Silent Image is very useful too. I recently used it to create a floor at waist height. This had the effect of the illusory floor having holes in it where the invisible creatures were standing, allowing us to know which square to attack. It's one of those spells that is great for creative people.
If things can pass through the image, why would there be holes in it where invisible creatures are standing?
The DM could have rewarded the clever thinking by saying the illusion is disrupted where something is passing through, which let them “see” the invisible creatures
Silent Image is very useful too. I recently used it to create a floor at waist height. This had the effect of the illusory floor having holes in it where the invisible creatures were standing, allowing us to know which square to attack. It's one of those spells that is great for creative people.
If things can pass through the image, why would there be holes in it where invisible creatures are standing?
The DM could have rewarded the clever thinking by saying the illusion is disrupted where something is passing through, which let them “see” the invisible creatures
"Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
It stands to reason that something passing through it takes up the space the illusion was taking up, since it's solid and the illusion is not and specifically states you can pass through it. The spell never states that the illusion still exists inside of your hand as your hand passes through.
Silent Image is very useful too. I recently used it to create a floor at waist height. This had the effect of the illusory floor having holes in it where the invisible creatures were standing, allowing us to know which square to attack. It's one of those spells that is great for creative people.
If things can pass through the image, why would there be holes in it where invisible creatures are standing?
The DM could have rewarded the clever thinking by saying the illusion is disrupted where something is passing through, which let them “see” the invisible creatures
"Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
It stands to reason that something passing through it takes up the space the illusion was taking up, since it's solid and the illusion is not and specifically states you can pass through it. The spell never states that the illusion still exists inside of your hand as your hand passes through.
Why would the illusion cease to exist while it's being passed through? Because the illusion is not real, there's no reason for it to cease to exist when something physical passes through it. Of course the illusion still exists while your hand passes through it. The spell never says that the illusion ceases to exist when something passes through it, so it stands to reason that unless the spell indicates when the illusion ceases to exist, that the illusion continues to exist.
Silent Image is very useful too. I recently used it to create a floor at waist height. This had the effect of the illusory floor having holes in it where the invisible creatures were standing, allowing us to know which square to attack. It's one of those spells that is great for creative people.
If things can pass through the image, why would there be holes in it where invisible creatures are standing?
The DM could have rewarded the clever thinking by saying the illusion is disrupted where something is passing through, which let them “see” the invisible creatures
There's a Dexterity Saving throw for Faerie Fire. It's silly to let Silent Image automatically work without even a saving throw. It's not clever thinking to make a spell do something that it is not capable of doing.
For example, there are other illusion spells that actually make the creature take psychic damage. Trying to apply that effect to Silent Image, and saying "well, the book doesn't say that the illusion can't do damage" wouldn't be creative thinking, it's just rule breaking. Using Silent Image to reveal invisible characters is the same way - it's not creative thinking, it's just rule breaking.
By your own reasoning, your point is invalid. Yes, spells only do what they say they do, so you are blatantly wrong despite your rudeness, since it says:
"Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
Pass through. Not "occupy the same space". It's not passing through you. You are passing through it. Pretty basic English here. As a corporeal being when you pass through something... air... water... stone... you create a gap in it, since you don't become air, water or stone.... Since it doesn't actively say that it works the way you've entirely made up, it works the way it's written. PASS THOUGH.
We could ask Jeremy Crawford if you are going to continue to substitute your interpretation (which actively goes against what is written with zero explanation) for what is actually written, but I don't have an active twitter and my DM is a stickler for rules, so their ruling and the spell's very clear text is good enough for me personally. And no. I wasn't rewarded by the DM for creativity. I cast a spell and was rewarded with the actual effects detailed in the spell.
The whole point of the spell is to do whatever you want within the very few limitations. It also doesn't expressly list everything you can make an illusion of either. That's just how the spell works in its text. I didn't make invisible things visible with it. I used the illusion AS WRITTEN to determine their locations. Still disadvantaged. 15 foot cube. Not amazing, but a fun use. I also had a Tressym, so... it was gonna be easier than fighting blind either way.
It also doesn't expressly say that the illusion obscures vision, but the text again makes it clear that it does, since one must actively try to determine it isn't real. Another fun use is creating cover or a hiding spot. Make a false wall or a crate.
Even minor illusion can be used this way if you aren't too big to squeeze and fit into a 5ft cube. Just hope nothing is sticking out.
Silent Image is very useful too. I recently used it to create a floor at waist height. This had the effect of the illusory floor having holes in it where the invisible creatures were standing, allowing us to know which square to attack. It's one of those spells that is great for creative people.
If things can pass through the image, why would there be holes in it where invisible creatures are standing?
The DM could have rewarded the clever thinking by saying the illusion is disrupted where something is passing through, which let them “see” the invisible creatures
"Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
It stands to reason that something passing through it takes up the space the illusion was taking up, since it's solid and the illusion is not and specifically states you can pass through it. The spell never states that the illusion still exists inside of your hand as your hand passes through.
Why would the illusion cease to exist while it's being passed through? Because the illusion is not real, there's no reason for it to cease to exist when something physical passes through it. Of course the illusion still exists while your hand passes through it. The spell never says that the illusion ceases to exist when something passes through it, so it stands to reason that unless the spell indicates when the illusion ceases to exist, that the illusion continues to exist.
Because of the English language. It doesn't cease to exist, since it will come back after you move your hand from it. But the act of passing through it... well... means you pass through it. It never states that passing though it means the illusion passes through you, so it doesn't and you go by the words the designers carefully chose.
Decided to just ask Jeremy Crawford (lead designer of D&D), so that we don't have to debate it and can continue this thread without further derailing. I'll let you know when I get a response.
And now we are getting to why I suggested this was a DM reward. It does not specify what happen to the illusion when something passes through it except that it continues to exist and is revealed to be an illusion. Whether it creates a distortion around what is passing through or it remains stable I feel is ambiguous and can be open to interpretation.
In the example that was given by Dain_Slatton it sounds like his DM interprets the situation as causing a disturbance in the illusion, so the PCs know where the invisible enemy is.
Another DM may decide that the illusion remains stable and nothing would be revealed passing through it.
Distortion? No. What I'm saying is that you are a solid object that takes up space. The illusion is not solid. This is only complicated because of invisibility being involved. Otherwise it's a very simple concept that solid things pass through this illusion and not the other way around. Either way, we should have an official ruling before too terribly long.
Aaanyway... Update on finally using charm person. I tried to cast it on someone 3 times in a row last session and it failed every time. Definitely the lamest of the spell selections I've made since it is very situational and they get a save. It makes the social situation really awkward too. Since you are increasing dex before int probably, I suggest spells that don't completely hinge on an immediate saving throw or do absolutely nothing.
At next level, I'll be trading it in and taking Mirror Image and Invisibility.
By your own reasoning, your point is invalid. Yes, spells only do what they say they do, so you are blatantly wrong despite your rudeness, since it says:
"Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
Pass through. Not "occupy the same space". It's not passing through you. You are passing through it. Pretty basic English here. As a corporeal being when you pass through something... air... water... stone... you create a gap in it, since you don't become air, water or stone.... Since it doesn't actively say that it works the way you've entirely made up, it works the way it's written. PASS THOUGH.
We could ask Jeremy Crawford if you are going to continue to substitute your interpretation (which actively goes against what is written with zero explanation) for what is actually written, but I don't have an active twitter and my DM is a stickler for rules, so their ruling and the spell's very clear text is good enough for me personally. And no. I wasn't rewarded by the DM for creativity. I cast a spell and was rewarded with the actual effects detailed in the spell.
The whole point of the spell is to do whatever you want within the very few limitations. It also doesn't expressly list everything you can make an illusion of either. That's just how the spell works in its text. I didn't make invisible things visible with it. I used the illusion AS WRITTEN to determine their locations. Still disadvantaged. 15 foot cube. Not amazing, but a fun use. I also had a Tressym, so... it was gonna be easier than fighting blind either way.
It also doesn't expressly say that the illusion obscures vision, but the text again makes it clear that it does, since one must actively try to determine it isn't real. Another fun use is creating cover or a hiding spot. Make a false wall or a crate.
Even minor illusion can be used this way if you aren't too big to squeeze and fit into a 5ft cube. Just hope nothing is sticking out.
Illusions are not real. They are not a corporeal object. Unless you're a 14th level Illusion Wizard. In which case the Illusion can become real. But if you're not a 14th level Illusion Wizard, the illusion is not real. An illusion is not air. An illusion is not water. An illusion is not stone. An illusion is not corporeal. It is an illusion.
We don't need to ask Jeremy Crawford about this. All we have to do is look at the 14th level Illusionist Wizard ability to understand that Illusions are not real. You're trying to treat it like it's something real, something corporeal. That's not what an illusion is. You're thinking of Conjuration. Conjuration creates things that are real, things that are corporeal. But Silent Image is not a Conjuration spell.
By your own reasoning, your point is invalid. Yes, spells only do what they say they do, so you are blatantly wrong despite your rudeness, since it says:
"Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
Pass through. Not "occupy the same space". It's not passing through you. You are passing through it. Pretty basic English here. As a corporeal being when you pass through something... air... water... stone... you create a gap in it, since you don't become air, water or stone.... Since it doesn't actively say that it works the way you've entirely made up, it works the way it's written. PASS THOUGH.
We could ask Jeremy Crawford if you are going to continue to substitute your interpretation (which actively goes against what is written with zero explanation) for what is actually written, but I don't have an active twitter and my DM is a stickler for rules, so their ruling and the spell's very clear text is good enough for me personally. And no. I wasn't rewarded by the DM for creativity. I cast a spell and was rewarded with the actual effects detailed in the spell.
The whole point of the spell is to do whatever you want within the very few limitations. It also doesn't expressly list everything you can make an illusion of either. That's just how the spell works in its text. I didn't make invisible things visible with it. I used the illusion AS WRITTEN to determine their locations. Still disadvantaged. 15 foot cube. Not amazing, but a fun use. I also had a Tressym, so... it was gonna be easier than fighting blind either way.
It also doesn't expressly say that the illusion obscures vision, but the text again makes it clear that it does, since one must actively try to determine it isn't real. Another fun use is creating cover or a hiding spot. Make a false wall or a crate.
Even minor illusion can be used this way if you aren't too big to squeeze and fit into a 5ft cube. Just hope nothing is sticking out.
Illusions are not real. They are not a corporeal object. Unless you're a 14th level Illusion Wizard. In which case the Illusion can become real. But if you're not a 14th level Illusion Wizard, the illusion is not real. An illusion is not air. An illusion is not water. An illusion is not stone. An illusion is not corporeal. It is an illusion.
We don't need to ask Jeremy Crawford about this. All we have to do is look at the 14th level Illusionist Wizard ability to understand that Illusions are not real. You're trying to treat it like it's something real, something corporeal. That's not what an illusion is. You're thinking of Conjuration. Conjuration creates things that are real, things that are corporeal. But Silent Image is not a Conjuration spell.
So your argument is that when you pass through an illusion, it passes through the space occupied by your body? It doesn't say that, does it? Does anything actually say that?Until I hear otherwise from an official source or a sensible argument against it, I'm going to go based on the best interpretation of the actual spell's text, not looking for it to do things it doesn't say. You run it however you want.
By your own reasoning, your point is invalid. Yes, spells only do what they say they do, so you are blatantly wrong despite your rudeness, since it says:
"Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
Pass through. Not "occupy the same space". It's not passing through you. You are passing through it. Pretty basic English here. As a corporeal being when you pass through something... air... water... stone... you create a gap in it, since you don't become air, water or stone.... Since it doesn't actively say that it works the way you've entirely made up, it works the way it's written. PASS THOUGH.
We could ask Jeremy Crawford if you are going to continue to substitute your interpretation (which actively goes against what is written with zero explanation) for what is actually written, but I don't have an active twitter and my DM is a stickler for rules, so their ruling and the spell's very clear text is good enough for me personally. And no. I wasn't rewarded by the DM for creativity. I cast a spell and was rewarded with the actual effects detailed in the spell.
The whole point of the spell is to do whatever you want within the very few limitations. It also doesn't expressly list everything you can make an illusion of either. That's just how the spell works in its text. I didn't make invisible things visible with it. I used the illusion AS WRITTEN to determine their locations. Still disadvantaged. 15 foot cube. Not amazing, but a fun use. I also had a Tressym, so... it was gonna be easier than fighting blind either way.
It also doesn't expressly say that the illusion obscures vision, but the text again makes it clear that it does, since one must actively try to determine it isn't real. Another fun use is creating cover or a hiding spot. Make a false wall or a crate.
Even minor illusion can be used this way if you aren't too big to squeeze and fit into a 5ft cube. Just hope nothing is sticking out.
Illusions are not real. They are not a corporeal object. Unless you're a 14th level Illusion Wizard. In which case the Illusion can become real. But if you're not a 14th level Illusion Wizard, the illusion is not real. An illusion is not air. An illusion is not water. An illusion is not stone. An illusion is not corporeal. It is an illusion.
We don't need to ask Jeremy Crawford about this. All we have to do is look at the 14th level Illusionist Wizard ability to understand that Illusions are not real. You're trying to treat it like it's something real, something corporeal. That's not what an illusion is. You're thinking of Conjuration. Conjuration creates things that are real, things that are corporeal. But Silent Image is not a Conjuration spell.
So your argument is that when you pass through an illusion, it passes through the space occupied by your body? It doesn't say that, does it? Does anything actually say that?Until I hear otherwise from an official source or a sensible argument against it, I'm going to go based on the best interpretation of the actual spell's text, not looking for it to do things it doesn't say. You run it however you want.
My argument is that Silent Image is an Illusion, that it is not real. Do you know what reality is?
When somebody asks how to use Illusion spells, please do not tell them that Illusion spells are real, tangible, and corporeal. It's important for people to understand the difference between illusion spells and conjuration spells.
Also, as an Arcane Trickster, you don't want to be setting the precedent that the location of an invisible creature can be revealed by an illusion cantrip. You're nerfing your own character by creating this house rule that Illusion spells are real.
You seem to be getting awfully worked up over this issue, please stop being snarky and rude.
Anyway, I'm not quite sure how it is nerfing your character though. I'm also having trouble finding where he said that illusions are real. I'm not sure how I'd run this, I'm split. Since it would be reasonable to assume that you could determine an invisible creature's position based on it passing through it but at the same time, it is invisible. However, the only ingame effect this would have would be to know it's position, you still wouldn't be able to see it and you would still get disadvantage on attack rolls.
I'm surprised to find that few people mention Shadow Blade as a good arcane trickster spell. A 2d8 psychic damage finesse weapon that gets advantage in dim light and darkness? Seems made for rogues. I suppose it can be a gamble with concentration, but AT typically doesn't make use of in-combat concentration spells anyway, and rogues in general have great means of avoiding damage that would force them to make concentration checks above DC 10.
I would disagree, maybe for say, a warlock, but with an arcane trickster's limited amount of spell slots, I'd say you would be better off with just a standard rapier. 1d8 extra damage isn't really worth a whole spell slot, at least to me.
That being said if you know how to use it, it can be a VERY deadly spell.
I'm surprised to find that few people mention Shadow Blade as a good arcane trickster spell. A 2d8 psychic damage finesse weapon that gets advantage in dim light and darkness? Seems made for rogues. I suppose it can be a gamble with concentration, but AT typically doesn't make use of in-combat concentration spells anyway, and rogues in general have great means of avoiding damage that would force them to make concentration checks above DC 10.
I would disagree, maybe for say, a warlock, but with an arcane trickster's limited amount of spell slots, I'd say you would be better off with just a standard rapier. 1d8 extra damage isn't really worth a whole spell slot, at least to me.
That being said if you know how to use it, it can be a VERY deadly spell.
The extra D8 isn't the most important thing. The most important thing is the advantage in Dim Light and Darkness, which makes it much easier to generate Sneak Attack (and increases your chance to hit). It's also got the bonus that it is Psychic damage. And it works as a ranged weapon when needed.
So, if i read it right, green flame blade and booming blade both don't do any initial damage to the main target before level 5, is that right?
Just the standard weapon damage of Dex (or Strength) plus 1D6 or 1D8 (or whatever the weapon's damage dice is). Plus Sneak Attack (if applicable).
The DM could have rewarded the clever thinking by saying the illusion is disrupted where something is passing through, which let them “see” the invisible creatures
"Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
It stands to reason that something passing through it takes up the space the illusion was taking up, since it's solid and the illusion is not and specifically states you can pass through it. The spell never states that the illusion still exists inside of your hand as your hand passes through.
Why would the illusion cease to exist while it's being passed through? Because the illusion is not real, there's no reason for it to cease to exist when something physical passes through it. Of course the illusion still exists while your hand passes through it. The spell never says that the illusion ceases to exist when something passes through it, so it stands to reason that unless the spell indicates when the illusion ceases to exist, that the illusion continues to exist.
There's a Dexterity Saving throw for Faerie Fire. It's silly to let Silent Image automatically work without even a saving throw. It's not clever thinking to make a spell do something that it is not capable of doing.
For example, there are other illusion spells that actually make the creature take psychic damage. Trying to apply that effect to Silent Image, and saying "well, the book doesn't say that the illusion can't do damage" wouldn't be creative thinking, it's just rule breaking. Using Silent Image to reveal invisible characters is the same way - it's not creative thinking, it's just rule breaking.
By your own reasoning, your point is invalid. Yes, spells only do what they say they do, so you are blatantly wrong despite your rudeness, since it says:
"Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion, because things can pass through it."
Pass through. Not "occupy the same space". It's not passing through you. You are passing through it. Pretty basic English here. As a corporeal being when you pass through something... air... water... stone... you create a gap in it, since you don't become air, water or stone.... Since it doesn't actively say that it works the way you've entirely made up, it works the way it's written. PASS THOUGH.
We could ask Jeremy Crawford if you are going to continue to substitute your interpretation (which actively goes against what is written with zero explanation) for what is actually written, but I don't have an active twitter and my DM is a stickler for rules, so their ruling and the spell's very clear text is good enough for me personally. And no. I wasn't rewarded by the DM for creativity. I cast a spell and was rewarded with the actual effects detailed in the spell.
The whole point of the spell is to do whatever you want within the very few limitations. It also doesn't expressly list everything you can make an illusion of either. That's just how the spell works in its text. I didn't make invisible things visible with it. I used the illusion AS WRITTEN to determine their locations. Still disadvantaged. 15 foot cube. Not amazing, but a fun use. I also had a Tressym, so... it was gonna be easier than fighting blind either way.
It also doesn't expressly say that the illusion obscures vision, but the text again makes it clear that it does, since one must actively try to determine it isn't real. Another fun use is creating cover or a hiding spot. Make a false wall or a crate.
Even minor illusion can be used this way if you aren't too big to squeeze and fit into a 5ft cube. Just hope nothing is sticking out.
Because of the English language. It doesn't cease to exist, since it will come back after you move your hand from it. But the act of passing through it... well... means you pass through it. It never states that passing though it means the illusion passes through you, so it doesn't and you go by the words the designers carefully chose.
Decided to just ask Jeremy Crawford (lead designer of D&D), so that we don't have to debate it and can continue this thread without further derailing. I'll let you know when I get a response.
And now we are getting to why I suggested this was a DM reward. It does not specify what happen to the illusion when something passes through it except that it continues to exist and is revealed to be an illusion. Whether it creates a distortion around what is passing through or it remains stable I feel is ambiguous and can be open to interpretation.
In the example that was given by Dain_Slatton it sounds like his DM interprets the situation as causing a disturbance in the illusion, so the PCs know where the invisible enemy is.
Another DM may decide that the illusion remains stable and nothing would be revealed passing through it.
Distortion? No. What I'm saying is that you are a solid object that takes up space. The illusion is not solid. This is only complicated because of invisibility being involved. Otherwise it's a very simple concept that solid things pass through this illusion and not the other way around. Either way, we should have an official ruling before too terribly long.
Aaanyway... Update on finally using charm person. I tried to cast it on someone 3 times in a row last session and it failed every time. Definitely the lamest of the spell selections I've made since it is very situational and they get a save. It makes the social situation really awkward too. Since you are increasing dex before int probably, I suggest spells that don't completely hinge on an immediate saving throw or do absolutely nothing.
At next level, I'll be trading it in and taking Mirror Image and Invisibility.
Illusions are not real. They are not a corporeal object. Unless you're a 14th level Illusion Wizard. In which case the Illusion can become real. But if you're not a 14th level Illusion Wizard, the illusion is not real. An illusion is not air. An illusion is not water. An illusion is not stone. An illusion is not corporeal. It is an illusion.
We don't need to ask Jeremy Crawford about this. All we have to do is look at the 14th level Illusionist Wizard ability to understand that Illusions are not real. You're trying to treat it like it's something real, something corporeal. That's not what an illusion is. You're thinking of Conjuration. Conjuration creates things that are real, things that are corporeal. But Silent Image is not a Conjuration spell.
So your argument is that when you pass through an illusion, it passes through the space occupied by your body? It doesn't say that, does it? Does anything actually say that?Until I hear otherwise from an official source or a sensible argument against it, I'm going to go based on the best interpretation of the actual spell's text, not looking for it to do things it doesn't say. You run it however you want.
My argument is that Silent Image is an Illusion, that it is not real. Do you know what reality is?
When somebody asks how to use Illusion spells, please do not tell them that Illusion spells are real, tangible, and corporeal. It's important for people to understand the difference between illusion spells and conjuration spells.
Also, as an Arcane Trickster, you don't want to be setting the precedent that the location of an invisible creature can be revealed by an illusion cantrip. You're nerfing your own character by creating this house rule that Illusion spells are real.
You seem to be getting awfully worked up over this issue, please stop being snarky and rude.
Anyway, I'm not quite sure how it is nerfing your character though. I'm also having trouble finding where he said that illusions are real.
I'm not sure how I'd run this, I'm split. Since it would be reasonable to assume that you could determine an invisible creature's position based on it passing through it but at the same time, it is invisible. However, the only ingame effect this would have would be to know it's position, you still wouldn't be able to see it and you would still get disadvantage on attack rolls.
Also, it's magic so cool off a bit.
By your very scientific reasoning, light, fog and anything ethereal aren't 'real'. You yourself seem to not know what reality is.
Oh no. They might be able to discern whether something solid is in a 5 foot square. The equivalent of waving your arms is so game-breaking.
I would disagree, maybe for say, a warlock, but with an arcane trickster's limited amount of spell slots, I'd say you would be better off with just a standard rapier. 1d8 extra damage isn't really worth a whole spell slot, at least to me.
That being said if you know how to use it, it can be a VERY deadly spell.
D&D is a game for nerds... so I guess I'm one :p
The extra D8 isn't the most important thing. The most important thing is the advantage in Dim Light and Darkness, which makes it much easier to generate Sneak Attack (and increases your chance to hit). It's also got the bonus that it is Psychic damage. And it works as a ranged weapon when needed.
Ahh, now I understand. It's like a mega weapon.
D&D is a game for nerds... so I guess I'm one :p
So from what I've seen, this is the list of best Arcane Trickster spells according to this thread.
1. Shadow Blade
2. Silent Image
3. Find Familiar
4. Weapon cantrips (Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade)
5. Haste