Silent Image - Unseen Attacker

[Gale]

Hi, I've been thinking about a potential use for Silent Image, but I'm not sure if it actually works as I want it to. Wondering what other people's opinions on this are.

The basic premise is:

• Create silent image of a 15 ft. wide wall slightly taller than you are.
• On your next turn walk behind it.
• You are now an unseen attacker. Stand on the tips of your toes or do a small hop to attack over the wall with advantage. (Don't attack directly through the wall, as physical objects passing through it will reveal that it's not real.)
• Optional: Move away from the wall after attacking to discourage enemies from interacting with it and noticing it's fake.

My questions are, does this work as intended? The enemies see you walk behind the wall, thus they know where you are and will be expecting an attack. You are unseen, but the instant any sight of you and your weapon or spell focus comes into view you would no longer be unseen, correct? Does this mean the attack cannot be made with advantage?

Alternatively, would you allow a player to arc a firebolt or an arrow over the wall, therefore remaining totally unseen throughout the entire attack?

What if a Wizard created a wall of fire and then hurled a firebolt straight through it? Would the illusionary wall of fire be a convincing enough diversion to subvert the rule that a physical object passing through the illusion immediately reveals that it's fake?

Is a player even allowed to become an "Unseen Attacker" simply by walking behind an illusion, despite being watched the entire time and not taking the Hide action?

[ThorOdinson]

I do something similar to what you are trying to do except I make illusionary fog which is much easier to sell when attacks come out of a fog and yet obscure the source.

I also like to cast the illusionary fog ahead of an encounter, allowing the party to identify it as an illusion, and then move it out of sight underground. Then when combat starts I just move it into position.

[MinotaurWarrior]

It is precisely as legit as a real wall, except to creatures who see through the illusion.

The big thing your story was missing, imo, was taking the hide action. I'd allow a hidden pc to peak over the top or around the sides without being seen, but not an unhidden pc.

[MoiMagnus]

Stand on the tips of your toes or do a small hop to attack over the wall with advantage. (Don't attack directly through the wall, as physical objects passing through it will reveal that it's not real.)

The only problems I have are:
1) If the enemy knows you are behind, they are expecting you to make small hope, and might "see" you just before you attack, denying the bonus from being unseen. Unless you used an action to hide, in which case that's ok.
2) Attacking from a particularly uncomfortable position (firing while jumping, etc) can be worth a disadvantage that compensate for the advantage of being unseen.

Though, if instead of a wall you clumsily try to hope above, you should use a wall with multiple arrowslits. You know, the thing which is actually designed to let you see as much as possible of the enemies while covering you.

[Keravath]

As far as RAW goes, the only thing you have to do to make that work is to take the hide action. If you succeed the defender loses track of exactly where you are and thus is slower to react when you pop out to attack and you get advantage on the attack roll.

Some DMs think that hidden means that the defender has no idea where the character is so it should not work behind a tree or other smaller object even though if you are going by the rules that should be fine. All that is required is something that provides the heavily obscured condition (which includes walls, trees etc) which allows you to take the hide action. (Some races like wood elves and halflings allow them to take the hide action even if only lightly obscured - wood elves it is natural terrain and for halflings it is a creature at least one size larger.)

Basically, being hidden means that the defender does not have a clear enough view of the attacker to respond to the incoming attack so the attacker gets advantage on the attack roll.

---

Using Silent Image to create a picture of an object you can hide behind is fine. The main issues are that it isn't a realistic image. Silent Image can be moved from location to location as an action but what it looks like exactly requires some DM buy in. For example, a wall is easy since it is static but there is nothing in Silent Image that says you can create an image of something that would be moving. For example, if you create an image of fog that doesn't move at all ... that would look very strange. Also, the description of Silent Image says "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it." It doesn't distinguish between something like fog where you might expect an object to pass through and a wall where you wouldn't. So this becomes a DM call as well. A DM could say that since the arrow doesn't cause any disturbance in an illusory fog that it is clear to an observer that the fog isn't real.

So if you are going to make use of illusions - talk to your DM. Your ideas should be fine but it will be up to the individual DM.

[Gale]

Though, if instead of a wall you clumsily try to hope above, you should use a wall with multiple arrowslits. You know, the thing which is actually designed to let you see as much as possible of the enemies while covering you.

I was considering arrow slits as well, but my issue was that if you moved in front of an arrow slit in order to make an attack it would be pretty obvious where you were to anyone looking at the wall, and therefore you're not an Unseen Attacker (at least, that's how I would rule it.) Although, you would likely have three-quarters or total cover.

The big thing your story was missing, imo, was taking the hide action. I'd allow a hidden pc to peak over the top or around the sides without being seen, but not an unhidden pc.

Is the hide action necessary? Hiding successfully does make you an Unseen Attacker but likewise the Invisibility spell does the same. In other words, you don't necessarily need to take the Hide action in order to be unseen. I can't imagine if I used Silent Image to create a giant 15 ft. cube around myself, ceiling and all, and then attacked from behind it, that I wouldn't count as an Unseen attacker simply because I hadn't also taken the Hide action. Obviously no onlooker would be able to determine precisely where my attack was going to come from despite knowing I am somewhere within the cube, especially if I created the illusionary cube and then moved to a random, different square than my starting position before attacking.

[Chugger]

In most battles your illusion won't last long - you'll often get one advantaged attack through it (you can see through the illusionary wall; they can't) - and then they know it's an illusion.

There are other ways to get advantage - familiar helps you - shadow of moil if you're a lock - greater invis - and so on.

I'd usually not cast an illusion in battle because of the action economy issues - but if I can prep a fight that I know is coming, it makes sense. Most DMs won't let you keep the illusion long: the enemy will interact with your illusion-wall fast and it goes transparent for all.

[ThorOdinson]

In most battles your illusion won't last long - you'll often get one advantaged attack through it (you can see through the illusionary wall; they can't) - and then they know it's an illusion.

There are other ways to get advantage - familiar helps you - shadow of moil if you're a lock - greater invis - and so on.

I'd usually not cast an illusion in battle because of the action economy issues - but if I can prep a fight that I know is coming, it makes sense. Most DMs won't let you keep the illusion long: the enemy will interact with your illusion-wall fast and it goes transparent for all.

These are good points. However, if you make the illusion ahead of combat and give the party a chance to discern it as an illusion and then move it underground for future use then . . .

Everyone in the party gets unseen advantage for at least one round and typically each of your opponents has to take an action to discern the illusion at range or move into the space of the illusion to discern it that way. That is good value. If you maintain concentration on the silent image you can do it again next combat.

[sophontteks]

When you peek over it you are no longer unseen. This wouldn't work any differently then normal barriers. I'm not an unseen attacker when I peek from cover unless I used the hide action.

[MoiMagnus]

I was considering arrow slits as well, but my issue was that if you moved in front of an arrow slit in order to make an attack it would be pretty obvious where you were to anyone looking at the wall, and therefore you're not an Unseen Attacker (at least, that's how I would rule it.)

If you put a single arrow slit, sure. But if you put 3 arrow slits, there is not a lot of differences for the enemy between "randomly choosing one of the slit and shoot" and "randomly choosing a position of the wall to hope above and shoot".

In both cases, the enemy has a rough idea of where you are but doesn't know from where exactly you will attack, and will see something moving just before you attack.

[MinotaurWarrior]

Is the hide action necessary? Hiding successfully does make you an Unseen Attacker but likewise the Invisibility spell does the same. In other words, you don't necessarily need to take the Hide action in order to be unseen. I can't imagine if I used Silent Image to create a giant 15 ft. cube around myself, ceiling and all, and then attacked from behind it, that I wouldn't count as an Unseen attacker simply because I hadn't also taken the Hide action. Obviously no onlooker would be able to determine precisely where my attack was going to come from despite knowing I am somewhere within the cube, especially if I created the illusionary cube and then moved to a random, different square than my starting position before attacking.

Hiding is necessary for your original story. Otherwise, hopping up, you are visible.

Shooting from inside an illusory cube works - once.

[Segev]

Hiding is necessary for your original story. Otherwise, hopping up, you are visible.

Shooting from inside an illusory cube works - once.

I like using large bushes/hedges with minor illusion, and fog with silent image.

[sophontteks]

I was considering arrow slits as well, but my issue was that if you moved in front of an arrow slit in order to make an attack it would be pretty obvious where you were to anyone looking at the wall, and therefore you're not an Unseen Attacker (at least, that's how I would rule it.) Although, you would likely have three-quarters or total cover.



Is the hide action necessary? Hiding successfully does make you an Unseen Attacker but likewise the Invisibility spell does the same. In other words, you don't necessarily need to take the Hide action in order to be unseen. I can't imagine if I used Silent Image to create a giant 15 ft. cube around myself, ceiling and all, and then attacked from behind it, that I wouldn't count as an Unseen attacker simply because I hadn't also taken the Hide action. Obviously no onlooker would be able to determine precisely where my attack was going to come from despite knowing I am somewhere within the cube, especially if I created the illusionary cube and then moved to a random, different square than my starting position before attacking.

The way our eyes work we don't need to know exactly where something is. We have a wide arc of vision. We can detect movement and change focus almost instantly. It may be difficult for a creature to react fast enough to shoot back, but it's not realistic to think you can peek from cover while remaining unseen.

Many creatures can hear you, or possibly even smell you, well enough to pinpoint your position anyway, and many also have better vision then us.

[Gale]

I still have one question that has gone unanswered. I can accept that trying to poke your head over the wall to shoot an enemy would count as revealing yourself. But what if you were to arc an arrow over the wall instead? You can see through the wall since it's your illusion, therefore you should have a pretty easy time pinpointing a target. You aren't revealing yourself at any point by doing this either, so no enemies should be able to spot you.

Does this work? Are you still unseen? Would the shot be made with advantage?

The only problem I can foresee is that a DM might say you have disadvantage since you're trying to make a tricky shot. But personally, I think arcing an arrow is a pretty basic maneuver any fantasy archer would be able to do without a problem. Again, the wall isn't counting as cover here (for the enemies) since it's not real and you, the spell caster, can see right through it.

[Segev]

I still have one question that has gone unanswered. I can accept that trying to poke your head over the wall to shoot an enemy would count as revealing yourself. But what if you were to arc an arrow over the wall instead? You can see through the wall since it's your illusion, therefore you should have a pretty easy time pinpointing a target. You aren't revealing yourself at any point by doing this either, so no enemies should be able to spot you.

Does this work? Are you still unseen? Would the shot be made with advantage?

The only problem I can foresee is that a DM might say you have disadvantage since you're trying to make a tricky shot. But personally, I think arcing an arrow is a pretty basic maneuver any fantasy archer would be able to do without a problem. Again, the wall isn't counting as cover here (for the enemies) since it's not real and you, the spell caster, can see right through it.

It should work. They're called "archers" for a reason.