So someone I talk to on Discord is trying to get an official ruling answer on whether or not Major Image can create the illusion of a group of creatures, provided they all stay within the 20 ft range of the spell. He can't seem to find a general consensus, hence wanting an official ruling. Does this have an official ruling? And if so, could someone direct me to it? And just in case there isn't an official ruling, I'll add a poll too, just to see if popular opinion at least sways slightly one way or the other.
Illusion spells always require a certain amount of buy-in from the DM as well as the players, but I think you could make a reasonable argument that a group of creatures within the area of the spell's effect might count as a visible phenomenon.
You create the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon that is no larger than a 20-foot cube.
Aside from that, I don't know if you are going to find anything in the rules about it. SAC mentions major image once, but not in a context relevant to your question.
EDIT: For what it's worth, the 6th level programmed illusion spell uses the same terminology.
Unfortunately, I don't think you will find an "official" interpretation and reading the spell description, I can see a DM deciding either way, so it is a DM call how they want to run it in their game. The sage advice compendium doesn't have any official clarification on it.
The spell says:
"You create the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon that is no larger than a 20-foot cube."
"Other visible phenomenon" is the issue. Anything could be categorized as "other visible phenomenon". A group of creatures, a flock of birds, smoke, rain, water, trees, small treants, a bunch of boxes, a hut - but is a hut is composed of multiple objects - doors, windows, walls, ceiling etc ... is a hut a singular "object" or "other visible phenomenon"?
More text from major image:
"As long as you are within range of the illusion, you can use your action 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."
The movements are natural for the image - the image can be a visual phenomenon - which could be a flock of birds or a swarm of insects as an example - or do those count as multiple creatures?
So, I think all you can get is how various DMs would run it. Personally, I'd probably allow an illusion of a group of creatures (eg goblins), a few deer, a flock of birds or a swarm of insects but that just represents my interpretation of "other visual phenomenon".
The wording to say AN object, A creature, or some other visible phenomenon might be taken to indicate that the visible phenomenon would be some other single entity, rather than a crowd of objects or creatures.
If major image can't do it, then which spell would be appropriate for someone who wanted to create an illusion of a group of creatures within its area of effect?
If major image can't do it, then which spell would be appropriate for someone who wanted to create an illusion of a group of creatures within its area of effect?
So someone I talk to on Discord is trying to get an official ruling answer on whether or not Major Image can create the illusion of a group of creatures, provided they all stay within the 20 ft range of the spell. He can't seem to find a general consensus, hence wanting an official ruling. Does this have an official ruling? And if so, could someone direct me to it? And just in case there isn't an official ruling, I'll add a poll too, just to see if popular opinion at least sways slightly one way or the other.
Per the spell text, any image you can think of that fits within the specified area is legal. Number of creatures is immaterial. I don't understand how else anyone could possibly interpret the spell, so I also don't understand how anyone could fail to find a consensus.
Relevant text, with spurious information redacted:
"You create the image of some visible phenomenon that is no larger than a 20-foot cube."
What will reliably fail to find consensus is the definition of "visible", but you didn't ask about that.
I would allow Major Image to create multiple creatures. The phrase "some other visible phenomenon" is incredibly inclusive and I would qualify multiple creatures as fitting that criteria. It is true that Silent Image has the same wording but as TexasDevin and DxJxC point out if one does not allow multiple creatures to qualify under the "some other visible phenomenon" phrase then I don't know what could create such an effect short of a Wish spell.
So someone I talk to on Discord is trying to get an official ruling answer on whether or not Major Image can create the illusion of a group of creatures, provided they all stay within the 20 ft range of the spell. He can't seem to find a general consensus, hence wanting an official ruling. Does this have an official ruling? And if so, could someone direct me to it? And just in case there isn't an official ruling, I'll add a poll too, just to see if popular opinion at least sways slightly one way or the other.
Per the spell text, any image you can think of that fits within the specified area is legal. Number of creatures is immaterial. I don't understand how else anyone could possibly interpret the spell, so I also don't understand how anyone could fail to find a consensus.
Relevant text, with spurious information redacted:
"You create the image of some visible phenomenon that is no larger than a 20-foot cube."
What will reliably fail to find consensus is the definition of "visible", but you didn't ask about that.
The other interpretation of the spell involves the specific wording of the description. Since it says "You create the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon..." some people take that to mean that if you use the spell to create a creature, you can only create an illusion of one creature, because it specifically says "a creature", not "creature(s)", and they feel it would be weird to include the plural version of that same word in "other visible phenomenon". Basically, the other interpretation comes from considering none of the phrasing to be superfluous (I'm guessing that superfluous is what you meant when you say spurious, cause superfluous means "more than is sufficient or required", and spurious means either "born to parents not married to each other" or "outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities").
Then what spell can create an illusion of more than 1 creature? There must be one, it is a staple of high fantasy magic.
Why there must be one? It could just not have been created yet, or never will. Each new editions bring its own change to the game without conformity requirement neccessarily...
Even a sawrm when i think of it, it would probably not work as in itself its an assembly of creatures, which doesn't match with what Major Image can create visually speaking.
I had this exact question and I thought of creating a 5th level spell “Major Images” (or Master Image / Expert Image), but then I thought that you could just add subtext to the bottom of Major Image:
When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 5th level or higher the area of effect becomes a 40 foot cube, you may create multiple creatures, objects, and natural phenomena, and as an action on each of your turns you may move all parts of the illusion at once.
I would give Major Image pretty much the same limits as Mirror Image.
Only three duplicate images or creatures can be made inside and kept inside its area of effect, but the spell loses one of its other effects. I.E.motion or sound. You might be able to use a cantrip to fill in for the sound. In general. Maybe.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So someone I talk to on Discord is trying to get an official ruling answer on whether or not Major Image can create the illusion of a group of creatures, provided they all stay within the 20 ft range of the spell. He can't seem to find a general consensus, hence wanting an official ruling. Does this have an official ruling? And if so, could someone direct me to it? And just in case there isn't an official ruling, I'll add a poll too, just to see if popular opinion at least sways slightly one way or the other.
Illusion spells always require a certain amount of buy-in from the DM as well as the players, but I think you could make a reasonable argument that a group of creatures within the area of the spell's effect might count as a visible phenomenon.
Aside from that, I don't know if you are going to find anything in the rules about it. SAC mentions major image once, but not in a context relevant to your question.
EDIT: For what it's worth, the 6th level programmed illusion spell uses the same terminology.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Unfortunately, I don't think you will find an "official" interpretation and reading the spell description, I can see a DM deciding either way, so it is a DM call how they want to run it in their game. The sage advice compendium doesn't have any official clarification on it.
The spell says:
"You create the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon that is no larger than a 20-foot cube."
"Other visible phenomenon" is the issue. Anything could be categorized as "other visible phenomenon". A group of creatures, a flock of birds, smoke, rain, water, trees, small treants, a bunch of boxes, a hut - but is a hut is composed of multiple objects - doors, windows, walls, ceiling etc ... is a hut a singular "object" or "other visible phenomenon"?
More text from major image:
"As long as you are within range of the illusion, you can use your action 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."
The movements are natural for the image - the image can be a visual phenomenon - which could be a flock of birds or a swarm of insects as an example - or do those count as multiple creatures?
So, I think all you can get is how various DMs would run it. Personally, I'd probably allow an illusion of a group of creatures (eg goblins), a few deer, a flock of birds or a swarm of insects but that just represents my interpretation of "other visual phenomenon".
The wording to say AN object, A creature, or some other visible phenomenon might be taken to indicate that the visible phenomenon would be some other single entity, rather than a crowd of objects or creatures.
If major image can't do it, then which spell would be appropriate for someone who wanted to create an illusion of a group of creatures within its area of effect?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I say yes. Something to consider with illusion and utility spells is "does allowing it to do this make a higher level spell unneeded?" Which leads to:
Per the spell text, any image you can think of that fits within the specified area is legal. Number of creatures is immaterial. I don't understand how else anyone could possibly interpret the spell, so I also don't understand how anyone could fail to find a consensus.
Relevant text, with spurious information redacted:
"You create the image of some visible phenomenon that is no larger than a 20-foot cube."
What will reliably fail to find consensus is the definition of "visible", but you didn't ask about that.
I would allow Major Image to create multiple creatures. The phrase "some other visible phenomenon" is incredibly inclusive and I would qualify multiple creatures as fitting that criteria. It is true that Silent Image has the same wording but as TexasDevin and DxJxC point out if one does not allow multiple creatures to qualify under the "some other visible phenomenon" phrase then I don't know what could create such an effect short of a Wish spell.
The other interpretation of the spell involves the specific wording of the description. Since it says "You create the image of an object, a creature, or some other visible phenomenon..." some people take that to mean that if you use the spell to create a creature, you can only create an illusion of one creature, because it specifically says "a creature", not "creature(s)", and they feel it would be weird to include the plural version of that same word in "other visible phenomenon". Basically, the other interpretation comes from considering none of the phrasing to be superfluous (I'm guessing that superfluous is what you meant when you say spurious, cause superfluous means "more than is sufficient or required", and spurious means either "born to parents not married to each other" or "outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities").
The spell Major Image can specifically create the image of a creature, not many.
How about a swarm of rats? 🤣
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That's not true, and we've already explained why it isn't true.
A sawrm is a creature so its okay :)
5 orcs are not a creature though.
Then what spell can create an illusion of more than 1 creature? There must be one, it is a staple of high fantasy magic.
Why there must be one? It could just not have been created yet, or never will. Each new editions bring its own change to the game without conformity requirement neccessarily...
Even a sawrm when i think of it, it would probably not work as in itself its an assembly of creatures, which doesn't match with what Major Image can create visually speaking.
I had this exact question and I thought of creating a 5th level spell “Major Images” (or Master Image / Expert Image), but then I thought that you could just add subtext to the bottom of Major Image:
When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 5th level or higher the area of effect becomes a 40 foot cube, you may create multiple creatures, objects, and natural phenomena, and as an action on each of your turns you may move all parts of the illusion at once.
I would give Major Image pretty much the same limits as Mirror Image.
Only three duplicate images or creatures can be made inside and kept inside its area of effect, but the spell loses one of its other effects. I.E.motion or sound.
You might be able to use a cantrip to fill in for the sound. In general. Maybe.