Illusion Spell Question

[carrdrivesyou]

So Minor Illusion, Silent Image and the like all have the ability to alter the appearance of a certain area, imitating furniture, walls, or doors. Simple stuff, really. But i wonder if you cast the spell while you are inside the affected area, can you create an identical image of the area, but without you appearing in it? Like an invisibility of a sort.

[JackPhoenix]

No. Ten characters

[Tanarii]

It doesn't work because:
1) you are physically interacting with the illusion so it will go faint reveal it to be an illusion
2) these illusions can't remove things, they can only add things.

Same reason you can't make an illusion of an empty pit. (Yeah, I went there. :smallamused:)

Edit: I was mixing up the physical interaction and investigation check rules. Edited #1 to correct it.

[Galithar]

It doesn't work because:
1) you are physically interacting with the illusion so it will go faint
2) these illusions can't remove things, they can only add things.

Same reason you can't make an illusion of an empty pit. (Yeah, I went there. :smallamused:)

1) that only makes it faint for YOU or someone that sees you interact with it. If they can't see you through it, then it doesn't matter. They would have to go through it or see someone go through it.

2) you don't have to remove something to do this. you can create an image that matches your surroundings.

Now that I say that, I also agree that it doesn't work for different reasons though. You would have to be creating a static image of the area. So imagine it as a box with a flat image on the surface with you in the middle in order to do this. Now any creature that moves around this would have a high likelihood of noticing that it doesn't maintain proper perspective. You can't make yourself invisible, but you can make a false image of the same area without you in it.

Imagine street art that makes it look like there is a hole in the sidewalk. When done well it works perfectly and makes it look like there is a hole, but if you step away from the point of perspective of the image it becomes obviously as a drawing.

Edit: the empty pit has the same issue. You can do it, but it will only looking like an empty pit from a very specific point, to anyone else it would be obviously fake defeating the illusion.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I have two examples I saw in play for this things:
1)
I saw a sorcerer use it to create a barrel around her.

2)
I saw an enemy caster block my kobold in a glass box with it.

The stupid enemies mad him angry enough to shoot the box from the inside of the glass to their direction even when I was sure it will be blocked by the glass and got hit with a crit SA that rolled max damage(I was sure I missed an amazing crit but then the DM told me the arrow hit the enemy and not the glass).

[Chronos]

You can make an illusion of the room without you in it. If someone looks at the chair in the room, say, they'll see the chair, even if it's since been removed, since there's an illusion of the chair there. If they look at you, they'll see you, even though you're not part of the illusion: They're seeing you because you're there.

[Guy Lombard-O]

So Minor Illusion, Silent Image and the like all have the ability to alter the appearance of a certain area, imitating furniture, walls, or doors. Simple stuff, really. But i wonder if you cast the spell while you are inside the affected area, can you create an identical image of the area, but without you appearing in it? Like an invisibility of a sort.

I would say that this doesn't work for a different reason - primarily, because none of those spells actually "alter the appearance of a certain area, imitating furniture, walls, or doors." Instead, they all (as least Minor Illusion, Silent Image & Major Image) state that they can create "an" object or creature. As in, one object. Not alter the appearance of an entire area.

I'm all for the creative use of illusions, but I don't think this idea matches up with the text of those spells.

[Tanarii]

I would say that this doesn't work for a different reason - primarily, because none of those spells actually "alter the appearance of a certain area, imitating furniture, walls, or doors." Instead, they all (as least Minor Illusion, Silent Image & Major Image) state that they can create "an" object or creature. As in, one object. Not alter the appearance of an entire area.

I'm all for the creative use of illusions, but I don't think this idea matches up with the text of those spells.Yeah, I think that's the core problem here. Lots of people seem to have this idea that the spells alter the appearance of an area, but that's not what they do.

Hallucinatory Terrain is a different matter. And that's why it has additional text relating to overlapping/changing objects etc.

[Segev]

Yeah, these spells don't make anything invisible. You can't make illusions of holes that aren't optical illusions (i.e. you could do the street chalk thing with forced perspective...that works from one angle, or you could make a cartoon-style "dark hole" that looks reasonable in the right lighting but is really just a black spot). You can't make something "not there." You have to add something with them.

You could absolutely make a rock, barrel, tree, pillar, or even move the wall (if small enough in area) a foot or two so you're hiding in the thing, though.

[Aimeryan]

You can surround yourself with an illusion; that will block line of sight to you. Equally, you could get an actual object to do the same thing. The problem is that unless the object/illusion fits in with the surroundings it is going to stick out - which defeats the point.

Now, the OP question was to create an identical image which is a specific use of this theory; rather than any old object that will fit into the environment you need to make yourself look like the environment would from the angle being viewed. There are real life attempts at this; Wikipedia has an article on Active Camouflage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_camouflage).

The difficulty here is that you need to account for distance and angle changes. The above Wikipedia article has something on this too: Phased-Array Optics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased-array_optics). Some quotes:


While still theoretical, such high resolution arrays would permit extremely realistic three-dimensional image display by dynamic holography with no unwanted orders of diffraction. Applications for weapons, space communications, and invisibility by optical camouflage have also been suggested.


Unlike a two-dimensional image, the holographic image would appear to be the actual scenery behind the object independent of viewer distance or view angle.

So, could a caster manage this? I think it would at least require an Intellect check to see if they can figure out how to do so, and then probably an Arcana check to see if they actually manage to do so.

[Tanarii]

IMO the chalk drawing forced perspective thing isn't going to fly with most DMs. It's an anachronism, and it isn't going to be what most people think of when they read creature, object or phenomena.

[Segev]

IMO the chalk drawing forced perspective thing isn't going to fly with most DMs. It's an anachronism, and it isn't going to be what most people think of when they read creature, object or phenomena.

I'd allow it in the same vein that I'd allow a portrait (an "object") to be created. I also wouldn't let it have all that much impact, except in very narrow circumstances. These (optical) illusions aren't as powerful when you can move relative to them.

[Chronos]

Another thing you can do: My group once had to retrieve some MacGuffin artifact, that was being guarded. One of the party members made an illusion of the artifact, right on top of the real thing. Then, we briefly distracted the guards, and while the guards were distracted, grabbed the real thing and got away. When the distraction was over, the guards saw the illusion still there, and assumed that we hadn't stolen it.

[Segev]

Another thing you can do: My group once had to retrieve some MacGuffin artifact, that was being guarded. One of the party members made an illusion of the artifact, right on top of the real thing. Then, we briefly distracted the guards, and while the guards were distracted, grabbed the real thing and got away. When the distraction was over, the guards saw the illusion still there, and assumed that we hadn't stolen it.

Nice! That's a great use of even minor illusion.

[Tanarii]

Another thing you can do: My group once had to retrieve some MacGuffin artifact, that was being guarded. One of the party members made an illusion of the artifact, right on top of the real thing. Then, we briefly distracted the guards, and while the guards were distracted, grabbed the real thing and got away. When the distraction was over, the guards saw the illusion still there, and assumed that we hadn't stolen it.
Did you recast the illusion after physically interaction with it?

[Segev]

Did you recast the illusion after physically interaction with it?

If we're going to claim that it goes faint for everybody, even those not looking, after anything physically interacts with it, then the simple equally-technical answer is that nobody physically interacted with it. The object taken out from under it never interacted at all. Alternatively, the illusion was already faint because it was resting on something, and that's physical interaction. Since I doubt that the DM ruled that the illusion failed when the writer said this worked, I'll assume that wasn't the interpretation the DM used.

If we assume, however, that "physical interaction" is a replacement for an Investigation check for each observer, the fact that they distracted the guards from looking as the thing was snatched prevented any of them from noticing the physical interaction, so it didn't go faint for them.

It requires some weirdly-strict interpretation of the RAW and some weirdly-broad ignoring of them to get it turning faint only when the item was taken away, but doing so for everybody.

[Tanarii]

I mean, the rule doesn't make it go faint at all for physical interaction. All it does it reveal it to be an illusion. Nor is it specific to one creature.

Most people just assume it's connected to the going faint rule. D&D beyond makes it pretty clear it's not, they formatted it to be a completely separate paragraph for the Investigation check & going faint rule. Edit: I checked my rule book and it's formatted the same way. That pretty much puts a nail in the coffin for the argument that physical interaction rule makes it go faint.

But you're correct. The going faint rule is specifically per creature. I was getting my rules mixed up.

[Dmdork]

It doesn't work because:
1) you are physically interacting with the illusion so it will go faint
2) these illusions can't remove things, they can only add things.

Same reason you can't make an illusion of an empty pit. (Yeah, I went there. :smallamused:)

You can't?

[Nagog]

IMO the chalk drawing forced perspective thing isn't going to fly with most DMs. It's an anachronism, and it isn't going to be what most people think of when they read creature, object or phenomena.


I'd allow it in the same vein that I'd allow a portrait (an "object") to be created. I also wouldn't let it have all that much impact, except in very narrow circumstances. These (optical) illusions aren't as powerful when you can move relative to them.

I'd say that in the case of the hole, moving around it would count as interacting with it. Moving from the targeted angle reveals it's illusory nature, similarly to looking into an illusory mirror won't show your reflection.

For those who want good uses of illusions, in a game I DMed last week, the party was exploring a castle via a multi target "Project Image" spell (Mostly DM Fiat on that one, I wanted to give them a taste of what was going on without having something kill them outright). When the BBEG found them, the Warlock cast Silent Image to make a wall grow from the floor in front of the BBEG. The BBEG is not intelligent, and did not have an investigation bonus that made investigating the wall a viable option, and they had no reason to suspect it to be an illusion. Warlock cast a spell and a wall came up. Perhaps the next Fireball is also an illusion? However, the BBEG is also a 10 foot tall musclebound Were-Sabretooth, so when somebody puts a wall in it's way, it's gonna smash that wall down. It used it's big attack to swipe at the wall, and discovered it to be an illusion. Taking the enemy's action to investigate or interact with the illusion has in essence the same effect, if the Investigation check exceeds the Spell Save DC. Interacting is almost always the best bet, unless the illusion is of a growling bear. It's all about mind games.

I don't remember what point I was making with that story relevant to the thread, but... There it is I guess. XD Illusions are basically holograms. You can make somebody see something that isn't there, but you can't make somebody not see something that is there, unless something that isn't there is in the way.

[Desamir]

I tend to agree with the folks who say creating illusory pits or "empty" rooms would have issues with perspective, and as such they would be unconvincing in many situations.


I would say that this doesn't work for a different reason - primarily, because none of those spells actually "alter the appearance of a certain area, imitating furniture, walls, or doors." Instead, they all (as least Minor Illusion, Silent Image & Major Image) state that they can create "an" object or creature. As in, one object. Not alter the appearance of an entire area.

I'm all for the creative use of illusions, but I don't think this idea matches up with the text of those spells.


Yeah, I think that's the core problem here. Lots of people seem to have this idea that the spells alter the appearance of an area, but that's not what they do

It's reasonable to interpret "...or some other visible phenomenon..." as support for this level of flexibility.

[borg286]

So Minor Illusion, Silent Image and the like all have the ability to alter the appearance of a certain area, imitating furniture, walls, or doors. Simple stuff, really. But i wonder if you cast the spell while you are inside the affected area, can you create an identical image of the area, but without you appearing in it? Like an invisibility of a sort.

If you're in combat you can imitate the Mold Earth spell (albiet without the movement of dirt aspect) and form a 5'x5' barricade. Enemy archers would likely accept that an arrow sinking into the freshly dug dirt might sink through. Make an image of your head peeking out the top to give archers a target to aim at, which isn't you. You, on the other hand would be standing up from prone, putting your head in the right spot and cast ranged spells, or just staying prone if no attack roll is needed. Onlookers would be nonethewiser. They'd have disadvantage on the attacks, but not for 3/4 cover, but from you being prone.

[Tanarii]

It's reasonable to interpret "...or some other visible phenomenon..." as support for this level of flexibility.
Fog/Mist. Fire/Flames.

"An entire room full of objects" isn't phenomena. That's object(s), plural.

[Guy Lombard-O]

Fog/Mist. Fire/Flames.

"An entire room full of objects" isn't phenomena. That's object(s), plural.

That's exactly how I'd interpret that "visible phenomenon" language as well. You can make something that looks like a cloud of poison gas, but not use that language to justify ignoring "an" object or creature in favor of making a bunch of objects or creatures and calling them "visible phenomenon".

[Desamir]

Fog/Mist. Fire/Flames.

"An entire room full of objects" isn't phenomena. That's object(s), plural.


That's exactly how I'd interpret that "visible phenomenon" language as well. You can make something that looks like a cloud of poison gas, but not use that language to justify ignoring "an" object or creature in favor of making a bunch of objects or creatures and calling them "visible phenomenon".

As I said, this is a matter of interpretation. It's reasonable to interpret "visual phenomenon" as a cloud of fog. It's also reasonable to interpret it as the definition of the phrase "visual phenomenon," which covers nearly any kind of visual image, including a group of objects.

If you prefer a different kind of rationale: a water droplet is an object, and a fog cloud is a group of them.

[Segev]

Hm. I'll need to think about that, but, to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, Tanarii, you're saying that if a silent image (for example) is poked with a ten-foot pole and everyone sees the pole go through it, they know it's an illusion via "revealed to be an illusion," but they don't see it go faint? Or am I misunderstanding your claim?

Fog/Mist. Fire/Flames.

"An entire room full of objects" isn't phenomena. That's object(s), plural.To be fair, a "pile of gold pieces on the floor" that fits (easily) within a 15-foot cube is probably a lot of individual objects, if it's real. But the illusion of "a pile of gold pieces on the floor" and "a lump of gold painstakingly sculpted to look like individual gold pieces piled on top of each other" look remarkably similar.

You can get other, similar "one-object" multi-object illusions this way. You'll definitely lose some of the mobile utility of silent image and its bigger siblings, unless you have Malleable Illusions, but it's not unfeasible to use it as a poor man's hallucinatory terrain. It's just going to be...a little trickier. And definitely smaller-scale.

[Derpy]

With the two spells listed in the OP, they don't say they can't make someone appear as though they're not there. I don't think I'd let them mimic the invisibility spell. Even if I allowed that they could create multiple objects (I don't), they wouldn't remove the person. If someone wanted to be invisible, there is already a spell for that.
Minor Illusion can specifically only create one object (or sound). Silent image lists a bunch of single things it can create. An object, a creature, or some phenomenon (which is the singular of the word). Multiple objects is not a phenomenon, it's multiple objects, which is counter to the spells wording like 5 words prior. if they meant the spell to make multiple objects they would have put it out as objects, not object. To me, phenomenon means it can do things like smoke, rainbows, flame, water, or other more nebulous things that are not objects. Furthermore, If they meant phenomenon to mean more then one thing they could have used the word phenomena, the plural version of the word.

Most important thing about illusions, IMO, is making sure everyone at the table is on the same page for what they can do. It's not going to be perfectly described in a way everyone is 100% in agreement; each illusion spell would take pages on it's own. There are a lot of interpretations of them because of their nature and their wording. Whatever works for peoples' tables is fine; there is no wrong answer if everyone is having fun.

[Chronos]

To be fair, a "pile of gold pieces on the floor" that fits (easily) within a 15-foot cube is probably a lot of individual objects, if it's real. But the illusion of "a pile of gold pieces on the floor" and "a lump of gold painstakingly sculpted to look like individual gold pieces piled on top of each other" look remarkably similar.
That's my take on it. It's possible to have one object that looks like a whole bunch of objects, so if you want a bunch of objects in an illusion, make an illusion of one object that looks like a bunch of objects. So long as it fits within the spell's area, I'm not going to make an issue of it.

[Tanarii]

Hm. I'll need to think about that, but, to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, Tanarii, you're saying that if a silent image (for example) is poked with a ten-foot pole and everyone sees the pole go through it, they know it's an illusion via "revealed to be an illusion," but they don't see it go faint? Or am I misunderstanding your claim?Yes that is correct. My interpretation is the going faint clause is a sub clause of using an action to make an Investigation check. That's further born out by the paragraph structure.



To be fair, a "pile of gold pieces on the floor" that fits (easily) within a 15-foot cube is probably a lot of individual objects, if it's real. But the illusion of "a pile of gold pieces on the floor" and "a lump of gold painstakingly sculpted to look like individual gold pieces piled on top of each other" look remarkably similar.

You can get other, similar "one-object" multi-object illusions this way. You'll definitely lose some of the mobile utility of silent image and its bigger siblings, unless you have Malleable Illusions, but it's not unfeasible to use it as a poor man's hallucinatory terrain. It's just going to be...a little trickier. And definitely smaller-scale.Yes collections of small objects are an issue if a DM gets really tetchy.

But my point was a roomful of objects, or a scene, or a panorama, or whatever you want to call it, are not "phenomena".

[Segev]

Yes that is correct. My interpretation is the going faint clause is a sub clause of using an action to make an Investigation check. That's further born out by the paragraph structure.PErsonally, the way I read it, the whole thing is just describing that a) if you know (not guess, or suspect, but know) it's an illusion, it's faint for you, and b) you can figure out for sure by an Investigation check, or seeing something do something impossible with it.

Further, I tend to assume the Investigation check is just noticing something inobvious doing what the "physical interaction" clause is saying is obvious. That is, with an Investigation check, you notice the pebble on the floor that's half-embeded in the illusory door. If, instead, you see somebody walk through the illusion without opening it, you basically can't fail the Investigation check.

That said, I see where you're coming from; I just think 5e is, in general, less gamist than 3e was and that they're trying to describe the same phenomenon with different words and cases for clarity...and obviously not succeeding perfectly well.


Yes collections of small objects are an issue if a DM gets really tetchy.

But my point was a roomful of objects, or a scene, or a panorama, or whatever you want to call it, are not "phenomena".If the room is less than 15 feet on a side, I'd probably allow a silent image to completely redecorate it, so long as anything removed was removed by covering it completely with some other part of the illusion. The "object" or "phenomenon" being a shell that wraps around the interior, essentially, looking like a bunch of different things.