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.
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.