I'm looking for a little clarity on the Silent Image and Major Image spell. Specifically, when the images are or aren't revealed. A couple examples:
1. I cast Major Image to "summon" a dragon. An enemy shoots that dragon with an arrow and "hits" it, causing the arrow to pass through the image. Does this count as physical interaction? The arrow is physically interacting, but the enemy is not. Could I adjust my illusion on the fly to appear to "be hit" by the arrow, or "dodge" or "deflect" the arrow?
2. I cast Silent Image to create a large rock in a cave, and I "hide" inside the "rock", functionally providing full concealment to outside observers. If I cast Burning Hands from inside the "rock," this is certainly suspicious, and I am certainly interacting physically with the "rock," which is suddenly emitting a gout of flames from within it, but my enemy has not physically interacted with the "rock." Is it still physically opaque to observers who don't physically interact with it/spend a successful Study action to identify it?
3.What if you're creating "some other visible phenomenon" that is traditionally non-corporeal? Like, you cast Major Image and create a ghost? It wails, it rattles chains, it feels slightly chilly when you pass through it. You can physically interact with it and you'll pass through it, but you're supposed to pass through it. Does that immediately give away the game?
4. Semi-related, what about heat? Major Image specifically states "[the created image] seems real, including sounds, smells, and temperature appropriate to the thing depicted." What if you're depicting a Fire Elemental? What about just a straight-up fire? What about a small sun? 4a. What about light? Can you make a campfire with Minor Illusion and emit light with it? Could you Silent Image up a sun and fill a room with blinding light? Could you likewise create an obscuring image, like fog? Or pure darkness?
I'm mostly interested in official rulings on this stuff, preferably 2024-specific, but I'm curious how people have played these situations in the past and how they've gone with DM's.
1. I cast Major Image to "summon" a dragon. An enemy shoots that dragon with an arrow and "hits" it, causing the arrow to pass through the image. Does this count as physical interaction? The arrow is physically interacting, but the enemy is not. Could I adjust my illusion on the fly to appear to "be hit" by the arrow, or "dodge" or "deflect" the arrow?
I'd say that counts as a physical interaction.
Regarding the second question, not on the fly, but you could take your Magic action on your turn "... to cause the image to move to any other spot within range. As the image changes location, you can alter its appearance so that its movements appear natural for the image. ..."
2. I cast Silent Image to create a large rock in a cave, and I "hide" inside the "rock", functionally providing full concealment to outside observers. If I cast Burning Hands from inside the "rock," this is certainly suspicious, and I am certainly interacting physically with the "rock," which is suddenly emitting a gout of flames from within it, but my enemy has not physically interacted with the "rock." Is it still physically opaque to observers who don't physically interact with it/spend a successful Study action to identify it?
I'd rule that a creature seeing that behavior would discern it's not a real rock.
3.What if you're creating "some other visible phenomenon" that is traditionally non-corporeal? Like, you cast Major Image and create a ghost? It wails, it rattles chains, it feels slightly chilly when you pass through it. You can physically interact with it and you'll pass through it, but you're supposed to pass through it. Does that immediately give away the game?
I'd say yes. RAW: "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion [...]"
4. Semi-related, what about heat? Major Image specifically states "[the created image] seems real, including sounds, smells, and temperature appropriate to the thing depicted." What if you're depicting a Fire Elemental? What about just a straight-up fire? What about a small sun?
Considering the spell states "it can’t deal damage", I'd say the fire/heat wouldn't really match those images. I need a DM for this :D
4a. What about light? Can you make a campfire with Minor Illusion and emit light with it? Could you Silent Image up a sun and fill a room with blinding light? Could you likewise create an obscuring image, like fog? Or pure darkness?
Minor Illusion says "The image can’t create sound, light, smell, or any other sensory effect."
And for Silent Image: "The image is purely visual; it isn’t accompanied by sound, smell, or other sensory effects.", so no real illumination IMO.
The spells say that touching an illusion reveals it "because things pass through it" so I'd say that if the illusion is something that is normally incorporeal, that would not reveal the illusion.
On 1. The language of Major Image implies (and I think the same could be inferred, therefor, from the language of Silent Image) that you can modify your creation in real-time, so long as you're spending a Magic action every round to do so. The implication that you can make it "carry on a conversation," for example, suggests a certain amount of improvisation and adjustment on the fly. Otherwise, the intention is to create a person who looks, sounds, and smells realistic, but you ask it a question, and it stares at you, unmoving, for six seconds before going, "Mary was my mother's name!" If we're interpreting a round as six seconds of dynamic action, then if I can "dodge" an arrow (i.e. my opponent misses my AC through no interference of mine), then why can't my creation mimic doing the same?
On 2. I hear where you're coming from with your ruling, but I'd argue that RAW clearly states that physical interaction or a Study action are required to discern an illusion's true nature. If I'm casting a spell out of the rock, nobody but me is physically interacting with the rock. While I might argue it's certainly good evidence of an illusion, wouldn't someone who is suspicious of the fire-breathing rock still need to interact with or Study it first?
On 3. You're not technically physically interacting with something if it's not meant to be corporeal, though, right? Like, if I'm a physicist, I'm saying looking at, listening to, and smelling a thing is also physically interacting with it, but the language of the spell clearly means you interact with it by touching it. If it's a swirling kaleidoscope of lights that you're creating, there's no way to touch that.
On 4a. I'll give you Minor Illusion, because I didn't actually re-read the spell description before I included it in my question, but I'd argue that Silent Image's description intends for "other sensory effects" to really mean things like heat or physical touch, if for no other reason than because Major Image differentiates itself from Silent Image by specifically stating it does radiate heat. Even if you would rule that Silent Image can't emit light, the very omission of that line from Major Image would imply, then, that it does emit light.
1: I sort of agree the game is trying to abstract out a turn with turn based actions. My ruling if I were the GM would be you can use a magic action to make its movement to be reactive or active not both. So if you want it to charge across the field and roar in a threatening manner, fine but it then wont react. But you can instead decide to have it stand still but just react.
2. Agreed, but i don't require people to make a check to guess. They might not see through it but they still would know its an illusion. If you are in class with only one other person and while you are not looking at them you get hit by a spitball. You might not have seen them do it, but you know they did. Don't get me wrong feel free to throw in magic fire throwing rocks into your game to obfuscate it but odds are people would know. knowing its an illusion and seeing through it are different though.
3. i guess it depends on the level of experience the person has. Like if a ghost passes through you do you normally feel nothing in the campaign or maybe you normally get a chill. An experienced person might go hey wait the chill felt off. I probably would not make it automatic but id give them a free study check.
4a, yeah maybe. visibe phenomenon is vague. I think id say noish. As in it can create the illusion of light but not actual light. So it would not illuminate a room, but in an already lit room it would look like its giving off light. but that is me winging a answer, I may just allow it to create light.
On 1. The language of Major Image implies (and I think the same could be inferred, therefor, from the language of Silent Image) that you can modify your creation in real-time, so long as you're spending a Magic action every round to do so. The implication that you can make it "carry on a conversation," for example, suggests a certain amount of improvisation and adjustment on the fly. Otherwise, the intention is to create a person who looks, sounds, and smells realistic, but you ask it a question, and it stares at you, unmoving, for six seconds before going, "Mary was my mother's name!" If we're interpreting a round as six seconds of dynamic action, then if I can "dodge" an arrow (i.e. my opponent misses my AC through no interference of mine), then why can't my creation mimic doing the same?
That's right, you can adjust the image, but IMO not at the exact moment the creature interacts with it, just when you have the time to take the Magic action, because you cannot (usually) predict that.
These kinds of spells are especially good out of combat, where you can use the Magic action as well.
On 2. I hear where you're coming from with your ruling, but I'd argue that RAW clearly states that physical interaction or a Study action are required to discern an illusion's true nature. If I'm casting a spell out of the rock, nobody but me is physically interacting with the rock. While I might argue it's certainly good evidence of an illusion, wouldn't someone who is suspicious of the fire-breathing rock still need to interact with or Study it first?
Maybe... it's another option, yes, perhaps asking for an Intelligence (Investigation) check with Advantage.
On 3. You're not technically physically interacting with something if it's not meant to be corporeal, though, right? Like, if I'm a physicist, I'm saying looking at, listening to, and smelling a thing is also physically interacting with it, but the language of the spell clearly means you interact with it by touching it. If it's a swirling kaleidoscope of lights that you're creating, there's no way to touch that.
As you can see in the thread, different opinions here :)
On 4a. I'll give you Minor Illusion, because I didn't actually re-read the spell description before I included it in my question, but I'd argue that Silent Image's description intends for "other sensory effects" to really mean things like heat or physical touch, if for no other reason than because Major Image differentiates itself from Silent Image by specifically stating it does radiate heat. Even if you would rule that Silent Image can't emit light, the very omission of that line from Major Image would imply, then, that it does emit light.
I still think the idea is to show just an image, like a hologram or 3D visual effect, not intended to create light or darkness as other specific spells do. My opinion is similar to MyDudeicus's.
A good rule of thumb is that if you're attempting to use a general illusion like those listed to give you any sort of game mechanic benefit (particularly one involving keywords), you can't. Illusions that can perform those sorts of tasks specifically list the game mechanic benefits they provide.
I generally agree with tarodnet on how I’d rule. One thing I try to keep in mind is that people in D&D worlds generally know wizards exist and that there are people who can create illusions. So if that rock starts spitting fire, they’re going to put 2 and 2 together.
I think also, while these spells can be used in combat, where they really shine is in other parts of the game. I’m DMing for a wizard who keep throwing up illusions in fights. (And my first thought is always, man, you’re an evoker, blow stuff up, but that’s besides the point 😝) But when it works, and he successfully distracts an enemy to attack the thing, the action economy still isn’t great. He’s spent an action and a spell slot to get one enemy to spend its action, then alert its friends that there’s an illusion. He’s not really gained a lot. In a solo fight it might work, but generally it’s not going to be worth it.
But if he were to use the illusion to distract an enemy so the party can sneak by, now we’re talking. Or make a door look like a wall so they can escape someone chasing them. Or create some kind of visual phenomenon to make that performance check the bard is doing even better, then it becomes a much better use of the spell.
FWIW, because we can only see things because of light, illusions must emit light (otherwise you couldn't see them, since there's nothing there for light to reflect off of). So generating actual illumination with an illusion should be a thing it can do.
FWIW, because we can only see things because of light, illusions must emit light (otherwise you couldn't see them, since there's nothing there for light to reflect off of). So generating actual illumination with an illusion should be a thing it can do.
The problem with this sort of logic is that we're discussing something that's literally magic. By definition, it does not have to follow the normal laws of physics.
It doesn't make them take a saving throw the moment you cast it, so it's not just in their head. Ergo, the magic must be manipulating light, because the illusion is independent of any observer.
Basically, yes, it's magic. But it doesn't change how creatures perceive, because then they'd get a saving throw immediately, so it's not changing their eyes. Their eyes are still working normally. The creature is not affected by an illusion like Major Image. It is not a target. So the only thing it can do is fool all observers' perceptions - that is, in the case of visual illusions, by manipulating light, since we can rule out the only other ways you could get the effect. ie, once we know their eyes are unchanged, we know it has to be sending signals to the eyes that are illusory, and the only way you can do that without changing the eyes is by manipulating light).
(Breaking the laws of physics does not mean we throw out everything we know about how the world works. Manipulating light is still magical).
It doesn't make them take a saving throw the moment you cast it, so it's not just in their head. Ergo, the magic must be manipulating light, because the illusion is independent of any observer. [...]
Why not? Silent Image: "You create the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon that is no larger than a 15-foot Cube." Darkness and Light (and various obscuring conditions) are visible phenomena. Ergo, you can create them. Now, it's illusory, someone can take a search action to make an investigate roll and see that it's not there, assuming they think it's suspicious.
I would also argue that an illusion blocks other light so long as you haven't disbelieved it. (It's manipulating the light so that it appears the light it's blocking is blocked). Again, it has to manipulate light, so it can reduce light intensity or eliminate it entirely as suitable to the illusion created, otherwise you couldn't see it in the first place.
The 'purpose' of illusion spells is to make it appear things are not as they are. Creating fake darkness, light, fog, foliage, or whatever are well within that purpose, just as much as creating a fake wall or monster are.
(It should probably be noted that it only creates the appearance of darkness. Obviously it doesn't dispel lower level light spells like a darkness spell does).
I don't see how you can contain actual rays of light in a 15-foot Cube. The illumination would just stop unnaturally at the edges. For comparison, a Torch casts Bright Light in a 20-foot radius and Dim Light for an additional 20 feet. So the image would look pretty suspicious, at least.
Also, the spells mentioned are from the Illusion school, not Conjuration.
Regarding fog or atmospheric effects, we have the ruling already posted:
Could Minor Illusion create a fog cloud? If so, would shooting an arrow through it cancel the illusion?
An illusory object made by Minor Illusion is meant to be like a stool or a rock, not an atmospheric effect.
The ruling is only for Minor Illusion, though. Note the text:
Minor Illusion
You create a sound or an image of an object within range that lasts for the duration.
Silent Image
You create the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon that is no larger than a 15-foot cube.
So I'd say SI can indeed create a fog bank or field of blackness. Note that SI works in a 15 ft cube whereas Darkness is a 15ft radius sphere and Fog Cloud a 20 ft one- Darkness is twice as long end-to-end so you're getting much more area coverage if you use the intended spells rather than bootlegging them with an illusion. Now, the RAW of how touching them or shooting an arrow into them works is another matter. By a strictly literal reading, physical interaction should end it, but I think RAI the "If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image." bit clarifies that the physical contact needs to produce an illogical result- a hand passing through darkness or fog is what's to be expected, so I wouldn't say that allows a creature to discern the effect as an illusion.
1. This is DM dependent, but in general I'd say no. The spell gives two situations where the illusion can be changed, one is out-of-combat (i.e. carry on a conversation), the other is in-combat (i.e. while you take the Magic Action to move it). If the image could simply react to avoid an arrow why couldn't it also dodge a creature trying to touch it? Thus completely negating the "physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion" clause.
2. If you cast Burning Hands while "hiding" you instantly reveal your position and are no longer hidden, regardless of what is the source of your concealment - hiding behind a real rock is also lost when you cast a spell. Are you still an "unseen target" until a creature physically interacts with it? - Maybe, again it is DM dependent, but probably not. In this case you are targeting the illusion with a spell since Burning Hands is an AOE originating from you, which means the spell is physically interacting with it just like the spell physically interacts with all its other targets, thus would break the illusion. If you used a different spell which did not target the rock I'd lean more on the side of "probably" the illusion remains intact, but you are not hidden.
3. No where in the rules does it say you can "pass through" a ghost, in fact RAW you cannot. A ghost occupies its square and another creature can't walk through its square or end its turn in the ghost's square unless the ghost allows it to. An illusion doesn't create any physical resistance whereas even incorporeal creatures do seem to give physical resistance since the Incorporeal Movement states: "The ghost can move through other creatures and objects as if they were difficult terrain. It takes 5 (1d10) force damage if it ends its turn inside an object." A ghost doesn't move through another creature as if that creature didn't exist, so presumably touching a ghost is not the same as touching something that doesn't exist - i.e. illusion. Thus RAW interacting with an illusory ghost would in-world feel different than interacting with a real ghost and thus give away that it is an illusion.
4. Light is not temperature, nothing about the spell says it creates light, therefore it doesn't. Temperature is not the same as damage, the spell doesn't say it deals damage therefore it doesn't. If you want an illusion spell that can deal damage you need Phantasmal Force. If you make an illusion of fire it will feel hot to those next to it, but it will not deal damage to them, nor will it cause others to cast shadows, if a creature is within the area of fire they are automatically interacting with that fire and thus know it is an illusion. Darkness is DM dependent, while 5e rules kind of treat Darkness as a positive existing phenomenon, in reality darkness is simply the absence of light, so a spell that creates something cannot create darkness - if you want to create darkness take the Darkness spell. Obscuring image like fog - maybe/probably, however, any creature within an area of fog is automatically interacting with it thus can see through it. Blinding light no, the spell doesn't say it is capable of blinding anyone therefore it cannot, again if a creature were surrounded by the illusion that is "blinding" them they are interacting with the illusion so can see through it.
1. This is DM dependent, but in general I'd say no. The spell gives two situations where the illusion can be changed, one is out-of-combat (i.e. carry on a conversation), the other is in-combat (i.e. while you take the Magic Action to move it). If the image could simply react to avoid an arrow why couldn't it also dodge a creature trying to touch it? Thus completely negating the "physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion" clause.
2. If you cast Burning Hands while "hiding" you instantly reveal your position and are no longer hidden, regardless of what is the source of your concealment - hiding behind a real rock is also lost when you cast a spell. Are you still an "unseen target" until a creature physically interacts with it? - Maybe, again it is DM dependent, but probably not. In this case you are targeting the illusion with a spell since Burning Hands is an AOE originating from you, which means the spell is physically interacting with it just like the spell physically interacts with all its other targets, thus would break the illusion. If you used a different spell which did not target the rock I'd lean more on the side of "probably" the illusion remains intact, but you are not hidden.
3. No where in the rules does it say you can "pass through" a ghost, in fact RAW you cannot. A ghost occupies its square and another creature can't walk through its square or end its turn in the ghost's square unless the ghost allows it to. An illusion doesn't create any physical resistance whereas even incorporeal creatures do seem to give physical resistance since the Incorporeal Movement states: "The ghost can move through other creatures and objects as if they were difficult terrain. It takes 5 (1d10) force damage if it ends its turn inside an object." A ghost doesn't move through another creature as if that creature didn't exist, so presumably touching a ghost is not the same as touching something that doesn't exist - i.e. illusion. Thus RAW interacting with an illusory ghost would in-world feel different than interacting with a real ghost and thus give away that it is an illusion.
4. Light is not temperature, nothing about the spell says it creates light, therefore it doesn't. Temperature is not the same as damage, the spell doesn't say it deals damage therefore it doesn't. If you want an illusion spell that can deal damage you need Phantasmal Force. If you make an illusion of fire it will feel hot to those next to it, but it will not deal damage to them, nor will it cause others to cast shadows, if a creature is within the area of fire they are automatically interacting with that fire and thus know it is an illusion. Darkness is DM dependent, while 5e rules kind of treat Darkness as a positive existing phenomenon, in reality darkness is simply the absence of light, so a spell that creates something cannot create darkness - if you want to create darkness take the Darkness spell. Obscuring image like fog - maybe/probably, however, any creature within an area of fog is automatically interacting with it thus can see through it. Blinding light no, the spell doesn't say it is capable of blinding anyone therefore it cannot, again if a creature were surrounded by the illusion that is "blinding" them they are interacting with the illusion so can see through it.
1/ You can carry on a conversation during combat. Major image nowhere distinguishes between combat and out-of-combat. And if you carry on a conversation with a magic action in combat (which is a pretty straight up RAW reading of the spell), then you can react in real time by using that magic action.
(As far as dodging goes, I'd require the attacking creature to make an attack against an AC10 creature taking the dodge action, possibly with a bonus to AC = caster stat bonus, but that's me ad libbing what the rules don't cover).
2/ Not quite. First, the spell must have a verbal component to break hiding. But second, not being hidden does not mean seen.
Contrast with the darkness spell. If you are hidden inside an area of darkness, and cast a spell with a verbal component or make an attack out of the darkness, you stop being hidden, but they still can't see you. They don't know who cast the spell or made the attack. And in fact, if you weren't hiding but within the darkness, they don't even know you're there, so doing one of those things just alerts them to someone's presence. The hiding is actually irrelevant.
So in the burning hands scenario - well, potentially they heard you casting, which is suspicious enough they probably want to investigate the rock. Yeah, it broke 'hiding', but you're still unseen until they physically interact with the rock or take an investigation action and pass the roll to discern the rock is an illusion. (After all, a rock which spits fire magically isn't exactly an impossibility in a D+D world).
Note that if they cast Rime's from inside the rock instead, they don't break hiding (no verbal component), and so the enemies don't even know where it came from.
4/ Light is a visible phenomenon, so Silent Image (and Major) can create it or alter it. That's pretty straight up RAW, and also necessarily RAI, because otherwise illusions simply don't work.
And an illusion requires physical interaction to break it. That is, touch. That is, and always has been (back to original whitebox D+D), RAI for illusion spells. And it's RAW too. (If any interaction broke an illusion, then all illusory sounds would cause illusions to fail outright, because hearing the sounds is interacting with them).
(And magical darkness is an affirmatively existing phenomenon, not just the absence of light. And you can create an illusion of magical darkness, because that's still a visible phenomenon).
Also, you could just create darkness = absence of light, because that's still a visible phenomenon. Are you seriously suggesting you cannot make an illusion that casts an illusory shadow? It's a visible phenomenon, so you absolutely can create that, RAW and RAI).
I don't see how you can contain actual rays of light in a 15-foot Cube. The illumination would just stop unnaturally at the edges. For comparison, a Torch casts Bright Light in a 20-foot radius and Dim Light for an additional 20 feet. So the image would look pretty suspicious, at least.
It has to be able to emit light out past the area of effect, or you can't see it unless you're in the area of effect, because the only way you can see an illusion is if it produces/alters light. And since illusions very obviously don't work that way, because the most obvious illusions would then automatically fail, as you'd have to physically interact with, say, an illusory wall to even see it.
(Basically, the light is altered in the (visual) illusion, but that altered light then passes out of the AoE of the illusion, which is why you can see it).
Similarly, you don't have to be in the 5' cube of a minor illusion that makes an illusory sound to hear the sound. No one would dispute the sound is audible outside the area of effect. But clearly it's produced by the illusion and then travels out of that space. Light works the same way for visual effects. To decide otherwise is to decide illusions don't work at all.
Illusions don't normally emit light. They reflect light, just like the objects you're attempting to mimic. So if you cast a Silent Image in a darkened room, no one (who doesn't have some sort of special vision) can see it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm looking for a little clarity on the Silent Image and Major Image spell. Specifically, when the images are or aren't revealed. A couple examples:
1. I cast Major Image to "summon" a dragon. An enemy shoots that dragon with an arrow and "hits" it, causing the arrow to pass through the image. Does this count as physical interaction? The arrow is physically interacting, but the enemy is not. Could I adjust my illusion on the fly to appear to "be hit" by the arrow, or "dodge" or "deflect" the arrow?
2. I cast Silent Image to create a large rock in a cave, and I "hide" inside the "rock", functionally providing full concealment to outside observers. If I cast Burning Hands from inside the "rock," this is certainly suspicious, and I am certainly interacting physically with the "rock," which is suddenly emitting a gout of flames from within it, but my enemy has not physically interacted with the "rock." Is it still physically opaque to observers who don't physically interact with it/spend a successful Study action to identify it?
3.What if you're creating "some other visible phenomenon" that is traditionally non-corporeal? Like, you cast Major Image and create a ghost? It wails, it rattles chains, it feels slightly chilly when you pass through it. You can physically interact with it and you'll pass through it, but you're supposed to pass through it. Does that immediately give away the game?
4. Semi-related, what about heat? Major Image specifically states "[the created image] seems real, including sounds, smells, and temperature appropriate to the thing depicted." What if you're depicting a Fire Elemental? What about just a straight-up fire? What about a small sun?
4a. What about light? Can you make a campfire with Minor Illusion and emit light with it? Could you Silent Image up a sun and fill a room with blinding light? Could you likewise create an obscuring image, like fog? Or pure darkness?
I'm mostly interested in official rulings on this stuff, preferably 2024-specific, but I'm curious how people have played these situations in the past and how they've gone with DM's.
This is just my opinion:
I'd say that counts as a physical interaction.
Regarding the second question, not on the fly, but you could take your Magic action on your turn "... to cause the image to move to any other spot within range. As the image changes location, you can alter its appearance so that its movements appear natural for the image. ..."
I'd rule that a creature seeing that behavior would discern it's not a real rock.
I'd say yes. RAW: "Physical interaction with the image reveals it to be an illusion [...]"
Considering the spell states "it can’t deal damage", I'd say the fire/heat wouldn't really match those images. I need a DM for this :D
Minor Illusion says "The image can’t create sound, light, smell, or any other sensory effect."
And for Silent Image: "The image is purely visual; it isn’t accompanied by sound, smell, or other sensory effects.", so no real illumination IMO.
EDIT: for clarity.
There're also some advices in the SAC:
The spells say that touching an illusion reveals it "because things pass through it" so I'd say that if the illusion is something that is normally incorporeal, that would not reveal the illusion.
Appreciate the feedback. A little pushback.
On 1. The language of Major Image implies (and I think the same could be inferred, therefor, from the language of Silent Image) that you can modify your creation in real-time, so long as you're spending a Magic action every round to do so. The implication that you can make it "carry on a conversation," for example, suggests a certain amount of improvisation and adjustment on the fly. Otherwise, the intention is to create a person who looks, sounds, and smells realistic, but you ask it a question, and it stares at you, unmoving, for six seconds before going, "Mary was my mother's name!" If we're interpreting a round as six seconds of dynamic action, then if I can "dodge" an arrow (i.e. my opponent misses my AC through no interference of mine), then why can't my creation mimic doing the same?
On 2. I hear where you're coming from with your ruling, but I'd argue that RAW clearly states that physical interaction or a Study action are required to discern an illusion's true nature. If I'm casting a spell out of the rock, nobody but me is physically interacting with the rock. While I might argue it's certainly good evidence of an illusion, wouldn't someone who is suspicious of the fire-breathing rock still need to interact with or Study it first?
On 3. You're not technically physically interacting with something if it's not meant to be corporeal, though, right? Like, if I'm a physicist, I'm saying looking at, listening to, and smelling a thing is also physically interacting with it, but the language of the spell clearly means you interact with it by touching it. If it's a swirling kaleidoscope of lights that you're creating, there's no way to touch that.
On 4a. I'll give you Minor Illusion, because I didn't actually re-read the spell description before I included it in my question, but I'd argue that Silent Image's description intends for "other sensory effects" to really mean things like heat or physical touch, if for no other reason than because Major Image differentiates itself from Silent Image by specifically stating it does radiate heat. Even if you would rule that Silent Image can't emit light, the very omission of that line from Major Image would imply, then, that it does emit light.
1: I sort of agree the game is trying to abstract out a turn with turn based actions. My ruling if I were the GM would be you can use a magic action to make its movement to be reactive or active not both. So if you want it to charge across the field and roar in a threatening manner, fine but it then wont react. But you can instead decide to have it stand still but just react.
2. Agreed, but i don't require people to make a check to guess. They might not see through it but they still would know its an illusion. If you are in class with only one other person and while you are not looking at them you get hit by a spitball. You might not have seen them do it, but you know they did. Don't get me wrong feel free to throw in magic fire throwing rocks into your game to obfuscate it but odds are people would know. knowing its an illusion and seeing through it are different though.
3. i guess it depends on the level of experience the person has. Like if a ghost passes through you do you normally feel nothing in the campaign or maybe you normally get a chill. An experienced person might go hey wait the chill felt off. I probably would not make it automatic but id give them a free study check.
4a, yeah maybe. visibe phenomenon is vague. I think id say noish. As in it can create the illusion of light but not actual light. So it would not illuminate a room, but in an already lit room it would look like its giving off light. but that is me winging a answer, I may just allow it to create light.
Thanks to you!
That's right, you can adjust the image, but IMO not at the exact moment the creature interacts with it, just when you have the time to take the Magic action, because you cannot (usually) predict that.
These kinds of spells are especially good out of combat, where you can use the Magic action as well.
Maybe... it's another option, yes, perhaps asking for an Intelligence (Investigation) check with Advantage.
As you can see in the thread, different opinions here :)
I still think the idea is to show just an image, like a hologram or 3D visual effect, not intended to create light or darkness as other specific spells do. My opinion is similar to MyDudeicus's.
A good rule of thumb is that if you're attempting to use a general illusion like those listed to give you any sort of game mechanic benefit (particularly one involving keywords), you can't. Illusions that can perform those sorts of tasks specifically list the game mechanic benefits they provide.
I generally agree with tarodnet on how I’d rule. One thing I try to keep in mind is that people in D&D worlds generally know wizards exist and that there are people who can create illusions. So if that rock starts spitting fire, they’re going to put 2 and 2 together.
I think also, while these spells can be used in combat, where they really shine is in other parts of the game. I’m DMing for a wizard who keep throwing up illusions in fights. (And my first thought is always, man, you’re an evoker, blow stuff up, but that’s besides the point 😝) But when it works, and he successfully distracts an enemy to attack the thing, the action economy still isn’t great. He’s spent an action and a spell slot to get one enemy to spend its action, then alert its friends that there’s an illusion. He’s not really gained a lot. In a solo fight it might work, but generally it’s not going to be worth it.
But if he were to use the illusion to distract an enemy so the party can sneak by, now we’re talking. Or make a door look like a wall so they can escape someone chasing them. Or create some kind of visual phenomenon to make that performance check the bard is doing even better, then it becomes a much better use of the spell.
FWIW, because we can only see things because of light, illusions must emit light (otherwise you couldn't see them, since there's nothing there for light to reflect off of). So generating actual illumination with an illusion should be a thing it can do.
The problem with this sort of logic is that we're discussing something that's literally magic. By definition, it does not have to follow the normal laws of physics.
pronouns: he/she/they
It doesn't make them take a saving throw the moment you cast it, so it's not just in their head. Ergo, the magic must be manipulating light, because the illusion is independent of any observer.
Basically, yes, it's magic. But it doesn't change how creatures perceive, because then they'd get a saving throw immediately, so it's not changing their eyes. Their eyes are still working normally. The creature is not affected by an illusion like Major Image. It is not a target. So the only thing it can do is fool all observers' perceptions - that is, in the case of visual illusions, by manipulating light, since we can rule out the only other ways you could get the effect. ie, once we know their eyes are unchanged, we know it has to be sending signals to the eyes that are illusory, and the only way you can do that without changing the eyes is by manipulating light).
(Breaking the laws of physics does not mean we throw out everything we know about how the world works. Manipulating light is still magical).
Probably the image has some amount of light to simulate the intended effect, but RWinnie asked if you can create mechanical effects like Darkness, Lightly Obscured or Heavily Obscured areas, which I think it's not the purpose of spells like Minor Illusion or Silent Image.
Why not? Silent Image: "You create the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon that is no larger than a 15-foot Cube." Darkness and Light (and various obscuring conditions) are visible phenomena. Ergo, you can create them. Now, it's illusory, someone can take a search action to make an investigate roll and see that it's not there, assuming they think it's suspicious.
I would also argue that an illusion blocks other light so long as you haven't disbelieved it. (It's manipulating the light so that it appears the light it's blocking is blocked). Again, it has to manipulate light, so it can reduce light intensity or eliminate it entirely as suitable to the illusion created, otherwise you couldn't see it in the first place.
The 'purpose' of illusion spells is to make it appear things are not as they are. Creating fake darkness, light, fog, foliage, or whatever are well within that purpose, just as much as creating a fake wall or monster are.
(It should probably be noted that it only creates the appearance of darkness. Obviously it doesn't dispel lower level light spells like a darkness spell does).
I don't see how you can contain actual rays of light in a 15-foot Cube. The illumination would just stop unnaturally at the edges. For comparison, a Torch casts Bright Light in a 20-foot radius and Dim Light for an additional 20 feet. So the image would look pretty suspicious, at least.
Also, the spells mentioned are from the Illusion school, not Conjuration.
Regarding fog or atmospheric effects, we have the ruling already posted:
The ruling is only for Minor Illusion, though. Note the text:
Minor Illusion
Silent Image
So I'd say SI can indeed create a fog bank or field of blackness. Note that SI works in a 15 ft cube whereas Darkness is a 15ft radius sphere and Fog Cloud a 20 ft one- Darkness is twice as long end-to-end so you're getting much more area coverage if you use the intended spells rather than bootlegging them with an illusion. Now, the RAW of how touching them or shooting an arrow into them works is another matter. By a strictly literal reading, physical interaction should end it, but I think RAI the "If a creature discerns the illusion for what it is, the creature can see through the image." bit clarifies that the physical contact needs to produce an illogical result- a hand passing through darkness or fog is what's to be expected, so I wouldn't say that allows a creature to discern the effect as an illusion.
1. This is DM dependent, but in general I'd say no. The spell gives two situations where the illusion can be changed, one is out-of-combat (i.e. carry on a conversation), the other is in-combat (i.e. while you take the Magic Action to move it). If the image could simply react to avoid an arrow why couldn't it also dodge a creature trying to touch it? Thus completely negating the "physical interaction reveals it to be an illusion" clause.
2. If you cast Burning Hands while "hiding" you instantly reveal your position and are no longer hidden, regardless of what is the source of your concealment - hiding behind a real rock is also lost when you cast a spell. Are you still an "unseen target" until a creature physically interacts with it? - Maybe, again it is DM dependent, but probably not. In this case you are targeting the illusion with a spell since Burning Hands is an AOE originating from you, which means the spell is physically interacting with it just like the spell physically interacts with all its other targets, thus would break the illusion. If you used a different spell which did not target the rock I'd lean more on the side of "probably" the illusion remains intact, but you are not hidden.
3. No where in the rules does it say you can "pass through" a ghost, in fact RAW you cannot. A ghost occupies its square and another creature can't walk through its square or end its turn in the ghost's square unless the ghost allows it to. An illusion doesn't create any physical resistance whereas even incorporeal creatures do seem to give physical resistance since the Incorporeal Movement states: "The ghost can move through other creatures and objects as if they were difficult terrain. It takes 5 (1d10) force damage if it ends its turn inside an object." A ghost doesn't move through another creature as if that creature didn't exist, so presumably touching a ghost is not the same as touching something that doesn't exist - i.e. illusion. Thus RAW interacting with an illusory ghost would in-world feel different than interacting with a real ghost and thus give away that it is an illusion.
4. Light is not temperature, nothing about the spell says it creates light, therefore it doesn't. Temperature is not the same as damage, the spell doesn't say it deals damage therefore it doesn't. If you want an illusion spell that can deal damage you need Phantasmal Force. If you make an illusion of fire it will feel hot to those next to it, but it will not deal damage to them, nor will it cause others to cast shadows, if a creature is within the area of fire they are automatically interacting with that fire and thus know it is an illusion. Darkness is DM dependent, while 5e rules kind of treat Darkness as a positive existing phenomenon, in reality darkness is simply the absence of light, so a spell that creates something cannot create darkness - if you want to create darkness take the Darkness spell. Obscuring image like fog - maybe/probably, however, any creature within an area of fog is automatically interacting with it thus can see through it. Blinding light no, the spell doesn't say it is capable of blinding anyone therefore it cannot, again if a creature were surrounded by the illusion that is "blinding" them they are interacting with the illusion so can see through it.
1/ You can carry on a conversation during combat. Major image nowhere distinguishes between combat and out-of-combat. And if you carry on a conversation with a magic action in combat (which is a pretty straight up RAW reading of the spell), then you can react in real time by using that magic action.
(As far as dodging goes, I'd require the attacking creature to make an attack against an AC10 creature taking the dodge action, possibly with a bonus to AC = caster stat bonus, but that's me ad libbing what the rules don't cover).
2/ Not quite. First, the spell must have a verbal component to break hiding. But second, not being hidden does not mean seen.
Contrast with the darkness spell. If you are hidden inside an area of darkness, and cast a spell with a verbal component or make an attack out of the darkness, you stop being hidden, but they still can't see you. They don't know who cast the spell or made the attack. And in fact, if you weren't hiding but within the darkness, they don't even know you're there, so doing one of those things just alerts them to someone's presence. The hiding is actually irrelevant.
So in the burning hands scenario - well, potentially they heard you casting, which is suspicious enough they probably want to investigate the rock. Yeah, it broke 'hiding', but you're still unseen until they physically interact with the rock or take an investigation action and pass the roll to discern the rock is an illusion. (After all, a rock which spits fire magically isn't exactly an impossibility in a D+D world).
Note that if they cast Rime's from inside the rock instead, they don't break hiding (no verbal component), and so the enemies don't even know where it came from.
4/ Light is a visible phenomenon, so Silent Image (and Major) can create it or alter it. That's pretty straight up RAW, and also necessarily RAI, because otherwise illusions simply don't work.
And an illusion requires physical interaction to break it. That is, touch. That is, and always has been (back to original whitebox D+D), RAI for illusion spells. And it's RAW too. (If any interaction broke an illusion, then all illusory sounds would cause illusions to fail outright, because hearing the sounds is interacting with them).
(And magical darkness is an affirmatively existing phenomenon, not just the absence of light. And you can create an illusion of magical darkness, because that's still a visible phenomenon).
Also, you could just create darkness = absence of light, because that's still a visible phenomenon. Are you seriously suggesting you cannot make an illusion that casts an illusory shadow? It's a visible phenomenon, so you absolutely can create that, RAW and RAI).
It has to be able to emit light out past the area of effect, or you can't see it unless you're in the area of effect, because the only way you can see an illusion is if it produces/alters light. And since illusions very obviously don't work that way, because the most obvious illusions would then automatically fail, as you'd have to physically interact with, say, an illusory wall to even see it.
(Basically, the light is altered in the (visual) illusion, but that altered light then passes out of the AoE of the illusion, which is why you can see it).
Similarly, you don't have to be in the 5' cube of a minor illusion that makes an illusory sound to hear the sound. No one would dispute the sound is audible outside the area of effect. But clearly it's produced by the illusion and then travels out of that space. Light works the same way for visual effects. To decide otherwise is to decide illusions don't work at all.
Illusions don't normally emit light. They reflect light, just like the objects you're attempting to mimic. So if you cast a Silent Image in a darkened room, no one (who doesn't have some sort of special vision) can see it.