Major image of a dense cloud

[Segev]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it just an image? It doesn't fill the entire area with a cloud of fog, it just fills the perimeter with the picture of it. So enveloping enemies would restrict vision into and out of the perimeter only, not create obscurement throughout the area. At least that's how I always picture it.

No, it's not a painting on a shell. It's an illusion. It fills the space it occupies.

[chiefwaha]

No, it's not a painting on a shell. It's an illusion. It fills the space it occupies.

But it's an image... There's not fake blood and guts inside an illusionary being, why would there be illusionary fog inside an illusionary fog bank?

[Segev]

But it's an image... There's not fake blood and guts inside an illusionary being, why would there be illusionary fog inside an illusionary fog bank?

Are you sure there aren't? And there'd be illusory fog inside the illusory fog bank because the actual image is of the billions of tiny water droplets. (Or insert other explanations here.) The idea that it's a hollow shell is a weird one, to me, and this is the first I've ever heard of it.

[Willowhelm]

But it's an image... There's not fake blood and guts inside an illusionary being, why would there be illusionary fog inside an illusionary fog bank?

You can think of it as a shell in the same way objects in video games are just shells if that’s how it works in your game. Even with that interpretation though, in this case you’re not making one cube with fog painted on the outside, you’re making thousands and thousands of particles/points of “fog” inside that space.

What happens when you stick your head into the body of a major image of a cow… is a question I haven’t thought about before. It could be like clipping through an object in a video game (empty shell) or you might have filled it with illusory organs…interesting.

[chiefwaha]

Are you sure there aren't? And there'd be illusory fog inside the illusory fog bank because the actual image is of the billions of tiny water droplets. (Or insert other explanations here.) The idea that it's a hollow shell is a weird one, to me, and this is the first I've ever heard of it.

I've always thought of it this way... In my mind, the 'Image' spells are paintings, not sculptures.

EDIT: Also, again with the disclaimer that this is from my reading of Major Image, you couldn't create the image of billions of water droplets... You can only create one thing... So, a bird, not a flock of birds.

[CapnWildefyr]

Things don't pass through fog or smoke. They move it aside and otherwise interact with it. Colloquially we may refer to it as that, but it's not what's actually happening.

Like I said, physical interaction is physical interaction. I've seen your argument made enough times now to realize they made a mistake in trying to explain what physical interaction entails with an illusion.

Just wondering... what about the continuing paragraphs in the spell, where you can move it around and alter it. It's written, I think, to cover the motions of fake creatures, but what if the illusionary fog bank is in front of the enemy, and you use your action to make the fog bank respond to creatures moving into it? So yes it does move away from them (more or less). At least for a bit, and the spellcaster is concentrating on it.

Personally, I'm with the "give 'em a save crowd" and I'd modify it by what the player tells me in terms of how it behaves. On the easy-save end: "Uh, I make a illusion of a fog bank" and on the harder save end: "I make an illusion of a fog cloud between us and them, and I tell my peeps I'm doing it, and then I concentrate on it so that when the enemy walks into it, it swirls around them and etc etc etc." I would not expect it to hold up long (you are right, it is interaction), only for a few rounds at most.

[Segev]

I've always thought of it this way... In my mind, the 'Image' spells are paintings, not sculptures.

EDIT: Also, again with the disclaimer that this is from my reading of Major Image, you couldn't create the image of billions of water droplets... You can only create one thing... So, a bird, not a flock of birds.

Major image explicitly can create "phenomena," which is actually what I classify a "cloud of fog" as. I wouldn't permit minor illusion to create a cloud of fog, by the same token. But major image absolutely can. When it makes an image, that image is, save for whatever one detects by those Investigation checks, indistinguishable from the real deal, with the limitations explicitly stated by the spell. So a silent image is silent and intangible, while a major image is only intangible.

[chiefwaha]

Major image explicitly can create "phenomena," which is actually what I classify a "cloud of fog" as. I wouldn't permit minor illusion to create a cloud of fog, by the same token. But major image absolutely can. When it makes an image, that image is, save for whatever one detects by those Investigation checks, indistinguishable from the real deal, with the limitations explicitly stated by the spell. So a silent image is silent and intangible, while a major image is only intangible.

I completely agree with this. The only difference I can see is what the limitations of the spell. I personally would rule an illusory cloud bank created with either silent or major image as to block line of sight, but not create obscurement. Just a slight difference in interpretation. I wouldn't argue in a game where the DM ruled the other way.

[elyktsorb]

We’re departing from rules to rulings here, which is fine, though we need to be aware that’s what we’re doing.

If (and this is not in any way a given) you can see the individual particles? There could be a chance to observe motes moving around your hand or not, but that would be far more in line with “chance to observe and disbelieve” there’s no requirement for the illusionist to arrange things as such.

The distinction you are making between moving your hand through fog, as used in ordinary language, and moving your hand “through” the fog as would happen here is noted, but again that is begging a departure from ordinary language, and requires some assumptions about what the fog/dust/smoke would look like and what would be noticed.

It isn’t the black and white you are suggesting. I’m not convinced it’s even a particularly dark shade of grey.

Now again, there may be good play balance reasons why we might want to read logic like this into the spell.

"Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."

You are making the point that the latter half of this statement means the first half is reliant on it.

In that if you conjure something a creature could feasibly 'move through' that the second part of this statement means they don't have it revealed because you can normally move through such substances.

You're also making the point that because you can't see individual particles of fog, that it helps in the above case.

So let's get real particular on fog and how it actually works.

Let's first start with illusions, do they have shadows? Do you need to create a shadow for the thing you are making? This is a very important question, as if you need to make a shadow for your illusion, you can't make fog, or at least you can't make very convincing fog.

The entire reason you can't see through fog is that light hits the individual droplets of water in the air and then scatters the light, making it difficult to see through the fog.

Let's move onto another point, one I made before, with water.

Let's say you have a character, it can breath underwater (let's say via magic item), or doesn't need to breath at all. If you surrounded them with water (which is what you do when you surround them with fog, just to a lesser degree) by your logic, because they could technically move the 'through' the water, they can't tell that the water is an illusion.

You probably wouldn't let the above fly because obviously the creature will know they aren't getting wet. But if you move through actual fog, you do end up getting damp, you can 'feel' the fog. It's not like it's air, it's literally water hanging in the air.

Let's try another example, what if you just conjured Darkness with your illusion? It's technically even better than fog because there's no actual substance to Darkness and the illusion would just look like a spot of Darkness, just like the Darkness spell.

My reading of "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."

Focuses on this part, this part is not a requirement. It is merely stating, that because things pass through the illusion, it is revealed.

Let's say you put an illusion on a wall, to spell something, or even make a door. You can't actually put it 'in' the wall, so it's just right above the surface of the wall. As soon as someone touches the illusion, even though the character in question might think they are actually touching something if they feel the wall but can't quite discern that they are like, a micro meter in to the illusion, the illusion is revealed, because something went through it.



TLDR-

If you want to argue that an illusion isn't revealed because you've created something people normally move 'through' then I just don't agree with that, I believe the second statement is just explaining that if they physically move through the illusion, it is revealed to whatever moved through it.

Cast an an illusion of Darkness instead, I still believe it would follow my thought, in that if you move through it the illusion is revealed to you, but it has less 'other stuff' to worry about than fog. And it can create an illusion of Darkness as "A phenomenon is an observable fact or event" and in DnD land, the spell Darkness would definitely be considered an observable fact or event.

[Bohandas]

I think you could totally feel that there wasn't actually fog there if the actual conditions were arid

EDIT:
Also you might notice it not being displaced properly. A rising plume of real smoke isn;t going to clip through your hand

[Telok]

Then there's always the illusion of inky-blot style Darkness or a shimmering curtain of all-concealing light. Ya got magic, make it a magical phenomena.

[Bohandas]

the darkness one could be interacted with by a photovoltaic device or a vampire

[Segev]

If you want to argue that an illusion isn't revealed because you've created something people normally move 'through' then I just don't agree with that, I believe the second statement is just explaining that if they physically move through the illusion, it is revealed to whatever moved through it.

Cast an an illusion of Darkness instead, I still believe it would follow my thought, in that if you move through it the illusion is revealed to you, but it has less 'other stuff' to worry about than fog. And it can create an illusion of Darkness as "A phenomenon is an observable fact or event" and in DnD land, the spell Darkness would definitely be considered an observable fact or event.

The part you bolded in the RAW is actually an explanation that limits the part you don't bold. Physical interaction [only] reveals the illusion without any need for an Investigation check "because things pass through it." It's essentially stating that the DC of the Investigation check changes to "you can't fail" under a specific circumstance where it makes zero sense that people COULD fail it: when a solid object passes through a "solid object" that is illusory without interaction.

Illusions are already weak and unreliable even when there is zero chance that they will be trivially revealed to be illusions, just because you have zero control over how anybody reacts to an illusion. I do not understand the urge to make them utterly useless by making them revealed to be an illusion on the flimsiest of excuses.

[Tanarii]

It's essentially stating that the DC of the Investigation check changes to "you can't fail" under a specific circumstance where it makes zero sense that people COULD fail it: when a solid object passes through a "solid object" that is illusory without interaction.

Debatable. The way it's phrased they can be unrelated results, one just letting you know it's an illusion and the other making it go faint.

[Segev]

Debatable. The way it's phrased they can be unrelated results, one just letting you know it's an illusion and the other making it go faint.

It could be, but that seems to me to be such a fine parsing that it wouldn't be delivered that way in natural language without further clarification. But, rulings, not rules.

[Chronos]

OK, suppose I cast the second-level Darkness spell, to make a sphere of actual darkness, and someone walks through the sphere. Is my sphere of darkness revealed as an illusion? If "Major Image is revealed as an illusion because things can pass through it", then why not "Darkness is revealed as an illusion because things can pass through it"? The rule, taken literally, does say that things passing through something is a reason to conclude that something is an illusion.

[Mellack]

OK, suppose I cast the second-level Darkness spell, to make a sphere of actual darkness, and someone walks through the sphere. Is my sphere of darkness revealed as an illusion? If "Major Image is revealed as an illusion because things can pass through it", then why not "Darkness is revealed as an illusion because things can pass through it"? The rule, taken literally, does say that things passing through something is a reason to conclude that something is an illusion.

My reason would be that the Darkness is not an illusion while the Major Image is an illusion. They behave differently. MI has a lot more variability, but it is weak to interaction.

[Carpe Gonzo]

Let's say this is possible. Especially the version where you cast it on your own party and they can see it while enemies can't, and let's say it works. Balance-wise, how does it compare to say Tiny Hut or 2nd level Darkness + Devil's Sight?

Major Image -- 3rd level, can be cast with an action, grants advantage, can be negated with Intelligence (Investigation) / interaction / dispel magic / concentration (6th level no concentration), can be moved as an action

Tiny Hut -- 3rd level, takes 1 minute to cast (11 minutes as ritual), allies can perform hit-and-run tactics, requires dispel magic / Readying an Action to negate, grants invulnerability otherwise (only the caster can't do much of anything else tho)

D + DS -- 2nd level plus invocation, cast as an action, grants advantage, negated by dispel magic / concentration / special senses, if you cast it on your own weapon, it moves with you, interferes with allies caught in the radius

[Peelee]

I may be missing something, but what does the belief matter? If the purpose it to obscure, then it's going to fulfill that purpose whether one thinks its real or not. Disbelief, to the best of my knowledge, does not dispel the illusion.

[Mellack]

I may be missing something, but what does the belief matter? If the purpose it to obscure, then it's going to fulfill that purpose whether one thinks its real or not. Disbelief, to the best of my knowledge, does not dispel the illusion.

If you determine that it is not real, you can see through it and it no longer obscures.

"If a creature discerns the Illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image, and its other sensory qualities become faint to the creature."

[Peelee]

If you determine that it is not real, you can see through it and it no longer obscures.

"If a creature discerns the Illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image, and its other sensory qualities become faint to the creature."

Ah, gotcha. Thanks!

[Melphizard]

Regardless of whether or not someone recognizes the spell to be an illusion doesn't change you've created a bunch of fog that obscures whatever is inside it. Also I would like the mention the fact that Major Image says:

It seems completely real, including sounds, smells, and temperature appropriate to the thing depicted. You can’t create sufficient heat or cold to cause damage, a sound loud enough to deal thunder damage or deafen a creature, or a smell that might sicken a creature (like a troglodyte’s stench).

Those who were within it may recognize it being an illusion but that doesn't change the fact it still feels moist or smells like fog. This same idea is represented in Illusory Dragon which is a spell that creates an illusion dragon that breaths elemental damage somehow. It can be physically touched but visually identified as an illusion. Despite this, it only gives them advantage to dodge the dragon's blast, not immunity.

Identification of something being an illusion doesn't make the illusions physical or visual properties not exist.

Edit: Ok so it says if a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image, and its other sensory qualities become faint to the creature. Still doesn't feel exactly right but the text of the spell says otherwise.

[RSP]

Balance-wise, you’re essentially giving an AoE version of Shadow of Moil (a 4th level spell) a level sooner, if I’m understanding correctly what the OP is trying to do.

Also consider: if I use a 6th level slot to cast this, is it then Concentration-free, always surrounding the PCs while exploring, free hiding/Advantage on PC attacks/Disadvantage on opponent’s attacks for the group?

his same idea is represented in Illusory Dragon which is a spell that creates an illusion dragon that breaths elemental damage somehow. It can be physically touched but visually identified as an illusion. Despite this, it only gives them advantage to dodge the dragon's blast, not immunity.

Comparing different spells like this doesn’t work, because each spell only goes by it’s own rules and there’s no general rules for spell schools.

[Peelee]

Comparing different spells like this doesn’t work, because each spell only goes by it’s own rules and there’s no general rules for spell schools.

SoM also gives resistance to damage and deals damage whenever you are hit, so I don't think it's nearly as powerful as that.

[Pildion]

The Silent Image debate has finally grown up. Thank you!

With Silent Image giving you this ability for covering yourself/allies. I would say a 3rd level spell slot should at least be able to be as good as a 2nd level spell (Darkness). I would rule this one with Darkness in mind, but I give my players more freedom with Illusion's and Enchantments. I would rather have fun new ideas played then just fireball, fireball, fireball.

[Bacon Elemental]

Personally if this came up in a game I ran I'd rule as follows:


Because you arent supposed to be able to touch a cloud of fog/mist/etc, you don't automatically disbelieve the illusion when you reach it... but because it's not going to be perfect (Sliding through you, not being billowed accurately by movement) you'd get an immediate perception/investigation check to spot those minor discrepancies instead of having to spend your whole action puzzling.

If there was no stressful/distracting situation going on, that DC would be much lower than in the middle of a fight.


By pure RAW though just touching the "mist" is enough to instantly disbelieve it, but I think that's a little lame for a smart useage.

[heavyfuel]

but in the case of smoke or fog, this logic breaks down. It is logical for things to pass through smoke or fog.

No, it doesn`t.

It`s logical for things to pass through fog, but the fog reacts to things passing through it. An illusion does not react to stuff.

Anyone making any movement through this fake-fog would notice that it doesn`t move like a real fog.

[Chronos]

An illusion not reacting properly isn't grounds for automatic disbelief. It might give you reason to make the Investigation check, but it doesn't bypass the check.

[CapnWildefyr]

One additional thing: as has been suggested earlier in this thread, when you cast the fog bank on yourself to use it as cover, that's more "powerful" than the other way around. The automatic checks/understandings that it's an illusion are not going to happen, especially if the caster plays it smart and keeps concentrating on it, adjusting it. While it's an instant Fail when the enemy is in it (ruined by contact), when viewed from a distance, in combat, possibly in poor lighting -- I can see ranged combatants never even getting a check. Why would you? It's a magic fog bank! It just sprang up from nowhere, just like "real" magic fog banks spring up from nowhere. How is it any different? You could shoot arrows through it for rounds even minutes without seeing anything that doesn't look right. Once you close the gap and make contact with the illusion, it's done for, but until then, useful.

[Segev]

It`s logical for things to pass through fog, but the fog reacts to things passing through it. An illusion does not react to stuff.

Anyone making any movement through this fake-fog would notice that it doesn`t move like a real fog.

I question whether you've actually engaged with real fog. Real fog is undifferentiated greyness. IT doesn't visibly swirl or anything in real life.