated lighting spells have longer durations than illusions, so if you're wanting a light source, take the Daylight spell.

[JoeJ]

Still, though, we're left with the problem of the lit candle. You hold your hand up about 6 inches from an illusory lit candle. Does the side of your hand near the candle light up? By RAW, no, since illusions can't emit light. But I would say you see the illusion of your hand lighting up. Mechanically, no light is emitted. If the "light" would normally provide some benefit, this illusory light doesn't. Yes, that gets confusing but I think that dissonance is part of the thing that helps give away an illusion's true nature.

I would say that it doesn't illuminate your hand, but you won't automatically notice that if you're not looking for it. Paying attention to what, exactly, you are seeing is part of making an Intelligence (Investigation) check.

[BurgerBeast]

Ok, so that's not what I visualized from our discussion. That's an old haunter trick, and they do it in places like Haunted Mansion as well. But it's not a flat surface, it's a series of flat surfaces arranged at angles. I was imagining you claiming you could take a single flat surface and somehow color it in a way to create a depth that would fool binocular vision regardless of the viewing angle. That really can't be done in any convincing sense.

Getting back to my original issue about illusions picking up ambient lighting, my point is that things look the way they do largely because of the lighting around them. I mean, look at this chair:

https://images.crateandbarrel.com/is/image/Crate/PatonWindsorChairSHS19_3D_1x1/

Let's look at that near leg. The highlights on either side aren't "on" the chair. The light rays are hitting the leg from the sides and bouncing into the camera (or your eyes if you were there). Sure, you can fake that with the illusion to some degree, but the problem is that two people standing a few feet apart will see slightly different highlights, based on the angle. If you "paint" those highlights onto the chair, which angle do you pick? If you say the magic is good enough that it can show each viewer the appropriate highlights, then that's basically the same thing as saying the illusion can reflect light. Even if strictly speaking the light is being emitted rather than reflected, what does it matter in the end?

It's not a problem is the illusion is some distance away and all viewers are seeing it from nearly the same angle. Then you can base the highlights and whatnot off that angle and it will look mostly right. Adding in the distance, and it'd become pretty tricky to tell if something's off. But the illusion of, say, a wood-and-metal box placed on a table in a room that is lit in a conventional sense, where people can walk around the table and view the box from different angles -- well, if that illusion can't present the proper reflection angles as each person does this, and only to the appropriate person, it's going to become obvious very quickly that something's wrong..

The problem though, even though I agree with everything you’ve said, is that I, the viewer, don’t necessarily have the specific appearance of the chair from this particular angle freely available in my head to compare with what I see.

In other words, if I was standing four feet to the left of the camera location, an I saw the exact same image that the camera “sees” it would still be a convincing image, and I wouldn’t know precisely how the chair ought to look from my angle, so I’d have no reason to notice that the highlights weren’t quite right.

[EggKookoo]

The problem though, even though I agree with everything you’ve said, is that I, the viewer, don’t necessarily have the specific appearance of the chair from this particular angle freely available in my head to compare with what I see.

In other words, if I was standing four feet to the left of the camera location, an I saw the exact same image that the camera “sees” it would still be a convincing image, and I wouldn’t know precisely how the chair ought to look from my angle, so I’d have no reason to notice that the highlights weren’t quite right.

The chair was just an example to establish the principle. But I've made my point, I think. Which is that (in my interpretation of the phenomenon) illusions must display these interactive environmental effects at least to some degree, and most of that happens in the mind of the viewer, rather than as a strict optical effect on the illusion itself. When you realize the illusion is what it is, that mental "enhancement" goes away, which is why the illusion suddenly becomes faint and semi-transparent.

[Chronos]

Quoth Segev:

Minor Illusion spells out what it takes to recognize its unreality. Making up more limitations so it can do less than it says it can without automatically giving the game away is making up new rules, not treating a cantrip like a 0-level Spell. Even cantrips do what they say they do.
But the limits of the spells do set limits on what you can make convincing with them. I think everyone agrees that you can't use Minor Illusion to make a convincing illusion of a house, right? A real house is much bigger than the size limit of the spell. And likewise, you can't use it to make a convincing illusion of a lit torch, because a real torch is beyond the no-light-produced limit of the spell. You could still make use of an illusion of a torch or a lamp, if (for instance) you wanted to show someone what it looked like, but they'd be unlikely to be fooled.


Quoth JoeJ:

I interpret Minor Illusion, and visual illusions in general, as sophisticated optical illusions. They're kind of in the same category as a mirage, the image in a mirror, a 3D movie, or a real world (not Star Trek) hologram. It doesn't need, or take up, any actual space; it merely appears to. Among other things, that's why I don't have a problem with somebody creating an illusion of a pit or an alcove. It doesn't have to actually pierce the surface since it's merely an optical illusion.
Allowing illusion spells to do what real-world holograms do opens up a whole can of worms. Yes, a real-world hologram can create an illusion of a pit or hole (sometimes quite convincingly, even on close examination). But real-world holograms also don't have any size limitations, while illusion spells explicitly do. I've seen a piece of glass a few inches on a side that contained a hologram of an entire full-sized room (the effect was like looking through a small window into that room). A hologram the size of an ordinary window (i.e., falling within Minor Illusion's 5' limit) could look out onto an entire landscape, with trees, hills, fields, and distant mountains.

[Segev]

You can make a convincing image of a tiny house. The question is not whether you can make it look like anything at all, but whether it can be picked out as illusory.

[EggKookoo]

But the limits of the spells do set limits on what you can make convincing with them. I think everyone agrees that you can't use Minor Illusion to make a convincing illusion of a house, right? A real house is much bigger than the size limit of the spell. And likewise, you can't use it to make a convincing illusion of a lit torch, because a real torch is beyond the no-light-produced limit of the spell. You could still make use of an illusion of a torch or a lamp, if (for instance) you wanted to show someone what it looked like, but they'd be unlikely to be fooled.

There's also the distinction between narrative and mechanics. If an illusory torch emits "light," that light likewise would be illusory and not reveal any information in a mechanical sense to an observer. For example, if we're in a dark room, I have disadvantage to hit you. If you create an illusory light, I might see it, but I still have disadvantage since it's not a real light. I know that messes with some folks' minds but I have no problem with that kind of thing. I haven't yet worked out what your illusory light allows you to see (assuming you're somehow not aware it's an illusion). You can't see me, since it's not real light, but what would it be? Probably something vague and not very useful. As a DM, from a mechanical perspective, I'd tell you your light reveals nothing of significance in terms of any dice rolls you'd make, but I might paint a picture of what it seems like you would expect to see.

[Segev]

There's also the distinction between narrative and mechanics. If an illusory torch emits "light," that light likewise would be illusory and not reveal any information in a mechanical sense to an observer. For example, if we're in a dark room, I have disadvantage to hit you. If you create an illusory light, I might see it, but I still have disadvantage since it's not a real light. I know that messes with some folks' minds but I have no problem with that kind of thing. I haven't yet worked out what your illusory light allows you to see (assuming you're somehow not aware it's an illusion). You can't see me, since it's not real light, but what would it be? Probably something vague and not very useful. As a DM, from a mechanical perspective, I'd tell you your light reveals nothing of significance in terms of any dice rolls you'd make, but I might paint a picture of what it seems like you would expect to see.

Without any other part of the illusion to illuminate, it probably looks “bright” but otherwise doesn’t seem to shed any light onto anything.

[JoeJ]

Allowing illusion spells to do what real-world holograms do opens up a whole can of worms. Yes, a real-world hologram can create an illusion of a pit or hole (sometimes quite convincingly, even on close examination). But real-world holograms also don't have any size limitations, while illusion spells explicitly do. I've seen a piece of glass a few inches on a side that contained a hologram of an entire full-sized room (the effect was like looking through a small window into that room). A hologram the size of an ordinary window (i.e., falling within Minor Illusion's 5' limit) could look out onto an entire landscape, with trees, hills, fields, and distant mountains.

There's no can of worms because the spell description still applies. The reason I gave several different examples - hologram, mirror, mirage, and 3D movie - is because I don't want to imply that the spell is doing exactly what any of those do. The important common point is that they're optical illusions, not immaterial "objects" that take up space.

[BurgerBeast]

The chair was just an example to establish the principle. But I've made my point, I think. Which is that (in my interpretation of the phenomenon) illusions must display these interactive environmental effects at least to some degree, and most of that happens in the mind of the viewer, rather than as a strict optical effect on the illusion itself. When you realize the illusion is what it is, that mental "enhancement" goes away, which is why the illusion suddenly becomes faint and semi-transparent.

Yep. If I’m not mistaken, though, you’re saying that what happens in the viewer’s mind is a magical effect. I’m not sure it needs to be. The human brain will tend to add or even change images to make them make sense. I think it could be considered a mundane effect. I don’t think the illusion needs to have any mind-altering properties.

[EggKookoo]

Yep. If I’m not mistaken, though, you’re saying that what happens in the viewer’s mind is a magical effect. I’m not sure it needs to be. The human brain will tend to add or even change images to make them make sense. I think it could be considered a mundane effect. I don’t think the illusion needs to have any mind-altering properties.

I don't know if it's a distinct magical effect in a mechanical sense. I just mean that you can't see through an illusory door even if you suspect it's an illusion, until you make your Int check which confirms it. Then suddenly the illusion becomes faint and indistinct (which I read at least to mean semi-transparent). You can see through the door and learn the color of the shirt of the orc hiding behind it. That feels like something more than "I think that's a door so I'll subconsciously not notice the creature behind it" and more like the magic producing the illusion was preventing you from seeing it.

[Chronos]

Real-world illusions created by mirrors, holograms, and the like do "take up space", though, in the sense that one can measure a location in 3-dimensional space for each point of the image, and those points will mostly not lie on the surface of the physical object creating the illusion. For the simplest and most familiar example (since most folks probably don't have much experience with good holograms), consider an ordinary plane mirror. When you stand a few feet in front of your bathroom mirror, the image that you see is not on the surface of the mirror; it's actually a few feet behind the surface of the mirror. It behaves the same way as a window into another room containing someone who looks like you; it does not behave the same way as a photograph of you, or even as a closed-circuit video of you.

[col_impact]

Real-world illusions created by mirrors, holograms, and the like do "take up space", though, in the sense that one can measure a location in 3-dimensional space for each point of the image, and those points will mostly not lie on the surface of the physical object creating the illusion. For the simplest and most familiar example (since most folks probably don't have much experience with good holograms), consider an ordinary plane mirror. When you stand a few feet in front of your bathroom mirror, the image that you see is not on the surface of the mirror; it's actually a few feet behind the surface of the mirror. It behaves the same way as a window into another room containing someone who looks like you; it does not behave the same way as a photograph of you, or even as a closed-circuit video of you. And you can get a bit of depth and parralax by projecting a plausible reflection onto depth planes (3D Stereoscopy) while having grime, streaks, etc at the surface level. This is real easy to do if you understand visual effects.

Also, you could use Shape Water to make basic red blue 3d glasses (frozen water ) so you could split the image based on depth.

[Segev]

And you can get a bit of depth and parralax by projecting a plausible reflection onto depth planes (3D Stereoscopy) while having grime, streaks, etc at the surface level. This is real easy to do if you understand visual effects.

Also, you could use Shape Water to make basic red blue 3d glasses (frozen water ) so you could split the image based on depth.

Even easier if you just assume that the image of an object looks like the object. So the image of your mirror...looks like a mirror. Which would have reflections.

[col_impact]

I don't think you are really recognizing the coolness of what I just ponted out.

Shape Water -> stereoscopic glasses

Minor Illusion -> 3d viewer

[Segev]

I don't think you are really recognizing the coolness of what I just ponted out.

Shape Water -> stereoscopic glasses

Minor Illusion -> 3d viewer

Only useful for entertainment purposes, but fun for that.

It occurs to me that druidcraft - what I would otherwise consider the weakest choice amongst the trio of Prestidigitation-alikes - is the best complement to minor illusion. Prestidigitation itself has only a 10-foot range, and Thai maturity lacks one particular trick the other two can do. Leaving driidcraft the only one able to put a “harmless sensory effect” at the same range as minor illusion (30 feet).

A smell is amongst the explicit examples. Now your minor illusion of a plate of cookies can also smell like it is fresh-baked!

[col_impact]

Only useful for entertainment purposes, but fun for that.

It occurs to me that druidcraft - what I would otherwise consider the weakest choice amongst the trio of Prestidigitation-alikes - is the best complement to minor illusion. Prestidigitation itself has only a 10-foot range, and Thai maturity lacks one particular trick the other two can do. Leaving driidcraft the only one able to put a “harmless sensory effect” at the same range as minor illusion (30 feet).

A smell is amongst the explicit examples. Now your minor illusion of a plate of cookies can also smell like it is fresh-baked!

Well, no. You could cast red and blue (or oppositely polarized) transparent ice lenses or make a helmet to such an effect. Combined with a stereoscopic minor illusion, you can provide a window into a complete mirage arcane as compelling as Oculus.

[Tanarii]

It occurs to me that druidcraft - what I would otherwise consider the weakest choice amongst the trio of Prestidigitation-alikes - is the best complement to minor illusion.
Druidcraft's ability to predict weather in the next 24 hours would make them the most important people in a agrarian or local sea-based economy.

But not, like, powerful on a personal level. :smallamused:

[Chronos]

Red and blue lenses would work, since Shape Water does allow you to color it, and Minor Illusion certainly allows color, but red-blue 3D images always look somewhat lacking because you're using most of your color information to create depth instead of using it for, well, color. Polarized 3D works much better, but then you have the question of whether you can make polarizing lenses (by any means), and whether any given illusion can create light polarized in the way you want it.

Aside: One real-world illusion in which polarization features prominently is a rainbow, which is almost perfectly polarized along a circumferential axis. If you look at a rainbow wearing standard polarized sunglasses, you'll only see the near-upright sides, not the near-horizontal top of the arc.

[Segev]

Druidcraft's ability to predict weather in the next 24 hours would make them the most important people in a agrarian or local sea-based economy.

But not, like, powerful on a personal level. :smallamused:Right. The weather prediction is great...but not so hot for adventuring. It can have its uses, of course. It'd make you rich IRL: you'd be the world's only 100% accurate weatherman! Even with the vagueness of a single icon for the next 24 hours, being able to accurately predict rain would be a huge step up.


Well, no. You could cast red and blue (or oppositely polarized) transparent ice lenses or make a helmet to such an effect. Combined with a stereoscopic minor illusion, you can provide a window into a complete mirage arcane as compelling as Oculus.


Red and blue lenses would work, since Shape Water does allow you to color it, and Minor Illusion certainly allows color, but red-blue 3D images always look somewhat lacking because you're using most of your color information to create depth instead of using it for, well, color. Polarized 3D works much better, but then you have the question of whether you can make polarizing lenses (by any means), and whether any given illusion can create light polarized in the way you want it.Like I said, useful for entertainment purposes. You have to have the participants willingly wearing the glasses, and unless you can talk the DM into polarization being a thing for two spells, the verisimilitude is diminished. But it's not useless. Just not going to fool anybody; they'll know more or less what's up.


Aside: One real-world illusion in which polarization features prominently is a rainbow, which is almost perfectly polarized along a circumferential axis. If you look at a rainbow wearing standard polarized sunglasses, you'll only see the near-upright sides, not the near-horizontal top of the arc.

I did not know that, and I feel silly because I probably should have. That's neat. :)

[Chronos]

On thinking about it a bit more, I think I'd allow Silent Image (which allows "visual phenomena") to produce polarization, but not Minor Illusion. It's still moot, though, unless you're either trying to make an illusion to fool cuttlefish, or you have some way of making polarizers, and I can't think of any good way to make polarizers in a D&D world (certainly not any compact enough to make 3D glasses).

[Eldariel]

Right. The weather prediction is great...but not so hot for adventuring. It can have its uses, of course. It'd make you rich IRL: you'd be the world's only 100% accurate weatherman! Even with the vagueness of a single icon for the next 24 hours, being able to accurately predict rain would be a huge step up.

It is useful for choosing when to undertake operations you'd rather do in wind/rain (restricted vision and mundane ranged attacks, fewer flammable things) or fog (extremely restricted vision), or explicitly not in such conditions.

[Segev]

On thinking about it a bit more, I think I'd allow Silent Image (which allows "visual phenomena") to produce polarization, but not Minor Illusion. It's still moot, though, unless you're either trying to make an illusion to fool cuttlefish, or you have some way of making polarizers, and I can't think of any good way to make polarizers in a D&D world (certainly not any compact enough to make 3D glasses).

Honestly, even the concept is a bit "off" for a D&D setting. I'm not saying polarization magically doesn't exist, but mechanically, trying to science it in rather than just looking for whatever impacts it might have had in mythically-resonant historical ways and making mechanics for this seems like begging for trouble.

As an example, if silent image can make "polarization," then so can major image Two sixth-level major images of polarization would be able to cross over to make darkness. Or other odd effects.

[col_impact]

Ice can be used to polarize. You put a 'grain' like a wood grain the ice and it will polarize it. Similary, you can use an illusion to encode visual information either horizontally or vertically banded as different channels for a resulting 3D RGB image.

Ice can even make magnifying lenses for making fires from sunlight.

Heck. Ice is used in some laser setups. So light cantrip + shape water --> firebolt on the sly.

[Segev]

There is an irony to using ice to make a lens to start a fire.

If you only have shape water and neither druidcraft nor prestidigitagion, it's not a bad use for shape water, assuming you can convince your DM that your PC knows how to make lenses and start fires with them.

[col_impact]

There is an irony to using ice to make a lens to start a fire.

If you only have shape water and neither druidcraft nor prestidigitagion, it's not a bad use for shape water, assuming you can convince your DM that your PC knows how to make lenses and start fires with them.

That kind of technology is ancient. Didn't you ever see Raider's of the Lost Ark? The Aton was a magnifying solar disk made of crystal.

At any rate, all of these free cantrips can really supplement a Magic Jar strategy.

[CapnWildefyr]

A couple things, right from the spell description itself.
1. You can make an illusion of a candle, but it can't be lit. The spell says "no light." It's only a cantrip. Now, if it were one candle in a lit candelabra - no one would notice, though not sure why that would be useful.
2. The spell allows you to make sounds now and then make more sounds later, for the duration. So I would not have problem with some motion, but to me it would be like stop-motion animation - every round you can move it again. That could be useful.

I would -- for this cantrip -- be inclined to deny more motion that that.

3. You shouldn't be able to combine MI with shape water - if anything touches it, it goes right through. Can you really shape water that accurately? If you're really high level, or succeed on a skill check, maybe... otherwise I'd give a bonus to see through it. Scents and sounds would be different, though, as they don't directly interact with the illusion.

I don't see any problems with fake pits, perfect floors covering up blood stains, the shadow of a guard around the corner (moving every now and again), a broken window (especially if it was broken outwards so no shards in the illusion), even an loaded ballista in front of me (as long as I don't have to shoot!). The trick is to keep it simple -- and really, that's with all illusions. Give as little reason for disbelief as possible.

My PCs dead, bloodied corpse is fine, as long as it fits within 5'. Perhaps even a pile of bloody orc heads (that's one thing as much as the footprints listed in the spell!) to scare people away. An open bag of gems sitting on a trap door to a spiked pit, a full mug of beer (after you drank someone else's and are walking away), hold a real torch over an illusion of a demon peering over a wall so it looks like he has flaming hair...

[col_impact]

3. You shouldn't be able to combine MI with shape water - if anything touches it, it goes right through. Can you really shape water that accurately? If you're really high level, or succeed on a skill check, maybe... otherwise I'd give a bonus to see through it. Scents and sounds would be different, though, as they don't directly interact with the illusion.

RAW the combo works, but if you want to houserule to nerf it in the games you DM then go for it.

[Tanarii]

1. You can make an illusion of a candle, but it can't be lit. The spell says "no light." It's only a cantrip. Now, if it were one candle in a lit candelabra - no one would notice, though not sure why that would be useful.Unless flame counts as a phenomena, nothing prohibits a lit candle, lantern, or small fire. It just can't light up the area. Or itself for that matter. If you create it in the dark, no one can see it.

[CapnWildefyr]

Unless flame counts as a phenomena, nothing prohibits a lit candle, lantern, or small fire. It just can't light up the area. Or itself for that matter. If you create it in the dark, no one can see it.

True but the flame wont move realistically for MI (if you concur that with this cantrip you only get periodic movements)

col_impact - sorry I haven't figured out multiquote on my phone... But part of RAW is that anything real goes right through MI. I guess it goes to how detailed you allow shape water to be. If you permit instantaneously creating high details with it, then OK. I'd have to think about it in the context of the game session. If you reverse the order though and do the shape water first then np, far easier to craft around something than inside it (and out to the full volume).

[Segev]

My issue with shape water used with minor illusion is that it’s still water. How solid is it? If you freeze it, it’s now ice. It will feel cold. That might work for an illusory metal object. But at that point, you could color it and freeze it with shape water, no need for minor illusion.

[CapnWildefyr]

I agree. Keeping it simple works best. Illusion of a standing full body shield so enemy archers shoot at someone else. Illusion of caltrops so people slow down when chasing you (maybe not with MI, and definitely after you make a motion like you just threw them). With higher level spells, use an illusion of a wall of fire right after someone cast a real one that caused damage - who would disbelieve it (as long as it's not dropped on them)?

[col_impact]

My issue with shape water used with minor illusion is that it’s still water. How solid is it? If you freeze it, it’s now ice. It will feel cold. That might work for an illusory metal object. But at that point, you could color it and freeze it with shape water, no need for minor illusion.

If you make an ice club with shapewater could you fight with it?

Could you color it red and cast light within a clear section to give it a glow?

[Segev]

If you make an ice club with shapewater could you fight with it?

Could you color it red and cast light within a clear section to give it a glow?

Would be up to the DM whether he thinks ice is too fragile to use as a club. Probably could. Would still obviate the need for minor illusion if you're planning to make it look like something, and would still be cold to the touch.

[Chronos]

I'd allow ice to be used as a weapon... once. The first hit would break it, though.

And my ruling on light is that if you created an illusion of (say) a lantern in an area of natural darkness, then everyone could see the lantern, but it still wouldn't illuminate anything else. Which would probably be a pretty good clue that it was an illusion, but sometimes you don't care about that.

[Tanarii]

I'd allow ice to be used as a weapon... once. The first hit would break it, though.

And my ruling on light is that if you created an illusion of (say) a lantern in an area of natural darkness, then everyone could see the lantern, but it still wouldn't illuminate anything else. Which would probably be a pretty good clue that it was an illusion, but sometimes you don't care about that.
How are they seeing the lantern when it doesn't generate light?

I'm not saying an image of a lit lantern shouldn't be possible. I'm just saying it should not be visible unless there is another light source making it visible.

[Segev]

I'd allow ice to be used as a weapon... once. The first hit would break it, though.

And my ruling on light is that if you created an illusion of (say) a lantern in an area of natural darkness, then everyone could see the lantern, but it still wouldn't illuminate anything else. Which would probably be a pretty good clue that it was an illusion, but sometimes you don't care about that.


How are they seeing the lantern when it doesn't generate light?

I'm not saying an image of a lit lantern shouldn't be possible. I'm just saying it should not be visible unless there is another light source making it visible.

Don't put it in the dark.

Or it sheds illusory light, illuminating itself and any other thing that's part of the illusion generating it. (So a minor illusion of a lantern or candle on a table would have the illusory light source illuminating the candle or lantern itself, the table, and anything else that's part of that image of an object.) But nothing else. Which, again, is a pretty good indication "something's up" if you don't have it placed in a proper milleaux to disguise that the light should be reaching further.

The latter is my preference, but the former works, too: you put the illusory light-generating object in an area where there's enough ambient light that its own addition would be hard to pick out.

If I put a birthday cake on my dining room table and light up the candles without turning out the lights, it is not obviously increasing the light that's even falling on the top of the cake, for example. This is speaking in real life. If that cake is a lieillusion, then it still probably looks convincing enough that nobody will knee-jerk to say "those candles are not shedding light!" The more likely way it's discovered is when the rogue sneaks up to try to poke its frosting to lick it off his finger and finds that it's an illusion that way.

[Tanarii]

It can't create light. That means it cannot be seen unless there is already light. That doesn't mean it can't appear to be lit once you can see it. This isn't physics here, were not concerned about how something can appear to look light a lit thing that would normally generate light without generating light. It just does. But since it doesn't light up the area, that means you can't actually see the object if it's otherwise dark.

In other words, you shouldn't see a illusion of a lit lantern but nothing else if it's otherwise dark.

[EggKookoo]

It can't create light. That means it cannot be seen unless there is already light. That doesn't mean it can't appear to be lit once you can see it. This isn't physics here, were not concerned about how something can appear to look light a lit thing that would normally generate light without generating light. It just does. But since it doesn't light up the area, that means you can't actually see the object if it's otherwise dark.

In other words, you shouldn't see a illusion of a lit lantern but nothing else if it's otherwise dark.

The problem here is that once you go down this path, all illusions are invisible. If an illusion can't emit light and can't reflect light, how do you see it even in a well-lit room? You're not seeing it because it's reflecting the room's normal light. And you're not seeing it because it's emitting light or somehow glowing. Can it block light? If not, you're not even seeing a black space where the illusion is. You see nothing.

So an illusion must be able to emit, block, and reflect light in order to be perceived at all. Or (as I like to interpret it), the magic behind the illusion makes the observer think it's doing these things. But if that's the case, you would see an illusion of a lit lantern in a dark room because you think you are.

[Segev]

It can't create light. That means it cannot be seen unless there is already light. That doesn't mean it can't appear to be lit once you can see it. This isn't physics here, were not concerned about how something can appear to look light a lit thing that would normally generate light without generating light. It just does. But since it doesn't light up the area, that means you can't actually see the object if it's otherwise dark.

In other words, you shouldn't see a illusion of a lit lantern but nothing else if it's otherwise dark.

That's really a judgment call, because *handwaves* M~a~GI~c.

It doesn't have to emit light to be visible. It just has to look like it does. Now, I'm not going to argue with a DM who decides to rule that it has to be externally lit to be visible, either, but I will contend that there's nothing saying my way is invalid. The only rule is that it doesn't emit light, which means it can't illuminate anything other than itself. It isn't really illuminating itself, either, but it looks like it is. So it's magically visible.

I'm fine with a DM who rules as Tanarii would, though, too, that it only "looks" illuminated if it's lit up by something else. It's just not how I'd rule, because I think it's more interesting my way, and that I'm not breaking any rules nor making it overpowered by doing so.

[EggKookoo]

The only rule is that it doesn't emit light, which means it can't illuminate anything other than itself.

But it can create the illusion that it's illuminating other things. The mind boggles...

[Segev]

But it can create the illusion that it's illuminating other things. The mind boggles...

I never said that. In fact, I've said the opposite (just not in the most recent exchange). It cannot illuminate things that are not part of its own illusion.

[EggKookoo]

I never said that. In fact, I've said the opposite (just not in the most recent exchange). It cannot illuminate things that are not part of its own illusion.

No, I know. That's my interpretation. My mind boggles at exactly what you do see when you light up an illusory torch in a dark room.

[Tanarii]

It doesn't have to emit light to be visible. It just has to look like it does. Now, I'm not going to argue with a DM who decides to rule that it has to be externally lit to be visible, either, but I will contend that there's nothing saying my way is invalid. The only rule is that it doesn't emit light, which means it can't illuminate anything other than itself. It isn't really illuminating itself, either, but it looks like it is. So it's magically visible.

Create light. Not emit light. We're not talking physics of light particles coming from (or bouncing off) the illusion here. Either an area is lighted and you can see objects in it, or it isn't and you can't.

It's a magical illusion of an object, that can't create light, therefore there must already be light there to see the illusion of the object. And it can't "illuminate ... itself" because that would be creating light.

[JackPhoenix]

I never said that. In fact, I've said the opposite (just not in the most recent exchange). It cannot illuminate things that are not part of its own illusion.

It cannot illuminate anything. Not even itself. An photo (or a model) of a lit candle won't be visible in dark room, and will look obviously fake even in a dim corner.

[Segev]

Create light. Not emit light. We're not talking physics of light particles coming from (or bouncing off) the illusion here. Either an area is lighted and you can see objects in it, or it isn't and you can't.

It's a magical illusion of an object, that can't create light, therefore there must already be light there to see the illusion of the object. And it can't "illuminate ... itself" because that would be creating light.


It cannot illuminate anything. Not even itself. An photo (or a model) of a lit candle won't be visible in dark room, and will look obviously fake even in a dim corner.

And, like I said, I wouldn't argue with a DM who ruled that to be the case. But we are playing in a world where light isn't necessary to see (darkvision, Devil's Sight), so I see nothing wrong with an illusory image being magically visible even without being illuminated.

You're repeating arguments that I am fully cognizant of and understand completely. I'm saying that, while I don't find them faulty, I don't find them to be as essentially convincing as you do.

I'm saying it doesn't need to create light to be visible without light, because it's magic and because darkvision is a thing that proves light isn't essential to see something. What it cannot do is render anything else visible that would not be due to local lighting conditions, because it's not creating light to illuminate them.

You're saying that it can't be visible if it isn't illuminated. (I assume that you'd still allow it to be visible - in black and white - to darkvision.) That's a fine ruling, and I would absolutely be fine playing in a game with that ruling.

I just find it more prone to fun and amusing shenanigans if it can be visible even without being lit up. It's an illusion. It LOOKS lit up.

[Tanarii]

I just feel it doesn't match the text. I'm down with amusing shenanigans. Consider me sold on that basis. :smallamused: